It is, however, intended to provide a high-level discussion for the various methods (some of which are well-known nationally, while some are not), some perceived benefits and downfalls of each, and some history for each along the way. If the vote is yes, the judge sits for the full term. Michael ODonnell, Commander v. Chief: The Lessons of Eisenhowers Civil-Rights Struggle with His Chief Justice Earl Warren, The Atl. Proponents also argue that the apolitical nature of the nominating commission ensures that party politics are effectively eliminated, or at least significantly diminished, from the decision. However, the lack of accessible data makes it difficult for researchers and policymakers to compare and assess the performance of merit selection systems across states and precludes even the possibility of meaningful internal evaluation (p. 133). Most constitutional governments, including the United States' government, use three branches of governmentthe legislative, executive, and judicialand rely on a system of checks and balances to ensure that none of these branches gain too much power over the others. The identifying feature of merit selection is its two-stage appointment process: An appointed commission winnows a list of candidates and then forwards that list of candidates to the governor for appointment. WebMerit-selected judges are slightly less likely than the average to be former prosecutors and slightly less likely to have practiced other forms of government law. Finally, he examines how the institutional design of merit selection affects committee capture, which could negatively affect merit selection performance. Critics of contested partisan judicial elections assert that the very nature of engaging in party politics conflicts with the ideals of a free and independent judiciary.15 Publicly linking a judge (and, more broadly, the court) to a major political party or parties can create a loss of confidence in the judiciarys ability to remain impartial in its decisions. It What are the pros and cons of electing judges? A distorted pool can lead to distorted merit selection outcomes. Merit selection: Merit selection was devised as a means of separating judges from the election process. All of the courts are as coequal as possible and intertwined as one can see in how they choose their judges. Elected judges must keep people happy and they will therefore often do what the majority of people in their jurisdiction would think is best. Finally, another con of a merit-based system of appointing judges is that deciding, once and for all, what it means to be a "good" judge is inherently impirical. This paper will address the selection process of Robert Bork and Anita Hill. Hist. for State Cts., http://www.judicialselection.us (last visited June 29, 2021); see also Nonpartisan Election of Judges, Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Nonpartisan_election_of_judges (last visited June 29, 2021). And the promise of higher-quality judges, greater diversity, and reduced partisanship seems to be highly dependent on whether the merit selection applicant pool is somehow distorted (p. 79). First used in Missouri in 1940, the governor appoints judges from a list compiled by a non-partisan nominating commission. Nonpartisan elections were adopted in an attempt to help restore the integrity of the courts while helping break party strangleholds, with Cook County, Illinois, becoming the first to implement the method in 1873.16 As of today, 13 states still rely on contested nonpartisan elections (Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) to elect their supreme court justices.17.
pros and cons of merit selection of judges