Texas is one of only a few states that elects judges in partisan elections. It has been suggested that perhaps this is not an appropriate way to choose judges

The topic of partisan judicial elections has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. While the system still has proponents, there are also many calls for judicial reform that focus on the disadvantages.
One strong argument against the partisan system is that it discourages people from becoming candidates. Many qualified candidates choose not to run because they believe the judiciary should be independent of party affiliation, or because they choose not to label themselves that way as it would give the appearance of bias. Thus, partisan elections reduce the number of candidates.
While the expense of campaigns is a factor even in nonpartisan elections, research suggests that partisan elections become disproportionately expensive because wealthy donors have a vested interest in their outcomes, believing they can influence the judicial process. This seems to many critics to be putting the cart before the horse, as there is no incentive for the candidates to spend modestly.
In addition, partisan elections are likely to exacerbate existing demographically based problems and limit the availability of unbiased judges. This becomes a problem when court cases involve parties whose interests are not represented by any judge in their jurisdiction, such as by race as well as party.
https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/NonpartisanElections-3.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howshould/