It's Not Who Hires You but Who Can Fire You: The Case against Retention Elections

By Aulet, Kenneth J. | Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, Summer 2011 | Go to article overview

It's Not Who Hires You but Who Can Fire You: The Case against Retention Elections


Aulet, Kenneth J., Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems


Since Republican Party of Minnesota v. White was decided by the Supreme Court, "merit selection" plans have been the favored method for judicial election reform over non-partisan elections. This Note will offer a survey of the reform methods and examine their flaws - specifically, the assumption that retention elections are less of a threat to judicial impartiality than elections to fill vacancies. This Note proposes that states that wish to retain some public control over the judiciary should abolish retention elections, while preserving elections to fill judicial vacancies. The theory that the method of judicial selection is more important than judicial retention methods in maintaining an impartial and qualified judiciary is not supported by evidence and should be discarded.

I. INTRODUCTION

Fierce debate has existed over the merits of electing judges since Georgia first started judicial elections in 1812,1 and the controversy was most recently rekindled by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's speeches on the issue following her retirement from the United States Supreme Court.2 Reformers have often advocated moving fully to the federal model, in which judges are appointed for life by the executive, but have found that in many states it is not politically tenable to abolish judicial elections entirely. Therefore, the thrust of many reform efforts has been aimed at implementing systems that retain judicial elections in a limited role, such as non-partisan elections and merit selection plans. Merit selection plans generally involve the screening of potential judges by a commission and the appointment by the governor of one of the approved judges. These judges will then periodically face retention elections - where voters either allow them to retain their seats or remove them, but do not have the option of electing someone else in their stead.

This Note argues that the method by which judges are retained rather than elected has the greatest effect on judicial independence and impartiality. There is not a significant difference between the measurable qualifications of judges chosen through merit selection and judges elected in partisan or nonpartisan elections, a significant rationale for the system,3 but the particulars of the method of judicial retention used do have a significant effect on the actions of sitting judges.4

This Note will discuss the reform efforts and debate surrounding the election of judges. Part II introduces Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and provides a history of judicial elections. Parts III focuses on the arguments made for three common methods of judicial elections in the United States, using the various opinions in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White that advocate for each: Justice Antonin Scalia's defense of partisan judicial elections; Justice John Paul Stevens's and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's arguments in favor of non-partisan judicial elections; and Justice O'Connor's arguments against judicial elections in general and her suggestion that states implement merit selection plans. Part IV demonstrates that these reform efforts have not been successful because they all require judges to be subject to periodic retention elections. As this Note will argue, retention elections are a greater threat to judicial independence than any other form of judicial elections. Finally, Part V recommends that states that demand some form of judicial elections abolish retention elections and instead institute selection elections5 in order to create a more impartial and independent judiciary.

II. THE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS AND AN INTRODUCTION TO REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE

The issue of judicial selection and retention has been a topic of debate since the American colonial era. The Declaration of Independence declared judicial independence as a founding principle of the nation and justified independence, in part, by accusing the King of making "Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

It's Not Who Hires You but Who Can Fire You: The Case against Retention Elections
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.