Texas needs a new method of choosing state judges

The Texas system, with competitive party primaries followed by a partisan general election, has two dangers.

One is that it injects partisan politics into the one branch of state government that is supposed to be above partisanship.

Two is that it objects obscene amounts of money, with its own possibility of creating judicial bias, into what is supposed to be an unbiased court system.

In Illinois in 2004, for example, state Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier spent $9.3 million to get elected. When asked about that afterward, Karmeier said:

“That’s obscene for a judicial race. What does it gain people? How can anybody have faith in the system?”

Indeed.

And, as Republicanism in Texas likely reaches high tide and Democrats become more competitive again in more parts of the state, the likelihood of something similar in Texas will only increase.

But, it doesn’t have to be that way. Neighboring New Mexico is among states with a better alternative.

There, state district, appellate and supreme court justices are appointed by the governor.

But, unlike the federal court system, this is not a lifetime appointment.
In the first general election after that, the appointed judge must go through the partisan election process.

If elected, after that, every four years, these judges face what is called a retention election.

No opponent is on the ballot. The judge simply runs against his or her own judicial record of the past four years, and public perception of that. If the judge loses the retention election, they lose office, the governor appoints a replacement, and the process starts over.

With the possible exception of getting rid of the original partisan election and starting off with retention elections, I see no reason why Texas shouldn’t adopt something similar.