The Austin American-Statesman published an interesting story earlier this week about the 3rd Court of Appeals, an appellate court that covers central Texas. They handle civil and criminal appeals from 24 counties, including Travis, Williamson and Hays counties.
The news article, by Chuck Lindell, discusses the court's efforts to be more efficient and shed the label as least efficient appeals court in the state.
It provides a good insight into how appellate courts work. And since Texas judges are elected, the article also suggests that voters have an incomplete picture of judicial performance.
There are larger discussions about whether judges should be elected positions. One argument in favor of electing judges is that democracy requires the consent of the governed and that it holds judges accountable to the people. But a counter argument is that electing judges means that judges will lose integrity and independence and make decisions based on the whim of the people, rather than the law.
Consider, for example, that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are nominated to the court by the president and approved by the U.S. Senate. In Texas and other states, the highest appellate court judges (in the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Court) are elected positions.
Click here to read the article, which was published on Jan. 24 with the headline: "Chronically late Austin court begins making progress."
After you read the article, share an interesting thing you learned about the appellate court process. Also, offer your opinion about whether judges should be elected or appointed, and why you think that.
And please remember to identify yourself and which class you are in.
32 comments:
Alysha M. TH 12:30
I really liked Puryear's comment, "I will not sacrifice the quality or accuracy of my work simply to get opinions out the door." I think that's a very good point...but I also think it's embarrassing that the court serving our state's capitol was the least efficient court in Texas... Someone commented on the article saying that this court is smaller than most, therefore doing more work than most. Is that true? Anywaaay, as far as elected/appointed judges, I'm all for elected. I don't really like the fact that there's only one U.S. Supreme Court justice that is classified as "liberal" and he's 89 so let's face it, he probably won't be a justice much longer (the lifetime deal is crap). I don't think justices/judges should be a reflection of our president/governor, but rather a reflection of the people.
Ashley Cawthon
TTH 12:30 class
In the very beginning of the article, I learned that the state does not set time limits on appeals, and that the way the court records are done, it is impossible to know which judges are responsible. This surprised me to find out that such a highly respected system can't maintain a recording system that would make things easier for them. I realize that it is a minor detail, but it struck me as odd.
When it comes to whether judges should be elected or appointed, I have to say that I am partial to both. I love that we as citizens can make a difference by voting, however, I feel that someone who is within the system will know more details as to who is better for the job, rather than who has a good history and public campaign.
TTH 12:30 class
Just like Ashley, I was also surprised to learn how there are no time limits on appeals, and that it's impossible to know which judges are responsible for long waits because of how court records are kept.
That information seems important for many reasons and, especially since judges are voted in, should be available for voters to take into account when voting. Since this information is not accessible, I don't think it's fair for the public to vote for judges.
I read how Jones feels that putting out the numbers might give a false impression and I agree with that. But even if not made public, I feel that this information should at least be recorded so that judges can be appointed based on a productivity level where illness, staff turnover and unusually difficult cases can be put into perspective.
T-TH 12:30
My comments may sound similar to the others, but I didn't know that appeals have no time limit or that there is no way of telling which judge is causing a backup in cases. I think that it is unfair for voters to elect a judge without this information.
Lindell mentioned that taking longer than two years on a case is considered unacceptable, and Kenneth Law sat on eight cases for over five years. If two years is unacceptable, then five years should be egregious!
A time limit should be set, and information regarding a judges case records should be easily accessible to the public. Jones commented that the people might only vote based on the numbers, but I think we should trust the public more than that. How can voters be expected to make an educated decision if information is withheld?
Kala Brock
12:30PM TTH
I guess I assumed there was a limit on the amount of time a case could have in an appellate. I don't understand why there isn't.
As much as I think voting is what makes our country a democracy, voting for judges shouldn't be allowed because they would tend to either lean left or right when elections arise to get votes. Judges shouldn't lean either way, in my opinion. (At least when it comes to their job.)
TTH 12:30
After reading this article, I was surprised to learn that many appeals do not get picked up, even after almost five years. It is unsettling that this happens in my area.
As for whether or not I would like judges to be elected or appointed, I am torn. If we had an entirely well-educated electorate, I would opt for electing the judges. If we had an entirely uncorrupted government, I would opt for appointing the judges. However, I’m not quite sure Texas fits either of these qualifications. In either case, I'm sure politics and ideology would get in the way. It seems that voting on judges would lead to public accountability, but that hasn’t been the case in the 3rd Court of Appeals.
Like many of my peers, I was interested to learn that there is no set time limit on appeals. I was also surprised to learn that court records are maintained so poorly that it is impossible to know which judge is responsible for long delays in determining a decision.
Regarding the elected/appointed debate, I, like Martha, am torn between the two. I feel that judges should be fair and impartial, thus the nomination process by government officials who understand the qualities and attributes needed should be responsible for appointing judges. However, I also see the positives in electing judges, as Alysha said, they should be a reflection of the public opinion, not whichever government official who nominates them. The public, as a majority, tend to be uninformed/uneducated though, and I also would not want elected judges leaning left or right based on the political beliefs of the public that elected them into office.
I feel that this back-log is extremely ridiculous. However, I was aware of the no set time limit on appeals. I Found this especially to be a little horrifying, "Relatives of a Fayette County oil field worker, who died of severe burns and shrapnel wounds 52 days after a drill shaft explosion, waited 54 months for a decision that said their insurer could not claim part of an $800,000 settlement they received in 2004. The case isn't over yet; it's been appealed to the Texas Supreme Court." I do understand the delay, but something does need to change.
TTH 12:30 class
I think it's ridiculous that there is no time limit on these cases. Just to think of how stressful those people must be while they are waiting for an another so they can move on. My brother-in-law has been involved in a case that has taken him over 2 years of waiting and fighting to finally get the outcome that he wanted. I think time limits should be set so there won't be any backing up of cases and they can move through them/handle them swifter. As for the electing or appointing matter, I'm unsure because I can see both sides of the argument. As mentioned, I think it's important that we have a voice and the power of a vote, but the majority of citizens don't really know what's going on in the system as compared to those involved inside the job.
Bonnie Brewer-honors
I was very suprised there is not a more efficient replacement process when someone falls ill, or dies or retires. Its ridiculous that the others are just supposed to bear the load. I have considered the appointed/elected question for a while and I believe we should trust our elected leaders to appoint people to enforce the laws. Or if the people wont go for that, then maybe the leaders in power can appoint choices in order to be elected. Regardless, i think people would agree that the current situation isnt working and something needs to change in order to make the judicial system work more efficiently.
I had no idea of the backlog problem in appellate courts. I can see how it would become a problem with complex cases, but it’s awful how this problem can affect even more straightforward cases. I can see how the lack of limit on appeals could stall the court, and it seems as if there could be a remedy to this without releasing information that would put justices in danger.
The voting populace is ill equipped to decide upon their judges’ performance. The legal system is complex and no priority is made of informing themselves of the intricacies. Both systems put forth contain their pitfalls. But, I do believe that with the lack of initiative to learn the ends and outs of the system such positions should be left to elected officials to decide upon.
Lara Crouch 12:30 TTH
A better system should have been set up to fill from vacant spots due to death, illness, and retirement of the justices so they wouldn’t get years behind in work. Once it started backing up for more than two years, they should have tried to figure out something then rather than waiting five years later.
I think a judge should be appointed. If they are appointed then it won’t turn into a campaigning or popularity contest. They would have to be recommended and gain attention for doing their job well to deserve a higher position in the state courts.
Before reading this article, I never would have guessed that there were still cases from 2004 up until last February. I understand why it may not be wise to release what judges are responsible for the cases, but to not have a limit on the number of appeals may not be as smart. As for the election of judges, I think it would be better if they were to be appointed by the officials we elect. I also believe like others that if they withhold information from us, how can we ever make a truly educated vote as to the better judge.
I can't believe there's not a time limit. I had no idea. That seems crazy to me. Obviously, reading some of the examples of the people who have had to wait a long time for their case to be settled, it could have really helped them out if things had been done in a timely manner. Yes, money is not everything, but for a lot of these people being awarded money or simply just knowing the money was coming to them, would have been a lot easier on their lives.
I find it hard to decide if judges should be appointed or elected. I feel most people concentrate on the higher positions during elections and don't really know who to vote for for judge and positions like that. Appointing these positions could be a different approach, rather than having the people vote. I'm really unsure about which one of these would be more successful. It'd help if we were more educated on who the judges were running for these seats.
I was extremely surprised to learn that there is such a vast number of appeals that do not get picked up, even after a period of as long as five years. This is really disturbing to me. I most definitely did not realize there was no time limit, and I feel that there should be.
Like many others, I was also surprised to learn that court records are maintained so poorly that it is hard to tell which judge is truly responsible for backlogging and such long delays in decision making.
As for whether or not I would like judges to be elected or appointed, I'm caught right in the middle. If I felt confident enough to say we have a well-educated electorate, I would say electing the judges is most definitely the best option. This seems to be the most democratic, anyway. However, on the other hand, if we had less of an uncorrupted government, I would feel that appointing the judges was more feasible. I also don't completely feel either of these qualifications is being met in this instance. Like Martha, I feel that voting on judges SHOULD lead to public accountability, but that apparently hasn’t been the case in the 3rd Court of Appeals. If so, such a problem may have been avoided in the first place. Either way, something is off here.
I meant to say more of an uncorrupted government. Sorry.
Aimee Villalobos
mw 2-320
I learned that there is no time limit on appeals, which upon first hearing, I thought was a good thing. If people think they got the verdict wrong the first time, or their case wasn't handled properly, they should be allowed to receive justice. However to hear that people waited years just to find out someone wasn't at fault or they weren't going to receive compensation seems ridiculous.
I'm not sure how i feel about judges being elected or appointed. I think the people should have a say in it, since they may have to face this person someday, but at the same time I feel there needs to be a better picture of what all this judge has done while on the bench and not just that "they've been on the bench" for however many years. You should be able to see the good they've done the community.
I had no idea that the 3rd Court of Appeals had such a backlog of cases! However, I'm not surprised. The court process is often long and drawn out, I've experienced it firsthand. That being said, I'm not offended by the fact that many of those cases were blamed on former Chief Justice Kenneth Law. One would not want their case to be rushed through court without all of the facts and evidence intensely scrutinized. Furthermore, like the article says, an opinion can be a few pages or a whole chapter and I'm sure that it takes quite some time to formulate one's thoughts and opinions in such a way that it reads clear and concise when in regards to defining the law. And as for whether judges should be elected or appointed, I believe they should be elected. We live in a democratic nation. Americans have the right to vote for politicians who they believe act in their best interest.It may not be a perfect system, but I would rather live in America than anywhere else.
Abbie Barth
T/TH 12:30
It doesn't necessarily surprise me that the court is so secretive, but I do find it rather interesting that "the secrecy stems from common appellate court practice to reveal the name of the assigned judge only when the opinion is released to discourage improper outside influence (Lindell)." I understand that they do not want the judges' rulings to be skewed, but it leads to concealing the truth about what judge is doing his or her job improperly. This can lead to voters not knowing the "truth" about a judge when it comes times to vote.
I definitely agree that the judges should be elected and not appointed. However, as stated previously, with the courts secrecy many times voters will not be able to vote appropriatly because they do not know all the facts.
I was shocked to find that there is no time limit on appeals. Now knowing that they can sit for as long as five years is almost disturbing. I think It's ridiculous that there also isn't any way of tracking who is responsible for the waits. For this one reason, I wouldn't know how to place my vote because without that information, I feel like I or the people wouldn't be best suited to elect/appoint who should be a judge. I don't agree with Jones when he says that keeping record and opening it up to the public would leave false impressions, because if anything it would help form a stronger opinion and reduce appointing judges that cause this problem. I understand it's about quality and if it is about quality, then the public deserves more of an insight on the "behind the scenes."
I never knew that courts had no time limit on appeals. I'm glad I learned that because it is useful to know if I'm ever involved in an appeal it probably wont be quick. I also find it interesting the secrecy of the court idea. I would think after having so many backlog of appeals you would want on future appeals for the judge's name to appear before the opinion is given.
I think it is very important that judges are elected. If they are appointed, it will probably be in the benefit of the official appointing the judge not the people. I understand that we as voters are not always given accurate information but who's to say the judgment of someone already in power is much better. At least the judge who caused most of the backlog of appeals was voted out and someone who is doing the job correctly was put in his place.
Tim Lormor
Honors Free Speech
I also did not know that there was no time limit on appeals. As much as I understand that judges are just people like you and me, they shouldn't let cases go unresolved for years. That's just more and more money and time that those involved in the cases have to spend/waste. At least I know this now, and I can do everything in my power to avoid ever going to court.
That being said, although I agree that judges should be elected by the people, there should be very strict and very high standards for those who want to run for election. Judges should be the absolute masters of the law, but also shining, shimmering examples of good, honest people. But, I know that may be impossible to ask since the laws of our land are so dang confusing.
One interesting thing I learned from the Statesman article is that there is no accountability in the 3rd Court of Appeals. With no way to track which judges are responsible for certain case backlogs, there's no way for the voting public to make a truly informed decision when these judges are up for re-election.
It doesn't bother me that judges in Texas are elected. When it comes down to it, they're going to have to serve somebody. Judges who are appointed are typically expected to serve the ideology of the politicians who put them in the court, and I'd much rather have a judge serving the will of the people.
Jason Eikner
TTh 12:30
Lorena B.
TH 12:30
After reading the article, I am surprised of the amount of cases that are delayed. It is absolutely ridiculous that people have to wait years to find out a decision in which they will be affected by. And with no way of knowing who is responsible for these delays, it just makes me wonder how many of the judges are actually doing their job in serving the state and searching for justice.
As for whether judges should be appointed or selected, I am torn between the two. When people select a judge, like many of my classmates mentioned, it turns into a popularity contest. Running candidates will cater to the people’s views or opinions just to get their votes. On the other hand, when judges are appointed, the people have no say or vote on the decision. For some judges, their only objective is to stay in power and control the people. The people are oblivious to the judges’ political agenda or intentions.
I was apparently not alone in being surprised to learn there is no time limit on appeals. I understand that things get backed up and there are special circumstances in certain cases that would demand more time, but years and years in unacceptable.
As far as the election or appointing of judges go, I see that a lot of people said they want the judge to be elected in the hope that they would better represent what the people want -- this is dangerous. The majority opinion is not always right and judges are actually there to make sure justice is administered fairly not by a majority's whim.
Monte Ashqar
MC 4301 MW
I did not know that the appellate court looks into civil cases in addition to criminal cases. I also did not know that the court had more than one judge. I am pro appointing judges, but not for life terms. I would say for a maximum of 6 years. Nevertheless, appointing or electing judges will still keep a political influence on their performance. Al least though, if judges are appointed, then they will not have to spend time on campaigning for reelction, and can devote that time to serving the citizens instead.
L. Morgan - 2:00 class
From this article, I learned that there aren't time limits to appeals. I especially like that this article included some of the cases that have been back-burnered, because it really puts a face on the families that have been affected while waiting. I'm glad to hear they are working to resolve this problem.
As for judges being elected or appointed, I think judges should be elected because it would motivate them to work for the people. While it is their job description, even as appointed officials to work for the people, I don't think it would have taken near as long for resolve the appeals if they were risking reelection.
Well apparently, I also didn't know there was no time limit for appeals. And you can call me cynical but as far as appointing or electing officials, I would feel more comfortable allowing someone of higher authority and knowledgeable to do appoint.
Jessica Peters T-TH 12:30
The article explained, "State law sets no time limit on appeals, and the way court records are kept makes it impossible to know which judges are responsible for long waits." I had no idea. Reading some of the examples and reading that this court is up to 10 times more behind than other appellate courts made me second guess our system. I think judges should be elected. However, at the rate of 10 times more backed up than other courts, elected or appointed doesn't matter- we just need judges who can fix the problem!
Jessica R TH 1230
Along with everyone else, I think it is odd that there is no time limit on appeals. It seems disrespectful to the citizens in my opinion. 8 cases that took almost five years for a decision, that just sends the message that the court doesn't care enough to be urgent in their actions. 5 years, really? If I were one of the citizens appealing and had to wait 5 years I would be livid. What was Kenneth Law doing in his spair (sp?) time?
I think the judges should be appointed because they would feel less pressure to do what the citizens who voted for them would consider to be fair or just etc.
T/TH 12:30 class.
I learned many pieces of information about the appeals court process, probably because I didn't know anything about it at all. One thing I learned (and the most common) was that there is no time limit on appeals. This is very disturbing to me, and I hope I will never have to encounter an apeals court system (or any other court system) in my life.
My opinion concerning the election of judges is that judges should be elected, UNLESS they are the Supreme Court justices. The pressure of politics and keeping office can put stress on a judge's mind and can possibly alter his or her decisions. It's a sad reality. At least we don't have to worry about our Supreme Court justices trying to please constituents, because they have none.
Post a Comment