Who is to Judge?: The Perennial Debate Over Whether to Elect or Appoint America's Judges

An elected judiciary is virtually unique to the American experience and creates a paradox in a representative democracy. Elected judges take an oath to uphold the law impartially, which calls upon them to swear off the influence of the very constituencies they must cultivate in order to attain and retain judicial office. This paradox has given rise to perennially shrill and unproductive binary arguments over the merits and demerits of elected and appointed judiciaries, which this project seeks to transcend and reimagine. In Who Is to Judge?, judicial politics expert Charles Gardner Geyh exposes and explains the overstatements of both sides in the judicial selection debate. When those exaggerations are understood as such, it becomes possible to search for common ground and its limits. Ultimately, this search leads Geyh to conclude that, while appointive systems are a preferable default, no one system of selection is best for all jurisdictions at all times.

Table of Contents:
Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: A Short and Pointed History of Judicial Selection Chapter 3: The New Judicial Selection Landscape Chapter 4: The Arguments Chapter 5: Why Everyone is Wrong Chapter 6: Managing the Selection Debate Chapter 7: The Future of Judicial Selection

About the Author :
Charles Gardner Geyh is the John F. Kimberling Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. He has authored or edited multiple books including Courting Peril (Oxford), Understanding Civil Procedure (edited with Gene Shreve and Peter Raven-Hansen), What's Law Got to Do with It?, and When Courts and Congress Collide.

Review :
"Brilliant intellectualism at its core, Who Is to Judge? is an expertly crafted discussion of the state judicial selection controversy, in which Geyh denounces stridency while embracing both normative ideals and empirical research. An exceptional contribution, this book is a rare yet outstanding example of how to transcend disciplinary divides, bridge the gap between science and practical politics, and offer constructive solutions the nation's most enduring debates." --Melinda Gann Hall, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University and author of Attacking Judges "Charlie Geyh is at it again--and we should all be thankful that he is! Weighing in once more, the author of 'Why Judicial Elections Stink' has given us his revisionist, evidence-based views on how state judges in this country ought to be selected and retained. Truly outstanding scholarship, irrespective of whether one is for or against electing judges. Who Is to Judge is not just erudite--the inimitable 'Geyh writing-style' is fun to read as well. Few legal academics have engaged the social science literature on judicial elections at the level that Geyh does. A definitive and essential contribution to our debates." --James L. Gibson, Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government, Washington University in St. Louis "Geyh wades into the age-old question of how best to select and retain state court judges. It is a divisive issue that arises whenever there are judicial scandals or court decisions on which the citizenry is deeply divided. Geyh presents an invaluable analysis of the pros and cons of each system and defuses many of the traditional arguments for and against systemic change. A must-read for those interested in preserving public confidence in our state court judiciaries." --Edward W. Madeira, Jr., Esq., former Chairman of the American Bar Association Commissions on the 21st Century Judiciary, State Judicial Selection Standards, and Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence, and an ABA John Marshall Award recipient