In the Wake of White: How States are Responding to Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and How Judicial Elections are Changing

The selection of state court judges in the United States has been the subject of vigorous debate. The controversy continues to build as some scholars contend that only the appointment of judges ensures the independence of the judiciary by insulating the judge from retaliation for unpopular decisions. Yet volumes of evidence unfold each day to reveal a judiciary under attack for making legal albeit unpopular decisions. While the cloak of a lifetime appointment with no effective method of removal does little to instill confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, an election riddled with partisan rhetoric or one-sided attacks is no panacea for instilling trust. This state of affairs can be best described as “learning to live within the cesspool that has been created” in a system that requires judges to stand for election, yet avoid the improprieties of campaign misconduct

Reconciling the Judicial Ideal and the Democratic Impulse in Judicial Retention Elections

It is hardly novel to suggest that judicial elections, including retention elections, illustrate profound and irreconcilable tensions in the American governmental scheme. The guiding political philosophy of liberal democracy dictates that judges be insulated from popular will and therefore remain free to adhere to the law, regardless of how unpopular such adherence may be. Complete independence would permit judges to be reckless in their use of the law as a tool of power. Complete accountability would render the rule of law, and the protections it affords to political minorities and others who lack political power, nonexistent. This elusive ideal of judicial independence has been overwhelmingly endorsed by American citizens who consistently report that judges should be faithful to the law and should remain above politics. Yet, even as we recognize that the judicial branch serves a distinct function within a democratic governmental system, we also fear any unchecked power, including judicial power

The Human Phenotype Ontology in 2024: phenotypes around the world.

The Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) is a widely used resource that comprehensively organizes and defines the phenotypic features of human disease, enabling computational inference and supporting genomic and phenotypic analyses through semantic similarity and machine learning algorithms. The HPO has widespread applications in clinical diagnostics and translational research, including genomic diagnostics, gene-disease discovery, and cohort analytics. In recent years, groups around the world have developed translations of the HPO from English to other languages, and the HPO browser has been internationalized, allowing users to view HPO term labels and in many cases synonyms and definitions in ten languages in addition to English. Since our last report, a total of 2239 new HPO terms and 49235 new HPO annotations were developed, many in collaboration with external groups in the fields of psychiatry, arthrogryposis, immunology and cardiology. The Medical Action Ontology (MAxO) is a new effort to model treatments and other measures taken for clinical management. Finally, the HPO consortium is contributing to efforts to integrate the HPO and the GA4GH Phenopacket Schema into electronic health records (EHRs) with the goal of more standardized and computable integration of rare disease data in EHRs

HOW THE PICKERS PICK: FINDING A SET OF BEST PRACTICES FOR JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSIONS

This article discusses the history and development of judicial selection in the states. It examines the \u27merit selection\u27 system of judicial appointment and the role of nominating commissions. The article concludes with a section of recommendations for the best practices that should be formally written down and adopted by nominating commissions

OH, MI: On Empirical Examinations of Judicial Elections.

Studies of state judicial selection systems require accurate classification of electoral systems. While agreement exists for most states, Ohio and Michigan are difficult to classify. In this paper, we discuss the different practices and explain how, in the absence of candidates’ party affiliation on the ballot, elections in these states may justifiably be classified as partisan. Replicating the results of an important study on participation in judicial elections, we show how the treatment of these states may result in differing substantive conclusions. We conclude by urging scholars to provide evidence that their results are robust to alternative classifications.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116093/1/sppq13.pd