 "Photo:")
Democratic primary elections are just a week away, and Richard Anton and Stephen Yelenosky are campaigning for the chance to defeat Republican incumbent Patrick Keel in the race for 345th District Court judge.
Keel was appointed to the bench by Gov. Rick Perry in 2002 when former District Judge Scott McCown resigned with two years left in his term.
Keel's appointment to a judicial position is unusual not only because he is a Republican in a seat traditionally held by Democrats. State judges in Texas are elected, not appointed, in an increasingly controversial judicial selection system.
Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and West Virginia are the only states that hold fully funded partisan elections to choose judges. The process has sparked concern among Texas legislators and residents about whether campaign donations affect judges' decisions.
Craig McDonald, director of campaign finance watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, said Texas' election of judges - and in particular the funding of their campaigns - reeks with conflict of interest.
"Judges take money from the lawyers and attorneys in their courtroom," McDonald said. "This leads to mistrust and a lack of faith in what should be the most unassailable institution in government - the courts."
According to a 1999 report prepared in part by the Texas Supreme Court, 48 percent of Texas judges think campaign contributions have "significant" influence on court decisions.
The same report shows that 79 percent of Texas attorneys think contributions influence decisions.
Keel said he understands public concerns, but maintains contributions do not influence court decisions.
"I think to a reasonable observer, you've got to look and say, 'How can they not make a difference?'" Keel said. "I agree it looks bad, but I think good judges and good lawyers can run a campaign without becoming beholden to independent contributors."
According to a 2001 report from Texans for Public Justice, the top two contributing law firms in Texas, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. and Baker Botts L.L.P. saw a much higher Supreme Court case acceptance rate (58 percent) than the next highest bracket of contributors (37 percent).
While the statistics are by no means conclusive of foul play, that has not stopped legislators from tightening regulations on the financing of judicial campaigns.
One such regulation went into effect in September 2003.
The Judicial Campaign Fairness Act limited donations by considering primary and general elections as one single election for campaign-contribution purposes.
Previously, a person contributing to a candidate for statewide judicial office was allowed to donate $5,000 per election. Since the primary and general elections were separate, the donor could give $10,000 total to the candidate.
Under the new rules, judicial candidates campaigning for statewide office can receive $6,250 from a single donor.
In addition to limiting contributions, some legislators have tried to reform the election system.
Last legislative session, state Sens. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, and Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, led a bipartisan effort to get rid of the partisan election of judges.
"Opponents say they're taking the vote away," said Kenneth Besserman, spokesman for Ellis. "But the judiciary should be an independent branch of government, apart from politics. When judges have to run, people begin to question their independence."
The legislation, which passed the Senate but not the House, called for a system where judges are appointed but must undergo retention elections. The elections would allow voters to retain or reject the appointed judge.
"This system of judicial elections gives our citizens live ammunition on accountability, a much-needed change from a system where most of the time they are armed only with blanks," Duncan said in a statement.
Patrick Mizell, a partner at Vinson & Elkins, said he supports reforming the judicial election system.
"I think it's a pretty ugly system," said Mizell, a former Harris County district judge. "Unfortunately, the vast majority of donations come from lawyers and firms, because they have the most acute awareness of what's going on."
Mizell said many judges and lawyers support reform, but the Republican and Democratic parties "control the issue."
"I don't question their motives," Mizell said. "They believe they stand for pro-democratic, pro-voters' right-to-choose principles. To the parties, those principles outweigh the perceived problems."
Be the first to comment on this article!