Frequently asked questions

What is the Hunter Center for Judicial Selection?
AJS is recognized as a national authority on judicial selection and continues to conduct numerous activities to promote the selection of the very best judges. Established and endowed in 1991, AJS’s Elmo B. Hunter Citizens Center for Judicial Selection supports judicial selection reform and research on judicial selection.

What does the Center do?
The Hunter Center for Judicial Selection serves as a resource to educate and inform the public, the media, and the judicial community about issues related to judicial selection. The Center has created the Judicial Selection in the States Web site (the most comprehensive and current source of information about judicial selection in all 50 states and the District of Columbia). In addition, representatives from the Center regularly participate in programs designed to address prominent issues related to judicial selection.

What is the relationship between judicial selection and judicial independence?
Judicial independence is critical; it is the only way to guarantee fair and impartial justice for all Americans. In order to be sure that every American receives fair and equal justice in the court system, we need to ensure that judges are able to do their job without undue political pressure from parties, political leaders, and private citizens. By limiting the role of politics in selecting judges, we can limit the political influences that may hinder fair and impartial justice.

Does AJS’s Hunter Center advocate adoption of any specific method of judicial selection?
Yes. AJS cofounder Albert Kales developed the merit selection plan (often referred to as the Missouri plan). AJS continues to promote the adoption of merit selection in the states.

What is merit selection?
Merit selection is a system whereby the state sets up a bipartisan nominating commission, including members of the legal community as well as citizens. When a vacancy occurs on the court, applicants submit their applications to this nominating commission. The commission then reviews the applications, conducts interviews with the applicants, and assesses the qualifications of each. The commission creates a list of names of those they feel are most qualified for the job (this list usually contains 3-8 names depending upon the state). This list is given to the governor, who chooses one of the people on the list and appoints that person to a judgeship. After serving, the judge is then regularly placed on the ballot for a “retention election” and citizens get to decide whether or not they will retain their seat on the bench.

Why is it better than other methods of selection?
Not only does merit selection ensure that only the most qualified candidates become judges, but it also limits the influence of any one political party or public official. In doing so, it frees judges from overt political influence and promotes a fair and impartial judiciary. Furthermore, retention elections provide a mechanism whereby those judges who are failing to live up to their responsibilities to the citizens can be removed from the bench. Unlike popular elections or appointment, merit selection seeks to balance judicial independence (by removing – as much as possible – direct political control over judges) with public accountability (by allowing citizens to decide whether the judge is retained in office).

Can merit selection promote diversity on the bench?
Conventional wisdom says that the only way to promote diversity on the bench is to use elections to choose judges. But, as is often the case, conventional wisdom is wrong. The best way to achieve diversity is by using a well-designed merit selection system. Even absent provisions that specifically aim to produce diversity on the bench, merit selection is as effective at producing greater numbers of women and minorities who serve on the bench as elections are. With provisions that specifically advocate diversity (for example, a merit selection system that specifies that members of the judicial nominating commission should represent the demographic makeup of the population), merit selection outperforms elections in achieving diversity on the bench. In fact, research has demonstrated that minority judges are significantly more likely to have been appointed than elected.

Is there a way to remove all politics from judicial selection?
No. There is no perfect method of selection. Rather than removing all politics from the selection process, the goal is to remove as much political pressure as possible and therefore ensure that judges are as fair and impartial as possible.