Childrens Rights Florida
Childrens Rights Florida campaign leader

Kindly consider our chart setting out the seven (7) basic forms of or avenues to judicial accountability. These are the ways that judges may be held accountable for judicial acts.

As you can see, there is a cluster of people in the navy blue section for elections; the lime green section for discipline; and the grey section for academic review. These are the areas of judicial accountability that average Americans can or could substantially control.

Are you determined to keep or assert that control? Would you believe that many good government advocates do little to protect or enhance that control, even as they fight for increased judicial accountability?!?!?!

Of course, not all of us are part of academia. But we all should be very concerned that across America, the option of judicial elections is being quietly eliminated. To understand why average Americans should be outraged by that development, read “Why Merit Selection of State Court Judges Lacks Merit” by Matthew Schneider, Volume 56 Wayne L. Rev. 609 (2010)

National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA) is not on the frontlines of judicial elections -vs- merit selection debates. But NFOJA is one of very few groups suggesting that private citizens have a constitutional right to oversee state judicial disciplinary processes. It is our belief that the kind of citizen oversight that NFOJA proposes is among the rights reserved to the people by our U.S. Constitution.

Imagine the impact of judges knowing their conduct on the bench may be evaluated by trained, randomly selected private citizens as opposed to judicial colleagues or other institutional actors or even hand-picked private citizens. Such is the goal of NFOJA’s proposed “Citizen Panels On Judicial Misconduct Act”. Such appears to be the mandate of our U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and the rights it reserves to We the People.

You may not do most of your activism through NFOJA, but we encourage you to join NFOJA; encourage others to join NFOJA; become an active part of our online networks; and consider becoming an active NFOJA member. Learn more @

Thank you.

Zena Crenshaw-Logal and
Dr. Andrew D. Jackson
NFOJA Co-Adminstrators

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).


1 comment

to comment