Edit: Bench partisan judicial races

Today is Election Day in Alabama. The most important statewide race may be the races to fill two seats on the Court of Criminal Appeals. Yet, perhaps as few as 1-in-7 Alabama voters will even both to register a preference in the primary election. The editorial board of The Anniston Star weighed in Sunday on a suggestion to scrap partisan races in favor of something better.
Among the suggestions in the editorial:

1. Lose the partisanship. Don't allow judicial candidates to run under the banner of a political party. That's how most municipal elections are run. There's no Democratic vs. Republican way to fix a pothole, so city hall hopefuls run without an "R" or a "D" beside their name. Might voters discern party membership nonetheless? Likely so, but the ballot would be free of a label that is generally useless when it comes to picking judges. The Alabama Bar has looked favorably at such a system.
2. Allow retention elections. Some states allow governors to appoint judges from a qualified pool of candidates. These appointments are subject to approval of the state Senate. Voters get their say at the end of a judge's term. The judge's name would appear on the ballot; voters could decide to retain or dismiss the judge. If the judge is voted out, the governor starts the whole process over.
3. Better regulate campaign cash. In 2006, the campaign for state Supreme Court went through more than $7 million. Already the state's judicial ethics code strongly discourages judgeship candidates from personally appealing for campaign funds. Some states have offered candidates the option of public financing. Those candidates receive a modest sum compiled from voluntary donations; in turn they promise to forgo private contributions that have the ability to taint judicial independence.