Open Access
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES METHOD OF JUDICIAL SELECTION MAKE? Selection Procedures in State Courts of Last Resort
Victor E. Flango,Craig R. Ducat +1 more
TLDR
The debate over which method of selection is best depends upon the debaters' views of the role of courts in society as mentioned in this paper, and the debate is bound to be polemical, with each side proceeding to build a case for the selection procedure most congenial to its respective ideology.Abstract:
Historically, the debate regarding the proper point of balance between judicial expertise and judicial accountability has found its most common expression in the debate over methods of judicial selection.2 Appointive procedures are usually favored by those desiring the quality of expertise, while elective procedures are preferred by people who value responsiveness and accessibility (accountability). Rooted in this conflict between the values of expertise and accountability, the debate over which method of selection is best depends upon the debaters' views of the role of courts in society. Accordingly, the debate is bound to be polemical, with each side proceeding to build a case for the selection procedure most congenial to its respective ideology.read more
Citations
More filters
Book
Justices on the Ballot: Continuity and Change in State Supreme Court Elections
TL;DR: Kritzer et al. as discussed by the authors investigated state supreme court elections between 1946 and 2013 and found that elections have become less politicized than commonly believed, reflecting broader trends in American politics, as well as increased involvement of state supreme courts in hot-button issues.
State judicial selection methods as public policy: The Missouri plan
TL;DR: Gleason et al. as discussed by the authors studied the role of lawyers in judicial selection reform in the United States and found that lawyers play a significant role in bringing about reform when and where the possibility of change arises.
Journal ArticleDOI
Appointment of constitutional adjudicators in Africa: some perspectives on how different systems yield similar outcomes
TL;DR: The last decade has seen the judiciary's legitimacy come under increasing scrutiny as more and more sensitive and politically charged battles are fought in the courts, which have not only placed constitutional adjudicators in awkward situations but raised questions about how they are chosen.
Docket control as an influence on judicial voting
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors assessed whether the nature of an appellate court's docket, mandatory or discretionary, affects judicial voting and concluded that discretionary docket has a greater impact on cases from a discretionary than a mandatory docket.
Journal ArticleDOI
A Bottom-Up Account of State Supreme Court Opinion Writing
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigate whether lower court judges are in the position to influence the interpretation of law at higher courts through their own opinions and find that the writings of lowercourt judges do serve as a foundational basis in a bottom-up method of opinion writing, conditioned by career factors, including previous jobs and being appointed to the state supreme court, and the judicial workload.