Texas Judicial Election Essay Example

Judges ought to be more accountable to the law rather than the voters. Self-interests and money may at time influence Voter's attention. Therefore, being responsible to voters may lead a judge to make rulings that are not in line with the state laws. It is more logical for judges to be appointed rather than being elected. This essay will discuss the demerits of electing judges over appointments.

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

Save 25%

Electing judges compromises judicial independence. According to Hg.org, an elected judge is friendlier to the voters. The judges appear friendly and productive for the sake of seeking reelection. Though the public may seem happy and love a judge who settles cases in their favor, the act compromises judicial independence and does not uphold the rule of law. Hg.org argues that a good judge is not necessarily the one who make decisions that make people happy.

Appointment of judges considers merit. Performance and competence is an essential thing in the judiciary. Hg.org argues that the election of judges, on the other hand, is influenced by party affiliation, campaign finances, and attractiveness of the advertisements. There is, therefore, a comprehensive and visible difference between electing the judges and appointing. An appointed judge is taken through scrutiny and cleared through several stages. Scrutiny makes sure the candidates are fit for the jobs. Using elections requires the people to cast a ballot and make the courts decide. Balloting may lead to electing an incompetent candidate in office because of the influence of the public.

In his book, "The Peoples Courts Pursuing Judicial Independence in America" Shugerman describes how white lost the race due to his decisions to vote against a death sentence. The conservatives were not happy about this decision and ran against her to his defeat. Judges need to be appointed into an office to be able to have the best and most independent judiciary. Appointed judges interpret the law more independently as opposed to the elected judges who want the favor of the public during elections.

Through the judicial campaign fairness act of 1995, the Texas legislature managed to control the amount of money that attorneys and the public can contribute towards Supreme Court elections. According to the Global Reach Internet Productions, and LLC - Ames, law firms were allowed to contribute 30,000 United States dollars while individuals contributed five thousand United States dollars. By following this rule and controlling the inflows of campaign finances and limiting the numbers of and types of contributors, money would turn invaluable in the Texas judicial elections.

Conclusion

In conclusion, judges have to be more accountable to the rule of law. The main objectives of the judge are to uphold the law. To achieve this, judges need to be independent thinkers and not politicians. It is, therefore, necessary to appoint judges on merit. In case elections are to be employed then a good system will place a tight limit to campaign finances to reduce cases of influence.

Works Cited

Global Reach Internet Productions, and LLC - Ames. "American Judicature Society / Judicial Selection in the States - Promoting the Effective Administration of Justice." Judicial Selection in the States, www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=TX.

Hg.org, www.hg.org/legal-articles/judges-appointed-v-elected-44870.

Shugerman, Jed Handelsman. The Peoples Courts Pursuing Judicial Independence in America. Harvard University Press, 2012.