A National Partnership Working for Fair and Impartial Courts
Contact Us Home October 21, 2017
"In eight years the military commissions ... put three people on trial. ... Meanwhile, the federal courts, our Article III, regular legal court system, has put dozens of terrorists in jail. ... The suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn't borne out."

Colin Powell, former Secretary of State
 

Election vs. Appointment

Elect or Appoint? A Central Debate

One of the hottest debates in judicial politics today is whether judges should be chosen through competitive election or appointments. Each side has pros and cons.

Competitive Elections are, adherents say, the most democratic way to make judges accountable to the public. But competitive elections have many problems, and critics, who cite their heavy reliance on special interest money. 22 states use competitive elections to fill state supreme court seats, at least some of the time. Learn more about Competitive Elections.

Appointment/Retention Systems, also known as “merit selection,” rely on bipartisan nominating commissions to put slates of candidates to the governor, who picks from that list. Voters then periodically vote on whether to retain these judges. While this greatly reduces special interest money, critics call these systems undemocratic. 24 states use bipartisan commissions to help choose supreme court justices.  Learn more about Appointment Systems.

Many view public financing as a way to combat special interest money in judicial elections. Programs implemented have since come under attack. Learn more about public financing.


To Learn More, See:

 

 
 
 
The positions and policies of Justice at Stake publications and campaign partners are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of other campaign partners or board members.
Website Design in Iowa by Global Reach