Final answer:
The selection of judges is crucial for the judicial system, with merits claimed for partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and merit selection. Merit selection is often viewed as the best method to minimize political influence while focusing on qualifications and judicial temperament. However, the ideal method depends on the societal values prioritized within a jurisdiction.
Step-by-step explanation:
The selection of judges and justices is a critical component of the judicial system. The three main types of judicial selection are partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and merit selection. In partisan elections, candidates are affiliated with and supported by political parties. This offers voters information about the candidates' likely judicial philosophies based on party lines, yet it may also lead to the politicization of the bench. In nonpartisan elections, candidates' party affiliations are not listed on the ballot.
This can reduce the overt influence of party politics but may still result in campaign politics influencing judicial decisions. Merit selection, also known as the 'Missouri Plan', involves a nonpartisan commission that evaluates candidates and sends a shortlist to the governor for appointment. The appointed judge then faces periodic retention elections, where voters decide whether or not to keep the judge in office without the competition of opposing candidates.
Many argue that merit selection is the best system for choosing judges because it seeks to emphasize qualifications and judicial temperament over political considerations. It minimizes partisan influence while still allowing for public input through retention elections. This could arguably result in a more independent judiciary and contribute to a more balanced interpretation of the law.
Ultimately, the best system depends on many factors including the legal culture of the jurisdiction, history, and the values the society wishes to prioritize, such as independence, accountability, or public participation.