There are also other types of trial courts with special jurisdiction. Every large community now has a juvenile court. Other specialized courts, such as domestic relations courts, morals courts, boys' courts, speeders' courts, and small claims courts have been established in many larger communities, often as branches of a municipal court. In some cases there are separately organized criminal courts, although ordinarily criminal jurisdiction is exercised by the courts of general trial jurisdic tion. In all of the States the prosecution of criminal offences is by and in the name of the State, and is conducted by prosecuting attorneys who are usually elected by the voters of the county.
The State judicial organization has placed great emphasis upon appeals from lower to higher courts. No case of any importance is regarded as settled until it has been taken to the highest court. In creased complexity of appellate court organization has been forced by the growing number of appeals to be heard. The increased mass of appellate work has been handled in three ways: (a) by increasing the number of judges of State supreme courts; (b) by authorizing such courts to sit in sections ; and (c) by creating intermediate appellate courts, standing midway between the trial courts of general jurisdic tion and the highest court.
There are now three methods of selecting judges in the United States: (I) In thirty-eight States, with the exception hereafter noted in California, judges of the highest court are elected by the people. In all of these States except one the trial judges are chosen in the same manner. (2) In four States the judges are elected by the legis lature; and in one they are appointed by the legislature upon the nomination of the governor. (3) In five States the highest judges are
appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the governor's council in Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and to con firmation by the Senate in Delaware and New Jersey. Certain inferior judges in other States are also appointed by the governor.
A new plan adopted by California in 1934 removes that State from any one of the classes indicated above. The California plan, which applies to justices of the supreme court and of the district courts of appeal, provides that upon the expiration of the term of office of any such judge, such judge may file a declaration of candidacy to succeed himself. If he does not do so, the governor nominates a suitable person, subject to confirmation by a commission composed of the chief justice of the supreme court, the attorney-general of the State, and a justice of one of the district courts of appeal. The name of the candidate to succeed himself, or of the candidate nominated by the governor and confirmed by the commission, is then placed upon the ballot at the next general election and the electors vote upon the ques tion as to whether he shall be elected. If a majority vote "yes" he is elected to or continued in office. Under this plan a candidate has no opposing candidate, but an election determines whether he shall be come or remain a judge. By popular vote in any county the same plan may be adopted for the superior court judges of that county.