As most of us know, the California Primary Election is just around the corner which means we are all preparing to hear from our various relatives why we should vote for their candidate. Despite the annoyance of being told that “[Our] generation is a bunch of nitwits who are going to drive our economy into bankruptcy with [our] liberal stances”, elections such as these help to promote a healthy government with checks and balances.

One of the complaints made in the Declaration of Independence against the contemporary English Government is that King George III, “…has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries”. Because the king could not be kicked out of office nor could he be replaced through a regular process of voting, he was able to bend the justice system to his will with bribery and threats of expulsion. Instead of justice being the standard and measurement of the courts, the main ruling principle was the king’s bias.

With the election system in place, the President is unable to bribe or threaten the judicial system. If the President is caught doing so, he can be removed from office or, in the rare case that this would not happen, be voted out by the American People/Electoral College. The United States Constitution also allows for the judicial system to decide if executive orders are unconstitutional, placing yet another check on the Executive Branch.

Now some might say that the President still has control over the Judicial Branch as he nominates Supreme Court members. However, even if the President does attempt such a scandalous action, his maximum time in office of 8 years ensures that his control does not last forever.

Does the voting process help create a just judicial system or is the President still able to influence their decisions?