We Aim for Injustice

"The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing."

-Caroline Kennedy, US Ambassador 

Unless we stick our judges in a soundproof bubble apart from the world, they will never be completely independent of the political winds, but Texas's approach to judicial elections doesn't even aim for such a standard. Texas elects all their judges in partisan elections, allowing candidates to run as Republican or Democrat. The problems with this system are easy to see primarily in the disregard for fairness and easy filler votes.

The judicial need for impartiality is incredibly clear and essential to the assurance of justice. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #74, "The independence of the judges is... requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals." Cases often appear in Texas courts between a Republican and Democrat person or group. To have a judge openly admit their partiality towards those of their party does not assure one of the fairness of the trail. Allowing judges to declare their partisanship declares an abandonment of any attempt at justice. 

A little "(R)" or "(D)" after a potential judge's name is an easy out for many voters. Regardless of a judge's track record, ideology, or ability to judge, a judge can get elected simply because they associate with the majority party. Wallace B. Jefferson, former Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, wrote,  "My success depended primarily on a straight-ticket partisan vote... Currently, merit matters little in judicial elections. We close our eyes and vote for judges based on party affiliation." Voters choose someone who they know little or nothing about simply because of the letter after their name. This obviously is not a system built to pick the best candidate or even the people's choice. Texas does not encourage voters to research judges. In fact, Texas practically discourages it by allowing partisanship to control the vote. 

Texas has discouraged its judges from striving for impartiality and its voters from educated choices.

Convenient Accuracy

There are approximately 4,889,856 Texans eligible to vote but unregistered. To put that in perspective, 4,727,208 Texans voted in the 2014 gubernatorial election. There are more people unregistered than people who actually vote. In fact, Texas has the lowest voter turnout in the nation and barely scooches by at 42nd in voter registration percentage.

Texas voter registration is not the easiest of processes, but it's not impossible. It still involves a form that has to be printed on paper and snail-mailed - a slow, time-consuming process for our modern world. Often, even after registering, information comes out inaccurate and voters are stopped at the polls and turned away due to a change in address, misspelled name, or wrong birth date. This wastes valuable time at the polls, making voting full of frustratingly long lines. However, what prioritizes this issue is the greater consequence of lost votes and lost voices.

At first glance, the solution seems to be automatic registration. Two states, Oregon and now California, use automatic registration in which citizens are registered to vote as soon as they turn 18. Information the state already has is compiled and any citizen over 18 can simply show up to vote. However, the concern often arises as to the individuals that, while eligible, don't want to be registered to vote for religious or personal reasons. Some argue that automatic registration oversteps the role of government. Such issues cause automatic registration to be a hard vote.

Upon further examination, the answer lies in an already established Texas registration method. In Texas, citizens over 18 are encouraged to register to vote when obtaining a driver's licence or changing address at the DMV where applications are also provided. A simple signature and maybe a piece of missing information is filled in, and with practically no extra time, the citizen is registered to vote with accurate information. Heather K. Gerken takes the next step into solution, "Now imagine every public organization - a state university, the Department of Veterans Affairs, your local Social Security office - providing the same kind of one-stop shopping... It wouldn't be difficult for them to forward that information to election officials." 

There are three advantages besides increased registration: choice, encouragement, and accuracy. Gerken's solution allows a citizen to choose not to be registered while still making it more convenient. The added freedom would make the bill much easier to pass in the very freedom-conscious Texas. Because a citizen is reminded to register at more state institutions, she is simultaneously encouraged to vote. Especially for the thousands of students at state universities, this much needed encouragement and ease of access could potentially increase the dismal millennial turnout. This solution also provides better accuracy. Anytime address is changed or name corrected, voters can quickly make this information match their election registration, preventing long lines and discouraged voters at the polls. 

Despite all these stellar advantages, voter registration may not increase significantly. Americans are an apathetic people and more drastic measures would need to be taken to significantly change the numbers. However, with an often gridlocked government, small steps are the taken steps and anything is worth a shot. 

Providing more opportunities for accurate registration will encourage voter registration and turnout while appealing to Texas's ideal of freedom.