Judicial Election and Appointment Process
Question 1: Becoming a judge
The process of becoming a judge is a long path compared to most other careers. The process starts with attaining educational requirements (Epps Jr, 2019). First, one is required to attain a bachelor’s degree from a recognized institution. Application to a law school, acceptance is based on the college performance and passing a law school admission test. Upon admission, a person is required to complete a three-year program at the law to obtain a Juris Doctor degree. After a law school, a person must pass a bar exam administered by the American Bar Examination in their state before qualifying to practice law in his or her jurisdiction.
Besides educational qualifications, a person must also have professionals experience before attaining a judgeship (Epps Jr, 2019). First, a person works as an attorney in legal proceedings and representing clients in courts. A lawyer can specialize in a given field; these include corporate law, environmental law, taxation law, etc. Finally, a person can then apply for a judgeship in their state for consideration by the judicial nominating commission. More importantly, interact and get to know judges in the district of operations to enhance the chances of becoming a judge. A person can as well be recommended by politicians, such as senators, to become a judgeship in their state. Depending on the position pursued, a person can seek election rather than appointment into a judgeship. In conclusion, becoming a judge is a lengthy process which ensures that judges elected or appointed are competent to practice as judges.
Question 2: Election versus Appointment
For most states, general and county attorneys are elected rather than appointed into an office for four years (Forsythe, 2011). There are pros of filing judicial offices via elected rather than appointment.
- Even though elections are highly charged politically, they are less political compared to appointments. Appointments are characterized by “behind the scenes’ influences, but elections are majorly open and do not have deal-making like an appointment.
- Secondly, the election of judges promotes the spirit of democracy and voting power. This is contrary to the appointment, which reflects a form of anointment- not suitable for a democratic society.
- The appointments represent the agenda of the appointment authority; hence appointed attorneys are expected to advance the agenda of the appointment authorities. Elections, on the contrary, carry on the incumbents unless they have wrongdoing.
- In the majority of states, citizens prefer electing their judges rather than imposing judges on them by the appointing authorities. Therefore, an elected judge has a dual role as an elected public servant and a judicial officer.
Cons associated with electing attorneys over the appointment
- An election is a costly process, and judges may raise campaign funds from lawyers that will appear before them, and this may compromise the delivery of justice.
- Election campaign takes time away from a bench, thus turning them from their responsibility; to deliver impartial and fair judgment, a timely and favorable ruling of cases, and not influenced by public opinion (Forsythe, 2011).
- To be independent, judges should not run for election. The code of ethical conduct restricts judges from not making promises and prejudging a case, as it is the case for those seeking election.
- A judge election contest is likened to justice for sale, and this can compromise fairness in justice delivery. Judges may work to please their political supporters at the expense of truth.
In conclusion, both procedures have their limitations, but the process of election is more important and reliable in a democracy.
References
Epps Jr, W. J. (2019). An Interview with Judge Joan Lefkow. The Judges’ Journal, 58(2), 4-36
Forsythe, E. M. (2011). A Comparative Analysis Of Judicial Selection Methods In Tennessee And Kentucky: Appointed V. Elected.
.