Forget the 'R' and 'D': Commission Wants No More Politics in Selecting Texas Judges
Data show there's a trend of judges leaving office voluntarily because they do not want to weather another election process.
January 09, 2020 at 02:55 PM
4 minute read
All but one member of the new Texas Commission on Judicial Selection indicated at the group's first meeting Thursday that they believe partisanship is problematic in the state's method of selecting judges.
Only Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said she's unconvinced that partisan election of judges must go. But the senator added she planned to keep an open mind as the Judicial Selection Commission this year completes its task to study a number of selection methods, and report back to the Texas Legislature with recommendations for reform.
Much of the commission's first meeting in the Texas Supreme Court building in Austin was devoted to spelling out the problems with the current system.
"You can't solve a problem unless you know what the problem really is," said Chairman David Beck, partner in Beck Redden in Houston.
|'I don't care if they are Republicans or Democrats'
Beck said Texas is one of only six states in the nation that uses partisan elections for judges.
"We are losing good, experienced judges," he said. "I don't care if they are Republicans or Democrats. It has nothing to do with their performance. It depends on the issues at the top of the ticket.
Beck also highlighted problems allowing political campaign contributions in judicial elections. Jackson Walker partner Chip Babcock echoed the thought. He said in one of his current cases, opposing counsel gave $4,000 to the judge's campaign, and it made Babcock's client uncomfortable.
But as a First Amendment attorney, Babcock also noted that regulating campaign contributions will face the same legal problems as regulating speech.
It won't be easy, he explained.
|Decades of attempted reform
A candidate who can raise the most money from wealthy people and corporations, to put ads on TV, has the best shot at winning the bench in urban areas where voters do not know the judicial candidates, added Former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson. Instead, Jefferson said the emphasis in judicial elections should be on the merit of the candidates.
But Jefferson indicated that the election of judges is a good thing, too, because a candidate must travel the state and speak with attorneys and people about their concerns.
"I was able to bring innovation from all around the state to the judicial system because there were good ideas," said Jefferson.
Another plus: The 2018 elections brought a racially diverse group of candidates into office, he said.
Texas has tried to reform judicial selection to replace partisanship with merit since at least 1946, said Megan Lavoie, spokeswoman and special counsel for the Texas Office of Court Administration. While most reforms have failed, Lavoie noted, a 2017 law did succeed in eliminating straight-ticket voting for judges, and in 2019 a law created the judicial selection commission to study further changes.
Angela Garcia, chief data officer of the court administration office, said that in the 2018 elections, 12% of the state's appellate and district judges lost their bid for reelection, which is shocking considering the rate is typically 3%. Garcia said data show there's a trend of judges leaving office voluntarily because they do not want to weather another election process. In total, 140 judges left office in 2018: Half of them were voted out of office and 30% decided not to run again, Garcia said.
|See the statistics:
|Huffman, the commission member who supports partisan races for judges, explained that although she herself is a former district judge, even she struggles to educate herself about all the judicial candidates running in her hometown of Houston. She said that level of research is almost impossible for most voters. And with a dearth of information about candidates, at least the "R" or "D" on the ballot, for "Republican" or "Democrat," gives voters one thing to go on.
While unconvinced that eliminating partisanship was the right decision, Huffman added that she plans to keep an open mind.
She said, "I'm not saying it's not a problem."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250