Politicizing Judicial Elections

Robert Barnes of the Washington Post has written an interesting article about the big-time politics of judicial elections. After noting that contests for the judiciary increasingly involve big money, negative ads, and special interest groups, Barnes writes:

"Judicial elections are an almost uniquely American invention, with a patchwork of more than 16 selection systems spread across the country. In the 21 states that hold direct partisan and nonpartisan elections for the high court, some already have evolved from quiet, down-ballot contests to full-blown campaigns with consultants and multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. An Illinois Supreme Court contest in 2004 cost more than 18 of the 34 U.S. Senate contests that year, and candidates for chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court last year raised a total of $8.2 million."

Barnes's article raises important questions: Can judges be impartial and partisan at the same time? If they can, should they be both? Or is this an inevitable consequence of the increasing politicization of American culture, as seen in entertainment, religion, journalism, and economics?