| Home |
 |
Chapter 24 |
|
The Power of the Courts in Texas
The Texas court system has been beset by a series of controversies in recent years that have called into question the fairness of justice in the state. Because elected state judges in Texas receive large campaign contributions from lawyers who may practice before them and from other special interests, the system has been criticized. Texas has a conflicting array of courts, many with overlapping jurisdictions.
The State Courts in the Federal System
Texans are subject to both federal and state law, and federal court action affects Texas government. Federal court intervention continues in the redistricting of legislative and congressional district lines and has ordered improvements in the state prison system. Still, ninety-seven percent of all litigation is based on state laws and local ordinances.
The Legal Framework of the Judicial System
The U.S. and Texas constitutions form the basic legal framework of the Texas court system. The legislature ahs created codes of criminal and civil procedure as well. The Texas penal code defines criminal activities and their punishments. The most serious offenses are felonies, while more minor offenses are misdemeanors. The difference typically is whether those found guilty can be sent to prison or not. Civil law governs conflicts between two or more parties concerning mainly contracts and property rights, relief against corporate abuses and liability for personal injury.
The Structure of the Texas Court System
There are five levels of Texas courts – some with overlapping authority and jurisdiction. It is one of only two states with a bifurcated court system at the highest appellate level. The nine-member Texas Supreme Court is the court of last resort in civil cases and the nine-member Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in criminal cases.
Municipal courts and justice of the peace courts are the lowest ranking courts in Texas. They handle mainly traffic tickets and raise revenue for local governments. They are established by state law but the selection and qualification of their judges are set by city governments. Municipal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over city ordinances. One problem is that few are courts of record, meaning they do not keep a word-for-word transcript of the proceedings; this allows for appeals to be heard again or de novo at the higher courts. Each county is required to provide one justice of the peace court. Justices of the peace are elected for four-year terms from subdivisions in the county. These justices are not required to be licensed attorneys. Justice of the peace courts have original jurisdiction in civil cases involving less than $5,000 and criminal offenses that are punishable by fines. These are not courts of record.
County courts were created by the Constitution to serve sparsely populated rural areas of the state. This has created confusion about authority and jurisdiction. Each county has a constitutional county court headed by a county judge, who is the chief executive officer of the county and presides over the commissioners court which is a policy-making body of county government. There are also 226 statutory county courts or courts-at-law in 70 counties. These courts were created to deal with specific local problems and so their have inconsistent jurisdictions.
The primary trial court is the district court, which have original jurisdiction in civil cases involving $200 or more in damages, divorce cases, contested elections, conflicts over land titles and liens, slander, all criminal felony case and misdemeanors involving official misconduct. As the population has increased, so have the number of district courts. With increasing delays in criminal cases, plea bargains have become more widespread.
Fourteen intermediate courts of appeals hear appeals of both civil and criminal cases from district courts. Each court has a chief justice and at least two other justices, although the legislature can add to that number. There are wide disparities in the caseloads between these courts with those in Houston and Dallas handling the most.
The Texas Supreme Court handles only civil appeals. It also develops administrative procedures for the state courts and rules of civil procedure, and it appoints the Board of Law Examiners that licenses attorneys. The justices are elected for six year terms. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hears only appeals of criminal cases. Its members are also elected for six year terms.
Most Texas judges are white males while minorities are proportionally underrepresented. Almost two-thirds of the judges at the district level and above are now Republicans. Both county attorneys and district attorneys who are responsible for prosecuting criminals are also elected.
Judicial reform is a popular theme in Texas politics but very little has change has occurred. A 1989 in-depth study suggested the need for a major overhaul including a unified court system. However, reform has been difficult to obtain because the major players involved have little desire to change the system.
The Jury System
Citizens serve on two kinds of juries in Texas -- grand juries and petit or trial juries. Grand juries are supposed to ensure that the government has sufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal prosecution against an individual. If at least 9 believe there is sufficient evidence, they issue an indictment. Petit or trial juries hear evidence and render verdicts in cases involving both civil and criminal matters.
Judicial Procedures and Decision Making
Litigants in civil cases and most criminal cases can waive a jury trial and have their cases decided by a judge. Trials move through opening statements, examination and cross-examination of witnesses, presentation of evidence, rebuttal, summation, and verdict. Cases can be appealed to appellate courts, where there are no juries. Appellate courts review the decisions and procedures of lower courts for conformity to constitutional and statutory requirements. Parties dissatisfied with the decisions of the courts of appeals can appeal to the Texas Supreme Court or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Most cases taken to the Texas Supreme Court on appeal are from one of the courts of appeal, but they may come directly from a district court. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases that originate in the district and county courts.
Judicial Concerns and Controversies
Texas courts remain at the center of conflict and controversy due to large campaign contributions from lawyers and other special interests. Public confidence in the court system has been undermined by these issues and concerns.
Historically, Texas has been dominated by conservative politics and a conservative judiciary. Judges tended to view themselves as strict constructionists. Judges who espouse strict construction see their role as narrowly interpreting and applying the law while leaving public policy initiatives to the legislature. Judicial activists believe they should take a more expansive view of the law by reading broad policy implications into their decisions.
The Texas Supreme Court became a battleground in the 1980s between trial attorneys who represented injured parties in damage lawsuits, and the businesses, doctors, and insurance companies they sued. After trial lawyers began contributing millions of dollars to successful Supreme Court candidates, longtime judicial precedents that had favored the corporate establishment began to fall, and it became easier for plaintiffs to win huge damage awards. The business and medical communities retaliated by winning some legislative changes in the procedures under which lawsuits are tried and by increasing their political contributions in judicial races.
The increasing strength of the Republican Party and appointments by Governor Bill Clements to fill midterm vacancies increased the number of Republican judges on trial courts during the 1980s. This gave Republicans their first majority on the Texas Supreme Court in modern times. The changing composition of the courts was accompanied by rulings in several key liability cases that favored business defendants over plaintiffs. By 1987 the business community had also begun a battle in the legislature for tort reform that would limit personal injury and damage judgments entered by the courts. Reform limited governmental liability, attempted to discourage frivolous lawsuits, limited the ability of claimants to collect damages for injuries, and limited punitive damages. In 1988 the Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Hill resigned in order to advocate judicial reform; he pushed for a merit selection plan for judges. The subsequent elections brought no real changes in the court and were the most expensive races to that date. In 1995, Governor George W. Bush successfully supported even stricter limits on punitive damages and limits on liability for parties only partially responsible for injuries. Although no Democratic challengers filed for the three Supreme Court seats that were on the 2000 ballot, Democratic candidates ran for all four seats on the 2002 ballot.
Women and minorities historically have been under-represented on the state's court benches at all levels. In a lawsuit by minority plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge Lucius Bunton of Midland ruled in 1989 that the county-wide system of electing district, or trial judges in nine of the state's largest counties violated the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of minorities. But that ruling was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. By 1998, nine years after the minority lawsuit was tried, only 8 percent of the state judges at the county court level and higher were Hispanic and 2.5 percent were African American. The first woman to serve as a state district judge was appointed in 1935. in 1994 a woman was finally elected to the Court of Criminal Appeals and now serves as the presiding judge of that court.
There are several possible alternatives to the current selection process of judges and these include nonpartisan elections, elections from geographic districts, or a merit selection plan under which the governor would appoint judges from lists of nominees recommended by experts. The latter plan would require the appointed judges to run later in retention elections to keep their seats, but they would not have opponents on the ballot. The public may have a lot to gain from judicial restructuring but the primary stakeholders have resisted change. Until there is a popular demand for reform, change will be difficult to attain.
Crime and Punishment
Through a case-by-case process, the U.S. Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Rights to the states by way of the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Miranda (1966) ruling, for instance, required states to tell those arrested that they have the right to remain silent and to consult with an attorney. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court also struck down the death penalty in Texas and other states because it violated the constitutional protection against “cruel and unusual punishment” because it could be applied in a discriminatory fashion. Not only could virtually any act of murder be punished by death under the old Texas law, but so could rape and certain other crimes. In 1973, Texas rewrote the death penalty statute to meet constitutional standards, making it apply only to certain specific types of murder, such as murder for hire or multiple murders. By early 2004, more than 300 men and 2 women had been executed in Texas by lethal injection. Texas divides its criminal offenses into three degrees of felonies and three classes of misdemeanors.
The Politics of Criminal Justice
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is at the center of philosophical and political disputes regarding the constitutional rights of convicted criminals. During the first quarter of the twentieth century Texas and many other states had a harsh system of criminal justice that often reflected class and racial bias at the trial level; as a result the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed 42 percent of the cases that were appealed to it. By 1966, the reversal rate was only 3 percent. However, that figure has varied with changes in the court’s makeup and changes in political attitudes. Since the GOP takeover of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the court has taken a strong, pro-prosecutorial record especially in death penalty cases.
Increased Policy Role of the State Courts
The federal judiciary has traditionally had more influence than the state courts in molding public policy. But in recent years the Texas Supreme Court has increasingly played an active role in shaping broader public policies and addressing significant constitutional issues. One of its most significant and best-known rulings was the Edgewood school finance case of 1989. Here the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ordered major, basic changes in the financing public education to provide more equity between rich and poor districts. The lawsuit had been brought against the state by poor districts after years of legislative inaction against a property tax-based finance system that had produced huge disparities in local education resources and in the quality of local schools. The courts have also been involved in abortion issues with cases concerning damages against anti-abortion protestors, parental notification for minors, and upholding state restriction on funding of abortions for women on Medicaid.
Chapter Objectives
After mastering the concepts in this chapter, you will be able to
|