State Judicial Selection Process - Term Paper Example

judicial selection process judicial selection process Introduction The federal court system has three levels that include district courts (trial courts), the first appeal courts (circuit courts), and the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal courts have limited jurisdiction since they can only hear cases that are authorized by the federal statutes or United States Constitution (Connor & Hammons, 2008). The federal district courts have the original jurisdiction. The district courts have the trial courts of the federal court system while circuit courts act as appeal courts and are divided in to regions. The Supreme Court of the United States acts as the highest court in the American judicial system and has powers to decide appeals that may be brought in the state court or federal courts as long as the case deals with federal law (Baum, 2012). The State and federal courts can hear the cases that are punishable by both federal and state laws, the federal constitutional issues, certain civil rights claims, environmental regulation cases and disputes involving federal law (Connor & Hammons, 2008). However, the state courts will deal with family law issues, real property issues, landlord and tenant disputes, professional malpractice, crimes under state legislation, contract disputes, personal injury lawsuits, business governance issues, traffic violations and inheritance cases (Baum, 2012). In the recent years, proposals have been introduced to limit the role of politics in judicial selection process in each of the fifty states and District of Columbia. The proposals touch on the qualification of the judges, methods of selection and removal of judges or even disciplinary mechanisms (Connor & Hammons, 2008). Judicial selection process in Washington State Washington State has four levels of courts that include the Supreme Court, court of appeals, the Superior court and finally the district and municipal courts. The district and municipal courts have limited jurisdiction unlike the court of appeal and Supreme Court. Judges in Washington are selected through nonpartisan elections. The judicial candidates enter in a primary election (Baum, 2012). The top two candidates are placed in a general election ballot if not candidate has received a majority of the cote in the first election. The Supreme Court has nine judgeships while the court of appeals has 22 judgeships. The superior court has 186 judgeships while the number of districts/circuits is 9. There are 30 superior courts in the state. The courts of appeals judges are selected from the district while Superior Court judges are selected from the county (American Judicature Society, 2014). The selection process for all the judges in all the courts is through nonpartisan election. The interim vacancies are fulfilled through gubernatorial appointments and interim judges who stand for appointment or election serve for the remainder of the unexpired term (Baum, 2012). The selection of the justice or chief judge is through a peer vote for all levels of court system in Washington State. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court holds office for four years while the chief judge for the court of appeals and Superior court holds office for one year (Baum, 2012). In terms of qualifications, the judges of the Supreme Court must be licensed to practice within the State and retirement age is pegged at 75 years. The qualifications of court of appeals judges entail five years of practice in the state and residence status in the district for a period of at least one year (Baum, 2012). The qualifications for superior court judges include a license to practice in the state and the retirement age is pegged at the age of 75 years. District court judges undergo nonpartisan elections and have jurisdiction on small offenses like traffic violations, domestic violence protection orders and civil actions of less than fifty thousand dollars. To qualify for election, one has to be a registered voter in the district and must hold a practicing license in the state (American Judicature Society, 2014). Accordingly, municipal court judges must be US citizens, state resident and hold a practicing license. The superior court judges are elected to serve for four-year term while the appellate judges serve for six-year term and judges are eligible for reelection for an additional term is the method of retention. Judicial selection process in Connecticut State Connecticut Judiciary has the Supreme Court, the appellate court, superior court, and probate court. The state adopted a merit-based judicial selection since 1986 and has made tremendous efforts in ensuring that only competent judges serve in the judiciary. The State has a judicial selection commission that recommends possible candidates for nomination by the governor (American Judicature Society, 2014). The governor’s nominees are also vetted and appointed by the general assembly. There is a program of performance evaluation that is conducted by the judicial selection commission for the judges seeking reappointment. The judges normally serve an eight-year term and may be reappointed. The judgeship in Supreme Court is seven and nine in the appellate court. The superior court has a judgeship of 170 judges and the geographical basis for the selection of judges is statewide. The method of selection is a gubernatorial nomination from the judicial selection commission and finally legislative appointment (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012). The qualifications of all judges entail residence in the state and license to practice in the state and the mandatory retirement age is 70 years. However, the governor is allowed to nominate associate justice of the Supreme Court to the position of Chief Justice without the advice of the judicial selection commission (American Judicature Society, 2014). The judicial selection commission comprises both non-lawyers and lawyers and will not have more than six members from one political party. The commission comprises of 12 members that are appointed from every congressional district (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012). In this case, the lawyers are appointed by the governor, but the non-lawyers are appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the senate and House of Representatives and president pro tempore of the senate (American Judicature Society, 2014). The members of the commission serve for only three years and are not elected or appointed state official or holders of office in any political party. The commission is expected to evaluate the track record of the judges seeking reappointment and forward recommendations to the governor. The judges of probate courts (limited jurisdiction courts) are selected through partisan election and qualifications include residence of the probate courts and mandatory retirement age is 70 years (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012). The judicial selection commission seeks comments from Judicial Branch Chief court Administrator, the practicing bar and Connecticut Bar Association Judiciary Committee. The commission will also consider the judicial temperament of the candidate including integrity and faithfulness, technical legal ability and the mental health of the candidates (American Judicature Society, 2014). Removal of judges for disciplinary reason in Washington Washington State has established the Commission on Judicial Conduct that is tasked with investigating complaints on judicial misconduct of the judges and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court for the removal, suspension or retirement of the judge in case of inability. In Washington State, the judges can be removed from office by the joint resolution of the legislature whereby three fourths of the members of each of the house must agree to the removal (Washington State Commission on judicial conduct, 2014). Under the Washington State commission of judicial conduct, the judges are expected to remain impartial, independent and demonstrate integrity in their work. The judges should adhere to the ethical standards of conduct (Washington State Commission on judicial conduct, 2014). RCW 2. 64.010 (4) grants the judicial conduct commission powers to investigate the complaints of judicial misconduct and may recommend for removal of the judge for disciplinary reasons (Washington State Commission on judicial conduct, 2014). The relevant persons or entities seeking the removal of a judge must file a complaint with the commission on judicial conduct after which the commission opens up a preliminary investigation (Washington State Commission on judicial conduct, 2014). The accused judge is notified of the allegations and provided an opportunity to respond to the statement of charges within 21 days. The commission then engages in fact finding hearings and formal proceedings in order to verify the allegations. The commission will recommend for removal of the judge to the Supreme Court if and the judge remains suspended until the decision of the Supreme Court. Removal of judges in Connecticut There are three ways in which a judge may be removed from office and include impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal by two thirds vote by the senate. The second method is the governor in acting on the address of two thirds of each house of the general assembly while the third way is the removal through a judicial review council that investigates professional and ethical conduct of the judges (American Judicature Society, 2014). The judicial review council will investigate the conduct of the judge and make recommendation to the Supreme Court for either suspension or removal of the judge. In this case, the individuals or entities seeking the removal of a judge should file a complaint to the Judicial Review Council and provide evidence of the indiscipline (American Judicature Society, 2014). All complaints are investigated except in cases of one year limitation and Connecticut General Statutes Section 51 require the review council to cross-examine witnesses. Comparison of judicial selection process between Washington and Connecticut Although the nonpartisan elections require the candidates to be elected in a ballot without political symbols, there are no mechanisms to limit the candidates’ political affiliations thus undermining the impartiality of judges. Surprisingly, Washington does not use judicial nominating commissions in screening the candidates for election and no retention evaluation mechanisms that have been placed to evaluate the performance of judges who seek reelection. However, the advocates of the nonpartisan elections in Washington assert that the public should have the opportunity to select the judges as it is done with other government officials such as the political representatives. I believe that Connecticut has a better judicial selection process since only highly-qualified candidates are forwarded for nomination by the commission to the governor. Accordingly, all members of the judicial selection commission are not lawyers and do not belong to same political parties thus limiting the political influence in the selection process. There are clear rules and regulations that govern the work of the commission and that outline the criterion of the short listing and nomination process (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012). Democratic government requires an independent judiciary and judges should be selected in a transparent manner that is free from political campaigns. The judges are expected to devote a substantial part of their time in delivering justice and serving the residents and not engaging in reelection campaigns or soliciting funding. On the other hand, the nonpartisan elections in Washington are time-consuming and present an ethical dilemma especially when judges are involved in cases whereby the campaigns financiers are a party to the case. Many people have argued that merit-based process promotes judicial diversity through mechanism of appointing women and minority groups to judicial positions (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012). In Connecticut, the governor nominates the judicial candidates to the general assembly for appointment thus providing more opportunity for scrutiny and appointment of diverse judiciary in the state. Conclusion A proper judicial selection process should be merit-based with clearly outlined qualifications of the state judges and non-partisan method of evaluating the sustainability of each candidate. The merit selection process in Connecticut is better since it safeguards judicial independence and accountability of judges through the performance reviews before reappointment. The process aims at selecting the most qualified according to the candidates and reappointment process offers an opportunity to assess the performance of the judges thus promoting public accountability. In addition, the merit-based system practiced in Connecticut caps the mandatory retirement age to 70 years thus ensuring that judges have the required physical health to satisfactory execute their duties. Connecticut selection process limits the political influence through bipartisan selection process thus promoting the public trust on the ability of the judiciary to remain fair and impartial in judicial proceedings and judgments. The merit selection process practiced in Connecticut encourages community participation, fairness, and limits political favoritism thus ensuring that judges work hard in order to qualify for retention. References: American Judicature Society. (2014). “Advocating integrity in American Justice: selection of judges” Web: http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=CT. Accessed on 5th February, 2014. Baum, L. (2012). American courts: process and policy. New York: Cengage Learning. Connor, G.E & Hammons, C.W. (2008). The constitutionalism of American States. Missouri: University of Missouri Press. Neubauer, D & Meinhold, S. (2012). Judicial process: law, courts and politics in the United States. New York: Cengage Learning. Washington State Commission on judicial conduct. (2014). “The complaint process”, Web: http://www.cjc.state.wa.us/Disc_function/complaint_process.htm. Accessed on 5th February, 2014. Read More