Malcolm Rivera
Texas is one of only six states that selects all of its constitutional judges through partisan elections. The Texas Constitution expressly provides that Texas's judges are to be elected to office, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation. However, the constitution also allows interim court vacancies to be filled through appointment by the governor or county officials. In 2020, the Texas Judicial Selection Commission voted against the current partisan elections method, but members did not agree on an alternative method for judicial selection.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Current method of judicial selection | Partisan elections |
| Alternative methods | Non-partisan elections, appointment by the governor or county officials, confirmation by the Senate for interim court vacancies |
| Number of judges on high courts | 18 |
| Courts | Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Judges per court | 9 |
| Election frequency | Biennial general election |
| Election of municipal judges | No |
| Age limit | 75 years |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Texas is one of only six states that select all judges through partisan elections
- The Texas Constitution allows for interim appointments by the governor or county officials
- Texas has not always elected its judges
- Critics argue that partisan elections give special interest groups a foothold to manipulate the judiciary
- Texas's current constitution, adopted in 1876, provides for election-based judicial selection
Texas is one of only six states that select all judges through partisan elections
Texas is one of only six states that select all judges in their judicial branch via partisan elections. The Texas Constitution expressly provides that Texas's judges are elected to office, and the requirement to stand for election applies to all judges whose office is created under Article V of the Texas Constitution. This includes justices on the Supreme Court of Texas and judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
The partisan election of judges is a selection method where judges are chosen through elections, and candidates are listed on the ballot with an indication of their political affiliation. Nearly every state in the Union has tried partisan elections for selecting judges at some point in the past 150 years. However, most other states have since adopted a different judicial selection system. Texas is one of only a few states to continue to select all of its constitutional judges through partisan elections.
While the Texas Constitution provides for the election of judges, it also allows interim court vacancies to be filled through appointment by the Governor or county officials. This is in contrast to interim elections, which are generally used to fill vacancies in other branches of Texas government. The current Texas Constitution, adopted in 1876, provides for election-based judicial selection. Before this, Texas had a system of gubernatorial appointment of judges with Senate approval.
Proponents of judicial elections argue that this method of selection is the most democratic, allowing the people to have a direct voice in selecting judges. They believe voters are capable of selecting a judiciary that reflects their values and that they are entitled to that choice. Critics, however, argue that the growing amount of fundraising in election campaigns gives special interest groups a way to manipulate the judiciary to their liking. They also claim that it creates a highly polarized judiciary made up of judges who are pressured to please their campaign supporters.
The Constitution's Power: A Reflection of the People's Will
You may want to see also
The Texas Constitution allows for interim appointments by the governor or county officials
Texas is one of only six states that select all of their judges through partisan elections. The Texas Constitution expressly provides that Texas's judges are to be elected to office. However, the Texas Constitution also allows for interim appointments by the governor or county officials. This means that interim court vacancies can be filled through appointment, as opposed to interim elections, which are generally used to fill vacancies in other branches of the Texas government.
The Texas Constitution states that all vacancies in state or district offices, except members of the Legislature, shall be filled by appointment of the governor. If an appointment is made during a session of the Senate, it must be with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present. If an appointment is made during the recess of the Senate, the governor must nominate the appointee or another person to fill the vacancy during the first ten days of its next session following the appointment. If the Senate does not take final action to confirm or reject an appointee, the appointee is considered rejected when the Senate session ends, and the office becomes vacant.
The Texas Constitution also provides that an Article V judicial office automatically becomes vacant on the expiration of the term during which the incumbent reaches the age of seventy-five years, or an earlier age as prescribed by statute. The requirement to stand for election applies to all judges whose office is created under Article V of the Texas Constitution, including justices on the Supreme Court of Texas and judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Texas has a total of eighteen judges on its two high courts: nine each on the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. The elections for these offices are staggered, so three judges from each court are scheduled for election in each biennial general election.
Icewind Dale 2: Constitution Bonuses and Their Importance
You may want to see also
Texas has not always elected its judges
Texas is one of the few states that selects all of its constitutional judges through partisan elections. The Texas Constitution mandates that Texas judges are to be selected for office by general election. However, Texas has not always elected its judges. During the Republic era, from 1836 to 1846, the Texas Legislature appointed appellate judges, but not trial judges.
When Texas became a state in 1846, its new constitution provided for gubernatorial appointment of judges with the concurrence of the Senate. Four years later, in 1850, Texas adopted a partisan election-based method for selecting judges. However, in 1861, when Texas joined the Confederacy, its new constitution returned to the selection of judges by gubernatorial appointment with Senate approval. The 1869 Reconstruction constitution continued this system.
It was not until 1876 that Texas adopted its current constitution, which provides for election-based judicial selection. The requirement to stand for election applies to all judges whose office is created under Article V of the Texas Constitution. This includes justices on the Supreme Court of Texas, judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, and justices on the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Texas Constitution provides that district and appellate judges will be chosen by popular election. Only a judicial candidate who has been designated the winner of a party primary is allowed to run on the official ballot in the general election unless the candidate meets rigorous independent campaign requirements.
While Texas currently selects its judges through partisan elections, the state has historically used a combination of election-based and appointment-based methods. The Texas Constitution also allows interim court vacancies to be filled through appointment by the Governor or county officials. This suggests that Texas does not have a purely elective judicial selection system.
Congress Powers: Exploring the Extent of 'Necessary and Proper
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Critics argue that partisan elections give special interest groups a foothold to manipulate the judiciary
Texas is one of only a few states that select all of their constitutional judges through partisan elections. The Texas Constitution expressly provides that Texas's judges are to be elected to office, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating their political party affiliation. While proponents of judicial elections argue that this method is the most democratic, allowing the people to have a direct voice in selecting judges who reflect their values, critics disagree. They argue that partisan elections give special interest groups a foothold to manipulate the judiciary.
The critics' argument is supported by historical examples, such as the one from the late 1990s when judiciaries in Texas appeared heavily inclined towards trial lawyers. When voters became aware of this, they replaced their judges, demonstrating their ability to assert themselves and effect legal reform. Additionally, the increasing partisanship in judicial elections cannot be ignored. Data shows a clear increase in partisanship in state supreme court elections over the last 40 years, with a notable spike in the most recent election cycles.
The growing amount of fundraising in election campaigns is a significant factor contributing to the concern about special interest groups' influence. Billy Corriher, Director of Research for Legal Progress at the Center, notes that in states with the most judicial campaign cash, liberal judges are backed by trial lawyers, while conservative judges receive strong support from corporate interest groups. This dynamic can lead to judges prioritizing the interests of their donors over impartial justice.
Furthermore, the argument that partisan elections provide voters with useful information about a judge's ideology may not always hold true. While political affiliation can offer some insights, it is often related to controversial social issues that constitute only a fraction of a court's rulings. The actual impact of partisanship on judicial decisions, especially in day-to-day cases, may be less significant than voters assume.
In conclusion, while Texas's method of selecting judges through partisan elections aims to empower voters, critics argue that it also creates an opportunity for special interest groups to exert influence. The historical context, increasing partisanship, and the role of campaign funding highlight the potential for manipulation within the judiciary. However, it is important to acknowledge that Texas is not unique in this challenge, as most states have experimented with partisan elections for judges in the past.
Roe v. Wade: Constitutional Conflict or Misinterpretation?
You may want to see also
Texas's current constitution, adopted in 1876, provides for election-based judicial selection
Texas is one of only six states that select all of their constitutional or high court judges through partisan elections. Texas's current constitution, adopted in 1876, mandates that Texas judges are to be selected for office by general election. The requirement to stand for election applies to all judges whose office is created under Article V of the Texas Constitution: justices on the Supreme Court of Texas, judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, and justices on the Court of Criminal Appeals.
While the Texas Constitution expressly provides that Texas's judges are to be elected to office, the constitution also allows interim court vacancies to be filled through appointment by the governor or county officials. In addition, the voters can refuse to re-elect a judge under the current selection system in Texas. The Texas Constitution provides that an Article V judicial office automatically becomes vacant on the expiration of the term during which the incumbent reaches the age of seventy-five years or such earlier age (not less than seventy years) as the Legislature prescribes by statute.
Texas has a total of eighteen judges on its two high courts: nine each on the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, who are elected to six-year terms. The elections for these offices are staggered so that three judges from each court are scheduled for election in each biennial general election.
There are critics of partisan judicial elections in Texas, who argue that the growing amount of fundraising in election campaigns gives special interest groups a foothold to manipulate the judiciary to their liking. In 2020, the Texas Judicial Selection Commission voted against partisan judicial elections, recommending further research.
Executive Order 9066: Unconstitutional?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, the Texas Constitution expressly provides that Texas's judges are to be elected to office. Texas is one of only six states that select all of their constitutional judges through partisan elections.
In partisan elections, candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating their political party affiliation.
Critics of partisan judicial elections argue that the growing amount of fundraising in election campaigns gives special interest groups a foothold to manipulate the judiciary to their liking.
