Retention election

Last updated

A retention election or retention referendum is a referendum where voters are asked if an office holder, usually a judge, should be allowed to continue in that office. The judge is removed from office if a majority of votes are cast against retention. Retention elections are held periodically, usually at the same time as a general election.

Contents

A judicial retention vote differs from a regular election in that voters are not asked to choose from a list of candidates — the judges on the ballot do not have opponents. Rather, the voter chooses between electing the incumbent judge to a further term in office (i.e. voting in favor of "retention") or voting against. They are usually nonpartisan, as the judge's party affiliation, if any, typically is not listed on the ballot. [1] A judge is deemed to have been retained if ballots cast in favor of retention outnumber those against.

By way of example, judicial retention elections are used in the U.S. state of Illinois. In the 2008 general election, the voters of Cook County, Illinois were asked to vote on the following: [2]

Shall each of the persons listed be retained in office as Judge of the Appellate Court, First Judicial District?

Michael J. Gallagher, Yes or No

Margaret Stanton McBride, Yes or No

Additional instructions on the ballot made clear that "no judge listed is running against any other judge" and that voters were able to vote "yes" on both, "no" on both, or "yes" on one and "no" on the other.

History

California

In 1934, Judicial retention elections were first used by California's state court system to fill vacancies. [3] (Text of the law may be seen below.) These retention elections served as an alternative to elections which were previously contested. After appointment by the governor and confirmation by the Commissioner on Judicial Appointments, an incumbent judge would appear on the ballot without an opponent and voters would vote for or against. [4] Judges receiving a majority of votes would be elected to serve.

California State Constitution: Article VI, Section 16 d. [5]

(1) Within 30 days before August 16 preceding the expiration of the judge's term, a judge of the Supreme Court or a court of appeal may file a declaration of candidacy to succeed to the office presently held by the judge. If the declaration is not filed, the Governor before September 16 shall nominate a candidate. At the next general election, only the candidate so declared or nominated may appear on the ballot, which shall present the question whether the candidate shall be elected. The candidate shall be elected upon receiving a majority of the votes on the question.

In 1937, the American Bar Association endorsed retention elections for judges.

Missouri Plan

Growing distaste of politics and corruption affecting the gubernatorial appointments of judges brought about the reform when selecting judges. In 1940, the state of Missouri adopted the Missouri Plan, which contained a judicial retention process similar to that of California. This plan which is also known as the merit system, was proposed by Albert M. Kales, co-founder of the American Judicature Society. [6] Under the Missouri Plan, judges were to be nominated by a council of lawyers and laypersons. A list of candidates would then go to the governor, who would choose a candidate. It was noted that the Missouri Plan needed a form of public accountability so it was decided that, after an election cycle had passed, the judicial candidate would be subject to periodic, public retention elections.

Usage

Japan

The Constitution of Japan, drafted by the U.S. authorities during the occupation of Japan following World War II, effected a similar arrangement for justices of the Supreme Court of Japan.

United States

Retention elections are used in many U.S. state court systems to retain trial court and appellate court judges. [7] The following 20 states use retention elections for at least some judges:

1 Appellate court retention election

2 Trial court retention election

Criticism

Many legal scholars[ who? ] disapprove of any form of judicial elections on the grounds that they may undermine the independence of the courts and encourage judges to act as politicians. It is argued that of the three branches of government (legislature, executive, and judiciary) the judicial branch should be the least concerned with public opinion, but that retention elections cause judges to take into account the view of the electorate when deciding cases. It is also argued that retention elections may lead to corruption because to successfully run for public office money and campaigning is needed. This may allow interest groups to take advantage of the system by giving money in exchange for favourable rulings by individual judges.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

In the United States, a state supreme court is the highest court in the state judiciary of a U.S. state. On matters of state law, the judgment of a state supreme court is considered final and binding in both state and federal courts.

The government of the U.S. state of Missouri is organized into the state government and local government, including county government, and city and municipal government.

The Missouri Plan is a method for the selection of judges. It originated in Missouri in 1940 and has been adopted by many states of the United States. Similar methods are used in some other countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Pennsylvania</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System. It also claims to be the oldest appellate court in the United States, a claim that is disputed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania began in 1684 as the Provincial Court, and casual references to it as the "Supreme Court" of Pennsylvania were made official in 1722 upon its reorganization as an entity separate from the control of the royal governor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tennessee Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Tennessee

The Tennessee Supreme Court is the highest court in the state of Tennessee. The Supreme Court's three buildings are seated in Nashville, Knoxville, and Jackson, Tennessee. The Court is composed of five members: a chief justice, and four justices. As of September 1, 2023, the chief justice is Holly M. Kirby.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Maryland</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Maryland

The Supreme Court of Maryland is the highest court of the U.S. state of Maryland. The court, which is composed of one chief justice and six associate justices, meets in the Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building in the state capital, Annapolis. The term of the Court begins the second Monday of September. The Court is unique among American courts in that the justices wear red robes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iowa Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of Iowa. The Court is composed of a chief justice and six associate justices.

The current Constitution of the State of Maryland, which was ratified by the people of the state on September 18, 1867, forms the basic law for the U.S. state of Maryland. It replaced the short-lived Maryland Constitution of 1864 and is the fourth constitution under which the state has been governed. It was last amended in 2022.

The Alaska Court System is the unified, centrally administered, and totally state-funded judicial system for the state of Alaska. The Alaska District Courts are the primary misdemeanor trial courts, the Alaska Superior Courts are the primary felony trial courts, and the Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Court of Appeals are the primary appellate courts. The chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court is the administrative head of the Alaska Court System.

The Tennessee Plan is a system used to appoint and elect appellate court judges in Tennessee. It is largely patterned after the Missouri Plan, and an earlier version in Tennessee was called the Modified Missouri Plan. At the end of every judge's eight-year term following a judicial appointment to the highest courts, retention elections are held, which have the option of whether each judge shall be retained through a yes-no option. This system applies to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate Court of Maryland</span> Marylands intermediate appellate court

The Appellate Court of Maryland is the intermediate appellate court for the U.S. state of Maryland. The Appellate Court of Maryland was created in 1966 in response to the rapidly growing caseload in the Supreme Court of Maryland. Like the state's highest court, the tribunal meets in the Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building in the state capital, Annapolis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Mexico Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of New Mexico

The New Mexico Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of New Mexico. It is established and its powers defined by Article VI of the New Mexico Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decisions of New Mexico's trial courts of general jurisdiction and certain specialized legislative courts, only having original jurisdiction in a limited number of actions. It currently resides in the New Mexico Supreme Court Building in Santa Fe.

The Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission was established in 1958 when Kansas voters approved an amendment to the state's constitution. The commission is tasked with presenting the governor with a slate of three qualified candidates whenever a vacancy occurs on the Kansas Supreme Court. The governor interviews the candidates and makes the appointment. This process, known as merit selection, is used by Kansas and 21 other states, along with the District of Columbia, for selecting all members of their highest court.

N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that involved a constitutional challenge brought against New York State's judicial election law, alleging that it unfairly prevented candidates from obtaining access to the ballot. The Supreme Court rejected this challenge and held that the state's election laws did not infringe upon candidates' First Amendment associational rights. Several concurring justices emphasized, however, that their decision reflected only the constitutionality of the state's election system, and not its wisdom or merit.

Penny J. White is an American attorney and former judge who served as a judge on Tennessee's First Judicial Circuit, a judge for the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, and a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court. Former Justice White was the second woman to serve on the Tennessee Supreme Court. White was removed from office in a judicial retention election in 1996 as the only justice to lose a retention election in Tennessee under the Tennessee Plan. After her time in the judiciary, White served as a professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law until her retirement in 2022.

The Judiciary of California or the Judicial Branch of California is defined under the California Constitution as holding the judicial power of the state of California which is vested in the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts. The judiciary has a hierarchical structure with the California Supreme Court at the top, California Courts of Appeal as the primary appellate courts, and the California Superior Courts as the primary trial courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 North Carolina judicial elections</span>

One justice of the seven-member North Carolina Supreme Court and five judges of the 15-member North Carolina Court of Appeals were elected by North Carolina voters on November 8, 2016, concurrently with other state elections. Terms for seats on each court are eight years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 Illinois judicial elections</span> American election

The 2020 Illinois judicial elections consisted of both partisan and retention elections, including those for three seats on the Supreme Court of Illinois and 10 seats in the Illinois Appellate Court. Primary elections were held on March 17, 2020, and the general election was held on November 3, 2020. These elections were part of the 2020 Illinois elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 Illinois judicial elections</span> American election

The 2018 Illinois judicial elections consisted of both partisan and retention elections, including those for one seat on the Supreme Court of Illinois and five seats in the Illinois Appellate Court. Primary elections were held on March 20, 2018, and general elections were held on November 6, 2018. These elections were part of the 2018 Illinois elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 Illinois judicial elections</span> American election

The 2014 Illinois judicial elections consisted of both partisan and retention elections, including those one seat of the Supreme Court of Illinois for ten seats in the Illinois Appellate Court. Primary elections were held on March 18, 2014, and general elections were held on November 4, 2014. These elections were part of the 2014 Illinois elections.

References

  1. ↑ Larry Aspin; William K. Hall; Jean Bax; Celeste Montoya (2000). "Thirty Years of Judicial Retention Elections: An Update". Social Science Journal. 37 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(99)00056-7. S2CID   144721885.
  2. ↑ "Specimen General Election Ballot; Chicago, Illinois; Tuesday, November 4, 2008". Archived from the original on July 15, 2011.
  3. ↑ B. Michael Dann; Randall M. Hansen (June 2001). "Judicial Retention Elections" (PDF). Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 34 (1429): 1443–1444.
  4. ↑ Darcy, R. "Conflict and Reform: Oklahoma Judicial Elections 1907 - 1998" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 22 March 2011.
  5. ↑ "State Constitution". California State Constitution, Article VI: Judicial. Retrieved 27 March 2011.
  6. ↑ ABA Coalition for Justice; updated by the American Judicature (2008). Judicial selection the process of choosing judges (PDF). [Chicago, Ill.]: American Bar Association, Coalition for Justice. ISBN   978-1-60442-733-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ↑ "Judicial Selection and Service (Tables 4-11)". Judicial Selection and Retention Resource Guide. National Center for State Courts. Retrieved February 22, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.