Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Connecticut Judicial Selection Commission
| Judicial nominating commissions |
|---|
 |
| 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 Connecticut Judicial Selection Commission, also known as the JSC, is an independent state commission in Connecticut that plays a role in the state's judicial selection process. The commission was established by constitutional amendment in 1986.[1] The JSC has 12 members, six selected by the governor and six selected by leaders of the Connecticut General Assembly.[2]
Connecticut uses the assisted appointment method of judicial selection for its state courts. Using this method, the governor appoints state judges from a list of names submitted by the JSC. This selection method is used for all of the appellate courts and some of the trial courts in the state.
The JSC is a governor-controlled commission, which means that a majority of members are chosen by the governor. As of October 22, 2025, 11 states used this type of commission. To learn more about controlling majorities in judicial selection commissions, click here.
Members
Last updated: April 2025
The JSC has 12 members. Six members are appointed by the governor; three must be lawyers, and three must not be lawyers. One member must be appointed from each of Connecticut's five congressional districts, and one member is at-large. Six members are appointed by the leaders of the Connecticut General Assembly. The Senate president pro tempore, the House majority leader, and the House minority leader each appoint one member, who must be a lawyer. The speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate minority leader each appoint one member, who must not be a lawyer. Commission members must elect one of the six governor-appointed members to be chairperson.[2]
No more than half of the commission members may have the same political affiliation. Members may not be state officials or state party officials. Terms are three years, and members may not serve consecutive terms.[3][2]
| Members of the Connecticut Judicial Selection Commission, May 2024[4][5] | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Appointed by | Term-end date |
| Chair - Leander Dolphin, III (D) | Gov. Ned Lamont (D) | August 21, 2025 |
| Vice Chair - Rowena Track (U) | Gov. Ned Lamont (D) | March 15, 2026 |
| Brandon Hayden (D) | Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D) | May 15, 2027 |
| Steven Hernandez (U) | House Majority Leader Jason Rojas (D) | January 17, 2026 |
| JoAnne Jones (D) | House Speaker Matthew Ritter (D) | October 31, 2027 |
| Lawrence C. Sgrignari (R) | House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora (R) | February 17, 2025 |
| Vacant | Governor | |
| Melissa E. Ozols (D) | Gov. Ned Lamont (D) | October 25, 2025 |
| Marjorie Shansky (D) | President Pro Tempore Martin Looney (D) | April 30, 2026 |
| Vacant | Senate Minority Leader | |
| Perry Rowthorn (D) | Gov. Ned Lamont (D) | February 27, 2028 |
| Daniel DeBarba (R) | Gov. Ned Lamont (D) | July 5, 2026 |
Process
The commission's process is governed by the General Statutes of Connecticut and the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. The recommendation process includes the following steps:
- Solicitation of candidates: The commission looks for qualified candidates for the Supreme Court, Appellate Court, and Superior Court. Candidates, including incumbents seeking reappointment, must submit applications to the commission. The commission also investigates candidates' backgrounds, such as by reviewing hearing transcripts and interviewing the general public. For incumbents seeking reappointment, the commission must obtain the recommendation of the Connecticut Judicial Review Council and must seek comment from the Connecticut Bar Association Judiciary Committee, the Judicial Branch Chief Court Administrator, and the practicing bar.[6]
- Interviews: The commission interviews each candidate. During an interview, a majority of the commission may agree to postpone the rest of the interview in order for the commission to get more information.[6]
- Voting: To recommend a new nominee to the governor or to recommend an incumbent judge for a position on a different court, a majority plus one of the commission members voting must affirm the recommendation. The same is required to deny a recommendation to an incumbent judge. An incumbent judge may not be denied a recommendation without being given a hearing.[2][6]
Evaluation criteria
The following evaluation criteria are outlined in the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies:[6]
| “ |
Criteria for candidates for judicial office The following criteria shall be considered in evaluating candidates for judicial office: (1) Does the candidate possess the statutory qualifications for office? (2) Does the candidate possess the minimum qualifications under sections 51-44a-1 to 51-44a-21, inclusive, of these regulations for judicial appointment? (3) Does the prospect possess legal ability that is exemplified by professional excellence, a degree of intellect and a technical proficiency equal to that required by the highest standards of the practicing bar? (4) Is the candidate generally intelligent and knowledgeable? (5) Is the candidate capable of making up his or her mind and rendering decisions? (6) Is the candidate prompt in the performance of duties and obligations? (7) Would the candidate be an impartial judge rather than an advocate? (8) Could the candidate act without being duly affected by criticism, partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety? (9) Does the candidate possess the qualities of honesty and integrity? (10) Could the candidate, as a judge, be fair, impartial, and free from prejudice and bias? (11) Is the candidate courteous and considerate? (12) Is the candidate patient, attentive and temperate? (13) Would the candidate respect the confidence inherent in the office of a judge? (14) Is the candidate free of tendencies which would indicate the possibility of abuse of the power or prestige of office? (15) Is the candidate free from activities or relationships which might tend to interfere with the candidate’s performance as a judge? (16) Would the candidate conscientiously perform the duties of a judge? (17) Is the candidate industrious and well organized? (18) Is the candidate courageous? (19) Can the candidate live and carry out family obligations on the judicial salary? If not, what are or would be other sources of income? (20) Given that the essential functions of being a judge are the ability to preside over a court, to analyze cases, and to render decisions based on the law and facts, can the candidate perform these essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation? (21) Does the candidate have the ability to express himself or herself clearly and to write clear and concise opinions? (22) Is the candidate’s personal conduct compatible with judicial dignity? (23) Could the candidate conduct judicial proceedings with appropriate dignity and decorum and within the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct? Criteria for incumbent judges who seek reappointment to the same court or elevation to a different court (a) A judge seeking reappointment to the same court or to a different court shall possess, at a minimum, those qualities contained in sections 51-44a-19 and 51-44a20 of these regulations required of candidates for judicial office. (b) The past performance of a judge shall be considered in evaluating the judge for reappointment to the same court or appointment to a different court. In evaluating the past performance of the judge, the following criteria shall be considered: (1) Has the judge avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety? (2) Has the judge remained free from personal bias? (3) Does the judge have the ability to decide issues based on the law and the facts without regard for the identity of the parties or counsel, the popularity of the decision, and without concern for or fear of criticism? (4) Do the actions and decisions of the judge demonstrate his or her impartiality? (5) Does the judge exhibit appropriate ‘‘judicial temperament’’? (6) Has the judge issued legally sound decisions? (7) Is the judge knowledgeable of the substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law of Connecticut? (8) Does the judge demonstrate an understanding and knowledge of the factual and legal issues before the court? (9) Does the judge properly apply judicial precedents and other appropriate sources of authority? (10) Are bench rulings and other oral communications by the judge reasonably clear and coherent? (11) Does the judge have the ability in written opinions to explain clearly and logically the facts and issues of a case and the relevant legal precedents? (12) Is the judge sensitive to the impact his or her demeanor and other nonverbal communications may have on all parties and participants, jurors, and the public? (13) Is the judge attentive to and prepared for proceedings before the court? (14) Does the judge exercise adequate control over proceedings before him or her? (15) Does the judge show courtesy to all parties and participants? (16) Does the judge show a willingness to permit every person legally interested in a proceeding to be heard, unless precluded by law or rules of court? (17) Does the judge devote appropriate time to all pending matters? (18) Does the judge discharge administrative responsibilities diligently? (19) Does the judge exercise appropriate responsibility for matters on calendars under his or her control? (20) Does the judge promptly handle pending matters? (21) Is the judge punctual in meeting time commitments? (22) Are time commitments met in accordance with the law and rules of court? (23) Does the judge attend and participate in judicial and continuing legal education programs? (24) Does the judge, consistent with the highest principles of the law, ensure that the court is serving the public to the best of its ability and in such a manner as to instill public confidence in the court system? (25) Is the judge effective and cooperative in working with other judges? (26) When part of a multi judge panel, is the judge effective in exchanging ideas and opinions with other judges during the decision making process? (27) Does the judge appropriately and with good authority critique the work of colleagues? (28) Does the judge facilitate the performance of administrative responsibilities of other judges? (29) Does the judge adhere to the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct? (30) Does the judge accept responsibility for a fair share of the judicial workload? (31) Is the judge productive? [7] |
” |
Duties
As of April 2025, the Connecticut Judicial Selection Commission website did not list specific duties for members of the commission.
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.[8]
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 - Members of the state Bar Association are responsible for electing 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-three courts in 22 states used assisted appointment to select state supreme court justices as of June 2021.[9][10] Connecticut used a governor-controlled 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 | ||
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.[8] At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types:
- Bar-controlled commission: Members of the state Bar Association are responsible for electing 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
- Court appointment: Judges are selected by judges in the state judiciary.
- Gubernatorial appointment: Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.
- Legislative election: Judges are selected by the state legislature.
- Municipal government selection: Judges are selected by the governing body of their municipality.
See also
External links
- Office of Governmental Accountability | Judicial Selection Commission
- Office of Governmental Accountability | Judicial Selection Commission | Commission Members and Staff
- General Statutes of Connecticut | Chapter 872, Section 51-44a
- Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies | Merit Selection of Judges
Footnotes
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Constitution of the State of Connecticut," accessed October 8, 2021 (Article XXV)
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Connecticut General Assembly, "Chapter 872," accessed October 8, 2021 (Section 51-44a)
- ↑ A member appointed to fill a vacancy may be appointed to serve a consecutive term.
- ↑ CT.gov, "Judicial Selection Commission," accessed May 2, 2024
- ↑ Janie Valentine, "Email communication with Monika Nugent, " November 3, 2021
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, "Merit Selection of Judges," accessed October 8, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 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 - ↑ As of June 2021, Oklahoma had two state supreme courts: one for civil matters and one for criminal matters.
- ↑ North Dakota uses this method only for vacancies.
Federal courts:
Second Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Connecticut • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Connecticut
State courts:
Connecticut Supreme Court • Connecticut Appellate Court • Connecticut Superior Court • Connecticut Probate Courts
State resources:
Courts in Connecticut • Connecticut judicial elections • Judicial selection in Connecticut
