Case: In Texas, members of the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as of all lower state courts, are elected in partisan elections. Texas is one of only seven states that elect judges this way. Other states use a variety of selection systems ranging from gubernatorial appointment to legislative selection to nonpartisan election. Many good government advocates support merit selection, which several states employ and which has been suggested many times as a possible alternative to the current system in Texas. Merit selection involves a commission that vets potential judges based on their character and temperament. A list of approved judicial nominees is then presented to the governor, who appoints one as judge. After a period of time, that judge runs in a retention election. The judge does not face an opponent, but the ballot question asks voters whether the judge should be retained in office.
Former Texas Supreme Court justice Wallace Jefferson has been a majo
r advocate of merit selection. Partisan elections make little sense, according to Jefferson, when judges have so little to do with politics. He notes that what they do is mundane, if nonetheless important. They probate wills and apportion divorcing spouses assets. They determine child support and custody. They oversee trials and changes of pleas in criminal cases. They police discovery and preside over settlement conferences. Yet in every election, Jefferson argues, judges are swept out of office because of partisan voting, rather than decisions about judicial competence. Because of these concerns, Jefferson argues that the current system of selecting judges is one in which an overwhelmed electorate ineffectually uses partisanship and name recognition as a proxy for competence and integrity. The result is the loss of good judges and a decrease in public confidence. Jefferson insists that reform, beginning with merit selection followed by retention elections, is imperative.