Is justice in texas really for sale?
...on-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships. Candidates are narrowed down to the most qualified, and the presented to the appointment authority (usually the governor), who makes the final decision. However, these appointments are not permanent, like in the federal system. Instead, any time his or her term ends, the judge is reviewed by either a commission or by the voters in an uncontested election (www.ajs.org/selection/ms_descrip.pdf ). This takes the “partisan” out of the election process, but leaves another issue. The governor is partisan and is also participates in the selection of the committee members, so consequently, he or she gets to pick who gets to pick the judges. Merit selection has come under heavy criticism in other areas as well. For example, an article in a journal of Texas policy stated that, “…lawyers believe if they can control the appointive process, they can be assured of having judges who will likely decide legal disputes in their favor” (Veritas, March 2002, 22”). The voters know this and more importantly, realize that in a law suit, the outcome could depend on who helped finance the presiding judges’ campaign (www.ajs.org/selection ...). However, according to Justice Tom James of Dallas, “A stronger case can be made for the existing method of electing judges rather than abandoning it” ( Veritas, 23). All of this in spite of the fact that two-thirds of the states and the District of Columbia select some if not all of its judges using merit selection. Again, merit selection is this centuries’ greatest reform effort; coincidentally, it has also been the most disputed and rejected reform efforts. Between 1946 and 2003 twelve separate attempts to pass merit selection. In 1996 the Texas Committee on Judicial Efficiency, based on recommendations from the judicial task force, advocated an “appoint-elect-retain” plan for electing judges. It did not make it through the front door. In 1995 Governor George W. Bush passed the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act. This was an attempt to “regulate political contributions, expenditures, and advertising in connection with certain judicial candidates and officeholders, and set forth guidelines for personal financial statements filed by certain judicial officeholders” (www.ajs.org/js/TX_history.htm ). To put it simply, the JCFA prohibits judicial candidates from receiving ridiculous amounts of money from individuals, law firms and PAC’s. This Act also fell prey to disapproval in Ohio when two judges in Suster v. Marshall argued that it violated the First Amendment by not giving people the right to support their candidate as they saw fit. The court of appeals agreed and the spending limits were repealed in 2001 (Becker and Reddick 2,3). According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, campaign contribution limits are allowed, however, limits on expenditures are not. The ruling stated that the JCFA did not pose a First Amendment concern because it did not “in any way infringe the contributor’s freedom to discuss candidates and issues… …however, spending limits necessarily reduce the quantity of expression by reducing the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached” (3,4). The Judicial Campaign Fairness Act has been adjusted in various ways; however, it is still in effect today. Since 2001, the secretary of state now has the option of publishing and distributing a voter information guide for judicial candidates. This is so that judicial candidates can become familiar with their demographic. Nevertheless, the voter should also get acquainted with his or her candidates. In 1999, Governor Bush vetoed a bill that would have required the secretary of state to provide internet judicial voter guides. Unfortunately this issue is far from being resolved. It seems as though any reform effort, whether it be to fix our current system of judicial selection, or to propose a radical change, is no where near reaching approval. Apparently, the powers that be have...