The fact that the Texass judicial system uses only election method to select judges increases the chance low accountability of judges as they are likely to be partisan in their actions.
Judges have to be partisan because it is the party that will take them to this power. This leads to judges whose allegiance is not to the justice system but to the party that helps them to get the posts. Needless to say, these positions, right from the lowest positions which is the positions of a municipal court, are important careers, not only for the judge but also for political parties. This means that when the system of selecting a judge is based on the political party system, the quality of judges will play a smaller role while the political affiliation will be the main issue determining who will get these positions (Cheek & Champagne, 2005. 99).
The judges require a lot of money for campaign and this may interfere with their integrity. The amount of financial investment needed for the campaign is too high for most of these judges to afford from their pockets and they have to be funded by outside sources. So the question is, how will a judge be able to be neutral and fair in cases where he finds himself or herself having to preside over case involving one of his main funders? This brings in an integrity issue and in this scenario it may not be possible for this system to offer the state a good team of judges.
The electorate doesn’t know these judges personally and have to depend on partisan lines to vote them. Although the electoral vote system of selecting judges is hinged on the argument that people should be able to decide who judges them, the fact is that a major part of the population of these people don’t know the judges they are supposed to elect (Maxwell, Earl & Santos, 2013. 158). The work of a judge is not public and therefore unlike politicians whose leadership can be detected in the public arena,