Many states use merit-based judicial selection to limit political influence on state courts. Under merit selection, an independent, nonpartisan commission screens candidates for any open judgeship, sending a slate of finalists to the governor. Because the governor may appoint only from these approved finalists, merit selection constrains the ability of political officials to stack the courts with partisan judges.

Yet not all are convinced of merit selection’s merit. Critics of merit selection have assailed the role attorneys play in selecting some of the commission’s members. Though the details vary by state, ordinarily a minority of commissioners must be attorneys, and these attorney commissioners are elected by their fellow members of the state bar. Some argue that, by denying nonattorneys the ability to participate in these closed elections, merit selection violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In particular, critics point to the vote-denial aspect of the Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” principle, which holds that whenever a state charters an election of a public official who exercises general governmental power, all qualified voters must be allowed to participate.

This Comment responds to the equal protection challenge to merit selection. It argues that merit selection is constitutional by way of multiple exceptions, both recognized and implicit, to the “one person, one vote” principle. And though critics of merit selection often couch their arguments in prodemocratic terms, this Comment argues that merit selection—like the “one person, one vote” principle—promotes rather than thwarts the will of the people.

许多州使用基于择优的司法选择来限制对州法院的政治影响。在择优选择下，一个独立的、无党派的委员会会筛选任何公开评委的候选人，并将最终入围者名单发送给州长。由于州长只能从这些经批准的决赛入围者中任命，择优限制了政治官员在法庭上安排党派法官的能力。

然而，并非所有人都相信择优的优点。择优选择的批评者抨击律师在选择委员会的一些成员时所扮演的角色。尽管细节因州而异，但通常少数专员必须是律师，这些律师专员由州律师协会的其他成员选举产生。一些人争辩说，通过剥夺非律师参与这些非公开选举的能力，择优选择违反了第十四修正案的平等保护条款。特别是，批评者指出最高法院“一人一票”原则的投票拒绝方面，该原则认为，每当州授权选举行使一般政府权力的公职人员时，必须允许所有合格的选民投票。参加。

本评论回应了对择优选择的平等保护挑战。它认为，通过对“一人一票”原则的承认和隐含的多重例外，择优选择是符合宪法的。尽管择优选择的批评者经常以亲民主的方式表达他们的论点，但该评论认为择优选择——如“一人一票”原则——促进而不是阻碍人民的意志。