Since the 1870s, voters have elected Texas judges. Texas is among seven others states that select its judges in partisan political elections. There have been a growing concern over the years by government groups that Texas judges are accepting campaign contributions from lawyers and businesses that appear in their courts. This is a issue that reaches the ordinary citizens to as far as the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson. This is a very difficult problem to solve and can not be fixed over night. However, there are some ways we could solve the problem improving the election system we have already.
It is very difficult to change the system for Texans elected judges with a constitutional amendment approved by two-thirds of the Senate and the House. Then it would require a majority of voters to approve the legislation. This would take more power from the ordinal citizen and their voice in government. Electing Texas judges through the voters would also give some accountability to the process. We could modify the election process by not allowing the judges to declare a political party on the ballot. This would allow judges to have more freedom to do the right thing and not feel pressured to make a unpopular choice by out side sources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I will be critiquing on article by Michael Dinh appearing in May 4, 2009 in my classmate’s blog, Texas Policy, entitled “Texas Judges being Elected.” The author of this article “Texas Judges being Elected” did very good and interesting job by discussing the partisan political elections of Texas Judges. First, he states the problem that Texas Judges have been accepting campaign contributions from lawyers and businesses that appear in their courts. He argues that the problem has reached ordinary people as well as the Chief Justice of Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson. For Michael, the problem of partisan political election is very difficult to solve, but can be solve by improving the election system we already have. He argues that a constitutional amendment that required two-thirds of the Senate and House can’t be meeting to change the system for Texans elected judges. Michael gives the benefice to elect Judges through the voters: “Electing Texas judges through the voters would also give some accountability to the process.”
ReplyDeleteFinally, at the very end of his article, Michael makes his proposal. He argues that we could modify the election process by not allowing the judges to declare a political party on the ballot. Such method would allow judges to have more freedom to do the right thing and not feel pressured to make an unpopular choice by outside sources.
Michael did very good argument about the selection of Texas judges in partisan political election but the text lack evidences and statistics to support his ideas and to convince his audience about the urgency to have credible judges who will have the freedom to rule. However, Michael excels in his argument by making his proposal feasible. Our judiciary system should be free from political influence and any others form of influence from lawyers and businesses.