Question

describe the different modes of appointment of judges in the modern States​

Answer 1

Answer:

There are two primary methods of judicial selection: election and appointment. Some states provide only for election of judges; most opt for a hybrid of elective and appointive positions. Currently, 33 states (including New York) and the District of Columbia choose at least some of their judges via the appointive process known as merit selection.

Election, of course, is just what it sounds like: Candidates run in partisan campaigns, and the voters choose their judges in ordinary elections. Those who favor elections argue that it is a democratic method; that the people are given a voice in the third branch of government; that the people are permitted to choose their own judicial “representatives”; and that judges will assume office based on the will of the majority, not based on nepotism or personal connections. Some also believe that election increases diversity on the bench.

Appointment, on the other hand, comes in various forms. It is conceivable that an appointive system could be what some observers call “one-person judicial selection” – in other words, a chief executive, such as a governor, county executive, or mayor, is granted the power to decide whom to appoint to the bench. While some appointive systems may indeed amount to little more than this, as a practical matter, some checks on the chief executive’s authority of appointment usually exist. One example is a requirement that the candidate chosen be confirmed by a legislative body. Another twist on the straight appointive system occurs in Virginia, where the state legislature appoints all judges.

Explanation:

pls mark me as brainliest if it helps pls