[GeronL]

There is absolutely no reason for the state bar to be choosing judges. Nobody cares if they recommend them, but the Governor shold appoint his own choices.

[AnAmericanMother]

The system here (GA) employs ALL the various methods, except straight-out retention.

There is a commission that recommends judicial candidates, usually a slate of 8 or so, but the governor doesn't have to appoint from that list (and the governor recently did just that - bypassed the list to appoint somebody else).

And the governor only appoints in the case of resignation or removal, otherwise there are contested elections.

If a judge is a real bad actor, somebody will run against him.

I really question, though, who the fellow bringing this suit thinks is going to be able to choose judges, if not attorneys. Most of the electorate here can't even be bothered to vote in a contested judicial election, let alone actually spend time selecting the best candidate.

[Keith in Iowa]

>>>>There is absolutely no reason for the state bar to be choosing judges.

They’re not - entirely/directly. The judicial nomination commission is composed of 14, hald appointed by the bar, half by the governor.

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2010/07/25/judicial-nominating-commissions-merit-or-partison/

That article pretty much covers what we’re stuck with... and in this so called “merit” system for selecting judges, the only qualification that merits selection to the bench is how much and how often you’ve donated money to Democrats in Iowa.

This isn’t going to be fixed by the Federal court. It needs to be fixed by the Iowa Legislature, and people of Iowa.

[Elle Bee]

there is really no reason for a judge to have to be a member of the state bar

a few more common folk would bring a lot of common sense to the bench - but that would break up the full employmet for lawyers game as it is now run

.