Merit Pl 1980-2000 Voters

In the Merit Plan, which most states use, states claim to remove politics from the judiciary by replacing it with merit. In the process a commission of ten people nominate usually three people that the governor will pick from to appoint. The appointed judge then has to face a retention election in the next general election and another election at the end of their term, which only needs a majority vote. While claiming to take politics out of elections, the commission is more likely to nominate people the governor would personally nominate because the governor places people with his ideology on the committee. The governor also controls who is appointed as he can choose any names offered by the commission. The problem are the retention elections. “The data reveal that from the inception of the Missouri Plan the vast majority of judges seeking retention have kept their seats…state supreme court justices from …show more content…
There is rarely sufficient information to show of a poor performance and because it is a retention election and not a contested election there is hardly any reason for opponents to run negative ads. Citizens usually do not know judges records which causes them to pick the name that sound the most familiar. “Judicial and political branch candidates share the same ballot, there is a well-documented "roll off ' of voters, who cast ballots in the political branch races but not the judicial. On the other hand, when judicial elections do not share the ballot with high-profile political branch contests, voters simply stay home.” This ultimately opens citizens up to the emotional appeal of party affiliations, and television commercials. Retention elections are a terrible way to measure the competence of a judge. They not only force judges to be accountable it is proven that voters do not have the same knowledge they may have about politicians. The lifetime appointment of judges is the