The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices, currently, all of whom are Republicans. They are:
Wallace Jefferson, Chief Justice
Don R. Willett
Harriet O'Neill
David M. Medina
Paul W. Green
Nathan Hecht
Dale Wainwright
Phil Johnson
Scott A. Brister
The Court of Criminal Appeals is also composed entirely of Republican judges. They are:
Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge
Lawrence Meyers
Tom Price
Paul Womack
Cheryl Johnson
Michael E. Keasler
Barbara Parker Hervey
Charles Holcomb
Cathy Cochran
OK, I may secretly wish that all elected officials were Democrats, but, in reality, that wouldn't be fair. An all Democrat Congress, Senate, White House, and judiciary may serve my interests, but many citizens would be left out. While, I don't agree with most Republican/conservative beliefs, I still feel that all members of society should have a voice.
So, how fair is it that 18 out of 18 of the highest judges in the state are all members of the same party? How fair is it that these judges vote unanimously a good part of the time? I think that issues that are important enough to be brought before these courts of last resort deserves to be viewed from a more diverse perspective. There are four worthy Democrats running for election to Texas's two highest courts this year.
Susan Strawn, Jim Jordan, Sam Houston, Linda Reyna Yanez
Let's start with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which deals with criminal matters. There has been quite a bit of controversy recently surrounding this court. The biggest scandal was the execution of Michael Richard, who was denied a last-minute appeal by Presiding Judge, Sharon Keller because it came in after 5 o'clock. Apparently, even in matters of life and death, closing time is closing time. I'm not going to get into whether the Richard was guilty or innocent, or whether the death penalty is right or wrong, but when there is even an inkling of doubt about anything surrounding a death penalty case, I don't think it is too much to ask that a judge stay at the office a little bit late.
This year's election for the Court of Criminal Appeals really doesn't offer much hope for the prospect of immediate change. There is only one candidate that seems to have potential to bring about this change. Susan Strawn, who is running for Place 3, has been endorsed by the Austin American Statesman, The Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
When asked about the Michael Richard case, Strawn said, "I would have accepted the appeal. One of the principles of our justice system is that the courts are open 24/7. There may be sanctions for unexcused late or frivolous appeals, but these sanctions should fall on the lawyers, not the defendant."
Strawn is running against Tom Price, who is more moderate than many of the right-wing judges on the court, but seems to have a reputation more for his absences than what he has done as a judge.
The two other spots up for election are Place 4, which is currently held by Paul Womack, and Place 9, held by Cathy Cochran. J.R. Molina, a perennial candidate is running against Womack, but has not been endorsed by any major Texas news service. He has been mostly unavailable for interviews and really hasn't campaigned much. According to the Austin American-Statesman, neither man is "fit to hold office." There is no Democrat running against Cochran; her lone challenger is William Strange III, a Libertarian.
Now for the Supreme Court. The three Democrats trying to gain a spot on the all-Republican Supreme Court are Jim Jordan for Chief Justice, Sam Houston for Place 7, and Linda Reyna Yanez for Place 8.
Wallace Jefferson, the current Chief Justice, has done a respectable jobs by almost all accounts. In Place 7, Dale Wainwright has also done his job adequately, with the exception that he is slow and backlogged. In Place 8, Phil Johnson also seems to be doing a good enough job.
However, it is unacceptable that the Texas Supreme Court is so willing to overturn the verdict of juries. They have sided with the defendant 87 percent of the time. This has often benefitted big businesses who, after the Supreme Court rulings, get out of having to pay large settlements.
The Democratic challengers all have solid backgrounds in the judicial system. Despite the argument that judges should not be selected because of their political party affiliations, this is how Texas does it, and this, I admit, is how I am voting this year. All of the candidates seem to be equal besides their party affiliations. If there was a candidate on the Democratic side that was completely unfit to hold office (as J.R. Molina has been said to be) I would not recommend that person. However all three Democrats are good choices, and the need to balance the Texas Supreme Court is valid.
Sam Houston has been endorsed by The Dallas Morning News, the Austin American-Statesman, and the Waco Tribune Herald. Linda Yanez has been endorsed by the Houston Chronicle and the Waco Tribune Herald.
Another issue, which will likely not be changed anytime soon, is whether judges should be elected at all. Many voters know very little about the records of the judges that they are voting for, and vote with their party. It has been suggested by some (including Wallace Jefferson) that the legislature appoint judges, and then the voters decide whether to keep them. Another suggestion (supported by Sam Houston) is that judicial elections be held separately from the general election. Strangely enough, it seems that current member of the Republican high courts do not think that there is anything wrong with the system that put them there.
I am not an expert on legal matters, but Texas Courts have been entirely too one-sided for entirely too long. It is time to bring some diversity to the courts and let the Democrats play.
Let's start with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which deals with criminal matters. There has been quite a bit of controversy recently surrounding this court. The biggest scandal was the execution of Michael Richard, who was denied a last-minute appeal by Presiding Judge, Sharon Keller because it came in after 5 o'clock. Apparently, even in matters of life and death, closing time is closing time. I'm not going to get into whether the Richard was guilty or innocent, or whether the death penalty is right or wrong, but when there is even an inkling of doubt about anything surrounding a death penalty case, I don't think it is too much to ask that a judge stay at the office a little bit late.
This year's election for the Court of Criminal Appeals really doesn't offer much hope for the prospect of immediate change. There is only one candidate that seems to have potential to bring about this change. Susan Strawn, who is running for Place 3, has been endorsed by the Austin American Statesman, The Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
When asked about the Michael Richard case, Strawn said, "I would have accepted the appeal. One of the principles of our justice system is that the courts are open 24/7. There may be sanctions for unexcused late or frivolous appeals, but these sanctions should fall on the lawyers, not the defendant."
Strawn is running against Tom Price, who is more moderate than many of the right-wing judges on the court, but seems to have a reputation more for his absences than what he has done as a judge.
The two other spots up for election are Place 4, which is currently held by Paul Womack, and Place 9, held by Cathy Cochran. J.R. Molina, a perennial candidate is running against Womack, but has not been endorsed by any major Texas news service. He has been mostly unavailable for interviews and really hasn't campaigned much. According to the Austin American-Statesman, neither man is "fit to hold office." There is no Democrat running against Cochran; her lone challenger is William Strange III, a Libertarian.
Now for the Supreme Court. The three Democrats trying to gain a spot on the all-Republican Supreme Court are Jim Jordan for Chief Justice, Sam Houston for Place 7, and Linda Reyna Yanez for Place 8.
Wallace Jefferson, the current Chief Justice, has done a respectable jobs by almost all accounts. In Place 7, Dale Wainwright has also done his job adequately, with the exception that he is slow and backlogged. In Place 8, Phil Johnson also seems to be doing a good enough job.
However, it is unacceptable that the Texas Supreme Court is so willing to overturn the verdict of juries. They have sided with the defendant 87 percent of the time. This has often benefitted big businesses who, after the Supreme Court rulings, get out of having to pay large settlements.
The Democratic challengers all have solid backgrounds in the judicial system. Despite the argument that judges should not be selected because of their political party affiliations, this is how Texas does it, and this, I admit, is how I am voting this year. All of the candidates seem to be equal besides their party affiliations. If there was a candidate on the Democratic side that was completely unfit to hold office (as J.R. Molina has been said to be) I would not recommend that person. However all three Democrats are good choices, and the need to balance the Texas Supreme Court is valid.
Sam Houston has been endorsed by The Dallas Morning News, the Austin American-Statesman, and the Waco Tribune Herald. Linda Yanez has been endorsed by the Houston Chronicle and the Waco Tribune Herald.
Another issue, which will likely not be changed anytime soon, is whether judges should be elected at all. Many voters know very little about the records of the judges that they are voting for, and vote with their party. It has been suggested by some (including Wallace Jefferson) that the legislature appoint judges, and then the voters decide whether to keep them. Another suggestion (supported by Sam Houston) is that judicial elections be held separately from the general election. Strangely enough, it seems that current member of the Republican high courts do not think that there is anything wrong with the system that put them there.
I am not an expert on legal matters, but Texas Courts have been entirely too one-sided for entirely too long. It is time to bring some diversity to the courts and let the Democrats play.
2 comments:
You really do your research well. I live here but did not know all of that. Great job!
Great researching! In a last minute effort to at least attempt to vote with a base level of knowledge, I found this blog very useful. I'm still debating whether I will penalize all Supreme Court incumbent judges for their party alignment alone, but it is definently something to think about in an effort to equalize the playing field. Thanks again!!
Post a Comment