Pros And Cons Of Partisan Elections

In a partisan election, a candidate’s party is labeled on the ballot. This gives the voters an outlook on the candidate’s beliefs and ideals. I believe that voting for judges in a partisan election can have its pros and cons. It is not the most effective method because is it mainly based on name recognition. Although, this method can be good because some judges that are appointed are already well experienced. Voting should be based on what judicial skills the candidate has or what knowledge of the government they withhold. I understand that voters can be very confident in their political party but it should be a fair vote. By basing a vote on just names, this can be costing the state an unrecognized candidate that could’ve been a better judge. Often, judges are selected just for their political services rather than …show more content…
Judicialselection.us states that the “Merit selection is a way of choosing judges that uses a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships. The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three) to the appointing authority (usually the governor), who must make a final selection from the list (American Judicature Society 2015).” With this method, there is a more effective way that judges with judicial skills and backgrounds are elected. Downside to the Merit selection is that judges do not get the full lifetime judgeship that they would get with a partisan election. But, there are less political influences on the candidates. This way, government can save money by cutting the cost of candidate’s campaigns and use the money for more important expenses. Finally, with the Merit selection, the people of Texas can be sure that they are getting a judge that is highly qualified for the