Texans have a Constitutional Right to elect their judges

Texas GOP ^ | unknown | unknown

[ThJ1800]

Texas' current system of judicial elections is a 153-year-old right that empowers the people to choose who will interpret our laws and make crucial decisions affecting our lives, liberty and property. For more than a century, Texans enjoyed this right under the majority rule of the Democrat Party.

Now, as Republicans have gained the complete control of all facets of state government for the first time in modern history, the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court wants to take away that 153-year old right by creating an appointment/retention system.

Under the appointment/retention system, Texans would not be able to elect their judges at all; rather, they would only be able to retain or remove judges appointed by a governor. If voters ousted a judge from office, Texans would not be allowed to choose a new judge. Instead, a new appointment would be made. The only power the people will have left is to vote against a candidate, not for a candidate.

[ThJ1800]

Personally, I do not support the idea of an elected judiciary, but I was wondering what y'all's opinion on the matter might be.

[Bogey78O]

I'm against an elected judiciary.

If that was the case we'd see judges base their rulings on what gets them elected.

Despite the flaws the federal system is pretty good.

[Quix]

I guess I could argue both sides.

But mostly, now, I am on the side of electing.

Of course, that requires a very informed electrate. And I don't know if the education or IQ's of some of the many I see on the street and in shops is up to choosing their ice cream flavor, much less their judges.

Nevertheless, I believe that on the whole, the average citizens are pretty sharp--especially in most of Texas.

The thing I object to is having judges who are atnys.

I believe ALL judges and especially in the USA Supreme court should be wise codgers judged top flight in their ethics and integrity--as well as humble and practical. And I think it should be against the constitution to allow atnys to be judges. It's bad enough that they have a lock on congress etc. What cozy club.

I don't think atnys have a nitty gritty enough stake in what it means to be a common man, on average, to serve as dog catcher, much less judge.

[writmeister]

Having lived in a state with the retention system (Missouri) and a state with the election system (Texas), I can tell you that an elected judiciary is infinitely preferable. The retention system simply does not work (unless your secret goal is lifetime appointments) because judges are almost never un-retained.

In my experience practicing law, I can tell that there is nothing worse than a judge who thinks he/she is invulnerable.

[merrin]

I agree with you. Elected judges are bad news.

Then again, I'm a terrible undemocratic elitist.

[merrin]

In my experience practicing law, I can tell that there is nothing worse than a judge who thinks he/she is invulnerable.

This can be solved by impeaching judges who refuse to follow the law.

[writmeister]

Good luck! It would never happen.

Furthermore, we have seen numerous examples where unelected judges force their values down the throats of the majority (such as the Pledge of Allegiance 9th circuit judges) without committing some impeachable offense.

OTOH, our informed local voters sent down to defeat our two most ethically-challenged local judges and re-elected our other hard-working judges. All in all, the elected judiciary works.

[Teetop]

Personally, if I can still shoot a scum-bag for stealing something on my property, as I can now in Texas, I don't care....

[umbagi]

I'm a "recovering lawyer," and have practiced in many Texas counties.

In some of those counties -- especially the larger ones, unfortunately -- the District Judges spend more time raising money for re-election than they do on the bench.

In election years, I spent more time going to $100-a-plate barbecues than I did trying cases. Some judges you knew were above favoritism; some were known practitioners of it; some of them, you just didn't know. Most of us went to all the barbecues, and made sure the judge saw us there; we wanted to support the first group, we wanted the second group to treat us "fairly," and we couldn't take a chance on the third group.

Thanks for posting this; I'll be contacting my legislators and asking them to support a "Missouri Plan" law for Texas!

u

[writmeister]

You will care if our elected judiciary (answerable to the people) are replaced by an appointed judiciary (responsive to criticism by liberal elitist law reviews). The first thing to go will be RKBA.

[writmeister]

Having lived in Missouri and watched corrupt and incompetent judges retained in election after election, I have already called my state representative's office to express my unequivocable support for elected judges.

[Teetop]

True, hope it stays the same then!

It seems to work now, better than having someone who doesn't have to worry about elections or what the people think that they are doing in their job.

[greasepaint]

What is the name of the Justice who is against elected judges.
I want to know who not to vote for.

[deport]

And trial lawyers......

[deport]

Doesn't this require a Constitutional Amendment? There are four bills filed addressing this item..... I haven't read them but the State Constitution speaks to this issue.

[umbagi]

...corrupt and incompetent judges retained in election after election...

And how would electing them the first time have changed that? The issue is still with the voters...

I've seen the same thing with our elected judges. The problem is uninformed or disinterested voters. With an appointment system, you'd see at least some basic vetting by a committee, much as is done for federal appointments, to insure that only those competent to serve were chosen. Then the voters would have the opportunity to vote "up or down" every so often.

I've seen a judge elected because he shared a name with a popular radio personality (an election-day poll showed that more than 50% of his voters thought they were voting for the on-air guy!); I saw another, utterly unqualified and with zero trial experience, elected on looks and personality over an experienced and highly-qualified opponent; we all saw one superb Texas Supreme Court Justice defeated because she ticked off two rich and influential power groups with two votes. None of those, or at least the first two, would have happened under an appointment/retention system.

Sorry, my calls are going to cancel yours :-). Guess we both need to be calling all our friends!

u

[nanny]

There are pros and cons to that.

In Texas I understand the largest funders for judges' campaigns are trial lawyers - that does seem to present a conflict of interest to me, and make way for a lot of skullduggery.

Now an appointed judge has the blight of just being a political - well appointee.

I think maybe appointment with term limits would help, but I don't know how to fix the case of lawyers funding judges' campaigns.

[writmeister]

The trial lawyers are the biggest contributors to the RAT candidates. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for us), no RAT-statewide judicial candidate has won since 1992. They thought they would have a big year in 2002 and spent extravangantly -- but all their candidates went down to defeat handily (even their so-called "moderate" candidate Margaret Mirabal running with RINO support against our so-called "extreme" candidate Steven Smith).

We are also making progress on the intermediate appellate judiciary winning benches deep in yellow-dog rural Texas which have been previously controlled by the trial lawyers.