Ethics

A few hours after I raised concerns about whether elected state court judges can adequately protect the rights of unpopular parties, my colleague, Gabe Teninbaum, sent me this link.  It's a story about judicial misconduct charges against the notoriously pro-execution judge, Sharon Keller, of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  Back in 2007, Judge Keller refused to accept a late filing from a defendant who was about to be executed, even though the United States Supreme Court had just granted certiorari in a case that would have affected the constitutionality of the execution.  An elected Texas state court judge who goes out of her way to ensure that an execution takes place, regardless of the rights at stake?  Shocking!  The New York Times adds its thoughts here.

Judge Keller also did her best to ensure the execution of Charles Dean Hood despite well-substantiated claims that the prosecutor in Mr. Hood's case was having an affair with the judge who presided over Mr. Hood's trial.  It's fair to say that Judge Keller isn't particularly eager to investigate whether a capital defendant has a legitimate claim to make.

Here's more coverage about Judge Keller and her notoriously pro-execution bias.  So I'll ask again: why are elected judges such a good idea?