Anatomy of a Judicial Election: A Report from Texas

I have written elsewhere (here, here, and here) about the importance of sound state courts and the deleterious consequences when judges depart from the rule of law to obtain desired results. I practiced law in California for 30 years, navigating the often-perilous straits of judicial decisions issued by both California’s quixotic state courts and the even-more capricious Ninth Circuit, and in the process developed keen antennae for the indicia of an activist judge. Unprincipled judges exist at every level (state and federal), no matter how they are selected — appointed, elected, or so-called “merit selection.” One activist judge on an appellate court is a nuisance, but the risk is that the result-orientation — if not corrected — will “infect” other judges, compromising the integrity of the court in question. In Texas, where all judges appear on the ballot in partisan elections, incumbent Texas Supreme Court justice Debra Lehrmann (R., Place 3) is facing a primary challenge from Houston-based First Court of Appeals justice Michael Massengale, who is also a Republican. (Two other Republican incumbents on the ballot in 2016 drew no opponents.) What is going on?

It is telling that the PAC associated with Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a nonpartisan group that advocates civil justice reform, endorsed Lehrmann when she ran in 2010, but has endorsed Massengale in the upcoming March 2016 election. In order to figure out why, I looked into Lehrmann’s record on the Texas Supreme Court and read some of her decisions. It turns out that since 2010 Lehrmann has dissented more often — over 40 times — than any other member of the Court (all of whom are Republicans). Many of her dissents were in cases applying the landmark Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA), a comprehensive-reform statute passed by the legislature in 2003 (with the support of TLR) in response to a medical-malpractice crisis that jeopardized the availability of health care in Texas. Lehrmann has consistently — even doggedly — advanced positions that would restrict the application of TMLA by, for example, allowing the assertion of claims that are time-barred under the plain terms of TMLA.

Read more at National Review

  • “Mark Pulliam is one of the few truly fearless, devastatingly incisive, original and yet deeply learned commentators on the contemporary legal scene.  His new blog is a welcome addition and a splendid and provocative resource.”
    Professor Stephen B. Presser
    Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History Emeritus, Northwestern University School of Law
  • “Mark Pulliam is the Walt Longmire of legal conservatism. You don't want to be on the wrong end of his pen. His commentary on law, politics, and policy is not to be missed.”
    Richard Reinsch II
    Director of Law and Liberty, Liberty Fund, Inc.
  • “Mark's blistering criticism of the foibles of the lawyering class and crackpot judges is a worthy penance for a recovering attorney. And it is our gain.”
    Michael Thompson
    Shareholder, Wright & Greenhill, P.C.
  • “Maybe this man’s degree is written in crayon."
  • "Mark Pulliam fancies himself a Paul Revere of the right."
    Froma Harrop
    Syndicated columnist
  • “With the flourish of a pen, Mark Pulliam makes bad guys rhetorically bleed and weak guys physically cringe. It's awesome.”
    Michael Quinn Sullivan
    President & CEO, Empower Texans
  • "Mark Pulliam, writer and thinker extraordinaire, has a new blog. Make sure to visit and register. Mark Pulliam's new blog is a thing of wit and intelligence."
    Bradley J. Birzer
    Professor of History, Hillsdale College, President of the American Ideas Institute, and editor at large of The Imaginative Conservative
Featured In

Sign up for updates

Get the latest updates, news, and alerts directly from the source.
We promise, we don't spam.

Featured Tweets