This week's assignment is on the methods that states use to choose judges. There are basically 5 methods, which are described in the paper linked here http://media.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/231/webster.html
(though gubernatorial appointment and legislative election/appointment are combined. They are appointment (by governor or legislature), partisan election, nonpartisan election, and Merit plans. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
In legislative appointment/election, the state legislature chooses judges. This system is currently used in just South Carolina and Virginia. It is largely discredited, because current and former legislators are often chosen in secretive deals.
A handful of states use gubernatorial appointment. The governor picks judges, and they usually have to be confirmed by one or both houses of the state legislature. Some argue that this produces the perfect balance between accountability and independence (see the article for a more detailed discussion). Others argue that it simply results in cronyism. Also note that while only a few states use this method as the primary way of choosing judges, almost every state uses it as a backup to fill vacancies that occur when a judge dies, resigns, is convicted, etc.
Partisan elections are just like elections for most other offices. Candidates run for judge in party primaries, with the winners facing off in a general election. Proponents claim that this is the most democratic way to choose judges. Critics argue that these elections are issueless, low turnout personality contest that depend on name recognition, thus requiring candidates to raise large amounts of money from interest groups (some of which will then try cases in front of the successful candidates).
Nonpartisan elections are similar to partisan elections, except without party labels. Arguments for and against them are similar to those for and against partisan elections, with a few exceptions as noted in the article.
Finally, a growing number of states use a merit selection process, as described in the article (that number as also increased since the publication of Professor Webster's article). The general idea is that in these states, when there is a vacancy, an independent judicial selection commission evaluates applications. They choose the few best (sort of like the Rule of 3 for bureaucratic hiring) and send their list on to the governor. S/he then chooses a candidate (in some states, the governor can ask for additional names), who is often subject to legislative approval. Finally, the judge is subject a few years later to a retention election, where voters decide whether they should continue in office. Proponents argue that this gets around the worst elements of both elections and gubernatorial appointment. Critics claim that merit systems actually produce similar judges to those chosen under other systems (especially gubernatorial appointment) and that retention elections are useless (almost everyone is "reelected").
Your task is to make an argument for which judicial selection method is best. Consider the arguments here, the arguments in the paper, the "compromises" suggested by Professor Webster, and any other arguments you can find. Be thoughtful and logical in your responses. Again, better answers respond to the arguments of classmates, contain original ideas, and link to (and explain) other perspectives. The assignment is due at 2 pm on Monday, April 14. Good luck!--NB
I believe the best way to pick judges is through a Partisan election which is described as the most democratic way.
ReplyDeleteOne criticism of the partisan election is that not a lot of people really care about voting for judges so the turnout is low and it becomes a popularity contest. That is a bad thing however, I still believe the people should vote for judges. And I do think that there are people out there that actually care about voting for judges.
I just believe that this is the best way because it avoids corruption from inside in my opinion. If the Governor or the Legislature got to pick judges they could pick based off being paid to pick certain people or they could be picking friends or colleagues and not the best people for the job.
With that being said, you would think that the Merit Plan would be better because of the reasons stated above and how the candidates are picked through applications, but even so a committee could still be biased towards certain people when sending their picks to the governor and so could the governor. They could still be picking the people they want and not the people who are better off getting the job.
There is no wrong or right way to pick judges, I just feel that if the Governor or Legislature picked a judge who messed up badly or ended up being a terrible judge and doing a terrible job, they (people who appointed the judge) would be scrutinized way more than if the people (citizens) voted for a judge and picked a bad candidate. Then they (people) would have no one to blame but themselves, which in return may result in better voting turnouts.
I think that the best way to pick judges is through Partisan elections. I think that this is the best way because it seems like the most fair and democratic way to elect a new judge. I find it interesting that only eight states use Partisan elections when electing judges. I think that this is the most accurate way to make sure the right candidate is in office. An argument against Partisan elections for judges states that having elections could put a lesser qualified candidate in office. According to this argument, the lesser qualified candidate would be voted into office because of the voters. Voters do not have as much knowledge about the position, and they would just vote for the most popular name. I think in some cases people would not know who they are voting for, but I do think people would prefer to have the choice. I can see why other ways of electing judges are used. For example, the gubernatorial appointment is when governors pick a candidate and the senate and/or house has to approve it. I can see why states prefer this method. It makes sure that the candidate is qualified. I do not like this system because it does not allow voters to choose and can favor one political party.
ReplyDeleteI think partisan election is the good way to pick judges.but it has some negative side. when they picked through this election we want them to work independently. but sometimes they are not quit much independent which is not good.judge can hold responsible with the decision he makes. so he has to make right decision no matter what the political consequence is.sometimes election campaign can be costly and this is election lawyer is the interest group they would spend a lot of money on campaign, and also its democratic so people can vote but the campaign is kinda boring they could talk bout the judicial issue but now they can.
ReplyDeleteNonpartisan election. it works almost same way but here turnout is low and still costly because its all about name recognition. sometimes you can tell this person is democrat or republican so this tell as its not really nonpartisan election.
gurbernatorial appointment. only some state use this so the way it work governor appoint to some bady and they become judge and they become judge for live its like federal judge. but it has some negative effect sometimes this person can be bad so its hard to change it.
legislative election. couple states use this like NC good thing about this is legislator news the law bad things is you get held ex-legislator.this method is not good sometimes.
merit system. this is most popular and most of the states use this merit system judge choose on their merit often variation on missouri plane. people and lawyer apply and they look to the names and they narrow it and they send it to governor and the governor pick but sometimes merit dont work it turnout the judge chosen under race gender or party.
More info.
Deletein my country judge apply like a normal job and after he accepted he or she will stay there until retirement.and sometimes they abuse their job like they use it for politic or racial things which is not good at all.
I believe the merit system is the best way to choose judges. Although it is low turnout, and the retention elections are basically useless, a decent candidate will be picked every time due to the judicial selection process before the governor gets to choose. However, that leaves the governor basically in charge of the whole thing. He can pick whoever he wants, but at least the candidate will be a decent judge, hopefully. With that being said, I think this is better because it cuts down on people who have tons of money in their campaign. It levels the playing field for everyone, until the governor chooses who gets the position.
ReplyDeleteSometimes merit system doesnt work coz the judge has chosen under race gender or another things,
DeleteI would argue to say that "Merit" systems are the best and most appropriate way to select a candidate for judge. As we discussed in class, this system is becoming more and more popular. With that, there must be a sole purpose for this particular uprising popularity of judicial selection. Just like every other election type, there are pros and cons that result. For Merit systems, judges are chosen on their merit. The role of three testing is used by educated officials when choosing the valid candidate. This aspect of the system results in choosing the best candidate out there, based on their past accomplishments, history with politics, and decision making. Another plus to this system is that the public is not voting which helps minorities be chosen easily. The attached article says since popular vote is not taken into consideration, "merit systems bring the greatest number of women and minorities to the bench." Instead, a commission method for selection of judges takes place. This is a variation of the known "Missouri Plan". Along with this, after a few years in, a retention election takes place as the public votes whether the judge would remain in office. Normally, the majority votes towards the judge continuing her office. Some argue that the retention election may be a taste of time and that the election is weighted to one side. Also, another downside of this is having very little diversity brought to the courts. However this particular system is overall the best way to choose a candidate taking into consideration qualifications where, in the end, everyone gets their voice heard.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the way to pick judges is by way of the Partisan elections. Partisan elections are generally perceived to be at the opposite end of the independence and accountability spectrum from certain methods of selection. I feel that this is the best way to go about it because it seems to be described as the most democratic way. However, critics argue that Partisan elections are more about a popularity contest.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that only eight states use Partisan elections and of those eight states only six use partisan elections for retention purposes. I feel that Partisan elections are the correct way to emphasize that the right candidate will be selected. This is the only way that accountability of judges can be ensured. Critics point out that most judges in states that use partisan elections initially reach the bench by interim appointment to an unexpired term, and are then re-elected periodically, more often than not without opposition. Also, most voters know virtually nothing about the qualifications of candidates for judicial office therefore, casting their votes based on party affiliation or name recognition.
Although there are better way to go about picking judges, I feel that letting the people have a say in who is a judge is a big deal. It allows the people to feel that their vote mattered and that they have a voice in the government. It may be based on popularity and name recognition, but I still feel that allowing the people to have a say makes having that person in office for a long term easier on the public because they picked that person.
I believe the best way to pick judges is through the merit system. Because of a number of reasons i believe to be:
ReplyDelete1. Merit selection not only sifts out unqualified applicants, it searches out the most qualified.
2. Judicial candidates are spared the potentially compromising process of party slating, raising money, and campaigning.
3. Professional qualifications are emphasized and political credentials are de-emphasized.
4. Judges chosen through merit selection don’t find themselves trying cases brought by attorneys who gave them campaign contributions.
5. Highly qualified applicants will be more willing to be selected and to serve under merit selection because they will not have to compromise themselves to get elected.
Well Im typing this again because it deleted as soon as i hit publish after i spent 40 min on it before. - I believe that choosing judges based off the Partisan election method is the most moral as it is chosen by the people. While it may simply result in a popularity race it is still only way to ensure morality, or at least, accountability on the judge. I was supplied to see that only 8 of the states actually used that method hover, i would have expected more us this system especially since judge seems to be just as important as another political position, many of which are voted for by partisan style election. I seem to be agreeing with most others; however some to be waining towards the merit based system. I would choose this second as it is still chosen by a multitude of people and it does have it benefits. The merit based system could potentiality yield a better quality judge as the people choosing, assuming not corrupt, choose based off quality instead of popularity. however, i would still choose trust over quality, at least in this field. Basically, the more people choosing, the less likely it becomes for corruption to creep in. (please submit this time)
ReplyDeleteI think that Partisan Elections is the best method to choose judges. Like anything else in the U.S., the people should have the right to vote on who will be serving their area within the legal system. Judges play a crucial part in the legal system, and the people should be informed on why or why not they would serve the area adequately. These Partisan Elections generally have a low turnout rate, but that is an issue that is not limited to electing judges. However, as mentioned by the article “SELECTION AND RETENTION OF JUDGES: IS THERE ONE "BEST" METHOD” published by Professor Webster, the public is unaware of the qualifications needed for potential judges, and therefore cast votes based on cues. Although this is a concerning issue, utilizing Partisan Elections help limit corruption within the legal system and prevents corrupt individuals from continuing to be re-elected.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Pluchino
I believe the best judicial selection method is the gubernatorial appointment. Like it said in the article, this produces the perfect balance between accountability and independence, which I agree with. Since the legislature has to agree with the choice the governor makes, it is fair and it won't just be the governor having complete power over picking a judge. Since many states also use this method for back up, it would make sense for them to just use it as their primary form of selecting a judge. Many people are arguing that Partisan Elections are the best method, but I would disagree with that. Yes, it's nice because the people get the right to vote for the judge, but how many people really know what a good judge is and which one is the best to vote for? The governor and legislature would have a better idea on who would do the best job.
ReplyDeleteI believe partisan elections is the best method in appointing judges. I believe this is best, because as stated in the article, this is the only method that ensures the accountability of judges. This is good, because judges can be checked on and made sure they are holding up the law and doing their job well. I believe there is no reason judges should not be voted in just as legislators or other political figures. I think judges should be accountable by the people and the most qualified judge should be voted in.
ReplyDeleteJudges should be selected based upon nonpartisan elections. I trust the public more than other government members. While the public may be more "uninformed" as the attached article suggests, the public will not select judges based on friendship, back-door deals, or seeking favors. Although governors and legislators will not have direct say in judge appointments like some of the alternative options, they would still be able to endorse candidates. This would most likely give a huge boost to those judge candidates, but the ultimate decision would still remain with the people.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, nonpartisan elections are more desirable than partisan elections. Political parties simply distort elections and give people the false thought that they do not have to do research before voting. A nonpartisan election forces citizens to select a judge based on the individual himself/herself, not simply the party "tag" on them.
Ultimately, nonpartisan elections would hold judges accountable. They would have to earn their job and not simply receive it from friends in the capitol. In the end, elections should be used for judge appointments because the public is more trustworthy than the government.
I believe that the best judicial system used today is the gubernatorial appointment because it gives the government the ability to work together to choose a judicial representative that they can agree on collectively. Although disagreements among the senate and house may lead to a candidate not as popular with the people it helps to stomp any corruption in the government. As Liz Richards says above, this should be used as a primary form of selecting a judge. I also believe the Metric selection would be an effective form of election because it finds the most qualified candidates in the field. I believe either form can be more effective than the other forms mentioned above because of the many checks and balances when electing members of the judiciary.
ReplyDeleteJust like many of my classmates I believe that the best method for judicial selection is through “Merit” systems. After reading the article I believe that the “ Missouri Plan” should be put in place in all states. This plan was formed in order for nominating commissions composed of lawyers selected by the bar. Each of the commissions nominates three candidates for each vacancy, the governor is to select the most qualified. After a year, each judge is to stand for retention in the next general election. The major argument against “merit” systems is that partisan election is the most democratic and will help to avoid corruption. By the judges having to stand for retention to me is very function able, in the sense that qualified judges are being put in power and if voters do not approve and want their say at the next election they will be able to. Although I do agree with my pro partisan election to a certain extent in the sense that of course there are citizens out there that are knowledgeable enough to be able to elect a high qualified candidate. We often know that is not the case but the reason I am personally against Partisan election is that due to the lack of knowledge voters just vote for whatever party they favor. It has been clear throughout this course that an act like this is a huge issue. Voters voting just because that’s their party and then they wind up with a candidate that does a horrid job and doesn’t represent their voters interest and needs. From the attached article Justice Hans Linde of the Oregon Supreme Court said that "[r]etention elections, with their simple yes or no choice, more directly but crudely hold judges politically accountable on a single popular issue, usually but not always crime, and therefore are a greater challenge to judicial independence and courage."
ReplyDeleteIn the end I do believe that there is not an absolute answer to this question but if a state’s voters have properly elected their governor, I believe that there should be no concern of him taking personal interest into account. I do believe that “merit” is the best method for judicial selection.
It seems the majority of the class believes the Missouri PLan or Merit system is the best option for choosing state judges, I have to agree. The Merit system attempts (and mostly succeeds) to combine the gubernatorial selection and legislative election. As stated above, gubernatorial appointment can bring with it partiality to friends or favors, along with a single minded view on what determines a "qualified" judge. The legislative election also brings with it cronyism, however it also allows for favors and sorts of payment because past and current legislatures often run. The Merit system calls for a third party council (still susceptible to cronyism and favoritism, yet much less likely) to choose a top group of Lawyers. These names are then passed to the governor who choses the best candidate according to him. The legislature then must approve the appointment. To me, including three different filters to find a qualified judge helps to find the best option. The partisan election is the next best option to me. It allows the people to directly choose their judges, preventing any favoritism inside the legislature. However, an election for a judge will not yield a high turn out in the majority of the country. Partisan elections can also lead to each party, or faction of parties, choosing a more radical candidate in order to cater to the base of the party. Another aspect to all of the appointment styles is the length of term. A judge for life avoids ruling conservatively or liberally because their election base agrees with it. However, a life long Judge also gives immense power and influence to who choses the Judge (Governor, Legislature, public,). The system in which to choose a judge becomes a choice between the lesser of two evils. Some argue that the Merit system produces the same candidates as a Gubernatorial appointment (it merely adds the judiciary committee). However, the committee ensures, in theory, the best candidates are seen by the governor.
ReplyDeleteI think the best judicial selection method is the merit system. To me it seems to be the best way to choose a candidate for Judge.This system has become more popular which makes sense because in my opinion it is the best way to give candidates an equal opportunity to be selected. With this system it is not just about who has the most political power or the most money to make themselves look better it is about the professional qualifications that these Judicial candidates have. Judges are chosen on their merit. They go through a process where they are tested on their past accomplishments, their history with politics, and their decision making past and skills. This system gives minorities a better chance including women because the public is not able to vote. When looking over the article on the merit based method I would have to say that that the Missouri Plan should be something that every state has. Basically this plan comes down to the governor choosing between the three best candidates and which ever one he chooses will win the position. There are arguments on this system and especially all states having the Missouri Plan because it puts all the power for who is chosen in the hands of the governor. I believe that since other educated officials are the ones choosing and narrowing down the candidates that it really is not putting all the power in the governors hands. Yes, the governor will choose out of the three best candidates but I think that is fair especially since states citizens vote for their governor. I believe this is the best method because it is about the qualifications that the candidates hold.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of my classmates with the idea that partisan election would be the best way to select judges. Today only 8 states use partisan election and out of those 8, only 6 states use partisan election for retention purposes. I think this would be the best format to select judges on because they are chosen by the people and there would be less corruption. The merit system has low voters turnout so there would not be enough votes to put a candidate in. The Gubernatorial appointment would not be a good choice to select judges because it leaves room for corruption if the governor and legislature picks someone they either know or who gives them money or favors. In conclusion, I think partisan election is the best because being able to vote for who you think should be in office makes you feel good about your decision and that you are making a difference in your community.
ReplyDeleteI will also be agreeing with a majority of my classmates in that the Partisan election system is considered to be the best way to elect judges. I have chosen this method because it seems to be the fairest out of all the choices as well as shows a true democratic way of selection allowing individuals to run in primary parties and then face off in a general election. I believe that by allowing the public to vote and look over the platforms for each candidate ensures the accountability of judges. Also by allowing people to vote it helps eliminate internal corruption since the judges who will be taking office will not be appointed by just one person or a board/ committee of people who all may share the same views and perspectives on issues. The two main reasons that I see why some states do not use the Partisan system is because most voters usually know nothing about the qualifications of the candidates who are running for a judicial office and will just pick a name that sounds familiar. This of course results in candidates developing expensive campaigns to get name recognition in the surrounding community. In the end I still believe that the Partisan system is the best way to elect judges because it follows the same regulations as when the President or any other government officials are elected. Even if name recognition has immense role in how the judges are selected it is still very important that the citizens have the opportunity to vote because there are still people who are going to vote for a specific judge based on their platform and what they stand for.
ReplyDeleteI essentially think every selection method has pros and cons and there is no one choice that satisfies a perfect fit. I do believe that the best method for selection is by merit. Although this process is just becoming more and more popular it’s the most rational method for selection because of the simple fact that judges are elected by merit. This method gets rid of all candidates that don’t qualify to begin with and also eliminates one-sided parties. Even though some argue that this brings in no diversity and lower turnouts this method brings out quality, which I find most important. The fact that judges are up for retention after just a year and the governor selects who he believes is most qualified is also a safe method of selection. Others argue that there could be bias involved but even if a committee were biased in any way, they would not be allowed to select any applications that did not have qualifications. After reading and discussing, I think that if selections like the Missouri Plan were active in all states it would be the most safe and organized way of selecting a judge. In essence, I think that a judge needs to have knowledge, quality, and experience to be in court and merit is the best way to ensure those qualities. It is the same process with everyday jobs, clubs, committees, and fraternities. Do you want the president of your sorority chapter, or the boss at your firm to have no merit or not put anything into your organization/job? If people want qualified judges in their courtroom I believe the merit method and application process is the best way for this selection.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best method for judicial selection is through Merit systems. I believe that the “ Missouri Plan” should be put in place in all states. This plan was formed in order for nominating commissions composed of lawyers selected by the bar. Each of the commissions nominates three candidates for each vacancy, the governor is to select the most qualified. After a year, each judge is to stand for retention in the next general election. The major argument against “merit” systems is that partisan election is the most democratic and will help to avoid corruption. By the judges having to stand for retention to me is very function able, in the sense that qualified judges are being put in power and if voters do not approve and want their say at the next election they will be able to. Although I do agree with my pro partisan election to a certain extent in the sense that of course there are citizens out there that are knowledgeable enough to be able to elect a high qualified candidate. We often know that is not the case but the reason I am personally against Partisan election is that due to the lack of knowledge voters just vote for whatever party they favor. It has been clear throughout this course that an act like this is a huge issue. Voters voting just because that’s their party and then they wind up with a candidate that does a horrid job and doesn’t represent their voters interest and needs.
ReplyDeletethe merit election system does the following, it not only sifts out unqualified applicants, it searches out the most qualified. Judicial candidates are spared the potentially compromising process of party slating, raising money, and campaigning. Professional qualifications are emphasized and political credentials are de-emphasized. Judges chosen through merit selection don’t find themselves trying cases brought by attorneys who gave them campaign contributions. Highly qualified applicants will be more willing to be selected and to serve under merit selection because they will not have to compromise themselves to get elected.
Although there are better way to go about picking judges, I feel that letting the people have a say in who is a judge is a big deal. It allows the people to feel that their vote mattered and that they have a voice in the government. It may be based on popularity and name recognition, but I still feel that allowing the people to have a say makes having that person in office for a long term easier on the public because they picked that person.
In my opinion, I believe that the best method for judicial system is the merit system. The merit system or “Missouri Plan” seems to be very effective. It is a compromise between appointive methods and elective methods and it came from the Progressive Reform Movement. The merit system was first used in California, where nominations were made for candidates to fill vacancies in courts. The merit system is said to remove politics from the process of selecting judges resulting in the selection of better judges. I like that this system gives equal opportunities to be appointed a judge and the judges are appointed based on their merit. This is decided by the candidates being tested on their merit with politics and decision-making in past experiences. The election process starts with a third party council reviewing the candidates and then the Governor chooses the new judge. I think that this is the best way to pick the best candidate for the job. It also provides more opportunities for minorities and judges to enter the judicial system. Which, I think is another great aspect of the merit system.
ReplyDeleteI think the best system in my opinion to pick judges is Partisan vote. I think that its a good idea to let people have the choice to vote who they would like. It lets the people feel as though they have a say in who will become a judge, but I also see the pitfalls in it. Like other elections most people just vote for someone who they may not know much about, which could make for a wrong judgement call for position. That being said I can see why other systems seem like a much better way to go about it. The merit system is probably the most logical way to vote on it. I've noticed that a few other students think this as well. It would give a much higher quality judge since its going by merit, which makes sense. I just think that giving the people an actual say would go a long ways, but human error always plays a role regardless of what system you really go for
ReplyDeleteThe best system to use In America is the Partisan voting system. It may not be ideal but it does embroider the American way. It is the most democratic out of the others which include the merit system, Nonpartisan elections, and gubernational appointment. The Partisan system is as simple as people going out and voting for the people who they think should represent them. The partisan system increases public participation in the political process, which in my option is always a good thing but more importantly this type of system puts the power in the people’s hands and that is that The United States emphasizes. The merit system is a close second but in that system the power still lies with the governor, which personally I do not approve of even though he elected by the people. I just like that fact that the Partisan system best represents what the United States stands for with its biggest drawback being the citizens themselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe the merit system is the best way to choose judges. Though it has some disadvantages, it advantages proves far better. It provides a mechanism for appointing qualified candidates to the bench while permitting the public to evaluate a judge’s performance through the ballot box.
ReplyDeleteThe judicial commission chooses the candidates, three or more names to the governor. They are chosen by their knowledge, expertise and experience in the field so they are the best. With this, the governor appoints his preferred candidate to the judgeship. In the next retention election, the voters decide whether the judge should remain on the bench.
This permits the governor some appointive discretion while removing politics from the selection of judges. If this succeeds, election or gubernatorial appointment is replaced with a careful assessment of candidates’ professional qualifications by an objective commission. This ensures independence and accountability to the people.
It has been adopted by nearly all of the states that have changed their selection systems since 1940. "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it". This is saying that if the system works well, there is no need to change it. This applies to the merit system.
The Commission plan or Merit selection process is the most fair and democratic way to select judges. Like Ms. McDonald stated above, the Merit selection process not only takes politics out of the selection process, but it gives aspiring judges equal opportunity to be appointed based solely on their own merit. Many of my classmates argue for the Partisan selection process, but that process takes away from the individual candidate and allows the dominate political party to push for the judge that will benefit them the most instead of the best candidate for the job. Partisan elections also make it easier for corruption because when a candidate has the financial backing of an entire political party, they can invest more money into the court and essentially buy the votes they need. This is not as likely to happen in Merit based selections because party affiliation is taken out of the process. The Merit selection process also promotes more diversity in the court with women and minority judges who could offer a different perspective to the judicial system run by the patriarchal system of the past. Just like in any democracy, the only true way to promote equality and fairness is to give the job to the most qualified individual, regardless of race, nationality, creed or orientation. When a Merit selection system is coupled with periodic elections to ensure judges are continually being held accountable for their rulings, it offers more credibility to the justice system. Finally, with a Merit Selection system the selected judge is free from any outside factors and gives the judge a sense of independence that will help him/her offer unbiased decisions based only on the laws of the nation.
ReplyDeleteI think the partisan election system is the best way to choose judges. letting people vote for who they want to be in any type of office is the most democratic way of handling things. I also believe what Valerie was saying about the fact that this would take down corruption and I also do not think that a board or committee of a few people should be able to decide who is a judge. even by letting the people vote after their term is up in an election is not a good thing, because by that time to much damage could already be done. Judges who are elected off of name recognition alone is the same as any other elections that take place. I do not think that a lot of people who vote for anything especially Presidents really know anything about their policies but we still do it this way. I think the worst process would be the gubernational system, because if the Governor is the one to appointment somebody than he could easily just choose a friend oor someone who has helped him. I do not agree with my classmates or any state who actually does this. after doing the readings and looking at other blog posts the best system is the partisan election.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely agree that the partisan election is the best way to go. You are letting the people decide which will lead to hopefully a happier society. It is by far the most democratic way to go about it, and that's how we handle every other major election so why not stick to that system. It is the only method that is really fair and it's the only method that holds the judges accountable for law. I am actually very shocked that only 8 states are currently using this method, I feel as if it would be very beneficial if everyone switched over to it. Judges play such an important role in people's lives so they should be given the opportunity to be able to pick who they want. Also using partisan methods, it equals out the chance for more people to try to run a campaign and become a judge.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the class that merit plans are the best way for appointing judges. For a position as a judge, I believe whoever is the most qualified in merit for the job is the best selection. The merit plan system takes the politics out of politics in a way. It puts whoever is the most qualified for the job at the top, not the most popular, richest, or most recognizeable name like the other systems do. I believe it is the best way in assessing which person knows what they're doing the most, and that is who I want as judges.
ReplyDeleteI don't think partisan elections are necessary for judges. I just honestly don't feel that who the public personally likes more for this position is more important than being the most qualified for the position does. Most people may see that as a big problem and may want as much of a democratic system as possible,but I just don't feel going through the long process of partisan election is worth it and isn't the best way in electing judges.
I would strongly agree with many of my classmates that the merit system is the best way of selecting judges. As noted in Webster's paper, this system eliminates politics from the selection of judges, which I feel is a necessity in gaining the most competent judges possible. Partisan and nonpartisan elections both include instances where the people vote for judges just as they would for other political offices. Even though this may be the most democratic way, it is not the most effective method for this particular job. As stated in Webster's, elections for judges tend to be "issueless", which means judges won't be elected on how they make decisions in the court room but rather name recognition or popularity among voters. Also, many average voters are likely not competent enough or informed enough on the issues to make the best selection possible. The appointment system is also not the most effective way in selecting judges. Although the legislative body must approve of the selection, it still leaves one individual with too much power to select a judge who will have so much societal impact. In the merit system, there is a much more extensive process where candidates go through multiple preliminary tests before becoming a judge. They much be placed on a list of potential candidates, narrowed down to the best on the list, and then finally the best one is selected for the job by the executive. This process requires very little to no politics involved, and candidates are examined by lawmakers most competent to make the best decision.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the partisan system is the best method by which to appoint judges. As stated in Webster's paper, partisan election is "the only method by which accountability of judges can be ensured." This is extremely vital, in that the partisan election would allow for an ability to keep the judges that perform well in their position, and make sure that any which are simply bad at their job are not able to retain office. In addition to this, partisan election is the method of election we have been using for centuries, which is based on the ideals that the country was founded upon. The ideals that the peoples' voices are heard and make the decisions on who runs the country and how this country functions.
ReplyDeleteAs my fellow classmate Morgan Reeder said, the judges play such an important role in society, and can affect the lives of many in their decision making, that the people should be able to appoint who they think is the best and right choice for the job, and not have to deal with judges are simply not good at their jobs. Additionally, like Morgan says, these partisan elections allow for a more equal and fair chance for people to try and run for office, and I think this is also such a vital part to a successful and diverse government and society.
As the current climate of our class I would agree that right not the so called "Missouri Plan," or merit system is the best way to elect/appoint judges. This plan will allow for the committee to first to oversee the best qualified applicants for the position of judge. Second, the governor in each of the states will be able to make a political appointment that will meet his or her requirements/needs to fulfill the appointment. Thirdly, the judge will eventuality when chosen will need to run for his or her seat based upon their merits. I would even allow the partisan election be fulfilled based upon each states own election law when the judge is up for election. However, as with the law these appointments/merit judges will run into two road blocks federalism and the law itself. Each state will have to approve of this system in each of there state houses and governors will either have to approve or veto. This will be difficult due to each state having different ideas and cultures. The law takes time for court cases to make its way to the docket. The only way around each of these obstacles would be if the a strong federal government with the three co-equal branches mandating that the so called "Missouri Plan" will go into affect. I will also say that each of my fellow classmates have valid points with each of their arguments.
ReplyDeleteI believe that choosing judges based off the Partisan election method is the most successful and people pleasing considering the people have a say in the election process. I personally like this method because the judge is held responsible and is expected to do the right thing no matter what the political consequences may be, even if it is a popularity contest. I am kind of shocked that more states do not use this system since the judge is seen to be equally important as any other high political position. When it comes to the merit system, this is second best in my opinion because it is still chosen by the people and when the people are happy elections seem to be much more smooth. The merit based system has the chance to have a more respectable and responsible judge, I think this because if the people have a say, chances are they are going to choose the judge based off of their good qualities rather than how popular they are in society. I believe that the more people have a say in the election, the less chance of a poor unorganized outcome.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in the Webster article, "most of the work of trial and intermediate appellate courts, especially in state systems, consists of the mundane application of more-or-less well-established legal rules". For this reason, the best method of selecting judges for these courts is partisan election. Voter turnout will be higher, judges can be held accountable and voted out of office easily, but citizens who are unhappy with the decision of their case can still appeal it to a higher court.
ReplyDeleteFor courts of appeals and state supreme courts, however, the merit based system is the most fair and objective method of selection. These judges should be free from political influence and the pressure of reelection. The matters brought before these courts can be more complicated and deal with "the development of new law";therefore it is necessary that the residing judges can make decisions based on what is right, not what will get them reelected.
The merit system is the best approach. Apparently many people across the country agree with me, as it is being implemented in a growing number of states. The merit system allows an independent judicial election commission to select a few candidates who have excelled in some manner. I believe it makes great sense to select those who are been successful and are thus, worthy of the position. I am a fan of giving this additional power to the governor. If a state elected a governor, then surely they will support his choice of the superstar candidates. While critics may claim it renders retention elections useless and produces similar judges to other system, those are not overly powerful points. I would rather judges elected for their deeds than from secretive deals like those that arise from legislative appointments or elections. I like the idea of having independent bodies elect the candidates rather than those already in the system. While, I like the idea of the governor having increased power under the gubernatorial appointment, I do believe having the governor only pick from a pre-selected group of studs is far more beneficial. Partisan elections are arguably the most democratic form of deciding this issue, however we must be rational with our choices. It’s a fact of life that most people simply do not care enough about judicial appointments to go out and vote for them. That leaves the race to be a name recognition popularity contest funded by interest groups who surely do not have public’s interests at heart. I believe the merit system is the best combination of rational, safe and fairly democratic thinking and thus should be implemented by all states as the approach to judicial appointments.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the merit system selection process is the most appropriate way when appointing a judge. This gives educated people, like the 3 committee members and the governor, the power to choose a well qualified governor. A great reason for it as well is that it takes away the political side of why people are elected which was stated in websters paper. It aims at taking away the popularity of a name and installs the true reason why someone should be elected, and it because they are qualified. the "democratic" way of doing things would be to let the people elect who they want, but in reality thats not always the best decision. The judges can just simply not be qualified, a lot of them if they have the money can campaign themselves and get their names out. All in all, i think the merit system benefits the people in the best way possible.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the class was split between two selection processes which are merit and partisan elections. I disagree with many of my classmates that chose Partisan elections as their number one choice. This is because I like the fact that it is a fair and democratic process, but choosing a judge is different than a representative. Judges in these types of selections though are chosen through name recognition and popularity more than qualifications.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I believe along with half the class that merit is the best way to choose a judge. I believe that this takes power away from politically uneducated people trying to choose judges. Instead this particular way just uses the process of elimination to select the best overall judge. Not only does a judge get chosen by a governor, but also in many states must get approved by a legislative. I also believe that if the use of this process has increased after Webster's article then not just me, but many people believe that this is the best process in selecting and appointing judges.
I believe the fairest form of judicial appointment would be partisan election. The reason I think this is because it is 100% transparent and you know that the judge elected was from which party and what his intentions are. I think the others are unfair because, even though they may be non-aligned, you know in politics almost everyone is aligned somehow and politicians will do anything to get someone on their side high up in office. With that said, the common voter may think that the person is unaligned but politicians know otherwise, so they can scheme under the people who don’t know better. Partisans are just better because you know where that person stands 100% and you won’t feel betrayed when they all of a sudden start siding when they’re in office. But, if politics weren't politics and people were actually non-partisan as they claim, then I would side with non-partisan elections as they are “fair”.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that myself and various other classmates agree on the merit system being the best approach to the judicial selection process. This ideology was dubbed the “Missouri Plan” in November 1940 after severe public backlash following the abuse of judicial appointment prompted political officials to make a compromise that increased democratic fairness. The overall fairness of this appointment process has seemed to be popular within the United States, since the majority of the nation use the system to select judges.
ReplyDeleteI believe what makes the merit system/Missouri Plan so effective is that it truly puts candidates through a sifting process in order to select the most qualified candidates. Not only does the committee have to nominate a candidate, but then they have to pick the top three candidates as well. Then, those top three candidates go to the governor for the final decision. After a year in office, judges have to be reelected into their through the general election period. I think that this method is best, since judgeships are hard to elect off the bat due to lack of knowledge or caring. Once a judge has been in office and effective within the community, voters may have been able to form a valid opinion about the individual who was appointed --- therefore able to cast their vote accordingly.
However, as great and fair as this merit system can be, I do think that there are available pitfalls for it to be very political. The governor appoints the selection committee, and then the final decision rests on the governor. I believe that the governor may have too much power in the merit system method due to this fact. He/she can easily build a committee with personal ties, and then pressure them to nominate those that he/she sees fit. Even the election process, as I mentioned before, may not be able to validate a candidate due to the lack of interest that judge elections usually see.
In conclusion, I do believe that the merit system is the littlest of all the evils, but to say that it is completely fair is not true. I think if citizens were more informed of the judge after their year in office, the merit system would then work as efficiently as its creators had hoped.
I found great resources about the Missouri Plan while gathering opinions at these links: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howshould/merit.html
https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=297
I believe that partisan elections are the most effective way to elect a new judge. Bias decisions are not made by the governor just because he or she may "like" a particular candidate more than others. Not only this is unfair or judges who are candidates for re-election, but for citizens of a state because it is almost as if they are being completely ignored. Partisan election "the only method by which accountability of judges can be ensured.", stated in Webster's article. With any type of election, it should all come down to which method is the most fair for the people and the candidates. The United States is a democracy and when re-election appears again, primary candidates from parties should all have a fair shot at becoming a judge based on their core beliefs and reasoning to why he or she should be appointed. With people who are willing to vote to appoint a judge, reinforces the United States democratic views and ensures a fair game. Resume is important but not when it is used in the merit based system. A govenor can still request names and push his or her way to appoint the person he likes the most, even if they do not have the best resume. Partisan elections should be used more when it comes to electing judges, it is the best method and there is no question to why it should be used more through out the US.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the merit based system is best because an independent selection committee carefully selects candidates based on their qualifications that the governor than approves. It also helps in that it take the money out of the equation; the candidates don’t have to spend money during the judicial process, especially using money and resources to gain approval of those who might be standing in front of them one day in court. Finally, it helps eliminate the conflicts of interest that could arise from special interest influences in the judicial election. In the paper, it makes an argument that it removes politics from the process of selecting the judges and in this the result from the this type of selection are better judges. The paper also coincides that more women and minorities reach the bench under the merit selection system that under contested elections. A key to the success of the merit system is a truly independent, impartial, and diverse commission that has the power and resources to investigate thoroughly those who come before it as candidates. Professor Webster’s suggestion involves a commission or merit plan of selection, this plan would reduce political considerations to an acceptable level while largely neutralizing partisan political considerations; it will actively encourage consideration of the need for diversity on the bench, which will increase the number of women and minority judges, while eliminating the offensive elements of judicial elections as well as increase the public’s respect and support for the judiciary as an institution. From the arguments made in the paper as well as Professor Webster’s compromise, concludes that the merit based system offers those running as well those represented by voting the best chance for the best judge to come out on top and deliver just decisions.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best judicial selection method is the merit based. I believe that this is the best selection method because it ensures that the best candidate is chosen for the position, although it is not the most democratic approach it is fair to all people seeking the position. Another characteristic of the merit based selection that makes me feel that it is the best is the retention election, this gives voters a voice in whether they should continue in office or not. It was stated in class that it is a rare occurrence that judges are removed, but it still gives voters a voice. The link you provided suggests an argument against retention elections that there is a lack of understanding and confusion but these polls were conducted in 1990 and I don't think they would have the same results if conducted today.The popularity of this selection is also promising, 32 states and the District of Columbia are implementing this selection process.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading my classmates comments I have to agree with Scott Gray, the way the merit system combines legislative and gubernatorial selection makes it arguably the best selection process.
After reading all of my other classmates opinions it seems as if the merit system and the partisan elections are the most popular. Personally, I'm going to have to say I think the merit system would be the best option. Although all of the ways have pros and cons to me this seems to be the best option. There are many qualified judges who submit applications and the panel that goes through them before three are sent to the governor are very qualified (or at least are supposed to be). Yes, there could be the issue with the governor having too much power but that can also be checked by the retention election that the judges have to go through to see if they should be reelected. In the partisan system the people who vote the majority of the time are not knowledgeable on the candidates and will just vote for their party. As we discussed in class, this could leave a very qualified judge out just because he is in the wrong area for his party. Also this can show why the retention elections are usually pointless but also why the merit system is better in the first place. Another reason i see the merit system as the best option is that it is less based on name and recognition than the partisan way. For the partisan elections it can become very costly and if the lawyers donate money to a judge that could mean they have a better chance of winning in court, which is not fair. The merit system gets around this for the most part. Finally, the merit system seems to be the best way according to experts and is on the rise, so clearly there is a reason for this.
ReplyDeleteI would first have to argue against the appointment method of judicial selection. A system in which one individual, a governor, can with little obstacle appoint whomever he or she deems qualified can result in nepotism. Although, such corruption seems to be somewhat alleviated by the presence of life-terms at higher levels of the judiciary. Additionally, I have to concede that the appointment method is more equitable to women and minorities, as the article suggests.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have to discredit partisan and nonpartisan elections, alike. The cost to candidates is incredibly high and voter turnout incredibly low, resulting in an outcome probably out of line with real public sentiment. In addition, the vast majority of the general population is admittedly unfit to determine who may or may not be qualified for judicial office.
Ultimately, I would argue that direct appointment by the state and federal legislatures would be the most appropriate means of judicial selection. Individuals who have already been vetted by the public in elections and who are more knowledgeable on legal matters are more suited to make such a decision. Also, legislative approval is far more democratic than executive selection. Personally, I believe that the executive should be removed from the judicial selection process altogether and replaced by bipartisan legislative committees.
I definitely think that nonpartisan election is the best way to elect new judges. Like Brandon Izzo says, "bias decisions are not made" and I think that bias decisions are definitely detrimental to any government elected position. However, voter turn out for judges is pretty low, but people still vote, and I think that if people take the time to vote, that still says something about the candidate they want to elect. Also, I think that the merit selection process could be good, however, I think that going through all the applications could be very time consuming, and it could turn into a game of favoritism among the people going over the applications, and also with the governor. Also, I think that nonpartisan would be better than partisan, because I think that a republican voter should be able to vote for a democratic judge, if s/he likes that applicant.
ReplyDeleteI believe partisan elections are the best way for states to choose judges, where they run in primaries and general elections. An argument against partisan election is not a lot of people vote because they don’t know a lot about the legal aspect of it and usually go with their party, unless there is recent high profile case. I think this can also be seen as a positive, because if you account for everyone who strictly votes of party affiliation, all those votes get flushed out by each other and the votes left are those made by people who know what they are voting for and can understand that type of information better. It leaves votes casted for the person who has made a better argument or deserves it more; they would still have to make an argument regardless of voter turnout. People, regardless of how much they know, should be allowed to vote for judges because they have a lot of power and a good amount of that power is to make decisions for the people voting for them, and voting it a right we have that we shouldn’t throw away.
ReplyDeleteIn arguments for different types of elections in the beginning of the article it says that there are different perceptions regarding role of courts in our society. That either judges are strictly there to interrupt the law and therefore shouldn’t have to be voted in, or that they make decisions based off how they are elected and party affiliation and beliefs, and that the ideal is somewhere in the middle of that. In partisan elections you are finding that middle ground, because they are elected and kept in power by arguing how fairly they are judging the law, and also people do have the power to pick them based off their parties as well.
Judges all need to be able to make an argument on why they should stay in their position, because judges can make decisions that effect the law and those decisions can be “unpopular with one of the other branches of government or with the majority of the electorate, in order to protect individual or minority rights.” In order to keep them making decisions that reflect the people, and not avoid making these decisions because they’re afraid what other people in power might think, they should be able to defend their decisions and have people vote for them and decide because ultimately they are there for the citizens, not other people in power.
The best way to select judicial members is through partisan elections. This way is favorable to the others because it is fair and democratic and according to the article, it is the only way that judges can be held accountable. This way makes sure that the best candidate is chosen in the most democratic way. some concerns of partisan elections are the cost associated with highly political trappings, as well as the chance that the candidates will not work independently from their political party, making them biased when it comes to rulings of cases. however the faults it seems like the best candidate gets chosen and is held accountable for this actions in the position. As a democratic society with a democratic government the people have a right to vote and elect the candidate they want.
ReplyDeleteIt would be easy to think that appointment would be the most corrupt method in choosing a judge. One person chooses, so that can easily lead to favoritism or corruption. However the partisan method can be just as corrupt due to the time it was dominant. Andrew Jackson's presidency is considered by many historians to be corrupt (http://www.ifreeman.com/freeman/a_jackson.htm) through the use of the spoils system, which could apply in this situation.
ReplyDeleteThe best system is the merit system because it is a compromise between appointment and election. When a position opens up, there is an election to decide who should have the open seat and then is decided by the state legislature and governor post-election. The system itself checks corruption and straight popularity and has a secondary level in order to prevent any type of spoils system is just based on merit.
I would have to pick nonpartisan elections as being the best decision. Not having any label on you to be elected would be the best way to pick the best candidate for a job. It may turn into a popularity contest, but all of the systems in picking a judge have to do with popularity in my opinion. The merit based system is a good choice except for the retention elections, and that the general population does not really know who their judge is unless you have to stand before him. Partisan elections you would get a lot of money from your party, but with nonpartisan you have to go after a lot of things on your own. The gubernational appointment system is just bad, you would have the governor picking people he likes, and the Senate and House can't find anything wrong with the candidate so he gets appointed to the position. Having an election for the position is really the only fair way to get a position like this. With merit based you will get the best candidates on paper, but if you narrow them down to the top 5 and they are all very weak communicators then you're stuck with one of them.
ReplyDeleteLike all of the systems in choosing judges they all have their pros and cons. I believe the best way of picking judges would be through the merit system. I think its good that a panel has the opportunity to choose candidates before the governor chooses who they want to be elected to the court. And also with a panel choosing candidates, I think its good so that they can all decide what qualities and traits that they want to see in the next. All of the candidates chosen are all qualified for the position anyway but being able to discuss each persons strengths, weakness, and just finding out more information on each person is great idea in that they can find the best person for the job.
ReplyDeleteThe Partisan elections is probably the best way to elect judges. This is a country that prides itself on democracy therefore it seems like a no brainer to me. This system also ensures that judges will be held accountable and will not be re-elected if they are not up to par. Ofcourse this system creates biases amongst parties and gives people a more narrow view of things but at the same time people want their right to vote and like to feel involved. All the systems have their pros and cons but this seems like the best option to satisfy people and increase voter turnout. The merit system seems like a good idea but like others have mentioned it can create a lot of generalizations and favoritism towards certain candidates.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Merit based selections are the best form of judicial selection. The merit system allows judges to be chosen from within thanks to their record and work in the field rather than through name recognition or vast political/monetary backing. The system is similar to the way many individuals are hired. They apply when a vacancy is present and are chosen based on their qualifications compared to other similar applicants. They are also subject to performance evaluations in the form of retention elections. However, these elections are also the cause of many of the problems associated with this method of judicial selection. It has been shown that these elections are a bit useless with judges almost always retaining their seat. They are also met with much confusion from voters. Finally, they are also becoming more politicized. Despite these drawbacks, however, this form of selection, in my opinion is still the most fair and effective method.
ReplyDeleteI believe the best way to pick a judge is through the merit system. This ensures that the best person is elected for the job and everyone gets an equal opportunity to run. This gives voters a voice and allows them so speak out and give their say in who they thing is the best candidate for the job. A key to the success of the merit system is a truly independent commission that has the power and resources to investigate thoroughly those who come before it as candidates. This gives educated people the power to elect instead of people who have no idea anything about politics. This is the best process to elect judges throughout our country, within each state.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe partisan elections are the number one way for judges to be elected. In these elections the candidates must run in the primary and general election. For elections like these voters may tend to vote within their party affiliation because they don't know exactly what else they would vote for besides their own candidates. This is a positive to partisan elections because voters who actually vote for the strongest candidate will most likely have their votes counted for because all of the "general" party voters votes will all be cancelled out. This strategy would allow for the correct candidate who did their part in their running for election to be chosen as the new judge. It wouldn't be that of a popularity by party election where voters can usually determine who will win by the amount of followers a party has voting.
ReplyDeleteA negative side to this can still be whether or not the judge who was voted in was voted in for the right reason. A candidate can still win an election by a popularity vote within their party. This can lead to bad representation in office by that exact judge. This judge may make decisions just in favor of their own party and so they will badly represent other parties and be disliked. If a judge is running again in a partisan election, it will show their true colors and whether or not they truly should hold office for another term. This will show voters what the judge has done and they will further be elected again if they fairly and properly represented their duties correctly. These judges will need to make a clear argument as to why they deserve to represent these people again.
I completely agree with Olivia above when she says that the judge will see whether or not they are performing their job for the people or performing it for the people higher in power because they are afraid of what they can do. The people will continue to vote for them if they do in fact represent them in the correct manner.
Brittany Cavanaugh
Based on the posted article, a nonpartisan election process appears to have the most benefits with the fewest critiques. Because nonpartisan elections were a response to the manipulative nature of political motives, I think it presents the best representation of the voice of the people. This method of electing judges maintains a citizen's right to vote and actually reduces the voter drop off rate. Responsible and well respected judges often run unopposed which encourages them to run for the bench. By stripping away the political malpractice, judges are held by accountability with voters. Judges may be judged themselves based more on their qualifications than other election methods. The main concerns of nonpartisan election is the ignorance of voters, however legislators have proven to be just as ignorant in matters regarding the right person for the job. I think my classmate Jacob Butler brings up a great point, that the merit based system could easily evolve into a corrupted practice, the very thing that inspired nonpartisan elections. Power should remain with the people. If voters are not well versed on the qualities that make a "good" judge, then the solution is not to take away their right to vote, it is to educate them! Rather than pass off the responsibility, we should do preliminary research and take responsibility to make judges accountable to us. Because the phrase "good judge" is so subjective the voice of the majority is all the more crucial for it. This system may also open up doors for women and minorities which are becoming a more prevalent voice in our culture.
ReplyDeleteI think the merit system is the most best way to pick the judges, that way the top qualified candidates have chance to be considered without having to be on the receiving end monetary support that could have effects their ability to remain equally impartial to the lawyers that donate. This method gives a good compromise between appointive and elective method, because it also includes retention elections. Though the arguments against it is that the elections don’t have any effect because people get accepted voted to stay regardless of what they have done, but I think that the opportunity is there if it is needed and it makes it a better system.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I feel that the best way to select judicial members is through partisan elections. I feel that this way is best to others because is it fair and democratic and is the only way that judges could be hold accountable. This way insures that the best candidate is chosen in the most democratic way. Some of the only concerns are that this way isn't very cost efficient and be costly. Another concern is that there is a chance that the candidates will not work independently from their political party, making them biased when it comes to rulings of cases. However, the positives weigh out the negative aspects because the best candidate gets chosen and is held accountable for the actions in the position.
ReplyDeleteMy original thought was that the best method for choosing new judges was to have a partisan election, due to it being the most democratic and how it allows the people's voice to be heard more than the other methods. However, the points against the partisan election are strong - especially the fact that candidates raise large sums of money from interest groups that may have a case in front of that judge in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think that the best option is clear. The merit system seems to be the most trustworthy system available. This is because an independent commission makes the selections that are up for review by the governor. Additionally, this system proves to also be the safest route. The fact that there is a retention election helps to weed out a judge that is not doing a particularly good job. In my opinion, the merit system covers the most bases and is the safest system.
I do not think appointment is an effective method of choosing judges. I agree that it perpetuates cronyism.Webster said that appointment is more likely to bring minorities and women into the judicial system, but at what cost? Filling quotas? I am the biggest supporter of diversity and rights for underrepresented groups, but it's almost embarrassing to include a minority in an appointment because they merely need a "diversity factor." Additionally, this is a quick fix. Which is why it is used as such in most states. A back up. Not a primary method of selection.
ReplyDeleteI also do not think that partisan elections are effective, either. As a major opponent to party politics, I believe that it is just a popularity contest that causes people to use their political party-based connections to rake in an absurd amount of money. Webster says this ensures political accountability, but again, at what cost? These judges are accountable to their party because it's their financial and networking lifeline. In reality, few people line up 100% with a party's ideological views, which is ironic for someone staking their entire reputation on such a moral code.
I think nonpartisan elections and merit-based are the best methods of choosing judges. I prefer nonpartisan, because judges would run based on their ideas and moral code, not by one dictated by their political party. Also, what does being a Republican or Democrat have to do with being a judge, anyway? Unfortunately, as shown by Webster and even my classmates here, it is simply unpopular compared to the partisan method, so it's unrealistic to think the country would adopt this as a primary selection method.
Merit-based selections are maybe a better (more popular) choice. My classmates tend to agree, because it does not use the bias associated with partisan politics. It actually, in my opinion, produces the most effective candidates. Lawyers and non-lawyers search for someone who is out there on the front lines, making the changes we need in the government. They bring these people and are selected based on their decisions and actions, not because of their name or their bank account. I think this is an incredibly effective way of choosing members (for anything, really). This article spells it out pretty plainly: http://www.judicialselection.com/uploads/documents/ms_descrip_1185462202120.pdf
It explains what the merit system is and what it isn't, how members are chosen, and the flaws in the system. 2/3 of states use this method in some form. I agree that, while not perfect, is the best way to select qualified judges.
As the article by Peter Webster suggests, there is very little empirical evidence as to what selection plan produces “better” judges. So with the lack of empirical evidence, I would deduce that the argument for the Missouri or Merit Plan is the strongest. Many of my classmates seem to understandably be in favor for partisan elections. However, these elections do have consequences of corporations donating to a campaign and then that judge refusing to recuse himself when that corporation is in a lawsuit brought to him/her. This is highlighted in the Caperton v. A.T Massey Coal Co. that originated in our home of West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteOne main argument against the Merit Plan is that even though people get a chance to oust the judge in a retention election, it almost never happens. However, isn't that a good thing? The fact that a judge does not create a ginormous reason not to be reelected probably means he/she is doing his/her job well. If he/she does make a poor decision that an abundance of people do not agree with, the judge will be ousted. So with the lack of empirical evidence to support any one specific election plan, I think that the Merit Plan has the most number positive aspects. The plan gives a variety of people and officials a chance to participate in the election process which ideally will produce the best judges.
I feel that the best way to pick judges is by way of Partisan elections as well as Merit plans. Since partisan elections are seen to be at the opposite end of the independence/accountability spectrum, since many of the methods are perceived to be abused. I believe by the people voting and electing our officials, it will show fair voting and focus more on what the candidate has to offer and not focused on favoritism. The public would feel more comfortable and confident in their voting decision if they knew judges would be accounted for their actions. The only thing I see negative about partisan elections is that many voters vote by party affiliation or name recognition. It encourages voters just to pick, and it allows for a voter drop off, since many of these voters are unable to intelligently cast their vote for judicial candidates just do not vote in the races. Using a Merit plan because it removes politics from the process of selecting judges. Since politics have been removed from the selection it is then that better judges will be selected. I believe this to be true, because it gives minorities and women a chance to run for an office and becomes more diverse.
ReplyDeleteI believe the best method for choosing judges is to have a partisan election. The method makes much more sense in terms of fairness and reasoning. Through partisan elections judges are given more responsibility for their own platform. When voters vote for the strongest candidate, their votes mean so much more in the long run. This method is effective from a democratic stand point and it allowed a more equal chance to all candidates. The candidates raise money through interest groups and campaigning, that popularity can tend to be a key factor. However every candidate must gain recognition somehow, whether it be through the campaign or prior to the campaign. This method allows voters to hear to platform of every judge, but does have some negatives. The way this system is set up, popularity can become the ultimate factor, reigning over voters actual opinion and can cause judges to be elected into office for the wrong reasons.
ReplyDeleteHere is a court case that might contradict your point of fairness in a partisan judicial election. Caperton v. Massey Coal Co. is a 2009 Supreme Court case that called for a West Virginia Court of Appeals judge to recuse himself based on the 14th amendment right of the Due Process Clause. An incumbent judge was defeated by a charleston lawyer. This lawyer had received around 3 million dollars in campaign contribution from an individual tied to a coal company. Later, this coal company was involved in a lawsuit that was being adjudicated by this charleston lawyer. The case ruled in favor of the coal company and people tied this victory to the excessively large amount of money that the justice had received during his campaign. This is a major flaw I see in the election of judges.
DeleteI believe that the merit selection process is the best to be used consistently throughout the United States because it provides the most checks and balances on different parties participating in the selection process. The committee which selects a few candidates from the pool of potentials are then checked once those recommended candidates are reviewed and possibly rejected by the governor. The governor can request for other names if none of them please him/her or especially if s/he finds that there is an exterior motive (political play) causing one or more of the recommendations.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Constitution provides the best example as to why this is the most effective way to select judges. Much like the merit selection system, the three branches of the federal government have checks and balances on each other. Whether it be Presidential veto, Overruling presidential veto, or declaring a law unconstitutional to name a few, there has always been a way for the federal government to do a self check on itself. Similarly, the merit selection system does the same. Even if a bad judge were to make it through the committee recommendation and the governor's selection, retention elections are another opportunity for the people to decide on whether or not the judge should remain in office. These may not seem effective due to their 22 for 1900 statistic stated in the paper however I would like to believe that this has at least something to do with the fact that a majority of the judges that would have lost their retention elections never made it to that position due to the committee selection and governor's appointment.
The United States was built on compromises between disagreeing groups. The Missouri Compromise is perhaps one of the best models of two completely opposite minded groups coming together and making a solution in order for the country to move forward. Similarly, the merit selection system provides a compromise between the other options limiting as much political play as possible. This may be difficult for the legislature to agree with but the U.S. citizens can definitely stand behind it because it gives them the opportunity to check their governor and the committee selecting the candidates by disallowing a judge to continue if his/her performance proved that they deserved otherwise.
In my opinion, Partisan election is the best method of appointing judges in the judiciary system. An argument against this election, though, is that many people do not know the credentials or backgrounds of the judges running for their spot. The average citizen is probably not educated on the judge's personal philosophies and simply vote based on their name and party recognitions.
ReplyDeleteOn a counter part, there are several positives which partisan elections bring to the table. The citizens in a democracy should have the voice of who is part of their government. Citizens vote on typically every office spot and should be able to do the same when it comes to the judiciary system. The people want the judiciary system to be fair and justified, so the rational way of doing so is to vote. Webster argues that in the past few years voter turnout has increased dramatically because of the fact that more judges are running against each other for their chair in court.
When it comes down to it, every election method leads to one common positive. Even though a judge may be elected based on corruption, the people's vote, or appointed by a governor/legislature, the jury has the final decision in court. I still believe that partisan election is the best way to go about appointing judges in the judiciary system because it has way more positives than negatives.
I think that the merit selection process is the best way to choose judges. Many states are starting to use this system. It is kind of the best of both worlds in a sense. This system is like the legislative election/appointment and gubernatorial appointment because a government official, such as the governor, appoints the judges. Also, after a few years the judge is up for a retention election, in where voters get to decide whether the judge should continue in office. It is similar to nonpartisan and partisan elections because voters choose judges in these systems.
ReplyDeleteI think that the merit selection process is a great system because when there is an opening for a judge, an independent judicial selection commission narrows down the applicants to three and then the governor chooses the best candidate. A few years after the judge is appointed, he or she is up for a retention election, in where voters choose whether the judge should continue to be in office. This gives everyone a chance to voice his or her opinions about the judges that are appointed to office. The selection commission gets to initially choose the best judges for the job and are appropriate officials to be choosing judges. They have the best insight and knowledge of the qualifications for a judge. I also think that it is great that the people get a say in whether they think that the judge has done a proper job or not and whether they should stay in office. The more voices that are heard in appointing a judge, the more likely the appointment will be the right and fair choice.
According to Webster’s article, the merit selection process is also referred to at the “Missouri Plan” and came out of the Progressive Reform Movement. It is a compromise between the other selection processes and also includes concepts of accountability and independence. It encourages better candidates to apply for office. Furthermore, the committee must be diverse, impartial and independent, and be able to fully investigate the candidates. In addition, I think that the committee, the governor and voters should be ethical in their decision-making.
I agree with Jordan Atkins in his comment that good judges will consistently be chosen through this selection process and that it levels the playing field for everyone.
-Alexa Nagy
I agree with many people in the class that Merit Plans are the best way to choose judges. I was torn between Merit Plans and Partisan Elections. I think the good thing about Partisan Elections are the fact that the candidates run for the judicial seat just like any other politician would run for an office. Although Partisan Elections show those judges running for offices credibility, the article mentioned that, "the voters know virtually nothing about the qualifications of candidates for judicial office". (Webster [86]) This example of rational ignorance would make me want to use Merit Plans as the way to choose judges. With Merit Plans, people apply for vacant seats in the judiciary branch, only the best are selected and sent to the governor who then picks the best of the best to fill that seat. After a year in office that judge has to get reelected. This is why I think Merit Plans are the best way to chose judges, because when it is time to vote to reelect said judge the voters will have more knowledge about them and whether they deserve to be reelected or not based on their past year as a judge.
ReplyDeleteI agree and great point against the election style. I was torn between those two as well but what swayed me to choose the merit style is that it ensures highly qualified individuals in those seats up for grab.
DeleteThis article explained in detail why everyone should feel in favor of the Merit Plan. As stated in the article one plus s that women and minorities have a better chance of reaching the bench then do an election styles. The next argument is that this system ensures better tenure, ensuring better candidates to apply.
ReplyDeleteThese two arguments to me are what sold the Merit plan for me. More diversity is always a good thing giving the court a better understanding of every situation. And the second better qualified judges. thats the best way to do it according to me and also seemed that way in the article by Webster because he had more positives in that section than another.
Based on my understanding of each of the five ways to select a judge, I believe that the way to make judges most effective is to use a merit-based system. Although this system is not perfect and has many flaws, it is the best way to ensure judges do not have an influence interfering with the judge and their actions. I notice that many of my classmates have chosen a partisan election to decide who becomes a judge. I do not believe this is the way to go due to the elections becoming less about how candidates will run their office, and more of a popularity contest. Voters of these judges may vote a less experienced, more popular candidate who they feel would be tough on the crimes they are against, but be understanding if someone of their demographic came in front of them. A merit-based system would separate the judge from the people he presides over. Although it has flaws, the benefit it has is that candidates seem more likely to be experienced people who deserve this position rather than those who capture the public's admiration with generic campaign slogans and grandeur. As the article you linked mentions, merit based selections would also allow retention elections. Detractors of this system may point to the fact that judges rarely are fought against and not retained, however this may be a good thing. I believe that judges should have life sentences for their position, but if they go against the public grain too much, they should be taken out of their position. This system would allow judges to have life sentences unless they commit something egregious that the public rises up against. Corruption may happen behind closed doors, however every single system produces corruption and we must find the system that produces the least corrupt, rather than the most perfect. Although many of my classmates believe partisan elections or other more democratic solutions should be how we elect judges, I believe a merit-based system would be the best way to select who becomes a judge.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best judicial selection method would be the merit system. It appears to have a good balance between both appointive and elective methods. The system seeks to find the best judge by "removing politics" from the selection process by filling vacant spots with candidates nominated by each of the commissions, and then chosen by the governor. This keeps name recognition and money obtained by the candidate out of the process, which in my opinion is what the partisan elections are based off of. In regards to the retention elections within the merit system, critics claim that they are useless because most judges are reelected. Although this may prove to be true, if the nominating commission and governor made a wise decision on the judge based on his/her qualifications and overall performance, the results of the retention election would, in return, frequently lead to reelection.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do respect how the partisan-based elections of judges works, I think that a merit based system is the best way to go. The one biggest reason for this is that the merit based system assures that the candidates who are best qualified, and who's accolades and accomplishments stand behind that, will be appointed rather than on their ability to campaign. While I understand this leaves the door open for political ties and alignments to help certain candidates get appointed, the merit based system assures that the individuals appointed are given their position by a well-informed panel that can more accurately make their decision rather than a large group of voters who may be less-informed and more influenced by the campaigning of these individuals. In turn, the candidate who has the most funds to campaign, whether they are the best candidate or not, will not have an unfair advantage over another who may be just as or more qualified for the same position with less funding to help promote themselves. Someone may be appointed from any system and later prove to not meet the expectations that were set for them, but at the very least those expectations should be based off of their previous accomplishments as compared to their future responsibilities rather than the promises they made or the funds they had to promote those promises during their campaign. Also, many attorneys are very capable of contributing substantial funds to the campaign of a judge who may later try cases of that same attorney. This can open the door for even more corruption based on a judge's ability to raise funds and political ties rather than their actual performance and prior accomplishments. Also, there are many areas where a candidate runs unopposed in smaller jurisdictions to then use the majority of their funds to campaign for the actual judge's position. This creates another disadvantage for the candidates who have to raise funds for both, while also assuring the candidate who is unopposed that he will have the opportunity to run for the judge's position regardless of how well he could actually perform in the position.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best judicial selection method is gubernatorial appointment. This produces the perfect balance between accountability and independence, as the article said, which I completely agree with. Making sure judges are held accountable for their decisions, but can also work independently is key. I think what also makes this fair is that the legislature has to agree with the governor on the judge appointed. They are all working together as one anyway, and this is just another way for each system to put the trust in one another to run smoothly. I don’t think it would be right for people to vote for the judges, like in partisan elections. Americans do have a voice in the government, but when it comes to the judges, they aren’t on the inside enough of what’s going on to really be able to make a good choice. They aren’t made aware enough of who’s a good choice and who wouldn’t be. Many classmates are arguing for the partisan elections, but I disagree. I agree with Liz Richards that the governor and legislature would have the best idea of the candidate for the job.
ReplyDeleteI am with the minority of the class, as I believe non partisan elections should be the best way for judges to be chosen. The way puts the ultimate power in the hands of the people. Yes, the government does have some say while they appoint specific candidates, but the public has the final vote. Rather than getting elected by who you know in office, the future judges actually have campaign about themselves. Name recognition is key in the political world. Nonpartisan elections hold judges accountable for who they are and not who they know. They need to earn their position, by letting the people know of where they stand. I mean the public should elect the person who might one day decide their fate in life.
ReplyDeleteThe merit system is the best for judicial choices. It combines aspects from gubernatorial appointments, legislative nominations, and general elections, while getting rid of some of the issues with each of these choices. Although it varies state by state, the general format is nominations, gubernatorial appointment, and then retention elections. This allows for quality candidates to be nominated by members of legislature, and then they must pass the appointment of the governor, and then have to do a well enough job to keep the voters approval. While some issues may arise from this system, like politics being involved in the nominations or appointments, or voters just voting for whose name they recognize, these are overcome by the benefits of the system and are better than the flaws of the other systems. Partisan elections and gubernatorial appointments involve heavy politics, while both partisan and non-partisan elections are relied on name recognition. Legislative appointments can also be swayed by politics. But, because the merit system combines all these aspects, having one candidate who is popular enough to win over the amount of people needed to be elected reduces the risk of having them controlled by politics. While each judge and person will have controversial views, it is hard to dislike someone who has logic and reason behind their views. These are the types of people who will pass through the merit system, versus people who simply have a lot of money and name recognition or people who have major political power. The system still takes these aspects into account, but not as much as the other systems, where one could rule all.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that the Partisan elections would be the best suited method of voting judges into office. Just like any method, I know there are both problems and benefits to each style. Even though society as a whole does not normally know the judicial candidates in comparison to other office positions I feel this method still gives the public the chance to vote for the judge they wish to see run in the primary. I also like that Partisan elections stay uniform with the way most other elections are held. The judge campaigns with his party and from there goes through a general election and if successful onto the primary. Some problems that arise from the partisan elections is that judges can be biased by who helps them financially during the campaigning process. Although name recognition is an important aspect for judges to succeed, their interests may be influenced by bad people. this could ultimately lead to judges making poor decisions during court processes in favor of their supporters. Having said that, Partisan elections would still give the public a chance to vote that judge out the following term if they so feel the need. Overall I feel Partisan elections have more benefits than problems and are the best fit for our judges to be selected.
ReplyDeleteI too believe the Merit Plan is the best way to choose judges. Before I read about the Merit Plan, I thought Partisan Elections seemed more practical, because theoretically it holds judges accountable and makes them better candidates. However, as mentioned before, Partisan Elections for judges can basically turn into a money/popularity contest almost entirely based on name recognition.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument for Merit Plans is presented in the article where it states, "...because politics is removed from the selection process, the result is selection of "better" judges." The idea that judges are chosen by a judiciary committee, approved by the governor, approved by the legislature, and then is up for a rentention reelection a few years later almost ensures that you have to have the best judge for the job. I think that using the Merit Plan would exponentially increase the quality of judges chosen just based on the criteria presented in the article and from what other classmates have said.
Although it may lack a personal aspect to it (not knowing much about those running of office) Patrisan elections would be the best way to have elections in the judiciary system. The people in the community, state or nation should have the voice and say in who will represent them in public office, even as a judge. The most fair and sensible way to ensure a fair government and a judge that the people want to see in office is have the people themselves vote on it.
ReplyDeleteWebster remarks that there has been an increase in voter turnout in the past few years because more people are running for judiciary office. By deciding on a vote, there is less likely going to be uproar from the people on who is in office because it is their votes that put them there. All voting/government positions have their flaws and may have corruption, but the safes way (in my opinion) for the government to take some weight off their backs it to allow the decision to come down to the voters, the people of the community, state or country.
I’m split between Partisan elections and the merit system. I can see positives and negatives within both. In the end I feel as if partisan election is the best way to choose a judge. I feel as if the elections helps judges to be able to put their name out to their people and it helps citizens to be able to identify with the judge they like most. I do see how money plays a big factor because the more money one has the better chance he has of getting his name recognized. This is where I see the merit system works well. Everyone who is running to become judge is able to present themselves well on paper while a committee looks over their documents in order to see who would fits the requirements best for the job. I disagree with the merit systems because I believe we the people should have say with whom we want representing our court system. I think partisan election is the best way so that we as people are able to pick and choose who we want representing our selves. I agree with Cassidy Schmidle that it’s a surprise to me that not more states use partisan election. I think it’s the best way for equality among the court system. I see it as an even match, whether someone doesn’t have more money then his or her competitor. I see many ways a judge running for election can spread his name while using limited money.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe that the Merit based system is the best form to choose a Judge, There are many reasons for that but there are a couple that stand out in my mind. .A committee that actually knows what they are talking about and knows these potential judges is Not a lot of people know alot about Judges and what goes on behind the scenes or in a lot of elections who they even are. I think this is a big reason why voter turnout is so low during a partisan election. So having a Committee of people knowing what is actually going on is a good thing. 2. Less money. No campaigns, no money being wastefully spent, On these elections that have such low voter turnout why spend so much money on them? In the article there was a figure about a Judge race in the state of Texas and they talked about how much money has been spent in race that had very low turnout. That just wasteful spending, Having this for system would greatly lower that for sure. But I think one thing that is the biggest plus about it that a lot of my classmates have also mentioned is how much less corrupt it will make them. Special interest groups wouldn't sponsor certain judges that would make things corrupt as it sounds, so less "favoritism" towards certain things that judges would ultimatly would cause problems. Professor Webster states that this would also increase the number of women and minorities that would be up for consideration in the Judge race. Other things he states is how a Merit based system would only serve the best for the picking a new judge and that they would highly likely be qualified and ready for the job and task at hand for there particular state that they will serve. All of these examples are the reason why I think Merit based system just seams like the right and most practical way for Judges to be chosen in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI believe the best judge is the one that knows the law best and is able to be impartial. That being said I don’t believe any type of election that the general public (partisan and nonpartisan elections) is involved in will produce a good judge. I think it equates to a referee in a sport the fans usual hate them especial if they make a call against their team and with a judge there is no replay or announcers. Even in the case of nonpartisan elections you still need money and if one of the lawyers in a trial helps put you were you are that’s a conflict of interest.
ReplyDeleteBy appointees appears to not be a bad way especially with lower courts. The lower the courts the less a judges decisions effect a legislature or more so a governor. Not to say there would be any corruption as an elected official may pick sides with the more liberal person and that judge may feel they owe favor to the people that got them there making them bias.
I feel the best way is merit based it cuts external interest the most. However having a judge being reelected can be a very bad thing. Say a judge is in a small to town where everyone knows a defendant murdered someone but there is no real evidence the judge risk reelection if they do their job correctly. Even with this its far easier to believe people making a list is less bias than an elected official who need to get certain things done and money raised to get reelected.
I believe that the best way for judges to be chosen is through gubernatorial appointment. Like the article stated, this provides the perfect balance between accountability and independence for these judges being selected. Judges need to be held accountable for their acts, and this type of appointment makes sure that they are as well as allowing them to have some sort of independence in their work as well. Making people accountable would just make for a better job done in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAnother advantage to this type of appointment is that the legislature needs to agree with the governor on the judges appointments. This makes it so that everyone agrees, as they are all trying to achieve the same common goal in a sense. With everyone on the same page the job will only be done that much better. The legislature along with the governors are experts in this field, and that is why I believe it should be left up to them on appointing judges.
The reason that I think this is a better method in comparison to one like partisan elections is because people of a higher background in the area are making the selections. The argument that the people deserve the right to vote (partisan elections) is a viable argument, but do they really know who or what the best choice would be? I do believe that the people deserve a say in the government, but I also believe that the governors and legislature would have a better idea of who is qualified and deserves the appointment of the job. Due to this, I believe that the gubernatorial appointment is the best method for judicial selection.
I believe that the merit system is the best way to approach the judicial selection process. The merit system commonly referred to as the “Missouri Plan,” originated in Missouri in 1940. The merit system is “generally perceived to be a compromise between appointive methods and elective methods. The merit system takes the politics out of the process to select judges. The system often uses a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to investigate their applicants. Then, similar to the rule of 3 for bureaucratic hiring, the best 3 candidates will be chosen and the list will be sent to the governor for further evaluation. The governor will either select a judge from the list or ask for more names. The judges are then run in a retention election, where voters decide their fate. However, the incumbent judges usually always get reelected.
ReplyDeleteThis system proposes that the best candidate will be chosen because their merit is evaluated, rather than their party affiliation. The attached article also suggests the minorities and women are more easily chosen because of there is no public vote. Another great feature is the lack of money and resources needed as a candidate, as well as a campaign. Raising money can be time consuming and mentally draining. The amounts of money needed in some of these judicial races are sometimes unbelievable. According to an article by the Center for American Progress, “Candidates in state Supreme Court races raised around $211 million from 2000 to 2009…” I view this is a way to avoid conflicts of interest between judges and lawyers that maybe contributed to their campaign. I also want to agree with classmate Colleen Snyder, who believes that, due to education, the merit system is not putting all of the power in the hands of the governor. Instead, the governor is in a position of power and knowledgeable enough to make the right decision.
I believe that a nonpartisan election should be the way that judges are elected. The public would have to deal with the judges more than any government officials would, thus making the selection more fair to the general public, getting to directly vote in a judge not based in party affiliations. I would trust the, as the article states, “uninformed” public to government officials selecting a judge off of different factors like: party affiliation, friendship, “shady backroom deals” as coined by President Andrew Jackson, or other similar factors. Now with that being said, it is not like the government still would not have a role in who gets elected, as legislators and governors could still support different candidates.
ReplyDeleteThis style of election would hold the judges accountable to the people, having the earn the right to be a judge and not simply given the position by someone in a position of political power. These elections are also more “attractive” to the average person, getting to vote on someone based on who they are and what type of person they are and just not for what party the align themselves with.
To end this post, I must say that elections (nonpartisan in particular), holds the judge candidates to level to where they must win the peoples vote, and that I trust the people to make a wiser choice than some government official.
I believe that the best judicial selection method is a partisan election. This is the most democratic by giving the people the right to vote on who they believe is the best candidate. This may have its drawbacks by people just voting for the person that is in their party and this may lead to candidates not being chosen. But people want to feel they are important and that their voice is being heard and this election is the best way to satisfy the people. This also leads to a higher voter turn out as well. This systems also encourages judges to be responsible and fair because if they do not do a good job they may not be re-elected in the next election. Overall each of the systems have good and bad qualities, I just feel that allowing people to vote makes this system better than the rest.
ReplyDeleteI think that in terms of choosing judges, the merit system is the best. This is because there are several steps that must be taken before a judge can be chosen. The panel must chose a few candidates, then the governor can select one, with legislative approval. This means that a candidate is subject to review by several people which theoretically should weed out any unqualified candidates.
ReplyDeleteThe merit system of selecting judges is clearly the most bureaucratic method because many of the other methods rely on name recognition, which often stems from wealth and popularity. The merit system utilizes the rule of 3 wherein the most qualified candidates on paper are subject to interviews where their skills that might not be on their resume are assessed. This is vital to selecting the right person because, for example, one judge could seem like the most qualified based on his resume, but in reality he might not have a clue what he is doing.
Lastly, even though retention elections are deemed "useless" by some due to the high reelection rate, I feel that this is a good way to evaluate judges. Also, I note that the merit system is the only method which consists of a retention election.
I think that the best method for choosing a judge is the merit based selections. I think that this is so because it makes someone choose the most qualified candidate without holding an election. I believe that this is the best option also because it holds the truest value. Judges are faced with very tough decisions that they have to make and they hold a lot of responsibility. Judges ultimately have a very tough job that not too many people would be able to handle. If going through the merit based selection system, the judicial selection committee picks the judges. After this, the governor than of course evaluate the candidates which then are eventually are elected by the people. I think that in the long run, this helps to eliminate a lot of applications. Why would people vote on a candidate who clearly are not qualified for the position? This saves time and just lets the people vote on the most qualified candidate. Having a system purely concerned with qualification I think is the most accurate and has the most impact on a society.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best method for choosing judges is a merit selection. I think this because it chooses judges based on their credentials, so there’s a good chance the judge will be qualified. Their credentials are based on party affiliation, accomplishments, and decision-making. Once the judge is selected he or she will be subject to a retention election by the people to see whether or not the judge will be retained. I think that this is best for the people because most people don’t know judges and may not vote so its good that they can be chosen by people who care based on their merits. If the people decide they don’t like the judge they can always choose not to retain him or her in a retention election.
ReplyDeleteAs I have read some of the comments posted before mine, I have noticed that a majority of my peers support partisan or non-partisan elections. I would have to respectfully disagree on the grounds that elections rely heavily on campaign contributions and shy away from the necessary independence a sitting judge should retain. I feel that the best method for judicial selection is through gubernatorial appointment. While many would argue that it leads to cronyism, I believe that you can counteract this flaw by an approval system through the legislature or some form of council. The governors are democratically elected, therefore already representing a majority of the states interests. Once the governor has made an appointment, the state legislatures may approve or disapprove the appointment based on their constituents views. This model would run tangent to that of our federal judicial selection process. I also think that Weber was correct in saying that appointments lead to more minorities reaching the bench. As seen in the history of electing public officials, you can notice that the victors are typically old white males with little diversification and underrepresentation of minorities.
ReplyDeleteI find that the best judicial selection method is a non-partisan election. Even though the citizens would be 'uninformed' like the article states, at least the judges would not win elections based on pre-existing relationships, such as friendships, that could alter election results. Like one of my classmates stated, this is a good idea because it puts the power in the citizens' control. Political parties are known for bending the truth and like Derek said, at least in this type of election, the judges have to earn their position. Being a judge should be earned, not handed to the person because of back-door favors.
ReplyDeleteI am seeing a lot of comments stating that partisan is the way to go. That does not surprise me, because on paper, it seems really good. You are giving people the power to vote, what is wrong with giving people the power? Well, one problem comes to mind, but first let me talk about the judges themselves.
ReplyDeleteBy making these partisan elections, you are forcing judges to take align themselves politically, and all ready, before a judge even wins the election, he/she is doing what a judge is not supposed to do. Judges are supposed to serve somewhat like ideal observers. They gather all relevant information and think of the best solution to the problem while avoiding all bias. No one will ever be a perfect ideal observer, but a judge is supposed to be as close as possible and by affiliating with a party, the judge removes that. I know a judge is registered under a party, but that is very different than campaigning as a judge with Republican/Democratic values. Another problem lies within the voters. As voters, we take a lot of short cuts when it comes to elections. Political parties are a big one. People will favor a political candidate because he/she represents the party the voter is registered as. The same thing will happen to judges and I do not think I want judges to be voted in off of a bias, seeing as they are supposed to be removed from bias.
You COULD make the election non-partisan. That would alleviate some of the short cuts. However, voter turnout is all ready low and if people do not have that partisan short cut to take, I fear voter turnout would be even lower. People have a hard time researching and learning about the President of the United States, could you imagine how motivated they would be to learn about a judge who has not campaigned with a political party?
In order to maintain consistency, I would have to find some faults in appointment, as well. I mentioned earlier that I feel as though electing judges who have subscribed to a party campaign was a bad idea and could potentially cause corruption. This isn’t much different. I mean if you voted for a legislature due to his/her extreme liberal/conservative views, he/she is probably going to appoint a judge you would have voted for. However, like I mentioned earlier and like Mr. Webster mentioned in his article, people know very little about judges. But as Mr. Webster also mentions, we cannot be too sure if these legislature bodies know much either and there is obviously going to be foul play when it comes to appointing these judges.
Last of the bunch is merit-plans. There are two main problems when I think of merit-plans and Mr. Webster mentions this in his article. Since you are essentially combining the appointment method with the election method, you are going to face BOTH methods’ problems. First, It still doesn’t remove the politics from the selection process, because as mentioned, the governor picks candidates he/she finds qualified and those candidates then face legislative approval. Second, after several years’ judges face retention elections and as we all ready discussed election turnouts are low and will be even lower with no shortcuts. Also, as Mr. Webster mentioned, there are studies done that prove that voters had no idea what a retention election was. So it doesn’t remove those problems and in fact even faces some new problems. However, I believe this method has the most potential to work. Since the people do get a say in the retention elections, even if the judges in power faces no opponents, the people still have a say. See, cronyism and corruption can still exist with this method because the judge could still be chosen do to closed door secretes instead of just picking the ideal judge (a complaint with appointments), but there is still the possibility that the person can be voted out. That alone, I think, may deter governing members from picking a crony or making a secret deal. This deterrence can only increase, too. Right now it is pretty established that voter turnouts are low and when it comes to judges, people are very uninformed. As bad as that sounds, there is room to improve. If people got more informed and more active in these elections, it would only decrease the amount of cronies that get to stay in office and eventually the amount of cronies actually appointed.
DeleteI wish I could type more, but this is all ready very lengthy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best method for judicial system is the merit system. The merit system ties in with the “Missouri Plan” and it seems to be very effective. It is a compromise between appointive methods and elective methods and it came from the Progressive Reform Movement.By coming from this it just makes the most sense to decide how the judges are elected because of the process that it goes through. The merit system was first used in California, where nominations were made for candidates to fill vacancies in courts. The merit system is said to remove politics from the process of selecting judges resulting in the selection of better judges. I like that this system gives equal opportunities to be appointed a judge and the judges are appointed based on their merit. And by removing politics, it seems to me that it eliminates favorites, and people just voting for someone because someone else told them. It makes you realize who the judge is and puts the best judge up to win. This is decided by the candidates being tested on their merit with politics and decision-making in past experiences. The election process starts with a third party council reviewing the candidates and then the Governor chooses the new judge. I think this is a great way to do it in my opinion. It makes sense, because al judges have a chance to win. Even judges from other branches have a shot and it doesn't just have a bias opinion or a favorite every time. Everyone has an equal chance and that seems to make the most sense to me.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the merit selection process is the best for selecting judges in states and localities. It eliminates politics as much as possible from the selection process. It allows several people to speak on the matter, but still allows for the people to weigh in on the matter through the retention elections. Even though almost everyone is "reelected", they still have the opportunity to remove them if necessary. I feel this is a much better process than partisan and nonpartisan elections. They are both more or less a populatiry contest. To run a successful campaign it requires a great deal of funding, much which is donated by interest groups and lawyers. With much of the money coming from lawyers, they feel that the judges owe them when they are in their court, resulting in biased choices. This could result in a great deal of corruption. Even running nonpartisan can, because they could have previously run for office in a partisan election. The next best option seems to be gubernatorial appointment. I feel that this could only be effective with the approval of both houses of the state legislature. Although the merit system does not allow for as much public participation, it seems to be the best solution for corruption and allowing non deserving individuals to be elected judge.
ReplyDeleteA lot of our classmates prefer the merit system which I can understand as it seems to select judges who are active and willing to make improvements in our system but as a democratic nation I believe it is our right and duty as citizens to have a say in the judicial selection process. Personally I think that the system Ohio uses makes the most sense for selecting judges. They employ partisan primary elections to select the judges who will in turn run in a nonpartisan election for the actual seats. While this system has been knocked for its history of expensive elections I believe it gives voters the best chance to fairly select judges. The partisan primary allows voters to identify with candidates based on party affiliation which should bring larger turnouts to the polls at least in the primary. Those candidates who win then run again without their part tags hopefully allowing the final decision of the people to be more impartial and less susceptible to voters choosing purely on the basis of party lines. If this system works like it should the final decision will be based more heavily on the qualifications of the candidate rather than their political membership. I believe that this type of election system should successfully address the problems of the partisan and nonpartisan election systems while leaving the decision in the people’s hands where it should be.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the only way to ensure that only the most qualified judges reach the bench is through partisan elections. Partisan elections are the most democratic way to elect someone to an office, because it gives people a say in the determining of who should serve the general public in office. Also, partisan elections are more effective than legislative appointment/election, where the state legislature chooses judges because legislative appointment/election frequently results in corruption from behind closed-door deals between candidates and legislators. Partisan elections are also more effective than gubernatorial appointments, for similar reasons. If the governor has final gets to pick judges, what is stopping them from picking friends or business partners?
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do feel that the emerging merit based system is also an effective method for electing judges, because of the independent judicial selection committee that chooses a few candidates for the office, instead of the governor or legislature just appointing someone that they see fit. Merit based systems also result in diversity of judges in office, including an increase in women judges, and it also takes the politics out of the appointment process, which ensures that the candidates chosen are qualified for the position and did not get in office based on any type of relationship with a governor, etc.
Like most of the comments on this blog, my argument is for the merit selection process. It’s commonly referred to as the “Missouri Plan” selection, because the plan originated in Missouri in 1940. The plan calls for a non-partisan commission to review candidates for a judicial vacancy. The commission then sends the qualified list of candidates to the governor. Within the next 60 days, the governor must make a decision for a judge or the commission will.
ReplyDeleteThis judicial selection is a good way to choose a judge due to the process of appointing and then electing judges. This process keeps the judicial branch free of politics. According to a study on the effect of campaign contributions on judicial behavior released in 2013, the corruption of businesses and justices only exists in partisan and nonpartisan elections. The Missouri Plan contains no corruption because there’s no significant relationship between money and voting in retention elections. These judges are being selected on merit rather than politics.
Well-qualified people are then more likely to seek judicial office. Attorneys are a type of the more qualified, but they are discouraged to applying. This is because most attorneys do not like politics. They would rather not be voted out of office for making a controversial decision.
There is also no weakness in the Missouri plan compared to the partisan and nonpartisan elective systems. These systems request that the citizens be well informed about the judges. However, the real-life scenario is the complete opposite. The public is well uninformed on the about judicial candidates. Plus, election processes for both partisan and nonpartisan elections usually have low voter turnout; this allows incumbents to easily be reelected.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howshould/merit.html
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-case-for-judicial-appointments
http://media.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/231/webster.html
I think that partisan elections are the best method for choosing judges. While, indeed, I think that this system has its flaws - most notably in the form of judge independence and conflicts of interest - none of the others seem any better. This system is, at the very least, democratic, and, by having partisan elections, an uninformed voter knows, basically, what they're voting for. (Ie Republicans will be pro state's rights and gun rights etc.) It also forces the judge to be accountable to the electorate for their decisions. In this way, even if there is corruption in some way, the judge could, in theory, be voted out.
ReplyDeleteConsidering Kennedy's comment above, I think that this is the best argument against this system of judicial selection. As in other elections, name recognition will be the most important aspect of a campaign, and, thus, the amount of money raised by a candidate is vitally important. Those who can raise the most money will be elected, therefore judges will be the best fundraisers instead of the best justices. However, it seems that Kennedy's proposed system will, in fact, be worse than this. As, instead of having those best at pandering to the rich (under a partisan election model), you will simply get the rich donors themselves as judges. After all, what governor and legislator would turn down someone who is a large donor to their campaign? This is much more of a conflict of interest, seemingly, than campaign finances would be.
The appointment method used by the legislation of each state is the best way to appoint new judges in my opinion. From the document by Professor Webster, he states that this was the original method that all states used to appoint judges. He also states that there were issues brought up durring the time of the 13 colonies, when legislation and democracy was just being put into action. I feel that the appointment method is still the best way to appoint judges solely based on the fact that there are so many citizens that do not have time, or do not care, or are just oblivious to/about elections. Many citizens dont even vote for their local congressman, why would they feel the need to go out and vote for a judge, who doesnt have nearly as much facetime as their local representative.
ReplyDeleteI think that Virginia and South Carolina are the only states still carrying out this process correctly. Let the people that know the candidates decide on who will be appointed judge. Your average citizen doesn't know these candidates, so let the people that do know a lot about them make the executive decision. Of course, there will be secretive objectives and shady decisions made by the appointers, but only if they are the type of person to self benefit and take advantage of other people.
This appointment system seems to be the most logical and simple way of appointing judges when need be.
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-case-for-judicial-appointments
In my opinion and as i saw many other student agree with that the Partisan system is the best for pricking judges in America. If you want to become a judge you must be nominated by your peers, getting that nomination is work enough to start to prove this person is worthy of becoming a judge. This option gives people the right to vote for whoever they want and has a higher voter turnout than most other options, even if they are uninformed, all that would do is level the playing field for candidates who maybe didn't campaign as well as others. Yes, they use money and campaigning to get more support but I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Name recognition is big in this option too but why would that be a bad thing? If a judge has made a name for himself, good or bad that would help the voters to vote anyways, they would know what he votes towards making it easier to decide if you like his policies and want to vote for him.
ReplyDeleteI think the best way to elect judges is through partisan elections. Partisan elections, known as the democratic way, is best to me becuase it seems like the most far way. Through partisan elections, judges are held highly responisble for their actions and are low on independence. This means the judges must do the right thing no matter what the consequences are.
ReplyDeleteIm shocked only eight states use partisan elections becuase I feel it is the only way qualified judges can be ensured. However, some may argue the partisan election can exclude qualified judges if they are in the wrong party. Also, others say that partisan elections are popularity contests. SInce not too many people vote on judges, the ones that do look for candidates in their party or they vote based on name recognition which sometimes isn't good. I think partisan elections are better than the other types of elections because the government doesn't have as much as a say in partisan elections. I think the elections should be based off what the public wants.
I believe the best way to select judges is through Partisan elections. Voter decision is highly linked to party label in judicial races. Partisan election is the most democratic way and probably the best way to make sure the right candidate is selected. Although many people do not know the specific qualifications that a candidate must have in order to be selected, they cast their votes based on name recognition or party affiliation. They correctly match candidates with their positions on issues and vote accordingly. In an article, it stated that partisan judicial elections “allow voters to hold judicial policymakers accountable than do nonconcurrent or nonpartisan voting arrangements, separately or combined.” Partisan elections ensure the accountability of judges. This means that voters will select officials who will be consistent with the majority’s policy preferences. Only eight states use partisan elections but from those eight, only six states use this method for retention purposes. This way is just like elections for most other offices, which I think is the best way to keep the system fair.
ReplyDeleteI think partisan is the best type of judicial system. It gives the people a voice rather than just choosing the judges based on things like different relationships. It might lead to people voting only because the candidate represents their party, but I feel that in this country is is important that the citizens feel like they have a voice. This style would make sure that the candidates are being honest and ethical during the elections. The downside of partisan is that the candidate who has more money to put into the election will probably have a much greater chance. I think partisan would be the most satisfying to the people which does matter to ensure the country is heard.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is crucial for the people to have a voice, however when selecting judges, I feel that this system is flawed. For one, making the candidates run for election does not ensure that they will be honest and ethical. Candidates who are up for election for various positions of power twist, bend, and at times blatantly fabricate the truth on a regular basis. Secondly, and more importantly, as you mentioned, the candidate that wins will often be the one who put the most money into his or her campaign. This will lead to interest groups funding candidates. Say someone tries to sue this interest group for wrong doing ten months later. The judge who was elected because of this interest group's money could then be the one presiding over the case. This would compromise the integrity of the entire judicial system.
DeleteIt is my opinion that the merit selection process is the best and most fair method of judicial selection. Although this method does not entirely eliminate the possibility of politics being a contributing factor to the selection, it certainly lessens the chances more so than any other method. By having three candidates initially chosen by an independent, non-buyist committee based on merit, this method produces the most decorated and accomplished candidates rather than those who would simply succeed off name recognition. Some argue that because this method is essentially a mix of appointive and elective methods, it naturally inherits the problems of both. However, I believe that what this method has done is taken the positives of both methods and left the problems associated with them behind. I also like that judges are forced to be re-elected by the people two years later. Opposition will argue that this is pointless because everyone is almost always re-elected. Perhaps that means the system is working by producing judges that the people support. I find it to be silly that people argue against a system based on the fact that people consistently support the officials it produces. This system is growing rapidly in popularity due to its fairness and effectiveness, and we have no reason to believe it will not continue to do so.
ReplyDeleteI think the merit system is the best way to go about a judicial selection. Although the numbers of turnouts are low, the states should have enough trust in their Governor that they would choose the best candidate for the job. The merit system also brings forward the highest ranked candidate and eliminates the judges that have no chance of winning from the beginning. I agree with another student that the “Missouri Plan” should be effective within all of the states because states define this as a middle ground between appointive methods and elective methods. When this plan first came up in 1940, it brought forward the “creating of nominating commissions composed of lawyers selected by the bar, lay persons selected by the governor, and a judge, who served as chair” (Webster, 1995). This same rule is still in effect today which only proves it’s working out for the states. As of now, about 32 states currently use a “merit” system and that’s only another reason for the rest of the states to adopt a similar policy. The merit system also takes politics out of the judge selection processes. I think this system is the closest thing for equality for all aspects of it and also gives some minorities the chance to get involved within the judicial system. Overall the judge position is very highly ranked; therefore the highest qualified candidate should be in running for the position. I’m against the Partisan elections because it seems that revolves around a lot of money and in order to succeed in this way a lot of money has to be dished out by the candidates just to earn recognition. Nonpartisan elections are similar to Partisan elections but the article claims it takes out the “partisan” part of it, which involves the large amounts of money from interest groups and spending a lot to bring recognition.
ReplyDeleteI think the best way to select judges is through the partisan elections system. In my opinion it is the fairest process and definitely the most democratic. With a partisan election, citizens can voice their opinion through a vote, and elect the candidate they want to serve as their judge. With a partisan election, citizens can chose whom they want and whom they feel is the best candidate, rather than a selection behind closed doors. The biggest criticism of partisan elections for judges is the lower voter turnout. Not many citizens care about the elections of judges therefore causing a low voter turnout and often times, the selection of a candidate based on popularity. My argument for this criticism would still go with partisan elections. Even if only the small group of people that cared about the selection of judges came out to vote, it would still be the fairest and most democratic way of selection. The citizens who actually care about voting for and selecting a judge should still be granted the privilege to a partisan election. If judges are selected behind closed doors, there is too much room for corruption. Friends and colleagues will be selected based solely on that purpose, rather than who is best for the position and whom the citizens feel is best. Another argument against partisan elections, claims that since voters are not always the most knowledgeable about the position, they could possibly elect a lesser-qualified candidate into office. My problem with this argument is, we vote in partisan and general elections for the most important position within the United States Government: the President. While this is obviously on a much larger scale, it is still the same concept. Citizens are given the privilege to elect whom they want, even if that candidate is lesser-qualified.
ReplyDeleteAs with any system, there are going to be flaws and risks of abuse by those in power who are able to select candidates and choose judges. Partisan elections are one of the two most frequent methods and is used here in WV. This system would allow an election process similar to that of presidential elections or any other position in government. There is a general election and a primary, and the system is decidedly democratic. As with other elections, there is pressure on candidates to adhere to their party's standards, which allows voters to recognize what they are running for (as Robert Ralston said above) but also may marginalize qualified judges based on their political standing and what party is most prevalent in a certain region. Another issue is that candidates will be receiving money from lawyers who they may encounter on the job, which could cause corruption and unfair treatment. Despite the potential set backs to partisan elections, I believe it is the best method for choosing judges. No system is going to be perfect, and we must weigh the cons in order to decide what is best until a better system is discovered.
ReplyDeleteI think the merit system is the most beneficial system.Not only does it search for the most qualified applicants, but professional qualifications are emphasized.Both partisan and non partisan election systems are not more democratic, process that often requires proven party loyalty to get slated, forces candidates to have fundraisers, and makes them run in campaigns where
ReplyDeleteno issues can be raised is not the best way to choose our judges. The merit system is the best way to elect the most qualified candidate.
Partisan elections would probably be the best way to go. The article you posted mentions how that judges, like legislators, make law and therefore, should be selected and retained in the same manner as are legislators and that the right to vote is one of the most precious rights enjoyed by citizens. With some of the other judiciary options, it's the governor who is voting. With the general election and the primary election when choosing judge, it’s like the Presidential election; the voter needs to do their research before placing one’s vote. I understand how obviously the governor wants a good judge, but the people of the state also would like a say in things making this option a democratic decision. Of course, Partisan election isn't perfect due to the fact that some may use recognition or pay of lawyers to get started, but this option has high voter turnout, if picking a good and trustworthy judge, they have a lot of responsibility and decisions to make in the judges position. With this, the person will need money from interest groups, but shouldn't take advantage of that too much because if placed in a situation with that interest group in court, that interest group will want them to return that favor.
ReplyDeleteEvery election type has pros and cons, but I believe that "Merit" system is the best and most efficient way to select a candidate for judge. This system is becoming more and more popular in the US. For Merit systems, judges are chosen on their merit. The role of three testing is used by educated officials when choosing the valid candidate. The objective of the system is to choose the best candidate there is, based on their past accomplishments, decision making, and political history. Something else to note about the merit based system is that the public is not voting this leaves out any chance of cronyism that comes with the gubernatorial appointment style of election. Some argue that not having a popular vote taken it isn't giving candidates an equal chance. On the contrary, it gives minorities and woman a more equal chance of election. In the article it states, "merit systems bring the greatest number of women and minorities to the bench." Instead of a popular vote the merit system uses a commission method for selection of judges. This method is a variation of the "Missouri Plan". An addition after a few years a retention election takes place and then the public votes whether the judge would remain in office. It is rare that the majority of the public votes to have a judge taken out of office so some people consider the retention election a waste of time. However, I believe that even though typically judges aren't replaced the principle of it reflects our country beliefs in "checks and balance's" and this allows the public to have a say in whether they want a judge to stay and whether they are being to one sided. Having the ability to remove a judge from office keeps those in office honest. Another downside people mention is having very little diversity brought to the courts, but this criticism is not based by anything factual I can find. Partisan elections are not a good system because not a lot of people vote because they do not know a lot about the legal aspect the judicial system and usually go with their party. To me, this system does not give everyone a fair shake and is the most qualified judges will not necessarily be elected. The Merit Based System system is overall the best way to choose a candidate taking into consideration qualifications and giving everyone a fair shake.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Partisan election is the most effective method of appointing judges in the United States judiciary system. I stand by this belief for many reasons. One of which being that American citizens in a democracy should have the voice of who is part of their government. Currently, citizens vote for pretty much every spot in office, therefore it would only be fair that Americans were allotted the same power in judiciary elections. It is essential to a fair and free country that the judiciary system remains fair. Ultimately, this system puts the power of the government in the hands of US citizens. However, this may be a terrifying situation for some; giving power to inadequately educated citizens, but in order to keep a fair system everyone needs to be able to voice their opinion. The Webster article strikes the argument that over the past few years voter turnout has significantly increased due to the fact that more judges are running against each other. I believe the partisan system has more positives then negatives and therefore should be the chosen system for electing judges.
ReplyDeleteWithin the states, the merit system is the best method to select judges. Although many classmates fight for partisan elections, I agree with the other half who are in favor of merit systems. It is a set up as a compromise of a few of the other methods, according Professor Webster. Currently, over half the states, as well as D.C., use some type of merit plan to select its state judges.
ReplyDeleteAn argument for this method is that it removes the politics factor. Critics of gubernatorial appointment and legislative elections are against the fact that those in charge simply choose whomever they want to be judge. Governors may return a favor of someone who provided money to his or her campaign and appoint them to judge. In legislative elections, ex-legislators may try to buy a judgeship from those he or she served in the legislature with. As Professor Webster states, those with the power to appoint must be held accountable to select such a position. Since the merit system requires opinions from every aspect, each part of the selection must be held accountable to choose the best judge.
There are many problems with both partisan and nonpartisan elections. Neither is the best system to select a judge. While partisan elections are democratic and require the judge to hold high responsibility, it takes away independence because he or she will be concerned with making the popular decision in order to get reelected. It can also exclude qualified judges if a democratic judge attempts to run in a republican-dense area. Both partisan and nonpartisan elections require a great deal of money and typically turn into a popularity contest. Merit systems remove all of these drawbacks because the selection process begins with an independent judicial selection committee, then moves to the governor to choose a candidate, only then to be approved by the legislature. Voters participate as well with the retention election a few years following the judge’s original appointment.
The merit plan requires each component that selects the judge to be fair and impartial. It also eases the judge’s pressure to be highly responsible and lowly independent. In addition, with this system, it is more likely for women and minorities to be selected because at times they are overlooked in elections. In turn, the judiciary is more diverse.
I agree with you 100%. The merit system is what will help make the government better. Choosing judges with a more experienced backgrounds will ultimately create a better judicial system.
DeleteI feel that the best method is the merit system because this system is becoming much more popular. With this system it is not just about who has the most political power or the most money, it is about the qualifications that these candidates have. By using this method judges are chosen on their merit and nothing else. It also allows it to be an even playing field for each candidate because it cuts down on the people who have a lot of money to campaign. They also use the role of the three important questions; their past accomplishments, their history with politics, and their decision making past and skills. After reading this article I feel that the “Missouri Plan” is very beneficial since it’s not in the publics hands of who will be elected, it’s the governors choice. In many cases I feel that the governor knows what’s best for us because they can see everything that’s happening.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that the merit based system is the best way for judges to be chosen. I believe it is the best for many reasons, including that those in line for election are being elected based off their hard work, and it proposes a more diverse judiciary. More women send minorities do have s larger chance of election, and overall there are the elections of better judges. since judges are non partisan, it is important to keep the politics out of the judiciary. Partisan elections endanger this and therefore complicates the election process. Merit systems are safe because you know that those who are elected have experience and will do a good job, it is important to know these qualifications. Through appointment, it is unfair because of the extreme power held by one person, it lacks diversity in the judiciary and is extremely undemocratic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority of my classmates that partisan elections are the best method for appointing judges. Originally, I thought that the merit system was the best method. However, after reading through many of my classmates’ posts I decided that the partisan election method is a much more fair and democratic way of selecting judges. In the paper, “Selection and Retention of Judges,” written by Peter D. Webster, the Merit system is described as being, “…perceived to be a compromise between appointive methods and elective methods.” I completely agree that the merit system is a compromise between elections and appointing. However, I think that the major drawback of the merit system is actually the exclusion of elections. While the merit system does take in to account a judicial candidate’s professional history, accomplishments, skills, qualifications, etc., it does not allow for the public to vote for the candidate that they support. Therefore, the public has zero input for who is elected as their judge. In my opinion, allowing the public to voice their opinion and influence decisions is too important to our democratic society and we cannot ignore it. Partisan elections allow candidates to first run in primaries and then move on to a general election. Allowing the public to vote for candidates and decide who wins helps eliminate internal corruption because there is not just a single person, board or committee (who most likely share the same views) appointing a judge, instead there is a huge group of people (who have different views) deciding. I understand that partisan elections often lead to excessive campaigns because many people do not take the time to learn about the different candidates platforms, instead they vote based on name recognition. However, that is also the case for many other United States government officials’ elections. Over all, I believe that partisan elections are the best method because the excessive campaigns and name recognition associated with partisan elections are better than the exclusion of elections through the merit system.
ReplyDeleteMy views are the same as Derek Hunter's above. I think that nonpartisan elections are the way to go. Nonpartisan elections allow judges to be chosen based on their qualifications and not just because of popularity or their party (as noted in the Webster reading). I think that it would be the way to choose the best person for the position. This type of election is still democratic because the public still vote on the candidate. The reading mentioned that the public is uninformed when it comes to selecting judges, but democracy is what this country is based upon therefore the public should be able to vote. Nonpartisan elections also eliminate ex-legislatures being placed in office as well as someone who would do favors for the position. The candidate would actually be elected based on their qualifications alone and not because of who they knew.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to choose a judge is the merit system. This system is beneficial for everyone. The judicial panel gets to pick a few names of who they think are the best candidates, so regardless of who gets picked it is someone that they have chosen as a good candidate. Then the state governor picks who he would think is a good fit for judge and the state senate has to confirm which is to ensure that the person is a good candidate. At this point it must mean that the candidate is qualified for the position and they get a chance to work as judge for a few years. Finally, there is a retention election in which the general population gets to vote to keep the judge or to hire a new one. This is beneficial because everyone has a say.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are arguments against merit selection, I believe that is the best judicial selection. Having some type of merit selection allows the most qualified individuals to be selected grouped and selected by the Governor. One controversial argument is whether or not the merit based section actually eliminated politics in the judicial system. Proponents of the merit selection claim that better judges are elected as a result of eliminating politics. Arguments against the merit system are that it does not focus on educating the public about politics and nominating commissioners are not representative of the population, and thus candidates will not be drawn from all segments of society. Overall I think the merit selection is best because it focuses on the credentials and permits an accommodation between the competing concepts of independence and accountability
ReplyDeleteI believe that the merit system is best for choosing judges, because they are chosen mostly on merit. I like how if there is a vancancy for judge, people can apply or nominate someone for the position. I also agree with having a panel of some judges, lawyers, legislators, and citizens picking people for the postion for they understand what qualities a judge should have. I think this system helps create diversity in the judicial system, and that it is most fair.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah Collins and Derek Hunter about nonpartisan elections.I believe that the best way to choose judges is by nonpartisan elections. I think that judges should not be selected due to their popularity of there particular party but should be elected based on their qualifications. After reading the link i think that nonpartisan elections are the most effective way to elect a judge that will best serve the people. Other methods of electing judges may result in corrupt judges letting politicians get away with things. The United States is based upon democracy and I think that the people should select their judges and who has power over them. However, I think that the merit system is an effective way to select judges. Where older judges select the new ones to replace them. I think that if there are bad corrupt judges then they will select judges that have the same beliefs as them and there will be a trend of bad judges. This is why I believe that nonpartisan elections are the best way for judges to be elected.
ReplyDeleteI believe merit selection is the best option because this way the judges who really deserve the job have the best chance at getting the job. I agree the best democratic way of choosing would be by having elections but through election people will just vote for parties in partisan elections and name recognition in nonpartisan elections. If the legislature decided, then the judges will be automatically appointed because of their party. Which ever party rules the legislature, will have the higher vote. Also I believe by giving the governor the option then we are allowing him or her too much power in the state. They also could choose because of a relationship or for the judge's party. Although the governor gets final say, the governor will have to choose from acceptable candidates. Through reading and research, I can say that merit selection is the best option. Along with the website you provided for us this website also helped me come to my decision! http://www.ushistory.org/gov/9d.asp
ReplyDeleteOut of all of the options of the judicial selection I believe that merit is the best. I like the merit selection process the best because it seems to make sure to select the judges off of past experience and their qualifications. According to the article it is a combination of the appointive method and elective method. I like how in the article it says that the merit process taes the politics out of it. This makes me think it is the most fair selection process. The only issue with the merit selection process according to the article you provided is that the judges are to be apart of retention elections. Even with this issue, I still think merit is the better way to pick judges.
ReplyDeleteI also found this article that features a lot of different arguments for and against the merit selection process.
Deletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howshould/merit.html
I think the Merit System is the best way to choose judges. Even though it is low turnout, and the retention elections are not that useful, a decent candidate will be picked every time before the governor gets to choose the judge. This though leaves the governor in charge of the whole selection process. He can pick whoever he wants, but we elected the governor so I feel we have enough faith in him to as least pick a good judge. I think this is better because it cuts down on people who have tons of money in their campaign and a better chance of winning based on their campainging and not their merit. I evens the chances for everyone who wants to pursue a job as a judge.
ReplyDeleteI think the partisan method would be the best one to pick judges. There are always pros and cons but this one stands out as the most fair one. Society may not know who the candidates are very well, but they should still have a chance to vote for a judge that they like and would want to run in the primary. This method allows them their right to do this. It also is very consistent and like other processes. A problem would be that the judges could be influenced by bad people which could harm their party. In addition, there could also be room for people to vote biased. All of this can influence the judge to make bad decisions on the campaign or even, if elected, to the courts. Partisan would still allow people to vote the judge out the following term if this was necessary. This is also a way these problems could be avoided. The Partisan has a lot of beneficial factors to it and is the best way to select judges based mostly on how fair it is.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the best way to pick judges through Partisan elections because it the most fair and democratic way to elect a new judge. I think its important that the party label appears on the ballot so people have the options to see what they are voting for. About eight states use this form of election when electing judges and I find that interesting. I believe all should use this so everyone know exactly how to vote. It’s a more accurate way to assure the right candidate is in office. There are arguments against Partisan elections because it puts a lesser-qualified candidate voted into office because of voters. Many voters do not know about these positions and would vote on what is popular. I can see why other options of voting are out there but I don’t believe they are the best options. I see why states do prefer the gubernational appointment because governors could pick candidates and the senate or house has to approve it. This ensures candidates are qualified.
ReplyDeleteI believe that judges in the United States should be selected solely via nonpartisan elections. As I have read from numerous other classmates, I have a very difficult time trusting politicians in the first place, so I am not in favor of elections going on internally with these individuals promoting their equals without public consent. I do agree that the public could be quite uninformed regarding judges' performances and qualifications for ascension, but as with other elections in our country, government officials, whose job is to serve the people, should have to be elected by the people initially. Furthermore, I do understand that states' governors and legislators never have the "end all, be all" opinion in the appointment of judges, but their public endorsement of particular candidates could grossly infiltrate the minds of voters. Unfortunately, this is part of every public election in the United States, but similarly, the final decision would be up to the people, as it always should be.
ReplyDeleteNonpartisan elections would be the most sufficient way to hold judges accountable for their service. Just because the public elected the governor, a position that does and should come with isolated powers, I do not believe the governor should, in turn, have the right to promote judges. Such a job should have to be earned throughout years of public service and as I mentioned before, I suspicion that these promotions are often based on other factors. Maybe I am taking a far too pessimistic approach, but I have much more faith and trust in the citizens of our country than the government. Their powers should always be restricted and limited (within reason) for the benefit of the United States as a whole.
Partisan elections are the best way to elect judges. It is the most fair process to pick judges because it hold elections unlike the merit system. The merit system is a good way to choose judges but it is too exclusive. After all, the US is a democracy therefore judges should be elected through the most democratic way along with all other positions in government. There may be a low turnout for judges but having Partisan elections is still the most fair way to elect judges.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the merit election is the best way to select judges. This would even the playing field in the sense that judges would be selected based on their experience and qualifications rather than because they have money, name recognition, etcetera. This system would also allow for the people as well as different sections of government to have a say in the matter. State legislation reviews the applications, then narrows down the candidates to the most qualified - the best of the best. From those, the governor makes his selection. Finally, the people can choose to re-elect or remove him from office based on his performance. I believe this would eliminate some corruption and allow for judges who are the best for the job to be continually elected into office.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the merit selection process is the best and most beneficial for those involved out of the others. Not only does this selection process get other officials involved, but it also seems like the best selection in hopes of getting someone elected who just doesn't buy their way into the position. The fact that a commission evaluates applications is the first thing that helps weed out competitors that 'buy' their ways into office. When a select few are sent to the governor, he's able to give an opinion on what he knows will be the best options for what needs need filled for the vacancy.
ReplyDeleteI just believe this selection process is the best way to weed out competition and get the best option go fill the spot. It also hopefully eliminates all the extra issues of big names buying their way into positions.
In my opinion the best way to elect judges is through the merit system. Both partisan and non partisan elections often chose less qualified candidates and many people in the public are not informed on judicial candidates. I think the Governor is well enough qualified to chose a judge, after all he was elected by the people in the state. Merit system elections of judges opens opportunities for people who would never have a chance of becoming a judge if it wasn't for money or name recognition. Many students have argued that partisan elections are the best way because its the most democratic, however i think these partisan elections only allow for more corruption in campaigning etc.
ReplyDeleteAfter evaluating all of the various arguments, I stand firmly in using the merit selection process for choosing judges. It combines the best of both worlds in choosing judges for a county or state. My classmates have all been very apt in pointing out the various flaws with the different types of choosing judges. Elections as well the state governments choosing are both subject to corruption. Politics in general tends to be a very dirty business. However, the merit based system forms the best collaboration between state power and the power of people to vote.
ReplyDeleteMany are in favor of partisan or non-partisan elections. That is understandable. Many feel the power of choosing all officials should lie with people. However relying solely on elections presents several problems. As previous posts have mentioned, running elections is a costly business. A large amount of money is spent and used trying to reach election. The contest does have large potential to become a name contest when the voting base stays uninformed. I'd also had that turning judges into electable positions is quite problematic. The Supreme Court is chosen by the President to keep judges free of election style politicking. State offices should have a similar principles applied. Judges should be neutral dispensers of justice ideally. While it's an ideal that rarely occurs, having elections only encourages judges to make actions and decisions based on what might get them re-elected, rather than try to be a neutral judiciary unit.
The best method is the merit system. It helps keep neutrality in the selection process by having a independant committee select the judges based on skills. By having the governor approve the selection, it allows the state government a key say. A later election allows the people to pull the judge from office without having to deal with the same level of electioneering that normally occurs.
After analyzing the different ways to elect judges I think that the Merit Based System is the best way to choose a judge for a few reasons. Because of its increase in popularity over the years and since the publication of the above paper is has been getting even more popular. I think that if judges are chosen by their merit than we will have judges acting and thinking more appropriately to add to their merit. When names of merit based judges are sent to the governor and he appoints the judge the process does not end. I think that the retention election after the next two to ten years is crucial and a part of our democratic system as a whole. if the people do not like the judge after he/she is referred to based of their merit than they have the right to vote them out if they think that he/she is doing a bad job with their judgeship. If enough people agree then that judge can be elected out and the process can start all over.
ReplyDeleteThe merit system is the best way to elect judges. This is due to the reason of impartiallity in the legal system. Holding judges accountable to popular elections could potentially impede their ability to give unpopular, but legally correct, rulings in cases. The merit system also allows for judges to be voted out of office should they be doing a particularly horrible job. Since most people do not pay attention to the issues, the one with the deepest knowledge of the legal system would be charged with monitoring the officeholders. If the lawyers think a judge is doing a bad job, they would be able to lobby the public to vote them out of office. This would help to maintain impartiallity in the justice system, while still having some symbolence of accountability for the judges.
ReplyDeleteAs the article above states, the ultimate question to ask yourself is "what is the judges duty?" Are they to interpret the law and apply it to circumstances that arise or are they law makers? Judges, at least at the state level are interpreters of the law and apply it to outside circumstances that arise whether it be criminal or civil.
ReplyDeleteJudges simply cannot be elected at any point during their service. Elections may be the most "democratic" way, but elections bring interest groups and interest groups bring money. Any time money is brought into the equation of interpreting law on an individual basis, the outcome is terrible. This causes curruption and injustice in a place where there should be fair and equal justice. Sometimes these judges could hear a case that involves an interest group that got that judge elected. That is a poor situation for everybody as clearly a fair and impartial decision will not happen.
I believe that a merit based system is the only way to elect judges. Including the Governor and/or the legislative body to help make the decision. Keeping neutrality in the courtroom in every way possible is a must when it comes to electing those who deem justice fit. They are not representing anybody directly therefore elections for judges should not exist. Electing judges based on a merit is simply the only solution.
I actually went through this blog post and read everyones responses and was very surprised by the extreme array of opinions.
ReplyDeleteBeing from West Virginia, we elect judges using a non-partisan vote and I believe that I can prove that this is the best option without siting the reading but more with a moral point. Judges are meant to be unbiased when it comes to party affiliation and all other things regardless of their party affiliation and I believe that it is only fitting to elect them in the same way that we would expect them to decide our fate in a court case. But after reading the additional reading supplied I believe, "The principal argument of those who advocate nonpartisan election for the selection and retention of judges is that it removes partisan political considerations while ensuring the same type of judicial accountability as do partisan elections" sums up that idea nicely. It gives the judge a chance to be elected based upon what the know rather than whether they are affiliatied with an elephant or a jackass haha.
I may be one of the only people advocating for this position but I believe it is best and this article provides some great and interesting points also.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x265520397/Non-partisan-election-of-judges-helps-speaker-says
(One of the only things that has ever come from Huntington)
Also, I learned all about this in POLS102 so it caught my attention once again.
DeleteIn my opinion, I feel that the best way to chose and elect judges is by using the Merit Based System for a few reasons. I think that it is the most fair and the most widely agreed with. With the other options, I feel that it is somewhat unjust to keep people in their position even if they are doing a poor job, and that is how it would be with the Gubernatorial Appointment. Another reason why I feel that the merit based system would work best is because although it is not non-partisan, people who want to apply do not run through a party, they just apply and try to advertise themselves as an individual. This the complete opposite of the Partisan Elections and I think that it makes it more fair. Also, I think that this system will help people feel like they have more of a voice because they participate in the retention election. This means that they can vote out a judge that is doing a poor job by voting against their retention. For these few reasons, I feel that this merit based system is the best way to elect judges.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the partisan system as it allows for the people to vote for their judges even though there may not be as great of a turn out as the national election. By doing so it provides the people to feel as if they are thought of by the state government and they matter as ones and make them feel close to their government.
ReplyDeleteBy going through with the partisan system, it lessens the chances of any bias or favoring acts when choosing the winning candidate by the governor. This system also reminds people that they were the ones who have chosen the judge in position and may have to meet with them in the court at some point in their life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the merit system is the best way to elect judges. In using a merit system one examines the overall quality of the candidate as opposed to how likable they are. There are some situations where democracy can be overrated and this, in my opinion, is one of them. The average person knows very little about the intricacies of law and what makes a good judge, so they tend to vote for the candidate that they like: ignoring that candidates overall capability (of lack thereof) in the process. The retention election is another positive to the merit system, as judges can be removed if the people are not liking their work. This system is much more effective in selecting a quality candidate.
ReplyDeleteI agreee with most of my classmates with the idea that partisan election would be the best way to select judges. Today only eight states that use partisan election and out of those, only six states use partisan election for retention purposes. I believe that by allowing the public to vote and look over the platforms for each candidate ensures the accountability of judges. It also helps eliminate corruption since judges who will be taking office will not be appointed by just one person. This is a positive to partisan elections because voters who actually vote for the strongest candidate will likely have their votes counted for. Through partisan elections, judges are held responsible for their actions and are low on independence, which means the judges need to show that they are doing the right thing when enforcing the law. The Partisan election has a lot of beneficial factors to it and is the best way to select judges based mostly on how fair it is
ReplyDeletePartisan election is the best way to go. The people should have the right to choose because they live in that area and should know what's best for it. This goes especially for the judges, with the thought of whom is the most open minded individual.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the best way to select judges would be by the Partisan election. It's great to let the people vote for who they deem fit. As many others have mentioned, it is essentially the most democratic way to do it. As mentioned in the Webster article, it says "...partisan elections is the only method by which accountability of judges can be ensured." This is the most fair for the candidates and the people voting. That, is important. This allows it for the best candidate to be chosen, and that can be entirely up to the people that vote. Which, Partisan elections could also possibly raise the voter turnout, as well. Although, there are some negatives, with one of them being that this can create some biases amongst the parties.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Fox
I believe that the Partisan election is the way to go because it is more democratic and keeps judges from being appointed to office because of close-ties to the governor or appointing body. There can be problems with electing judges because they can begin to make decisions based solely off re-election ideas but in the long run they are judges and if they are making the right decisions they should be staying in office. Partsian elections do give the citizens the chance to decide who will be enforcing their laws in court. This can give a better sense of democracy and community.
ReplyDelete