On Monday, the Senate reconvened in Congress' lame-duck session that began on November 15. The Senate has not approved a single federal judge since July 6, even though the bench currently experiences 96 circuit and district court vacancies (38 are “judicial emergencies”), and President Barack Obama has nominated 51 well-qualified, mainstream candidates for the openings, 21 of whom the Judiciary Committee has approved without dissent. If the Senate confirms no one else, there will be more than 100 vacancies in 842 judgeships (13 percent) by January 20. Although Donald Trump won the presidency and the GOP retained its Senate majority, Republican and Democratic senators must collaborate to fill numerous vacancies before the members adjourn because the openings undermine justice.

Across the initial six years in Mr. Obama's presidency, minimal cooperation between Republicans and Democrats allowed the most vacancies to exist for the greatest time. Since January 2015, once Republicans had recaptured a Senate majority, this collaboration additionally deteriorated. These problems meant the Senate approved merely one appellate and 10 district jurists in 2015 and one circuit and eight district judges this year.

The state of Texas, which experiences 13 emergency openings, eight of which lack nominees, affords a compelling illustration. Eastern District of Texas judges address caseloads that are an astounding three times larger than the national average. District of Idaho jurists concomitantly manage dockets 20 percent higher than this average. The court has one active judge and a second jurist, who is 83 and assumed senior status (a type of semi-retirement) in July 2015. His position stands empty, while the nominee for that slot has languished over eight months. The Northern District of Florida similarly encounters vacancies for half of its active judgeships.

Delayed appointments deprive people and businesses engaged in federal court litigation of justice and the coequal branch of judicial resources it needs to promptly, inexpensively and equitably decide cases. Slow confirmations also undercut citizen regard for the appointments regime and the federal government's coordinate branches.

Those complications demonstrate that both parties should redouble their lame-duck session endeavors to approve numerous judges by following the tradition of supplying capable, mainstream district nominees floor ballots, a convention which contemporary chief executives and Senates respect. The GOP at least should allow votes on the 20 strong, consensus district nominees with committee approval. Most have waited on the floor numerous months, and Republicans recommended a majority of them.

Senators must particularly honor this custom in 2016. The courts require more judges to fulfill their constitutional duty for rendering justice, and most nominees are competent and noncontroversial. Restarting the process would be unfair to the nominees, who endured protracted consideration while placing their lives on hold; federal court litigants, who must wait years for trial dates and case resolution; and judges, who are already overburdened by massive caseloads. It would also waste scarce resources because senators and their advisory selection commissions must vet and recommend candidates, the White House will need to nominate them, the Judiciary Committee must convene hearings and votes, and the entire Senate would have to conduct debates and ballots. President Trump must also fill the Supreme Court vacancy and establish a new government, so he might select no lower court nominees until the autumn, when vacancies could exceed 130.

Now that the Senate is nearing adjournment, Republicans and Democrats must cooperate to approve numerous able, moderate district nominees for the sake of the judiciary, the Senate and the nation.

Carl Tobias is the Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond. His email is ctobias@richmond.edu.