The League of Women Voters of Texas has long supported the nonpartisan selection of Texas judges at the appellate and Supreme Court levels. When judicial candidates must raise money to compete in our current partisan election system, the appearance of that money influencing their decision-making is hard to shake.
The timing of a recent Texas Supreme Court decision highlights again how the intersection of partisan judicial elections and unlimited “soft” campaign contributions can cast a pall over the impartiality of the judicial system. In Apache Corp. v. Davis, a fired paralegal sued that company, alleging age and gender discrimination. A trial jury decided in her favor, awarding significant damages, and that decision was upheld by an appeals court.
The Texas Supreme Court initially declined Apache’s petition to review the decision in October 2020. Between that date and the November general election, Apache donated $250,000, via a newly formed political action committee, to several Supreme Court Justices seeking re-election. Shortly following the election, Apache filed a motion for re-hearing of the case, which was granted.
The League does not suggest that the Supreme Court’s quick turnabout was related to these contributions, but the circumstances again create the appearance of impropriety and question the independence of our judiciary. The League has repeatedly declared that Texans deserve a fair and impartial judiciary that is beholden to the rule of law, not to wealthy special interests. Nonpartisan judicial selection would achieve this goal. But meanwhile, the League calls for immediate adoption of rules to further regulate the role of money in judicial elections.