Court Selection System - Case Study Example

Court Selection System Introduction Judiciary serves extremely vital functions within any democratic society; it preserves and enacts law and order. To achieve this, the judges should consistently and fairly interpret the law for them to be free from unnecessary political influence and criticism. The process of selecting state judges is of great importance due to the primacy of being served with impartial and competent judges. Judicial decisions at all levels, from the traffic courts to the Supreme Courts, have an impact on all the citizens every day. Thus, every state in the United States of America has its own process of selecting judges in particular judiciary systems. There are various processes or rather methods which are used for this selection. They include: The legislative appointment, executive appointment, nonpartisan election, partisan election and the merit or the commission-based selection (Goldman, 2001). Hawaii Judicial Selection System Hawaii is one of the states in United States of America which uses the merit or the commission-based selection method. In this process of selection, a nominating commission screens all the applicants and thereafter select the one who is highly qualified from the candidates for the judicial vacancy. Afterwards, from the list of the recommended candidates, an elected official, usually the governor appoints the best candidate from the recommended list. There is a great variation in the commission’s composition. It mostly includes lawyers who are selected or rather elected by their seniors and non-lawyers who are appointed by the state’s governor or other state officials. The most crucial work of the nominating commission is solicitation of all applications from the interested individuals, thoroughly investigate and review all the applicants. In addition, the number of names and the time limit are extremely vital details that govern the entire selection process. Thus, Hawaii State uses a merit selection plan which includes the use of retention election immediately after a selected judge serves for a given period of time. The incumbent’s name is always placed on a ballot and the voters requested to either cast a “NO” or “YES” vote to determine whether the judge is to remain on the bench or not. If the voters decide that a judge should not retain a seat, the seat is then declared vacant. A new judge is then appointed into office using the above mentioned process or method (Goldman, 2001). The State of Hawaii has a number of courts depending on various functions and the requirements of the judiciary. The courts include the Supreme Court, circuit courts, family courts, the district courts, the intermediate court, land court and the tax appeal court. The Supreme Court is the highest court in Hawaii since its decisions are binding on other courts in Hawaii judiciary system. Thus, its chief purpose is to review all the decisions made by other courts in the state. This court consists of exactly five judges who are appointed into office by the state’s governor, from the list provided by the nominating commission. These candidates must meet the following qualifications: Must be a resident of Hawaii, must be a United States citizen and finally he or she must have the license to practice law at least for ten years before nomination into office (Melinda & Bonneau, 2009). Just like the Supreme Court, other courts in Hawaii use similar method to select judges; commission-based selection. In addition, qualifications of judges in these courts are similar to those of the Supreme Court since all the judges are appointed by the governor from the list forwarded by the selecting commission. Texas Judicial Selection System Texas is a state is United States of America where all the court judges get into office through a partisan election. These judges serve a six year term whereas the trial court judges serve a four year term. However, the judges to the municipal court are appointed by city council or the mayor. Governor of the state has the authority to fill any gap or vacancy in appellate or district court in circumstances where a judge dies, resigns or new court positions are created by the state’s legislature. The people who are appointed to fill the vacant positions always serve in the judiciary until the next major election for the office. All the judges must again run for the election or reelection (Gary & Pueschel, 1974). Texas has a number of courts in its judicial system. These courts are the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, courts of appeal, district courts, the county level courts, justice courts and the municipal courts. Qualifications of the supreme courts judges are as follows: One must be a United States citizen and a resident of Texas, must be of thirty five to seventy four years of age and a practicing lawyer for at least ten years. The same qualifications apply to the courts of appeal and the court of criminal appeals. Qualification of district court judges are as follows: One must be a citizen of US and a resident of Texas, must be between twenty five and seventy four years of age, a resident of the district for two years and a practicing lawyer or judge for four years. County level courts judges have similar qualifications as those of the district courts. The municipal courts and justice courts judges’ qualifications are determined by the government (Henry & Emmert, 1987). Steps of Judge Removal from Office In Hawaii, judges are removed from office after disability or misconduct in an open and official manner. Firstly, there must be a thorough investigation performed by the commission of judicial conduct. Secondly, the commission conducts the hearing according to the allegations of the misconduct. Finally, the commission recommends to the Supreme Court the appropriate action to be taken. Unlike in Hawaii, Texas’ way of removing a judge from office is quite different but some steps are similar. Firstly, the state’s commission on judicial conduct performs thorough investigations and when warranted, they normally prosecute the allegations of the misconduct. Secondly, the commission recommends to the Supreme Court the most probable action to be taken after investigations are over. Thirdly, the Supreme court appoints a tribunal to review and verify the findings of the commission before it can enter the judgment stage. The tribunal is made up of judges from the appeal court of the state. Finally, when a judge is found guilty of the misconduct, he or she is removed from office. In addition, the governor of the state has the powers to remove a judge from office specifically on the address of only two thirds of the senate house (Goldman, 2001). Best Selection System The merit method or the commission based selection method for judges is the preferable system to the partisan election method of selection. This is because, in merit selection method, the judges are nominated for appointments based on the level of their qualification and the experience gained in the judicial system (Jona, Olson & Eikman, 2009). On the other hand, the partisan election method of selection do not select judges solely because of their professional credentials since total politics is involved. Thus, the merit or the commission based selection method is the most appropriate way to select and appoint judges into office since the process not only eliminate politics from the judicial selection system but it minimizes the influence of politics, partisan and other personal or special interests. In addition, the merit method emphasizes on the experience and qualification alongside other desirable features of a judge. Therefore, using this method, very few unfit judges end up in judicial offices unlike in the partisan election methods. References Gary, C. B., & Pueschel, K. J. (1974). “But who should I Vote for County Coroner?” Journal of Politics, vol.36, p.7778-784. Print Goldman, S. (2001). Judicial Selection. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, p. 8024-8027. Henry, G. R., & Emmert, G. (1987). “Selection Systems and Judicial Characteristics: The Recruitment of State Supreme Court Judges.” Judicature, vol.70, p.228-235. Print Jona, G., Olson, D., & Eikman, M. (2009). “The Relationship between Methods of Judicial Selection and Judicial Misconduct.” Widener Law Journal, vol.18, p.455-490. Melinda, G. H., & Bonneau, C. (2009). In Defense of Judicial Elections. New York: Routledge Read More