Which of the following methods is applicable in Texas for the removal of judges quizlet?

Methods of judicial selection
Inhaltsverzeichnis Show How assisted appointment works Nominating commissions States using this method State supreme courts Intermediate appellate and general jurisdiction courts Arguments in support of assisted appointment Arguments in opposition to assisted appointment Judicial selection methods Brief history of judicial selection External links How can a judge be removed in Texas? What method does Texas use to select judges? What method does Texas use to select judges quizlet? Which of the following are methods of judicial removal used by at least one state quizlet?
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 assisted appointment method of judicial selection, sometimes referred to as merit selection or the Missouri Plan, is a process by which the governor appoints state judges with help from a nominating commission or board. The commission or board submits a list of names to the governor for consideration with the governor making the final selection for the appointment.

As of June 2021, 21 states and the District of Columbia used this method at the state supreme court level and 25 states and the District of Columbia used this selection method for at least one type of court below the supreme court level. In the District of Columbia, which does not have a governor, the President of the United States appoints judges to its court of appeals or superior court.

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

How assisted appointment works

The assisted appointment method usually involves a nominating commission which reviews the résumés of candidates for judicial office. This commission—composed of both lawyers and non-lawyers chosen by the state bar and/or executive branch—interviews and screens candidates for judicial positions. The commission then sends a shortlist of qualified candidates, usually between three and five names, to the governor for consideration.[1]

Within a pre-determined period of time, the governor must select and nominate a candidate from the list. Failure to nominate in the prescribed time period will put the decision back to the commission or, in some cases, to the chief justice of the state's supreme court. Some states require an additional confirmation from the legislature.[1]

Nominating commissions

States vary in the composition of their nominating commissions and the application of them.[2] These variations may include:

The American Judicature Society provides a resource outlining the composition and application of nomination commissions here.

Retention

Typically, after serving a specified initial term, a judge is evaluated for retention by the commission or by voters in a yes-no retention election. This allows the judge to be held accountable for his or her performance while serving on the bench. Judges then face a similar evaluation process at the end of each subsequent term.[3]

An exception to this norm is found in Vermont, where justices are retained by the state legislature rather than by popular vote.[3]

States using this method

State supreme courts

At the state supreme court level, 21 states and the District of Columbia use this selection method. At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types, based on the makeup of the judicial nominating commissions. Those types are:

• Governor-controlled commission - The governor is either responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission or may decline to appoint a candidate from a list provided by the nominating commission.
• Bar-controlled commission - The state Bar Association is responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission.
• Hybrid commission - There is no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state Bar Association. The membership of these commissions is determined by different rules in each state.

The map below highlights the states that use each of the three types of assisted appointment.

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, 25 states and the District of Columbia use assisted appointment for at least one type of court. The chart below details selection methods at these court levels across the country.

Arguments in support of assisted appointment

In a paper published in 2018 by the Brennan Center for Justice titled Choosing State Judges: A Plan for Reform, author Alicia Bannon wrote:[4]

In an article published in November 2012 by the Center for American Progress Action Fund titled Merit Selection and Retention Elections Keep Judges Out of Politics, Billy Corriher wrote:[6]

Arguments in opposition to assisted appointment

In a white paper released in January 2003 by The Federalist Society titled The Case for Judicial Appointments, the authors wrote:[7]

At his final State of the Judiciary Address in April of 2008, retiring Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal Calogero spoke against a potential switch from judicial elections to a different selection method. He said:[8]

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.[9] 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.[4] 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.[10][11]

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.[11]

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.[11]

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.[11]

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.[10]

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.[11]

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.[11][12]

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. ↑ 1.0 1.1 American Judicature Society, "Merit Selection: The Best Way to Choose Judges," archived October 2, 2014
2. ↑ American Judicature Society, "Judicial Merit Selection: Current Status," 2011
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Federalist Society, "State Judicial selection: Once More Unto the Breach," March 20, 2008
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Brennan Center for Justice, "Choosing State Judges: A Plan for Reform," accessed June 23, 2021 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "brennancj" defined multiple times with different content
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
6. ↑ Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Merit Selection and Retention Elections Keep Judges Out of Politics," November 1, 2021
7. ↑ The Federalist Society, "The Case for Judicial Appointments," January 1, 2003
8. ↑ Louisiana Supreme Court, "2008 State of the Judiciary Address to the Joint Session of the House and Senate Louisiana Legislature," April 8, 2008
9. ↑ American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," accessed August 10, 2021
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 American Judicature Society, "History of Reform Efforts," archived October 2, 2014
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 NYU Press, "The Study of Judicial Elections," accessed December 27, 2014
12. ↑ 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

How can a judge be removed in Texas?

What method does Texas use to select judges?

What method does Texas use to select judges quizlet?

Which of the following are methods of judicial removal used by at least one state quizlet?