What Are The Five Main Methods Of Judicial Personnel Selection

6. How do the various personnel roles in the component impact the criminal justices system as a whole?

State court judges are selected in a variety of ways, including being selected by the governor of that State in which they reside or by the state legislature. In some cases, judges are able to run for election if they want to be a judge.

Electing judges contradict the impartial and independent nature of the judicial system. Judges are not politicians. It is

Most local elections in California are nonpartisan. A nonpartisan election is an election in which the parties of the candidates are not printed on the ballots. Although the candidates may identify with one of the political parties, their preference is not shown on the ballot during the election. This causes candidates to have to work harder for their votes and make their agendas known to the public rather than relying on their political party to get them elected. In order for politicians to move up in the political ladder, they must have contributed greatly to their local office and have a decent resume to get them through. In a partisan election, candidates may be able to rely on his or her partisanship to get them elected. For example in a largely democratic area, a candidate may simply be elected just because his name is next to the word democrat on the ballot. This in turn strengthens the parties role because that candidate would owe the party for his or her election. Since California holds nonpartisan elections, candidates owe nothing to the party for their success during an election. They are able to move up in politics based on the impact they had made during their previous role. Although a large amount of the state offices has partisan elections, by the time a candidate has made it to a state election they have made a name for themselves without relying on the party to speak for them. Therefore, even

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

I will now examine some of last election year's results. Voter turnout has decreased in the past years. There are two main factors that have been coming up in the past years. First, many citizens say that who is elected in office is not as important as it once was. Secondly, younger Americans are more cynical and disconnected from politics than ever. I think there is too much information out there and another thing that might be the reason this is happening is because candidates insult other candidates with their campaign ads. This confuses the voter like I mentioned before and makes them not want to go out and vote. In the next paragraph I will discuss why I think judges should be decided by partisan vote.

In opposition to most states, Texas is one of a handful to do partisan elections to vote for judges. Contrasting viewpoints try to decide on whether the voting system should be partisan or nonpartisan bringing much debate in the election of the judicial candidates. Some argue the system should change because of possible bias both by the electorate and of the judge, others contend it is necessary to know what party the judges affiliate with in order to know what way they lean may lean in their final judgement. Many arguments bring to light the benefits and drawbacks of each system, critiquing the justness, dependability, and impartiality.

The three different models of judicial decision making are the legal, the attitudinal, and the strategic. These three different explanations have been identified by political scientists as the way judges make decisions about a case (Geer 514).

A crucial argument left unanswered is if state judges should be appointed or elected? Conflicting views raise many questions about how things would change in the court system. According to the article Justice at Stake, “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”. Many states elect their judges through a merit selection process or appoint them through a process called the partisan election. Texas judges use partisan election where judges are elected by the people. Another question that arises is if Texas should continue using the partisan election to elect their judges when it may seem untrustworthy. A decision could be discussed on the process in electing state judges such as on the topics of improvements, conflictions, and which process seems more reasonable. Improvements can be made to the process of electing state judges… Overall, the appointment of judges varies by state, but looking at Texas’ past and present justice system will determine whether Texas should continue to elect, or switch over to appoint.

The election of judges can initially affect the way justice in Texas is seen by not balancing the true equality of the justice system. Choosing the incorrect person for a high power position, such as someone determined to play God like Adolf Hitler, can and will affect the community tremendously. Experts from the Center for American Progress say “…judges are expected to be true to the law, not to political parties or campaign contributors.” (Corriher, Web) Other ways it affects Texas is through the jurist’s quality of votes, especially through partisan elections. They may be able to see who they are voting for, but only base votes on what appeals to them. The Center for American progress addresses this by commenting how, “…voters tend to vote for the judicial candidates from the party with which they are affiliated.” (Corriher, Web) Elections can take a toll on Texas

The judge selection process in the USA today differs from one state to the other. Each state has its defined procedures to select and dismiss a judge from service. However, some of the States share the guidelines in choosing judges. Another common thing in the selection process is that all judges serve for a period of time upon which one is supposed to be elected to serve in the judiciary for another term. In this paper, the main focus is the selection process of the judge in Tennessee State. It also evaluates the similarities and differences between Tennessee State selection processes against Texas State.

Each state within the United States of America (USA) has its own unique judicial selection process within its court system. The judicial processes vary from court to court depending on a particular state. This paper analyses these processes, the qualifications for selecting the judges and the steps for removing judges from office, as it applies in the USA states of New York and Texas.

A partisan election is one where candidates are listed on the ballot with indication of their political party. Seven states elect their supreme court justices in partisan elections. Altogether, fifty-eight state high court justices are elected using this method, totaling about seventeen percent of all three-hundred thirty-eight state supreme court justices across the country. Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia are

There are 94 different federal trial courts call District Courts. The role of these district courts are to hear civil and criminal cases. Those district courts are broken down into 12 different regional circuits, each of the 12 regional circuits have their own court of appeals. These court of appeals deals with appeals within their circuit. Those appeals are then heard and their fate is then decided based on the record that was given before the District Court. All the cases that involve juvenile issues, child custody and Dupree cases, inheritance/probate cases, real estate, as well as most cases that involve criminal prosecution, personal injury cases, disputes and contracts, as well as public health cases. Each state handle local laws, has its own police, and court system. Each court system has its own Supreme Court which is known as the court of last resort. Local crimes in cases go before their local courts and from there it's it is decided whether or not the case goes before the state, supreme, or federal court.

There are currently three procedures that are used to select judges. These methods are as follows: executive appointment, election, and merit selection. The goal is to use a process that picks the best judge or the most qualified and experienced. Each process has its pros and cons but there is one that easily stands out from the others.