Merit Retention Merit Retention is a system of appointing State Supreme Court Justices that was established in Florida in the 1970s. Whenever a State Supreme Court vacancy occurs, a Judicial Nominating Commission submits to the Governor the names of three to six nominees, from which he must select one to fill the opening. Once appointed, the new Justices name will appear on the ballots in the next election, with the question, of whether or not he or she should remain on the bench. New Justices face their first merit retention vote as soon as the next statewide general election is held. If the Justice is not retained in office, the appointment process will be repeated. If the Justice is retained however, she or he will serve a six-year term beginning in January following the merit retention election. Florida State Supreme Court Justices then face another retention vote in the general election occurring shortly before their six-year term concludes.
If a Justice is not retained then, the Judicial Nominating Commission and the Governor will replace him or her. Additionally, the Florida Constitution institutes a mandatory retirement age for all Justices who reach the age of 70 (FL Supreme Court, 2005).
According to proponents of the merit system, when united with a stipulation for intermittent retention elections, merit selection allows an accommodation between the conflicting concepts of judicial independence and accountability, though many people question whether retention elections actually ensure any consequential degree of accountability at all. Critics cite that because incumbents appear for retention without an opponent, judicial retentions are generally very low-key affairs, which result in negligible voter interest in, and knowledge about, the Judges qualifications and past performance. As in nonpartisan elections, voters also have no cues to tell them who to vote for. Consequently, voter drop-off has been more considerable in retention elections than in both partisan and nonpartisan judicial elections. Moreover, generally all judges are habitually retained in office, regardless of their qualifications or past performance (Webster, 1995).
The Term Paper on Election Laws Cases
1. Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 FACTS: Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano’s objection, based on Monsod’s alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition. ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the ...
Personally, I dont think that the type of merit retention system that is in place in Florida should be extended to the US Supreme Court or the Federal courts. The entire thing seems a bit haphazard to me.
Everyone I know who votes, always votes that judges should be retained. Certainly there couldnt be any type of national retention election for Supreme Court Justices. I do think that restructuring the Supreme Court and the Federal courts could be a good idea, however I dont think that the President should pick whomever he wants and then have the voters decide whether or not to keep the appointment. As all Federal courts below the Supreme Court are creations of Congress, Congress certainly has the Constitutional power to limit their jurisdiction. If Americans really want more control over the Judiciary, Congress could, among other things, impose term limits on Judges, or require the reconfirmation of all Federal Judges after a certain number of years. I dont think there would be any benefit from having the public become more involved in the confirmation or retention of Federal judges. If there were any benefit, it would probably be negligible.
Taking control of the Judiciary indirectly, through Congress would certainly prove more advantageous to the public. Of course there are drawback to that as well. As citizens of a democratic Republic, we are in a vary precarious position. We need our judges to respect the Constitution, ignore their personal prejudices, be free from the whims of majorities and public interference, and to apply the law impartially. We also have to be careful not to create a body of ruling elites who dictate the law to us according to their own subjective views. Im not entirely sure how to navigate between these two dilemmas. Certainly no reasonable person is able to choose one over the other, and thats why merit retention is a far from perfect system.
The Essay on Supreme Court Election Cnn Florida
Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore went to the Florida Supreme Court today to call for an immediate count of some 14, 000 disputed Florida ballots. Meanwhile, the Bush team pressed ahead with transition plans, and Florida legislators considered a special session to name electors. DEVELOPING STORY Listen now: CNN election coverage Real or Windows Media Video: ? Excerpt of Al Gore interview ...
It simply represents the best thing that people have thought of as yet. It works relatively well in Florida, and Im sure that if there was a truly unpopular, dictatorial Justice on the State Supreme Court, we could have her or him removed. The system itself is far to imperfect to be applied at a national level though. Perhaps in time a better system will be thought up. References Florida Supreme Court. (2005, April).
Merit Retention and Mandatory Retirement of Justices of the Florida Supreme Court. Florida Supreme Court.org. Retrieved April 7th, 2005 from the World Wide Web://www.floridasupremecourt.org/ justices/merit.shtml Webster, Peter D.
(1995).
Selection and Retention of Judges: Is there one best Method? Florida State University Law Review. Retreived April 7th, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/ lawreview/issues/231/ webster.html.
