Blog Assignment Due Friday, October 25 (note 2 day extension)

Hi, everyone!  This blog assignment is due on Friday, October 25, at 1:00 pm, not Wednesday, October 23.  We will touch on the material in class earlier in the week.  Also, please remember that your meeting observation papers are due on November 1.

This week's assignment is on the methods that states use to choose judges.  There are basically 5 methods, which are described in the paper linked here  http://media.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/231/webster.html
(though gubernatorial appointment and legislative election/appointment are combined.  They are appointment (by governor or legislature), partisan election, nonpartisan election, and Merit plans.  Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

In legislative appointment/election, the state legislature chooses judges.  This system is currently used in just South Carolina and Virginia.  It is largely discredited, because current and former legislators are often chosen in secretive deals.

A handful of states use gubernatorial appointment.  The governor picks judges, and they usually have to be confirmed by one or both houses of the state legislature.  Some argue that this produces the perfect balance between accountability and independence (see the article for a more detailed discussion).  Others argue that it simply results in cronyism.  Also note that while only a few states use this method as the primary way of choosing judges, almost every state uses it as a backup to fill vacancies that occur when a judge dies, resigns, is convicted, etc.

Partisan elections are just like elections for most other offices.  Candidates run for judge in party primaries, with the winners facing off in a general election.  Proponents claim that this is the most democratic way to choose judges.  Critics argue that these elections are issueless, low turnout personality contest that depend on name recognition, thus requiring candidates to raise large amounts of money from interest groups (some of which will then try cases in front of the successful candidates).

Nonpartisan elections are similar to partisan elections, except without party labels.  Arguments for and against them are similar to those for and against partisan elections, with a few exceptions as noted in the article.

Finally, a growing number of states use a merit selection process, as described in the article (that number as also increased since the publication of Professor Webster's article).  The general idea is that in these states, when there is a vacancy, an independent judicial selection commission evaluates applications.  They choose the few best (sort of like the Rule of 3 for bureaucratic hiring) and send their list on to the governor.  S/he then chooses a candidate (in some states, the governor can ask for additional names), who is often subject to legislative approval.  Finally, the judge is subject a few years later to a retention election, where voters decide whether they should continue in office.  Proponents argue that this gets around the worst elements of both elections and gubernatorial appointment.  Critics claim that merit systems actually produce similar judges to those chosen under other systems (especially gubernatorial appointment) and that retention elections are useless (almost everyone is "reelected").

Your task is to make an argument for which judicial selection method is best.  Consider the arguments here, the arguments in the paper, the "compromises" suggested by Professor Webster, and any other arguments you can find.  Be thoughtful and logical in your responses.  Again, better answers respond to the arguments of classmates, contain original ideas, and link to (and explain) other perspectives.  Good luck!--NB