We applaud efforts of the newly formed Judicial Retention Election Task Force to make the retention elections of judges more voter-friendly. The task force consists of both lawmakers and judges, which means it isn't likely to turn into an exercise in one branch of government trying to bulldoze another.

Unfortunately, some recent legislative sessions have seemed exactly like that. Key lawmakers have talked about changing the rules to force judges to stand for a new Senate confirmation at the end of their terms. Others have decried judicial decisions they believe make no sense. A few years ago, a bill was filed that would have required at least 65 percent approval in a retention election in order for a judge to remain in office. All failed, thankfully.

Utah is wise to have avoided the pitfalls of allowing the public to elect judges in competitive races. Too often, that sort of system leads to decisions from the bench based as much on politics as on the law. But accountability is important, and a retention election in which voters are provided necessary information seems the best way to provide that.

We would add one more suggestion. The judiciary should make its disciplinary system more open and subject to scrutiny. Even if most complaints heard by the Judicial Conduct Commission are eventually judged to be frivolous or only minor, openness would help to educate the public, which often doesn't understand the role of the judiciary.

The retention system isn't perfect. As some task force members noted this week, last-minute campaigns against a judge could cause real harm. Judges are ethically restrained from defending themselves publicly against those charges. Last year, 3rd District Judge Leslie Lewis was voted out after a video surfaced on the site "You Tube," showing what appeared to be an abuse of her powers in the courtroom.

But there is no truly perfect system. The judiciary must remain independent and as far above politics as possible. And the public must have some reasonable facts upon which to base its vote for retention. The Lewis case was a rare one. Judges typically are retained. Also, the Judicial Conduct Commission has shown itself capable of removing incompetent judges.

However, the process could be improved to give voters easier access to information. Any move in that direction would be welcomed.