Expanded history section
← Older revision
Revision as of 22:55, 27 December 2014
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 1:
Line 1:
−
{{Selection methods infobox}}{{tnr}}{{state upcoming}}
+
{{Selection methods infobox}}{{tnr
|maxwidth=200px
}}{{state upcoming}}
A '''partisan election''' is one where the candidates are listed on the ballot along with a label designating the political party's ballot on which they are running.
A '''partisan election''' is one where the candidates are listed on the ballot along with a label designating the political party's ballot on which they are running.
Line 89:
Line 89:
*[[Ohio]]: Judges participate in partisan primaries with non-partisan general elections.
*[[Ohio]]: Judges participate in partisan primaries with non-partisan general elections.
+
==History==
+
The United States has always struggled to agree on the best way to create a fair and impartial judicial branch. Choosing an optimal judicial selection method is uniquely challenging, because the judicial branch is expected to impartially apply the law without regard for politics or other considerations—being in this way '''independent'''—but also be responsible for the quality of their decision-making—being in this way '''accountable'''.<ref name=fedsoc>[http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-case-for-partisan-judicial-elections ''The Federalist Society'', "The Case for Partisan Judicial Elections," January 1, 2003]</ref>
+
+
{{quote|Founders like Hamilton strongly favored judicial independence because of the conflict they saw in England between judges and the king. They also believed judicial independence was needed based on the colonial experience where governors often appointed friends to the bench no matter the person’s qualifications.|source=<ref name=nyupress/>|author=Associate Professor Matthew J. Streb of Northern Illinois University}}
+
+
Keeping independence and accountability in mind, these founders established a system whereby the President would appoint federal judges with U.S. Senate consent. '''Before the mid-1800s, nearly all states admitted to the Union selected their judges by this method of [[Gubernatorial appointment of judges|gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation]] as well, though some opted to select judges by [[Legislative election of judges|legislative vote]] alone'''.<ref name=efforts>[http://web.archive.org/web/20141002185425/http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/reform_efforts/formal_changes_since_inception.cfm?state= ''American Judicature Society'', "History of Reform Efforts," archived October 2, 2014]</ref> Then in 1832, Mississippi became the first state to implement judicial elections. New York followed suit in 1846, and a rapid shift occurred as state after state joined them. By the time the Civil War began in 1861, 24 of the 34 states had an elected judiciary, and every state that entered since provided for the election of some if not all of its judges.<ref name=nyupress>[http://www.nyupress.org/webchapters/0814740340chapt1.pdf ''NYU Press'', "The Study of Judicial Elections," accessed December 27, 2014]</ref>
+
+
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 touted the importance of the "common man's" voice.<ref name=nyupress/>
+
+
'''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]] spearheaded a push to restore "the traditional respect for the bench," which they believed had been lost.<ref name=nyupress/>
+
+
One popular reform method was the [[non-partisan election of judges]], first implemented by Illinois' [[Cook County, Illinois|Cook County]] 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.<ref name=nyupress/>
+
+
{{quote|Since judges are supposed to be “above politics,” this reform was particularly popular regarding judicial selection. Nonpartisan judicial elections were perceived as a way to clean up corruption and cronyism in the judicial selection process while still keeping judges accountable to the people.|source=<ref name=nyupress/>|author=Associate Professor Matthew J. Streb of Northern Illinois University}}
+
+
'''By 1927, twelve states selected judges in non-partisan elections.''' Many still took issue with the process, however, pointing out that as long as judges had to campaign for office, politics would play a role. Others questioned whether citizens would be able to cast informed ballots in nonpartisan judicial elections, the assumption being that party affiliation communicates a candidate's values in an easy shorthand. For these reasons, three states who had experimented with nonpartisan elections switched back to partisan ones by 1927.<ref name=nyupress/>
+
+
'''Out of these concerns arose a third kind of election, the retention election,''' promoted by the American Judicature Society to allegedly encapsulate the positive aspects of each selection system. In another attempt to balance independence and accountability, retention elections were meant to work within the [[commission-selection, political appointment method of judicial selection|commission-selection, political 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 commission-selection, political appointment method as we know it today, and since then [[Commission-selection, political appointment method of judicial selection#States using this method|over thirty states have followed suit]], using some form of retention elections at some level of their judiciary.<ref name=nyupress/><ref name=charts>[https://web.archive.org/web/20141208194400/http://www.judicialselection.us/uploads/documents/Judicial_Selection_Charts_1196376173077.pdf ''American Judicature Society'', "Judicial Selection in the States: Appellate and General Jurisdiction Courts," 2013]</ref>
+
+
Retention elections have not escaped criticism, however, as money and mean-spiritedness can still play a role.<ref name=nyupress/> '''The debate continues between supporters of partisan, non-partisan and retention elections'''; meanwhile, the practices of selecting judges through [[Gubernatorial appointment of judges|gubernatorial appointment]] and [[Legislative election of judges|legislative elections]] have been largely discontinued.<ref name=charts/>
+
+
==Criticism==
===Montana non-partisan elections ruled unconstitutional===
===Montana non-partisan elections ruled unconstitutional===
On [[c2012|September 17, 2012]], the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]] struck down [[Montana|Montana's]] [[non-partisan election of judges|non-partisan election system]], finding it to be unconstitutional. Political parties are now legally able to support or oppose judicial candidates in [[Montana]].<ref name=9c>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/montanas-ban-political-endorsements-judicial_n_1895318.html?utm_hp_ref=politics ''The Huffington Post,'' "Montana Nonpartisan Judicial Elections System Struck Down By Appeals Court," September 18, 2012]</ref>
On [[c2012|September 17, 2012]], the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]] struck down [[Montana|Montana's]] [[non-partisan election of judges|non-partisan election system]], finding it to be unconstitutional. Political parties are now legally able to support or oppose judicial candidates in [[Montana]].<ref name=9c>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/montanas-ban-political-endorsements-judicial_n_1895318.html?utm_hp_ref=politics ''The Huffington Post,'' "Montana Nonpartisan Judicial Elections System Struck Down By Appeals Court," September 18, 2012]</ref>