Judicial Politics

Judicial Politics

April 25, 2013

Do methods of judicial selection have an impact on judicial independence?

“At the core of public trust [in the judiciary] is the belief that judges are impartial” according to Reddick, (2005). What are the factors that influence judges in decision making? The question continues to spark heated debates among legal scholars. This paper will look into whether the way a judge reaches the bench will have any effect on how their decision making and independence plays out during their time on the bench and which system of selection is deemed as the best protection of the public interest.

There are two traditional methods by which a judge can reach the bench, merit selection or public election. The first option, merit selection also called the appointment system is where judges are appointed by the governor from a pool of candidates whose qualifications have been reviewed and approved by an independent commission. Judges so appointed would then run unopposed later in periodic retention elections, in which voters decide whether the judge in question should be retained for another term (Zeidman, 2005). Missouri adopted the first merit selection plan in 1940 and now two thirds of the states employ a merit system for judicial selection.

The second option is a general election, which, of course, is just what it sounds like: candidates run in partisan campaigns and the voters choose their judges in an ordinary election. Those who favor elections argue that it is a democratic method, the people are given a voice in the third branch of government. Furthermore the people should be permitted to choose their own judicial "representatives" and that judges will assume office based on the will of the majority, not based on favoritism or personal connections. Others argue that the election of judges increases diversity on the bench, which will be discussed later in the paper.

The United States Constitution in Article 2, Section 2 states...