Judges being bias toward certain law firms

I believe judges in states that have the same judicial system as Texas, are unfair and may favor
certain law firms before the case even starts. Did you know that judges in Texas have to raise a
minimum of one million dollars just to run for their states supreme court? They run in an election just
as a president would, which requires abundant amounts of money for advertising. But where do they
get this money? Well, seventy percent of the money comes from small and big law firms, which leads to
speculation of unfair rulings towards certain law firms.
When Texas became a state is 1845, judges of the states Supreme Court were elected by the
governor with congress approval. But since 1876, judges have been elected by the people in biased
elections (Womack Texas Judiciary). So what do I mean by bias elections? Well as I said before, judges
run for elections just as a president would- an election that requires advertising which costs millions of
dollars. Unless you were born into a multi-million dollar family, you will have to fund-raise that money,
but how? Well fundraising to people who dont care about which judges are elected probably will not be
effective of getting abundant amount of money. So who really cares about who gets elected? Law firms,
big and small. They know that if they support a running judge, and he or she wins, that they will have a
big advantage going into court before that judge.
Of course people will argue that judges of that high in relevance will not skew there favoring just
because that firm is before them in court. And they could argue that electing those judges is perfectly
fair and that there is no better way to elect a judge. Well lets say that judges are not affected when a
firm, that has supported them, are before them and they rule how they usually rule according to their
own ethics and experience. But judges have different views and ethics to certain laws and subjects;
everyone does- including you and I. For example, lets say that a defending death row firm has many

cases where their clients are prosecuted for the death penalty. During elections they know they should
support a judge that who doesnt believe in the death penalty. And when they appear in front of that
judge with a death row case, that judge is already against the death row case, resulting in that firm to
have an unfair and unethical advantage. These firms are truly, no matter if the judge changes their view
or not, buying their ruling to determine who wins that case. As you can see, there are defiantly
situations where cases maybe be skewed from supported judges, so how can we fix this? Well, judges
should be appointed by the governor and approved by the people on ballots, which we actually do in
Nebraska. Is it one hundred percent fair? No, but it is more impartial and nonbiased, unlike when there
is ridiculous amounts of money involved. The only way I can see this judicial system being positive is if
you are a firm or a judge. Also, the state could argue that the tax revenues are too important to not
have, but should tax revenues be more important that the true verdict?
I think that certain judicial system is vulnerable for corruption and needs to be changed
immediately. Criminals should not be let off with a better or easier sentence and innocent people should
not be convicted of crimes they did not commit. Even though the system here in Nebraska in not onehundred percent perfect, it is not biased as the system in Texas. The system should work that the guilty
should be charged accordingly, and the innocent be proved innocent, NOT the way it is now in Texas.

Womack, Paul. "Texas State Historical Association- Judiciary." N.p., n.d. Web.
"Judicial Selection in the States." Judicial Selection in the States. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2014.