" At the beginning of American independence, judges were appointed by the legislators for life. An obvious disadvantage of this method was clear- the process was highly influenced by the politics. It was also a violation of the separation of powers, as the judiciary was dependent on legislative branch of government. The evolution of judge selection process started in Jacksonian era with handing over the duty of selecting judges to the "will of the people" what in practice meant that they were elected by the citizens. By the time the Civil War began, 24 of the 34 states elected their judges. .
Today, state court judges may be selected in many ways: appointment for a given number of years, appointment for life, in election, merit selection and very often using a combination of these methods. Appointment can be made by either legislative or executive representatives. The first option is present only in two states (Virginia and South Carolina). The second option is present in 3 states (California, Maine and New Jersey). However this method of judge selection doesn't seem very popular, 28 states authorize governor to appoint judges to fill mid-term vacancies. Elections is a very controversial method of judge selection. However counter-intuitive it might sound, many law experts perceive this method as the less fair. First variant of elections is a nonpartisan election. Candidates for future judges appear on the ballot without party labels. This solution is meant to reduce political influence on judiciary. Second variant is a partisan election. Candidates first fight for nomination within one's party (similar to the presidential elections). After that, candidate's party is highlighted on the ballot. Merit selection is the most professional and just way of choosing a judge in a state court system. A commission consisted of experienced lawyers as well as other respected citizens is responsible for finding, recruiting and finally selecting the best candidates for judicial vacancies.
