The San Andreas Judicial Branch, with more than 50 judges and 3,500 support staff members, is centrally administered by the State Court Administrator. Each of the State's 5 Judicial Districts also has a Court Executive and a Chief Probation Officer, and each of the 5 counties has a Clerk of Court. The State of San Andreas has three branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Executive Branch of the state government is the Governor and members of his or her cabinet. The Legislative Branch of the state government is the House of Representatives and the Senate combined. The Judicial Branch of the state government is the courts.

Roles and Responsibilities of the Judicial Branch

Interpreting laws
- - The judicial branch interprets the meaning of laws, applies them to individual cases, and determines if they violate the San Andreas Constitution.
Resolving disputes
- - The judicial branch resolves disputes between parties, including private disputes that people can't resolve themselves.
Fact-Finding
- - The judicial branch determines if a person committed a crime and what the punishment should be.
Protecting rights
- - The judicial branch protects individual rights granted by the state constitution.
Limiting democratic government
- - The judicial branch ensures that popular majorities can't pass laws that harm minorities or undermine fundamental values like freedom of speech and due process.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the State of San Andreas is the highest judicial authority in the state and serves as the final interpreter of the San Andreas Constitution and laws. Established in 1850 upon statehood, the Court has long stood as a cornerstone of justice and constitutional governance. Since its founding, seven justices have continuously served on the bench, guiding the state’s legal system through more than a century and a half of development and reform.

Under Article VI, Section 2(a) of the San Andreas Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases concerning public officials and in cases where the State itself is a party. The Court also holds appellate jurisdiction over all other matters as prescribed by law, ensuring that the state’s legal principles are applied consistently throughout every level of the judiciary. In addition, the Supreme Court exercises general superintending control over all inferior courts, providing oversight and direction to maintain uniformity, fairness, and the integrity of judicial proceedings statewide.

The Supreme Court may consist of no more than nine justices, though by historical tradition it has maintained a seven-member bench since 1850. Each justice is appointed by the Governor from a list of three qualified candidates submitted by the Judicial Nominating Commission, and must be confirmed by at least fifty-five percent (55%) of the Legislature before assuming office. This appointment process balances the executive’s power to select with the Legislature’s responsibility to confirm, ensuring that all justices meet the highest professional and ethical standards.

To qualify for appointment, a justice must have practiced law in the State of San Andreas for at least ten consecutive years immediately prior to their appointment and must continue to do so while in office. Upon appointment, each justice serves an initial two-year term, followed by retention elections every eight years. Under the Constitution, no justice may serve for more than twenty-six years in total, preserving both judicial stability and the regular introduction of new perspectives to the Court.

As the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and the embodiment of judicial authority, the Supreme Court’s rulings are final and binding on all other courts within the state. Its decisions shape the interpretation of law, protect the rights and liberties of all residents, and define the principles that guide the state’s justice system. The Court’s commitment to impartiality, integrity, and constitutional fidelity ensures that the people of San Andreas are governed by a judiciary worthy of their confidence and respect.

Court of Appeals

The San Andreas Court of Appeals serves as the first level of appellate review within the state’s judicial system. Established under Article VI, Section 3 of the San Andreas State Constitution, the Court of Appeals ensures that justice is carried out consistently and in accordance with the rule of law. It functions as an essential safeguard in the state’s judicial hierarchy, reviewing cases that have been decided in the local and county courts to ensure that proper legal procedures and interpretations were followed.

The Court of Appeals possesses appellate jurisdiction over decisions made by local and county courts, as prescribed by law. Its authority extends across multiple counties within each judicial district, allowing the Court to oversee a broad range of cases while promoting uniformity in judicial interpretation. The Court does not retry cases or hear new evidence; instead, it reviews trial records, written arguments, and, when necessary, oral presentations to determine whether a legal error occurred that affected the outcome of the case. Through this process, the Court upholds the rights of litigants and maintains the consistent application of state law.

Judges serving on the Court of Appeals are selected through a merit-based process administered by the Judicial Nominating Commission. The Commission reviews applications and evaluates candidates based on their qualifications, professional integrity, and judicial temperament. Upon selection by the Commission, each nominee must be confirmed by at least fifty-five percent (55%) of the Legislature before assuming office. This process preserves both independence and accountability, ensuring that appointments are based on ability rather than political influence.

Judges on the Court of Appeals serve an initial two-year term, after which they are subject to a retention election. If retained by the voters, they serve six-year terms for the remainder of their tenure. Under the Constitution, no judge may serve more than twenty-six years in total on the Court of Appeals. This combination of legislative confirmation and periodic voter retention balances judicial continuity with public oversight, ensuring that those who serve on the Court remain committed to fairness and impartiality throughout their careers.

As the intermediary between the trial courts and the San Andreas Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals plays a vital role in maintaining the integrity and uniformity of the state’s legal system. Its decisions establish precedents that guide lower courts and often form the basis for further review by the Supreme Court. Through careful examination of each case, the Court of Appeals reinforces the principles of justice, due process, and equality under the law—principles that define the judicial foundation of the State of San Andreas.

County or District Trial Courts

The San Andreas District Trial Courts serve as the primary courts of original jurisdiction within the state’s unified judicial system. Established under Article VI, Section 4 of the San Andreas State Constitution, the District Trial Courts are responsible for hearing nearly all categories of civil and criminal cases. They stand at the foundation of the state judiciary, ensuring that every citizen has access to justice and that the laws of San Andreas are applied fairly and consistently.

The District Trial Courts have jurisdiction over a wide range of matters, including felony criminal prosecutions, civil disputes, equity and property cases, and matters involving domestic relations. These courts are the first to hear cases within their jurisdiction, meaning that nearly all legal actions—whether criminal or civil—originate in the District Court. By addressing the facts, evidence, and arguments of each case, the District Courts play a central role in determining the outcomes that may later be subject to review by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

Judges serving on the District Trial Courts are selected through a merit-based appointment process designed to promote fairness, competence, and independence within the judiciary. Each judge is appointed by the Judicial Nominating Commission, which carefully evaluates applicants and selects those who demonstrate the highest standards of legal knowledge, integrity, and impartiality. Once selected, the nominee must be confirmed by at least fifty percent (50%) of the Legislature before taking office. This balanced process ensures that judges are chosen based on professional qualification and ethical standing rather than partisan influence.

Following appointment, each judge serves an initial two-year term, after which they stand for a retention election. If retained by the voters, judges serve four-year terms for the remainder of their service. Under the Constitution, no District Court judge may serve more than thirty-four (34) years in total. This system of legislative confirmation and public retention promotes judicial accountability while allowing experienced judges to continue their service based on merit and voter confidence.

As the first level of the state’s judicial process, the District Trial Courts are where justice begins. They oversee criminal trials, resolve civil disputes, and uphold the constitutional rights of all parties who appear before them. Through their daily work, District Court judges ensure that the people of San Andreas receive fair hearings, lawful outcomes, and equal treatment under the law. The decisions of these courts form the foundation upon which the appellate courts build, making the District Trial Courts an essential cornerstone of the state’s justice system.

Judicial Nominating Commission

The Judicial Nominating Commission of the State of San Andreas is a constitutionally established body responsible for assisting in the selection and appointment of judges and justices across the state judiciary. Created under Article VI, Section 5 of the San Andreas State Constitution, the Commission plays a vital role in maintaining the integrity, competence, and independence of the state’s courts. Its primary duty is to ensure that every judicial appointment is based on merit and professional excellence rather than political influence or partisanship.

The Commission is tasked with reviewing all applications from qualified candidates for judicial office. Each applicant is evaluated through a rigorous process that considers professional experience, ethical conduct, legal scholarship, and commitment to impartial justice. Following careful review and deliberation, the Commission selects the most suitable individuals for available judicial positions. The names of these individuals are then submitted for confirmation by the Legislature, ensuring that every appointment reflects both merit and democratic accountability.

The Judicial Nominating Commission is composed of twenty members, each of whom is nominated by the Attorney General and confirmed by at least fifty-five percent (55%) of the Legislature. Every member of the Commission must be a civilian, at least forty-five years of age, and must have been a resident of the State of San Andreas for no fewer than ten years prior to appointment. Members serve two-year terms and may serve no more than two consecutive terms. This structure ensures both experience and turnover within the Commission, balancing institutional knowledge with the infusion of new perspectives.

In addition to the state-level body, separate and smaller nominating commissions operate within each county pursuant to House Bill 22-1904, enacted in 2022. These local commissions are appointed by the County Commissioners and are composed equally of civilians and legal professionals. The county-level commissions perform similar vetting functions for judicial vacancies within their respective jurisdictions, forwarding their recommendations to the state Commission for consideration. This multi-tiered system ensures that the selection of judges remains inclusive, locally informed, and representative of the diverse communities of San Andreas.

Together, the state and county Judicial Nominating Commissions form the foundation of a merit-based judicial appointment system that prioritizes fairness, competence, and public trust. Through their careful and impartial work, these commissions safeguard the quality and independence of the judiciary—ensuring that the courts of San Andreas remain worthy of the confidence of its citizens and faithful to the Constitution they serve under.

Commission on Judicial Discipline

The Commission on Judicial Discipline is a constitutionally established body tasked with protecting the public from improper judicial conduct and preserving the integrity of the state’s judicial process. Created under Article VI, Section 6 of the San Andreas State Constitution, the Commission ensures that the people of San Andreas can place their trust in a judiciary that is ethical, impartial, and accountable.

The Commission is responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct or disability and ensuring that all such matters are resolved fairly, thoroughly, and without undue delay. Its work upholds the standards of professionalism expected of judges while safeguarding the public’s confidence in the courts. Through investigation and review, the Commission determines whether disciplinary action or other corrective measures are necessary to address violations of judicial ethics or incapacity to serve.

The Commission on Judicial Discipline is composed of twenty licensed attorneys drawn from across the State of San Andreas. Each member must have been licensed to practice law for at least five years prior to appointment, ensuring that all members bring meaningful professional experience and legal expertise to their role. Members are nominated by the Attorney General and must be confirmed by at least fifty-five percent (55%) of the Legislature. Each member serves a four-year term, with no individual permitted to serve more than sixteen years in total.

Through its oversight, the Commission provides a critical check on judicial authority while maintaining respect for judicial independence. Its purpose is not punitive, but corrective—to ensure that judges meet the highest ethical standards and that the people of San Andreas can rely on a judiciary defined by fairness, discipline, and respect for the rule of law.

State Court Administrator

The State Court Administrator serves as the chief administrative officer of the Judicial Branch, assisting in the efficient and ethical operation of the courts of the State of San Andreas. Established under Article VI, Section 7 of the San Andreas State Constitution, this position ensures that the judiciary functions in a manner that is fair, impartial, and accessible to all citizens.

The State Court Administrator is nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the Legislature, reflecting the shared responsibility of the executive and legislative branches in upholding the integrity of the judicial system. To qualify, the Administrator must be a licensed attorney in the State of San Andreas and must demonstrate a longstanding commitment to the principles of integrity, discipline, and transparency—the three values that define the office.

The Administrator’s duties include coordinating the administrative affairs of the courts, implementing policies to improve judicial efficiency, overseeing budgets and personnel, and ensuring compliance with judicial standards statewide. Beyond management, the Administrator acts as a guardian of public trust, ensuring that every courtroom in San Andreas operates with professionalism, courtesy, and impartiality.

Before nomination and throughout their tenure, the State Court Administrator is bound to maintain exemplary conduct, both personally and professionally. This high standard of behavior underscores the role’s symbolic importance as a model of ethical governance and judicial integrity. In every respect, the Administrator’s service reflects the judiciary’s broader mission—to uphold justice and protect the rights and dignity of every citizen of San Andreas.

The responsibilities of the SCA also include

provide administrative and technical support to the appellate courts, trial courts and probation.
provide centralized policy guidance.
develop and implement standards and guidelines.
serve as an advocate in obtaining necessary resources from the legislature.
provide services in an accurate, timely and equitable manner.
Innovative business processes and technologies are constantly under evaluation for possible introduction throughout the Branch in order to improve efficiency and to make the courts more accessible to the citizens of San Andreas.

Qualifications for Judges

Over the age of twenty-one (21)
Must be a United States citizen for at least ten (10) years prior to submitting an application.
Politically Unaffiliated
Be licensed to practice law for at least 5 years prior to submitting your application.
Be qualified to vote
No felony convictions from any country outside the United States.
No felony convictions from any state within the United States.
No more than 3 reprimands from the Commission on Judicial Discipline
Be in good financial standing (No major debt)
Have no record relating to drug or alcohol use.
Have no record relating to domestic abuse, or any other abuse of a human or animal.
Be able to pass a psychological exam issued by the State Bureau of Investigation.
Follow the code of judicial ethics provided by the Commission on Judicial Discipline.

Why are Judges appointed rather than elected?

Appointing judges rather than electing them can offer several key benefits:

Judicial Independence: Appointment processes can better protect judges from political pressures, ensuring they can make decisions based on the law and facts rather than public opinion or political influence. This helps maintain the judiciary's role as an impartial arbiter.
Focus on Qualifications: Appointments can be based on qualifications, experience, and merit, rather than on a candidate's popularity or ability to campaign. This can result in a more qualified and capable judiciary, as the selection process often involves thorough vetting by legal experts or nominating commissions.
Avoidance of Partisanship: Appointed judges are less likely to be influenced by political parties or interest groups, which can be a risk in electoral processes. This helps ensure that judicial decisions are made without bias or obligation to campaign supporters.
Reduced Campaign Pressure: Judges who are appointed do not need to raise funds or campaign for election, reducing the potential for conflicts of interest and the influence of money in the judiciary. This can also free judges from the distraction of campaigning, allowing them to focus fully on their judicial responsibilities.
Long-Term Stability: Appointed judges typically have longer terms or lifetime appointments, providing stability and continuity in the judiciary. This can enhance the development of consistent legal precedents and provide a steady hand in interpreting the law.
Protection of Minority Rights: Because appointed judges are insulated from direct public pressure, they may be better positioned to protect minority rights and uphold constitutional principles, even when these are unpopular with the majority.
Focus on Legal Expertise: Appointments can emphasize legal acumen and expertise, ensuring that judges are chosen for their understanding of the law and judicial temperament, rather than their ability to appeal to voters.

Overall, appointing judges can help ensure a judiciary that is independent, highly qualified, and focused on upholding the rule of law, free from the potential distortions of electoral politics.

Why must Judges remain politically unafilliated?

Judges being politically unaffiliated is crucial for several reasons:

Impartiality: Political neutrality ensures that judges can make decisions based solely on the law and the facts of a case, without any bias or influence from political parties or ideologies. This impartiality is fundamental to the fairness of the judicial process.
Public Trust and Confidence: A judiciary perceived as neutral and unbiased helps maintain public trust and confidence in the legal system. If judges are seen as politically aligned, their decisions may be viewed as politically motivated, which can undermine the integrity of the judicial system.
Equal Justice: The principle of equal justice under the law requires that all individuals receive fair treatment in legal proceedings, regardless of their political affiliations. Politically unaffiliated judges are better positioned to ensure that all parties are treated equally, without favoritism.
Separation of Powers: Maintaining a clear distinction between the judicial branch and the political branches (executive and legislative) upholds the separation of powers. This separation is vital to prevent any single branch from exerting undue influence over another, preserving the checks and balances that are foundational to democratic governance.
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest: Judges who are politically unaffiliated are less likely to have conflicts of interest when ruling on cases that may involve political parties or issues. This helps ensure that decisions are made based on the merits of the case rather than external pressures.

Overall, political neutrality in the judiciary helps uphold the rule of law, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and without prejudice.

SUMMARY

The process of judicial appointment and tenure in the State of San Andreas is designed to balance independence, accountability, and merit across all levels of the judiciary. Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the Governor from a list of three candidates submitted by the Judicial Nominating Commission, and must be confirmed by 55% of the Legislature. Each justice serves an initial two-year provisional term, followed by retention elections every eight years, and may serve a maximum of twenty-six years in total.

Judges of the Court of Appeals are selected directly by the Judicial Nominating Commission, subject to confirmation by 55% of the Legislature. Like Supreme Court justices, they serve an initial two-year term before facing retention elections every six years, and cannot exceed twenty-six years of total service.

At the trial level, District or County Court judges are likewise appointed by the Judicial Nominating Commission, but require only 50% legislative confirmation. They also serve a two-year provisional term, after which they must stand for retention every four years, and may serve up to thirty-four years in total. Together, these provisions establish a unified judicial framework that rewards competence and experience while maintaining consistent opportunities for legislative and public review.

Google Sites

Report abuse