Texas Judicial System Case Study

Notably, it is crucial to understand that within the state of Texas, the Supreme Court, the court of criminal appeals and other district courts offer vacancies for judges whose practice of law is meant to resolve any conflict that arises in due course (Mott, 49). It is a constitutional requirement for the selection of nine judges of the Supreme Court, nine justices to preside over the court of criminal appeals and an additional 80 judges who fill the various courts of appeal across the state of Texas (Hansberger, 121). Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the Texas is counted among the two members of the union that takes part in the partisan election and re-election of judges in which case the voters have an option of casting a straight-ticket
The JNC is charged with the responsibility of declaring vacant positions to the public, reviews the applications, shortlists the qualified candidates on the grounds of experience and fitness and then presents a precise list to the Texas governor who then makes the appointment. This process will necessitate for fairness and overall competence in service delivery. The reasons why this system is deemed fit are:
• This criterion of judge selection through the relevant commission boosts the independence of the judicial arm of the government through an elimination of the partisan politics, political sponsorship as well as the influence of money when compared to the method that is currently in use.
• Regarding the decision making, the appointed judge under this pretext is less likely to be influenced by the opinions of the public, and therefore the probability of delivering fair judgments is high than in the case where politics are used as a determining factor of the judges’ fitness and capability.
• The commission which comprises of the judicial elites is better placed to make an informed decision as compared to voters who will blatantly elect judges based on the extent to which they share a common ideology.
This fact is solidly undisputable because when money and political influence are used in selecting leaders of any society, then it implies that there are those who will be left out of the decision-making process because of the class they belong or social status to which they are categorized. For full inclusion of people in leadership processes, justice and truth must always prevail (Mott, 49). Therefore, concerning the case of Texas judge selection criterion, it is arguably not the best practice due to a multiplicity of reasons that have been highlighted herein. Consequently, necessary modifications need to be carried out that are in line with the suggestions of this paper for the sole rationale of achieving inclusivity, an open display of service delivery as well as transparency (Maxwell,