Methods for the selection of judges in the U.S
There are a variety of methods for the selection of judges in the U.S. This paper seeks to identify these methods applied with a specific focus on Texas’s state and give possible recommendations on what would best suit the state.
Up until 2020, judges in Texas from the Supreme Court to county-level courts were all selected through partisan elections combined with straight-ticket voting.[1] In straight-ticket voting, voters are provided with an option by which they can cast a vote for all of a party’s candidates on their ballot through a single action. With the passing of HB 25 legislation in 2017, straight-ticket voting in Texas has been banned as of 2020[2]. Though Texas has a partisan election system for judges’ selection, judges in Texas tend to obtain their judicial seats initially through an appointment.
Some of the other methods of selection in the U.S include:
- Nonpartisan elections: The public elects judges with no political affiliation. In practice, however, parties play a deciding factor in most nonpartisan elections.
- Commission: The governor appoints a specific candidate either alone or with the state senate’s advice and consent from a list prepared by a mandated commission.
Partisan elections’ effectiveness to select competent judges relies on two main factors: voter access to information related to judicial competence and voter consideration of candidate competence when casting ballots. Various studies and surveys have shown that voters do not always look at their candidates’ actual competence. Instead, they decide between candidates based on other factors that have nothing to do with judicial quality, like the party they are affiliated to and their gender, because of their lack of knowledge about the particular candidates[3]. Texas should consider moving from partisan to a merit-based selection system.
A merit-based selection ensures that the right judges are chosen based on essential factors such as their experience and qualifications. It would also strengthen the judiciary’s independence since parties are not affiliated with specific popular parties. The merit-based selection also comes with economic benefits. Judges in partisan elections can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on campaigns and still end up losing. Many of those who campaign are not always financially stable and thus have to raise money through the very attorneys who will stand before them as judges. This raises questions on impartiality and independence.
Merit-based selection may not guarantee the total elimination of politics from the judicial selection. Still, it does minimize political influence by eliminating the need for candidates to raise funds, advertise, and make campaign promises, all of which can compromise judicial independence. Those likely to be impacted by a move to the merit system include the judges who could benefit from cutting down campaigning costs. The public would benefit from the knowledge crucial in ensuring the right judge is elected to serve their needs. At the same time, the judiciary would be guaranteed to acquire quality professionals. From a social perspective, women and minorities are also likely to benefit under merit selection because the system emphasizes qualifications rather than political affiliation—those who are qualified to get a fair chance regardless of their gender and background.
Taking part in and promoting voter education combined with promoting greater easy access to information on the judges is how I would pursue effective merit-based selection. In conclusion, the partisan system of election in Texas, like the other selection methods, comes with flaws that can undermine judges’ quality to serve in the courts. However, it is possible to make the necessary reforms better to suit the circumstances of the State of Texas.