What countries in the world have judges by popular election?

With the reform of the Judiciary hanging over the future of the justice system in Mexico and the fact that both López Obrador and Sheinbaum Pardo will have a majority in Congress, it remains to be considered which other countries elect their judges.

Worldwide, the three main methods by which judges are selected are through appointment, a competitive examination and by election. These processes vary by level from the lowest to the highest courts, such as the Supreme Court.

Additionally, there are specific criteria that a judge must meet to be qualified, such as age and legal experience. A query to the Judiciaries Worldwide portal created by the United States Federal Judicial Center details the methods of selecting judges worldwide:

Appointment

Appointment is the most common method of choosing judges from lower to higher courts, such as the Supreme Court. Among the countries that select their judges, in addition to Mexico, are Australia, Canada, India, Russia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Namibia and others.

Evidence

It is followed by testing, where the emphasis is on pragmatic knowledge and non-interference in the political process.

In cases, judicial training begins after completing a law degree and the programs usually last between six months to three years, and may include a long internship in government or judicial offices.

This method is used in Austria, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Spain and others.

Choice

The electoral process occurs in a small number of countries with variations on the positions to which they can be elected or those who have been appointed can be voted for when their first term ends.

The country that elects the majority of its judges through popular vote is Bolivia, the practice of which began after ratifying a new Constitution in 2009.

The Center for International Affairs of Barcelona (CIDOB, for its acronym in English) said that this was approved in the first term of Evo Morales (2006-2010), after a series of reforms that led the country into an internal conflict, which avoided after a political agreement with the opposition.

In Switzerland, federal judges are elected by parliament, while canton (independent state) judges are elected by citizens through local political parties.

In Japan, Supreme Court judges are appointed by the government, but are evaluated in a popular referendum every 10 years.

Election of judges in the United States

In the United States, many states elect their judges or those appointed by the governor must go through an election. Only in the case of federal judges are they appointed by the president.

At the state level, as the news portal Democracy Docket points out, some states elect their judges as in other political positions through elections between parties, since the candidates are nominated by the political parties.

In North Carolina, everything from the state Supreme Court to the courts undergo partisan elections.

In others, it happens that they are elected without a party and the judges appear on the ballots without any party association, although they may or may not receive support from a party. In cases primary elections may occur to reduce the number of candidates to two.

Another step is that they are selected by the local legislature, without any participation from the governor or the electorate.

In some states, judges are appointed by a chamber of the local legislature or the governor’s council, and in California at the end of their 12-year term, judges face retention elections to determine whether or not they remain in office.

The Missouri plan

In about 14 states in the neighboring country, judicial candidates are chosen by the governor from a list of candidates created by a nonpartisan commission that nominated them based on their qualifications and experience. These judges go through a retention election, usually after being appointed and again at the end of their term.

Corruption

The Brennan Center for Justice notes that a decision by the United States Supreme Court has transformed the lessons, threatening the integrity and independence of state courts.

The case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) was resolved in favor of a conservative nonprofit group that challenged funding rules, getting corporations and outside groups to make a claim starting in 2010. Unlimited spending on electoral financing.

The Court’s justices argued that independent spending “cannot be corrupt,” which over the years was proven false as it expanded the political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups. With this, the electoral system is altered towards rich donors who can finance campaigns without revealing the sources.