AJ Media Editorial Board
The state’s partisan election system for judges recently received a lengthy review from a Texas Legislature-appointed commission that released a handful of recommendations, including changing the current practice.
Making that a reality will be difficult. Texas is one of six states that conducts partisan judicial elections, which leads to candidates affiliating with a political party and conducting fundraising activities in pursuit of an office requiring impartiality. It can put judges in a tough position where they can possibly oversee cases involving parties that contributed to their campaign.
Compounding the situation is a growing number of voters who spent little time learning about judicial candidates and instead focus on their political affiliation as the primary reason for supporting them. The process needs reform, and it can only be changed through constitutional amendments – an idea without much apparent traction in the Legislature.
The Commission on Judicial Selection released its recommendations and report a week ago. This group was established during the 2019 session with House Bill 3040, in which it was tasked with “studying and reviewing the method by which statutory county court judges, including probate court judges; district judges; appellate and Supreme Court justices are selected for office in Texas,” according to the report.
The 15-member group comprised members from each chamber of the legislature, former judges and attorneys. In the end, it recommended changing the system (by an 8-7 vote) but did not have overwhelming support for a specific new approach. As the Texas Tribune pointed out in its report on the matter, the narrow margin had little to do with partisanship. Instead, lawmakers serving on the committee don’t want to take the vote away from the public.
“I do not believe the citizens, my constituents of the state of Texas, want this right taken away from them, and I’m not gonna be in a position or be the one who does that,” state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said at the group’s final meeting last month and reported by the Tribune.
Just getting this group together to examine a complicated matter is progress, in our view. The commission met more than a dozen times in advance of the 2021 session that begins next week. They conducted public hearings, heard testimony from numerous organizations, foundations and experts and surveyed Supreme Court justices and directors of court administration offices across the country. That’s a lot of effort, especially in a year dominated by a pandemic, and far more work than took place in 2013 when a similar committee was established yet didn’t meet.
And it was not without fruitful developments. According to the Tribune report, the commission thinks Texas should increase its mandatory qualifications for candidates to run for judge.
Currently, those pursuing a place on the state’s Supreme Court must be 35 years old, licensed to practice law in Texas and have at least 10 years of legal experience. There is no age restriction for district court candidates, although they are required to have practiced law in the state for at least four years. Another recommendation encourages measures to further regulate the role of money in judicial elections.
The current system isn’t perfect, but the best way to address its imperfections is incrementally, and this commission’s work is a step in the right direction.