It's hard to craft an exam that isn't mostly testing how good the examinee is at writing exams. Things like the SAT, LSAT, GRE, etc... are good predictors of near-future academic success but not very useful beyond that.

So, I think an exam is a bad idea unless it's a pass/fail exam (ie no grades, you either understand the law or you do not) and there should be no meaningful time constraint when completing the exam. That's basically the system in most states today, except the training comes after someone without a law degree is elected.

There are state and federal oversight mechanisms with the power to remove bad judges.

▲

triceratops 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> That's basically the system in most states today, except the training comes after someone without a law degree is elected.

If you believe this is preferable to a system where knowledge is established before appointing the person, then we're not going to have much common ground.

I'd invite you to read https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/oct/... for a look at Louisiana's justice of the peace system, whose justices only need a high-school diploma.

IMO a law degree is the absolute bare minimum for any kind of judicial or prosecutorial role. It's bad enough cops aren't expected to know the law. How can anyone justify a judge with fewer qualifications than a bootcamp grad in a software role?

	▲	criddell 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I might vote for the 26 year old who just passed the bar but can't find work because I believe they know the law. My neighbor might vote for the retired high school principle because she believes the person has accumulated wisdom and experience dealing with people. Either person could be a great or terrible JP. Also, don't forget JPs mostly handle basic disputes, misdemeanors, and administrative tasks. You probably don't need a law degree to conduct a wedding ceremony or hear a shoplifting case. Would it surprise you to find out in lots of places the coroner is an elected position open to high school grads?