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.

[nanny]

Well, I know it would be nice to belive that somehow Republican judges are above all that - but I just don't think so. Call me a cynic - but if trial lawyers 'buy' the election for a judge, they are going to expect, and will get, something in return -

[writmeister]

I think you misunderstood my point. Trial lawyers may be trying to buy the election for their RAT candidates, but their candidates have consistently lost over the last ten years. Put another way, they have been mostly unsucessful in buying judges.

However, if we had an appointed system, it would be much easier for them to underhandedly install their bought-and-paid-for judicial candidates.

[nanny]

I see problems with appointed judges.

But, I think most trial lawyers realize they must butter their bread on both sides.

Now if Democrat judges have been loosing for 10 years, don't you think they have realized they need to buy themselves some of 'whoever' sits on the benches?

Trial lawyers may prefer democratic judges - but they will take whatever they can get, and if they can only buy themselves some republican judges - then republican it is - still bought and paid for---

[nanny]

I see problems with appointed judges.

But, I think most trial lawyers realize they must butter their bread on both sides.

Now if Democrat judges have been loosing for 10 years, don't you think they have realized they need to buy themselves some of 'whoever' sits on the benches?

Trial lawyers may prefer democratic judges - but they will take whatever they can get, and if they can only buy themselves some republican judges - then republican it is - still bought and paid for---

[writmeister]

Actually, no. Most of our GOP judges are fairly pro-business. Each election cycle, the trial lawyers pronounce that they have found a new winning cast of judges -- only to suffer defeat at the polls.

[writmeister]

In Missouri, I watched a judge who acquitted powerful and well-connected people be retained despite a well-fought, but futile, battle to un-retain. Missouri's system is notorious for political appointments not based on competency or qualification.

In Tarrant County, in 2002, I watched the allegedly uninformed voters dump two ethically-challenged judges while managing to re-elect good judges facing electoral opponents.

[Proud_texan]

I have three words in favor of elected judges:

William Wayne Justice

Had old Will been up for election in Texas he would have come in a distant third in a one person race. As flawed as the elected system is it sure beats the alternative.

[nanny]

I don't know about now - but there was a time Texas was the place lawyers wanted to file their lawsuits - much like Mississippi is now.

I see why you and I are differing here. You see, I don't think a judge should be pro-anything except legal. I don't want a pro-business judge. I want a judge that is fair to both sides. That is the only way justice can be served. Businesses deserve to be sued sometimes.
I don't want a judge that goes into it with a bias one way or another.

But I don't think you are naive enough to believe that these trial lawyers are continuing to back loosing candidates. They may prefer democratic judges - but my knowledge of human nature tells me they are pragmatic and they will buy what they can.

Also, we won't disagree on the premise that most, if not all, democrats are bad for this country. Where we part company is the premise that all Republicans are good. Just not so. In my thinking all politicians are pretty scary people. They are out for their own personal agenda, and that entails pleasing their contributors - which, by the way, is not the average citizen. The best we can hope for is that we can elect politicians whose agenda meshes with ours from time to time.

[ThJ1800]

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.

Of the 12.5 million registered voters in Texas, only 36% of them voted in the most recent round of elections. Chief Justice Tom Phillips recieved the most of any juducial candidate at 4,308,008.
The point being that the election of judges comes down to a very small portion of society, most of whom are probably well informed (excepting the yellow dogs).

[writmeister]

Texas has changed much in the last few years. I do not want a pro-anything judiciary either. I also do not think all GOP judges are good -- I worked to defeat several in the 2002 primaries. I just have a strong preference for elected judges and a strong preference against lifetime appointments.

I might be convinced to support appointed judges if they were appointed for a specific term with no option for reappointment.

[ThJ1800]

You mention Missouri, and Steven(?) Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh's cousin, was here in Texas today testifying on a retention system.
He was on the Senate floor, which is how I know he was in Austin today. If I can find out what committee he was testifying before, I get a link up to the video.

[Bigun]

I'm a Texan who will do EVERYTHING in his power to ensure that we continue to elect them!

[RJL]

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.

Kinda funny how this system was just fine while Democrats were being elected, but now that the Republicans are being elected the system needs to be changed.

[ThJ1800]

The main proponent of an appointment retention system is Chief Justice Tom Phillips. Sen Robert Duncan and Rep Elizabeth Ames Jones are sponsoring resolutions and enabling legislation to make this possible.

According to TexasWeekly(Vol. 19, Issue 35, 03/10/03), Duncan and Jones both have polling saying 75% of Texans support elected judges, but I have not yet contacted Duncan or Jones to check who they polled. Phillips maintains most Texans believe judges can be swayed by contributions, but again, I have not been able to check the poll, which I would like to compare with the polls of Duncan and Jones.

[ThJ1800]

There are two joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments and two bills containing the enabling legislation.

[ThJ1800]

And it's Republicans who are proposing the changes. The Democrats are to busy engaging in partisan behavior to make changes to our government, for good or ill.

[July 4th]

I'm on the side of electing too. We just got ourselves a Republican on the Wisconsin Supreme Court yesterday.

[deport]

Here are bills if anyone is interested in reading the text of each...... A proposed Constitutional Amendment vote would occur on Nov. 4, 2003.....

• HJR 63
• HB 1511
• SB794
• SJR33

[ThJ1800]

Thanks for posting the links.

I doubt this will make it out the Legislature, considering tort reform and the budget.

[Quix]

YEA!

CONGRATS ON YOUR SUCCESS.

THANKS FOR THE KIND NOTE.