How Appealing has provided links to a number of stories this weekend in Texas papers about the Chief Justice of Texas resigning. From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips -- a champion of judicial election reform who is credited with rebuilding the high court's once-tarnished image -- announced Thursday that he is retiring. Phillips, 54, is stepping down in September from the state's highest civil court to become a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston and said he will look for other career options while there. * * *The Houston Chronicle has had several stories (other Texas papers also have run stories, but require intrusive subscription information before one can read them). From a 4/30/04 story:Rumors about Phillips' retirement have been circulating for months. Phillips said he ran for re-election in 2002 to bring continuity to the court after five of the nine seats on the court came up for grabs. Phillips then took the opportunity to push one more time to change the way the state selects its judges. He backed a bill allowing voters to decide whether judges should be appointed instead of being elected. Phillips felt so strongly about how campaign contributions tainted the public's perception of the judiciary that he refused to take donations during his last campaign.
AUSTIN -- Taking a parting shot at a money-driven election system that gave him four victories but little comfort, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips announced Thursday he will resign in September to teach at Houston's South Texas College of Law.This Chronicle story, from Saturday, begins:The first Republican chief justice of modern times, Phillips has presided over the state's highest civil court for 16 years, a period marked by major political and philosophical changes. * * * Phillips was a state district judge in Houston when Clements appointed him to succeed Democrat John Hill, who had resigned in midterm.
Before the resignations of Hill and two other Democratic justices about the same time, the nine-member court was all Democratic and strongly aligned philosophically with plaintiffs' lawyers. Within a few years, Republicans had captured all of the court's seats, as they did other statewide offices, and businesses and insurance companies began prevailing over major legal challenges brought by plaintiff-consumers. Consequently, the court has received much criticism in recent years from consumer advocacy groups. * * *
For years, Phillips has advocated replacing Texas' partisan election of judges with a "merit selection" plan, under which the governor would appoint judges. The judges would later face voters in retention elections but wouldn't have opponents on the ballot. Voters would simply decide whether a judge should remain in office or be replaced by another gubernatorial appointee. [This would be similar to Indiana's system.]
The Legislature has repeatedly refused to change the system, which Phillips' Democratic predecessor also attacked upon leaving the court 16 years ago.
"Our most pressing problem, I believe, is judicial selection. The high-dollar, partisan system creates great instability in the judiciary and erodes public confidence in the fairness of our decisions," Phillips said Thursday.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Except for a Republican governor named Bill Clements, state government in 1988 was still mostly under Democratic control. Texans (the few who bothered to vote) elected their state judges, and members of the Texas Supreme Court were under attack for taking campaign contributions from special interests.Posted by Marcia Oddi at May 2, 2004 07:38 PMAnd, oh yes, Chief Justice John Hill, a Democrat, resigned in midterm, criticizing the money-driven, partisan election system and calling for change.
Now, Republicans are firmly in control in Austin. Texans (the few who bother to vote) still elect their state judges, and members of the Supreme Court are still being criticized for taking campaign contributions from special interests. And, last week, Hill's Republican successor, Tom Phillips, repeated earlier calls for scrapping the money-driven, partisan election system as he announced plans to step down in midterm. * * *
Some legislators want to change the system and have been trying for years. The appointment-retention plan -- or something similar -- would be a better way of choosing judges. But judicial selection is not a high legislative priority. That is partly because the high-stakes war over control of the high court, which was raging when Phillips came on board, is now off the front pages of the newspapers. Elections for the Supreme Court are no longer competitive in a philosophical or partisan way. Defense-oriented Republicans now hold all nine court seats, thanks to the doctors, businesses and insurance companies that have contributed millions of dollars to their campaigns -- and to Texas' recent partisan makeover. * * *
Another hurdle to changing the judicial selection process is opposition from both major political parties. About the only issue on which the state Democratic and Republican leadership agree is that Texans should be allowed to continue electing their judges, and partisans, of course, prefer a partisan ballot. * * * The biggest obstacle to change, however, may be the voters, who would have the final say because changing the judicial selection process would require a constitutional amendment. Public opinion polls, although inconclusive, have indicated many Texans want to keep electing judges, even though most people don't vote and many who do know nothing about the candidates.