Judicial Selection in the States
Politics and the Struggle for Reform

How do legal professionalism and politics influence efforts to structure the process of selecting and retaining state judges?

Herbert M. Kritzer (Author)

9781108791960, Cambridge University Press

Paperback / softback, published 30 April 2020

350 pages, 2 b/w illus. 7 tables
22.7 x 15 x 2.1 cm, 0.55 kg

'This book is an incredible achievement and a valuable contribution to the literature on state courts. It informs the discussion of judicial reform and effectively demonstrates the drivers of and hurdles facing reform efforts.' Hayley Munir, Political Science Quarterly

Using detailed case studies of the relevant US states, Herbert Kritzer provides an unprecedented examination of the process and politics of how states select and retain judges. The book is organized around the competing goals of politics and professionalism, namely whether the focus in choosing judges should be on future judicial decisions (court outputs) or on the court processes by which those decisions are reached. Or, in considering who should be a judge, whether the emphasis should be on political credentials or on professional credentials. One important finding is that political concerns have surpassed professionalism concerns since 2000. Another is that voters have been more supportive of professionalism in selecting appellate judges than trial judges. Judicial Selection in the States should be read by anyone seeking a deep understanding of the complex interplay between politics and the judiciary at the state level in the United States.

1. Introduction. The challenges of judicial selection and retention in the states
2. North Carolina: partisanship in the extreme
3. Arkansas: third time was the charm
4. West Virginia: change and chaos
5. Tennessee: unconstraining the Governor's choice of appellate judges
6. Georgia: nonpartisan elections as part of court modernization
7. Mississippi: a complex of factors
8. Utah: the two step
9. New Mexico: finding its own unique approach
10. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and South Carolina: adding 'merit' to nonelective systems
11. Florida and South Dakota: unsuccessful efforts to extend the Missouri Plan
12. Nevada and Ohio: voters say no to the Missouri Plan
13. Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and New Hampshire: talk, talk, talk, but no results
14. Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma: unsuccessful efforts to end 'merit' nominating commissions
15. Conclusion: what do we want in our judges?

Subject Areas: Law [L], Constitution: government & the state [JPHC], Politics & government [JP]