Chp 9 - Judicial

Which four primary methods of judicial selection are used across the American states, and note which method is most commonly associated with each region of the country.

Partisan election (used in ~10 states, mostly South)

Nonpartisan election (~15 states, Midwest & West)

Merit selection / Missouri Plan (~25 states + D.C.)

Gubernatorial or legislative appointment (~10 states, often Northeast)

Partisan Judicial Elections

Used in about 10 states, mostly in the South. Candidates run under party labels; voters see party affiliation, which provides voters with a choice, and judges are held accountable to the electorate. It also may allow party loyalty to override impartiality. Very high levels of campaign spending and “attack ads”.

Nonpartisan Judicial Elections

Used in about 15 states in the Midwest and West. Intended to reduce partisanship while retaining voter accountability. These contests have remained expensive, and well-funded interest groups along with independent expenditures, frequently dominate the airwaves. Critics therefore, argue that NAME RECOGNITION and the sheer VOLUME OF MONEY SPENT still determine who wins, even without party labels.

Merit Selection/Missouri Plan Method to Select Judges

Begins with a nonpartisan nominating commission composed of lawyers and lay citizens who

screen applicants and send a short list of qualified candidates to the governor.

Governor then appoints one person from that list.

After one to three years, the judge must run in a NON-COMPETITIVE RETENTION ELECTION; if retained, the judge serves a longer term before facing another retention vote.

Used in about 25 states and the District of Columbia. The entire design is meant to remove partisan politics from the initial selection process while still preserving periodic public accountability through those retention elections.

Gubernational/ Legislative Appointment Judicial Selection

Used in around 10 states, typically Northeast. Governor selects the judge, often subject to confirmation by the legislature or one of its committees. Allows for expert screening, reduced public campaigning, and an emphasis on professional qualifications. Can also lead to patronage appointments and significantly lower public accountability. Judges chosen this way typically serve six- to ten-year terms and then face either reappointment or a retention vote.

In what key ways do state judges differ from federal judges with respect to tenure and accountability mechanisms?

Do not have life-time tenure, generally face reappointment review, reelection, or retention to ensure accountability

Discuss why state court systems must balance both Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability.

The federal model of lifetime tenure maximizes independence but removes any meaningful democratic check once a judge is seated. State rely on periodic elections or retention votes precisely to enforce that accountability while trying not to undermine the impartiality that independence is meant to protect.

Judicial Independence

Judges must be free from political pressure to decide cases on law and facts

Judicial Accountability

Judges are public officials and must answer to the electorate or elected branches

How does the “new judicial federalism” allow state supreme courts to expand civil rights and liberties beyond federal constitutional minima? Provide one historical example.

Beginning in the 1970s and continuing to the present, “new judicial federalism” has existed in which state supreme courts have deliberately expanded civil rights and liberties beyond the minimum standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court. Ex: state courts recognizing broader rights to privacy in search-and-seizure cases, stronger equal-protection guarantees for certain groups, or more expansive free-speech protections in public forums.

Judicial Federalism

state courts’ independent interpretation of state constitutions before federal law

Outline the typical three-tier structure of a state court system and briefly describe the jurisdiction of each level (trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and state supreme courts).

Level 1 – Trial courts (general & limited jurisdiction): fact-finding, jury trials

Level 2 – Intermediate appellate courts: error correction of trial courts, most appeals end here

Level 3 – State supreme court (court of last resort): policy-making, discretionary review

Variations: some states have specialized courts (family, drug, juvenile)

How do partisan judicial elections potentially threaten judicial impartiality? What evidence from recent decades supports this concern?

From 2016 to 2018, nearly 87% of incumbent judges running for reelection are successful. Electorate can be mobilized by candidates who are engaging, distressing events, controversial issues, or cases with emotional content. Affects _____ ______ when noncontroversial decisions become the subject of campaign attack ads

Analyze the impact of large campaign contributions and independent expenditures in judicial elections on public perceptions of judicial independence.

Large donations from PACs or other donors, along with previously corrupt Judges leads the public to believe that ______ ______ influence judicial independence

Explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) and its consequences for judicial campaign speech.

Ruled that judicial candidates have a First Amendment right to announce their views on disputed legal and political issues, which further opened the door to openly ideological campaigning. The result is that many citizens now perceive state judges less as neutral umpires and more as politicians wearing robes.

Discuss the role of state supreme courts in interpreting state constitutions and shaping public policy, using the concept of “judicial activism” versus “judicial restraint” as a framework.

Judicial Activism

Making of judicial public policy through decisions that overturn existing law or effectively make new laws

Judicial Restraint

judges limit their own power by refusing to create new laws or overturn existing ones unless they clearly violate the Constitution. It promotes deference to elected officials, focuses on following legal precedent (stare decisis), and avoids inserting personal or political beliefs into rulings

What is jury nullification? Under what circumstances might a jury engage in it, and what are the broader implications for the rule of law and judicial accountability?

Jurors consciously refuse to apply a law they believe is unjust, even though the facts of the case would otherwise require a guilty verdict. The familiar debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint plays out in state courts just as it does in federal courts, but with the added pressure that most state judges must periodically face the voters, which can influence how aggressively or cautiously they approach policy-making questions.

How has the increasing politicization of state judiciaries manifested itself since the 1980s? Cite at least two specific trends or developments discussed in the chapter.

Campaign spending in some high-profile judicial races has reached tens of millions of dollars, much of it coming from interest groups through independent expenditures and so-called dark money.

Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of lifetime tenure (as used at the federal level) when applied to the state judiciary context.

What reforms have scholars and reformers proposed to reduce the influence of money and partisanship in state judicial selection while preserving accountability?

Public financing of judicial campaigns, longer terms between retention elections, mandatory disclosure of independent expenditures, and more robust commission-based screening processes.

Why is judicial diversity (in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender) an important issue in state courts, and what barriers to greater diversity does the chapter identify?

Compare the appointment method with the merit selection (Missouri Plan) method. Which method better achieves the twin goals of independence and accountability, and why?

Drawing on the chapter’s central theme, argue whether the current mix of judicial selection

methods across the fifty states strikes an appropriate balance between independence and

accountability. Support your position with specific examples from at least two different

selection systems.

According to the presentation, how many judicial districts does Louisiana use for its trial courts

of general jurisdiction?

The Louisiana Supreme Court is composed of how many justices, each elected from a specific

district?

Supreme Court districts in Louisiana were most recently reapportioned by

What is the length of the term of office for Louisiana Supreme Court justices and Courts of

Appeal judges?

The five Louisiana Courts of Appeal are domiciled in which of the following cities?

According to the material, the total number of judges serving on Louisiana’s five Courts of Appeal

is

Louisiana district courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over which of the following types

of cases?

How many city courts currently operate in Louisiana?

All judges in Louisiana—from district court to the Supreme Court—are selected by

Louisiana’s partisan judicial elections use a “jungle primary” system in which

The Louisiana Supreme Court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over

Which court level in Louisiana handles the great majority of appeals and uses panels of at least

three judges?

In the chapter recap, Louisiana’s judiciary is described as balancing accessibility through local

courts with centralized oversight while preserving the state’s

According to the presentation, approximately how many justices of the peace courts operate in

Louisiana?

The chief justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court is selected by

Louisiana Supreme Court justices and Courts of Appeal judges must retire at age

A judgment by the Louisiana Supreme Court requires the concurrence of

Vacancies in Louisiana judgeships that occur midterm are filled by

All Louisiana judges—from district court to the Supreme Court—are selected through

partisan elections. True or False

T or F Louisiana district courts exercise appellate jurisdiction over decisions from city, parish,

mayor’s, and justice-of-the-peace courts.

T or F The five Louisiana Courts of Appeal use panels of at least three judges, and a majority of

the panel must concur to render a judgment.

T or F Courts of limited jurisdiction in Louisiana, such as city courts and justices of the peace

courts, conduct jury trials in misdemeanor and small-claims cases.

T or F The Louisiana Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over lawyer disciplinary

proceedings.