Why Do Judges Be Appointed

We can conclude that in order to amend the Texas constitution a proposal must be initiated during a regular session or special session of the legislator. In addition, a unanimous two-thirds vote must be achieved before an election can be held for the people to vote on the amendment. Although citizens voiced their concerns for reform of the constitution during the 1970’s only one reform attempt resulted in an opportunity for the electorate to vote. In the end the constitutional reform did not succeed because of shady tactics, specific individuals, and fear of change. The recent Supreme Court Ruling on gay marriages is an example of why the Texas constitution is to constrict and non-free flowing. Due to the fact that it is so detailed they would not of had the ability to allow gay marriages to be legal without a specific

There four possible ways of reforming the system: Nonpartisan elections, Legislative election, Merit selection and Gubernatorial appointment. Nonpartisan elections are similar to partisan election as judges will be elected directly by the people. However, in nonpartisan election candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation. Nonpartisan elections can minimize the involvement of interest group in the campaigning process. However, In the absence of party affiliation, issue-based campaigning will be popular. The other solution to Texas’s judicial flaws is a Legislative election. In this system, judges will be selected by the state legislature. In spite of that Legislative elections can potentially create a judiciary primarily made up of past

However, each of these alternatives have more cons than pros. Partisan elections do not even our courts, they just bring the bias out into the open, and make it easier for judges to be viewed as unfair and to make unfair statements without fear. States with partisan elections also have more party campaign donations for justices, and in turn more partisan justices. Their supreme courts are not evenly split between republicans and democrats, but rather dominated by one party. This partisan influence carries into states that also have only partisan primaries, such as Ohio. Direct appointment of justices seems like a good idea on the surface, but it only works if we assume that governors are truly unbiased and nonpartisan, neither of which can possibly be true. Governors are elected by a party, and run for that party. A governor’s appointment of justices would only lead to justices that align with his or her views being

I think judges should be decided by partisan vote. They are very high in rank and should be on the ballot when the governor or senators are being elected. This would be like killing two birds with one stone and it would probably cost less. As a result time and money would be saved. That is why I think they should be decided by

In opposition to most states, Texas is one of a handful to do partisan elections to vote for judges. Contrasting viewpoints try to decide on whether the voting system should be partisan or nonpartisan bringing much debate in the election of the judicial candidates. Some argue the system should change because of possible bias both by the electorate and of the judge, others contend it is necessary to know what party the judges affiliate with in order to know what way they lean may lean in their final judgement. Many arguments bring to light the benefits and drawbacks of each system, critiquing the justness, dependability, and impartiality.

In the State of Texas, we have a rather odd way of selecting which judges will and will not be able to have a job in the State of Texas. The way we select them is the same way that we decide who is going to be the governor of the State of Texas, we elected them. There are many flaws with choosing election as the way of picking who will be judges. Some of the flaws are that there will possibly be a lack of minority chosen, voters tend to know little to none information about the local election let alone the candidates up for judges, and finally people contributing to campaigns. While few people know that this how we elected judges in Texas, but even fewer realize the consequences the will continue to pile up if we do not do something to put an end to this ludicrous way of choosing an influential position of office.

When Texas became a state in 1845, judges were appointed by the governor with state consent, but in but since 1876, judges at all levels of courts have been elected by the

There are numerous varieties of election races in Texas. The state Constitution and the political society in Texas together have made a framework of our legal system that welcomes Texans to pick applicants for a great numerous public offices in all levels of the government inside the state. The Constitution needs direct election for different state offices inside the executive branch and inside the legal system of the judicial branch, likewise with respect to various county level offices. A few legislative activities oblige changing the Constitution, that also needs special established constitutional amendment elections. Numerous metropolitan and other local offices are filled

As we all know, Texas is a conservative state, meaning it holds to its traditional beliefs, laws, and values; it also is very cautious about any kind of change, commonly related to politics or religion. This, unquestionably makes me think Texas voters would not support this idea, making it impossible to happen. Of course, this is not an easy decision, principally because it involves modifying the Texas Constitution, yet I consider this to be a “necessary evil,” meaning that the idea might not be supported or accepted by everyone, but still might be imperative for the development of not only our state but our society.

Legal standards have been proposed by academics and judges to no avail. The main problem behind these failures is the ignorance to what gerrymandering actually is and its connection to single winner districts. To end gerrymandering, a multi winner election with fair representation needs to be enacted, otherwise judges will continue to be faced with legal contradictions in the “political thicket.”

Texas has changed in various ways over the course of history. Not only has it changed politically, it has changed culturally, demographically, and more. The transition of Texas from a Democratic primary state to a Republican primary state happened in the 1970s with the elections of a Republican governor and senator. In this paper, I will further discuss the transition of Texas from a Democratic to a Republican state, and share my opinions on how I believe Texas government could stay a majority Republican state.

When selecting judges in Texas many first get their start when they are initially appointed by the Texas governor. Though this usually happens to fill up any vacancies that there may be on the bench (Champagne and Harpham 257). Aside from being appointed by the governor, most judges in Texas get selected to serve by Texas voters. These elections are known as partisan elections, meaning that the judicial candidates’ political affiliation is listed on the ballot. Party affiliation is one of the most important factors in judicial elections. Before 1978, most judges were Democrats due to the state being largely Democratic. In addition, the governor of the state was usually a Democrat and would usually end up appointing Democratic judges (Champagne

All members of the Texas state legislature should have one common motive. That is, to represent the citizens of their state. Champagne et. al. states that “…members…are responsible for bringing the interests and concerns of their constituencies directly into the democratic political processes” (2017, p.211). In order to effectively do so, a member of the Texas House will represent roughly 168,000 citizens while a senator may represent more than 811,000 constituents (Champagne et al., 2017,

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

The judicial selection process can be complicated at times, and different states have different stipulations as to what needs to be required to be a judge. In recent years, proposals have been introduced by legislators, governors, courts, and citizens' groups in nearly every state to limit the role of politics in the selection of state judges (global reach com, 2016). In numerous states, there is more than one method used when it comes to selecting a judge. The judicial process in the state of Alabama requires special schooling and obligations to become a judge. Judges in Alabama are selected in the partisan balloting (globalreachcom, 2016). The Alabama Constitution implements necessary qualifications before an individual is selected to be a judge.