Reference no: EM133311970

Case: In Texas, members of the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as of all lower state courts, are elected in partisan elections. Texas is one of only seven states that elect judges this way. Other states use a variety of selection systems ranging from gubernatorial appointment to legislative selection to nonpartisan election. Many "good government" advocates support merit selection, which several states employ and which has been suggested many times as a possible alternative to the current system in Texas. Merit selection involves a commission that vets potential judges based on their character and temperament. A list of approved judicial nominees is then presented to the governor, who appoints one as judge. After a period of time, that judge runs in a retention election. The judge does not face an opponent, but the ballot question asks voters whether the judge should be retained in office.

Former Texas Supreme Court justice Wallace Jefferson has been a major advocate of merit selection. Partisan elections make little sense, according to Jefferson, when judges have so little to do with politics. He notes that what they do is "mundane, if nonetheless important. They probate wills and apportion divorcing spouses' assets. They determine child support and custody. They oversee trials and changes of pleas in criminal cases. They police discovery and preside over settlement conferences." Yet in every election, Jefferson argues, judges are swept out of office because of partisan voting, rather than decisions about judicial competence. Because of these concerns, Jefferson argues that the current system of selecting judges is one "in which an overwhelmed electorate ineffectually uses partisanship and name recognition as a proxy" for competence and integrity. "The result is the loss of good judges and a decrease in public confidence." Jefferson insists that "reform, beginning with merit selection followed by retention elections, is imperative."

In response to Jefferson, Houston lawyer David Butts pointed out that Texas already has a system in which judges are appointed. The governor appoints judges to district and higher-level courts when new courts are created or when there are vacancies to fill. In fact, Governor Perry appointed more judges than any previous governor, and that included seven of the nine justices currently on the Texas Supreme Court. That appointment process is a political process, as was pointed out by a study of Perry's appointments done by the Austin American-Statesman. The study found that Perry "appointed reliably like-minded people--donors to his campaigns, one-time staffers in his office, former lobbyists--to dozens of boards, commissions and judgeships." If there is judicial reform, Butts argued, it should begin with restricting the governor's ability to appoint anyone he chooses. Butts noted that reformers always propose merit selection as a way to take politics out of judicial selection, but, he wrote, "the only politics that are restricted from the selection of our judges are the voters'. The governor, the Legislature, the elite group of lawyers on the selection committee, and the special interest groups will continue to influence and decide who those select candidates are and who is chosen." In reference to retention elections, Butts noted evidence from retention elections in California, Wisconsin, and Iowa where judges were defeated because their decisions angered "deep-pocket special interests or ideological fault lines" and thus became as subject to defeat as if they were in a partisan election. There will always be politics in a selection system, claimed Butts, and Texans should "trust the voters with the final say. Voters will not always make the best choice, but they usually get it right."Should judges be elected or appointed? Is merit selection an effective compromise?

Prompt:

Answer only one of the first 2 questions, and Question # 3.

1.) Explain 2 reasons why you think judges should be elected

OR

2.) Explain 2 reasons why you think judges should be appointed

3.) explain the merit selection process AND why you think it is or is not an effective compromise.