"Candidates are not allowed to discuss their judicial views, but voters are supposed to decide who is the best choice?"
But isn't this the exact same arguement on the Federal level?
Democrats are constantly screaming 'where do you stand on so and so?', even though they understand that if a candidate answers it could jeopardize either their nomination or taint the outlook on a possible up coming case.
Citzens have elected their local Judges since the inception of the U.S., but Federal and State Justices are generally appointed (through either the Senate or the State Assembly) by the President or Governor.
"The judgeships often become political rewards."
Especially in States controlled by one party.
Not really. You have judicial nominees vetted by the executive and reviewed by the legislature, and most have voting records to get a sense of their views towards jurisprudence.
Whereas a crooked lawyer got elected to the Texas Supreme Court just because his last name was very similar to that of a famous Texas politician.