ipl-logo

Merit Plan Pros And Cons

694 Words3 Pages

The Merit Plan
Judges in the state of Nevada ascend to their positions through an election by the citizens of Nevada. “In 2007 and 2009, the legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment calling for merit selection of Nevada judges.”(JudicialSelection.US) The Merit plan, is a system of appointing judges through bipartisan commissions who forward the lists of shortlisted candidates to the appointing authority to pick from the list. This is followed by periodic votes by the electorate to determine whether these judges will be retained. The Merit plan, or Missouri plan, has its origins in the state of Missouri in 1940.The two systems of selecting judges both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths of Nevada's System of Electing …show more content…

Proponents of Nevada's system of electing judges have argued that competitive election of judges is the most democratic way of ensuring that judges remain accountable to the people. Proponents add that elections affirm the electoral beliefs of candidates who present themselves for judicial positions. These arguments rest on the reality that judges cannot be politically neutral in their personal capacities. Rather than conceal the political penchants of judicial candidates, it is better to have them known. Such political inclinations can only be known through campaigns that precede judicial elections. Nevada's system of electing judges can, therefore, be praised for being democratic. Some of the founding fathers of the U.S. such as Thomas Jefferson argued that exempting judges from the election was dangerous because the ultimate power of the society is vested in the people. By comparison, the merit system is seen to be undemocratic in excluding the citizens from the appointment of judges in the first …show more content…

The appointment of judges has become clearly political. It is not uncommon to hear of candidates making statements with regards to contested political issues as well as the use of partisan language. According to (Bannon, 10) “For neutral arbiters, this heightened political temperature risks exacerbating pressures to decide cases based on political loyalty or expediency, rather than on their understanding of the law.” The selection of judges through popular election therefore suffers serious flaws since the electorate tend to base their decisions on charm instead of serious determinants. The results can be that the person elected as a judge turns out to be one who falls short of the glory of this office in terms of experience, legal training and education. This especially true for cases where citizens have elected the most moneyed judge rather than the most qualified

Show More
Related
671 Words | 3 Pages

1. Briefly discuss the four general methods of selecting state judges (appointment, partisan election, nonpartisan elections, and merit selection) and choose one in which you feel will result in the best judicial candidate, and why. When selecting a state judge the methods used are diverse compared to selecting a federal court judge since there are four general methods used, this

Read More
442 Words | 2 Pages

An example of this is that Adams wanted to appoint john Jay, but he said no saying that the court lacked “energy, weight, and dignity to support the government,” (86). Not only was turnover for resigning was very high, but sometimes they didn’t assemble enough people so many cases were carried over or canceled. Even through all the struggles of being looked down upon, not enough people wanting to take part, and people trying to overturn him John Marshall stood victorious. He changed the perceived appearance of the judges, coagulated the court, and having the court speak at one. “Marshall participated in 42 of the 46 court cases, and in those he wrote the court’s opinion,” (86).

Read More
1528 Words | 7 Pages

Tulsa L. Rev., 38, 609. Devins, N., & Fisher, L. (1998). Judicial exclusivity and political instability. Virginia Law Review, 83–106.

Read More
1804 Words | 8 Pages

The electoral reform I am suggesting was first proposed by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1978 and it was called the “National Bonus Plan”. The National Bonus Plan is not a dramatic change to the way elections in the U.S. currently take place, but I think the modifications that would be necessary with campaigns and political strategy to be successful in this new era could be productive ones. It retains the current electoral college and many of the same characteristics that are used today, but it awards extra electoral college votes for winning the popular vote. While there are pros and cons to this idea, I believe the positives would outweigh the negatives if we consider a few changes to Schlesinger’s original plan. The original plan proposed

Read More
710 Words | 3 Pages

Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.

Read More
680 Words | 3 Pages

Ultimately, Nifong proved in a more extreme example how the prosecutor's dilemma and political influence in the justice system can corrupt individuals -- as every government official is a rational actor who seeks re-election in order to maintain status and power, and unfortunately, sometimes this rationality leads to violations of

Read More
352 Words | 2 Pages

- PRO: Those in favor of abolishing peremptory challenges argue that this current process is lengthy, costly, and ineffective. The author supports this stance with high-profile case trials of previous times. In a case such as the OJ Simpson’s trial, the author reveals that there were 300 citizens selected to be potential jurors and only a few were actually chosen. Additionally, prosecutors and defense attorneys took three months to eliminate candidates and did so with the aid of jury consultants. Consequently, peremptory challenges are believed to slow down court proceedings and making it more costly for the time that is said to be wasted.

Read More
807 Words | 4 Pages

The Texas Constitution has three branches of government, the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. Every branch is responsible for certain duties that make this state run smoothly. If I could change one thing about each of the three branches, what would it be and why? The legislative branch is the branch that is in charge of making the laws, and it is by law that government define crime, establish the basis of civil suits, determine what will be taxed and who will pay how much in taxes, and set up government programs and the agencies that administer them.

Read More
739 Words | 3 Pages

Sonia Sotomayor, a supreme court nominee, in her speech to the Senate Judiciary Committee speaks about the struggles of her childhood and how she has gotten to this point in her career. She explains her previous jobs such as being a trial judge for several years, and how that has improved her ability to implement the law. The purpose of Sotomayor’s speech is to persuade the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the people of the United States to support her in becoming the next Supreme Court Justice. Sotomayor utilizes ethos, pathos, as well as an optimistic tone in order to convince the audience that she is the best candidate for the next supreme court justice.

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

Is the American Jury System still a Good Idea? In the American Judicial System today, there is a choice between trial by jury or bench trial. Trial by jury is used today by selecting jurors from pools of people who are eligible, adult American citizens. Trial by jury is often controversial because of how the jurors are not professionals whereas in a bench trial, a judge is highly educated in law (Doc B).

Read More
465 Words | 2 Pages

A fair and unbiased court system is necessary for the legal system. The role of the court is to correct any injustice, not to compound it. When prejudice and corruption leak into the courts, what recourse do we have for eradicating them from society? Our judges must be stalwarts of integrity because the power to move our country forward or hold our country back often lies in their hands. Judge Persky had the power to bring justice to a victim, to help her and her family move forward.

Read More
68 Words | 1 Pages

Dontae you have a really good point. In comparison to appointments however I have to go with the partisan election of judges. Appointments faults are far greater than the partisan’s approach for me. In addition, I looked at the non-partisan type of election and I can see where this would be more effective than both simply due to the voters not knowing their party affiliation but qualifications

Read More
932 Words | 4 Pages

To win any kind of election/re-election candidates must work to please voters. Here in Texas where a majority of people have a strong pro-death penalty stance, judges must also have a strong stance regarding the death penalty if they would like to remain in office. This is concerning because judges will be more likely to seek he death penalty for the convicted so they can create a record of toughness to win over voters. Some elected judges are sometimes of lesser quality than appointed judges in other states, but since they have a record of toughness everything else is thrown out the window. District attorneys also try to maintain a tough reputation as well.

Read More
1521 Words | 7 Pages

Our legal system allows judges to make important decisions on their own, which is a huge responsibility, and if it falls into the wrong hands, there could be severe

Read More
801 Words | 4 Pages

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

Read More

More about Merit Plan Pros And Cons

Related Topics

Open Document