The proposal would establish a federal selection process for appellate judges —
gubernatorial appointment with confirmation by both houses of the legislature (the «plus»).
Before the mid-1800s, nearly all states admitted to the Union selected their judges by this method of
gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation as well, though some opted to select judges by legislative vote alone.
Not exact matches
ALBANY — After a report last week that
gubernatorial aides were involving themselves
with a supposedly independent anti-corruption panel, a major good - government group has written a letter voicing concern that such interference would be «a shocking waste of the momentum for meaningful change which its
appointment created.»
There's also Indiana, where the two - year - long battle between reformers on the state's board of education and Supt. Glenda Ritz will likely come to a head
with efforts in the state legislature to make the latter's job a
gubernatorial appointment as well as Gov. Mike Pence's plan to clarify state law by allowing the body to appoint its own chair instead of having Ritz at its helm.
There are several anticipated efforts in 2014 to alter processes for selecting state court judges, particularly in states
with commission - based
gubernatorial appointment of appellate judges.
IAALS Online recently summarized anticipated efforts in 2014 to alter processes for selecting state court judges, and a recent article in the ABA Journal honed in on a common trend in a handful of these states
with commission - based
gubernatorial appointment of appellate judges.
At the Supreme Court level, nine states used the
gubernatorial appointment process
with some form of confirmation of candidates by the legislature or another elected body, according to the Brennan Center.
A third proposal (HB 2150 of 2007) would have replaced nonpartisan elections
with gubernatorial appointment from a judicial nominating commission list and yes / no retention elections.