FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W211622369> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W211622369 startingPage "10" @default.
• W211622369 abstract "During the twentieth century, judicial reformers attempting to depoliticize the of state court judges and increase respect for the courts advocated moving from competitive elections for judges to selection or--as it was initially known--the Missouri Plan. During the 1960s and 1970s, these reformers enjoyed considerable success. Whereas in 1960 only three states--Alaska, Kansas, and Missouri--employed merit to choose state supreme court justices, by 1980 eighteen did so. (2) Of course, adoption of merit did not altogether eliminate judicial elections, because judges appointed under merit are in most states obliged to run periodically in retention elections. (3) Yet this requirement did not unduly concern judicial reformers, because they believed that retention elections differ fundamentally from partisan and non-partisan elections, in that they tend to banish partisanship and facilitate well-informed choices by voters. (4) Moreover, reformers recognized that, even if incumbent judges were defeated, this would not elevate unqualified persons to the bench since the nomination of their replacements would remain in the hands of non-partisan judicial commissions. Whether merit in fact reduces the influence of politics in judicial and elevates the quality of the judiciary has been the subject of considerable debate--one where social scientists have played an increasingly prominent role. (5) This Article contributes to that debate by assessing whether retention elections serve the purposes for which they were created. However, this inquiry is only one part of a comprehensive assessment of merit and retention elections. one must also consider whether the ends that merit seeks to foster are the appropriate aims for a system of judicial and whether the proponents of merit have a persuasive understanding of the problems facing the courts. To clarify this point, this Article begins by describing the context out of which merit arose and the implications of that history for the present day. I. THE ORIGINS OF MERIT SELECTION AND RETENTION ELECTIONS During the early decades of the twentieth century, when merit was first proposed, American courts were under attack. Progressives charged that judicial rulings betrayed a strong class bias, that judges regularly read their own social and economic philosophies into the law, and that judges willfully misconstrued the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to strike down needed reforms and protect business interests. (6) As one commentator put it, [J]udges habitually think in the terms of the rich and the powerful. The training, sympathies, experiences, and general view of life of most judges have made this inevitable. (7) The absolute power of they exercised via judicial review meant that they had become political organs of the government that exercise definite power without a corresponding responsibility. (8) To combat what they perceived as judicial usurpations, Progressives proposed a variety of reforms, including popular recall of judges, popular recall of specific judicial decisions, and a requirement of super-majorities on courts to invalidate legislation. (9) Although none of these proposals was adopted nationally, they did enjoy some success in the states. During the early twentieth century, seven states provided for the recall of judges. After a presidential veto had required the elimination of the recall of judges in Arizona's draft constitution, Arizona amended its constitution to reinstitute the judicial recall immediately after becoming a state. (10) Colorado instituted the recall of judicial decisions via popular referendum, and three states--Nebraska, North Dakota, and ohio--amended their constitutions to require super-majority votes of their supreme courts to invalidate statutes. …" @default.
• W211622369 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W211622369 creator A5037155290 @default.
• W211622369 date "2009-06-22" @default.
• W211622369 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W211622369 title "Do Retention Elections Work" @default.
• W211622369 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W211622369 type Work @default.
• W211622369 sameAs 211622369 @default.
• W211622369 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W211622369 countsByYear W2116223692014 @default.
• W211622369 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W211622369 hasAuthorship W211622369A5037155290 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C2775925287 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C2909001134 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C48764862 @default.
• W211622369 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C11413529 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C144024400 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C17744445 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C190253527 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C199539241 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C2775925287 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C2778272461 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C2909001134 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C41008148 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C48103436 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C48764862 @default.
• W211622369 hasConceptScore W211622369C94625758 @default.
• W211622369 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W211622369 hasLocation W2116223691 @default.
• W211622369 hasOpenAccess W211622369 @default.
• W211622369 hasPrimaryLocation W2116223691 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W100083143 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W1524434689 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W1551503205 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W1551692596 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W2020093978 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W2139411853 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W223417967 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W2294004509 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W2306998866 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W241488612 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W2508190100 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W262718633 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W272102169 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W2810827770 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W2912546040 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W3121360976 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W3121924564 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W3123646123 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W3124400471 @default.
• W211622369 hasRelatedWork W768361234 @default.
• W211622369 hasVolume "74" @default.
• W211622369 isParatext "false" @default.
• W211622369 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W211622369 magId "211622369" @default.
• W211622369 workType "article" @default.