Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)
| Methods of judicial selection |
|---|
 |
| Election methods |
| Partisan election |
| Nonpartisan election |
| Michigan method |
| Retention election |
| Assisted appointment |
| Assisted appointment |
| Bar-controlled commission |
| Governor-controlled commission |
| Hybrid commission |
| Direct appointment |
| Court appointment |
| Gubernatorial appointment |
| Legislative election |
| Municipal government selection |
The governor-controlled commission type of assisted appointment is defined by one of two key factors. The governor either appoints the majority of the members of the judicial nominating commission or the governor may choose not to nominate one of the judges on the list provided by the commission. The other two types of assisted appointment are Bar-controlled commission and hybrid.
As of April 2024, eight states—Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, and Rhode Island—used this type of assisted appointment at the state supreme court level.
Other methods of judicial selection include: gubernatorial appointment, partisan and nonpartisan elections, the Michigan method, court appointment, municipal government selection, and legislative elections. To read more about how these selection methods are used across the country, click here.
How assisted appointment works
Assisted appointment is a method of judicial selection in which a nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[1]
At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types, based on the makeup of the judicial nominating commissions. Those types are:
- Governor-controlled commission - The governor is either responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission or may decline to appoint a candidate from a list provided by the nominating commission.
- Bar-controlled commission - Members of the state Bar Association are responsible for electing a majority of the members of the nominating commission.
- Hybrid - There is no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state Bar Association. The membership of these commissions is determined by different rules in each state.
Twenty-three courts in 22 states used assisted appointment to select state supreme court justices as of June 2021.[2][3] The table below shows the number of courts using each variation of assisted appointment at the state supreme court level.
| Assisted appointment methods in state supreme courts | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Courts (of 23) | ||
| Governor-controlled majority | 10 | ||
| Bar-controlled majority | 1 | ||
| Hybrid | 12 | ||
States using this method
State supreme courts
At the state supreme court level, the following states use this selection method: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Utah.
The map below highlights selection methods in state supreme courts across the country.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," June 2008 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "ambaroverview" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ As of June 2021, Oklahoma had two state supreme courts: one for civil matters and one for criminal matters.
- ↑ North Dakota uses this method only for vacancies.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Brennan Center for Justice, "Choosing State Judges: A Plan for Reform," accessed June 23, 2021 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "brennancj" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Merit Selection and Retention Elections Keep Judges Out of Politics," November 1, 2021
- ↑ The Federalist Society, "The Case for Judicial Appointments," January 1, 2003
- ↑ Louisiana Supreme Court, "2008 State of the Judiciary Address to the Joint Session of the House and Senate Louisiana Legislature," April 8, 2008
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 American Judicature Society, "History of Reform Efforts," archived October 2, 2014
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 DeGruyter Brill, "The Study of Judicial Elections," accessed April 21, 2025
- ↑ American Judicature Society, "Judicial Selection in the States: Appellate and General Jurisdiction Courts," 2013
| |||||||
