In recent years, judicial elections have changed dramatically. The elections themselves have become increasingly partisan, interest group involvement in judicial races has escalated, recent court decisions have freed judicial candidates to speak more openly than ever before about their judicial ideologies, and the tenor of judicial campaigns has departed significantly from what were once low-key, sleepy affairs. This book examines the evolution of the new rough-and-tumble politics of judicial elections by focusing on Texas, a bellwether for the new judicial selection politics in America. The Texas experience illustrates what can - and usually will - go wrong when judges are elected, and lays the path for meaningful reforms to stem the tide of the new politics of judicial elections.

With its often vague legal concepts and institutions that operate according to unfamiliar procedures, judicial decision-making is, in many respects, a highly enigmatic process. New Directions in Judicial Politics seeks to demystify the courts, offering readers the insights of empirical research to address questions that are of genuine interest to students. In addition to presenting a set of conclusions about the way in which courts operate, this book also models the craft of political research, illustrating how one can account for a variety of factors that might affect the courts and how they operate. The renowned scholars and teachers in this volume invite critical thinking, not only about the substance of law and courts in America, but also about the ways in which we study judicial politics.

Across the country, races for judgeships are becoming more and more politically contested. As a result, several states and cities are now considering judicial election reform. Running for Judge examines the increasingly contentious judicial elections over the last twenty-five years by providing a timely, insightful analysis of judicial elections. The book ties together the current state of the judicial elections literature, and presents new evidence on a wide range of important topics, including: the history of judicial elections; an understanding of the types of judicial elections; electoral competition during races; the increasing importance of campaign financing; voting in judicial elections; the role interest groups play in supporting candidates; party organizing in supposedly non-partisan elections; judicial accountability; media coverage; and judicial reform of elections. Running for Judge is an engaging, accessible, empirical analysis of the major issues surrounding judicial elections, with contributions from prominent scholars in the fields of judicial politics, political behavior, and law. Contributors: Lawrence Baum, Chris W. Bonneau, Brent D. Boyea, Paul Brace, Rachel P. Caufield, Jennifer Segal Diascro, Brian Frederick, Deborah Goldberg, Melinda Gann Hall, Richard L. Hasen, David Klein, Brian F. Schaffner, and Matthew J. Streb.

The reality for Texas judges is that in order to be elected or reelected, they must be either rich or really good at begging. Increasingly, they also have to be "pure" supporters of their political party. Texans tell pollsters that the big campaign money needed for elections influences judicial decisions--an opinion with which lawyers agree, as do a surprising number of judges. But most Texans want to keep electing judges [despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of us don't even vote In judicial elections]. The end result is a judicial election system that is merely a crapshoot. Judges and lawyers have talked about the problem for years and can't agree on what should be done. With "Crapshoot Justice, which features interviews with lawyers and former judges, the authors' intent is to keep stirring the pot until the system is changed.

Watrous became the attorney general of the Republic of Texas in 1838 but soon resigned because of conflicts of interest over land speculation. In 1846, he was appointed by President James K. Polk to a new seat on the United States District Court for the District of Texas, where he became the object of severe criticism and ultimately an unsuccessful impeachment. The main charges against him were violating Texas statutes punishing those dealing in fraudulent land certificates, misusing his judicial influence, and holding sessions of court improperly. Because he refused a Confederate appointment during the U.S. Civil War, he was able to retake his seat after the fall of the Confederacy.--Adapted from en.wikipedia.org.

Over the past two decades, the United States has seen an intense debate about the composition of the federal judiciary. Are judges "activists"? Should they stop "legislating from the bench"? Are they abusing their authority? Or are they protecting fundamental rights, in a way that is indispensable in a free society? Are Judges Political? cuts through the noise by looking at what judges actually do. Drawing on a unique data set consisting of thousands of judicial votes, Cass Sunstein and his colleagues analyze the influence of ideology on judicial voting, principally in the courts of appeal. They focus on two questions: Do judges appointed by Republican Presidents vote differently from Democratic appointees in ideologically contested cases? And do judges vote differently depending on the ideological leanings of the other judges hearing the same case? After examining votes on a broad range of issues--including abortion, affirmative action, and capital punishment--the authors do more than just confirm that Democratic and Republican appointees often vote in different ways. They inject precision into an all-too-often impressionistic debate by quantifying this effect and analyzing the conditions under which it holds. This approach sometimes generates surprising results: under certain conditions, for example, Democrat-appointed judges turn out to have more conservative voting patterns than Republican appointees. As a general rule, ideology should not and does not affect legal judgments. Frequently, the law is clear and judges simply implement it, whatever their political commitments. But what happens when the law is unclear? Are Judges Political? addresses this vital question.

A new Texas politics book with a proven approach.