NEW YORK, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Several states that appoint judges are considering a switch to an elected bench, despite growing criticism from judges about the influence of money in judicial elections. One of the most active is Tennessee, where conservative legislators believe that appointed judges are out of touch with the electorate and unaccountable to voters.

Tennessee's current judicial system has been in place since the 1970s, when it adopted the "Tennessee plan," a mixed approach to judicial selection that was modeled after Missouri's: trial court judges are chosen by direct election, and appellate and Supreme Court judges are selected by the governor, who chooses candidates recommended by a nominating commission. Those judges stand in retention elections -- a simple up or down vote -- every eight years.

Now a significant faction in Tennessee's legislature, with support from far-right corners, claims that that system violates the state constitution. The constitution simply says that judges "shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state." With an eye on the new legislative session in January, supporters are marshalling their forces to argue their case.

IT'S ALL ABOUT TRUST

"If we can trust the people to vote for president, for Senators and Congresspeople, I don't see why we can't trust the people to elect the judges," state Senator Stacey Campfield, one of the leaders of the movement in Tennessee, told Reuters in a phone interview.

Tennessee is not alone in considering elected benches. Legislatures in seven of the 22 states with merit selections have investigated laws to alter or dismantle their systems this year, according to Justice at Stake, a Washington-based organization that tries to keep money out of judicial selection. While some of these efforts stalled, legislatures in Arizona and Florida approved a constitutional amendment that would require the Senate to confirm a governor's judicial nominees, essentially giving more legislative control to the process.

In Tennessee, concern has focused on the political orientation of its judges. The current members of the state's higher courts are vestiges of the days of Democratic control, when a Democratic governor, working with the liberal bar association, picked judges, said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, who studies the judiciary.

The state, once solidly Democratic, now is dominated by the Republican party, which controls both houses of the legislature and the governor's mansion. The swing in party power at least partially explains the move to elected judges.

OUT OF STEP WITH THE STATE?

"The state's Supreme Court and appellate courts are chock-full of liberal Democrats, and there is no way to get rid of them," said Fitzpatrick. "There is a perception, and I think it is accurate, that the Supreme Court is out of step with the state."

Some decisions have particularly stoked the public's ire, he said. The Tennessee Supreme Court has overturned legislative efforts to rein in access to abortions, and in 2008, penned a decision that made it harder for a defendant (typically a business) to get a case knocked out on summary judgment, angering the business community. The legislature re-wrote the law on the issue earlier this year in response.

But it's not a one-way street. Even as Tennessee and like-minded states consider elections, others are moving in the opposite direction, or toward merit appointment, in an effort to rein in the role of money and fundraising in judicial elections.

State legislators in Pennsylvania, for example, have introduced a bill to establish merit selection of appellate judges in place of direct election. In Alabama, the state's supreme court justice last month stepped down mid-term, in part citing the costs it would take to run a re-election campaign. In the years between 2000 and 2009, the state led the country in high cost judicial races, with candidates raising more than $40 million, according to Justice at Stake. Pennsylvania was third, with more than $21 million raised.

BUSINESSES LINE UP WITH ANTI-ELECTION FLANK

The legal and business communities in Tennessee at least are lining up behind the anti-election flank. They say judicial elections would lead to expensive campaigns -- that they'd be asked to bankroll -- and biased judges. They cite neighboring states like Mississippi and Alabama, where the cost of judicial elections has exploded, leading to multimillion dollar races, and some say, judges who rule for the parties that support them.

"Supporters and opponents of merit selection seem to live in two different universes," said Charles Hall, a spokesman for Justice at Stake. "Everything points to these systems being under attack in a way we did not see 10 years ago."

In Tennessee, the run-up to the new legislative session in January is sparking an intense lobbying effort on all sides. Allan Ramsaur, executive director of the Tennessee Bar Association, says a coalition of the bar association, business groups and trial lawyers groups has held three recent meetings to decide how to tackle the issue. They plan to lobby a substantial majority of both houses of the legislature to get what they want: a continuation of the current system.

"We're trying to gear up and make sure that the business community communicates to the legislature that if we want to be the best state in the nation for business, this is one of the worst things we can do," said Bradley Jackson, an official at the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce.

One possible compromise outcome: the legislature passes a constitutional amendment blessing the current system, rather than writing a new one from scratch. That may not please everybody, but with the current system set to sunset, or expire, at the end of 2012 unless the legislature extends it, Tennessee is likely to take some kind of action.

(Reporting by Carlyn Kolker)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal