1. Judicial Selection

2. Nonpartisan Election (14) Partisan Election (6) Legislative Appointment (2) Merit Selection Hybrid (9) Merit Selection (16) Gubernatorial Appointment (3) Most Democratic Least Democratic

4. Citizen Nominating Commission Gubernatorial Selection Legislative Confirmation Retention Elections Merit Selection Process (Standard)

5. Brian T. Fitzpatrick “The Politics of Merit Selection” (2009) State bars dominate selection of attorney members Attorneys dominate state merit commissions Merit selection nominees thus more likely to reflect state bar preferences than larger state population

6. How Democratic are Merit Selection Commissions? StateTotal # of Members # Lawyers # Judges# Non- Lawyers Minimum % Lawyers/Judges TN17140382 FL96-900-367 MO731358 IA1571753 UT82-413-538 HA92-405-722

7. State% of Attorney members nominated by state bar AK, AZ, IN, IA, KS, MO, NE, OK, SD, WY 100% TN86% (12 of 14) DC50-67% (2 of 3-4) NM50% FL44-67% (4 of 6-9) DE16% CO, CT, MA, NH, NY, RI, UT 0%

8. % of TN merit-plan nominees who voted in Democratic primaries vs % of votes received by Democratic candidates in general elections

9. % of merit nominees who were Democrats in TN & MO by Governor’s political party Democratic Governors Republican Governors Tennessee82%54% Missouri94%72%

10. Reasons not to be overly concerned Judicial and commission self-selection. Democrats more likely to self select towards government service. Legislative confirmation. For regular appointments, legislative confirmation required. Makes ideologues less likely Non-partisan nature of majority of cases.

11. State Bar Association Gubernatorial Selection Legislative Confirmation Retention Elections Kansas Variation on Missouri Plan

12. A Current Challenge to Merit Selection Iowa Anger over same-sex marriage decision, active movement to punish justices through anti-retention vote Result: All three judges lost their seats. Is this a proper use of retention elections, or should they solely concern judicial competence?

13. California – A Hybrid System Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Appointed by Governor, Confirmed by Commission on Judicial Appointments Retention election during next gubernatorial election, with 12 year term District Courts Non partisan elections, 6 year terms, vacancies filled by gubernatorial appointment (most)

14. Selection Method and Diversity %, American Judicature Society, May 2008.

15. Contributions to Candidates, 2000-2009, by type of election

18. State Supreme Court Election Independent Spending (2000-2009)

23. Partisan v. Non-Partisan Elections Chris Bonneau/ Melinda Gann Hall: Partisan elections cost more, BUT Citizens vote more actively given party cues

24. Spending: Partisan v. Non-Partisan

25. Arkansas switches partisan to non- partisan in 2000

26. North Carolina switches partisan to non-partisan in 2004

27. Republican Party v. White (2002) Minnesota’s code of judicial ethics prohibited candidates seeking election as a judge from discussing issues that might come before them if they were elected—referred to as an "announce clause.“ Gregory Wersal campaign for state Supreme Court, criticizing specific Sup Ct decisions

28. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co (2009) WV jury institutes a $50 million award to Caperton from Massey Massey CEO, Don Blankenship, spents $3 million dollars to elect Brent Benjamin to WV Supreme Court Benjamin provides crucial vote to reverse award (twice)

29. West Virginia Chief Justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard (left), in the French Riviera with coal exec Don Blankenship, later loses 2008 Election

30. Avery v. State Farm (Illinois, 2004-5) State Farm has appeal of > $450 million judgment pending before IL Sup Ct (2004) State Farm, affiliates, pro-business groups spend $9.3 million to elect Lloyd Karmeier Karmeier wins ‘04 election, calls funding “obscene,” yet declines to recuse from Avery August 2005: Karmeier casts decisive vote to reverse on breach of claims valued