Judicial selection
Judicial selection refers to the various methods used to appoint judges to serve in courts across the United States. Each of the fifty states employs distinct processes, which may include partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, legislative elections, gubernatorial appointments, and assisted appointments, often in combination. The length of judges' terms can vary significantly, with some judges serving for life, while others have strict term limits ranging from six to fourteen years. Judges play a critical role in ensuring courtroom procedures are followed and making rulings that interpret laws and set legal precedents.
State court systems generally consist of multiple levels, beginning with lower courts that handle smaller cases and progressing to higher courts that review decisions made at lower levels. The highest state courts, often termed supreme courts, typically consist of panels of justices, and their decisions can greatly influence state law enforcement and judicial practices. Notably, methods of judicial selection have evolved over time, with historical resistance to certain approaches leading to the adoption of alternative systems aimed at balancing the power of appointment and ensuring accountability to the public. This complexity reflects the importance of selecting qualified and fair-minded judges as a cornerstone of a state’s legal framework.
On this Page
Judicial selection
Judicial selection is a process of selecting judges to serve in a court. In the court system of the United States, this process takes place on various levels. Each of the fifty states in the United States has a group of judges designated to oversee trials, interpret laws, and pass sentencing on issues that fall within the respective states' jurisdiction. There are several different methods states use to select these judges. They include partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, legislative elections, gubernatorial appointments, and assisted appointments. Some states use a combination of these methods. The amount of time that a judge is selected to serve may also vary from state to state. In some states, judges take the position for life. In others, they have strict term limits.
During courtroom proceedings, it is up to the judge to ensure that everyone is following the proper procedure. That includes informing everyone whether certain evidence or questioning is allowed. Certain trials (primarily civil cases and police ticket disputes) are called bench trials, meaning there is no jury, and the judge determines the verdict. In bench and jury trials, the judge determines the sentence. Judges' verdicts and sentences can be shaped by their interpretation of the state constitution, and their ruling can set an example, or precedent, for how particular laws are interpreted in the future. Ensuring that the courts have qualified, fair-minded judges who have respect for the law and the people is essential to a state's legal system.
Background
States have multiple levels of courts. Lower levels are typically focused on a smaller geographical area, and are the first courts that will hear smaller cases (such as misdemeanors or civil cases with relatively low amounts of money at stake). If defendants or plaintiffs dispute the ruling at a lower level, they may attempt to take the case to a higher level of court. That higher court must agree whether or not to take the case, and may refuse due to considering the previous ruling to be sensible, or the case to be lower priority than others that are demanding the court's time. There are usually fewer higher courts in a state, so they cover wider areas. If cases are extreme enough (such as civil cases disputing large amounts of money, or felonies), the cases may bypass lower courts.
In most states, lower courts are called district or circuit courts. Many states have an appeals court above them, as well as other types of courts in between. Finally, all states have a court of last resort. This court does not conduct new trials, but it instead hears rulings that took place in lower courts and determines whether or not the rulings were constitutional. These decisions can have significant effects on how laws are enforced and cases are handled. In most states, the highest court is called the supreme court. Maryland and New York are the exceptions; both of their highest courts are called courts of appeals. New York has a supreme court, but its judicial system is structured differently, and its court of appeals has more legal power. Maryland does not have a supreme court. Oklahoma and Texas each have two courts of last resort: a supreme court for civil cases, and a court of criminal appeals for criminal ones.
These state courts should not be confused with the US Supreme Court, any of the thirteen US appeals courts, or any of the ninety-four US district courts. Federal courts typically hear cases involving federal laws, bankruptcy, or situations that involve multiple states. Cases or rulings from state courts may make their way into federal courts, but the system is designed so that states may govern themselves in many respects. The US Constitution grants states rights to set their own laws, as long as they do not contradict federal law. Every state has its own constitution, and judges must uphold that while ensuring there are no conflicts with federal law.
Overview
The highest state courts are all run by panels of five, seven, or nine justices. Only Rhode Island follows the US Supreme Court method of granting justices the role for life. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey set an age limit, allowing justices to serve until they reach age seventy. Others set term limits. Six, eight, and ten-year terms are common, with some instances of seven and twelve years. Of states that set term limits, New York has the longest at fourteen years. While not a state, the District of Columbia appoints its judges and has even longer term limits, with judges serving fifteen years. Some states give new justices a sort of trial period, appointing them for one year before choosing whether or not to retain them. They typically go on to serve their full term if retained.
An old method of judicial selection is the gubernatorial appointment of judges. In its original form, this method simply had a state governor appoint a judge to fill a vacancy. This was commonplace in the United States' first one hundred years. By the mid-1800s, however, there was significant resistance to this method. Detractors said it put too much power in the hands of one person, and took away the voice of the people. States began switching to other methods, and the gubernatorial appointment method was avoided by new states drafting their constitutions. While this method has largely fallen out of favor, several states allow governors to make appointments to fill vacancies that occur unexpectedly between terms. The appointed judge is typically evaluated by one of the other methods when the term was scheduled to end.
The assisted appointment method effectively replaced the gubernatorial appointment. In order to check the governor's power, he or she is assisted by a group, usually called a board or a nominating commission. This group is made up of both politicians and non-politicians, and it evaluates possible candidates to determine who would best serve the people. The commission narrows down the candidates to just a few possibilities, and submits selections to the governor. The governor then appoints a candidate. Most states that apply term limits to this system combine this with one of the election methods. They subject candidates to a popular vote when their term is up. If a majority votes for their retention, they begin a new term. States that use a one-year trial period operate similarly—their retention vote just comes sooner. In Vermont, the legislative branch of state government determines whether or not to retain a judge.
This method is sometimes referred to as the Missouri Plan. In 1940, many Missouri citizens believed that recent state judicial elections had been tampered with by politicians. They proposed an assisted appointment system, which state lawmakers tried to repeal. A popular vote was held, and Missouri residents showed support for the Missouri Plan. Other states adopted the method afterward.
Legislative elections require members of a state's legislative branch to vote on a judge. This method grew in popularity after resistance to the gubernatorial appointment method emerged. The legislative method put the power in the hands of an entire legislature, who were themselves elected to represent the best interests of the people. However, this method quickly gained criticism as well, since many legislatures voted for judges with whom they had worked. There was a strong belief throughout the states that judges should not be bound by politics, and that seemed impossible with politicians voting on them. By the twenty-first century, South Carolina and Virginia were the only states that continued to use legislative elections.
Partisan elections put the selection of judges directly into the people's hands. Depending on the level of court, the state, and the amount of candidates, the exact nature of the election can vary. What makes the election partisan is that the candidates are clearly identified by their political party on the ballot. If there are many candidates, states may hold primaries to narrow the choices down to a front-runner for each party.
This method gained popularity in the mid-1800s. It was seen as much fairer than other methods of the time. It also held judges accountable, since the population could vote to replace them when their terms were up. However, it did gain criticism by those who strongly believed judges should be politically impartial.
This gave rise to the nonpartisan election method. With this method, judges do not identify with any political party. It grew popular in the twentieth century and continued to be used by many state courts during the twenty-first century, but it did not force out partisan elections like the latter did to legislative elections. Supporters of partisan elections argued that judicial candidates' political affiliations could be easily learned even if they were not displayed on a ballot. They also argued that the common citizen could not easily learn the details about every judicial candidate, so voting along party lines was a quick and effective way of communicating their values. Both forms of election are commonly used throughout the states.
Bibliography
"Comparing Federal & State Courts." United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025.
"Court Role and Structure." United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025.
"Judicial Selection: An Interactive Map." Brennan Center for Justice, judicialselectionmap.brennancenter.org/?court=Supreme. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025.
"Judicial Selection in the States." Ballotpedia, ballotpedia.org/Judicial‗selection‗in‗the‗states. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025.
"Judicial Selection Methods—An Overview." American Bar Association, www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/public‗education/lesson‗plans/middle‗school/JudicialIndependenceHandout3a.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025.
"Michigan Trial Courts." Michigan Courts, courts.mi.gov/courts/trialcourts/pages/default.aspx. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025.
Raftery, Bill. "FAQ: Judicial Term Lengths." National Center for State Courts, 17 Oct. 2024, www.ncsc.org/information-and-resources/trending-topics/trending-topics-landing-pg/faq-judicial-term-lengths. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025.
"Role of the Judge and Other Courtroom Participants." United States District Court, www.flnd.uscourts.gov/role-judge-and-other-courtroom-participants. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025.
"State Supreme Courts." Ballotpedia, ballotpedia.org/State‗supreme‗courts. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025.