By Which Method Are State Court Judges Selected?
- In 1832, Mississippi became the first state with a provision in its constitution allowing voters to elect state judges. Many states followed Mississippi's lead, and selecting state judges by election became the favored method in the majority of states. The two variations of the election method for selecting judges are partisan and non-partisan elections. In partisan elections the judicial candidate's political party affiliation is listed on the ballot. The non-partisan election ballot does not designate the candidate's political affiliation. The majority of states selecting judges by popular election use the non-partisan method. Elected state judges typically serve terms of six to 10 years
- Many states discarded the election method of selecting judges in the 1930s after a series of cases exposed political corruption in judicial elections and decisions. A new method called the Missouri Plan, or Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan, became the favored model for selecting state judges.
Also known as the Merit Selection Plan, the Missouri Plan combines the appointment and election of judges. Under this plan candidates for judicial positions are selected by a committee. Candidates' names are forwarded to the governor, who appoints one to fill the position. After serving the prescribed term, the appointed judge enters a retention election to determine if she will retain her post. Nearly 50 percent of the states currently use some version of the Missouri Plan. - In the early 1800s, state judges were appointed by sitting governors or legislators. A small number of states continue to the appointment method today. States using gubernatorial appointment typically require confirmation by the upper house of the state legislature. Judges' terms in these states are typically six to 10 years. They may be reappointed to another term after their term expires.
- Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has noted the United States is the only country that elects its judges. The best method of selecting state judges is a matter of fierce debate. Proponents of elections maintain any plan incorporating appointments for elected officials is bound to be influenced by political insiders and agendas. Advocates of plans incorporating the appointment of judges argue the public has neither the knowledge nor interest to make informed choices in judicial elections and elected judges may not be impartial. They believe appointment by knowledgeable authorities prevents judges from being "politicians in robes."
