This issue of the Denver University Law Review is devoted to an important subject: judicial accountability. Properly understood, judicial accountability is a fundamental democratic requirement of our federal and State governments. Put simply, judges must be accountable to the public for their constitutional role of applying the law fairly and impartially. Judicial accountability, however, is a concept that is frequently misunderstood at best and abused at worst. It has become a rallying cry for those who want in reality to dictate substantive judicial outcomes. The notion of accountability is superficially attractive: judges who reach outcomes that part ways with the will of the majority—often mislabeled “activist” judges—should be held “accountable.”

This simplistic understanding of accountability—judicial accountability for the majority’s desired substantive outcomes—ignores the role of the judiciary and indeed the very structure of our democratic governments, State and federal. Worse, this perversion of the concept of judicial accountability threatens to undermine the safeguards of democracy and liberty that were so brilliantly conceived by those who first designed our governmental institutions and drafted our Constitution. In short, “ [p]opulist, substance-based accountability for judges is precisely what the Founders feared [.]”1 The Framers placed at the core of the judiciary’s design the concept of judicial independence as a means to guarantee the Rule of Law. Judicial