In states where judges are elected by the legislature, who is most likely to be selected?

1. Who appoints federal judges?
2. How are new judgeships created?
3. What are the qualifications for becoming a federal judge?
4. How is a chief judge selected?
5. What is a senior judge?
6. What are bankruptcy judges? How are they appointed?
7. What are federal magistrate judges?

Who appoints federal judges?

Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee. Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term. The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process.

How are new judgeships created?

Court of appeals and district court judgeships are created by legislation that must be enacted by Congress. The Judicial Conference (through its Judicial Resources Committee) surveys the judgeship needs of the courts every other year. A threshold for the number of weighted filings per judgeship is the key factor in determining when an additional judgeship will be requested. Other factors may include geography, number of senior judges, and mix of cases. The Judicial Conference presents its judgeship recommendations to Congress.

What are the qualifications for becoming a federal judge?

The Constitution sets forth no specific requirements. However, members of Congress, who typically recommend potential nominees, and the Department of Justice, which reviews nominees' qualifications, have developed their own informal criteria.

How is a chief judge selected?

One is not nominated or appointed to the position of chief judge (except for the Chief Justice of the United States); they assume the position based on seniority. The same criteria exists for circuit and district chiefs. The chief judge is the judge in regular active service who is senior in commission of those judges who are (1) 64 years of age or under; (2) have served for one year or more as a judge; and (3) have not previously served as chief judge. 

What is a senior judge?

The "Rule of 80" is the commonly used shorthand for the age and service requirement for a judge to assume senior status, as set forth in Title 28 of the US. Code, Section 371(c). Beginning at age 65, a judge may retire at his or her current salary or take senior status after performing 15 years of active service as an Article III judge (65+15 = 80). A sliding scale of increasing age and decreasing service results in eligibility for retirement compensation at age 70 with a minimum of 10 years of service (70+10=80). Senior judges, who essentially provide volunteer service to the courts, typically handle about 15 percent of the federal courts' workload annually. 

What are bankruptcy judges? How are they appointed?

A U.S. bankruptcy judge is a judicial officer of the U.S. district court who is appointed by the majority of judges of the U.S. court of appeals to exercise jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters. The number of bankruptcy judges is determined by Congress. The Judicial Conference of the United States is required to submit recommendations from time to time regarding the number of bankruptcy judges needed. Bankruptcy judges are appointed for 14-year terms.

What are federal magistrate judges?

A U.S. magistrate judge is a judicial officer of the district court and is appointed by majority vote of the active district judges of the court to exercise jurisdiction over matters assigned by statute as well as those delegated by the district judges. The number of magistrate judge positions is determined by the Judicial Conference of the United States, based on recommendations of the respective district courts, the judicial councils of the circuits, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years. Duties assigned to magistrate judges by district court judges may vary considerably from court to court.

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

Methods of judicial selection vary substantially across the United States.[1] Though each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they fill their state and local judiciaries, there are five main methods:

• Partisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
• Nonpartisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
• Legislative elections: 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.
• 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. After serving an initial term, the judge must be confirmed by the people in a yes-no retention election to remain on the court.[2] At the state supreme court level, this selection method is further divided into three types. See below to learn more.

States may apply more than one of the five methods across different levels of courts. For example, a state may choose its appellate court judges by assisted appointment while choosing its trial court judges in partisan elections. Some states may even select judges of the same court level differently depending on the population of an area or local opinion.[1][2] States may also modify any of the systems above in their own way. The assisted appointment method, in particular, comes in a variety of forms. For instance, some states require the governor to choose from the commission's list of nominees, while in other states the list is only a suggestion.[1]

Selection methods by state

Click a state on the map below to read more about how judicial selection works in that state.

http://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_STATE

State supreme courts

At the state supreme court level, the assisted appointment 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 selection methods in state supreme courts across the country.

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

See also: Length of terms of state supreme court justices

Intermediate appellate and general jurisdiction courts

The chart below details selection methods at the intermediate appellate and general jurisdiction court levels across the country.

Arguments for and against judicial selection methods

The table below highlights arguments in support and opposition of the judicial methods discussed on this page. The points in the table were compiled by Ballotpedia staff from statements made by groups active in judicial politics. Know of something else we could include? Click here to let us know.

Brief history of judicial selection

At the founding of the United States, all states selected judges through either gubernatorial or legislative appointments.[15] 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.[16][8]

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.[8]

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.[8]

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.[8]

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.[16]

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.[8]

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.[8][18]

Vacancy procedures

The process for filling vacancies on state supreme courts varies among states. In most states, the governor appointments a replacement justice, either outright or with assistance from a nominating commission. The most common reasons for a vacancy on a state supreme court include reaching the mandatory retirement age, retiring before the end of a term, death, or appointment to another office.

The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.

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 1.2 American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection," archived February 2, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," June 2008
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Federalist Society, "The Case for Partisan Judicial Elections," January 1, 2003
4. ↑ Sedgwick Law, "Tort Reform," July 2003
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Center for American Progress, "Partisan Judicial Elections and the Distorting Influence of Campaign Cash," October 25, 2012 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "americanprogress" defined multiple times with different content
6. ↑ Wisconsin Law Review, "Judicial independence and nonpartisan elections," March 14, 2009
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 American Constitution Society, "Justice At Risk: An empirical analysis of campaign contributions and judicial decision - Key Findings," June 2013, accessed December 9, 2013
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 NYU Press, "The Study of Judicial Elections," accessed December 27, 2014
9. ↑ American Judicature Society, "Judicial Selection in the States: South Carolina; Overview," archived January 11, 2014
10. ↑ University of Richmond Law Review, "Reconsidering Virginia Judicial Selection," November 2008
11. ↑ The Advocate, "Justice cautions on appointing judges," April 9, 2008
12. ↑ Missouri Law Review, "The Politics of Merit Selection, Vol. 74, Issue 3, Article 13," accessed December 9, 2013
13. ↑ Missouri Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 3, "The Missouri Plan in National Perspective," accessed December 9, 2013
14. ↑ The Advocate, "Justice cautions on appointing judges," April 9, 2008
15. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "Rethinking Judicial Selection in State Courts," accessed June 7, 2021
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 American Judicature Society, "History of Reform Efforts," archived October 2, 2014
17. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
18. ↑ 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