Texas is one of just six states that select all of its judges in partisan elections. Critics say that creates conflicts of interest and politics becomes more important than qualifications. In the third part of “Texas Judges: Out of Order,” we look at the pros and cons of the way Texas selects judges and some alternatives."All rise, the 95th District Court of the State of Texas is now in session. The Honorable Ken Molberg presiding.”
Lawyers snap to attention as Judge Ken Molberg prepares to rule on a motion involving two healthcare companies. At one point he raises his voice and tells an attorney to stop talking when she interrupts him. Never mind, that the attorney’s law firm contributed generously to Judge Molberg’s reelection campaign. As it turns out, the opposing law firm in the case donated too.
"It’s not unusual for me given the many years I’ve been in this community as a lawyer before I was a judge to know both sides of that table very, very well and to have had both of them contribute to my campaign,” said Molberg.
“You just saw a small motion where I got a little testy with one of the lawyers who happened to be one of my largest contributors. That lawyer didn’t get any slack out there this morning,” he pointed out.
Judge Molberg is a former Dallas County Democratic Party Chair and one of the biggest fundraisers among the county’s civil and criminal judges. Records show that in the first six months of his reelection campaign Molberg raised more than $175,000 just in case he drew a primary opponent which he didn’t. And 93% of the contributions came from attorneys and the legal community many of whom appear in his court.
How that’s perceived by the public bothers some of Molberg’s colleagues on the bench including Judge Jim Jordan, whose courtroom is down the hall. Like Molberg and most Texas judges, Jordan’s campaign contributions also come almost entirely from lawyers.
“Any litigant who comes into the court should leave the court knowing that their case was decided on the law and the facts and not believing that their case was decided because the judge received a contribution from an attorney or one of the parties,” said Jordan.
“And as hard as we work to make sure we make our decisions based on the rule of law, it’s difficult to fight the perception if we’re taking money from the lawyers and the parties coming into our courts, he said.”
Money and party politics are the biggest reasons Jordan wants to do away with partisan elections as a way of choosing Texas judges.
“A judge’s robe is black. It’s not blue or red. So we need to get our selection off the partisan ballot," said Jordan.
Molberg says attorneys contributing money don’t expect favors; they just want to elect judges who know the law. And Molberg is adamantly opposed to the so-called retention system used in at least 14 states, where judges are appointed often by the legal community or the governor. Then, at the end of their terms, voters decide whether to keep the judges or get rid of them.
“The reality is a guy like me does not want a body of 12 lawyers deciding who are going to be the judges out here,” explained Molberg. “I feel a lot more comfortable if the guy who works down at the gas station is in on the deal. I don’t want the governor just saying this is who your judge is going to be. I think that is very unhealthy.”
Full Article & Source:
Texas Judges: Out of Order - Part 3
See Also:
Texas Judges: Out Of Order
Texas Judges: Out of Order - Part 2
6 comments:
In states where judges are elected, it's not any better than those where they are appointed.
I think the problem is most people never come before a judge so they don't really think about who they are voting for and don't realize how important it is to put the right person in that job.
Whos watching the judges?
Campaign contributions are very troublesome vis-a-vis conflict of interest.
Judges should be appointed, with retention elections, and watched by a senior volunteer corp on stipend, reporting to the public prior to election.
So many judges are on ego driven power trips. I don't know how we let them become this powerful.
Judges like Molberg give the good judges nightmares. The judge is the final decision maker on the take and that is a formula for disaster (by design) not only for the left out party in the process but this has legs and those legs must be cut off.
'Judge Molberg is a former Dallas County Democratic Party Chair and one of the biggest fundraisers among the county’s civil and criminal judges. Records show that in the first six months of his reelection campaign Molberg raised more than $175,000 just in case he drew a primary opponent which he didn’t.
And 93% of the contributions came from attorneys and the legal community many of whom appear in his court.'
Pardon me, Judge Molberg, did you say attorneys who contribute to elections don't expect favors; they just want a judge who knows the law?
Why then, Judge Molberg, do these attorneys give to both sides running?
This would be laughable if I had not lived it. This judge should be held accountable for at least one case ruled on last week. He ignored evidence and knowingly allowed altered document in his the court. Believe him at your risk. (One of his victims)
Post a Comment