State Courts Vs State Court System

Federal v. State Courts
The United States is at the forefront of modern democracy. Its unique three branched system allows the government to operate under a quasi-idealistic form of checks and balances. As outlined by the U.S. Constitution, the judicial branch of government serves as the interpreter of the law and is “one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world.”1 This complexity is a product of balance and structure in the form of a judicial hierarchy, with the Supreme Court at the top and local courts at the bottom. Further distinctions between federal and state courts include the selection of judges and types of cases addressed by each court. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, generally overhear cases that affect
These trial courts differ from federal trial courts primarily in the form of jurisdiction. Not only do they hear state specific trials, but most states “operate two sets of trial courts: courts of limited jurisdiction and courts of general jurisdiction.”7 Limited jurisdiction trial courts address criminal and civil cases of a minor degree, while general jurisdiction trial courts hear cases involving major criminal or civil charges. This two set trial court system is nearly ubiquitous among all states, but the diversity in state court systems is a more significant factor to analyze. Each state has a specialized court system that adheres to its inhabitants. Factors such as geography, population, and case topics largely determine the formation of specialized courts in each state. Colorado, for instance, has a specialized Water Court that hears cases involving the drainage systems and water rights of the state. Furthermore, states can adjust their court systems to meet new demands that are produced by factors such as urbanization and socioeconomic growth. Therefore, “in contrast to the federal court system, whose basic structure was largely established in 1789, many state court systems reflect the continuing pattern of demand and response that occurred in the state.”8 An additional factor to consider in comparing federal and state
This is exemplified in Grutter v Bollinger, where “the Court held that it was permissible to give some preference to racial minorities as part of a larger program to enhance diversity in the student body.”10 In stark contrast to the federal judicial selection process, the state judicial selection process contains a variety of methods; including elections, appointments, and merit selections. Not only do these processes vary from state to state, but each type of court may have a different method of judicial selection as well. One can witness this concept in South Dakota, where the merit selection process is used in appellate courts and the nonpartisan election process is used in trial courts. This multi-court, multi-selection system is highly complex and frequent in each state. An immediate effect of this setting is lack of information for common voters, who often vote, or do not, based on immaterial factors such as party affiliation. Despite the necessity for judges to lack any affiliation with a party, most lean towards the option with greater campaign and endorsement capabilities. However, in an attempt to remain on course, one must ignore such conspiracies of corruption and evaluate the most significant factor in comparing federal and state courts;