Ever wonder what it’s like navigating the barrier-laden road to the judiciary?
While pathways to judgeships contain barriers and differ between the judicial election and appointment processes, understanding the hurdles demystifies the pathways to ascending to the bench.
Deciding to pursue a judicial election requires candidates to consider the time, resources, and money necessary to increase the likelihood of running a winning campaign.
Generally, candidates can make unlimited contributions toward their campaign expenses. However, contributions from other individuals and Political Action Committees (PACs) are limited to prevent undue influence. For candidates who plan to rely primarily on their own contributions, campaign loans, and fundraising to meet election expenses, money can present a barrier to the judiciary.
Some judicial candidates spend more than $95,000 while campaigning. Also, while campaigning, state supreme court candidates spend millions of dollars seeking partisan nominations. These figures can increase or decrease depending on the candidate’s location. Common expenses during judicial elections include payments to campaign managers and political strategists, signs, literature, ads, and other expenses. Accumulating these expenses while campaigning is to organize and maximize a candidate’s presence to reach voters effectively.
Judicial elections generally occur during August and November of the election year. Most candidates must obtain a certain number of signatures on nominating petitions before beginning their run, usually earlier in the election year. Candidates typically devote just shy of a year to campaigning. It is not a lone job; a campaign committee is essential. Committees do not assemble themselves. They require candidates to enlist individuals willing to commit their time to ensure a successful campaign. If a candidate cannot gather the necessary commitments, this could present yet another barrier.
Judicial appointments fill vacancies in state and federal judiciaries when sitting judges either decide to retire or cannot complete their term. Governors make judicial appointments for state vacancies, while the president makes federal judicial appointments with confirmation by the Senate. A judicial appointment comes without campaigning for election; however, judicial appointment processes are still competitive.
State judicial appointment processes begin with candidates completing an application for a judicial vacancy. Applications vary in length and generally require candidates to disclose relevant background information. With multiple candidates hopeful for an appointment, the process becomes highly competitive. Candidates selected for an interview must ultimately prove to be the best.
Federal judicial appointments come solely by nomination from the president. Members of Congress recommend nominees, while the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy (OLP) works with the attorney general to advise the president on nominations. They aren’t considered less competitive than state judicial appointments, as the president is limited to a single nomination for each vacancy. The nominee’s presence in the legal profession must be significant and impactful to receive the president’s nomination. The Senate usually confirms the president’s nominee but requires nominees to demonstrate they are worthy of confirmation. Most appointees have a significant amount of meaningful experience and a demonstrated record of career success.
Whether pursuing the judiciary by election or appointment, there is no absolute route. If running for election, a candidate must have enough money to run a viable campaign and convince voters they are the best candidate. If pursuing an appointment, a candidate must present stellar credentials compared with other candidates, which increases the likelihood of an appointment. Recognizing these barriers before pursuing the judiciary may help candidates create a strategy to minimize their impact.
Considering serving in the judiciary? Check out the webinar replay called En Route to the Bench—Demystifying Pathways to the Judiciary to hear from a diverse panel of judges who discuss pathways to the judiciary, including the judicial election and appointment processes, the required fundamental skills, and the value and importance of diversity and inclusion in the judiciary.
