Reforming Judicial Selection in Texas

Introduction

Texas relies on partisan elections to select judges, raising concerns about impartiality. This

essay examines Texas' electoral system, comparing it to other U.S. methods. It argues for a

shift to merit-based selection to enhance judicial quality and independence. Such a change

could improve public trust, reduce partisan influence, and ensure fairer representation on the

bench. Implementing merit selection requires careful consideration of its implications for

accountability and diversity.

1. Current Texas Law on Judicial Selection

In Texas, the selection of judges via partisan elections, where candidates align with political

parties, raises significant concerns. This electoral approach exposes judges to political

influences and challenges related to campaign financing, potentially compromising their

independence and impartiality (Platoff, 2020). The system's reliance on party affiliations may

overshadow judicial qualifications and merit, detracting from the judiciary's perceived

fairness and integrity. These issues highlight the need for a reevaluation of Texas' judicial

selection process to ensure the judiciary's effectiveness and public trust.

2. Alternative Judicial Selection Processes in the U.S.

Merit Selection and Retention Elections, as seen in states like Missouri, present a hybrid

approach to judicial selection. A nominating commission, often comprising legal experts and

community members, evaluates judicial candidates based on their qualifications, experience,

and suitability for the bench (Webster, 1995). This method aims to prioritize merit over

political considerations, thereby potentially enhancing the quality and competence of

appointed judges.
Following the commission's recommendations, the governor appoints one of the candidates to

the judicial position. This step introduces an element of executive oversight while still

maintaining a degree of independence from direct political influence in the selection process

(Webster, 1995). However, it's important to note that governors may still exercise their own

political discretion in appointments.

Subsequently, judges appointed through this process face retention elections, wherein voters

decide whether to retain them in office. Unlike partisan elections, retention elections focus

solely on the judge's performance and conduct rather than party affiliation or campaign

rhetoric (Webster, 1995). This mechanism serves as a form of accountability to the electorate,

ensuring that judges uphold their duties and responsibilities to the public.

Non-partisan elections offer an alternative to the overtly political nature of partisan elections.

In this system, judicial candidates do not explicitly align themselves with political parties,

theoretically reducing the influence of partisan politics on the judiciary (Jefferson and Butts,

2016). However, candidates are still required to campaign and fundraise, albeit without the

overt support or opposition of political parties. While non-partisan elections may mitigate

some of the challenges associated with partisan influence, they still necessitate a degree of

political engagement and resource mobilization, potentially influencing judicial decision-

making indirectly.

3. Advocating for Merit Selection in Texas

Merit selection stands out as a favored method due to its emphasis on qualifications over

political affiliations. By prioritizing candidates' expertise, experience, and judicial

temperament, this system aims to elevate the quality of judges selected for the bench

(Webster, 1995). Crucially, merit selection diminishes the direct influence of political parties

in the judicial appointment process, thereby reducing the likelihood of partisan biases

impacting judicial decisions.

judges from external pressures that could compromise their independence and impartiality

(Webster, 1995). Without the need to court donors or cater to political interests, appointed

judges can focus solely on upholding the law and dispensing justice fairly.

This method aligns closely with the principles of impartiality and competence, essential

qualities for effective judicial service (Webster, 1995). By ensuring that judges are selected

based on their abilities rather than their political connections, merit selection bolsters public

trust in the judiciary and reinforces its role as a neutral arbiter of justice.

Overall, the merit selection process serves as a vital safeguard against politicization of the

judiciary, promoting integrity, impartiality, and competence in the selection of judges

(Webster, 1995). By upholding these standards, merit selection contributes to a judiciary that

is better equipped to uphold the rule of law and safeguard the rights and liberties of all

citizens.

4. Stakeholder Impacts

The introduction of merit selection could face resistance from political parties, as it

diminishes their traditional influence over the judiciary. Since merit selection prioritizes

qualifications over political affiliations, parties may find their ability to shape the composition

of the judiciary limited, potentially challenging their long-standing power dynamics.

However, judges stand to benefit significantly from merit selection (Jefferson and Butts,

2016). With reduced pressure to campaign and solicit funds, they can focus more on their

judicial duties, fostering increased independence and impartiality in their decision-making

processes (Jefferson and Butts, 2016). Freed from the constraints of partisan politics, judges

can devote themselves wholly to upholding the law and administering justice fairly.

For the public, the implementation of merit selection brings several advantages. By ensuring

that judges are selected based on their qualifications rather than political or financial
considerations, the judiciary becomes more reliable and credible (Jefferson and Butts, 2016).

Citizens can have greater confidence in the judiciary's ability to render impartial judgments,

safeguarding the integrity of the legal system. Ultimately, the public gains access to a

judiciary composed of highly qualified professionals who prioritize the law's application and

the protection of constitutional rights (Jefferson and Butts, 2016).

In summary, while political parties may resist merit selection due to its potential to curtail

their influence, judges and the public stand to benefit significantly. Judges experience

increased independence, while the public gains access to a judiciary characterized by

impartiality, competence, and a commitment to upholding the rule of law.

5. Engaging in the Political Process

Advocating for the adoption of merit selection in Texas requires a multifaceted approach.

Firstly, individuals can focus on educating and mobilizing the public through informational

sessions and community forums. By clearly explaining the benefits of merit selection, such as

enhanced judicial independence and impartiality, and the potential for a higher quality

judiciary, advocates can garner support from diverse sectors of society.

Secondly, legislative advocacy plays a crucial role in driving reform. Collaborating with

sympathetic lawmakers to draft bills proposing merit selection for judicial appointments is

essential. Providing legislators with research, data, and expert testimony can strengthen the

case for reform and demonstrate the effectiveness of merit selection in other jurisdictions. By

engaging with decision-makers and advocating for legislative change, proponents of merit

selection can advance the cause of judicial reform in Texas.

Lastly, coalition building and media outreach are vital components of the advocacy strategy.

Forming alliances with like-minded organizations and leveraging collective resources can

amplify the advocacy efforts. Utilizing traditional and social media platforms to disseminate

information, generate public discourse, and shape public opinion on the issue of judicial
selection reform is crucial. By fostering dialogue, engaging communities, and mobilizing

support, advocates can effectively promote the adoption of merit selection and contribute to

the establishment of a fair, impartial, and competent judiciary in Texas.

Conclusion

Changing to a merit-based judicial selection system could significantly enhance the quality

and independence of the judiciary in Texas. This reform is essential for ensuring that the

judiciary remains a pillar of democracy and justice, free from the overt influence of politics

and money.

References

- Platoff, Emma. "Despite committee’s recommendation, ending Texas’ partisan judicial

elections looks unlikely." The Texas Tribune, Dec 31, 2020.

- Webster, Peter D. "Selection and Retention of Judges: Is There One 'Best' Method?" Florida

State University Law Review, vol. 23, no. 1, 1995.

- Jefferson, Wallace B., and David Butts. "Reform the Partisan System." Texas Bar Journal,

vol. 79, no. 2, Feb 2016.