EDITORIAL RESPONSE; Accountability of Chief Justice Wallace
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson has provided a lame excuse for his own malfeasance. In effect what he is saying is if the he is given a life time appointment to draw an above average salary and benefits from our Texas Public Treasury (funded by us, the taxpayers) he will stop violating the supreme Law of the Land. His excuse for his neglect and refusal to perform his administrative duties is the requirement he ask the sovereign people of this land, known as Texas, for a renewal of his employment contract every six years.
That's like telling your employer that if he will promise to pay you for the rest of your life, you will start doing the job you have already been paid to perform!
It may be that many citizens do not know that it is the DUTY of the Chief Justice to Administer the Law that governs the conduct of others who are elected to serve as a Justice in our Texas Supreme Court. It is His DUTY, as Chief Justice to Administer the Law on ALL Judicial Officials in EVERY Court on our Land of Texas, as well.
To aid him in the performance of this Administrative Function we have created and funded the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Office of Court Administration. HE HAS NO EXCUSE for his neglect and refusal to perform the Administrative DUTIES he has been paid, and continues to be paid, to perform.
He wants our Legislators, and the people of Texas, to believe he will do his job if he is appointed by the Governor rather than elected by the people? This makes no sense. Furthermore; the system of appointing Judicial Officials has been tried in the past and failed. In fact; Our United States of America would NOT be independent from the United Kingdom if not for a system of Judicial Appointments.
Any who have read our Declaration of Independence knows a major cause for our separation was the malfeasance of Judicial Officials appointed by the King of England. These Judicial Officials, fearing they would not be reappointed if they complied with the Law that limited the power and authority of the King, and the Lords the King appointed to Parliament. That Law is known as the Magna Carta (Latin) or in present day English, the Great Charter of Liberties. Enacted into common law for the entire Realm of the Kingdom 800 years ago, it’s purpose and function was identical to the purpose and function of our Constitution for the United States and of this State.
We the People of Texas declared Independence from Mexico for the same cause, among others. For good reason we replace the system of judicial selection, by appointment, that had been the practice in the United Kingdom and in Mexico.
I agree it is time to "set a high standard for judicial selection". But the problem is not the selection by election process. The problem is (1) the neglect and refusal of the Chief Justice, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and the Office of Court Administration to perform the duties they are paid by us, the people of Texas, to perform, and (2) the Judicial Secrecy Laws that are exempt disclosure to the public of complaints filed with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct and the public disclosure of few disciplinary actions taken in response to those complaints.
EDITORIAL – 2-12-09 in the Austin American Statesman
Retooling Texas' judiciary
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson of the Texas Supreme Court warned the legislature that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon force it to change how state judges are selected.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson warned the Texas Legislature on Wednesday that it might soon have no choice but to radically alter the state's partisan election system for choosing judges. But once again, it looks like it's a federal court that will force the state to deal with this festering problem.
There are two problems with the current election system: Judges must raise money to campaign, and most of it comes from lawyers who practice before them and monied interests likely to face lawsuits. The cost isn't just financial. As Wallace told lawmakers in his State of the Judiciary address, polls show that "more than 80 percent of those questioned believe contributions influence a judge's decision. That's an alarming figure — four out of five."
The second problem is that too many judges get elected or defeated not because of their qualifications, their records or even their rulings, but simply because of their party affiliation. Yet judges and courts are supposed to be politically neutral. It's a system ripe for abuse, and it should be scrapped.
This issue has been batted around for years, but the groups most resistant to change are the political parties themselves.
Change may be coming, Jefferson said, because the U.S. Supreme Court has before it a case, Caperton v. Massey, in which it "will decide whether due process requires the recusal of an elected judge who has benefited from a litigant's campaign expenditures." The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in this case from West Virginia on March 3.
If the court rules for recusal, the Texas Supreme Court could be put out of business, as could the state's appeals courts and many district judges.
"The status quo is broken," Jefferson said. "It is time for Texas to set a high standard for judicial selection."
Jefferson favors some variation of the merit system, in which judges must get voter approval to keep their offices but do not run against other candidates. At the least, he said, judicial candidates should not be included in straight-ticket voting. The chief justice is right, and the Legislature should act.
Informed
|
Return to Homepage |