Couple of good reads in the DMN as of late. First, this editorial from William McKenzie, who argues that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White should run on the issue of judicial elections reform:
For years, Texas’ plaintiffs’ lawyers and business leaders have been like the Soviet Union and United States from the Cold War days, only brawling over the liability laws that govern the state. As part of the Texas death match, both sides have poured big dollars into judicial and legislative races, hoping to elect candidates that support their agendas.
The trial lawyers argue for maintaining strong punitive damages against businesses whose products or practices harm consumers. Of course, those lawyers benefit handsomely from the fees they earn from punitive damage cases.
The business community presses for more restrictive jury awards. Their leaders fear losing their companies through awards disproportionate to the actual injuries.
The two sides have their battle squadrons. The Texas Trial Lawyers Association leads one side; Texans for Lawsuit Reform heads the other. These competitors are so well financed that they could bloody each other until kingdom come.
But it’s hard to see the wisdom in that – or how the constant tug-of-war really helps Texas, which has the reputation of being a place where justice is for sale.
It would be great to see them come together behind a crusade to change the way Texas judges are selected. TLR has talked about this, and there’s some movement in trial lawyer circles to see changes at the Supreme Court and appellate levels. Perhaps the time is right to strike a deal. It certainly could cost less.
[...]
White is in a perfect place to change this perception, more than any other gubernatorial candidate, as both a successful trial lawyer and a businessman.
He made his mark in the 1980s working for one of Texas’ biggest trial firms. He then spent much of the 1990s pursuing oil deals in the former Soviet Union. And before becoming Houston’s mayor in 2003, he was head of a diversified company.
Those credentials give him the ability to talk to both sides about reforming Texas’ lunatic judicial system. None of the other candidates has a similar background.
I’m not sure how eager the average Texan is for judicial elections reform, but having opposing constituencies behind the idea would do a lot to get it moving forward, even if Texas voters are apathetic to the idea (and I’m not saying they are; I’m just saying I don’t know if they are or aren’t.) A recent U.S. Supreme Court case has brought more attention to the iniquities of state judicial elections, so perhaps now is the best time to move on reform.
Also, an article in today’s DMN provides an overview of the upcoming State Board of Education races, which will feature (yet again) a battle between right-wingers, moderate Republican and Democratic candidates:
“I see [the elections] as a referendum on what we’ve done the last few years,” said Republican board member Don McLeroy, an outspoken social conservative who served as chairman until last summer.
[...]
Now McLeroy is again in a contest to determine the board’s direction. His Republican primary opponent is lobbyist Thomas Ratliff of Mount Pleasant, son of former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff.
The younger Ratliff said he wants to “take politics out of public education,” citing the continuing squabbles over textbooks, evolution and sex education. McLeroy insists education is “too important not to be politicized.”
“If you’re going to be in a political office, you have to promote your views, and I’m confident and proud of the stands I’ve taken and my votes on the major issues,” McLeroy said.
As explained in this Washington Monthly feature, these board members have the power to influence what kids throughout the nation are learning by virtue of the size of Texas’ textbook market. They don’t have the ability to force creationism down anyone’s throat (though they would if they could) but they certainly do have the ability to undermine the teaching of evolution, or a more liberal reading of United States history, etc. I suppose McLeroy believes that teaching the facts of evolution, or teaching history without a right-wing bias, is “politicization.” Whatever he thinks, it’s certainly too important to be left in the hands of ignorant Bible-thumpers.
