governor or (in South Carolina and Virginia) the legislature. Gubernatorial appointments
usually require the consent of the upper house of the legislature or the participation of a special commission such as an executive council. In most of these states, judges serve a term (ranging from 6 to 14 years) and then may be reappointed in the same manner. In Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, judges enjoy lifetime or near-lifetime tenure.
Merit Plan: In 23 states, judges are nominated by a nonpartisan commission, and
then appointed by the governor. Judges serve a term and then are subject to a retention election, where they run alone, and voters can either approve another term or vote against them. Terms vary but on the whole are less than those in appointment states.
Nonpartisan Election: In 15 states, judges run for election. Their political
affiliations are not listed on the ballot, and so voters, unless specifically informed, do not know a candidate's political party. These judges serve a term and then may run for
reelection. The terms range from 6 to 10 years.
Partisan Election: In 8 states, judges run for election as a member of a political
party. They serve a term in the range of 6 to 10 years for the most part and then may run for reelection.
Are state judges appointed or elected
If you live long enough, you will live in a foreign country, because the past is foreign to the present. We lived differently then. The only constant is change!
What person in the 2013 doesn't have an ID of some sort, and can't go get a free one? (ID should be free if you want to vote but can prove you can't afford it.)
There's really no excuse.
If their motives were better I'd support it.
One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.
Because of the absurdity and callousness that I see so often here, let me add my own:
I say we should have a voting rights amendment and even move toward direct democracy where we don't just elect representatives, we also vote directly on the laws they propose. Here's the catch: voting with ballots is not "the American way" and we should vote with our dollars. Example, you vote for your choice for president or other representatives, and whoever gets the most money wins the election. Everyone who participated in the race keeps their money. As for laws, our elected representatives propose laws and the nation votes with their dollars for the law or against it. Yes, corporations can vote because corporations are people too! If more money flows against it the law isn't passed, and if more money flows for it then the law is passed. Either way the government keeps all the money, and because this process will generate a buttload of cash, it will no longer have to tax anything. Think about it, no more taxes!
There are many side benefits to this as well. No indirect lobbying which doesn't represent the people. The system doesn't change that much in reality, as money still would drive the government, but now it gets funded by the people democratically vying for their wishes. It would also have the benefit of those with more money get more say in the government. If poor people don't like that, they just have to get rich. It's not that hard in the US, anyone can get rich if they want to. It's the ultimate in modern democracy!