Ideally, being able to elect judges seems like a fair concept. Both parties present a field candidate and the voters decide which to choose; however, this system is flawed. Not only is it difficult for the people to obtain any real information about their candidates, there is also the issue of “…Texas justice being sold to the highest bidder.” As a result, many cases have been influenced because of these generous contributions to the candidates. Rather than electing judicial officials, Texas should adopt a system of having a governor, or the Senate, appoint its judges, then every few years, voters sustain the right to retain those judges if they so desire. To begin with, the problem with having the people elect their judges is that the citizens know next to nothing about who they are voting for. Of course, it is important the people have a say in the decision-making, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone is an expert in government. Candidates have no problem in persuading the people that the other candidate is evil and corrupted and not suitable to serve. Furthermore, it is difficult to learn how well a judge preforms his or her job once they are put into office. Why? While it is easy to uncover corruption amongst our …show more content…
As was stated before it is widely known how dishonest politicians can be. If judges were to be appointed by an amoral governor the people could be left with a judge just as twisted. Many argue that the people are more aware of what goes on in daily life and how the law might affect the common people. But, many forget that our politicians reflect our choices. It makes sense that the leaders voters chose to represent them should be trusted to select our magistrates. But, then, there is always the benefit of being able to remove judges. Appointed judges are chosen for a life term. Elections ensure accountability though not necessarily for the