Through partisan elections, the judges will run under their respective party, the majority being either Republican or Democrat. The partisan way of elections has become a very big source of controversy within the state of Texas. It was not until 1978 when controversy regarding partisan elections started to occur, this was when the first Republican governor took control of office. This caused a change in the political atmosphere of judgeships through the use of the governor’s power of appointing judges. As Texas became more and more of a Republican state, many of these judges retained their position by winning re-elections. Because of this, instead of Democrats always winning elections there was stiff competition and many Democratic judges started to label themselves as Republicans, thus creating the …show more content…
Many call for a nonpartisan way of elections. This type of election would eliminate much of the politics that go into a partisan election, but it has been criticized by saying that it would be more difficult to raise money and reach voters this way. Another alternative that has been proposed to the highly criticized current system is the merit selection system. The book Governing Texas states that the merit system, “…judges would be nominated by a blue-ribbon committee, appointed by the governor, and, after a brief period in office, would run in a retention election.” (Champagne Harpham 267). In conclusion, the two main types of selection for judicial positions are appointment by the governor as well as a partisan election, with the candidates running under their respective parties. The biggest aspect or factor when dealing with judicial elections in Texas is the money that is raised during the election process, because if a candidate does not fundraise enough they will not be able to reach out to the voters and get their name known. Criticism in the election process of judicial positions is due to the fact that Texas uses the partisan election