Resignations Of Houston Judges Highlight Problems With State’s Election Law

A few excerpts from a recent Houston Chronicle story about the timing of judicial resignations:

Fowler said Tuesday that she contemplated leaving the appellate bench in the spring but changed her mind after word got out. She said she was informed by other Republicans that if she stayed until after Aug. 22, the governor could appoint her successor.

[...]

She said she stayed through the summer to get opinions written without leaving fellow jurists in the lurch. Fowler said that work took her right up until the deadline, so she wrote the governor Aug. 25 and made her resignation effective Aug. 28. She said she let the deadline pass in part to make sure her successor wasn’t stuck with only two months to campaign.

Bernal said he knew he was leaving for Apache Corp. in August and postponed his resignation three days until Aug. 25 largely because he thought it better to have a successor appointed by the governor that the voters could later approve or disapprove in 2010.

“We’re probably better served by someone vetted by the governor than someone just on the ballot,” Bernal said.

In theory, the jurists in discussed above did nothing wrong. They didn’t break the law. But, they did exploit the law.

When any law can be exploited to this extent, there is a serious flaw in the law.

Granted, it is necessary to have some type of a cutoff on provisions related to whether or not special elections are called because ballots must be presented and people do need time to campaign. However, in cases such as these, there should be penalties for exploiting those laws. For example, if it is proved that a resigning officeholder makes statements like the judges above did (that they wanted to usurp the electoral process) and deliberately timed their resignations, then the race should go on the ballot, period, or another special election should be triggered.

Better yet, how about not allowing gubernatorial appointments to sit on the bench for three years before being brought before the voters? How about requiring that, if the position is vacated after August 25, that the governor may appoint a successor until an election is held at the next uniform election date…in May. Then, you’ve only got a gubernatorial appointment warming the seat for a few months and voters have a chance to weigh-in.

Yes, there is a cost associated with having more elections, but when it means giving voters a say, shouldn’t we err on the side of public interest?

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It