By Jennifer Nagorka, KERA 90.1 commentator
Dallas, TX – Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips has a gift for the people of Texas. The Republican, who leads the state's highest civil court, has pledged not to raise money, or do big "media buys," during his fall re-election campaign. It's his way of protesting Texas' method of selecting judges, a process that is absurd - not to mention expensive, obsolete, unfair and prone to abuse.
Texas is one of a handful of states that uses partisan elections to select its county and state judges. And there are a lot of judges in Texas - about 420 district court judges, 80 appellate court judges, nine people on the Supreme Court and another nine who serve on the Court of Criminal Appeals.
That doesn't count all the judges who serve in County Courts-at-Law or as Justices of the Peace. Dallas County alone elects more than 80 judges at all levels. Tarrant County elects 45 - if you leave out the justices of the peace. It's hard enough figuring out what each different kind of court does. No normal voter could keep track of all the candidates running for all those courts.
And remember, all of those candidates need to raise money to run their campaigns - and they often raise those funds from law firms or individual attorneys who may appear before them in court. The last time he ran, Justice Phillips raised about $1.4 million.
This system is, frankly, nuts. When Texas was a more rural state, electing judges probably worked fine. You'd have some chance of knowing the people you were being asked to pick. Now, with the majority of Texans living in big cities and their suburbs, the judicial selection process needs to change.
Texas should switch to a system of appointed judges who then face periodic retention elections. In other words, some public body - it could be different for different levels of court - would appoint each judge. Then, near the end of the judge's term, the public would vote whether to retain that judge in office for another term.
Candidates wouldn't have to raise campaign funds, which would prevent accusations of conflict of interest. Depending on how the reforms are written, the state might wind up with more highly-qualified people serving as judges. Some attorneys who would make excellent judges never run because they can't stomach the politics.
Reform efforts - and there have been many - typically fail in the Legislature. Some current judges and the major political parties prefer the status quo. There are also fears that the appointment process could be manipulated, or that racial or ethnic minorities might be shut out. But the existing process has those same drawbacks - and none of the advantages of an appointed system.
At a minimum, the state should start experimenting, perhaps by appointing appellate court judges. Legislators would have to pass a constitutional amendment during the next year's session, and then have voters approve it that fall, for even this small experiment to occur.
Most states use some sort of appointment system for judges. And those states survive. Texans, too, deserve a better system of judicial selection than what we endure today.
Jennifer Nagorka is a writer based in Dallas.