Wondering why your ballot always includes some unfamiliar names with judicial titles who seem to be running unopposed? There are two things at work here. One is California’s unique judicial selection-and-retention system, which largely results in bench officers receiving no ballot opposition. The other is that California’s system is so successful at producing an effective and independent judiciary that the political options are rarely used.

This system is the product of a deliberate constitutional design decision to balance the competing concerns in judicial appointment-and-retention systems. There are other options: judges are elected officials in many U.S. states, the federal government has an executive appointment system, some states rely on an independent merit selection body, and in a few states the legislature selects judges.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]