That is the title of a recent study I co-authored with Russ Sobel for Missouri's Show-Me Institute. In the study, we look at how a state's method of judicial selection is associated with measures of legal system quality. While most studies of judicial selection merely look at the difference between elected and appointed states, we look at the following selection methods: (1) nonpartisan elections; (2) partisan elections; (3) legislative elections; (4) gubernatorial appointment with a nominating commission; (5) gubernatorial appointment with a nominating commission and legislative confirmation; (6) gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation only; (7) gubernatorial appointment with approval by some form of executive council.

Our conclusion:

The data show that states using Missouri’s current system, on average, rank significantly higher than states using partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and gubernatorial appointment with council approval alone. We also find no other method of selection resulting in average scores or rankings that are statistically higher than Missouri’s current system. Based on our analysis, Missouri’s current system is far superior to several of the alternatives.

In related news, Russ and I had a letter to the editor (ungated here in .pdf) in the NY Times on Saturday.