Article Critique
2010 State Bar of Texas, Litigation Section. The Advocate Winter 2010
The article relates to the First Amendment of the Constitution in regards to religion and liberty. The main purpose of this defense debate is to explain how you cannot have liberty without justice. Justice cannot be complete without the liberty of society. These two go together to form a just legal system. If you eliminate one factor, then the other factor will not hold up or succeed.
An ideal judiciary in the U.S. would consist of the judges who are elected stay in their positions because they reflect the law as it should be, and make no mistakes in the court system. The need for re-electing judges would not be needed because the perfect judiciary would have no flaws. Although this would be pleasant for all parties involved, it is not how the world works. The judges and judiciary are not perfect, and humans do make mistakes.
Judges who have the position of power and control, to maintain the system can make mistakes. The more power and control an individual has the easier it is to misuse that privilege. Corruption happens more than it should in the court system and among higher powers of authority. The judiciary elections in Texas have evened out the misuse of power among the judges who apply the laws. Texas has set standards to ensure the judiciary is chosen without persuasion, and that the positions are filled with individuals who will maintain the law without abusing the power.
In today’s era, the United States has three different categories that assist in selecting the appropriate judges in the court system. “The three categories that are used are; Missouri Plan, Federal system, and electoral selection” . These categories are set differently than other ways of choosing judges in the legal system because of the involvement of society. The Federal System is used when Judge positions are needed to be filled at the Federal level. The Governor will pick someone to be considered and legislation will decide if that person is suitable. The citizens are involved behind the scenes because they are the ones who had voted to elect the individuals of legislation and who votes to elect the Governor.
The next category of picking a Judge for a position involves the people of society. People can pick who they think will be the best fit for this positon and then vote to get that person elected. This scenario incorporates people’s choice and decisions of who they think will be the best candidate for filling that slot. The last category relates to the Missouri Plan. The Plan of Missouri is different than the other two options for electing a Judge. This plan was set into motion in 1940, and instead of using the above methods of election, it uses a higher power panel of electricals to decide on who will hold the position of Judge. This does not work as well as the other two options because of the stigma and controversy that surrounds the plan. Society does not have a say in the elected individuals and it is more of a political decision and not a majority decision.
There are rewards when choosing a Judge with an election that is partisan. People have a better idea what the Judges expectations are in holding that position. It is easier for society to choose the proper person for the job and not someone who is not going to hold the position to the high regard and action. The discrepancy with electing a Judge of a non-partisan selection is that people will not get to learn as much information about that individual, and will not be certain the position will be done properly. No matter what type of election is used there will be mistakes and misinterpretations. Information about each candidate is an important factor when deciding the best person for the position. Owning up to mistakes made and encouraging the population that these mistakes are accurate is needed. This shows people that the individual is human, but will learn from those mistakes to ensure they do not occur in the future.
This article discusses the need for Congress to get involved in determining the judicial elections. This idea came to light to ensure that elected Judges who had contributors to their campaign not be allowed to go in front of the Judge or practice law in a court that Judge represents. “The reason of this plan is to keep favoritism out of the courts based on endorsements and campaign funding from the lawyers of the community” . The disqualification of a candidate who has had these types of contributions would prevent violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of a fair trial. The idea of disqualification has been set into place in almost all of the 50 states except for 3 states that do not have this ruling.
The election process consists of money, politics, and campaigning. It has gotten out of hand in the electoral scenario and the Judges are losing focus on what is needed in our society. The Judges need to take the position seriously and be willing to uphold the law without favoritism or prejudice. There have been Judges who have been given the position and the opportunity to provide the legal aspects of the court system. Some Judges who have been granted this opportunity has not upheld the law or the court in the manner that the Constitution requires.
The idea that Congress should ensure that the elected Judges are not handing out favors in the courtroom is needed. It is not fair for innocent people to not have a fair and just trial because of money that was contributed from the opposing lawyer in the courtroom. People who are seen in front of a Judge should not have to worry that their Constitutional Rights will be violated because of a campaign. The election should be done based on the best candidate who will uphold the position as Judge. The position should not be taken lightly, nor be used for power and control. It should be used to ensure that society is receiving a reliable and fair court hearing. Innocent people are put into prison and the imprisonment should not be based on patting a lawyer on the back for contributions to the election.
Reference
Butterfield, K. S. (2010). Winter 2010. State Bar of Texas, Litigation Section. All Rights Reserved., pp. 1-2.
Jonathan Berman, J. (2009). Legal Profession. The Journal of Legal Profession, 1-9.
