English
Abstract
In our essay, we analyze two articles that give us two different perspectives on the methods of Judicial Selection. Articles provide us with two opposite methods. The first one describes positive sides and changes that can provide elected judiciary. It gives evidence of improvements, such as the end of raising money from lawyers and litigant, and shows that merit is an important part that was substituted. The second article gives us information about Partisan Election method as the best method of Judicial Selection. In our essay, we summarize and analyze both articles. We describe different methods of selections and analyze two of them, namely Partisan Election method and merit plan, also known as Missouri plan. We made a conclusion weighing all the pros and cons of both methods.
The question of state judge selection is one of the most controversial ones since the adoption of the Constitution. It is always linked with politics and a lot of money rising. In this essay, we have to decide what is the most important qualification or popularity? Most of the problems are based on the independence of judges. Should they be selected by people, should their experience matter? Based on these factors we can differentiate between various methods of elections. The main 5 methods are Legislative Election, Gubernatorial Appointment, Non-Partisan and Partisan Election, and the merit selection. In our essay, we are to summarize and give the analysis of two of these methods that are given in the articles.
The first one gives us an example of the merit plan, also known as assisted appointment method. The second describes all the advantages of Partisan Election. Before analyzing our articles let’s find out general information about other methods to have the notion to argue about given two.
States have struggled to make a decision how to create a fair and unbiased judicial branch. It was hard to decide what was an optimal way to select judges? They wanted it to be an independent, but also of a high quality. At the beginning all judicial election was partisan. But people became unsаtіsfіed of politics that was the reason to begin looking for alternative methods. People wanted to renew “the traditional rеspеct for the bench” (Wallace Jefferson, 2010).
A gubernatorial appointment is used to choose a judge for the initial term or to fill an interim vacancy. Actually, it is hard to find a clear version of any election method. In many states, more than one method is used. But still, a gubernatorial appointment is currently in use in almost every state.
A legislative election of the judge initiates the process of selecting judges to be state legislators. Only South Carolina and Virginia use this method. Judges here are elected by the public vote of every state’s general assembly. They can vote either both or separately.
The non-partisan election is a method of the election where the candidates are listed without designation of party affiliation. There are not many states that still use this kind of election. In some states, it was adopted that candidates can have the right to name their party affiliation.
Partisan election of judges. All the candidates are written with their political party on the ballot. There are some variations of the election, but Partisan election method is quite the same in every state. There is a lot of criticism considering this method of election. It provides an opportunity for an interest group to influence and manipulate the judiciary. Also, Partisan election of judge becomes more and more expensive.
Missouri plan, also known as an assisted appointment method of judicial selection, or merit selection. Due to this method, the governor of the state appoints a state judge with the help of an independent commission. This method involves the presence of a nominating commission, which looks through the resumes of all the judges. The commission chooses between 2 to 5 candidates and then the governor decides. District of Columbia and 34 states are currently using this method.
Our first article is called “Positive Solutions for Elected Judiciaries”. At the beginning, Chief Justice Jefferson told us about his experience as a candidate in judicial elections. He reveals the fact that “the road to victory” always begins with raising money. Chief Justice presents us with the dialogue between him and some Mr. Smith. He asks to help him with financial support in order to continue his serving in Texas Supreme Court. Actually, Mr. Smith has no choice because of the risk of the judge’s in favor. We can see that author shows us that current methods of election should be changed.
Why is it so hard? You won’t believe, but the main obstacle to judicial reform is voters. Everybody agree that merit selection is a good way out, but the question rises “Who can judge the judges?” (Wallace Jefferson, 2010). It will take years to form a fair commission. Of course, there is a risk of so-called ‘scofflaw spirit’ which such kind of selection can provide (Wallace Jefferson, 2010).
People always claim for changes, but at the same time, they have no idea of the identity of a single candidate or even never cast a vote in selection. Reputation matters a lot in merit selection method. “A popular name is everything” (Wallace Jefferson, 2010). It doesn’t seem to be a fair method that will stand for accountability.
In some ways, merit selection is a good change. Here are some positive factors of merit selection method:
- we can diminish the amount of money spent for the judicial election;
- the judge will be tested by an independent commission;
- they can serve for several years and only then stand in front of people.
Of course, Politics will inevitably influence this process, but judge’s temperament and qualification will remain unchanged and only these facts will be the reason for the appointment (Hopkins, A., 2013).
We can admit that the only pure selection method will work for the benefit of people. But let’s be honest, it is impossible if we take into consideration all the additional facts like politics, corruption, and so on.
After analyzing the second article, we would like to mention that there is one great disadvantage in ‘the best method of judicial selection’. This disadvantage is money. A candidate can literary buy his public visibility if he has money. He can spend his money to buy television time or for a creation of a personal website. Still, the reaction of people is always a surprise. Taking into consideration that people won’t see all the candidates, some of them just won’t have money for the promotion. That is why we can’t say that this way of election is fair enough (Hopkins, A., 2013). And it definitely can’t be called ‘the best method of judicial selection’.
Merit selection method provides us with an opportunity to choose a fair and well-qualified judge, but Politics will always be present in selection. That is why some of the good candidates could be forced out.
In Partisan election method, the same fair-minded judges won’t have the opportunity to reach the bench because the lack of money.
Still, both of the articles uncover the information concerning the methods.
References
Hopkins, A. (2013). Assessing State Judicial Selection: The Missouri Plan vs. Partisan Elections. Student Pulse, 5(01). Retrieved from http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/719/2/assessing-state-judicial-selection-the-missouri-plan-vs-partisan-elections
Jefferson Wallace,Reform from Within: Positive Solutions for Elected Judiciaries Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson Seattle University Law Review, Volume 33, Number 3, Spring 2010, p.625
