"Electing judges: Mend it, don't end it" (op-ed, May 27)
makes some suggestions for improving the process of electing judges.
Shrader's ideas would be a step forward, but the fundamental problem remains: voters do not participate in these elections. Given the difficulty of getting adequate information about judicial candidates, this failure to participate is certainly understandable.
I've been a Democratic committeeperson for over two decades, and after each election with judicial races on the ballot, I've come home with the same reaction: There has to be a better way of selecting judges.
The estimate for turnout for the primary was 13 percent, but a breakdown of the votes shows that many who voted in the contests for D.A. and controller didn't vote in the judicial races. Even some of the motivated voters who came out when 87 percent stayed home opted out of some of the judicial races.
The number of citizens casting votes in all the judicial races is probably in single digits.
This isn't democracy - it's a travesty.
Karen Bojar, Philadelphia
Decoding the Mideast
The most accurate window into people's intentions for the future is what they teach and preach to their children. It's a more reliable measure than speeches and propaganda.
So ask for an analysis of what's been taught to Arab children about Jews and Israel. Be sure the researchers don't slip in Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda because it's much milder than what is being instilled into Arab youth.
While you're at it, ask for a list of compromises offered by the Israelis and the Arabs. Don't forget to ask why while over a million Arab Muslims live without fear in Israel, even one Jew is too many where Arabs hope to govern a state on the West Bank. The demand that Jews must leave (removal of "settlements" sounds a bit like religious apartheid, doesn't it?
Michael Perloff, Cherry Hill