Stacking The Supreme Court of Texas
A skilled card dealer can give themselves an unfair advantage if they are able to stack the deck. Republican governors in Texas are using a loophole the Texas Election Code to appoint Republican justices to the state’s supreme court, many of whom have backgrounds in corporate defense law firms, effectively stacking the court in favor of big business.
Once appointed, justices are free to fundraise for their upcoming “reelection,” even taking money from corporate defense law firms that often argue before the court. There is no ethical standard requiring a justice to recuse themselves from cases involving donors to their campaign funds.
This intimacy between defense law firms, powerful politicians like the governor, and the court’s justices, raises concerns about the impartiality and independence of the court. The influence of corporate interest on the judicial system in Texas is making it more difficult for families, workers, and local municipalities to get justice when it matters.
As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner pointed out in her remarks on judicial independence, founding father James Madison, who drafted the constitution, believed an independent judiciary to be “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive.”
Rules of the Game
In Texas, Supreme Court justices are elected through partisan elections, which is a system intended to allow the public to choose who represents them on the state’s highest civil court. However, a loophole has been exploited that allows the Governor to appoint judges who share the same political agenda. As a result, the Texas Supreme court has been composed entirely of justices of the same political party since 1998. This loophole undermines the intended purpose of the election process.
Supreme Court Justices in Texas are typically elected to serve six-year terms in statewide elections, with the terms staggered so that not all seats are up for election at the same time. If a vacancy occurs mid-term, the governor is responsible for appointing a replacement to serve until the next general election. Moreover, there is evidence that justices are encouraged to stepdown early with the intention of creating a vacancy for the governor to fill. Currently, seven of the justices on the court were originally appointed to their positions when predecessors resigned before the end of their terms.
