To be fair, this is from a bit of the "old Texas". You are looking at a town in a county which went 74.79% for Kerry in 2004 (highest percentage in the state). Zavala county isn't the 'Heart of Texas' but more of a carbuncle on its ass. Zavala is yellow democrat territory. This is not typical Texas. That's not to say that Texas can't pull some boneheaded moves, but the majority of the state isn't such a banana republic.

The good news is that in Texas we elect our judges. So a judge who lets this sort of thing go on represents the values of voters which went 75% for Kerry. The appeals court is also elected, but elected statewide. Like any state wide office in Texas, that means all the winners in the last few years have been republicans. I suspect the appeals court will handily reverse the decision and you may see some ethics violation charges showing up.

If you read John Grisham's "The Innocent Man," (which, BTW, knocked Woodward's book from atop the NYT non-fiction bestseller list) you'll find that the problem is a lot worse than a crooked civil suit, and it isn't a story line from Dukes of Hazzard...

"but the majority of the state isn’t such a banana republic."

Uh, the hard-core Republican parts of the state are more banana than you could possibly imagine.

For all the complaints about appointed for life judges, elected judges are much much worse.

M1EK,

Since I live here, I'll form my own opinion on the rest of Texas. We are one of those growing red states and happy with it. Zavala county is one of the old blue parts of the state. Eventually someone will notice that by only electing democrats, they are getting the government they deserve. The rest of Texas has learned that lesson.

SoloD,

I disagree, I think electing judges is better. Especially at the appeals court level. When I started law school, one of the first contract cases we reviewed was about strip mining in Oklahoma. The strip miner had contracted to restore the land after removing what they wanted. They didn't. Our poor little first year law minds were tasked to understand the judicial reasoning that found the clear language of the contract should be ignored. After a couple days of this, the proff gave us one additional piece of information that made all the rest of the opinion eminently understandable. Shortly after handing down the decision, several members of the Oklahoma supreme court (appointed, not elected) were convicted of taking bribes. I believe Oklahoma has now gone to an appoint and then re-elect system where the judge is initially appointed, but then needs to be re-elected periodically to stay in office. If the judge loses, the governor appoints someone else.