There are more than five months before the deadline to file as a candidate for a judicial office here in Texas in advance of the 2010 election, and yet some are already in campaign mode. Given that judges in Texas are elected in the same manner as any politician, there is quite a bit of maneuvering in advance of these judicial races.
I like judges. I do. I know that I might say things about them that might make some wonder if I truly do, but by and large, I think we have a pretty good judiciary here in Tarrant County. Whether misdemeanor or felony or appellate, I'm fond of most of them. (I'm especially fond of appellate judges, if anyone is wondering in about six years; hint hint.)
But with all campaigning, there is something a candidate must do. She must set herself apart from the other candidates. However, judicial candidates are in a difficult position because they are largely unknown to the populace. Most voters aren't involved in lawsuits, whether civil or criminal, so there is no real exposure. Plus, most people don't think they will ever be in court, so they have no real incentive to learn about the candidates.
So what is a candidate to do? Simple. Talk in terms of efficiency. Everyone likes efficiency, but rarely more so than judges. How do I know? Just ask any judicial candidate how they feel about the size of the court's docket, and they will tell you it could be smaller.
The docket is simply the number of cases pending in a court. In virtually every election year, candidates for the bench will routinely talk about their plans to reduce the size of the court's docket.
My only question is this. Who cares?
I would venture to bet that if you asked any citizen in the county to guess the size of a given court's docket, they couldn't get within 500 cases of the actual number, maybe even 1000. Why do I say this? Because I am in courts virtually every day and I couldn't tell you. Why should a random voter? And just as importantly, why should they care?
Judges are best described as umpires; calling balls and strikes, but ultimately they shouldn't determine the outcome of the game. Umpires don't decide how long the game lasts, or whether there is a doubleheader that day, or when to bring in the closer, or when to steal second, or, well you get the idea.
For the lay people out there, judges neither file cases nor try them. They don't settle cases. They administer the cases within their court. I'm not saying it's not a difficult job at times, but they essentially manage what has been given to them. If no one sues anyone for a while, or the District Attorney's office doesn't file charges against anyone for a while, then there will be a decline in the number of cases in a given court. If defense attorneys decided to plead all their cases instead of pushing for trial, there would be fewer cases in a given court.
Candidates that claim to be able to reduce the size of their dockets are simply appealing to the general ignorance of the voting public. Voters don't care how big a court's docket is. Most of the time, even lawyers don't care how big a court's docket is.
Lawyers know that a case might take six months to resolve itself in one court, and yet it could take up to two years in a different court. We also know that a given judge is more likely to grant a suppression motion on an illegal search argument than another judge. Which of those is more important?
The point is nobody really cares how big your docket is, except I guess the judge themselves. It's the proverbial ten-word-answer in debate. It sounds really good, but then what? Give me the next ten words. You make your dockets smaller and then what? Have you now reduced crime in the county? No.
It's simply a campaign slogan worthy of a perhaps a bumper sticker, campaign button or postcard. But hardly worthy of someone who wants to be elected to the one type of political office that can literally destroy lives.
But what the hell do I know?
Recent Comments