The way by which judges are chosen.
Yes it does.
The methods of judicial selection for federal appellate judges state appellate and state trial judges
The Independent Judicial Appointments Commission has the task of selection
that would be election by a legislature
Efforts to reform judicial selection in Texas have largely failed due to strong political resistance and the entrenched nature of the current system, which favors partisan elections. Many lawmakers and interest groups view the existing electoral process as a way to maintain accountability and public influence over judges. Additionally, the lack of widespread public support for alternative methods, such as merit-based selection, has hindered reform initiatives. Furthermore, the strong influence of campaign financing and political interests often complicates discussions around changing the judicial selection process.
The governor's authority to make appointments to fill judicial vacancies that occur between elections is significant because of the frequency with which vacancies occur.
Judicial nominating commissions are more of a Canadian thing than an American thing. The closest thing that Americans have is the federal judicial appointment process where the President nominates a candidate, then the Senate Judiciary Committee grills them and makes a recommendation, then the candidate is chosen through a vote on the senate floor.
Another name for the merit selection of judges is the "Missouri Plan" or the "Judicial Merit Selection System." It is a method used to appoint judges based on their qualifications and experience rather than through political appointments or elections.
The judicial selection method that tends to result in more women and minorities appointed to the bench is the merit-based selection process, often referred to as the "Missouri Plan." This approach involves a nominating commission that evaluates candidates based on their qualifications and recommends a diverse slate of nominees to the governor. By focusing on merit rather than political connections, this method can help promote a more diverse judiciary. Additionally, some states have implemented specific policies aimed at increasing diversity among judicial candidates.
I Have No idea thats why im asking this question
Edward Macnaghten has written: 'A selection of Lord Macnaghten's judgements, 1887-1912' -- subject(s): Judicial opinions
Judicial branch citizens' votes typically refer to public involvement in the selection of judges or the approval of judicial appointments, which can vary by jurisdiction. In some areas, voters may participate in elections to choose judges directly, while in others, they might vote on ballot measures that affect judicial processes or the structure of the courts. Additionally, some states have systems where citizens can provide input on judicial nominees through public hearings. Overall, these mechanisms aim to enhance transparency and accountability within the judicial system.