Nonpartisan Election 14 Partisan Election 6 Legislative Appointment 2 Merit Selection Hybrid 9 Merit Selection 16 Gubernatorial Appointment 3 Most Democratic Least Democratic Citizen Nominating Commission ID: 300655
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Judicial Selection" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Judicial SelectionSlide2
Nonpartisan Election (14)
Partisan Election (6)
Legislative Appointment (2)
Merit Selection Hybrid (9)Merit Selection (16)Gubernatorial Appointment (3)
Most DemocraticLeast Democratic Slide3Slide4
Citizen Nominating Commission
Gubernatorial Selection
Legislative Confirmation
Retention Elections
Merit Selection Process (Standard)Slide5
Brian T. Fitzpatrick
“The Politics of Merit Selection”
(2009)
State bars dominate selection of attorney members
Attorneys dominate state merit commissionsMerit selection nominees thus more likely to reflect state bar preferences than larger state populationSlide6
How Democratic are Merit Selection Commissions?
State
Total #
of Members# Lawyers# Judges# Non-LawyersMinimum % Lawyers/JudgesTN17
140382FL96-900-367
MO
7
3
1
3
58
IA
15
7
1
7
53
UT
8
2-4
1
3-5
38
HA
9
2-4
0
5-7
22Slide7
State
% of Attorney members
nominated by state bar
AK, AZ, IN, IA, KS, MO, NE, OK, SD, WY 100%TN86% (12 of 14)DC
50-67% (2 of 3-4)NM50% FL44-67% (4 of 6-9)DE
16%
CO, CT, MA, NH, NY, RI, UT
0%Slide8
% of
TN merit-plan nominees who voted in Democratic primaries
vs
% of votes received by Democratic candidates in general electionsSlide9
% of merit nominees who were Democrats in
TN & MO by Governor’s political party
Democratic
GovernorsRepublican GovernorsTennessee82%54%
Missouri94%72%Slide10
Reasons not to be overly concerned
Judicial and commission self-selection.
Democrats more likely to self select towards government service.
Legislative confirmation. For regular appointments, legislative confirmation required. Makes ideologues less likelyNon-partisan nature of majority of cases.Slide11
State Bar Association
Gubernatorial Selection
Legislative Confirmation
Retention Elections
Kansas Variation on Missouri PlanSlide12
A Current Challenge to Merit Selection
Iowa
Anger over same-sex marriage decision, active movement to punish justices through anti-retention vote Result: All three judges lost their seats. Is
this a proper use of retention elections, or should they solely concern judicial competence?Slide13
California – A Hybrid System
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
Appointed by Governor, Confirmed by Commission on Judicial AppointmentsRetention election during next gubernatorial election, with 12 year termDistrict Courts
Non partisan elections, 6 year terms, vacancies filled by gubernatorial appointment (most)Slide14
Selection Method and Diversity
%, American Judicature Society, May 2008.Slide15
Contributions to Candidates, 2000-2009, by type of electionSlide16Slide17Slide18
State Supreme Court Election Independent Spending (2000-2009)Slide19Slide20Slide21Slide22Slide23
Partisan v. Non-Partisan Elections
Chris
Bonneau
/ Melinda Gann Hall: Partisan elections cost more, BUT Citizens vote more actively given party cuesSlide24
Spending:
Partisan v. Non-PartisanSlide25
Arkansas switches partisan to non-partisan in 2000Slide26
North Carolina switches partisan to non-partisan in 2004Slide27
Republican Party v. White (2002)
Minnesota’s code of judicial ethics prohibited candidates seeking election as a judge from discussing issues that might come before them if they were elected—referred to as an "announce clause.“
Gregory
Wersal campaign for state Supreme Court, criticizing specific Sup Ct decisionsSlide28
Caperton
v. A. T. Massey Coal Co (2009)
WV jury institutes a $50 million award to
Caperton from MasseyMassey CEO, Don Blankenship, spents $3 million dollars to elect Brent Benjamin to WV Supreme CourtBenjamin provides crucial vote to reverse award (twice)Slide29
West Virginia Chief Justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard (left), in the
French Riviera with coal exec Don Blankenship, later loses 2008 Election Slide30
Avery v. State Farm (Illinois, 2004-5)
State Farm has appeal of > $450 million judgment pending before IL Sup Ct
(2004) State Farm, affiliates, pro-business groups spend $9.3 million to elect Lloyd
KarmeierKarmeier wins ‘04 election, calls funding “obscene,” yet declines to recuse from Avery
August 2005: Karmeier casts decisive vote to reverse on breach of claims valued