In this essay, I will explain why Texas should retain the partisan election of judges. Texas is one of the few states that elect their judges using a Partisan voting method. Partisan elections can be unfair and can misinform the voter. A high legal position such as a judge should never be chosen in such a manner. Partisan elections often cost more than nonpartisan elections in campaigning. Partisan elections are also more likely to lead to straight ticket voting or mindless voting. Partisan elections also lead to more campaign contributions and can increase the power of constituencies. Lastly partisan elections can cause an imbalance in equal represent the population. Therefore, Partisanship voting does not belong in the courts of Texas and …show more content…
Partisan elections force judges to be politicians and to campaign and buy into constituencies. Partisan primaries tend to force candidates to appeal to their constituencies for a greater chance of being elected. Therefore, the partisan elections bring about dirty campaign tactics like in regular presidential election. Lastly, partisan elections do not equally represent the population. For instance, the Hispanics were not properly represented as judges due to the partisan system and possible racism. There were only two Hispanic judges when Hispanics citizens take up more than a quarter of Texas. The case was charging that Texas’ system of electing judges violates federal law. In conclusion, partisan elections are hindering the election process for judges. The cost of partisan elections is more money than nonpartisan elections. partisan elections are more likely to lead to straight ticket voting, which can cause mindless voting or flawed voting. Partisan elections lead to more campaign contributions and can cause constituencies to interfere. Finally, partisan elections do not equally represent the population. Therefore, partisan elections are inferring and hinder the Texas judge positions more than nonpartisan
The principles, which define the work of juridical branch, are relevant nowadays, as they have proved their effectiveness and managed to gain confidence of population. Texas juridical branch is complex and confusing. According to the principles of the Texas Constitution, six types of courts are established, some of which have simultaneous or overlapping jurisdictions. In accordance with the Texas Constitution of 1876, two high courts were established. In addition, in the traditions of Jacksonian Democracy, all the judges in Texas courts should be ready to compete with electoral politics and take their positions according to the results of partisan elections. This democratic principle of fair elections and respect to the votes of citizens is still applied in the juridical branch of Texas
In my analysis of the Texas Constitution I will assess the three branches of our State Government, the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch and finally the Judicial Branch. Our State Government resembles our National Government in various ways but also in very different ways which we will review in this essay. I will identify a handful of criticisms and problems associated with the provisions in each of these branches of our State Government and identify suggested reforms that many feel are needed.
The Texas government is a complex system whose ultimate purpose is to serve its citizens. Oftentimes, its complexity in certain aspects causes problems in its efficiency in serving. The way the Texas Constitution is written, how local governments run, the judicial, legislative, and executive branches’ efficiency, as well as Texas public policy and fiscal policy result in a government that is not set up to best serve its citizens. By 1875 the need to rewrite the Texas Constitution had become very evident, and a Convention was held to rewrite the Constitution.
The candidates will have a better chance of getting elected.
In American politics today, many practices exist that greatly harm the American public. One of these dangerous practices, known as gerrymandering, occurs in nearly every state. While some claim that the practice helps America, in reality gerrymandering harms American democracy and safety. Gerrymandering greatly affects society, and must become illegal to insure fair representation, the democratic processes in America continues, and America continues to thrive.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
Political Divide in the United States The political divide in the United States is very bad. The two main political parties are the democrats and the republicans. The two parties dislike each other and each other's views. Abortion is something that has been talked about a lot, some people find it good and others find it as a bad thing. Health care is another issue that is controversial. Another big issue is illegal immigration. The death penalty and euthanasia are also reasons the government is divided. The topic of the right to bear arms is also very controversial, especially with all the murders and riots going on. Global warming, even though it does not seem very political, is a topic that comes up a lot in political speeches and events. And lastly, the separation of church and state is another topic that gets in heated discussions in politics. Not all of these seem like they are political, but they have been made into be, even though they should not have, the United States is divided over them. The political parties have caused the country to be divided. Democrats and Republicans, also known as liberals and conservatives, most people do
A two-party system is a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected officials end up being a member in one of the two major parties. In a two-party system, one of the parties usually holds a majority in the legislature hence, being referred to as the majority party while the other party is the minority party. The United States of America is considered to be a two-party system. A two-party system emerged early in the history of the new Republic. Beginning with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties have dominated national politics, although which particular two parties has changed with the times and issues. During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the two dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third parties emerged, but few of them remained in existence for very long. Today the Democrats and Republican still remain as the dominant parties. These two parties hav...
American democracy is predicated on the belief that government is both representative of and accountable to its citizenry, but the current system is plagued by issues which limit the responsiveness of government. Many of these flaws are inherent within the American electoral system, and as such, there is little which can be done to completely eliminate these issues, save major electoral reform. Certainly, a new crop of issues would soon sprout if ever such extreme reforms were to occur. Of these existing electoral issues, gerrymandering may be the most prevalent and visible and as a result, it is viewed as a blight on the American electoral system. The belief among many Americans, or rather those who
In 1822, Stephen F. Austin established one of the first courts in Texas and appointed a provisional justice of peace. Since Texas was a part of Mexico at the time, the Mexican governor replaced the justice of peace with three elected officials. (Utexas) Soon after Independence, the republic of Texas under the 1836 Constitution, established a supreme court and allowed Congress to create inferior courts. Judges in such courts were to be elected by Congress. Counties, at the time, had County and Justice of Peace courts, whose judges were popularly elected. With the entrance of Texas into the Union and the adoption of numerous constitutions during the period, Texas retained a similar judicial structure. The current 1876 Constitution created a Supreme Court with appellate civil jurisdiction, the court of appeals, a large number of district, county and justice of peace courts and authorized the legislature to create further courts as necessary. Overtime, the legislature added a number of layers to the judicial system creating a vast and complex judicial system with numerous overlapping jurisdictions between courts. Due to the complicated nature of the current judicial system in Texas, this paper will start by giving a brief explanation of the structure of the current judicial system in Texas and will move on by identifying some strengths and weaknesses in the current system and the need for reforms, present numerous proposed reforms and analyzes why the proposed reforms failed.
When it comes to voting there are some major issues of concerns of whom the voters choose to votes for. Some of these issues consist of party affiliation, group interests, the candidate themselves, the economy and policy issues. In the election
Starting with methods, such as, pool taxes and literacy tests, cunningly denying individuals their right to vote or convey their political voice continues in America today. Saito in the article “The Political Significance of Race” describes the effects that redistricting and gerrymandering can have on a community, by using the decennial census as a “unique opportunity to examine the relation between race and politics because the 1965 Voting Rights Act requires the recognition and protection of the political rights of ethnic and racial minorities” (120). Redistricting is the redrawing of districts, block by block supposedly to ensure each district has about the same number of people, and to guarantee that each voter has an equal political say. Redistricting can determine which political party is in power in each district by deliberately ensuring the district is drawn to include the people who support a specific party. This is called gerrymandering, the manipulation of district lines to protect or change political power. This can be used as a strategy to dilute the political voice of minority groups by conveniently drawing the lines to minimize their
The most powerful jurists in the country cannot do math. In March 2018, when the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a landmark case that would determine the future of partisan gerrymandering, its members were reluctant to consider statistical evidence seriously.
The topic I have chosen is gerrymandering. Before getting too deep into this paper, I’d like to take this time to explain what gerrymandering is. To gerrymander is to redraw and resize electoral voting districts across a state. This is done to ensure that the political party that has control of the state can keep control by distributing voters in a manner that alters the people’s representation.
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012