A prominent Hispanic Judge in San Antonio switched from the GOP to the Democratic Party . Asides from the reasons listed in the article below I saw him on TV in which he cites that as a Hispanic he can't tolerate the GOP's opposition to the Dream Act. ******* http://www.burntorangereport.com/di...democratic-party-the-republican-party-left-me Texas Judge Switches to Democratic Party: "The Republican Party Left Me" by: Joe Deshotel Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 02:00 PM CDT The Republican Party continues to push moderate voters away, but now even it's own elected officials are giving up on the fight with the extremist in their ranks. Today Bexar County Court at Law Judge Carlo Key switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party emphasizing that the, "Republican party has been at war with itself," and that ultimately, "I have not left the Republican Party, it left me." His life experience of being born into poverty and pulling himself up by the bootstraps is a true Texas success story. Republicans love this narrative, but often leave out the details which make it all possible. Judge Key had to start working hard at an early age due to the circumstance of his father's disability, but because of public assistance, and a strong public education he was able to rise above those natural hardships to become a small business owner and Judge. Among his reasons for the switch he pointed to the government shutdown led by Congressional Republicans that hurt furloughed workers and their families, and the, "vain attempt to repeal [the Affordable Care Act] a law that would provide healthcare to millions of people throughout our country." This is bad news for Republicans on a number of fronts. They lose a promising young politician and a prominent Hispanic from their ranks in one felled swoop. It also signals to other moderates that the tide is turning and the time is now. In case they need more encouragement Judge Key extended an open invitation, "I can only hope that more people of principle will follow." Click below the jump to see Judge Key's video and who is welcoming him to the Party... "Rational Republican beliefs have given way to ideological character assassination. Pragmatism and principle have been overtaken by pettiness and bigotry...I can't be a member of a party in which hate-speech elevates candidates for higher office rather than disqualifying them." -Judge Key
While I agree with Judge Key's reasons I have never been comfortable with the idea of judges engaging in party politics.
Imagine my shock when I moved from Indiana to Texas 27 years ago and found out judges were elected politicians here.
I can not imagine why anyone thinks this is a good idea. Why judges should be elected in this manner. County Courts at Law involve civil disputes with less than $100K in damages. Why the eff would you care about his politics? I care about how he enforces the Rules of Civil Procedure...how efficiently he runs his court room...his own civil trial experience. I could not care less what he thinks of the weighty political issues of the day. It's just crazy.
Your position sounds good in theory, but let me tell you about the system before elected judges. About 25 years ago I talked to an old lawyer who told be what used to happen at least in Harris County. He would have a motion or some sort of action in front of a judge. Beforehand the defense lawyer if from a well know firm would stand in front of the bench and talk to the judge who would ask the defense lawyer about the old gang at tjhe firm and if his old secretary was still there and such. The big firms just appointed their old often times unproductive older partners or associates to the bench where they could still be of use. It would be even worse in a smaller city or town. Massachusetts has an elected board which then appoints the judges. Any way you cut it in the real world with a lot of money involved politics is involved either with direct vote or backroom dealings.
I grew up in Texas, and I never understood how it was a reasonable way to choose people to arbitrate cases before the law either. Especially considering how little voter turnout local elections like that get, and how under informed the public typically is for the people they are voting for.
True, but at least people that are appointed typically have better qualifications. Furthermore, would you rather have judges with potential biases or confirmed biases (through their campaigns)? Simply knowing people in the legal community shouldn't automatically call into question a judge's impartiality. As an example, most research indicates that judge's that have to be elected into office tend to convict criminals at a far higher rate than appointed judges because they don't want to appear "soft on crime" or they made campaign promises that they would be "tough on crime."
Let's see if the research is neutral. I think that if you take the money out of elections it will help remove the bias toward the elite. Frankly Bar Organizations are always dominated by big firm corporate lawyers
I'm not really sure you need research to confirm it. How many "vote for me, I'm soft on crime!" ads do you see? Being tough on crime is a huge plus in winning elections. It's why we get so many dumb laws like Megan's Law. No one wants to oppose it, even if it's a dumb law.
