| Judicial Selection Methods for Courts of Last Resort Across the States* | |
|
 |
Choosing Autonomy or Accountability? Federal judges, all of whom are selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate, serve for life. The rationale of the writers of the U.S. Constitution was that this selection method would divorce judges from politics and best promote the interests of justice. At the other extreme almost all the judges in state and local jurisdictions in Texas are chosen in unambiguously partisan elections. The argument for this selection method was that to best serve the interests of justice the public must be able to hold judges accountable for their decisions. Most states try to balance the ideals of autonomy and accountability represented by these opposites. Many states apply different methods to selecting and retaining judges at different levels. This map shows only the methods of initial selection for the highest courts in each state. A full accounting of judicial selection methods would show even more diversity. |
|
|
Source: American Judicature Society. (full source, footnote) |
|
Full Footnote: Merit selection in Delaware, Maryland, and Massachusetts is established by executive order. Ohio and Michigan selection methods are both classified as "partisan election" even though candidates appear on the ballot without party affiliation. In Ohio candidates are nominated at political party conventions while in Michigan they are nominated in partisan primaries.
Terms of office and methods of renewal vary extensively across the states. Typically, elected judges stand for reelection and appointees must be reappointed. Merit selection usually involves selection first by a nominating commission with renewal determined by retention elections (the public votes to retain or remove a judge). Term lengths vary dramatically, ranging from one year of initial service to life time service. Lower court selection methods vary even more.