Texas State Senator Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) has filed a proposed State Constitutional Amendment, and enabling legislation, to end partisan elections for Texas State Court Judges. They are SJR 23 and SB 782.
If the bills pass, the voters would vote on the idea in November 2009. Ending partisan elections for statewide judges would arguably be a very good idea from a public policy standpoint, but it would clearly make it more difficult for minor parties to remain ballot-qualified. Generally, when a minor party polls enough votes to remain on the Texas ballot, it is in a statewide partisan judicial race.
The constitutional amendment and bill would provide that justices of the the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and the 14 appellate courts be subject to periodic retention elections. They would be initially appointed (for those not currently in office) by the governor.
The constitutional amendments would be voted on in November 2009, and be effective, if approved, for the 2010 elections. The November election in odd years is the traditional date for most constitutional amendments to be voted on (an average of 16 per election since 1993).
As you have noted, the reason that the Libertarians are more successful in judicial elections, is that the Democrats have not been contesting all statewide judicial elections.
Thanks for the correction about when the voters would vote, if this passes. I’m fixing the post.
Party hack judges = party hack so-called *justice*.
See the party hack U.S.A. Supremes for the worst *justice* in all sorts of cases.
NONPARTISAN judges NOW using Approval Voting.
If this change happens it will certainly make it more difficult for alternative parties to retain ballot status. One has to believe that is the reason for the proposed change. The dominant parties sure don’t like competition!
the most powerfull branch of government is the Judicial (not suppose to be but it is) if this passes it is just one more step in taking power from the voter and turning us into a judical dictatorship. This is bad bad legislation dressed up in the clothes of non-partianship.
Amazing how people see this as taking power away from the voter, since the voter would have the right to oust justices who don’t do their jobs.
It’s not the sole problem that Voters don’t do their homework, but the judicial ethics laws don’t even allow candidates for judges to talk about the issues
Porter – quick, name 2 members of the Court of Criminal Appeals, name 2 TX Supreme Court justices and name at least three of your own COA justices.