8.2.

1 Various Methods of Appointment of Judges

Judicial independence is a central goal of most legal systems, and systems of appointment is
seen as a crucial mechanism to achieve this goal. Systems of judicial appointments come in three
basic configurations:

1. Election by the People

A few US states use a rare process, election, to select some judges. A candidate’s political
party is listed on the ballot in partisan elections, while the candidate’s political affiliation is not listed
in nonpartisan elections. Many states have moved away from direct elections and toward retention
elections. In a retention election, a judge is appointed for a term of years, and at the end of that
term, an election is held to determine if the judge should be retained for another term or replaced.

When judges are directly elected, the judiciary is an agent of the government with limited
independence. For Example, Texas is one of the few states that still holds partisan elections for
almost all judgeships in the state & As a result, candidates run for office just like all other elected
officials. The voters use their votes to pass judgment on judicial decisions in the same way that they
use their votes to weigh in on the actions of the executive and legislative branches. Thus, one of the
criticisms of judicial elections is that they incentivize judges to make politically popular decisions that
are not necessarily correct interpretations of the law.

2. Election by the Legislature

The legislative election method of judicial selection is a process by which state legislators
choose judges to serve on a court. This method is unique among selection types in that neither the
governor (via appointment powers) nor the public (via direct elections) has a role in this selection
process. As of April 2023, only two states named South Carolina & Virginia used this selection
method for courts of last resort, appellate courts, and general jurisdiction trial courts.

 South Carolina: The South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Commission screens and selects
candidates for judgeships before submitting a list of three names to the South Carolina
General Assembly for consideration. The joint General Assembly then votes on the
candidates, either choosing one of the three recommendations by a majority vote or
rejecting the entire slate. If the General Assembly rejects the full slate, a new slate is
selected by the commission and submitted to the General Assembly.
  Virginia: The Courts of Justice Committee in each chamber accepts names of candidates
from members of the Virginia General Assembly. The committees determine whether each
nominee is qualified for the judgeship during public hearings. Those committees submit a
report listing qualified candidates to each chamber of the General Assembly. Each chamber
votes separately and the candidate receiving the most votes in each chamber is elected to
the judgeship.

3. Nomination by the Executive

In this method the judges of higher judiciary i.e Apex Court & High Courts are nominated by
president by virtue of power given through constitution of particular country. Presidents often
consult with Senators or ministers from cabinet before choosing judicial nominees who would serve
in those states.

 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. At the state supreme court level, this
method is further divided into the following three types:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.