In The Chapter On The Texas Judiciary, We Examined Partisan ✓ Solved

In the chapter on the Texas Judiciary, we examined partisan

In the chapter on the Texas Judiciary, we examined partisan judicial elections and the questions they raise about fairness, representation, and integrity. Consider both sides of the merit selection issue: for the pro side and for the con side. Address the following: (1) What are the general pros and cons to each approach (provide two to three for each)? (2) Which approach appeals to you, and why? (3) How likely is it that Texas will eventually adopt a merit selection process? Support your arguments with assigned material and references to the literature.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

The debate over how to select judges in Texas pits partisan judicial elections against merit (or "Missouri Plan") selection systems. Partisan elections are the current dominant model in Texas; merit selection typically involves a nonpartisan nominating commission that screens candidates, a governor or appointing authority who makes the appointment, and periodic retention elections. The choice between these systems implicates fairness, representation, accountability, integrity, and public trust (Bonneau & Hall, 2009; Geyh, 2003).

General pros and cons of partisan judicial elections

Pros:

  1. Democratic accountability and voter control: Partisan elections make judges directly accountable to the electorate and allow voters to use party cues to inform choices, arguably improving representational legitimacy (Bonneau & Hall, 2009; Gibson & Caldeira, 2009).
  2. Transparency and competition: Elections can increase public visibility of judicial records and foster competitive contests where voters can evaluate candidates’ records and philosophies (Bonneau & Hall, 2009).

Cons:

  1. Risk of politicization and appearance of bias: Partisan labels and campaign fundraising can create perceptions — and sometimes realities — that judicial decisions are driven by partisan or financial influences rather than law (Geyh, 2003; Brennan Center, 2015).
  2. Resource and information asymmetries: Judicial campaigns are often underfunded or dominated by special interests; voters receive little information about judicial performance, leading to low-information voting based on party cues rather than qualifications (Bonneau, 2007; Hall, 2007).

General pros and cons of merit selection

Pros:

  1. Focus on qualifications and professionalism: Merit systems prioritize legal experience, temperament, and competence through a screening commission, reducing the influence of partisan labels and fundraising pressures (American Judicature Society, 2012; Bass, 2012).
  2. Reduced political influence and improved impartiality: By removing contested partisan contests, merit selection can help preserve the appearance and reality of judicial neutrality and reduce direct campaign contributions to judges (Brennan Center, 2015; Geyh, 2003).

Cons:

  1. Perceived democratic deficit: Appointments via commission and executive selection concentrate power among elites and appointed commissioners, which critics argue weakens voter control and democratic legitimacy (Bonneau & Hall, 2009).
  2. Risk of capture by legal or political elites: Nomination commissions and appointing authorities can reflect their own biases and may favor insiders, raising concerns about representativeness and ideological skewing (Texas Judicial Council, 2010; Smith, 2015).

Which approach appeals to me and why

I favor a calibrated merit selection system — a hybrid that preserves democratic accountability through periodic retention votes while using a merit-based nominating commission to prioritize qualifications. My preference rests on three reasons:

First, the empirical literature shows partisan elections risk real and perceived bias from campaign contributions and partisan messaging, which undermines judicial legitimacy (Geyh, 2003; Bonneau, 2007). Merit selection explicitly targets that problem by reducing contested money-driven campaigns and shielding selection from short-term electoral pressures (Brennan Center, 2015).

Second, merit selection better aligns selection with judicial competence. Screening by a diverse commission — including lawyers, judges, and lay members — can elevate candidates with demonstrable qualifications and guard against low-information mass voting for unknown candidates based solely on party (American Judicature Society, 2012; Bass, 2012).

Third, preserving retention elections keeps an element of voter oversight and can be paired with stronger public reporting on judicial performance (e.g., performance evaluations by an independent body), thereby addressing democratic concerns while minimizing politicized campaigning (Texas Judicial Council, 2010; Smith, 2015).

How likely is Texas to adopt merit selection?

Texas faces political and institutional barriers to adopting full merit selection in the near term. Key constraints include entrenched partisan interests (Republican dominance in state politics), judicial incumbents with electoral advantages, and a political culture that prizes direct elections as democratic (Bonneau & Hall, 2009; Texas Tribune, 2018).

However, the probability is not zero. Factors that could increase the chances include high-profile controversies over judicial impartiality, bipartisan reform coalitions within the State Bar and legal community, and successful use of hybrid reforms (e.g., pilot merit districts, enhanced commission transparency, or public judicial performance evaluations) that demonstrate benefits without appearing to remove voter control (American Bar Association, 2004; Texas Judicial Council, 2010).

Realistically, incremental reforms are more plausible than a wholesale switch. Texas is more likely to adopt measures that mimic merit selection principles — such as nonpartisan screening, stronger performance evaluations, campaign finance limits, or retention-style elements — rather than abolishing partisan elections outright (Smith, 2015; Brennan Center, 2015). Political will, civic education, and clear demonstration of improved outcomes in other states will be decisive.

Conclusion

Both partisan elections and merit selection have defensible rationales and clear drawbacks. Partisan elections emphasize voter choice and accountability but risk politicization and influence by money. Merit selection elevates qualifications and impartiality but raises democratic and elite-capture concerns. A pragmatic middle path — merit-based nominating commissions combined with retention elections and strong public performance reporting — best balances competing values and is the most politically feasible trajectory for Texas in the medium term. Empirical evidence and reform recommendations from scholars and reform organizations support this hybrid as a way to increase judicial quality and public confidence while preserving democratic legitimacy (Bonneau & Hall, 2009; Geyh, 2003; Brennan Center, 2015).

References

  • American Bar Association. (2004). Principles for Judicial Selection. American Bar Association.
  • American Judicature Society. (2012). Merit Selection: The Missouri Plan and Lessons for Reform. AJS Policy Report.
  • Bass, S. (2012). Merit Selection and the Missouri Plan. University of Missouri Press.
  • Brennan Center for Justice. (2015). Judicial Selection: How States Choose. Brennan Center Report.
  • Bonneau, C. W. (2007). Campaign Contributions and Judicial Behavior in State Courts. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(1), 59–83.
  • Bonneau, C. W., & Hall, M. G. (2009). In Defense of Judicial Elections. Princeton University Press.
  • Geyh, C. G. (2003). Why Judicial Elections Stink. Ohio State Law Journal, 64, 43–88.
  • Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (2009). Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Legitimacy of Judicial Institutions. Law & Society Review, 43(3), 489–522.
  • Smith, J. (2015). Merit Selection for Texas Judges: Options and Obstacles. Texas Bar Journal, 78(6), 412–420.
  • Texas Judicial Council. (2010). Report on Judicial Selection and Reform Options in Texas. Texas Office of Court Administration.
  • Texas Tribune. (2018). Why Texas Keeps Partisan Judicial Elections. Texas Tribune analysis and reporting.

Related Assignments