Who does the selection? In the USA, doesn’t it always come down to voter choice one way or another? We typically elect a sheriff but a mayor appoints a police chief. The mayor is elected however. What process could be used to determine process and selection that would avoid voter input?

Open application process. Select whoever had the highest law school grades. Or alternatively make all the applicants take a competitive exam. Anonymous grading.

First you should find some correlation between law school grades and competence of the lawyer.

https://www.alanet.org/legal-management/2023/february/column...

> When looking at on-the-job performance, our internal data — based on thousands of reports from actual attorneys at some of the top law firms — tells us that GPA on average has a 2.2% predictive validity. Meaning that GPA, the thing that the LSAT is meant to predict, explains very little. When we look directly at the LSAT, we see an even smaller correlation of 0.9% on average.

Nobody did a correlational study between electability and judge or prosecutor competence either.

Would you agree knowledge of the law is a better, if still imperfect, indicator of ability as a judge or prosecutor than being merely appealing to voters?

In any case, I think a competitive exam is better than law school grades. It allows for applicants who didn't do so well in law school but got better later.

It's hard to craft an exam that isn't mostly testing how good the examinee is at writing exams. Things like the SAT, LSAT, GRE, etc... are good predictors of near-future academic success but not very useful beyond that.

So, I think an exam is a bad idea unless it's a pass/fail exam (ie no grades, you either understand the law or you do not) and there should be no meaningful time constraint when completing the exam. That's basically the system in most states today, except the training comes after someone without a law degree is elected.

There are state and federal oversight mechanisms with the power to remove bad judges.

> That's basically the system in most states today, except the training comes after someone without a law degree is elected.

If you believe this is preferable to a system where knowledge is established before appointing the person, then we're not going to have much common ground.

I'd invite you to read https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/oct/... for a look at Louisiana's justice of the peace system, whose justices only need a high-school diploma.

IMO a law degree is the absolute bare minimum for any kind of judicial or prosecutorial role. It's bad enough cops aren't expected to know the law. How can anyone justify a judge with fewer qualifications than a bootcamp grad in a software role?

I might vote for the 26 year old who just passed the bar but can't find work because I believe they know the law. My neighbor might vote for the retired high school principle because she believes the person has accumulated wisdom and experience dealing with people. Either person could be a great or terrible JP.

Also, don't forget JPs mostly handle basic disputes, misdemeanors, and administrative tasks. You probably don't need a law degree to conduct a wedding ceremony or hear a shoplifting case.

Would it surprise you to find out in lots of places the coroner is an elected position open to high school grads?

Who does the selection? Who approves the applications? Who ensures the process is open? It always comes down to winners of elections. The USA isn’t a technocracy or meritocracy, for better or worse.

> Who does the selection?

Of what?

> Who approves the applications?

What's to "approve"?

> Who ensures the process is open?

Put it on a website and in the local paper. Applicants' names, their exam scores, their law school transcripts.

> It always comes down to winners of elections

Sure somewhere in the chain, at the end, there's an elected official. That's democracy.

But elected officials can be required by law to use meritocratic selection criteria to appoint people. Many countries used or still use exams to hire bureaucrats. It's a very old concept:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_entrance_examina...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination

> The USA isn’t a technocracy or meritocracy, for better or worse.

That's fine but a different argument from "it can't be done".

Ok. So we just need enlightened legislatures to enact these processes into law and fund them. I actually agree with what you propose, but am having a hard time seeing how to get such a system in place.

Appointment by mayor or local government is fine. Make it a normal public service job. There are reasonable questions about why the US needs quite so many fine-grained local police authorities and who polices the police, though.

Make them fight to the death? Seriously, it would solve sooo many problems.

The highest level public offices should always be either directly elected, or appointed by an elected person for only the duration of their office. This way voters can get rid of them if necessary. Otherwise they become an unelected deep state.

Other levels of public office should be strictly by competence. Meaning by trials open for all citizens.