Is 'resign-and-appoint' model not gaming the system?
Yes, it is absolutely considered "gaming the system." Legal scholars, voting rights advocates, and political scientists widely describe this practice as a deliberate exploitation of statutory loopholes to bypass democratic accountability. While the maneuver is entirely legal, it fundamentally subverts the original intent of the law.
Why It Is Considered Gaming the System
State laws allow governors to appoint judges to ensure that a courtroom doesn't sit empty if a judge unexpectedly passes away or has to step down for an emergency. The system was designed for emergency continuity.
When used strategically, however, it turns an emergency backup plan into a permanent political tool:
• Insulating from Voters: It removes the choice of an open seat from the voters and places it in the hands of a single politician (the governor) and backroom political insiders.
• The Power of the Title: Studies show that incumbent judges rarely lose elections. By getting appointed first, a lawyer gets to put "Incumbent Judge" next to their name on the ballot, which is an overwhelming psychological advantage for voters who don't follow down-ballot judicial races closely.