Which statement about city officials and judges is true?

• A. City officials are prohibited from evaluating or disciplining a judge on the amount of money collected from traffic offenses.
• B. A judge's decisions may be appealed by the mayor in cases involving traffic fines.
• C. Judges are immune from city oversight in matters of traffic revenue.
• D. City officials are prohibited from evaluating or disciplining a judge on the amount of money collected from traffic offenses and may be removed from office for doing so.

Answer: (D)

Judicial independence is protected by keeping city officials from using revenue figures as a basis to judge or punish a judge. If officials could evaluate or discipline a judge based on how much traffic fines bring in, decision-making would be driven by revenue, not by fairness or due process. The strongest statement reflects both the prohibition and a real consequence for trying to bypass proper channels: officials cannot evaluate or discipline a judge over traffic-revenue amounts, and doing so can lead to removal from office. This supports impartial rulings and maintains public trust in the courts.

Context helps: appeals of a judge’s traffic-related decisions go through established legal processes, not through the mayor or city officials, and accountability for judges typically occurs through appropriate judicial conduct mechanisms, not ordinary political oversight. The other ideas—that officials are completely immune from oversight or that officials can appeal or override decisions—misstate how oversight and accountability work in the judiciary.