The Judicial Selection Process
An independent and transparent judiciary is considered to serve the crucial function of conflict resolution. The United States Constitution has inferred Congress with the duty of establishing a federal court system to hear cases that violates constitutional and federal laws. The selection process of federal judges is done through a presidential nomination system which is submitted to the Senate for vetting (Newman & Isaacs, 2004). However, each state has its court systems composed of more than 30,000 state judges based in trial and appellate courts. These state courts range from the court of last resort (court of appeal), trial courts to an intermediate appellate court. Therefore the methods used for selecting the high court judges and justices is crucial in providing high-quality judges who are free from any political biases (Newman & Isaacs, 2004). Some of the popular judicial selection processes include gubernatorial, legislative and commission based appointments.
The judicial selection process in California State
California utilizes a hybrid judicial selection system which combines elective and appointive models. This means that the governor appoints the superior judges who serve in the trial courts, intermediate appellate and Supreme Court offices. The citizens, on the other hand, are allowed to exercise their democratic rights by re-electing these judges into office during every election year. The appointive model of selecting state judges only screens candidates who have been selected by the governor. These judges are taken through a thorough vetting procedure involving two judicial commissions. This includes the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) and the Commission on Judicial Appointments (CJA). The judge’s names are sent to the JNE for evaluations before the CJA can hold a public hearing to vote for one candidate. The JNE committee is often composed of practicing lawyers, retired judges, and public citizens. The secretary of state must then approve the chosen candidate before the nomination process is considered to have finalized. The voters are then allowed to retain the court of appeal judges and Supreme Court judges through retention elections every twelve years.
The state of California is divided into districts characterized by an individual court of appeals and additional divisions. Therefore the Supreme Court is composed of the chief justice and six associate judges (“California Constitution”). The 7 Supreme Court judges and 102 courts of appeal judges are appointed through a similar process. However, trial judges are appointed using the popular vote (“Judicial selection in California”). Each candidate is required to provide 50 to 75 personal references that contain confidential comments about a candidate’s ability to serve within the judiciary. This includes additional comments from the judicial officers working within the county court systems. Therefore any lawyer or candidate applying for a judicial position must have a minimum of 10 years good standing with the California state bar. Consequently, the candidates must have passed the state bar examinations. Any negative comment is thoroughly evaluated to screen out instances of criminal records, unethical behaviors or professional misconduct. The highest rated candidates is considered to be exceptionally well qualified (EWQ). The EWQ nominee has to be a well-regarded individual, who has superior scholarship and communication abilities including having a publication.
The judicial selection process in New York State
The New York state is composed of a court of appeal which is overseen by a chief justice and six other associate judges. Court justices are nominated from each judicial district. Some of the thirteen districts include Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens among others. Each of these judges is appointed into office using a 14-year term contract. The state of New York uses commission based appointments in the selection of its judges. This merit-based selection system involves a gubernatorial appointment and a legislative or Senate confirmation process (Becker & Reddick, 2003). The governor is only allowed to appoint one person from a list of nominated individuals recommended by the Commission on Judicial Appointments (CJA). The New York CJA consists of 12 individuals; a) four who are appointed by the governor; b) the other four by the chief judge of the court of appeal; d) one chosen by the president; e) the speaker of the assembly; f) the minority leader of the Senate; and g) and the majority leader of the assembly.
The qualification requirements include having practiced and lived in New York for 10 years as an attorney. Appellate court judges are appointed from by the governor from a list of serving Supreme Court justices. The selection process follows recommendations from the Deputy Chief Administrator of the Courts, bar association and the Administrative judge where the applicant is currently serving. The judge must have served in a court of limited jurisdiction as a civil, criminal or court of claims judge (Masley, 2014). This form of experience is crucial for evaluating the temperament, work ethic and productivity levels of the eligible candidates. These justices are allowed to serve up to the age of 70 years where-after a two-year certification by the New York City Bar Association Judiciary Committee should be acquired for extended service till the age of 76 years.
Compare and contrast judicial qualifications
The similarities between the California hybrid judicial selection process and New York-based merit system borrow its power on having one appointing a body or gubernatorial seat. In both systems, the governor has the power to appoint judges from a list of vetted nominees. The selection process of these judges involves both professional and non-professional screening processes from lawyers to lay citizens. In their first term in office, the judges are allowed to secure their jobs through retention election or commission based re-appointment. The public has no direct role in the composition of judicial appointees.
However, the gubernatorial appointment system used in California ensures that over 68% of the appointed Supreme Court judges come from the governor’s close network of political affiliates. California uses the retention election system to ensure long terms of service. However, judges are forced to step down before the end of their terms to allow the governor to make new appointments. The merit-based selection system utilized by New York State ensures a more transparent selection process through a variety of screening panels and independent vetting volunteers (Berg et al., 1975). The merit-based system also produces more qualified judges by protecting the judicial selection bodies from political influences. The community is encouraged to participate in the selection process to enhance public trust (Bannon, 2016). The downside to the New York merit-based system is that the judges are forced to reapply for their positions to the Commission on Judicial Appointments (CJA) after every gubernatorial election season.
The reasons for removal of a judge from office follow allegations of professional impropriety and ethical misconduct. These disciplinary proceedings rest with the court of appeals judges and circuit judicial councils. Any complaint filed against a judge is addressed to the chief judge based in each circuit or district court system. Complaints that lack merit are dismissed while cases that show signs of reasonable disputes are investigated and reported back to the appropriate judicial council (“FAQs: Judges in the United States”). The judicial performance body is mandated with the duty of providing disciplinary action against a judge through the judicial appointments committee. For example, the California Commission on Judicial Appointments is responsible for confirming and terminating judges appointments. They include the chief justice, the California Supreme Court and the attorney general or a senior presiding judge in the courts of appeal. Some of the disciplinary actions include temporary suspensions from judicial work, recommendation for removal from office by Congress, a request for the resignation or the issue of private reprimands.
The best judicial selection process
State courts have a huge influence on the legal and policy implementations of particular states. For example, within the California hybrid system, voters have to confirm the Supreme Court and the court of appeal judges into office through a retention system. These individual judges run unopposed into long terms of service forces judges to have political affiliations with the incumbent governors. This means that judicial selection processes have been marred by allegations of political domination and special interest. Therefore it becomes difficult to ensure political independence when making judgments on divisive issues such as gun laws and the death penalty. Consequent the judges who make unpopular judgments face the risk of losing their jobs or being voted out of office.
State constitutions provide less independence for the judges as they can easily be amended to suit the needs of powerful political interests. Therefore a legitimate part of selecting judged should be independent of executive or political influences. Examples of misuse of power include the prosecution of corruption cases facing public officials (Alt & Lassen, 2008). Consequently, a more transparent and independent judicial system has allowed the state of New York to work with opposing political parties to promote the public good. Consequently, the appointment of qualified individuals to the judiciary bench helps created checks and balances within local governments. This has been made possible through judicial reviews, regulatory oversight committees and vetoes against certain political figures. Therefore more qualified individuals from a diverse group of candidates ranging from minority communities such as women and African American men ascending to the Supreme Court benches (Becker & Reddick, 2003). These non-partisan judicial nominations create a democratic separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial arms of the government. Therefore the appellate courts can comfortably review the legal judgments and disciplinary measures against the lower court systems without affecting policy.
“WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH HOMEWORK AIDER AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
The post The Judicial Selection Process appeared first on Homeworkaider.
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."
"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"
