Should Texas Adopt a Merit Based Judicial Selection? (Stage 7)

Texas is one of 39 states, that elects its judges to some degree or another, but should politics be part of the judicial selection process? This wasn't always the case. In 1824, President Andrew Jackson began persuading states to adopt judicial elections. Sometime thereafter, Texas adopted its own form of judicial elections which have remained part of the state's tradition for the last 130 years. However, this is contrary to what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they created a government of separate powers to be free of majority bias. Now states use judicial elections to strengthen incumbent political parties. Partisanship will always be part of the executive and legislative branches, but at least the judicial branch should be independent. Judges should be free of the political process to provide tough decisions based on their own reasoning without worrying about re-election. Sometimes the right decisions can be very unpopular with the current generation's consensus. Take Brown V. Board of Education or Roe V. Wade, for instance. Imagine what kind of country we would live in today if the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States had to worry about re-election. I'm sure we have plenty of state and local judges capable of making controversial but necessary decisions. It would be reassuring to know that they were selected based on merit rather than which political party's flag they carry or who raises more money than their opponent. Perhaps defeating a more qualified candidate in the process. Partisan elections tip the scales in favor of an unbalanced legal system that isn't capable of catering to the highly diverse population that makes up Texas.

The other two issues with judicial elections are that campaigns cost a lot of money and they divert funds from more important issues. Expensive campaigns puts our justice system up for sell with the most important judges commanding the highest price. I am assuming a bit much, but if it smells like corruption and looks like corruption, well you get the idea. From what I've researched the push for court reformation is nothing new. Since the beginning, reformists have grappled with the problem of selecting judges in a way that is true to democracy without compromising judicial independence. In 1995, the Texas Legislature attempted to address the problem of corruption by placing limits on campaign contributions. Yet, it still costs several million dollars to run for a seat in the Texas Supreme Court. Not to mention, Texas has never had a very strong finance regulatory commission. While a merit based system has been slow to catch on the debate for one has not faltered for the better part of a century. And for good reason. Separating our judicial system from the influence of political parties and special interest groups is in the majority of Texans' best interests. Our current system tends to rule in favor of big business at the expense of consumer protection and environmentalist groups.

Fixing The Capital Punishment System

Let me stray aside from my previous blogs and say that I do support the death penalty. As Shelly York mentions in her blog, the problem with our capital punishment system is that the appeals process can be very expensive and time consuming. There has been a lot of talk mostly in other states about ending the death penalty all together. Proponents argue that the costs of keeping our capital punishment system outweighs the benefits. The appeals process is the reason why it costs considerably more to execute a criminal than house them for life. The current appeals process was created a long time before advanced technologies have come to light. Requiring DNA testing before a death penalty trial begins is a step in the right direction towards improving an archaic system. It would cut through a lot of bureaucratic red tape and speed up the process while reducing costs.

Like Shelly I feel a very strong sense of righteousness when it comes to punishing hardened killers and rapists. Why should a criminal who is undeniably guilty beyond all reasonable doubt be allowed to compete for the same resources needed by those who have been convicted on less than concrete circumstances? When I say undeniable, I mean having been captured committing the crime on video or linked through DNA. I leave out confessions because of the Tulia incident which comes to mind. To quote William Blackstone, it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." In this respect I agree wholeheartedly, but we are living in a different era. We have access to technology that goes beyond eye witness accounts or confessions. However, in circumstances involving less than concrete empirical evidence, those who are and tried and convicted should have full access to the appeals process without having to compete with criminals who are absolutely guilty.