As a neutral decision maker of many years, I am always intrigued by the pressures that can be brought to bear on the process, and how judges or decision makers handle that pressure. When I was a hearing examiner with the New Mexico Public Employee Labor Relations Board both the Director and I would periodically receive communication from the then-Governor's Chief of Staff, urging one resolution or another as "appropriate." I had also occasionally received calls from or at the behest of a union president who had recommended me to the Board, seeking some particular outcome or action. These and similar moments inevitably create some tension, but in my experience ALJs are generally able to sidestep the tension.
Because of this background, though, I have both sympathy and a healthy dose of "so what's new" for state court judges who find themselves pressured by an angry electorate. You may recall, in 2010, three Iowa Supreme Court Justices lost their seats during retention elections in response to Court having earlier ruled that an Iowa statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman violated the State's Equal Protection Clause. It is