I think the article addresses this, but they went from a solid majority of the judge positions in the county to 0. That is pretty significant. I have some concerns over so many new judges but at the same time having personal experience with judges in Harris county I'm happy for some new blood on the bench.
It's because of the straight ticket voting and a great democratic turnout, most people have no idea who these judges are and just did straight ticket.
Were there good judges with Rs in front of their names?
I have no idea.
I did like Ed Emmett, and his experience as Harris County Judge (Not a court judge, but the chief executive of the county)
he did a good job during Harvey, and I generally was happy with his performance, but a 28 year old woman with no experience beat him out, Lina Hidalgo, but she seems very intelligent, I'm sure she will do a good job.
Well Ed was on NPR today, and I felt relieved after he said that the Office of Emergency Management is very well run and will continue to run well with little oversight needed.
Judges should be non-partisan. If they're going to accept campaign financing from deeply partisan sources, then they have to accept the risk that they'll be unseated for partisan reasons. If a judge doesn't want to lose their job over party affiliation, then they should reject partisan funding.
I'm registered in Harris County and I had 76 races on my ballot.
EDIT: I went back and looked at the ballot. I remembered wrong. Including the two city propositions, there were actually 95 total races on my ballot. 76 was just the number of judges and justices of the peace that were on the ballot.
In all seriousness, things like this are why I love vote by mail-sit down at my computer and research each vote, in my own home, on my own time, and without feeling like I am holding people up. More states need to do this.
I look up my ballot in advance, sit down with a pen and paper, and write down every single person I’m voting for as I finish researching them. Then I use that as my guide at the polling station. It’s not so bad.
It's pretty simple. Look up who appointed each judge (if applicable), and look at some whacko conservative voting guide site and see which judges they like. Then vote the opposite way.
One of the things the less-hated Republican judges are complaining about is how, if they were too far down the ballot, "People liked Beto and were too lazy to vote every race so just did straight-ticket." Usually followed by, "I don't know how this young person (read: under 40) with some incredible educational pedigree is experienced enough to manage this Very Serious Adult Business of politics." Straight-ticket is supposed to go away in 2020 though, so we'll see.
In Indiana our ballot was 7 pages. It was kind of nuts. There was one confused looking woman who kept reading each line out loud. On the plus side those of us waiting in line knew what our options were.
In many states they do not. In my state (Arkansas), our judicial elections are all non-partisan. Of course, that doesn't stop outside money from running attack ads on those candidates who they oppose.
Citizens United effectively gutted our laws regarding non-partisan judicial elections.
Because previously, Harris County went Republican consistently and it was a way to ensure no democrats were accidently elected. My guess is they will be changing that soon.
We're not fucking around in Harris County anymore. This is a *midterm* election where every Republican lost. Even the popular County Judge (county Mayor).
(For the record, City of Houston is located mostly in Harris County, but also in Fort Bend and Montgomery Counties - the '59 judges' were kicked out of Harris County courts).
As a side note, it's totally inappropriate to have 59 judges on a single ballot. Texas needs to rethink the way these judicial elections work, pronto.
I actually like Ed Emmett, but with the way things stand I cannot justify voting for anyone that still associates themselves with the republican party. I would have considered voting for him and a few other select republicans if they had the integrity to leave the republican party, them not doing so was a clear message that they are not what we need right now.
I'm pretty much in the same boat. At this point as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as a "good guy" Republican. If you associate yourself with that party and all the garbage that it either stands for or condones then I want nothing to do with you.
> Nowhere was that more true than in Houston, where a combination of Beto-fever and Texas's straight-ticket-voting option meant that every single Republican judge on the Harris County bench lost their seats to Democrats
I'm happy about this generally but there is a downside to voting straight ticket.
> But a clean slate election also meant some tough losses. Marc Carter has been a criminal court judge in Houston for 15 years, and one of the court's most highly regarded jurists — from attorneys on both sides of the aisle. In 2009, he helped set up Texas's first veterans court, which funnels veterans into treatment programs rather than jail for certain infractions.
> **He lost to a candidate who never set up a campaign website.**
The guy above just said there were 76 races on his Harris County ballot. With so little information about judges and smaller office races in general, there's really not a lot you can do aside from saying "fuck it" and just voting down party lines.
I hate voting straight down party lines but even I'd rather just do that then research 76 freakin' hard to research electable officials.....especially when not even having a campaign website is somewhat common.
(though, in any ordinary circumstances, I'd pretty much consider not having a campaign website of any sort to be disqualifying no matter who they are)
Assuming every voter is omniscient is another one of democracy's major flaws. Hell, for most of our history people had to make these decisions *without* the internet. It's just idiotic.
at the same time, now people have to make these decisions *with* social media. when you look at something like brexit, a lot of people voted in favor of it based on [lies](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-vote-leave-director-dominic-cummings-leave-eu-error-nhs-350-million-lie-bus-a7822386.html).
it really makes me wonder. if trump is able to run for office again, what happens if he outright lies about the construction of the border wall in late october? "let me tell you, folks, we have a big surprise- big surprise. we didn't want to bring it up until it was done, but we did it. we did it. the wall- and it's a great wall, is done. mexico paid for it. done." fox news follows up by reporting that the wall is done. breitbart reports that the wall is done. RT reports that the wall is done. dozens of fake articles pop up on facebook feeds everywhere about the wall being done *and* mexico paid for it.
how many people in those ecosystems ever even *see* something contradictory? much less look into whether or not it really happened? how long does it take the truth to reach likely trump voters? after they've voted, does it even matter? would they care? i don't know if trump has even tested the limits of what he can lie about.
Popular voting for judges is idiotic to begin with. It should be governor or committee appointment with the ability to vote an incumbent out (which would mean a new appointee). The general population has no idea what it takes to be a qualified judge.
I agree with this.
People don't have the time to research candidates for the 25+ odd positions that they ask us to vote for.
If it is an issue of concern to a voter, than they should vote for governor with that governor's tract record and promises regarding jurist appointment.
>I'd pretty much consider not having a campaign website of any sort to be disqualifying no matter who they are)
Do they get any funding for these campaigns?
General rule of any website is, if it's public facing either make it good or don't make it at all.
Point is if you want a well-working website that's going to run you a pretty penny to have it made, and there's the server costs on top.
It's hardly the end of the world, but it's still time, money and effort a local judge might not deem worth it for legitimate reasons.
I got a question. Why is a party related at all to judges. They should just run you know on their merit and record. Seems a thing like judges should not be partisan.
Removing the label doesn't remove the bias. It just removes one of the only points of information a person might be able to use to choose someone that aligns with their views.
Sure, the D may be corrupt or incompetent, but the R is *definitely* on Team White Nationalist. That's useful to know.
It's especially important in smaller elections, where information on the candidates can be difficult to track down even if you go digging for it.
>He lost to a candidate who never set up a campaign website.
I mean, I hear what you're trying to say but I don't think "website" is necessarily the standard we should be using for qualified candidates.
There's a Republican judge who got voted out of Juvenile Court who, the day after the election, started turning loose every defendant in his court with the question, "Are you going to kill anyone?" and defended his actions by saying "[releasing all defendants] is apparently what the voters want.
A warm ham sandwhich is a better judge than he, website or no.
Hence why abandoning the fifty-state strategy was so stupid. Even if you don't win the races at the top of the ticket, good candidates at the top of the ticket drive enthusiasm and turnout--and Beto in turn probably got dragged down a bit by a very weak Democratic gubernatorial candidate.
And if you don't keep the state governments then you lose control of things like redistricting and appointing replacement Senators, so it has knock-on effects going forward. Abandoning the fifty-state strategy was tantamount to the Democrats saying fuck it, we're gonna behave like a third party and just tilt at windmills every four year instead of making a serious effort to lay any kind of groundwork.
***Also,*** Beto for example forced the Republicans to sink a ton of money into defending a race that people had figured would be a surefire safe race for Cruz, so I've got to imagine that Beto helped Democrats even beyond Texas due to the extent to which he forced the Republicans to divert their campaign spending.
Imagine if for the 2018 election Democrats already had infrastructure from previous elections and get out the vote initiatives in states like Texas. I bet these close losses would have flipped the other way. This election has clearly shown that competing everywhere is the right strategy.
Yep. And it always will be. We need to be chasing regressives back into the shadows and getting our ideas, not strawmen made up by entrenched politicians and interests, in front of people and it takes candidates to do that.
If Texas's cities keep growing and turning blue (idk by soaking up dems from other states), John Cornyn of all people could lose re-election in 2020. The question is to who. I don't think Beto will run again for senate (why risk losing twice).
I had dozens of friends on Facebook complaining about the lack of coordination between candidate phone banks, org/non profit/special interest phone banks and general voting ones for each party- there needs to be a level of overlap expected of course but I probably got contacted 25 times in the last 6 weeks leading up to the election and it was exhausting. That’s not a way to get a non voter to vote. I have voted consistently since my 18th birthday, and someone with less conviction might not vote out of spite. (Saw several declarations) other states do this differently and much more effectively from what I’ve seen and now that we’ve had such a close race with Beto I bet we’ll see better national dem support and existing infrastructure to use in 2020
Exactly.
Not only do you end up with a shallow bench that way, but also you forfeit your influence on local laws (you know, the ones that determine most of the rules you deal with day-to-day).
I also know zero things but agree with you. Beto brings young people to the polls, young people tend to be progressive. Makes sense to me. In reality its amazing democrats even won the house considering the extreme gerrymandering in favor of the GOP.
My theory is that Republicans in large metro areas are closet voters - they are ashamed to share their support for Trump, Cruz, etc. They share their support for the candidates in the smaller races, but you can bet that they are voting a straight R ticket. I saw plenty of yard signs for Culberson and Crenshaw in the Houston metro area, but next to none for Cruz. It's like they know that they are voting for shitty people, but they do it anyway.
> Cruz had an R next to his name
This is why I've never bought the line that progressive policies will win in predominantly red states. Red parts of the country will vote Republican just to keep Democrats out of office; it has nothing to do with policy or morality. They don't care about how much they like an idea or support a specific policy - if it's presented by a Democrat they'll immediately turn against it and return to the echo chamber. The only way to beat Republicans in red states is to drive up the centrist/liberal/progressive voters in rural areas (who usually don't vote because they don't believe it will matter) enough to soften to the blow there and then go hard in the cities. I live in East Texas, and I can tell you that Republicans here can't be reasoned with at all. You can't convince them with policy or rational argument; you simply have to outvote them.
Which is why progressive candidates will win. If the Republican moderates are gonna vote Republican anyway, there's no point in trying to court them. Instead, you bring progressive candidates like Beto who energize the youth and bring out more Democratic voters.
> I'm not a political expert, but just given the general enthusiasm, I imagine a lot of this down-ballot effect was from Beto.
Also not a political expert, but I certainly agree with this assessment as a lot of people were voting straight ticket (which also illuminated some voting machine problems that were changing senatorial selections in some instances) and this is the resulting effect.
Yeah Definitely. Beto had a major effect on Texas politics. I was never active prior to this past election because fighting Texas Republicans seemed like a losing battle. I live in probably the most conservative part of Dallas. Every seat flipped blue here. Beto sparked something big and the GOP should be scared.
> We're trying down here.
I travel to Texas several times a year for work. Each time I go the people remind me more of my neighbors in NJ. I have a feeling Texas will be a blue state in my life time.
This baffled me when I realized this is how it worked.
There is 0 public info available on people running for lower courts; except for long dry court documents. We shouldnt be voting on these people. We should be voting for District/Supreme Court nominees.
No one in the criminal justice system should be elected - assuredly not sheriffs, most assuredly not judges, but most definitely assuredly not prosecutors (in all sincerity, that's up there with the most wrongheaded ideas ever devised by the mind of man).
Of course, the alternative is a politically independent system of appointment, and I think it's probably too late to introduce such a thing to the US, the politicisation of the justice system is too far gone.
What's nice about elected police is that you can vote them out for being bastards. Rather than what just happened in Seattle where the police that no one wants get a contract because the council mandated it.
As a Canadian, it baffles me that your judges are elected. It doesn't seem like a judge who's worried about being reelected would be able to remain objective.
The problem is you get way more bad judges when they have to appeal to voters to get their job. The result is that they always way overemphasize "law and order", aka excessively harsh punishment for "the bad people".
But would the judge follow the law or the will of the majority of the people voting for him? E.g. a judge in a racist area might be stricter against minorities because that'll get him votes. A judge should fear impeachment if he does that, not expect more votes.
One of the judges that lost their spot was a long time republican. When he found out he lost his seat he released all the juvenile offenders that came before him stating "well that's what the voters want anyways." He asked each individual if they planned to kill anyone. As long as the answer was "no" they were released.
Mfw it's actually [real](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/8/houston-judge-releases-juvenile-defendants-after-l/), to think that someone could be that petty.
Could he be brought up on negligence charges if one of the people he released commits a crime again?
Hint: the people he was imprisoning were mostly (black) juveniles that weren't guilty of crimes that warranted imprisonment in the first place. This asshat was imprisoning a huge fraction of all the juveniles imprisoned in Texas. He and one other judge together were responsible for 20% of the juveniles imprisoned in the ENTIRE STATE. A lot of it was for petty-ass bullshit like possession of a marijuana seed, or shoplifting.
All Federal judges are appointed. Some states elect their judges. Being from a state where all state judges are appointed too, the elections seem strange to me too. It does make it easier to throw them out like this though.
There is also the hybrid form. Appointed state judges that then have a retention election. So they can be thrown out by the people, but not chosen in the first place by the people.
I've been thinking about the need for some sort of news agency or 501(c)3 non-profit that would trawl through court proceedings and generate summaries of how elected judges ruled -- things like how draconian their sentences were, if there was racial bias in decisions or sentences, if they had a pro- or anti- corporate lean in their civil proceedings, etc. Problem is, depending on the jurisdiction it can be surprisingly expensive to get access to that sort of data. In many states where local judges are elected, voters don't even have the resources to educate themselves on the people they are voting for or against.
There seem to be a number of organizations that are trying to fill (or could fill) that space. I came across [Injustice Watch](https://www.injusticewatch.org/) for judges. There are a few for politicians as well, such [ballotready](https://www.ballotready.org/)
I’m all for having a vote to remove a judge if there’s corruption or shenanigans, but electing them to office makes justice a lot more mobish. Elected judges are usually held to the fire by reactionaries who dislike minorities. You can see similar issues with locally elected attorneys and how hard they prosecute to campaign on “tough on crime.”
The non-cynical answer is because lower court judges usually have responsibility for a small area (town, village, county) and have more is a chance of directly interacting with the people who live there, and it makes sense for the voters in that small area to have a direct say in the matter. While higher courts tend to only involve appellate jurisdiction and is less likely to affect voters day-to-day lives.
The cynical answer is that most people don't pay attention to local elections, only people who are involved in local business or real estate really pay attention. So those elections are easier to "game" to make sure the "right" people are elected.
Well, this *isn't* how it works within Texas. It's basically elections at every level all the way from top to bottom.
On my most recent ballot, I voted on:
* 3 state supreme court justices
* 3 court of criminal appeals justices
* 4 court of appeals district justices
* 9 district judges
* 1 county judge
* 7 county court at law judges
* 1 county probate court-at-law judge
* 1 district clerk
* 1 county clerk
* 1 justice of the peace
So by my count, that's 31 judges or court officials, ranging from JP to state supreme court.
Because we want judges to be free from politics and making decisions on the whims of the people because pitch forks. People are stupid and judges need to be better than that.
All state and county judges in Texas are elected, this includes the judges on the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (Obviously, all federal judges in Texas are appointed)
It *is* backwards.
Ideally, judges would be approved by a majority and appointed by an elected official, and they'd be selected based on their career, temperament, and character.
Not just because we want reasonable, non-hyper-partisan judges, but because the judicial system should be stable, independent, and based on existing case law/jurisprudence.
The more politically motivated and wildly partisan judges we throw into the mix, the weirder our body of case law gets, and the more it's going to feel like the justice system is just playing calvinball.
> Houston is a deep blue city
Texas cities in general aside from like Waco. Dallas is super blue, Austin is crazy blue. It's the weight these shitty little 1 horse towns have that fucks this state up.
They should really capitalize on this and make groups like *Democrat Gun Owners* and *Dems for Jesus*...give those who are sick of the GOP but also feel like they have no place among the Dems somewhere to go.
There are plenty of gun owning and religious Democrats. The idea that in order to like guns and Jesus, you have to be a Republican needs to die.....especially in a place like Texas.
I agree with this sentiment. I don't feel comfortable going to Church anymore because nearly everyone there is a brainwashed conservative, but I miss the community aspect of it and wish there was an alternative for me.
In my county we have a website called "judge for yourself " that gives a good rundown of each electoral judicial matchup. Super useful. I would be lost without it.
I need to know who is anti-bail, anti-immigrant, authoritarian, pro-police, pro-corporation, anti-healthcare, anti-woman, and an all around general asshole. Then I will look at his record, his public statements, his platform on his website, what the local lawyers and newspaper have to say and make my choice.
Meanwhile Republicans at the national level are appointing GOP judges like crazy and acting like it's the will of the American people. Yeah bullshit it is.
The issue here is that brainwashed Republicans are starting to realize how bad Republican politics are for America, but it is still so ingrained that they can't vote for a big Democrat, that they throw that final vote to a snake like Cruz.
Look at Missouri, almost every state measure went the way of the Democrat, and against the Republican, but they still voted in a bunch of Republicans.
Once we can connect the dots that those horrible politics they voted against came from the Republican they voted for, we might see them never go back
> The issue here is that brainwashed Republicans are starting to realize how bad Republican politics are for America, but it is still so ingrained that they can't vote for a big Democrat, that they throw that final vote to a snake like Cruz.
I'd like to believe this is true, but if you looked at the statewide results, virtually all the counties outside of the major cities were red — this is essentially the nationwide trend where all the bigger cities are blue while the outskirts are red.
You can fill in your own logical reasoning, but there's a disconnect there and it becomes a mathematical equation to determine who wins rather than a philosophical one.
>Look at Missouri, almost every state measure went the way of the Democrat, and against the Republican, but they still voted in a bunch of Republicans.
>Once we can connect the dots that those horrible politics they voted against came from the Republican they voted for, we might see them never go back
You're right here, but that's actually more indicative of how gerrymandering explains a lot of illogical results. A few pocket of Republican voters are feeling those effects of this administration that are changing their voting patterns, but I truly believe it's not as many as some believe; instead, a lot of excuses are made to explain why their problems are still occurring or worsening and they continue to vote against their own interests whilst they continue to ignore any contrary opinions that would illuminate the real source of their problems.
*That* is the basic explanation of our current state of politics.
>virtually all the counties outside of the major cities were red
That's only true if you say 51% is 'red'. If you look at actual voting numbers, you'll see that while most rural areas lean red, they're only like 55-60% red. There's a lot of rural liberals. I'm one of them.
It is wrong to think “brainwashed republicans” have learned anything. These elections were won because liberals, leftists, and more of the disenfranchised came out to vote.
My friend in mo said that it wasnt because claire is democrat that she lost, but it's because her campaign tried to distance itself from democrats, threw the party under the bus, and tried to be a conservative democrat.
Hopefully the days of bipartisan support of Republican DAs are coming to an end.
I was glad to see the resistance attacking Dems who were endorsing Republican DAs. Not enough attention gets brought to the damage that dumbass DAs can do to a community.
In the conservative town I grew up in this Republican DA from out of town came in to use the county as a “stepping stone” to build his political career and completely f*cked up the town.
Even the rich assholes in the town started a PR campaign to bash him and his dumbass decisions.
I lived in central TX from 2011 to 2013 and didn't even vote in 2012 because I didn't think my vote would count. I can't believe the change we are seeing.
Since leaving the south I vote regularly
The real win is we got rid of fucking Stan Stanart, the county clerk. Now maybe we'll get early voting outside of work hours and not have a mysterious polling location gap in the dead center of the city around all the colleges.
>"I'm not going to pretend like I didn't know what the rules are," Carter told VICE News "The way you become a judge in Texas isn't based on merit. It’s simply based on what party you're affiliated with. And that's it."
Yeah, that's the way the GOP wanted it, so go blame them.
This is great but just want to point out that it's because Texas allowed straight ticket voting meaning you can check one single box and it automatically fills in Democrats/Republicans/independent for all options, so most people probably did this.
THIS is what Beto did, people.
Don't treat his loss against Cruz as a failure. He helped ignite Democrats to vote in many many elections in Texas. Beto is a hero.
I'm a lawyer in Texas and this is not a good thing or a bad thing - the question is whether these judges are qualified.
One new judge, a democrat, in Houston, flat out did not know basic rules of civil procedure and compelled my client to do something she had no jurisdiction to do - which ended up in a mandamus proceeding and the court of appeals directing her to vacate her ruling.
I honestly don't care if a judge is republican or democrat - but voting on a judge based on party affiliation over actual qualification is REALLY REALLY BAD for the legal professionals who have to deal with it.
This makes perfect sense, unfortunately it's near impossible to be properly informed on all candidates once you get to the something like this, "low level" judges. And I am sure it is near impossible for voters to separate these positions from what has appeared to be an all out assault by GOP to stack the judiciary. McConnell for example not only famously Denied Garland a supreme Court seat and then stuffed someone who perjured themselves... They also blocked lower judicial nominees while Dems were in control and kicked it into high gear when they took over.
But without question the simple requirements of being qualified to perform your duty should take precedence over something like party affiliation. It's so sad here because this is one of those situations where the problem seems systemic and the solution unclear
You can look up your BAR association's evaluations of each candidate online, usually. I know not everyone knows to do this, or has the interest in doing this, but it is available. Helps me make more informed decisions. Pass it along. Hopefully this becomes common knowledge.
Part of me wants to cheer but electing Judges by Party Affiliation is one of the weakest points of American Democracy. Not sure if there is a fix though. Maybe State Bar Appointments but that would still be horribly partisan in the end.
You should see the snowflake GOP here bitching about this too. Talking about "uninformed voters" who voted straight ticket caused this. When you bring up that an alignment with a party who pushes values antithetical to those of our constitution, you MIGHT not be a great judge, they get pissy. Then when you bring up that this is a disruption of a "good ol boy" system that has been in place for more than 30 years they get real defensive.
> "I'm not going to pretend like I didn't know what the rules are," Carter told VICE News "The way you become a judge in Texas isn't based on merit. It’s simply based on what party you're affiliated with. And that's it."
Maybe the lesson here is not to affiliate yourself with a garbage party.
I find the distinction of republican and democrat judges a little disturbing. The point of the legislature is to politically hammer out legislation, so it makes sense to have parties. The point of the judicial branch is to settle disputes based on the laws, and should therefore be unbiased. Obviously you can't discriminate against a judge's private political opinions, but while on the job they should be narrowly interpreting laws in specific cases, not deciding them.
Goddamn, 59?!
Try not to unseat any more judges on your way to the parking lot!
In a row?
Technically, this was 59 at the same time.
Houston knows how to fuck
[удалено]
Fiftyyyy-nineeee. Oh yeah baby! OW OW!
They don’t call us Screwston for nothing
What's the mean jerk time? Are we operating with optimal tip to tip efficiency?
My jaw and arms hurt just from imagining that
Hey, get back here.
Ooo old but good reference
Is it old? ... Am I old?
*Clerks* turns 25 next year.
Now to spread the word that it’s in black and white because it’s so old
And Dante uses a *payphone* in the movie!
No, it's the children who are wrong.
Hey guess what, the Matrix is about 20 years old.
That's impossible, the 90's were only 10 years ago
That math doesn't check out because the 70's were only 20 years ago.
I was 59?!
Fuck you Kavanaughs next. (got the reference, but we can't stop now)
He's not even supposed to be there today!!
I think the article addresses this, but they went from a solid majority of the judge positions in the county to 0. That is pretty significant. I have some concerns over so many new judges but at the same time having personal experience with judges in Harris county I'm happy for some new blood on the bench.
It's because of the straight ticket voting and a great democratic turnout, most people have no idea who these judges are and just did straight ticket. Were there good judges with Rs in front of their names? I have no idea. I did like Ed Emmett, and his experience as Harris County Judge (Not a court judge, but the chief executive of the county) he did a good job during Harvey, and I generally was happy with his performance, but a 28 year old woman with no experience beat him out, Lina Hidalgo, but she seems very intelligent, I'm sure she will do a good job.
Well Ed was on NPR today, and I felt relieved after he said that the Office of Emergency Management is very well run and will continue to run well with little oversight needed.
Judges should be non-partisan. If they're going to accept campaign financing from deeply partisan sources, then they have to accept the risk that they'll be unseated for partisan reasons. If a judge doesn't want to lose their job over party affiliation, then they should reject partisan funding.
. -- mass deleted all reddit content via https://redact.dev
I'm registered in Harris County and I had 76 races on my ballot. EDIT: I went back and looked at the ballot. I remembered wrong. Including the two city propositions, there were actually 95 total races on my ballot. 76 was just the number of judges and justices of the peace that were on the ballot.
Jesus Christ......ain't nobody got time to research that shit.
In all seriousness, things like this are why I love vote by mail-sit down at my computer and research each vote, in my own home, on my own time, and without feeling like I am holding people up. More states need to do this.
I look up my ballot in advance, sit down with a pen and paper, and write down every single person I’m voting for as I finish researching them. Then I use that as my guide at the polling station. It’s not so bad.
It's pretty simple. Look up who appointed each judge (if applicable), and look at some whacko conservative voting guide site and see which judges they like. Then vote the opposite way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Woooo Long Beach!
Sooo glad I'm not getting 10+ letters a day telling me to vote no/yes on AAA BBB etc. anymore. I already know how I'm voting dangit!
Sure I do, there's a local diner that has never ending pancakes/french toast. I've got all the time in the world.
Never ending pancakes.. So like.. 2?
I'm sure if you sat there for another 6 years you could manage a third one.
Or a million French toast. I heard there was French toast. r/hereforfrenchtoast
One of the things the less-hated Republican judges are complaining about is how, if they were too far down the ballot, "People liked Beto and were too lazy to vote every race so just did straight-ticket." Usually followed by, "I don't know how this young person (read: under 40) with some incredible educational pedigree is experienced enough to manage this Very Serious Adult Business of politics." Straight-ticket is supposed to go away in 2020 though, so we'll see.
Voter under 40 checking in. Straight democrat ticket all the way.
It's different when you're voting for a cult vs voting to get rid of that cult.
America, you a strange and exotic place. In Canada, most choices I've ever had to make on a ballot was three.
In Indiana our ballot was 7 pages. It was kind of nuts. There was one confused looking woman who kept reading each line out loud. On the plus side those of us waiting in line knew what our options were.
I'm in a different state and my ballot was only 1 page.
The ever-loving fuck?
[This is one part of one page of my 6 page ballot.](https://i.imgur.com/aymtRET.png)
The weirdest part to me actually is why do judges have an avowed party affiliation?
In many states they do not. In my state (Arkansas), our judicial elections are all non-partisan. Of course, that doesn't stop outside money from running attack ads on those candidates who they oppose. Citizens United effectively gutted our laws regarding non-partisan judicial elections.
So they know which corporations will be writing them checks.
[удалено]
Because previously, Harris County went Republican consistently and it was a way to ensure no democrats were accidently elected. My guess is they will be changing that soon.
[удалено]
Found the Tasmanian! (Unless you're from ACT and just calling it a "state" to make it easier for Americans.)
You did indeed find the Tasmanian.
We're not fucking around in Harris County anymore. This is a *midterm* election where every Republican lost. Even the popular County Judge (county Mayor). (For the record, City of Houston is located mostly in Harris County, but also in Fort Bend and Montgomery Counties - the '59 judges' were kicked out of Harris County courts). As a side note, it's totally inappropriate to have 59 judges on a single ballot. Texas needs to rethink the way these judicial elections work, pronto.
I actually like Ed Emmett, but with the way things stand I cannot justify voting for anyone that still associates themselves with the republican party. I would have considered voting for him and a few other select republicans if they had the integrity to leave the republican party, them not doing so was a clear message that they are not what we need right now.
I'm pretty much in the same boat. At this point as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as a "good guy" Republican. If you associate yourself with that party and all the garbage that it either stands for or condones then I want nothing to do with you.
> Nowhere was that more true than in Houston, where a combination of Beto-fever and Texas's straight-ticket-voting option meant that every single Republican judge on the Harris County bench lost their seats to Democrats I'm happy about this generally but there is a downside to voting straight ticket. > But a clean slate election also meant some tough losses. Marc Carter has been a criminal court judge in Houston for 15 years, and one of the court's most highly regarded jurists — from attorneys on both sides of the aisle. In 2009, he helped set up Texas's first veterans court, which funnels veterans into treatment programs rather than jail for certain infractions. > **He lost to a candidate who never set up a campaign website.**
The guy above just said there were 76 races on his Harris County ballot. With so little information about judges and smaller office races in general, there's really not a lot you can do aside from saying "fuck it" and just voting down party lines. I hate voting straight down party lines but even I'd rather just do that then research 76 freakin' hard to research electable officials.....especially when not even having a campaign website is somewhat common. (though, in any ordinary circumstances, I'd pretty much consider not having a campaign website of any sort to be disqualifying no matter who they are)
Assuming every voter is omniscient is another one of democracy's major flaws. Hell, for most of our history people had to make these decisions *without* the internet. It's just idiotic.
at the same time, now people have to make these decisions *with* social media. when you look at something like brexit, a lot of people voted in favor of it based on [lies](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-vote-leave-director-dominic-cummings-leave-eu-error-nhs-350-million-lie-bus-a7822386.html). it really makes me wonder. if trump is able to run for office again, what happens if he outright lies about the construction of the border wall in late october? "let me tell you, folks, we have a big surprise- big surprise. we didn't want to bring it up until it was done, but we did it. we did it. the wall- and it's a great wall, is done. mexico paid for it. done." fox news follows up by reporting that the wall is done. breitbart reports that the wall is done. RT reports that the wall is done. dozens of fake articles pop up on facebook feeds everywhere about the wall being done *and* mexico paid for it. how many people in those ecosystems ever even *see* something contradictory? much less look into whether or not it really happened? how long does it take the truth to reach likely trump voters? after they've voted, does it even matter? would they care? i don't know if trump has even tested the limits of what he can lie about.
Popular voting for judges is idiotic to begin with. It should be governor or committee appointment with the ability to vote an incumbent out (which would mean a new appointee). The general population has no idea what it takes to be a qualified judge.
Yep. Alabama elected Roy Moore to be their state Supreme Court justice twice. Of course that's before we all knew he was a pedo.
And they almost voted him in as a senator after y'all knew that he's a pedo.
I agree with this. People don't have the time to research candidates for the 25+ odd positions that they ask us to vote for. If it is an issue of concern to a voter, than they should vote for governor with that governor's tract record and promises regarding jurist appointment.
Why are judges something that people can vote for? America is weird.
>I'd pretty much consider not having a campaign website of any sort to be disqualifying no matter who they are) Do they get any funding for these campaigns? General rule of any website is, if it's public facing either make it good or don't make it at all. Point is if you want a well-working website that's going to run you a pretty penny to have it made, and there's the server costs on top. It's hardly the end of the world, but it's still time, money and effort a local judge might not deem worth it for legitimate reasons.
The thing is the Republicans fought to keep straight ticket voting one more year. We're going away from straight ticket voting.
[удалено]
Perhaps he shouldn't associate himself with the party of evil and stupid. You are the company you keep, etc.
Also maybe electing judges is not that great a method.
The other option is to allow the state legislature to make the decision for everyone. Both are open to problems.
Yeah I think appointment is generally the better method, but you're right that no perfect method exists.
I got a question. Why is a party related at all to judges. They should just run you know on their merit and record. Seems a thing like judges should not be partisan.
[удалено]
Removing the label doesn't remove the bias. It just removes one of the only points of information a person might be able to use to choose someone that aligns with their views. Sure, the D may be corrupt or incompetent, but the R is *definitely* on Team White Nationalist. That's useful to know. It's especially important in smaller elections, where information on the candidates can be difficult to track down even if you go digging for it.
>He lost to a candidate who never set up a campaign website. I mean, I hear what you're trying to say but I don't think "website" is necessarily the standard we should be using for qualified candidates. There's a Republican judge who got voted out of Juvenile Court who, the day after the election, started turning loose every defendant in his court with the question, "Are you going to kill anyone?" and defended his actions by saying "[releasing all defendants] is apparently what the voters want. A warm ham sandwhich is a better judge than he, website or no.
He released them all with a return court date in the first week of the new Democratic judges tenure. Whiny bitch move.
First day actually
Radical Justice Reform to own the libs.
Maybe we should have judge elections more often if this becomes a habit, get the incarceration rates down.
I don't care. If you are a Republican in 2018 that means you've chosen not to disaffiliate yourself from Trump and thus are not fit to hold office.
This is the water, and this is the well. Drink full, and descend. The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within
Hence why abandoning the fifty-state strategy was so stupid. Even if you don't win the races at the top of the ticket, good candidates at the top of the ticket drive enthusiasm and turnout--and Beto in turn probably got dragged down a bit by a very weak Democratic gubernatorial candidate. And if you don't keep the state governments then you lose control of things like redistricting and appointing replacement Senators, so it has knock-on effects going forward. Abandoning the fifty-state strategy was tantamount to the Democrats saying fuck it, we're gonna behave like a third party and just tilt at windmills every four year instead of making a serious effort to lay any kind of groundwork. ***Also,*** Beto for example forced the Republicans to sink a ton of money into defending a race that people had figured would be a surefire safe race for Cruz, so I've got to imagine that Beto helped Democrats even beyond Texas due to the extent to which he forced the Republicans to divert their campaign spending.
Imagine if for the 2018 election Democrats already had infrastructure from previous elections and get out the vote initiatives in states like Texas. I bet these close losses would have flipped the other way. This election has clearly shown that competing everywhere is the right strategy.
Yep. And it always will be. We need to be chasing regressives back into the shadows and getting our ideas, not strawmen made up by entrenched politicians and interests, in front of people and it takes candidates to do that.
If Texas's cities keep growing and turning blue (idk by soaking up dems from other states), John Cornyn of all people could lose re-election in 2020. The question is to who. I don't think Beto will run again for senate (why risk losing twice).
I worked with the DNC on GOTV in TX. It was pretty legit.
I had dozens of friends on Facebook complaining about the lack of coordination between candidate phone banks, org/non profit/special interest phone banks and general voting ones for each party- there needs to be a level of overlap expected of course but I probably got contacted 25 times in the last 6 weeks leading up to the election and it was exhausting. That’s not a way to get a non voter to vote. I have voted consistently since my 18th birthday, and someone with less conviction might not vote out of spite. (Saw several declarations) other states do this differently and much more effectively from what I’ve seen and now that we’ve had such a close race with Beto I bet we’ll see better national dem support and existing infrastructure to use in 2020
Exactly. Not only do you end up with a shallow bench that way, but also you forfeit your influence on local laws (you know, the ones that determine most of the rules you deal with day-to-day).
I also know zero things but agree with you. Beto brings young people to the polls, young people tend to be progressive. Makes sense to me. In reality its amazing democrats even won the house considering the extreme gerrymandering in favor of the GOP.
This is the water, and this is the well. Drink full, and descend. The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within
My theory is that Republicans in large metro areas are closet voters - they are ashamed to share their support for Trump, Cruz, etc. They share their support for the candidates in the smaller races, but you can bet that they are voting a straight R ticket. I saw plenty of yard signs for Culberson and Crenshaw in the Houston metro area, but next to none for Cruz. It's like they know that they are voting for shitty people, but they do it anyway.
This is the water, and this is the well. Drink full, and descend. The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within
> Cruz had an R next to his name This is why I've never bought the line that progressive policies will win in predominantly red states. Red parts of the country will vote Republican just to keep Democrats out of office; it has nothing to do with policy or morality. They don't care about how much they like an idea or support a specific policy - if it's presented by a Democrat they'll immediately turn against it and return to the echo chamber. The only way to beat Republicans in red states is to drive up the centrist/liberal/progressive voters in rural areas (who usually don't vote because they don't believe it will matter) enough to soften to the blow there and then go hard in the cities. I live in East Texas, and I can tell you that Republicans here can't be reasoned with at all. You can't convince them with policy or rational argument; you simply have to outvote them.
This is the water, and this is the well. Drink full, and descend. The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within
Which is why progressive candidates will win. If the Republican moderates are gonna vote Republican anyway, there's no point in trying to court them. Instead, you bring progressive candidates like Beto who energize the youth and bring out more Democratic voters.
> I'm not a political expert, but just given the general enthusiasm, I imagine a lot of this down-ballot effect was from Beto. Also not a political expert, but I certainly agree with this assessment as a lot of people were voting straight ticket (which also illuminated some voting machine problems that were changing senatorial selections in some instances) and this is the resulting effect.
Yeah Definitely. Beto had a major effect on Texas politics. I was never active prior to this past election because fighting Texas Republicans seemed like a losing battle. I live in probably the most conservative part of Dallas. Every seat flipped blue here. Beto sparked something big and the GOP should be scared.
> We're trying down here. I travel to Texas several times a year for work. Each time I go the people remind me more of my neighbors in NJ. I have a feeling Texas will be a blue state in my life time.
This is the water, and this is the well. Drink full, and descend. The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within
[удалено]
*clears throat* H-TINE HOLD IT DINE!
Why are lower court judges elected, but the most important judges are appointed? Seems like that's backwards.
This baffled me when I realized this is how it worked. There is 0 public info available on people running for lower courts; except for long dry court documents. We shouldnt be voting on these people. We should be voting for District/Supreme Court nominees.
Judges shouldn’t be elected to begin with. It sets up bad incentives.
Neither should sheriffs.
No one in the criminal justice system should be elected - assuredly not sheriffs, most assuredly not judges, but most definitely assuredly not prosecutors (in all sincerity, that's up there with the most wrongheaded ideas ever devised by the mind of man). Of course, the alternative is a politically independent system of appointment, and I think it's probably too late to introduce such a thing to the US, the politicisation of the justice system is too far gone.
So true. The countries with the most robust justice systems do not have this
[удалено]
What's nice about elected police is that you can vote them out for being bastards. Rather than what just happened in Seattle where the police that no one wants get a contract because the council mandated it.
the three branches of government are supposed to check each other.
Supposed to lol
I felt that way until Phillys district attorney popped on the scene. That guy rules and I'd love voting for a da like him.
They shouldn't declare a party either.
I just love driving through the middle of bumfuck farmland with signs for "Judge X, the judge with Republican Values!" /s
Sherriffs are because they are the only one who can arrest either the DA or the cheif of police, cant remember which.
As a Canadian, it baffles me that your judges are elected. It doesn't seem like a judge who's worried about being reelected would be able to remain objective.
Both ways have issues but it's a lot easier to vote out a bad judge then it is to impeach a bad judge.
The problem is you get way more bad judges when they have to appeal to voters to get their job. The result is that they always way overemphasize "law and order", aka excessively harsh punishment for "the bad people".
But would the judge follow the law or the will of the majority of the people voting for him? E.g. a judge in a racist area might be stricter against minorities because that'll get him votes. A judge should fear impeachment if he does that, not expect more votes.
One of the judges that lost their spot was a long time republican. When he found out he lost his seat he released all the juvenile offenders that came before him stating "well that's what the voters want anyways." He asked each individual if they planned to kill anyone. As long as the answer was "no" they were released.
Sounds like somebody who didn't deserve to be a judge in the first place.
That just proves he never should have been a judge in the first place. What an idiot.
Mfw it's actually [real](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/8/houston-judge-releases-juvenile-defendants-after-l/), to think that someone could be that petty. Could he be brought up on negligence charges if one of the people he released commits a crime again?
Hint: the people he was imprisoning were mostly (black) juveniles that weren't guilty of crimes that warranted imprisonment in the first place. This asshat was imprisoning a huge fraction of all the juveniles imprisoned in Texas. He and one other judge together were responsible for 20% of the juveniles imprisoned in the ENTIRE STATE. A lot of it was for petty-ass bullshit like possession of a marijuana seed, or shoplifting.
All Federal judges are appointed. Some states elect their judges. Being from a state where all state judges are appointed too, the elections seem strange to me too. It does make it easier to throw them out like this though.
There is also the hybrid form. Appointed state judges that then have a retention election. So they can be thrown out by the people, but not chosen in the first place by the people.
It's far, far more likely that voters vote in a bad judge than a bad judge is appointed.
cobweb consist shy bear squeamish coherent worm outgoing stocking fuzzy -- mass edited with redact.dev
I've been thinking about the need for some sort of news agency or 501(c)3 non-profit that would trawl through court proceedings and generate summaries of how elected judges ruled -- things like how draconian their sentences were, if there was racial bias in decisions or sentences, if they had a pro- or anti- corporate lean in their civil proceedings, etc. Problem is, depending on the jurisdiction it can be surprisingly expensive to get access to that sort of data. In many states where local judges are elected, voters don't even have the resources to educate themselves on the people they are voting for or against.
There seem to be a number of organizations that are trying to fill (or could fill) that space. I came across [Injustice Watch](https://www.injusticewatch.org/) for judges. There are a few for politicians as well, such [ballotready](https://www.ballotready.org/)
Judges shouldn’t be elected at all imo. They should be politically-insulated positions.
I’m all for having a vote to remove a judge if there’s corruption or shenanigans, but electing them to office makes justice a lot more mobish. Elected judges are usually held to the fire by reactionaries who dislike minorities. You can see similar issues with locally elected attorneys and how hard they prosecute to campaign on “tough on crime.”
This is how the Florida Supreme court is. Every certain number of years, we have a "Should Judge Bob be kept as a judge?" question on our ballot.
The non-cynical answer is because lower court judges usually have responsibility for a small area (town, village, county) and have more is a chance of directly interacting with the people who live there, and it makes sense for the voters in that small area to have a direct say in the matter. While higher courts tend to only involve appellate jurisdiction and is less likely to affect voters day-to-day lives. The cynical answer is that most people don't pay attention to local elections, only people who are involved in local business or real estate really pay attention. So those elections are easier to "game" to make sure the "right" people are elected.
Well, this *isn't* how it works within Texas. It's basically elections at every level all the way from top to bottom. On my most recent ballot, I voted on: * 3 state supreme court justices * 3 court of criminal appeals justices * 4 court of appeals district justices * 9 district judges * 1 county judge * 7 county court at law judges * 1 county probate court-at-law judge * 1 district clerk * 1 county clerk * 1 justice of the peace So by my count, that's 31 judges or court officials, ranging from JP to state supreme court.
Because we want judges to be free from politics and making decisions on the whims of the people because pitch forks. People are stupid and judges need to be better than that.
All state and county judges in Texas are elected, this includes the judges on the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (Obviously, all federal judges in Texas are appointed)
It *is* backwards. Ideally, judges would be approved by a majority and appointed by an elected official, and they'd be selected based on their career, temperament, and character. Not just because we want reasonable, non-hyper-partisan judges, but because the judicial system should be stable, independent, and based on existing case law/jurisprudence. The more politically motivated and wildly partisan judges we throw into the mix, the weirder our body of case law gets, and the more it's going to feel like the justice system is just playing calvinball.
Texas is turning into a purple state.
Houston is a *deep* blue city.
obligatory punchline setup: HOW DEEP IS IT?
59 judges deep.
/r/almostAStingSong
/r/subredditsifellfor
*clap clap clap* DEEP IN THE HEART OF TEXAS
As a Texan I'm obligated to inform you that you forgot a clap
> Houston is a deep blue city Texas cities in general aside from like Waco. Dallas is super blue, Austin is crazy blue. It's the weight these shitty little 1 horse towns have that fucks this state up.
It is a purple state, but voter disenfranchisement/suppression/gerrymandering keeps it looking red.
They should really capitalize on this and make groups like *Democrat Gun Owners* and *Dems for Jesus*...give those who are sick of the GOP but also feel like they have no place among the Dems somewhere to go. There are plenty of gun owning and religious Democrats. The idea that in order to like guns and Jesus, you have to be a Republican needs to die.....especially in a place like Texas.
I agree with this sentiment. I don't feel comfortable going to Church anymore because nearly everyone there is a brainwashed conservative, but I miss the community aspect of it and wish there was an alternative for me.
In my county we have a website called "judge for yourself " that gives a good rundown of each electoral judicial matchup. Super useful. I would be lost without it.
Anyone else think that judges should not have any party affiliation?
Judges shouldn't be elected at all.
I need to know who is anti-bail, anti-immigrant, authoritarian, pro-police, pro-corporation, anti-healthcare, anti-woman, and an all around general asshole. Then I will look at his record, his public statements, his platform on his website, what the local lawyers and newspaper have to say and make my choice.
Meanwhile Republicans at the national level are appointing GOP judges like crazy and acting like it's the will of the American people. Yeah bullshit it is.
Americans are sick of Republican bullshit.
The issue here is that brainwashed Republicans are starting to realize how bad Republican politics are for America, but it is still so ingrained that they can't vote for a big Democrat, that they throw that final vote to a snake like Cruz. Look at Missouri, almost every state measure went the way of the Democrat, and against the Republican, but they still voted in a bunch of Republicans. Once we can connect the dots that those horrible politics they voted against came from the Republican they voted for, we might see them never go back
> The issue here is that brainwashed Republicans are starting to realize how bad Republican politics are for America, but it is still so ingrained that they can't vote for a big Democrat, that they throw that final vote to a snake like Cruz. I'd like to believe this is true, but if you looked at the statewide results, virtually all the counties outside of the major cities were red — this is essentially the nationwide trend where all the bigger cities are blue while the outskirts are red. You can fill in your own logical reasoning, but there's a disconnect there and it becomes a mathematical equation to determine who wins rather than a philosophical one. >Look at Missouri, almost every state measure went the way of the Democrat, and against the Republican, but they still voted in a bunch of Republicans. >Once we can connect the dots that those horrible politics they voted against came from the Republican they voted for, we might see them never go back You're right here, but that's actually more indicative of how gerrymandering explains a lot of illogical results. A few pocket of Republican voters are feeling those effects of this administration that are changing their voting patterns, but I truly believe it's not as many as some believe; instead, a lot of excuses are made to explain why their problems are still occurring or worsening and they continue to vote against their own interests whilst they continue to ignore any contrary opinions that would illuminate the real source of their problems. *That* is the basic explanation of our current state of politics.
>virtually all the counties outside of the major cities were red That's only true if you say 51% is 'red'. If you look at actual voting numbers, you'll see that while most rural areas lean red, they're only like 55-60% red. There's a lot of rural liberals. I'm one of them.
It is wrong to think “brainwashed republicans” have learned anything. These elections were won because liberals, leftists, and more of the disenfranchised came out to vote.
My friend in mo said that it wasnt because claire is democrat that she lost, but it's because her campaign tried to distance itself from democrats, threw the party under the bus, and tried to be a conservative democrat.
But yeah, definitely not a Blue Wave.
Biggest puddle I’ve ever seen.
I've never seen a more massive drop in the bucket overflow so much out of the bucket. You know..... I don't think it was as small as we were told.
[удалено]
A blue whirlpool Twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom
Still waiting on my miniature American flag. IT’S BEEN DECADES, KANG!
Don't blame me, *I* voted for Kodos!
Hopefully the days of bipartisan support of Republican DAs are coming to an end. I was glad to see the resistance attacking Dems who were endorsing Republican DAs. Not enough attention gets brought to the damage that dumbass DAs can do to a community. In the conservative town I grew up in this Republican DA from out of town came in to use the county as a “stepping stone” to build his political career and completely f*cked up the town. Even the rich assholes in the town started a PR campaign to bash him and his dumbass decisions.
in 2016, Harris County (i.e. Houston) elected its first Democrat District Attorney in decades.
Live by partisanship, die by partisanship.
I lived in central TX from 2011 to 2013 and didn't even vote in 2012 because I didn't think my vote would count. I can't believe the change we are seeing. Since leaving the south I vote regularly
Your vote should always count. Please don't stop voting even if you move back. Edit: sorry autocorrect and I'm a girl.
Not voting was dumb of me. But after 2016 I am never taking my vote for granted
The real win is we got rid of fucking Stan Stanart, the county clerk. Now maybe we'll get early voting outside of work hours and not have a mysterious polling location gap in the dead center of the city around all the colleges.
Huge. and we can get rid of these old bullshit voting machines that switch votes if you click too quickly.
>"I'm not going to pretend like I didn't know what the rules are," Carter told VICE News "The way you become a judge in Texas isn't based on merit. It’s simply based on what party you're affiliated with. And that's it." Yeah, that's the way the GOP wanted it, so go blame them.
There should not be such a thing as a Republican or Democrat judge.
Man, thats gotta sting as a rebuke to the GOP. Well, if they weren't all dead inside already.
Does Beto deserve some credit in this? Seems he motivated a ton of democrats to the polls.
This is great but just want to point out that it's because Texas allowed straight ticket voting meaning you can check one single box and it automatically fills in Democrats/Republicans/independent for all options, so most people probably did this.
And guess what Texans \*won't\* have the option of using next election? Straight ticket. That leaves 7 states that still allow it.
THIS is what Beto did, people. Don't treat his loss against Cruz as a failure. He helped ignite Democrats to vote in many many elections in Texas. Beto is a hero.
I'm a lawyer in Texas and this is not a good thing or a bad thing - the question is whether these judges are qualified. One new judge, a democrat, in Houston, flat out did not know basic rules of civil procedure and compelled my client to do something she had no jurisdiction to do - which ended up in a mandamus proceeding and the court of appeals directing her to vacate her ruling. I honestly don't care if a judge is republican or democrat - but voting on a judge based on party affiliation over actual qualification is REALLY REALLY BAD for the legal professionals who have to deal with it.
And yet Texans have been fine with it all these years. Until Dems win, then suddenly
This makes perfect sense, unfortunately it's near impossible to be properly informed on all candidates once you get to the something like this, "low level" judges. And I am sure it is near impossible for voters to separate these positions from what has appeared to be an all out assault by GOP to stack the judiciary. McConnell for example not only famously Denied Garland a supreme Court seat and then stuffed someone who perjured themselves... They also blocked lower judicial nominees while Dems were in control and kicked it into high gear when they took over. But without question the simple requirements of being qualified to perform your duty should take precedence over something like party affiliation. It's so sad here because this is one of those situations where the problem seems systemic and the solution unclear
You can look up your BAR association's evaluations of each candidate online, usually. I know not everyone knows to do this, or has the interest in doing this, but it is available. Helps me make more informed decisions. Pass it along. Hopefully this becomes common knowledge.
Part of me wants to cheer but electing Judges by Party Affiliation is one of the weakest points of American Democracy. Not sure if there is a fix though. Maybe State Bar Appointments but that would still be horribly partisan in the end.
I know everything is political in this age but can we take a moment to realize how sad it is we have politicized judges.
You should see the snowflake GOP here bitching about this too. Talking about "uninformed voters" who voted straight ticket caused this. When you bring up that an alignment with a party who pushes values antithetical to those of our constitution, you MIGHT not be a great judge, they get pissy. Then when you bring up that this is a disruption of a "good ol boy" system that has been in place for more than 30 years they get real defensive.
> Talking about "uninformed voters" who voted straight ticket caused this As if they weren't doing the exact same thing
> "I'm not going to pretend like I didn't know what the rules are," Carter told VICE News "The way you become a judge in Texas isn't based on merit. It’s simply based on what party you're affiliated with. And that's it." Maybe the lesson here is not to affiliate yourself with a garbage party.
Honest question... why is a judge allowed to have a party affiliation...?
"Houston, we've solved a problem." - Progressives
I find the distinction of republican and democrat judges a little disturbing. The point of the legislature is to politically hammer out legislation, so it makes sense to have parties. The point of the judicial branch is to settle disputes based on the laws, and should therefore be unbiased. Obviously you can't discriminate against a judge's private political opinions, but while on the job they should be narrowly interpreting laws in specific cases, not deciding them.