The view that judges must be accountable to the public they serve. Judicial accountability becomes a critical issue in the choice of judicial selection methods. If accountability is assigned high priority, selection systems are chosen that allow the public to regularly evaluate judicial performance. On the other hand, if judicial independence is given priority, selection systems will be chosen that attempt to insulate judges from popular control or political influence. The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to foster judicial independence. While the executive and legislative branches are involved in selection, federal judges are given independence by provisions of Article III, which grants life tenure and prohibits reduction of compensation. Most states used executive or legislative appointment selection methods until the 1830s. The election of 1828, however, brought Andrew Jackson to the presidency. With him came a desire for increasing popular control over all public officials. Independence, especially of judges, became less desirable. As a consequence, many states turned to partisan elections as the principal method of judicial selection. When parties themselves began to interfere with the exercise of popular control, a number of states turned to nonpartisan elections. The priority of accountability remained, however. One further reform came with “merit” selection, a method now in place in twenty states (at least for appellate courts if not all courts). However, retention elections are a principal component of the plan. Thus, even states wishing to depoliticize judicial selection with the “merit” approach embrace the priority of accountability.
Judicial accountability can be achieved in more than one way. The other governmental branches, for example, may make courts indirectly accountable to the public. The appointive selection processes create some of these indirect controls. Similarly, if courts consistently make policy decisions that are incompatible with public sentiment, such “court-curbing” initiatives as scaling back on jurisdiction could occur. The technique most often advanced to provide direct control by the public is the election process. This has been the approach of preference among an overwhelming majority of the states; the public plays the centrol role in selecting and/or retaining judges. Elections, however, are not quite as effective at creating accountability as intended. This is true because judicial elections are typically not competitive (often not contested), judicial terms are long and elections infrequent, the public seldom has much interest injudicial elections, and voter turnout is generally very low. As a result, accountability in elective states is more often produced through the politics of the interim appointment process rather than by direct public participation in selection.
Judicial Accountability: Open and Free Legal Research of US Law
Federal Primary Materials
The U.S. federal government system consists of executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each of which creates information that can be the subject of legal research about Judicial Accountability. This part provides references, in relation to Judicial Accountability, to the legislative process, the federal judiciary, and the primary sources of federal law (cases, statutes, and regulations).
Federal primary materials about Judicial Accountability by content types:
Administrative decisions by federal agency provides links to administrative actions that are outside the scope of the CFR or the Federal Register. (copiar esta info: guides.lib.virginia.edu/administrative_decisions)
Materials that emanate from the President’s lawmaking function include executive orders for officers in departments and agencies and proclamations for announcing ceremonial or commemorative policies. Presidential materials available include:
Legislative history traces the legislative process of a particular bill (about Judicial Accountability and other subjects) for the main purpose of determining the legislators’ intent behind the enactment of a law to explain or clarify ambiguities in the language or the perceived meaning of that law (about Judicial Accountability or other topics), or locating the current status of a bill and monitoring its progress.
Bills by congress at Lawi when seeking specific bill text, legislative history or congressional record information from a specific congress.
State Administrative Materials and Resources
State regulations are rules and procedures promulgated by state agencies (which may apply to Judicial Accountability and other topics); they are a binding source of law. In addition to promulgating regulations, state administrative boards and agencies often have judicial or quasi-judicial authority and may issue administrative decisions affecting Judicial Accountability. Finding these decisions can be challenging. In many cases, researchers about Judicial Accountability should check state agency web sites for their regulations, decisions, forms, and other information of interest.
State rules and regulations are found in codes of regulations and administrative codes (official compilation of all rules and regulations, organized by subject matter). Search here: