{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01160092807424594, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009280742459396751, 'mean_word_length': 5.689922480620155, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From Bench to Bench: Is Prior Judicial Experience Favored by Certain Judicial Selection Methods?

Prior judicial experience is an increasingly common attribute among state supreme court justices, and the justices serving during and since 1959 and 2010 have had diverse judicial experiences, including service on different types of courts and for various amounts of time. After weighing the merits and drawbacks of prior judicial experience, I find that no judicial selection methods favor experienced justices over others despite claims by judicial reformers that merit selection will create more qualified courts. Instead, prior judicial experience is a desirable trait across selection methods, and prospective supreme court justices should not pass on opportunities for judicial service on either major or minor trials courts or intermediate appellate courts.