If the Governor selects one of the candidates within sixty days, that person is appointed to the bench one year; if not, the committee makes the selection and appointment. After a year, the justice runs unopposed on the next general election ballot. If the voters support their retention, then the justice serves the number of years specified for the position in that state's constitution. If the voters contest retention, the selection process starts over. In the beginning “twelve states used the Missouri Plan to fill appeals-level judicial vacancies: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.
The Missouri Plan for selecting judges, adopted in 1945, has become a nationwide model for the nonpartisan assignment of judges. Each of Missouri's 114 counties is governed by a 3-member elected county commission. St. Louis functions as an independent city with county status. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have considerable electoral strength in Missouri, but since World War II the Democrats, strongest in the cities and the Bootheel, have more often controlled the legislature. Elected state offices and Missouri's representation in the U.S. Congress have been rather equally divided between the two parties.
During a merit selection once a judge has been elected they will usually run for a term that run for about six to eight years in length. After their term is over they go through a retention process which is when voters decide whether to keep the old judge or turn a new leaf and elect a new judge. These elections put the power in the hands of the people which was the case in De Moines, Iowa. According to a New York Times article Supreme Court judges were removed through a retention election after the judges, who were part of a unanimous decision, voted to pass legislation which legalized same sex marriage. In this retention election al... ... middle of paper ... ...rding to an article on Watchdog.org judges are spending thousands of dollars on TV adds right before their retention elections commence.
The Supreme Court had to step in and created its own plans for California to follow. Then in 1981, Democrats proposed redistricting as well as congressional delegation redistricting. The Republicans stopped this by adding referendums to the state ballot. Because it was too close to elections though, Supreme Court overturned these referendums in 1982. In 1984, they officially passed the new redistricting plan which was very similar to the original plans.
If ten percent of the 1860 voting population had taken the oath, that state would hold a constitutional convention. If the delegates had written a state constitution endorsing the 13th Amendment, that state could be re-admitted to the Union. Andrew Johnson, President Lincoln’s Vice President, and successor after his assasination in April of 1865, unveiled his own Reconstruction plan on May 29 of the same year. Johnson’s plan, which closely resembled Lincoln’s, said the President would appoint a governor to each state (after ten percent of the 1860 population took the oath Lincoln had prescribed in 1863), who would convene a constitutional convention. At this convention, the state had to write a new constitution, void secession, abolish slavery, ratify the 13th Amendment, and stop the payment of war debts.
They are proof that the Electoral College system is flawed, and I will try to explain how it can be fixed. There are 538 electoral votes that are up for grabs during a presidential election. Many people don’t understand how these electoral votes are split up. First, you have to break down where these 538 votes come from. In Article 1, Section 3 of the United States Constitution it states that “ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote”.
On the article California’s Continuing Prison Crisis, states that the estimated cost of maintaining an older prisoner is three times that required for a younger prisoner-about 60,000 per year. Most crimes are committed by men between the ages of 15 and 24. Only one percent of all serious crimes are committed by people over age 60. Supporters justification of the three strikes law was that it will safe California over 100 million every year, money that can be use to fund schools, fight crime and reduce the state’s deficit. A second reason is the support from law enforcement.
This amount of money could put one person through a state college for two or three years. According to Beth Carter the three strikes law has placed 1,300 people in prison for a third strike offense and 14,000 people in prison on a second strike offense(1). The current recidivism rate in California is 70%(2), which means that out of those 14,000 people that almost 10,000 will be back in prison for a third strike. To imprison those 1,300 third strike offenders for the mandatory minimum of twenty-five years will cost the state of California $812,500,000. To support these inmates for longer periods of time we will have to increase the amount of money going to
Back in 2004, proposition 66 was a reform for the Three Strike law, just like proposition 36 was set up and was put on the ballot for the voter, where voters rejected proposition 66. Proposition 36 would shorten the sentences for any third strike offenders if the crime is not serious or violent. Depending on the type of your third strike was, depended on the length of your sentence. A serious or violent crime third offender would still receive life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. (cit kcet).
A federal appeals court recently ruled that California officials could bar the public and press while preparing inmates for death. The process takes about 20 minutes and includes strapping inmates onto a gurney and inserting tubes into the condemned inmates veins that will carry the lethal drugs. (Carelli) The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the public and news media have little-if any-constitutional right to see an execution, although the judges stopped short of saying whether a state could bar reporters from executions altogether.