In the chapter on the Texas Judiciary, we looked at partisan judicial elections and the questions these elections raise about fairness, representation and integrity. Suggestions for change — notably the move to merit selection — have been repeatedly made, and repeatedly ignored. So what’s at stake with this reform measure?
For this debate, I’d like you to consider both sides of the merit selection issue:
— for the “pro” side: “Merit Selection: Current Status, Procedures and Issues”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howshould/merit.html
— for the “con” side: “Without Merit: Why Merit Selection is the Wrong Way for States to Choose Judges”
https://www.heritage.org/courts/report/without-merit-why-merit-selection-the-wrong-way-states-choose-judges
So, my questions to you, to begin your first post:
(1) What are the general pros and cons to each approach (provide two to three for each),
(2) Which approach appeals to you, and why, and
(3) How likely is it that Texas will eventually adopt a merit selection process?
Remember to support your arguments with the assigned material! Your first post, in particular, should have lots of references to the articles.
After your first post, please respond to two of your classmates’ posts (for a total of three posts for full credit).