« London law merger market: so what's the problem, U.S. firms? | Main | Duval & Stachenfeld, salaries, real life: Value Movement? »

September 26, 2007

Texas: Another reason not to popularly elect judges--ever, anywhere.

Re: courts and lawyer cluelessness. See at Overlawyered this one: "Furor over Mikal Watts 'judges owe us' letter".WAC?'s said before that popular election of state judges is an embarrassingly medieval institution that hurts us all. (See, e.g., Are federal judges "better" than state judges?)

Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at September 26, 2007 12:24 PM

Comments

I agree. I have not taken a state court case in Texas in over 10 years. I prefer federal court. With the exception of ideological differences between I and federal judges sometimes, I do not have the feeling they are playing favorites. It is not so much corruption for money, but Texas state court is a hell hole of favoritism. Contrary to the article about Watts, the issue is heavily weighted not to the plaintiff lawyers but to Big Law, insurance companies and financial institutions. But, no matter what the bias, this dance with the one who brung ya stuff is just sickening. The other problem of course is that there are so many judicial elections in Texas and so many candidates, the turnout or under vote is huge, nobody know for whom they are voting or why. Given the low turnouts and under vote, getting people out is the main key. Organizations that can help in this regard are highly favored. John Hill recently passed away. He resigned a Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court over the election of judges. He worked for years to try and change it, without any luck.

Posted by: Chuck Newton at September 26, 2007 06:35 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?