Judicial nominating commissions are structured panels of lawyers and non-lawyers that screen applicants for judgeships and send the governor a short list of the most qualified candidates to choose from. More than 30 states and the District of Columbia use some version of this process, often called “merit selection,” for at least some of their courts. The model started in Missouri, where voters adopted the first statewide merit selection plan in 1940 to blunt the influence of money and partisan politics on the bench. Specifics differ by state, but the core idea holds everywhere: a deliberative body evaluates applicants on professional qualifications rather than political connections, and the governor’s pick is bounded by that evaluation.
The Three Stages of Merit Selection
Merit selection runs on a cycle with three distinct steps. The commission reviews applicants and forwards a short list to the governor. The governor picks one name from that list. After an initial term on the bench, the appointed judge faces voters in an uncontested retention election asking only “yes” or “no.” A “no” vote sends the seat back through the commission.
The commission is where most of the real screening happens. By the time a name reaches the governor, it has survived written application review, background investigation, interviews, and a vote by a body deliberately split between legal professionals and community members.
Who Sits on the Commission
A typical commission balances legal expertise against public accountability. State bar associations generally pick the attorney members. The governor typically appoints non-lawyer members to represent the broader community. Neither group dominates. A chairperson leads deliberations and enforces procedural rules, and in many states that role goes to a sitting judge or the chief justice of the state supreme court, which adds a judicial perspective without giving the judiciary outright control.
At the state supreme court level, commissions generally fall into three categories.1Ballotpedia. Assisted Appointment of State Court Judges In a governor-controlled commission, the governor appoints a majority of members or can reject the entire slate. In a bar-controlled commission, the state bar association selects a majority. Hybrid commissions divide appointing power so no single actor dominates. The structure a state chooses reflects a judgment about which risk matters more: capture by the executive or capture by the organized bar.
Terms and Turnover
Commissioners typically serve staggered terms of four to six years, so the full body never turns over at once. Many states cap service at two consecutive terms. Mid-term vacancies are filled for the remainder of the departing member’s term, using the same appointment method that created the seat. These rules keep the commission stable without letting any individual entrench.
Eligibility, Ethics, and Pay
Serving on a commission comes with firm rules. Most states require members to live within the geographic area the court serves and to be U.S. citizens. Commissioners usually cannot hold public office, run for office, or lobby during their tenure. Attorney members must be in good standing with the state bar. Several states also direct, by constitution or statute, that the membership reflect the demographic diversity of the community it serves.
Conflicts of interest are handled through disclosure and recusal. When the commission considers a candidate, any commissioner with a personal, business, or attorney-client relationship with that applicant must disclose it. If the relationship is close enough that a reasonable person would question impartiality, the commissioner must step out of the deliberation.
Commissioners can be removed for losing eligibility, for illness or disability that prevents participation, or for chronic absenteeism. In states that spell out specific grounds, missing more than half of scheduled meetings in a calendar year without an approved excuse is enough to start removal. The presiding officer typically notifies the governor and attorney general when grounds appear.
The work is almost entirely volunteer. Some states reimburse travel or pay a modest per diem for meeting days, but amounts are small. Keeping the role unpaid reduces the chance that anyone seeks a seat for financial gain.
How Candidates Get Evaluated
Once a vacancy opens, applicants submit detailed written applications covering their professional history, judicial philosophy, and personal financial information. The commission reviews legal writing samples to gauge analytical ability and contacts professional references to learn about the applicant’s character and reputation.
Background investigation goes beyond the application. The commission checks criminal records, bar disciplinary history, and credit reports. An applicant may be required to list every case tried to verdict over the preceding decade. Incomplete or evasive disclosures can lead to immediate disqualification.
Many commissions also solicit public comment, which lets lawyers, litigants, and community members weigh in on a candidate’s fitness. Feedback at this stage can surface things a background check will not catch, such as a pattern of discourtesy on the bench by a sitting judge seeking promotion, or a reputation for sharp dealing in private practice.
What Stays Confidential
The commission’s internal records are usually shielded. Application materials, background reports, meeting minutes, and investigative files are generally not public. The commission may release basic information such as applicant names, current employers, educational credentials, and cities of residence, but the substantive evaluation stays behind closed doors. That confidentiality is what encourages candid applications from sitting judges and prominent lawyers who would otherwise be reluctant to apply. The commission does share its full files with the governor once the short list is submitted, and the governor’s office typically treats that material as confidential as well.
Interviews and the Short List
After reviewing the written record, the commission interviews the strongest applicants. Commissioners probe judicial temperament, legal reasoning, courtroom management style, and the ability to communicate clearly under pressure. Whether interviews are public depends on the state. Some states classify the commission as a public body subject to open meetings laws, though the panel can usually close the session when discussing sensitive financial or background material. Others keep the entire process confidential until the short list is announced.
After interviews, the commission deliberates and votes. The short list sent to the governor typically contains three to five names.1Ballotpedia. Assisted Appointment of State Court Judges Many states require more than a bare majority to place a name on the list, so nominees carry broad support rather than squeaking through on one vote.
The Governor’s Pick
Once the short list arrives, the executive branch takes over. Most states impose a deadline for the governor to make a selection. Some allow as few as 30 days; others give several months. The deadline exists so vacancies do not linger and clog the courts.
In a governor-controlled commission, the governor may also have power to reject the entire slate and demand a new list.2Ballotpedia. Assisted Appointment (Governor-Controlled Commission) In commission-controlled or hybrid systems, the governor is bound to the names provided. If the governor misses the deadline, many states transfer the appointment power to the chief justice of the state supreme court, so no governor can leave a judgeship empty indefinitely as a political tactic.
Once appointed, the new judge takes the bench and serves an initial term that, depending on the state, runs between one and six years before the first retention election.
Retention Elections
The appointment is only the first half. After completing the initial term, the judge faces voters in a retention election. The ballot asks whether the judge should remain in office. There is no opponent. A majority “yes” keeps the judge for another full term; a majority “no” removes the judge and sends the seat back through the commission.3Ballotpedia. Retention Election
As of 2026, roughly 20 states use retention elections at the state supreme court level, including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Utah.3Ballotpedia. Retention Election Judicial terms vary from four to 20 years, with six-year terms the most common. A small number of states require a supermajority rather than a simple majority for the judge to stay.
Several states run formal judicial performance evaluation programs that give voters information before a retention vote. These programs survey attorneys, litigants, and court staff on legal knowledge, integrity, courtroom temperament, communication, administrative ability, and punctuality, then publish the results as voter guides.
In practice, retention elections rarely unseat judges. Historically, judges standing for retention have received an average of about 70 percent “yes” votes, and fewer than 2 percent of state supreme court justices have been voted off the bench this way. The exceptions usually involve high-profile controversies that draw organized opposition. Supporters of the system argue the real value is deterrent: the mechanism changes how judges behave even when it almost never fires. Critics call it symbolic.
Federal Judicial Nominating Commissions
The merit selection model is not limited to state courts, but at the federal level it is advisory only. Some U.S. senators use nominating commissions to identify candidates for federal district and circuit court vacancies in their states. Because federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, these commissions do not bind anyone. A senator receives the commission’s recommendations and forwards preferred names to the White House, which makes the final nomination decision. Not every senator uses this approach, and those who do typically follow a framework similar to the state model, with a mix of attorneys and community members evaluating applicants on professional qualifications.