Judicial Revision—An Argument Against the Merit Plan for Judicial Selection and Tenure

Date

1973

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Texas Tech Law Review

Abstract

Compares three proposed legislative plans to change the judicial selection process in Texas. Judges are elected by popular vote of the eligible electorate. The author examines the “Merit Plan,” the “Missouri Plan,” and the “American Bar Association Plan.” Following review of the history of judicial section in Texas, the author claims that “in periods of stability . . . the philosophy of an independent judiciary prevailed and the selection by popular election became the order of the day.” The author notes, any shift away from popular election, as set out in each of the legislative plans, requires extensive scrutiny as this shift would remove an entire branch of Texas government from electoral process. Following a detailed examination of each, the “Merit Plan,” the “Missouri Plan,” and the “American Bar Association Plan,” the author concludes that popular election of the judiciary would ensure an independent, responsive judiciary. The author suggests that to elect judges is to make them accountable to the very people who, in turn, grant that judge credibility and authority to effect judgment on the people. Where the judge is accountable to the people, the judge must be responsible to economic, moral, ethical changes among the people to maintain credibility, thereby ensuring an independent judiciary and avoiding the development of judicial despots.

Description

Keywords

Popular election, Judicial selection, Texas judicial selection process, Credibility, Independent judiciary, Merit Plan, Missouri Plan, American Bar Association Plan

Citation

5 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 21