"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.
-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.
Susannah, I agree with your point of view that partisan elections are inherently partial and that this is problematic for the Texas judicial system overall. However I would also stipulate that while the Texas government is in part responsible for the partiality of our judicial elections we the citizens of Texas are equally if not more responsible for this "cop out." It has become increasingly clear to me that while many Texans want change they refuse to actually go out and vote or let anybody other than the people around him/her know what changes they want. I would go so far as to argue that the partiality of our judicial elections stems from the average Texans' refusal to act and to commit more than a couple of seconds in passing conversation to actually change what we wish to be different. Until Texans realize that nothing will change unless they work together for it our elections will continue to be biased and broken.
ReplyDelete