Sources used in this document:

There are two interesting features of judicial selection in New Jersey. The first is the practice of senatorial courtesy. Like U.S. senators, New Jersey's senators have veto-like powers over judicial appointees from their home districts. As a professional courtesy, other senators will not proceed with confirmation of a judicial candidate unless the senators from the home district have signed off. Texas does not have this senatorial courtesy. Instead, senators will often proceed with the confirmation with the blessing of the home district senator. Until 1994, senators had been able to hold up judicial reappointments as well, but a widely criticized incident led the senate to change the rules of reappointments so that they are now considered by the senate judiciary committee without receiving the approval of the home senator (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2013).

New Jersey's courts also have a tradition of political balance. Governors, regardless of their party affiliation, have generally followed a policy of replacing outgoing judges with someone of the same party or philosophy. On the Supreme Court, the traditional balance is three Democrats and three Republicans, with the chief justice belonging to the party of the appointing governor. This balance provides a bipartisan approach to both legislation and though processes. This balance approach, limits the possibility of having large party initiatives pushed through the legislative process without first having adequate oversight. The balanced approached is primarily useful during periods of political turmoil or upheaval. During these instances, there is a tendency for both legislation and citizenry to disproportionally blame one party relative to the other. Therefore, elected officials during these periods reflect not the skill and ability to enact proper legislation, but instead the general distaste for the other party. As such, a balanced approached helps to mitigate many of the irrational emotions in the market. Judicial nominating commissions are not used to screen judicial candidates in New Jersey.

One of the stated goals of New Jersey's judicial performance program is to enhance the process for reappointing judges. Attorneys evaluate judges before whom they have participated in actual cases, and appellate judges evaluate trial court judges when their rulings are appealed. Results of the evaluation are shared with the evaluated judge, the assignment judge, the Supreme Court, the governor, the senate judiciary committee, and the judicial evaluation commission. This process allows judges to view their strengths and opportunities relative to other peer judges. It also provides a means in which judges can view, share, and discuss divergent beliefs and opinions to foster a better law system overall. The Supreme Court appoints the members of the judicial performance committee and designates the committee chair. At least six members must be superior court judges who represent each of the divisions of the court, at least three members must be attorneys, and at least two members must be representatives of the general public. Committee members serve three-year terms and may