MERIT SELECTION REPRESENTS AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A METHOD OF JUDICIAL SELECTION WHICH ENSURES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH PERIODIC REFERENDUMS ON SITTING JUDGES BUT ELIMINATES THE WELL-KNOWN DISADVANTAGES OF POPULAR ELECTIONS, MANIPULATIONS OF JUDGESHIPS, THE TENDENCY OF PERSONS TO VOTE FOR JUDGES OF THEIR OWN POLITICAL PARTY, AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGESHIPS AS POLITICAL REWARDS. YET, OF ALL THE 353 JUDGES WHO STOOD FOR MERIT RETENTION ELECTION IN 1976, ONLY ONE IN EACH OF THREE STATES WAS DEFEATED; ALL THREE DEFEATED JUDGES HELD LOCAL TRIAL BENCHES. VOTERS PAY LITTLE HEED TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATIONS. IN FACT, A POOR BAR ASSOCIATION RATING OFTEN PUTS THE JUDGE IN AN UNDERDOG POSITION AND ASSURES HIS ELECTION. RECOMMENDATIONS MAY ALSO BE CAUGHT UP IN BAR ASSOCIATION POLITICS. NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS IS POOR COMPARED TO COVERAGE OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH ELECTIONS, AND RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE IS EVEN POORER. THE ONLY TIME A JUDGE IS DEFEATED IS WHEN HE HAS OPPOSITION ON THE BALLOT. MERIT RETENTION ELECTIONS HAVE NOT ACHIEVED THEIR PURPOSE OF KEEPING THE JUDICIARY CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE FORM OF NONPOLITICAL RECALL.