Cash cows and other beasts

What does it take to become a judge? I'm so glad you asked! The short answer is "it depends." If you'd like to read the long answer, please stand by.

Let's start at the top. Supreme Court justices and other federal court judges are appointed for life (actually, they serve during "good behavior," but it takes action by Congress to remove them). The idea is that, if they can't be removed from office, then they won't be subject to the political leanings of other members of government who might seek to exercise control over their rulings. It's all about "separation of powers," the Constitutional principle that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government should exercise collective, yet separate, control over matters of government, thus assuring that no one branch rules with an iron fist. You may have heard of this principle referred to as a system of "checks and balances."

This "separation of powers" is exercised in state courts as well, though in a different manner. In Texas, state court judges (civil and criminal) are elected by popular vote. Like the appointment process in the federal context, election assures that the other branches of government have no control over the judiciary. And, unlike the federal system, the state system allows for the removal of judges whom the voting public decides not to re-elect.

For whatever reason, the municipal court system (a.k.a., "city court," where traffic tickets and other class C misdemeanors are heard) represents a shocking departure from the separation of powers afforded judges in federal and state courts.

For example, City of Dallas Municipal Court Judges are appointed for two year terms by the city council. The city council, as you might imagine, is quite interested in raising revenue for whatever city they represent. Municipal courts can be seen as a cash cow, with little purpose other than to raise money. Hence, a tacit expectation can exist with respect to the judges they appoint: collect money, or risk not being re-appointed.

In the City of Dallas, full-time judges often give up their law practices to sit on the bench. Thus, a singular two-year term can be devastating for the lawyer who gives up his practice for two years, and fails to be re-appointed. His law practice is gone, as is the gig he took to give it up.

Clearly, the municipal court process of re-appointment creates a blatant separation of powers issue, inasmuch as the judicial branch of city government (i.e., its judges) exists at the whim of the executive branch (i.e., the city council).

By the way, did I mention that city councils also legislate when they enact city ordinances?

Judges are supposed to be "neutral and impartial magistrates" who preside fairly, favoring neither the defense nor the prosecution. Of course, the prosecution's interests lie with those of the city council: to collect money for the city.

Thus, one can readily see how this dynamic might influence a judge to rule in a less than impartial fashion. Favorable rulings for the prosecution translate, ultimately, into increased revenue for the city and, in turn, curry favor with the city council who decides not only which judges are re-appointed, but also enacts the ordinances which define the process. At the very least, the appearance of impropriety exists... which is the reason the notion of separation of powers was included in the Constitution in the first place.