PROPONENTS of appointed state judges rather than elected ones got a recent but qualified boost from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our top federal court overturned, by 5-4, a decision by West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals favoring a coal company. West Virginia elects its judges, as does Texas and five other states, and the federal decision had to do with an election campaign occurrence. One of the West Virginia court’s justices, Brent Benjamin, received $3 million in election assistance from an executive of the coal company.

A lower West Virginia state court jury ruled for a party suing the coal company and awarded a $50 million judgment. The company appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, and Benjamin cast the deciding vote overturning the jury verdict. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

THE FEDERAL court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and said Benjamin should have recused himself.

Benjamin was ordered off the case and the U.S. Supreme Court sent it back to the state court for rehearing. The majority opinion in that case said, “Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, but this is an exceptional case.” No determination was made as to whether Benjamin actually showed bias, but the ruling said there was “serious objective risk” of that occurring.

The ruling set no hard and fast standards for deciding when political donations require a judge’s recusal. U.S. Supreme Court dissenters pointed to the potential erosion of public confidence in judges and the increased likelihood of motions to recuse judges.

That doesn’t exactly pave the way for eliminating Texas judicial elections, but it does give cannon fodder to those opposing the system. The Lone Star State elects judges, from county precinct justices of the peace all the way to chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

Appointive judiciary supporters say campaign donations to judges, by either attorneys practicing in their courts or by persons or parties involved in cases in those courts, taints the public’s image of Texas jurists.

IT MIGHT surprise many that two of the leading proponents of appointing Texas judges are a former state supreme court chief justice, Tom Phillips, and the current chief justice, Wallace Jefferson.

Phillips says the recent Supreme Court ruling should begin anew a national debate on how judges are chosen. Jefferson’s view is that the decision challenges Texans to do more to eliminate the perception that cash campaign contributions influence court decisions.

In the period from 1999-2006, Justice at Stake, a judicial reform group, found that nearly $160 million had been donated in the seven states on contested judicial elections. Alabama led with $36.4 million with Texas second at $14 million.

Not much is said about local court races and whether or not those lower courts should be included in the notion of appointive judges. Neither precinct justices of the peace nor county judges are required to have a law degree or license to hold those positions.

County judges, particularly in rural counties, not only are they the county’s chief administrative officer, they must preside in court cases involving DWI, misdemeanor crimes, probate and certain civil suits. In at least one instance, a former county judge seldom held court because of limited reading ability, resulting in a backlog of several hundred cases, most of them DWIs. That problem doesn’t exist in urban counties where there is usually a system of county courts at law to take all judicial trial responsibility.

STATE DISTRICT judge is one of the most powerful positions in Texas, yet is generally under the radar with regard to statewide scrutiny. However, those judgeships are not immune from the influence of campaign contributions.

In one area of the state, a contested district judge’s race resulted in area lawyers picking one candidate, then having a secret, invitation-only fete for the favored one. In that area, one such gathering a few years back resulted in more than $100,000 for the anointed candidate. This happened in a region where a really hot district judge’s race would require maybe $30,000 in spending to win.

Let the debate begin. . . again.

Willis Webb is a retired community newspaper editor-publisher. He can be reached by email at wwebb@wildblue.net.