Monday, September 28, 2015

TX CCA candidates no longer need sigs from 14 appellate districts

Like most people, apparently including Court of Criminal Appeals candidate Sid Harle, Grits was unaware that the Legislature this year had removed a requirement that CCA candidates get 50 signatures in each of Texas' 14 judicial districts, a burden universally acknowledged as difficult given how little money is raised by CCA campaigns. Nearly everything they raise is spent traveling around the state by car to party events and forums where they'll get to speak for 2 minutes, half of which is spent explaining that Texas has two high courts and this is the criminal one. But the main purpose for traveling to those events is not to whip votes but to garner those signatures, which is no longer necessary.

Bruce Davidson at the SA Express-News called this a return to the "bad old days." He declared that:
Before legislators passed the law requiring the signatures in 2003, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals races were crowded free-for-alls featuring candidates hoping to get elected with an easy-to-pronounce or familiar name and nothing more.

“This court used to be a $3,000 lottery,” Justice Cheryl Johnson said in 2004. All that was required was paying a filing fee. Qualifications didn’t matter.

The signature requirement trimmed the horde of candidates to a handful who were reasonably qualified and willing to work hard enough to gather signatures. The laziest and least qualified candidates were culled from the ballot.

Still, the campaigns have remained the least visible political races in Texas. Few Texans can name a member of the state’s highest criminal appellate court, and the candidates can’t raise enough money to make a blip on the political radar.
I don't agree with that. For starters, the races were hardly free for alls. In the GOP primary in 2002, the year before the law changed, there were two candidates in each of the three CCA races. Dems had four candidates running for three seats that year. In 2000, the GOP field was more crowded, with 14 people pursuing three seats. Barbara Hervey and Sharon Keller pulled off come-from-behind wins in the runoff after trailing the day of the primary. But even then, Dems fielded only three primary candidates - one in each race.

To be fair, Judge Johnson's campaign in 1998 competing to run against and defeat Charlie Baird was one of the most hotly contested CCA races in memory, with Johnson facing seven primary opponents. And she's right that some of those weren't seriously campaigning but merely hoped to use the ballot to get their name out there, essentially seeking free advertising. But those folks don't win, and they didn't in her race. Meanwhile, to my mind, the additional candidates force everyone to do a better job of communicating with the voters and distinguishing themselves.

I'm not worried that Sid Harle won't stand out from the crowd in a CCA race, as Mr. Davidson feared. He's a super-qualified candidate and would make a fine CCA judge. But that doesn't mean he should get to stroll into the position without campaigning. We have elections in America, not coronations. And the changed rules make it less onerous for qualified candidates to sign up for the job.

While reserving the right to change my mind (I didn't know about it when it happened during session so haven't considered it before), for now I think I'm fine with this. I'm not at all sure those signatures did anything but empower a few party insiders and keep good people off the ballot.

11 comments:

Gadfly said...

Could make easier for third parties to field candidates, too. That's Greens, for you Dems not running more candidates.

Anonymous said...

What's the new signature requirement?

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@6:03, I believe there's not a signature requirement anymore, judging from the SA Express-News report. They made it the same as other statewide races.

@Gadfly, the Libertarians have been pretty successful at fielding candidates, but for my money I think anyone who runs should pick R or D, but really just R. A D won't win a statewide race in Texas in this decade, so for the next few cycles, the GOP primary is where all the action is. There SHOULD be a large number of candidates in those races, particularly when there are open seats.

DEWEY said...

I was wondering why in some of the elections for judges, only one party was represented. Question answered. Now, perhaps we the voters will have a wider selection.

tiapa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tiapa said...

For a position as high as the CCA how can politics be involved in criminal matters? Isn't the law the law? Politics enters in when a law is created but interpretation and application at the CCA level should be governed by competent, experienced, and respected jurists. When one says "less qualified" it begs to ask what are the minimum qualifications? Are there any?

Anonymous said...

The only solution is term limits--4 year max. Sharon Keller has been there for too long and needs to go. We need "fresh" jurists every 4 years

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@8:28 - Four years isn't long enough to gain experience, and the CCA is a unique job. Their terms are 6 years, limiting to two terms would probably be the right balance.

Anonymous said...

Grits I could settle for one six year term but that's it!! It's the quest for re-election that's breeds judicial corruption in Texas. Right around election time they get pressured to either make political decisions not grounded in the law or delay their decisions until after elections. So we should free them from the pressures of re-election by having only one term. The length of the term is debatable

Anonymous said...

I am Judge Ray Wheless, a District Judge in Collin County. I am running for the Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 2. I have been campaigning for this seat since early this year. I was in the process of obtaining signatures, but when the law changed, I became aware of the change almost immediately and stopped. But for me, nothing changed. I still travel the State meeting members of the Bar. I don't know that the petitions made much difference. It seems to me like the candidates that work the hardest usually wins these races. I am honored to be endorsed by top criminal defense lawyers and District Attorneys. I look forward to meeting as many criminal law practitioners as possible as I campaign throughout the State.

Chris H said...

I'm glad to see the petition requirement by statute be repealed. The legislature should clarify that a political party is able to add additional requirements to qualify for their party's nomination. They are, after all, private affairs.