Judicial selection has been the subject of a long-standing debate both in Texas and in other states. The Texas Constitution provides for the election of most of the state’s judges. However, the governor appoints district and appellate judges to vacant positions. County courts at law judges and justices of the peace are also elected, and vacant positions are filled through appointment by the county commissioners’ court. Municipal judges may either be appointed or elected depending on the city charter or ordinance.

Judges were not always elected officials in Texas. When Texas first became a state, judges were appointed by the governor with consent of the Texas Senate. Five years later, in 1850, the influence of Jacksonian Democracy led to the introduction of judicial elections in Texas.

During Reconstruction, gubernatorial appointment of judges was reinstated. The Reconstruction Constitution of 1869 was replaced in 1876 by the current Texas Constitution, which requires election of judges. The 1876 Constitution greatly limited the powers of the governor and was a reaction to the powers exercised by Governor E.J. Davis under the 1869 Constitution. Under the 1869 Constitution, not only did the governor have the power to appoint judges, but he also appointed mayors, district attorneys, public weighers, and city aldermen. This appointment power was so extensive that it included 10,000 state officials.

Since early in this century, the popularity of partisan election of judges has decreased outside of the South. Since the South was (until recently) historically a one-party Democratic region, partisan election meant that competition for judicial offices, if it occurred at all, occurred within the Democratic Party. Texas then, along with much of the South, experienced a significant growth of the Republican Party. Along with that growth came competition for judicial offices during the regular election. The debate over the desirability of retaining the current system of judicial selection in Texas, however, preceded the growth of the Republican Party in the state.

Proposals for constitutional amendments to change the system of selection have been made frequently. In 1974, the Constitutional Revision Commission offered two judicial selection proposals: one for a system based on the Missouri plan and the other for nonpartisan election of judges. Those proposals were rejected, and over the next four legislative sessions, at least fifteen unsuccessful proposals were offered favoring either the Missouri plan or nonpartisan election.

Methods of judicial selection vary substantially across the United States. Though each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they fill their state and local judiciaries, there are five main methods:

• : Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
• : Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
• : Judges are selected by the state legislature.
• : Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.
• , also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list. After serving an initial term, the judge must be confirmed by the people in a yes-no retention election to remain on the court.

This assignment asks you to consider and choose one of the selection methods NOT used by Texas. Briefly tell me:

• what alternative method you selected and
• why you contend it is more preferable than the one used by Texas.