Essay Example on Partisan Election of State Judges: Impartial Rule Challenged

Partisan election of state-judges is a biased process. Among the two states in the US employing partisan judges, the election is the Texas in which they are first elected and later on reelection is done by the parties (Platoff, 1). Following these, only one party wins in the jurisdiction race and the judges are therefore influenced by political directions. In this kind of election judges are required to be partisans but impartially rule something very challenging. Besides, partisan election requires that elected judges extract money forcefully from court lawyers standing before them for purposes of campaigns.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Although the reality is that individual citizen prefers to select their judges through an election, the ethic of judicial opinion is prone to the violation, for instance, all judges are expected to be independent with exceptional guidelines to which they should say or behave and what they cannot do or say (Platoff, 3). However, supporting the partisan election means that judges' independence is limited - they tend to incline to their respective political parties. Accordingly, for an impartial judge, it is not a reasonable practice to raise money from individual lawyers who appear before them in addition to engaging in time-consuming elections away from their expected duties.

Thus, it is important to select state-judges by appointing eligible individuals who will further need senatorial approval. In this kind of selection, the judges are required to hold an internal retention election after 3 to 4 of serving (Jones, 15). Since the state-judges are full-time employees, it is wise for an appointment to be done as qualifications are the key for approval in the senate rather than an election that seeks a political binding. However, for the part-time judge, selection through election may necessary as matters being addressed by such judges are still limited. Additionally, if selection judges would be done through a partisan election, accountability of the judges is doubtful. For instance, they may fail to address important matter such as political corruption. I, therefore, believe that if judges will be appointed, they can seek a retention election which will be based on their performance (Jones, 16). Appointments of the judges is a straightforward process in which eligibility is assessed. Individual judges are expected to present their credentials in which the governor can make an appointment. However, there are perceived conflicts if judges selection is to be done in partisan elections, this follows the unreliability of the result. Besides the results being unrealistic, there is conflict in the outcome of the election as it can be perceived as an exchange - "justice for sale". Other branches of the government may feel the pinch of such decisions. I think by appointing state-judges, individual voters still have an opportunity to choose whether the judge will stay in office or not through a retention election. I feel like supporting partisan election as a way of judge selection is an avenue of branding wealthy individuals to buying judgeship in which they may utilize to pursue more injustice; by life ethic, we all should be against such practices. However, I trust that embracing the appointment of state-judges by the governor and approval by the senator is a significant step in changing the independence of the judiciary.

Works Cited

Jones, Mark P. "The Selection of Judges in Texas: Analysis of the Current System and the Principal Reform Options." (2017). Accessed from https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/b38e1ecc/POLI-pub-TexasJudges-011317.pdf

Platoff, Emma. "State leaders again want to review how Texas elects judges. Will they end partisan judicial elections? "The Texas Tribune. (2019). Accessed from https://www.texastribune.org/2019/07/15/texas-partisan-judicial-elections-reform-abbott-support/