Watch while I cleverly slip in an announcement of the release of my new novel and then weave the reference into this posting on the election of judges. My second, novel, Running For The Bench (A Brief Political Comedy), is now available here on Amazon.com, and in it, I write about one man’s quixotic attempt to be elected to a family court bench in Dallas County .

In my nonfiction personal life, I really am a family law attorney/mediator in Dallas County , and I typically vote Democratic (except for a very select few judicial races). So, these should be salad days indeed for people like me, given that 42 out of 42 judicial races went to the Democrats, including six of six contested family law races. So, if there were any time for me to gloat and praise the wisdom of the voters, this would be the time. But it isn’t, and I’m not.

The question I ask is the same one asked by former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips: Why in the world do we elect judges? (Justice Phillips expresses his opinion here , in one of many interviews and speeches he’s given on the subject.) I know the legal reason, which is that Article 5, Section 7 of the Texas Constitution, as amended in 1891, 1949, and 1985, tells us we must. (Are you beginning to see the problem with the bloated and much-amended document we call the Texas Constitution?) But what’s the logical reason?

In a republican (little “r”) form of democracy, like ours, we elect people to represent us in state legislatures and congress and so on, because each person can’t be present to deliberate and vote on each decision. But judges don’t “represent” us. They aren’t supposed to be swayed by us at all. A judge is supposed to do one thing: apply and interpret the law (okay, two things).

Even most lawyers don’t know the identity or qualifications of judicial candidates outside of their own specialty area of practice. It would be like me, a lawyer, voting for who the best doctor is, and using a political party affiliation to do it. (I’m pretty sure, though, that I wouldn’t want a Libertarian surgeon.) As in every judicial election, some good people were put in place along with some bad, and some good judges lost their spots along with some bad. And it’s all just a crapshoot.

What’s the alternative? One is to continue the direct election of judges but make those elections non-partisan. Judicial candidates would not have a party affiliation listed by their names on the ballot. Arkansas , for example, does this. That would solve the problem of voting for judges simply on their party affiliation, but it wouldn’t solve the bigger problem listed above of citizens voting for judges about whom they know nothing.

Another alternative is often called the “Missouri Plan.” Eleven states besides Missouri use this method, whereby a nonpartisan judicial selection committee solicits applications, conducts interviews, and recommends to the Governor three candidates for a judicial vacancy. The Governor then interviews the candidates and selects one. That judge then appears on the next general election ballot, unopposed, at which time the citizens may either vote to keep or get rid of that judge. If the judge is voted out, the process starts again.

And a third alternative, and one I think I might prefer, is modeled on the federal method of selecting judges, wherein the Governor appoints judges with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. I like this method best because, while it is still subject to politics and partisanship, at least there is some public scrutiny and those who do the appointing will be held accountable by the voters.

Frankly, though, any of the systems just described is better than what we do now in Texas . But, hey, you be the judge.

Charles N. Geilich, www.dallasmediation.com 

Author of the novels, Domestic Relations, and Running for the Bench, A Brief Political Comedy

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment