March 13, 2003
Court's Rehab
in Lege's Hands
The Texas Legislature must approve significant judicial reforms or sentence
the state judiciary to at least two more years of festering public distrust.
Overhaul it
The chief failures of Texas' judicial-selection system are:
-
Candidates raise obscene amounts of money from interests with business
before the courts; and
-
Get elected by a voting majority that knows nothing about them.
A frustrated Chief Justice Tom Phillips told lawmakers this month, "Our
partisan, high-dollar judicial selection system has diminished public confidence
in our courts" and "damaged our reputation throughout the country."
The Chief Justice rightly endorsed the most far-reaching reform on the
table. This proposed constitutional amendment would mandate gubernatorial
appointments of judges subject to Senate confirmation and periodic yes-no
retention elections (SJR33/HJR63). Yet propos-ing this amendment is not
enough, in part because voters may shoot it down. The legislature also
should shine disinfecting sunlight into the high court's musty cham-bers.
Air it out
Texas Supreme Court justices exercise huge discretion in deciding which
cases to hear on appeal (they typically accept 11 percent of some 900 annual
appeals). Case acceptance requires at least four of the nine justices to
support a "petition for review." While 14 other states publicly disclose
how justices vote on such petitions, Texas' high court keeps these voting
records secret from the very voters who pick the justices. Criticizing
this unaccountable system in a 1996 opinion, Justice Nathan Hecht wrote,
"If our votes on applications [for review] were always public, some would
change."
To restore some sight to blind voters, Rep. Eddie Rodri-guez has introduced
a bill that would publicly disclose justices' complete voting records (HB1498).
"Public
disclosure is essential to providing accountability," says Rodriquez.
"As long as Texas voters are entrusted with electing supreme court justices,
they have the right to know which justices accept or deny petitions for
review." (A TPJ lawsuit to force such disclosure is pending in federal
district court.)
As Chief Justice Phillips recently said about the wider problem of having
uninformed voters elect judges, "While justice should be blind, voting
shouldn't be."•
|
The Dollar Docket
Cases heard by the Texas Supreme Court in February and corresponding contributions
to justices from the parties and/or attorneys.
February 5, 2003
|
McIntyre v. |
$500
|
Ramirez |
$0
|
|
|
Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. |
$252,677
|
Zeltwanger |
$89,475
|
|
|
In the interest of L.MI.. |
$0
|
|
|
In re State Bar of Texas |
$0
|
|
|
February 12, 2003
|
In the interest of B.L.D. |
$0
|
|
|
In the interest of M.S. |
$0
|
|
|
San Antonio State Hospital v. |
$0
|
Cowen |
$2,500
|
|
|
February 19, 2003
|
Union Pacific Resource v. |
$38,153
|
Hankins |
$23,000
|
|
|
9 cases consolidated |
$1,100
|
|
|
Amer. Manufacturers Mutual Ins. v. |
$50,280
|
Schaefer |
$8,500
|
Grand Total for February: |
$466,185
|
|
|