Would a panel of 5 judges be preferable when deciding cases involving state wide referendums?

Question

That is, instead of a single judge. My position on this issue is that it is unconstitutional for a single judge to make rulings on cases nullifying the votes of millions of people in a state-wide refererendum. I consider this in unconstitutional and is a form of tyranny. I realize that sometimes a single judge has to make a ruling initially, and then the case can work its way up. However, there have been federal judges such as Mariana Pfaelzer ( a Jimmy Carter appointed judge) from California who nullified Proposition 187 which passed in 1994 receiving five million votes. Pfaelzer struck down this proposition making it permanently inoperative. I believe that a single judge should not be able to block such a proposition with the stroke of a pen.
I appreciate any opinions you may have on this subject. Please include in your answer your reasons for agreeing or disaggreeing with my opinion. Thanks!

Answer 1

We have a country that theoretically runs by "rule of law". That means that what is leagl is what we will do, and if we do not like what that turns out to be, we will change the law. This is supposed to avoid corruption of judgement and bias by requiring that a judge's decision be according to *law*...

Unfortunately, not all judges will interpret law in the same way, some may be swayed by bias (all people are biased in some manner), and a few of them are actually senile. Sometimes the decision of one is seriously flawed. That is why there is an appeal process for *everything*. It is a little less likely that a whole string of judges will make bad decisions...

It is also a little less likely that a panel of judges in joint conference will make a bad *legal* decision. This is sort of like doing 'best of five' appeals at once, right up front. It is faster... But it also removes individual responsibility. People behave better when they feel a sense of individual responsibility. This also applies to judges.

I am not outraged that judges can overturn voter initiatives: It is up to the voters to draft a fully legal initiative. I would be annoyed to discover that an initiative I had supported was not properly considered before putting in all the time and trouble. If the initiative conflicts with present law, or protections in place for people, those things must be considered in drafting it, or it is not suitable to be included in the body of law. It *should* be overturned by a judge.

I am not outraged that judges could hold up the results of an election. It is proper that someone in a democratic society is empowered to disqualify and judge the outcome of an invalid vote. I *am* outraged that we have spent 8 years under a president that was never elected.

Answer 2

A five judge review panel would then need a majority to decide such cases. That way a sole judges own personal beliefs dont become a way to legislate from the bench.

This country was founded on a majority of rule. It's sad that Mariana Pfaelzer has the power to over turn the will of the people.

Answer 3

It is the judicial branch's purpose to rule on the constitutionality of any law or referendum. If a sitting judge issues a ruling then there is an appeals process. All the way to the supreme court. However, appellate courts don't have to hear a case if they determine that the lower court made the correct ruling. The supreme court for instance receives about eight hundred cases each year but only hears oral arguments on about eighty of those.

Answer 4

That would indeed be preferrable.

The fact that a Federal judge can put the results of an election on hold is ridiculous--the will of the people should be the will of the people unelss it is obviously and blatantly unconstitutional.