Jefferson’s speech to the Lege on Wednesday was widely reported. But the week brought other news that underscored the Chief’s plea to change Texas to a merit-based appointment system. First, there was the $2.6 million bribery scheme by two judges in Pennsylvania, one of the other seven states that still elects judges. Then today there is the NYTimes report that the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a major case in West Virginia, decided by a new chief justice whose election — echoing John Grisham’s recent best-seller, The Appeal — was mainly financed by a coal executive whose company was a litigant in the case.Â
Chief Justice Jefferson was forthright about the low opinion citizens hold about their state judges:
 I share [former Supreme Court] Justice O’Connor’s concern about the corrosive influence of money in judicial elections. Polls asking about this perception find that more than 80% of those questioned believe contributions influence a judge’s decision. That’s an alarming figure — four out of five.
Alarming? More than that. It demonstrates how too much democracy can undermine the very norms that make democracy possible. The rule of law upheld by an unbiased judiciary is the sine qua non of a free society. State Senator Robert Duncan (R., Lubbock) has introduced a bill to eliminate elections of appellate judges. As this editorial from the San Angelo Standard Times argues, it doesn’t go far enough but it’s a good start.
