Texas Senate Bill SB392

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Filed: 12/31/08
• Out of Senate Committee: 4/28/09

Caption

Relating to the elimination of straight-party voting for judicial offices.

Impact

The introduction of SB392 is expected to bring significant changes to state electoral processes. By disallowing straight-party voting for judicial positions, the bill aims to encourage voters to be more informed and deliberate in their choices regarding judicial candidates. Advocates of the bill argue that this will enhance the electoral process by ensuring that voters give careful consideration to the qualifications of judicial candidates rather than simply selecting candidates based on party affiliation. This modification could potentially lead to more qualified judges being elected as voters may be compelled to research judicial candidates and their backgrounds.

Summary

SB392 aims to eliminate straight-party voting specifically for judicial offices in Texas. The bill mandates that while voters can still cast a straight-party vote for all nominees of one party for various offices, this option will not extend to judicial candidates. Instead, these candidates will require individual votes from the voters, ensuring that their party affiliation is displayed next to their names on a separate ballot. The bill is structured to guide voters into separating their choices for judicial offices from their straight-party voting selections, with efforts from the Secretary of State to inform citizens about this change.

Contention

However, the bill has generated debate among legislators and the public. Critics express concern that requiring voters to vote individually for judicial positions may lead to longer ballots and may confuse some voters who are accustomed to the simplicity of straight-party voting. There are worries that this could depress voter turnout, particularly in judicial races typically lower in visibility than major party contests. Additionally, opponents claim that it may disenfranchise voters who are less informed or engaged in the specifics of judicial elections, potentially altering the intended democratic engagement that the bill seeks to promote.