Judicial selection in the states
| 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 |
Methods of judicial selection vary substantially across the United States.[1] Though each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they fill their state and local judiciaries, there are five main methods:
- Partisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
- Nonpartisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
- Legislative elections: Judges are selected by the state legislature.
- Gubernatorial appointment: Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.
- Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: 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. After serving an initial term, the judge must be confirmed by the people in a yes-no retention election to remain on the court.[2] At the state supreme court level, this selection method is further divided into three types. See below to learn more.
States may apply more than one of the five methods across different levels of courts. For example, a state may choose its appellate court judges by assisted appointment while choosing its trial court judges in partisan elections. Some states may even select judges of the same court level differently depending on the population of an area or local opinion.[1][2] States may also modify any of the systems above in their own way. The assisted appointment method, in particular, comes in a variety of forms. For instance, some states require the governor to choose from the commission's list of nominees, while in other states the list is only a suggestion.[1]
Selection methods by state
Click a state on the map below to read more about how judicial selection works in that state.
State supreme courts
At the state supreme court level, the assisted appointment 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 - The state Bar Association is responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission.
- Hybrid commission - 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.
The map below highlights selection methods in state supreme courts across the country.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection," archived February 2, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," June 2008
- ↑ States may use different selection methods for different courts in their state; in such cases, a state is listed for each selection method use for intermediate appellate and general jurisdiction courts.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 The Federalist Society, "The Case for Partisan Judicial Elections," January 1, 2003
- ↑ Sedgwick Law, "Tort Reform," July 2003
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Center for American Progress, "Partisan Judicial Elections and the Distorting Influence of Campaign Cash," October 25, 2012 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "americanprogress" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Wisconsin Law Review, "Judicial independence and nonpartisan elections," March 14, 2009
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 American Constitution Society, "Justice At Risk: An empirical analysis of campaign contributions and judicial decision - Key Findings," June 2013, accessed December 9, 2013
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 NYU Press, "The Study of Judicial Elections," accessed December 27, 2014
- ↑ American Judicature Society, "Judicial Selection in the States: South Carolina; Overview," archived January 11, 2014
- ↑ University of Richmond Law Review, "Reconsidering Virginia Judicial Selection," November 2008
- ↑ The Advocate, "Justice cautions on appointing judges," April 9, 2008
- ↑ Missouri Law Review, "The Politics of Merit Selection, Vol. 74, Issue 3, Article 13," accessed December 9, 2013
- ↑ Missouri Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 3, "The Missouri Plan in National Perspective," accessed December 9, 2013
- ↑ The Advocate, "Justice cautions on appointing judges," April 9, 2008
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "Rethinking Judicial Selection in State Courts," accessed June 7, 2021
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 American Judicature Society, "History of Reform Efforts," archived October 2, 2014
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ American Judicature Society, "Judicial Selection in the States: Appellate and General Jurisdiction Courts," 2013
| |||||||
