South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Judicial nominating commissions
Judicialselectionlogo.png
Individual nominating committees
Select a committee in the dropdown below and click "Submit" to view information about that committee.
Methods of judicial selection
Partisan elections
Nonpartisan elections
Michigan method
Retention elections
Assisted appointment
Bar-controlled commission
Governor-controlled commission
Hybrid commission
Legislative elections
Gubernatorial appointment

The South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission, also known as the JQC, is an independent state commission in South Dakota established by the South Dakota Constitution that plays a role in the state's judicial selection process. It is also a judicial disciplinary agency. The JQC has seven members: three selected by the commissioners of the State Bar of South Dakota, two selected by the governor, and two selected by the judicial conference.[1][2]

South Dakota uses the assisted appointment method of judicial selection. Using this method, the governor appoints justices from a list of names submitted by the JQC. This method is used for selecting South Dakota Supreme Court justices and for filling vacancies on the South Dakota Circuit Courts.

The JQC is a hybrid commission, which means that there is no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state bar association. As of November 17, 2024, 11 states used this type of commission. To learn more about controlling majorities in judicial selection commissions, click here.

In addition to its role in judicial selection, the JQC investigates judicial misconduct allegations.[1]

Members

Last updated: May 2024

The JQC has seven members: three practicing attorneys selected by the commissioners of the State Bar of South Dakota, two citizens selected by the governor, and two circuit court judges selected by the judicial conference.[1][2]

The two governor-appointed citizens may not belong to the same political party, and no more than two of the attorneys selected by the state bar association may belong to the same political party. Members serve four-year terms and are limited to two terms on the commission.[1]

Members of the South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission, May 2024[3][4][5]
Name Appointed by Term-end date
Raleigh Hansman State Bar April 8, 2028
Timothy M. Engel Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) January 31, 2026
Judge Cheryle Gering Judicial Conference September 21, 2026
Judge Robert Gusinsky Judicial Conference May 12, 2024
Rory King Gov. Kristi Noem (R) June 30, 2025
Robert Morris State Bar April 30, 2024
Rebecca Porter State Bar June 30, 2024

Process

JQC documentation lays out the following process for filling a judicial vacancy:[6]

Judicial announcements are published in the State Bar Newsletter. Applications may be obtained from either the [Unified Judicial System] website or from the Secretary of the Commission. The commission shall require completion of a questionnaire which shall include questions relating to the background and qualifications of the applicant, a waiver of confidentiality of all materials necessary to adequately investigate each applicant, including, but not limited to, disciplinary records of the South Dakota State Bar Disciplinary Board, any other bar association disciplinary records, and records maintained by any law enforcement agency. The investigation will be conducted in a professional manner but may not be entirely confidential. There may be additional investigations and contacts made by JQC members if deemed appropriate. In addition to the application, an applicant will be required to submit two examples of legal articles, books, briefs, or other legal writings, which reflect his/her personal work. Finally, a credit report with credit score not more than 30 days old will need to be submitted.

Thereafter, Commission will schedule interviews and will interview all candidates. By majority vote, the commission shall select two or more qualified persons to fill each judicial vacancy from the list of those persons interviewed who meet the requirements of the South Dakota Constitution, these Rules, and all other legal requirements for the judicial office.

The names of such nominees selected by the commission shall be submitted to the governor in alphabetical order along with a copy of all investigative information and documents relating to each nominee.[7]

Evaluation criteria

The following evaluation criteria are outlined in the Appendix to Chapter 16-1A of the South Dakota Codified Laws.[8]

Standards and Qualifications, Criteria.

No nominee shall be recommended to the Governor for appointment unless the commission finds that the nominee meets all constitutional and statutory requirements and is fit for appointment to the particular judicial office after full and careful consideration, which consideration shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following criteria:

(a) PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES

(1) Personal integrity
(2) Standing in the community
(3) Moral conduct
(4) Ethics
(5) Commitment to equal justice under law

(b) COMPETENCY AND EXPERIENCE

(1) Intelligence
(2) Knowledge of the law
(3) Professional reputation
(4) Knowledge of and experience in the court involved
(5) Education
(6) Publications
(7) Record of public, community, and government service

(c) JUDICIAL CAPABILITIES

(1) Patience
(2) Decisiveness
(3) Impartiality
(4) Courtesy
(5) Civility
(6) Industry and promptness
(7) Administrative ability
(8) Possible reaction to judicial power
(9) Temperament
(10) Independence
(11) Ability
(12) Diligence
(13) Maturity[7]

Judicial discipline

In addition to its role in judicial selection, the JQC investigates judicial misconduct allegations.[1] According to the South Dakota Constitution:[9]

The Legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of a judicial qualifications commission which have such powers as the Legislature may provide, including the power to investigate complaints against any justice or judge and to conduct confidential hearings concerning the removal or involuntary retirement of a justice or judge. The Supreme Court shall prescribe by rule the means to implement and enforce the powers of the commission. On recommendation of the judicial qualifications commission the Supreme Court, after hearing, may censure, remove or retire a justice or judge for action which constitutes willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, disability that seriously interferes with the performance of the duties or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings a judicial office into disrepute. No justice or judge shall sit in judgment in any hearing involving his own removal or retirement.[7]

More information about the judicial discipline process can be found in the Appendix to Chapter 16-1A of the South Dakota Codified Laws.

Control of judicial selection commissions

Assisted appointment is a method of judicial selection in which a nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[10]

At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types, based on the makeup of the judicial nominating commissions. Those types are:

  • Governor-controlled commission - The governor is either responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission or may decline to appoint a candidate from a list provided by the nominating commission.
  • Bar-controlled commission - The state Bar Association is responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission.
  • Hybrid - There is no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state Bar Association. The membership of these commissions is determined by different rules in each state.

Twenty-two courts in 22 states used assisted appointment to select state supreme court justices as of June 2021.[11][12] South Dakota used a hybrid commission. The table below shows the number of courts using each variation of assisted appointment at the state supreme court level.

Assisted appointment methods in state supreme courts
Method Courts (of 23)
Governor-controlled majority 10
Bar-controlled majority 1
Hybrid 12

The map below highlights the states that use each of the three types of assisted appointment.

"

About judicial selection

Each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they select judges at the state and local level. These methods of selection are:

Election

  • Partisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
  • Nonpartisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
  • Michigan method: State supreme court justices are selected through nonpartisan elections preceded by either partisan primaries or conventions.
  • Retention election: A periodic process whereby voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. Judges are not selected for initial terms in office using this election method.

Assisted appointment

  • Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[10] At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types:
    • Bar-controlled commission: The state Bar Association is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees that they must choose from.
    • Governor-controlled commission: The governor is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees they must choose from.
    • Hybrid commission: The judicial nominating commission has no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state bar association. These commissions determine membership in a variety of ways, but no institution or organization has a clear majority control.

Direct appointment

Click a state on the map below to explore judicial selection processes in that state.
http://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_STATE


See also

State courts Appointment methods Election methods
State-Supreme-Courts-Ballotpedia.png
Judicialselectionlogo.png
Ballotpedia Elections Badge-VOTE.png
State supreme courts
Intermediate appellate courts
Trial courts
Assisted appointment
Court appointment
Gubernatorial appointment
Legislative election
Municipal government selection
Partisan election
Nonpartisan election
Michigan method


External links

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 South Dakota Unified Judicial System, "Judicial Qualifications Commission," accessed November 22, 2021
  2. 2.0 2.1 Established in Section 16-14-1 of the South Dakota Codified Laws, the judicial conference is "composed of the justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the circuit court, and magistrate judges as members."
  3. Boards and Commissions, "Judicial Qualifications Commission | Member Information," accessed April 25, 2023
  4. South Dakota Legislature Legislative Research Council, "Councils and Committees," November 3, 2016
  5. Janie Valentine, "Email communication with Lori Grode, " November 23, 2021
  6. Boards and Commissions, "Filing a Judicial Application," accessed November 22, 2021
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  8. South Dakota Legislature Legislative Research Council, "Codified Laws," accessed November 22, 2021 (Appendix to Chapter 16-1A)
  9. South Dakota Legislature Legislative Research Council, "Constitution," accessed November 22, 2021 (Article V § 9)
  10. 10.0 10.1 American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," June 2008 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ambaroverview" defined multiple times with different content
  11. As of June 2021, Oklahoma had two state supreme courts: one for civil matters and one for criminal matters.
  12. North Dakota uses this method only for vacancies.