Reference no: EM132257357

Question :

Is electing judges better than having the executive branch appoint them? What impact does special interest have on the judiciary in the State of Texas? Is this good, or bad for the citizens of Texas? Would you say a judge can be fair and impartial if they must stand election? Does this produce "Good Law" for the citizens of Texas?

Reply this

Yes I believe that electing a judge is better than having the executive branch appoint them, because this way they are not chosen for a the reasons of having connections to someone with power. They earn their position they are deserving of. Texas is one of five states in the United States that uses the partisan election to choose their judges.

"Judges are meant to be an impartial and fair body who ensure justice, who check the legislature and executive branches of government, not a "backstop," Electing our judges ensures this stays true. If you had the executives appoint them then they may be partial to one way of thinking and this would cause them to be unfair to the citizens. The special interest impacts the judiciary in the state of Texas with money.

The chest of special interest money is essentially bottomless for judicial contests nationwide, with money pouring in from the very lawyers and special interest groups who will appear before the newly-elected judge's court. This can be a good thing for support from special interests, but also they then have leverage for persuasion in their favor on interests. Yes I do think a judge is more likely to be fair and impartial if they have to withstand election, because they may not get reelected if they are unfair in the courtroom decisions. I would say this produces good law for Texas citizens. Good law can be overturned by a higher up Judge.