Texas Judicial System Case Study

Notably, it is crucial to understand that within the state of Texas, the Supreme Court, the court of criminal appeals and other district courts offer vacancies for judges whose practice of law is meant to resolve any conflict that arises in due course (Mott, 49). It is a constitutional requirement for the selection of nine judges of the Supreme Court, nine justices to preside over the court of criminal appeals and an additional 80 judges who fill the various courts of appeal across the state of Texas (Hansberger, 121). Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the Texas is counted among the two members of the union that takes part in the partisan election and re-election of judges in which case the voters have an option of casting a straight-ticket
vote. Additionally, when the chief justice or the other bench members of the courts as mentioned above are voted into office they are expected to serve for six years after which they choose whether to run for re-election in the event they will like to continue serving (Mott, 49). Under this constitutional and legal context this paper endeavors to explore a multiplicity of issues that are relevant to this assignment. First, this excerpt takes into account a closer analysis of the manner in which politics are claimed to influence the decisions made by the judges of the various courts in Texas state. Furthermore, the establishment of a stable position concerning such political power is a serious concern as far as this piece is concerned. After thorough analysis, a determination of whether judges should be appointed or elected will be laid bare while giving a recommendation as to what type of selection criteria that should be adopted to eliminate political influence in the judges’ decision making processes. Ultimately, the thesis statement concerning this essay revolves around the above mentioned key points as they will be looked at in a cumulative but yet informative manner.
While more than twenty-five of the American states pick their judges through the judicial commission that initiates the nomination process, Texas on the other extreme participates in a more political approach of selecting their presiding justices through a partisan process (Hansberger, 121). The Texas system of the courts is divided into four certain levels. At the first level, there is the Supreme Court which is charged with the responsibility of final appellate jurisdiction. It is followed by the criminal appeal court which has the last say in matters of criminal dealings. In the hierarchy of the tribunal's system, the superior two courts are applied by the intermediate courts which are referred to as the state appeals courts. The state of Texas has 14 district courts of appeal which have a bench of three to thirteen justices. The hierarchy of the judiciary also recognizes the presence of the four classes of trial courts as well as the county constitutional courts (Mott, 49).
On a similar note, the listings found on the ballot papers are arranged in order of the leading position to the lowest to necessitate straight-ticket voting. The candidates who present their papers in their bid to seek office, can either be drawn on the Democrats’ side of the Republican side. Unfortunately, the candidates get 40-50% of their campaign funding from the members of the practicing bench as well as the allies from their political affiliations (McCormick, 297). In this kind of selection exercise, it is essential to note that judges are not selected based on their experience and ability to restore justice to those who are oppressed but instead they are elected based on their party inclination and personal ambitions and ideologies. The entire process has led to the blatant admission of quite some the resident of Texas that the systems allow poor quality judges to take office thus culminating into a general legal atmosphere devoid of truth but full of bent decisions favoring a few (Holman, 298).
Since the requirements for running for the judges’ election includes belonging to a political party, it implies that those who will like to serve in the offices as mentioned above have no alternative. Whether one possesses the legal law background or not they must be subjected to voting in which people will make their decision on who to lead them. Practically, there is nothing different between this form of selection and what is practiced at the national level political landscape. The existence of both the democrats and the republicans further complicates the equation due to the apparent divergence regarding ideologies and policies (McCormick, 297). For instance, if a Democrat candidate succeeds to take office in the various positions at the judiciary it is anticipated that he/she will tend to safeguard the interests of the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans on end. Such a scenario is witnessed since the candidate might have received assistance from his/her political backing to be able to defeat the opponents at the ballot hence the need to give back what is expected of him. On the other hand, if a Republican candidate succeeds to take over an office in the respective judicial positions through a similar exercise he/she will bend towards replicating the same thus the political influence in matters of decision making (Hansberger, 121).
For purposes of delving more into the issue of the legal practice in Texas, it is worth to mention the current regime being utilized in the selection of judges and then critically analyze the advantages that are associated with it. The critical look will then provide an argument on why the system is preferred in the US and the correctional approaches that can be adopted therein. Currently, the state of Texas uses the partisan election criteria where straight-ticket option takes center stage. The reasons that have been fronted to support this kind of selection criteria revolves around:
• The systems give a provision where voters are allowed to raise their voice in the determination of their judges thus it is seen as a more democratic approach as opposed to the appointment method.
• The criteria are said to weaken the gubernatorial influence as well as the legislature over matters of the judiciary.
• The method provides information that is valuable to voters concerning their candidate’s partisan inclination.
• It reduces the level of drop-off in judicial contests to a considerably great extent when compared to all other methods
• Significantly limits the use of money in the electioneering processes
• It culminates into a situation where there is a limited amount of ballot roll-off in comparison to other judicial selection criteria.
The main aim of having a stable and independent system of justice dispensation is to ensure that judgments are made in a free and fair manner devoid of any interference and corrupt tendencies (Holman, 298). In answering the above question, it is important to emphasize that a system of justice that is bent towards republican or democratic judgment cannot be trusted since the element of favoritism of either political side will always emanate. Thus, to reinforce public confidence and trust in the judiciary, members of the bench should be appointed by an independent judicial body free from political manipulation.
Under this context, the Judicial Nominating Commission is an independent body that is constitutionally mandated to deal directly with matters of the judiciary including the recruitment of judges free from intimidation and interference from other organs of the government (Maxwell, 313).
The JNC is charged with the responsibility of declaring vacant positions to the public, reviews the applications, shortlists the qualified candidates on the grounds of experience and fitness and then presents a precise list to the Texas governor who then makes the appointment. This process will necessitate for fairness and overall competence in service delivery. The reasons why this system is deemed fit are:
• This criterion of judge selection through the relevant commission boosts the independence of the judicial arm of the government through an elimination of the partisan politics, political sponsorship as well as the influence of money when compared to the method that is currently in use.
• Regarding the decision making, the appointed judge under this pretext is less likely to be influenced by the opinions of the public, and therefore the probability of delivering fair judgments is high than in the case where politics are used as a determining factor of the judges’ fitness and capability.
• The commission which comprises of the judicial elites is better placed to make an informed decision as compared to voters who will blatantly elect judges based on the extent to which they share a common ideology.
Therefore, the commission can be able to employ skill and expertise as opposed to fame.
• This criterion also reduces the element of money contributions that are made for campaigns concerning the current selection system. Thus, the process will ensure constitutional equity between all levels of people i.e. the poor and the rich, male and female, democrats and republicans as well as all other people from all categories of life irrespective of where they come from and what they represent (Maxwell, 313).
From the above-illustrated critical analysis, it is evident that the system of judge selection in the state of Texas does not meet all the aspirations of the people.
This fact is solidly undisputable because when money and political influence are used in selecting leaders of any society, then it implies that there are those who will be left out of the decision-making process because of the class they belong or social status to which they are categorized. For full inclusion of people in leadership processes, justice and truth must always prevail (Mott, 49). Therefore, concerning the case of Texas judge selection criterion, it is arguably not the best practice due to a multiplicity of reasons that have been highlighted herein. Consequently, necessary modifications need to be carried out that are in line with the suggestions of this paper for the sole rationale of achieving inclusivity, an open display of service delivery as well as transparency (Maxwell,
313).