ABSTRACT
Judicial nominations demonstrate that law and politics are closely related but are not identical. The politics of judicial selection are most evident in the states, where political parties nominate lawyers to run for elected judgeships. The states use four methods of judicial selection, including election, appointment, appointment plus election, and legislative election. Supporters of judicial elections argue that because judges make important public policy decisions that can affect life, liberty, and property, they should be accountable to the public by means of regular elections. Supporters of judicial elections argue, correctly, that the appointment of judges does not remove political considerations from the judicial selection process. The least commonly used method of choosing judges in the states is legislative election, which exists today only in South Carolina and Virginia. The sole mechanism of federal judicial selection is presidential appointment, subject to the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
