On July 20, several Texas voters filed a federal lawsuit against the Texas system for electing State Supreme Court Justices, and Judges of the State Court of Criminal Appeals. Both courts have nine members. For both courts, elections are partisan and are at-large. The lawsuit charges that the system violates Section Two of the federal Voting Rights Act, because it makes it difficult for ethnic and racial minorities to elect judges of their choice. Here is the Complaint. The case is Lopez v Abbott, s.d., 2:16cv-303. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Will the Libertarian and Green parties intervene?
More and more perversion MADNESS about the 15th Amdt — derived from 14th Amdt, Sec. 2.
i.e. the court MORONS do not know the basic difference between the definition of Elector-Voter and public office election areas.
—
P.R. and NONPARTISAN App.V.
First off, isn’t it strange that item 37 on page 7 states that one of the 2 elected Latins was, “not the choice of the Latin community.” Second, there’s no mention anywhere in the complaint that I can find speaking to the issue of relative campaign spending. If one candidate spends 5-10 times or more on their campaign the likely-hood of being elected goes way up. Third, there’s no mention of how many candidates are elected at any particular election. Since they’re complaining about at-large elections (which typically have at least 2 candidates elected at each election) would it be far more reasonable to REQUIRE HALF (4 or 5) of each Court’s seats on the ballot every 4-8 years? With the Chief of each Court being chosen by Seniority.
Wouldn’t preferential voting increase the likelihood of minority (either political or ethnic) candidates being elected in at-large elections? Cambridge, Mass elects all of its city councilors at large, and uses preferential voting. I hear no complaints of minorities being underrepresented there.
Deemer,
Terms are six years, with three of each court elected every two years. Elections are by place, so there are three separate elections. Appointments to the court are fairly frequent. Both Governor Abbott and Senator Cornyn were Supreme Court Justices, as was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Other justices have been appointed to federal courts, and some resign to go back into private practice, or simply to retire. Seven of the current Supreme Court Justices were first appointed. If a justice is appointed, they run for election at the next election for the remainder of the unexpired term.
It is not too uncommon for justices to resign so that the governor may appoint a replacement, who can then run as an incumbent at the next election. Seven of the nine current justices were first appointed.
Item 37 is a snarky way of indicating that Eva Guzman is a Republican. The plaintiffs will argue in court that the Latino community preferred “Blake Bailey”. For David Medina in 2006, they have no evidence since the Democrats did not run an opponent.
Jim Riley:
Thank you for the information on Texas’s Court elections. So, if Texas really WAS serious about defending its so called “at-large” election system, I see the quicker answer would be to have all 3 seats combined on the ballot. Additionally, any vacancy occurring during a term, other than recall, but including one caused by death, could be filled at the same election with the next highest vote-getter candidate winning the shorter termed vacant seat(s). Appointments could be totally eliminated giving ANY judicial candidate a more equitable chance at being elected. Besides court decisions are not always decided by a full panel anyway due to the occasional reccusement. So there shouldn’t be any opposition to less than 9 Justices deciding a case. Of course, there would be from those who would profit, in whatever manner, from the current set-up.