I like the idea of retention election ballots making no reference to party affiliation; that is the biggest part of a judicial reform. However, I think—as Roger suggested above—nonpartisan elections in general would be more beneficial to both the respect for the court among the polity and to democracy in general. Perhaps encourage a few more people to look at a judge’s record and qualifications rather than the R/D/L/I next to his name.

However, I’m not so sure that the majority thinks partisan elections are just fine. My talks with non-legal folks (my parents and such) have led me to believe people don’t like partisan election of judges once they think about it. I think the majority just doesn’t think about the issue enough—it lacks the political will to change the status quo despite its dislike of it.

Retention elections should be a lot less rigorous as the judge has no “opponent.” There are problems with groups that run “attack ads,” etc. to defeat the incumbent. However, on the whole I think Texans ought to give serious thought to reforms, even if it is only to go to nonpartisan elections.

We already appoint quite a few judges, after judicial retirements, promotions, and the like. As a point of reference, a majority of the current Texas Supreme Court was originally appointed by the Governor as an interim replacement for another justice who had left. [That's Chief Justice Jefferson (twice, really, if you include his promotion to Chief Justice), and Justices Brister, Medina, Johnson, and Willett.]

It’s a plus that these justices didn’t have to raise money and campaign to get their seats in the first place. But they have all had to do so at least once to hold their sets in subsequent elections.