Merit selection of judges is a method of filling judicial seats in which an independent nominating commission vets applicants, forwards a shortlist of qualified candidates to the governor, and the governor picks one to serve. The new judge later faces voters in a retention election, which asks only whether the judge should stay on the bench, with no opposing candidate on the ballot. Roughly 21 states and the District of Columbia use some form of this approach for their highest courts, making it one of the most common ways American states choose judges.1Ballotpedia. Assisted Appointment of State Court Judges The model dates to 1940, when Missouri voters adopted it to break the hold of the Pendergast political machine on judicial races, and it has been called the Missouri Plan ever since.2IAALS. Missouri Plan Celebrates 75 Years
The Nominating Commission
The nominating commission is the engine of the system. Each panel mixes lawyers and non-lawyers, with seats parceled out among the governor, the state bar, and legislative leaders. Some states also give automatic seats to specific officials, such as a law school dean or a sitting judge. Commissions range in size from six to seventeen members, and none of them are popularly elected.
Lawyers tend to dominate in practice. Even where the law doesn’t require a lawyer majority, attorneys often hold most of the seats, and that imbalance is a recurring point of debate. Critics say it hands the legal profession too much influence over who ends up on the bench. Supporters argue lawyers are the people best positioned to size up a candidate’s legal ability and temperament.
When a seat opens, the commission advertises the vacancy, takes applications, reviews written materials, calls references, and interviews finalists. The criteria are legal knowledge, integrity, temperament, and professional competence. After closed-door deliberations, the commission sends the governor a shortlist, usually three to five names depending on the state.1Ballotpedia. Assisted Appointment of State Court Judges
Commissioners themselves work under conflict-of-interest rules. In some states they cannot serve consecutive terms, and they are barred from being appointed to any judicial office while serving and for a set period after they leave. The point is to keep the commission at arm’s length from the judges it helps pick.
The Governor’s Appointment
The governor must choose a name from the shortlist. Rejecting the whole list and demanding new candidates is generally not an option. The deadline to decide varies widely by state, from as little as 15 days to as many as 60, but every merit selection system imposes one.1Ballotpedia. Assisted Appointment of State Court Judges If the governor lets the deadline pass without acting, the appointment power moves to the chief justice of the state’s highest court or back to the nominating commission. That failsafe keeps a governor from killing a nomination by running out the clock.
A few states add a legislative confirmation step after the governor’s pick. Once the commission is signed and the oath taken, the new judge begins serving an initial term immediately. That initial term is shorter than a full regular term, because the judge will have to face voters before serving one.
Retention Elections
Judges appointed through merit selection never run against an opponent. At the end of the initial term, they appear on the next general election ballot with a single question: should this judge be retained for another term? Voters answer yes or no. In most states a simple majority settles it, with New Mexico as a notable exception, requiring at least 57 percent in favor.3Ballotpedia. Retention Election
A judge who wins retention serves a full term and then faces another retention vote. Terms vary by court level and state. State supreme court terms generally run 6 to 15 years, with a national median of 8. Intermediate appellate court terms run 4 to 12 years, median 7, and trial court terms run 4 to 15 years, median 6.4National Center for State Courts. FAQ – Judicial Term Lengths These stretches are longer than the cycles that elected officials typically face, by design, so judges aren’t campaigning constantly.
If voters reject a judge, the seat becomes vacant at the end of the current term and the nominating commission starts over. Rulings the outgoing judge made while on the bench stay valid; a retention loss only ends future service.
The headline statistic is striking. Since 1990, state supreme court justices have won retention roughly 98 percent of the time, with only nine losing their seats across that entire span. The most recent defeat came in Oklahoma in 2024.5Ballotpedia. State Supreme Court Retention Election Results, 1990-Present That track record sits at the center of the debate over whether retention elections really hold judges accountable. Backers of merit selection say the numbers show the vetting works. Critics counter that voters rarely have enough information about a sitting judge to make a meaningful choice, and that near-universal retention looks more like a formality than a check.
Judicial Performance Evaluations
To give voters more than name recognition, some states run formal judicial performance evaluation programs that publish results before retention elections. Seven states do this: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Utah.6IAALS. JPE Around the Country The evaluations gather feedback from attorneys, jurors, court staff, and litigants who have appeared before the judge.
The ABA’s national guidelines recommend evaluating judges on four core categories:7American Bar Association. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance with Commentary
- Legal ability, including knowledge of substantive law and procedural rules, quality of reasoning, and effort to stay current.
- Communication, meaning clarity in oral rulings and written opinions.
- Temperament, including patience, courtesy, self-control, and fair treatment of people appearing without a lawyer.
- Administrative capacity, covering punctuality, preparation, courtroom management, timely decisions, and efficient use of technology.
In states without formal programs, voters usually have little to work with beyond media coverage or bar association polls. That information gap is one reason retention races stay low-profile, and one reason the 98-percent retention rate may say more about voter inattention than it does about judicial quality.
Mandatory Retirement
Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia set a mandatory retirement age for judges.8Ballotpedia. Mandatory Retirement Age 70 is the most common cutoff, used by roughly 17 states. Others draw the line at 72 or 75, and Vermont tops the chart at 90. In states without an age limit, a judge can keep serving indefinitely so long as retention votes keep going their way.
Enforcement differs. Some states let the judge finish the term in which they hit the age. Others cut service off right away. A few tie pension benefits to compliance, so a judge who refuses to step down forfeits retirement benefits.8Ballotpedia. Mandatory Retirement
How Merit Selection Compares to Other Systems
Merit selection sits in the middle of the methods American states use to pick judges. In partisan election states, judicial candidates run with party labels and raise campaign money like any other politician, which fuels ongoing worries about donors shaping decisions. Nonpartisan elections drop the label but still produce contested races. Straight gubernatorial appointment, with no nominating commission in the way, gives the governor a free hand and can make the judiciary look like a political extension of the executive branch.
Federal judges follow a wholly different track. Under Article III of the Constitution, the President nominates and the Senate confirms. Once confirmed, Article III judges serve for life, with no retention elections and no mandatory retirement, and can be removed only through impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.9United States Courts. Judges and Judicial Administration – Journalists Guide Merit selection is a state system; it does not apply to federal judgeships.
What merit selection attempts is a compromise. It takes campaign fundraising out of the initial choice, filters applicants through professional vetting, and keeps a democratic check through retention votes. Whether that check is meaningful, given how rarely judges lose, is the honest criticism of the model. The commission itself is only as good as the people on it, and if those seats are filled through processes that mirror partisan politics, the “merit” label starts to look decorative. The system has lasted because it addresses a problem every state recognizes: picking judges who are both competent and accountable without turning them into politicians first.