The “best” method for choosing state judges is hotly debated because it involves trade-offs between independence, accountability, and competence.
The main systems are:
- Partisan Elections
- Non-Partisan Elections
- Gubernatorial or Legislative Appointment
- Merit Selection
Comparing the Methods
Partisan Elections
Judges run as Democrats or Republicans, campaign, raise money, etc.
Pros
Judges are directly accountable to voters and parties. The performance of judges is widely reported.
Cons
Highly politicized; judges can owe favors to donors or parties, and many voters often know almost nothing about the candidates beyond party identification.
Non-Partisan Elections
Same as above but no party label on the ballot. Only sightly better.
Pros
Judges are still directly accountable to voters, but parties are supposedly less involved. (this is probably a matter of appearances only – the parties know exactly which party each candidate supports)
Cons
Still lots of money and politics, turnout is low, and voters select more on the basis of name recognition, favoring incumbents.
Gubernatorial or legislative appointment
Governor or legislature just picks whoever they want.
Pros
Can be quicker, and eliminate need for costly elections.
Cons
Can be very partisan and leads to cronyism. No real way for voters to get rid of a bad judge.
(South Carolina uses a version of this method, although they use the pretense of going through an appointed board: the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC.)
Merit Selection
A non-partisan commission (lawyers, non-lawyers, law enforcement, appointees from different disciplines) screens applicants and sends the governor a shortlist of the most qualified (usually 3–5 names).
Governor picks one from the list.
After a year or two on the bench, the judge faces a retention election where voters only decide “yes, keep this judge” or “no, remove.” No opponent, no fundraising..
Pros
You get highly qualified judges who don’t have to beg donors for money or promise rulings to win votes.
Cons
The commissions can still be political, and voters lose some direct say, though they still have recourse to retention elections.
This method is often referred to “The Missouri Plan”
Most academic studies, bar associations, and good-government groups (left, right, and center) rank merit selection (the Missouri Plan and its variants) as the best balance. It produces judges who:
- Score higher on objective qualifications (experience, writing, etc.)
- Are less influenced by campaign donors or partisan pressure
- Still give voters a check through retention votes (though judges are almost always retained)
No system is perfect, but when you look at corruption scandals, reversal rates, and public confidence surveys, states with merit selection consistently do better than pure election states.
