Merit Selection and the Consequences of Institutional Reform   

In the United States, there have been issues pertaining to the selection of state supreme court justices. Court reformers have worked to maintain consistent democratic traditions when it comes to choosing judges because, in a democracy, maintaining a legitimate judiciary and impartial, independent judges is important. Greg Goelzhauser’s book, Choosing State Supreme Court Justices: Merit Selection and the Consequences of Institutional Reform, provides a deeper understanding of state supreme court justices and analyzes the merit selection system for their choosing in our judicial system.

Although many states shifted from their popular voting method of electing judges to experiment with the merit selection process, Goelzhauser’s book delves more in-depth into whether the appointment of judges in a particular selection institution favors applicants who display more diversity, have higher judicial qualifications than average, and possess more professional experience.

Goelzhauser utilizes research gathered on about 1,500 state supreme court justices who served between 1960 and 2014, to answer his book’s primary question, Does the merit selection system produce better judges? This question relates to the political representation each qualified applicant has towards the state court systems in politics. Goelzhauser argues the significant importance of the question based on institutional reform. Various scholars contribute their insights to provide a broader view on the system’s principles. The author strives to raise awareness about the potential improvements the merit selection system can create in many states, by enhancing the functionality of government in state courts and evaluating state supreme court justices.

Goelzhauser discusses the concept of judiciary in states, based on the judicial experience and behavior of judges. “Another factor that may condition federal judges’ behavior is their preappointment professional experiences (Hurwitz & Drew Noble Lanier, 2014, p. 78).” As stated in Goelzhauser’s book, having judicial experience is one of the important qualifications for securing a position in state court. For instance, serving a year or two as a judge previously. In regards to the selection system, candidates with prior judicial experience could potentially be more qualified than those who lack it.

Moreover, merit selection systems generally protect applicants from political elections, as the immense pressure elections exert can compromise their independence on the bench. In chapter two, Goelzhauser discusses the causes that led to a new system in our federal judiciary. “Dissatisfaction with the existing judicial selection institutions eventually led to merit selection’s rise (Goelzhauser, 2016, p. 22).” The methods used previously were not found m pleasing in the judiciary because the selection process was becoming excessively political. The frustration engendered by existing systems led to the emergence of the merit system for state supreme court justices. States began to experiment with the merit system and considered adopting or eliminating it in the late 1950s.

“The leading scholarly treatment suggests that the three most important factors in merit’s spread were first, business interests driving the campaign for merit reforms; second, urban leaders supporting merit reforms; and third, the ability for these interests and leaders to win voters and broaden their coalitions (Goelzhauser, 2016, p. 27).” Most candidates were not capable of funding their own campaigns, so raising money was important. States that had successful businesses were able to support the merit refinement, which helped the system’s spread. Goelzhauser provides accurate evidence to support his arrangement theory, as unlike the existing methods, the importance of political credentials in the merit selection process is minimal. He analyzes the consequences of the reform throughout the book.

In chapter three, Goelzhauser and other scholars focus on how professional experience can benefit selection systems and qualify candidates. “State supreme court justices seated from 1960 through 2014 held a variety of positions in their professional careers before joining their state high courts (Goelzhauser, 2016, p. 38).” A richer classification of experimental categories in employment was offered. The author distinguishes between private practice and public service experience. In Goelzhauser’s book, professional experience was divided into two categories: public service experience, which included both the public-interest and government side of employment, and private practice. Public service experience was further classified into major-office ties, major office, federal government, academic experience, legal experience, and prosecutorial experience.

“Several arguments have been advanced for why public service experience may be particularly important to acquire before joining the bench (Goelzhauser, 2016, p. 39).” Expertise in public law is important because it can create opportunities in case situations where evidence is brought to awareness. Goelzhauser offered proper evidence by presenting an empirical analysis to examine state supreme court justices in different selection systems with distinctive types of professional experience. He proved that there were more similarities than differences in judicial selection systems regarding the professional experiences that candidates had prior to becoming state supreme court justices. According to the merit selection system, there is a smaller percentage of judges with major office experience or ties.

In Chapter Four, Goelzhauser delved deeper into the relationship between judicial selection systems and the qualifications of candidates. The American Judicature Society posits that this system, often known as the ‘merit system,’ chooses applicants based on their qualifications rather than political or social connections (Goelzhauser, 2016, p. 60). Goelzhauser contextualizes the historical development of judicial selection systems, noting that qualifications have evolved over time. To support his claims, he compiled three separate research papers on judicial quality. The first examined the relationship between judicial retention mechanisms and judicial behavior. This was followed by a study on judicial decision-making and judicial systems, which began to overlap in some states. These initial studies led to a comprehensive analysis of how judicial selections and qualifications interact. Two key indicators emerged from the data: the quality of the law school a candidate attended and their judicial experience. Goelzhauser notes, “Whether a justice attended an elite school is perhaps the most common measure of law school quality” (Goelzhauser, 2016, p. 72). It is commonly accepted that the quality of a law school serves as a reliable qualification, suggesting a certain level of legal acumen and potentially indicating broader competence within the federal judiciary.

Goelzhauser acknowledged several methodological limitations in his research. Both the merit selection and appointment systems performed similarly across all measured qualifications. However, the merit system generally outperformed election systems in terms of candidates’ academic performance.

In Chapter Five, Goelzhauser notes that the degree of diversity among state supreme court justices is not as consistent as one might expect given recent societal changes. Both the merit selection system and other selection systems fail to consistently promote diversity within their respective state supreme court systems. “The literature on descriptive representation in political institutions suggests that it may have beneficial consequences, such as increasing trust, knowledge, participation, and institutional legitimacy” (Goelzhauser, 2016, p. 86). Goelzhauser and other scholars argue in favor of more diverse courts, providing evidence concerning the representation of different racial groups in the judiciary, and acknowledging the significant hurdles facing increased diversity in state supreme courts. In order to conduct this empirical analysis, a database from 1960 to 2014 was utilized, and additional information was gleaned through biographical research. Although women and racial minorities continue to face many challenges in the legal field, they do have increasing opportunities in government legal work. More research is necessary as our understanding of state courts continues to evolve.

Furthermore, the media plays a significant role in the dissemination of news and vital information about the United States’ legal system. The American political system has a crucial function in democratic societies, including supporting the development of a legitimate judiciary by serving as a conduit between the people and the government. The media’s role in politics primarily involves reporting on the workings of our political system. According to the book, the media’s influence is also felt in election campaigns, as candidates court media attention and use it as a platform to engage with the electorate, to shape policy agendas, and to galvanize public opinion to secure votes and increase their visibility.

Goelzhauser utilized subcategories to recognize attributes that state supreme court justices carried before all research was complete. In order to have a better understanding of the concept of the merit system, issues of institutional reform with state judges were to be stated thoroughly as the research was collected. Discussions with different scholars occurred in the book, and broader contributions were added concerning institutional performance as for state judicial selections. Subcategories played a big part in the book because they addressed concern inside larger judicial selection debates, and summary tables were introduced to create an image on the different issues pertaining to judicial selection. A critique I have on Goelzhauser’s book is that he gave an understanding of existing information and used it to identify consequences and differences in relation to the merit system. Findings were accurate, but conclusions always led to being unknown or not enough information was given. He could have gone more in depth on the seating of justices, and whether the merit system initiated a more diverse judiciary. Another critique would be the possibility of adding more to the professional experience category. The data collected could be better understood if visuals were properly labeled along with easy-to-understand statistics.

Wilhelm and Kane made critiques on arguments about the normative policy debate, professional experience of selected judges, diverse judiciaries, and discovered new differences about the merit system. They both shared critiques about high courts having a merit system and believe what has been said of it has not really been tested as it should be. The authors believe that Goelzhauser is important in political literature as he contributes to researching and analyzing state supreme courts and their selection systems as they may influence the choosing of judges. Their critiques are valid as they pertain to the book. Focusing on Goelzhauser’s theory, the authors engage in understanding the different selection methods in states, consequences of institutional reform, and the merit system of judges. Although various judicial selection systems are around, Goelzhauser contributes to presenting a book that focuses on the choosing of state supreme court justices, by adopting the merit system. He focuses on whether the merit system makes better judges by analyzing professional experience, judicial qualifications and diversifying the bench. Given the importance of who is on the bench, I believe that Goelzhauser was able to bring forth the topic of the merit system and share data collection that can potentially be useful to future scholars and their new findings.

Did you like this example?

399

17