Removing party labels in judicial choices leaves out key information for voters
The outcome of the 2016 Harris County elections was disappointing. We lost far too many competent judges and other officeholders because of the flaws of the straight party ticket voting system.
I believe it is our civic duty as voters to consider every candidate for each office based on merit as well as philosophy. I support doing away with the straight-party ticket voting option so each candidate for every office gets a unique opportunity to earn their share of the ballots cast. I oppose judicial races without identifying the candidate’s party affiliation. Without party affiliation as a guide, voters might pick candidates at random or skip the vote all together.
Party affiliation is perhaps the most important factor in deciding for whom we cast our ballots. Most Texans identify with a political party based on the personal political principles they espouse Even independents tend to lean toward one party or the other, especially in instances where the voter does not know much about the candidates.
Consequently, when it comes to the election of judges, party affiliation is a good indication of judicial philosophy. However, as we have seen, it is not an necessarily an indication of merit. I believe an “R” or a “D” beside someone’s name on the ballot should be part of a bundle of considerations that voters assess when choosing for whom they vote.
Very few voters enter the voting booth having researched most races, let alone every candidate on the ballot. Absent other information, party affiliation is a good hint about the general philosophy of a judicial candidate. A recent survey of registered Texas voters found that when presented with a race where voters do not recognize the name of either candidate, 54 percent make their choice based on political affiliation. But we also know that in Texas, informed voters will cross party lines to cast their ballot for a competent judge who they believes deserves to stay on the bench. Eliminating straight-party ticket voting while keeping party identification of judicial candidates could help create more informed voters.
Without party identification of judicial candidates, judicial races would become increasingly expensive endeavors that require candidates to build public name identification via pricey advertising and slick campaigns. Judges and judicial candidates often lack the financial resources or the fundraising apparatus to build a war chest they can use to launch a full campaign. Creating this additional barrier to entry would cut many excellent judicial candidates out of the running and create an advantage for wealthy candidates or those who could attract big campaign contributions.
Removing partisan labels could also make voters more reliant on the public persona of each candidate instead of focusing attention on the philosophy and judicial temperament of those who seek to be independent arbiters of the law.
The public is better served by an electoral system that rewards intellect, judicial philosophy and merit on the bench instead of one that rewards big money and big personalities who use the bench to play to the media and seek out the cameras. We want judges to represent all citizens, not just the citizens who are members of the political parties with whom the judges affiliate.