Facing South has this article about Texas judicial elections, which are partisan. The story says that even though many thinkers deplore partisan judicial elections, the Texas Constitution requires them. For the Constitution to be changed, the voters would need to approve the change, and the story says that polls show voters like partisan elections for state court judges.
Lot of brainwashed Texans.
PARTISAN HACK judges = PARTISAN HACK results
—
NONPARTISAN exec/judic officers via AppV – pending Condorcet.
We have nonpartisan judicial electiona in Minnesota and in North Dakota.
It should be noted that the MN Republicans have pushed to make the State judicial races more partisan-like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court
16 State supremes = NONPARTISAN
34 infected partisan HACKS
MO system = more oligarchy fraud
The Texas Constitution requires elections of most judges, it does not require PARTISAN elections.
A constitutional amendment would be needed to convert to a system incorporating appointment, senate confirmation, and retention elections. This was proposed in the 2019 session, but it was late in the session, and was clearly a discussion starter. It had a House committee hearing, but went no further. It included implementing legislation. HJR 148/HB 4504. The bill number indicates how late it was introduced.
There was an all-star cast of witnesses, including the current Chief Justice, and the prior two chief justices.
Partisan elections can give the impression of bias. Remember when the District Judge in Travis County was hearing the Green Party petition case, where the plaintiff was the Texas Democratic Party. The judge admitted that he had supported Democrat candidates, and offered to recuse himself. This was declined because it would have delayed the case past a deadline for making nominations. The judge said he was going to rule against the Green Party, but that he would probably be overturned by the Supreme Court, which he was. Within a day he made a contribution to the Travis County Democratic Party for $10,000. Money is quite fungible, so he was essentially paying the attorneys who were presenting the case. He apparently avoided any conflict by leaving the courthouse to make his donation.
Better lawyers can make more money in private practice than they can as a judge. If they run for judge they will need to fundraise, and the most likely contributers will be lawyers. If they are working for themselves or a small firm, they may have to wind down their practice. If they are a judge who is defeated, they may have to re-establish their practice. A smaller firm is likely to have replaced them. Partisan elections may attract lawyers who can make more as a judge, and don’t have to recruit clients. Some judge candidates had never tried a case, or had any experience in criminal law, when running for a position as a criminal court judge. Involvement in partisan politics may be a plus when seeking election.
The proposed amendment permitted the legislature to set a threshold population below which district judges would continue to be elected, and the bill set that limit at 500,000. It could be lowered by the legislature, and there was also a provision that would let county voters switch to an appointment system.
Counties just below the 500,000 threshold may have a half-dozen district judges, with roughly half elected every two years. Smaller counties might have only one district judge, or even share a judge with several counties, who rides (or drives) circuit. The judges may actually be known to the public at large, and certainly to lawyers.
If you have 75 judicial races on the ballot, no one is going to be making choices on merit. It will be party, with a bit of gender and ethnic bias.
Voters in the abstract say they like partisan judicial elections, but may have no clue who they are voting for. Judicial candidates are limited in what they can say in their campaign ads. They can tell their experiences, and include a picture with their family, where they attend church, whether they are a lifetime member of the rodeo, etc.
I found a scholarly article about 30 years ago regarding popular election of judges that cited a poll where most voters favored popular election of judges, but only 14% could name a Supreme Court justice and even fewer (3%) a district judge. This was when Don Yarbrough (sic) was elected because he was a Democrat and had won the Democratic primary over an incumbent justice because his name was similar to US Senator Ralph Yarborough, and Donald Yarborough who had run for governor twice.
Yarbrough spent $350 on his campaign, and was charged with forgery and perjury, and was threatened with impeachment. He resigned and was convicted of lying to a grand jury. While awaiting sentencing he skipped the country, and went to Grenada, which refused extradition (this was prior to 1983). Yarbrough was attending medical school, and was lured to a medical conference in St.Vincent where he was arrested and returned to the US.
Partisan hacks, like Billy Corriher, the author of the ‘Facing South’ article will tell you that the voters favor partisan elections. But they would probably favor partisan elections for state symbols, including pet rock. At the hearing, it was suggested that voters could look at the party platform to determine how they would adjudicate. But this would be irrelevant to most cases, and prejudicial in others.
In Texas, the partisan hacks are those who are from areas where their sign is winning.
The article is more than a little hackish. Martha Hill Jamison the judge who is mentioned was the president of the American Judicature Society, an organization that has been in existence for over a century. Jamison was the top rated judge in the Harris County Bar poll. Her father, John Hill, was chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, who resigned in order to advocate for elimination of partisan election of judges. His successor, Tom Phillips, has advocated for the same. Phillip’s successor, Wallace Jefferson, has advocated for the same. Jefferson’s successor, Nathan Hecht, the current chief justice, has advocated for the same.