Which of the following is a characteristic feature of the Texas method of selecting judges?

How the Missouri Plan Works

Fed up with corrupt judicial elections, the people of Missouri adopted to the state Constitution The Missouri Plan in 1940 and, two years later, reaffirmed their support in a statewide vote, rejecting the legislature’s attempt to repeal it.

The Missouri Plan is the foundation for merit-based judicial selection in America. Also known as the Non-Partisan Court Plan, it is Missouri’s constitutional system for selecting our appellate judges and trial judges in St. Louis, Kansas City, Clay County, Platte County, and most recently Greene County (Springfield). It is available to any county whose citizens wish to adopt it.

It works like this:  citizens and lawyers, working as a team, serve on nominating commissions to select the best three candidates to fill an open judgeship. The governor then appoints one of those candidates to the position. Then, at the general election following their first 12 months on the bench and at the end of each term, each judge must stand before the voters in a retention election.

The process is both transparent to the public and accountable to the people.

The Missouri Plan has produced a steady stream of competent judges in Missouri for more than 75 years.

The plan continues to be right for the for the people of Missouri because it attracts high-quality judges in the least political way and ultimately gives the people the final say.

Please join us in protecting the plan that affords all Missourians fair and impartial courts:

• The Plan produces appellate courts that are neither Republican nor Democratic. Rather it produces appellate courts that are fair and impartial and not beholden to politicians.
• The Plan upholds the public’s faith in fair and impartial judges, as it prevents judges from campaigning, accepting campaign contributions and engaging in partisan politics. In fact, our state’s merit-selected judges have been devoid of corruption.
• The Plan attracts quality applicants because they understand they will be evaluated on merit rather than connections, political contributions or partisan politics.
• The commission is balanced by design reducing all likelihood that any one person, party or interest has control.
• The Plan staggers the terms of the governor’s appointees to the judicial nominating commissions, preventing one politician from having control over a majority of the commissioners in most scenarios.
• The commissioners review the candidates’ character and experience they bring to the bench and, with the aid of the lawyers and judge, evaluate their professional strengths and legal analysis skills.
• Judges, as peers, have the most experience and ability to evaluate a candidate’s skills, knowledge and suitability for the bench.
• Vacancies are filled in a timely manner no matter when they occur.
• Voters have the final say through judicial retention elections that are held at the general election following a judge’s first 12 months on the bench and the end of each term.
• The Plan is transparent to the public. In fact, the Supreme Court, within its constitutional rule-making authority, has made the process more transparent than Missouri’s Sunshine Laws require of any other public position.

From Ballotpedia

Methods of judicial selection
Election methods
Partisan elections
Nonpartisan elections
Michigan method
Retention elections
Assisted appointment
Assisted appointment
Bar-controlled commission
Governor-controlled commission
Hybrid commission
Direct appointment
Legislative elections
Gubernatorial appointment

The partisan election of judges is a selection method where judges are chosen through elections where they are listed on the ballot with an indication of their political affiliation.

As of December 2021, eight states used this method at the state supreme court level and eight states used this selection method for at least one type of court below the supreme court level.

Other methods of judicial selection include: nonpartisan elections, the Michigan method, assisted appointment, gubernatorial appointment, and legislative elections. To read more about how these selection methods are used across the country, click here.

How partisan elections work

Though the basic premise of partisan elections is the same from state to state, there is some variation in how the elections are conducted. Below are examples of how partisan elections were administered in different states, as of 2021.

• Alabama: Candidates compete in partisan primaries to earn their party's nomination for the general election.
• Louisiana: All candidates compete in one primary election and their partisan affiliation is listed on the ballot. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the top two vote-getters (regardless of party) advance to a general election.
• New York: Voters election party convention delegates who choose the party's general election candidates.

States using this method

State supreme courts

At the state supreme court level, the following states use this selection method: Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

The map below highlights selection methods in state supreme courts across the country.

The chart below details selection methods in state supreme courts across the country.

Intermediate appellate and general jurisdiction courts

In selecting judges for the intermediate appellate and general jurisdiction courts, eight states use partisan elections for at least one type of court. The chart below details selection methods at these court levels across the country.

Arguments in support of partisan elections

In a paper published for the University of Chicago Law School in 2010 titled "Professionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather Than Appointed Judiciary," the authors wrote:[1]

In a paper published in the Quarterly Journal of Political Science in 2007 titled "The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior," the authors wrote:[3]

Arguments in opposition to partisan elections

In a white paper released in January 2003 by The Federalist Society titled The Case for Judicial Appointments, the authors wrote:[4]

In a paper published in 2006 by the Brennan Center for Justice titled Rethinking Judicial Selection in State Courts, author Alicia Bannon wrote:[5]

Judicial selection methods

Each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they select judges at the state and local level. These methods of selection are:

Election

• Partisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
• Nonpartisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
• Michigan method: State supreme court justices are selected through nonpartisan elections preceded by either partisan primaries or conventions.
• Retention election: A periodic process whereby voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. Judges are not selected for initial terms in office using this election method.

Assisted appointment

• Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[6] At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types:
  • Bar-controlled commission: The state Bar Association is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees that they must choose from.
  • Governor-controlled commission: The governor is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees they must choose from.
  • Hybrid commission: The judicial nominating commission has no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state bar association. These commissions determine membership in a variety of ways, but no institution or organization has a clear majority control.

Direct appointment

• Legislative election: Judges are selected by the state legislature.
• Gubernatorial appointment: Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.

Click a state on the map below to explore judicial selection processes in that state.

http://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_STATE

Brief history of judicial selection

At the founding of the United States, all states selected judges through either gubernatorial or legislative appointments.[7] In 1832, Mississippi became the first state to implement judicial elections. New York followed suit in 1846, and a national shift occurred as states joined them. By the time the Civil War began in 1861, 24 of the 34 states had an elected judiciary, and every state that achieved statehood after the Civil War provided for the election of some—if not all—of its judges.[8][9]

Scholars attribute the move toward judicial elections to a variety of factors, including:

• concern over an independent judiciary, especially after Marbury v. Madison established the judiciary's power as equal to that of the executive and legislative branches,
• imitation by the states,
• belief that judges at a local level should be accountable and responsive to their communities, and
• the growing popularity of Jacksonian ideals, which elevated the voice of the average American.[9]

Initially, all judicial elections were partisan. But as time went on, public trust in elected judiciaries wavered, and citizens who viewed the courts as overrun by machine politics began looking for alternative methods. Groups such as the Progressives, the American Bar Association, and the American Judicature Society led an effort to restore what they called "the traditional respect for the bench," which they said had been lost.[9]

One other popular selection method was the nonpartisan election of judges, first implemented by Cook County, Illinois in 1873. By not including party affiliation on the ballot, supporters argued, divisive partisan interests would find no footing in state and local selection processes.[9]

Though states continued to experiment with selection methods throughout the next century, the methods of legislative elections and direct gubernatorial appointments did not see a return. No state that achieved statehood after 1847 had an original constitution calling for these methods except Hawaii, whose judges were initially chosen by gubernatorial appointment with senate consent.[8]

By 1927, 12 states selected judges in nonpartisan elections. Critics claimed that as long as judges had to campaign for office, politics would still play a role. Other critics questioned whether citizens would be able to cast informed ballots in nonpartisan judicial elections, offering the assumption being that party affiliation communicates a candidate's values in an easy shorthand. Three states that had experimented with nonpartisan elections switched back to partisan ones by 1927.[9]

Out of these concerns arose a third kind of election, the retention election, which the American Judicature Society argued encapsulates the positive aspects of each selection system. Retention elections were meant to work within the assisted appointment method to give judges relief from campaigning against an opponent while also giving voters the power to remove those judges from office if necessary. In 1940, Missouri became the first state to adopt the assisted appointment method as we know it today, and since then more than thirty states followed suit, using some form of retention elections at some level of their judiciary.[9][10]

See also

State courts	Appointment methods	Election methods
State supreme courtsIntermediate appellate courtsTrial courts	Assisted appointmentGubernatorial appointmentLegislative appointment	Partisan electionsNonpartisan electionsMichigan method

External links

• National Center for State Courts
• American Judicature Society - Methods of Judicial Selection

Footnotes

1. ↑ Choi, Stephen, Mitu Gulati, and Eric A. Posner. "Professionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather Than Appointed Judiciary." John M. Olin Law & Economics (2d series), Working Paper No. 357. (August 2007).
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
3. ↑ Gordon, Sanford and Gregory Huber. "The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior." Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2:107-138. (2007).
4. ↑ The Federalist Society, "The Case for Judicial Appointments," January 1, 2003
5. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "Rethinking Judicial Selection in State Courts," accessed June 7, 2021
6. ↑ American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," accessed August 10, 2021
7. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "Rethinking Judicial Selection in State Courts," accessed June 7, 2021
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 American Judicature Society, "History of Reform Efforts," archived October 2, 2014
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 NYU Press, "The Study of Judicial Elections," accessed December 27, 2014
10. ↑ American Judicature Society, "Judicial Selection in the States: Appellate and General Jurisdiction Courts," 2013

v • e Judicial elections by state
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

What method does Texas use to appoint judges?

Which of the following is a characteristic feature of the Texas method of selecting judges quizlet?

How does Texas choose its judges quizlet?

How are judges selected in the Texas Constitution?