In the United States, there are fifty-one different court systems. While the majority of these systems are similar to one another in regards to their structure, several standout as being particularly unique. The Texas court system, which has a bifurcated appellate level; overlapping jurisdiction and over five levels of courts, is one of the nation’s most distinctive systems.
The unified Texas court system was established in 1836 following the Texas Revolution that freed the Texas colonies from the sovereignty of Mexico. Under the newly promulgated constitution of the Republic of Texas, a court system based in Anglo-American common law was established with power vested in a supreme court to administer the court system and its lawyers. The Texas Supreme Court was also given appellate jurisdiction over all formerly lower courts and any future courts that the state might establish. As Texas society developed, the number of cases being appealed to the Court increased exponentially. In order to relieve the Court of its crushing caseload, a constitutional amendment in 1876 split the Court into two, with the Supreme Court retaining jurisdiction over all civil cases and the newly established Court of Criminal Appeals given exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal cases (Champagne, 2001, 2006). In addition to these two “courts of last resort,” Texan appellate system includes the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals is the state’s intermediate appellate court and has jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases appealed from Texas’ lower courts. There are fourteen Courts of Appeal in Texas.
Texas’ lower court structure consists of district courts, county courts, probate courts municipal courts and justice of the peace courts. District courts are general trial courts for felony cases and civil cases of at least US $200 in controversy. Below the district courts are County courts. County courts are county courts of limited jurisdiction over gross misdemeanor cases and all civil cases between US $200 and $10,000 in controversy. Municipal courts are the local courts that most Texas citizens with legal issues appear with jurisdiction over city ordinances and share jurisdiction over petit misdemeanor cases with justice of peace courts.
Strengths and Weaknesses
There are strengths and weaknesses in every court system, and Texas is no different. In terms of strengths, for instance, Texas’ bifurcated courts of last resort allow each court’s justice to develop deep knowledge and experience about the policy, cases and trends of the law under their jurisdictions. Moreover, the sheer number of courts suggests that Texas provides a wider gateway to access legal services for those that are in need of a court. On the other hand, there are multiple weaknesses in the court system that gives one reason to pause. First, the number of different courts may make it extremely confusing for someone seeking legal help to understand which court they should or can bring their case. Second, overlapping jurisdictions, such as the one between municipal and justice of the peace courts allows lawyers to “forum shop” and pick the court with a judge favorable to their cause. Third, Texas’ lack of legal training requirements for most judges (only district court and appellate court judges need to be lawyers) put the majority of Texas citizens at the mercy of judges that may have no training or experience in the law. Finally, the selection process for judges makes them susceptible to being influenced by money and politics rather than the law (Champagne, 2001).
Reform Initiatives
Since the establishment of the Texas court system in 1836, there have been many efforts to reform it. Some of the more recent reform initiatives include: efforts to end the partisan (straight line ticket) election of judges to give them more independence and insulation from being influenced (Chertoff, 2011); efforts to establish public financing for judicial elections to remove the corrupting power of money and efforts to upgrade the quality of judges by introducing legal learning and knowledge requirements (Champagne, 1986, 2001).
The two most pressing concerning facing the Texas court system seem to be: (1) creating an independent court that is financially viable and (2) ensuring that the judges who staff the court system are qualified and bring a diversity of knowledge and experience to the courts that they preside over. Accordingly, the reform initiatives that focus on public financing, elimination of partisan elections and that upgrade and diversify the bench are all worthy efforts and should be pursued. However, if only one reform initiative was possible, the best choice would be to eliminate partisan elections and the introduction of non-partisan elections for judges. Not only would this initiative most likely bring immediate results but it would also plant the seed for the other reform initiatives as well. Furthermore, it would make it easier for the most qualified people to make it onto the judge’s bench.
Nonetheless, recent legislative efforts to reform the Texas court system has found little interest and even less success. Accordingly the best and most likely branch to bring about reform should be the judiciary for the following reasons: (1) the judiciary knows the system including its strengths and weaknesses as well as its attorneys; (2) the judiciary, unlike the legislature which meets for only six months every two years, can meet regularly for discussion and consultation; (3) the Texas Supreme Court has a constitutional responsibility to manage the court system and has the authority to make administrative rules applicable to all courts within the state and (4) it’s in the judiciary’s best interest to reform the system (Stone, 2014). While the Texas legislative and executive branch also has an interest in ensuring an effective and equitable court system, they also have other interests and issues apart from the courts which they must address. The judiciary, on the other hand, only has the courts to worry about and can make changes that have meaning.
Works Cited
Champagne, A. (1986). The selection and retention of judges in Texas. Southwestern Law Journal, 40, 53-117.
Champagne, A. & Cheek, K. (2001). The cycle of judicial elections: Texas as a case study. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29(3), 907-940.
Cheftoff, M. (2011). Trends in judicial selection in the states. McGeorge Law Review, 42(1), 47-62.
Henderson, C. & Sinclair, T.C. (1968). The selection of judges in Texas. Houston Law Review, 61(2), 79-86.
Stone, C. (2014). The dual role of a chief justice. St. Mary Law Journal, 45(4), 553-573.
