A hybrid between appointment and elections should be employed in the selection of judges. They will first be appointed by the governor and in a few years would undergo a job expectation audit. The baton will be passed to the voters who would choose whether to vote the judges back in or out. Theoretically , it would seem fair to let both parties nominate a candidate and let the voters pick one. The judicial system is flawed and it is hard to understand why judges from different parties would have conflicting views on a case. In Texas, voters get a long list of judges to pick from. In most cases, the voters know very little about the aspirants. There is also a conflict of interest since judges accept donations from lawyers (Besley & Payne, 2013).
The benefits of this hybrid ideally would be that the judges will be selected on merit rather than their popularity. This would mean that a judge is picked according to his qualifications and experience and later voted in or out of office according to the work he has put in. The process of selection would be less expensive and painstaking. The prospective judges would undergo interviews and get appointed. As opposed to organizing and paying for a voting process that may lead to these positions being purely political. The drawbacks may be that the governor may pick a candidate that leans to his political party. These may mark the clear waters of justice and bring about distrust within the State. The judges could be solicited for favorable rulings due to the nature of his initial selection. That is, he may be in the palm of his employer who is the governor. This may affect his work as a judge, and cause a conflict of interest (Redish &Aronoff, 2014).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The minority groups in Texas may oppose this because they will not have a voice because this method of selection is favorable to the majority. The majority, will, therefore, be inclined to support this process. Institutional reforms such as public financing of campaigns may have a positive effect on judicial independence but will not help in holding the judges accountable. Campaigning for this positions may require hundreds of thousands of dollars. The media is the major platform of campaigning. This is a huge amount of money that the judges would otherwise seek funding. Public financing would mean that judges would no longer have to sell their souls for funds to campaign, this would make them more inclined to work for the people. It will be impossible to keep these judges accountable. This is because, for example, in one year in Harrison County there are more than 60 judges on the ballot every election year (Besley & Payne, 2013). It is difficult for the voters to know the judges, their values or background. It is right to say then, that these voters select judges based on party affiliation, race, clothing, and other irrelevant issues.
References
Besley, T., & Payne, A. A. (2013). Implementation of Anti-Discrimination Policy: Does Judicial Selection Matter?. American Law and Economics Review , 15 (1), 212-251.
Redish, M. H., & Aronoff, J. (2014). The real constitutional problem with state judicial selection: due process, judicial retention, and the dangers of popular constitutionalism. Wm. & Mary L. Rev. , 56 , 1.
