No “Merit” For Texas
July 2, 2010
The Texas Lawyer (subscription required) has a hand-wringer on the failure to replace democratic judicial elections with “merit” selection – where a tribunal controlled by legal elites meets in secret to decide who should sit on the bench. For 10 years, Senator/Attorney Robert Duncan – who has been designated a “Texas Super Lawyer” – has been pushing the “merit” selection rock up the hill without success. Why is Duncan so determined to abolish the constitutional right of Texans to choose their public servants on the bench? Because, in an election, a judge might actually lose his/her job! The horror! Read more
No “Merit” for Texas
June 1, 2010
The Houston Chronicle has an editorial advocating an end to democratic judicial elections in Texas. Echoing former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Chronicle calls for establishing a “nonpartisan commission” that would nominate acceptable candidates, followed by retention elections to decide whether judges should stay on the bench.
The idea that the “merit” selection panels can be “nonpartisan” is a pleasant fiction that is clearly and easily refuted by the experience in other states. In Tennessee, lawmakers nearly let the entire “merit” selection system expire because it had become so deeply partisan. In Missouri, a petition is working its way onto the November ballot that would bring back democratic elections, following rising public frustration with a “merit” selection system that has been completely hijacked by the state’s powerful trial lawyers lobby. In Florida, the state NAACP actually filed an amicus brief with the state Supreme Court charging that “the specter of racial discrimination has been raised” by the “merit” commission’s actions.
The Chronicle doesn’t say how Texas will avoid similar pitfalls – probably because it can’t. Exactly what immaculate conception is going to give rise to a truly “nonpartisan” commission? Any commissioners appointed by the governor or legislators can’t be considered “nonpartisan” if that word has any meaning. Any commissioners selected by legal special interest groups – the state bar association, the trial lawyers association – will bring their own biases to the job.
Every leading public servant in America is inherently political. That’s what it means to live in a democracy. The key is to make public servants – including judges – accountable to the people. Democratic judicial elections ensure this accountability by giving citizens the power to remove public servants they deem should be replaced. “Merit” selection destroys it by making judges accountable to no one.
Starbucks Suit: What Happened to Personal Responsibility?
May 21, 2010
Court Koenning of the Houston Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse has a common-sense piece in the Southeast Texas Record worth a quick read. He writes: “We need to realize that every dilemma or personal disappointment is not fodder for a lawsuit and does not warrant a treasure trove of cash.”
Have Coat, Will Travel — Lose Suit, Will Sue
March 11, 2010
What do you do if you’re a Texas personal injury lawyer who forgets his $800 leather jacket at an airport when boarding a flight?
Well, since you’re a personal injury lawyer and owned an $800 coat, you could probably afford to buy a new one.
Or since you make your living bringing personal injury lawsuits you could…
- Threaten to sue the city where the airport is located;
- Threaten to sue the the concession where you think you left your jacket;
- And threaten to sue the airline!
That’s what William Ogletree, a Houston trial lawyer chose. The Ogletree case is just one more example of lack of personal responsibility that runs rampant these days. For more of the gory details read this article from the Southeast Texas Record.
Dueling Polls…Or Would A Judge Sell Out for $304?
February 2, 2010
“The public wants cash out of the courtroom – and that could mean pushing out elections, too.” So concludes an article in the Texas Tribune, citing as evidence a poll conducted by Justice at Stake which found that 84% of Americans believe judges should not hear cases from major contributors and 74% believe campaign contributions have some impact on a judge’s decisions.
But the leap the Texas Tribune makes from these manufactured survey findings to the conclusion that Texas should abolish democratic judicial elections is a clanking non sequitur.
A 2008 poll by the American Justice Partnership Foundation found that 75% of Americans believe state Supreme Court judges should be elected and only 21% supported so-called “merit” selection. Even a poll released by the staunches of “merit” selection supporters – the American Bar Association – found that only 19% of Americans wanted to turn judicial selection over to “merit” boards.
In that same article, the Texas Tribune publishes contributions by employees at top law firms between 2000 and 2009. Over that time period, 1,103 individual contributions were made at an average of $304. Even Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson – a staunch “merit’ selection supporter – had to admit that “most judges don’t sit down at night and go over the list as to who contributed and who has not contributed to their campaign.”
The real problem, then, isn’t the fact that judges are changing their votes to please contributors, because Chief Justice Jefferson agrees they aren’t – at least not for $304. Instead, all we’re really dealing with is a problem of “public perception.”
If the public is wrong in their perception – as Justice Jefferson seems to believe – then isn’t the answer to better educate the public about the virtues of its judges, rather than punishing the public by eliminating their role in judicial selection altogether?
Update on Trial Lawyer Protection in Health Care Bill
November 6, 2009
Earlier this week I reported on the effort underway in Congress to punish states that have solved the medical liability crisis by enacting caps on non-economic damages. Now, Congressman Henry Cuellar – a Blue Dog Democrat from Texas – won a “pre-emption” provision that would allow states with caps already on the books to keep those reforms in place and remain eligible for incentive payments under the House health care reform bill.
Great … but what about states that are looking to follow the lead of Texas, California and others who have reduced medical liability premiums and improved access to health care through tort reform?
This “sweetener” may win a few extra votes, but it slams the door on any further, meaningful action to curb frivolous medical liability lawsuits in states that haven’t enacted caps. It also shows the outsized influence that $100 million in campaign contributions can win in Congress.
Who Pays For Lawsuit Abuse? You Do!
September 16, 2009
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse of Central Texas has a funny new ad linking the trial bar to rising health insurance premiums. You can watch it at The Spot - a political ad blog by TNSMI/CMAG, which called the ad one of 2009’s best.
Legal Reform Boosts Growth More Than Gov’t Stimulus
August 12, 2009
This week, an op-ed in the The Columbian (a daily in Washington state), pointed out how legal reform in Texas has contributed to its relative success during our nation’s economic downturn.
Legal reform advocates, particularly medical malpractice reformers, have long pointed to Texas as a model of what works to get doctors–and other businesses–to set up shop and stay in the Lone Star State.
Here is a taste:
“[N]ew businesses and doctors have flooded into the state in the wake of the lawsuit abuse reform legislation, which capped non-economic damages at $250,000. According to the Dallas Morning News, the average award prior to tort reform was $1.21 million; now it is $880,000.”
“Lawsuit reform has had a major impact on the state’s economy. In addition to the influx of new businesses, more than 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas in the past three years. According to the Texas Medical Association, malpractice insurance premiums for Texas doctors have dropped more than 30 percent since 2003 and 15 new insurance companies have entered the Texas market. Regrettably, the federal health care reforms moving through Congress include nothing about lawsuit reform.”
Despite this good news and Texas’s improved reputation, the state’s battle over reform has not stopped. During the last legislative session, we saw trial lawyers and their lawsuit happy cronies make a full assault against the very reforms that have helped created jobs in Texas.
Fortunately, legal reform allies like the Texas Civil Justice League and Texans For Lawsuit Reform successfully thwarted these efforts. We also owe a huge Texas thank you to Governor Rick Perry who wasn’t afraid to wield his veto pen. Because of their vision and courage, Texas will continue to be a model for the nation.
Change We Can Believe In?
January 21, 2009
Millions of Americans watched President’s Obama’s gracious inaugural address with a sense of hopefulness that our nation’s political leaders can work together on a bipartisan basis to address the serious economic challenges facing America. But Les Weisbrod – a Texas trial lawyer and president of the American Association for Justice (formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association) – had something else on his mind: $$$$$.
For Weisbrod and the thousands of personal injury lawyers he represents, the Obama Administration means one thing and one thing alone: the chance to sue more companies. According to a report in the Dallas Morning News, Weisbrod was told by none other than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Democrats will soon push President Obama to make it easier for trial lawyers to sue drug companies whose products have been reviewed and approved by safety regulators at the Food & Drug Administration.
Next on the trial bar’s agenda – pressing Congress to overturn a 2008 8-1 Supreme Court decision that barred state tort claims against manufacturers of medical devices which have received FDA approval. In that case, the Court wisely decided that medical experts at the FDA were better capable of balancing potential risks and prospective health benefits for patients than non-technical juries inflamed by trial lawyers in state courts.
According to the Morning News, attorneys poured more than $42 million into the Obama presidential campaign. Now we know that, at least as far as Trial Lawyers Inc. is concerned, this quid comes with a quo. Let’s hope that the Obama Administration understands that turning more American companies into targets for the ravenous trial bar is hardly the kind of stimulus our economy needs.
Vioxx Saga Continues
December 13, 2008
Last May, a Texas appellate court spiked a $32 million (later reduced to $7.75 million) award to the family of a man who had a fatal a heart attack while taking Vioxx pain medication. The WSJ Law Blog reports that the appellate court concluded there was insufficient evidence that the man, who had a pre-existing heart condition, suffered the heart attack as a result of taking the drug. But now the appellate court has reversed its May ruling, sending the case back to trial with “legally sufficient evidence to support a finding of specific causation” – tilting the legal playing field sharply in the direction of the plaintiffs’ lawyers trying the case.