Texas Judicial Elections
The appointment of a state judge should not be through a partisan election. Rather, it should be through a governor in conjunction with approval and support of Texas senate. Voting in a general election takes time. A voter has to reach the polling station on time and he or she has the task of ticking against the individual he wants in office. In as much as the voters have the capability of choosing all of their public leaders, selecting judges through partisan elections is inefficient and not everyone would possess the information needed to make the right decision. Generally, judiciary matters are not visible to the public. Another reason against this old methodology is that one gets into office in relation to party membership or support from a popular politician. One can have all qualifications to make it to the post but the focus shifts to other factors rather than relevant credentials that would hold the attention of the public and mislead the voters (Election and Term of Office and Campaigns; Judicial politics pg. 299- 312).
More so, partisan politics cannot be reliable and trustworthy when it comes to selecting a judge. In one way or the other, one party can have local control over Texas due to their vast influence and majority presentation in vital institutions such as the judiciary. With influence comes manipulation and vices as corruption can find their way in courtrooms. Prior to an election, lawyers will align themselves based on a judge who has their best interests at heart. For instance, criminal lawyers will tend to support a different candidate from the prosecutors because their interests differ greatly. Hence, the power that a judge wields may be prone to manipulation due to partisan politics and lawyers’ interests (Election and Term of Office and Campaigns; Judicial politics pg. 299- 312).
As stated earlier, a voter may look at the name of a judge or label of a party to assist him or her make a decision during voting. For instance during the Obama era in 2008,democrats judges won most slots but judges with unfamiliar names lost and that was why Sharon McCally retained her seat as a republican. Nevertheless, assuming that the public has all the necessary information needed to vote in a judge is often misleading because of the number of candidates in the ballot. Many contenders on the ballot can impede making conversant decisions. Even though information acquired through campaigns may inform a voter, campaign funding comes from individuals or groups who have an interest in the court cases. The contributions from these funding groups can interfere with a judge’s decisions and even issues discussed during campaigns. The above description goes to show that partisan elections have the ability to destroy merit. The case between Rick green and Paul green showed that a voter confusion could put the wrong person in office. Paul green, a judge with 17 years of experience lost to Rick green an individual with no experience as a lawyer at all (Election and Term of Office and Campaigns; Judicial politics pg. 299- 312).
In summary, the fact that a judge may lose to another, yet he has enough credentials is reason enough to abandon partisan election as a way of selecting judges. In addition, the numerous number of judges that run for office leads to voter mix-up. Also, the public most of the times do not have enough information to guide them through making the decisions. Even voters who make an effort to evaluate each candidate can find it hard.
References
Election and Term of Office and Campaigns; Judicial politics pg. 299- 312
