First elected to the Supreme Court of Texas in 1988, Republican Nathan Hecht is the longest-serving justice in the court’s 174-year history – and the longest-tenured judge currently in active service at any level of the Texas judiciary.
His Democratic opponent, Travis County District Judge Amy Clark Meachum, is the first woman ever to run for chief justice.
Hecht, a Republican from Dallas, was once described in The New Yorker as “the leading conservative on one of the most conservative courts in the nation.” As chief justice, he has presided through an era of unprecedented GOP control of the high court. He became chief justice in 2013 by appointment and was elected for the position in 2014. That also happened to be the last year that any Democrat won a Supreme Court seat.
A graduate of Yale University, Hecht earned his law degree from Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law. Before his election to the Supreme Court, he served as a district court judge in Dallas County and as a justice on the Fifth Court of Appeals based in Dallas.
Meachum has been judge of the 201st District Court in Travis County since 2011 and currently serves as the presiding judge for all civil and family courts in the county. She grew up in Lorena, a small town south of Waco, and earned degrees from SMU in political science and journalism before attending the University of Texas School of Law.
Whichever of them wins, change is coming to the court’s No. 1 seat. Hecht is 71. Should he be reelected, he would reach the state’s mandatory retirement age of 75 before his six-year term would expire. (In that case, the governor would appoint someone to complete the term.)
Meachum, 45, said that’s one reason to vote for her: Texans electing a chief justice for six years deserve a chief justice who can serve for six years.
“It is time for a new generation of judicial thought leaders to bring much needed fairness and balance to the all-Republican Supreme Court of Texas,” she said in response to a written questionnaire from The Texas Lawbook. “If not me, who? If not now, when?”
Hecht said his decades on the bench are an invaluable asset to Texans, mandatory retirement age notwithstanding.
“With my experience and track record,” he told The Lawbook, “I believe I will be able to accomplish far more in four years than someone with less could do in a full term.”
The following are the two candidates’ responses in full to The Lawbook’s questionnaire:
Nathan Hecht
Q: What led you to practice law?
A: I did well in math in high school and thought I might be an engineer. But as a Yale freshman, it turned out I liked math more than math liked me. What I really became interested in was philosophy. During the first semester break, I had dinner with a family friend who was a lawyer, and he encouraged me to consider law. So I did.
Q: Tell us about your life and career before joining the Supreme Court and how those experiences have shaped you into the justice you are today.
A: I grew up on our family’s farm. My father believed in justice as an almost sacred value, and my mother loved mercy. They showed me how the two fit together. After law school, I spent a year as a law clerk for U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Robb. He had represented all kinds of clients, from the most liberal to the most conservative, and he taught me devotion to the rule of law. He was a great role model and friend. I spent a short time in the U.S. Navy Reserve Judge Advocate General Corps, representing sailors charged with crimes. I learned to respect the military and their devotion to defending the values we share. In practice at the Locke Purnell firm in Dallas, I handled business litigation and learned how to try a case to a jury. I also handled several appeals. The lawyers at the firm showed me the importance of contributing to the legal profession through activities in the local bar and pro bono representation. I had mentioned to one of my partners that I might want to be a judge someday, and when several vacancies occurred on the district court in the summer of 1981, he urged me to apply. A week later I was a district judge. I enjoyed the courtroom and watching the various dynamics between lawyers, witnesses, and jurors as cases played out. Most importantly, the trial court was a constant reminder that every case involved real people for whom their particular case was the most important thing in the world, so I needed to do whatever it took to get every case right. I was elected and reelected to the district court, and then after five years, I was elected to a vacant seat on the Dallas Court of Appeals.
Q: What led you to become a justice at the Texas Supreme Court?
A: In 1987, the Texas Supreme Court had a terrible reputation nationally. 60 Minutes had done a full exposé, “Is Justice for Sale in Texas?,” which featured Chief Justice Pope describing how campaign contributions and relationships between justices and lawyers had affected votes on cases. I was ashamed for Texas and its judiciary and wanted to change the situation. I had run as a Republican in Dallas County (while advocating against the partisan election of judges) and didn’t feel as if I could change. No Republican had ever been elected to the Supreme Court in Texas history, so it would be a long shot. I was at the end of my term on the court of appeals, but if I lost, I was ready to go back into private practice. I won, very narrowly.
Q: What do you love the most about this job?
A: The rules of an exercise describe its essence. Law describes Texas and American values and what it means to live here. I love learning the law’s many details and their history because they describe what justice means and how to achieve it. I also love seeing how statutes and ordinances change to accommodate changes in life while fundamental constitutional principles remain constant. The other thing I love is being able to lead in institutional reform, such as improving access to justice for all and improving Texas courts’ handling of cases involving children, the elderly and mental health issues. I love being able to help maintain public trust and confidence in the justice system.
Q: What’s been your proudest moment so far as chief justice?
A: Two things. The first full term I was chief justice, the Supreme Court issued decisions in all argued cases before the end of June, clearing its docket for the first time in history. The U.S. Supreme Court does that every year, and it had been our Court’s goal for years. We have done it every year since, six years straight. The other moment I am proudest of was when I obtained $3 million in state funding for legal aid for veterans in 2017. I had asked repeatedly during the legislative session, but funding had not materialized. Three days before the end of the session, after the final budget had been released, I went to the lieutenant governor, hat in hand, and asked one last time. A couple hours later the budget included $3 million for legal aid for veterans.
Q: Have you ever joined a vote or authored an opinion that you regretted? If so, tell us about that experience and what lesson you took away from it.
A: Not really. I’ve changed my mind about some things over time, but I’ve always done my best to reach what I thought was the right decision at the time. I do recall trying a case involving a claim against a farmer for not paying for a tractor. He was older and showed the wear and tear of farm life, and when he took the stand to testify, he reminded me of my father, who had gone through hard times himself. It was very emotional for me to watch, but the jury reached a verdict against him, the only thing they could do, and I rendered judgment on the verdict. I know the law can sometimes be hard.
Q: What are one or two opinions you’ve authored that are you most proud of?
A: One is rather technical. Imposing sanctions on parties and lawyers for discovery abuse began in state courts in the early 1980s and soon became dominant in litigation as each side repeatedly moved for sanctions against the other. Discovery sanctions threatened to prevent courts from ever reaching the merits of the case, what we called trial by sanctions. Some courts issued case-ending sanctions, dismissing cases or striking pleadings and rendering default judgments for alleged discovery abuse. In TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991), I wrote that a party could not be sanctioned for its attorney’s abusive tactics, and that sanctions could not be excessive — “[t]he punishment should fit the crime.” That decision essentially ended discovery sanctions wars in Texas courts. The other opinion is the sixth public school finance case, Neeley v. West Orange-Cove Indep. Sch. Dist., 176 S.W.3rd 746 (Tex. 2005). I think it explains very thoroughly the political and other pressures that make public school funding so difficult in Texas and the requirements imposed by the Texas Constitution. The Court concluded that the system at the time was unconstitutional.
Q: What sets you apart from your opponent?
A: Experience. I am the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court in Texas history and the longest-tenured Texas state judge in active service. I have a proven record of helping keep the Court current with its work. I have also successfully advocated for institutional reform in the Legislature, overseeing electronic filing and access to court records for greater efficiency and transparency, overseeing wholesale revisions in appellate and discovery rules, changing the imposition of fines and fees in traffic cases to greatly reduce the number of people jailed for nonpayment, improving guardianships, decriminalizing truancy and improving outcomes in cases involving children, the elderly and mental health issues. In Congress and the Legislature, I have helped obtain hundreds of millions of dollars providing legal aid for hundreds of thousands of poor Texans. I am president of the national Conference of Chief Justices and chair of the National Center for State Courts.
Q: What makes a good Supreme Court justice?
A: One must work very hard. The cases present complex and challenging issues important to the whole state. One must be committed to doing one’s very best to reach the right result in every single case. One must love the justice system, care very deeply when it is criticized for not being fair and equal to all, and do everything possible to fully meet all those criticisms. And one must be dedicated to making the system function well for everyone, even in challenging times like the pandemic.
Q: What are the biggest challenges the Texas Supreme Court faces today (COVID-19 and beyond) and how is the court addressing those challenges?
A: Just now, our biggest challenges are with the pandemic’s impacts on courts. The Texas Supreme Court has issued 26 emergency orders trying to guide all Texas courts through the difficulties of staying open, conducting necessary proceedings, keeping up with the work and being available to resolve people’s legal issues. The Court is encouraging the use of remote proceeding platforms and trying to provide a good example in our own work. The Court is trying to guide trial courts in resuming jury trials. Going forward, there will be crippling budget issues that the Court must guide the judiciary through. In all this, recent protests have brought home again the concerns that the courts do not treat everyone fairly and equally. As chief justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, and someone who has devoted almost all his professional life to judicial service, at considerable personal sacrifice, I am deeply troubled to hear from anyone that the law is not, or does not appear to be, applied equally and fairly to all. All such complaints, from whatever quarter, must be promptly, fully and convincingly addressed to maintain the public trust and confidence in the justice system that is essential to its existence. Not long ago, I proposed a summit, sponsored jointly by the Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, entitled Beyond the Bench: Law, Justice, and Communities. We invited judges, lawyers, prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement, community leaders and activists from all viewpoints, elected officials, teachers and clerics. Hundreds attended the one-day summit at Paul Quinn College. We listened to a full airing of views of the justice system, top to bottom, received training in recognizing implied bias, and learned from each other as attendees were asked to play out different roles in a mock case showing disparate views of the justice system. I would repeat the summit now but for the pandemic, and I plan to later. I have asked the Judicial Council to propose better implicit bias training for lawyers and to recommend other changes in operations to address the voices we hear.
Q: If reelected, you would surpass the age limit the Texas Constitution has imposed for SCOTX chief justices before you would complete your next term. Given that, why should you be elected?
A: With my experience and track record, I believe I will be able to accomplish far more in four years than someone with less could do in a full term.
Q: There’s a population of lawyers in Texas who believe that the Texas Supreme Court is desperately in need of some fresh blood or at least some more dissenting opinions. Why should voters keep you on?
A: The Supreme Court is not an institution judges should rotate through. The people should want a Court that will work hard, faithfully follow the law, see that all are treated equally and fairly, improve access to justice for the poor and those with limited means and work for needed reform in the justice system. Especially from my position as president of the national Conference of Chief Justices, I know that the Texas Supreme Court has an established, hard-earned, national reputation for solid, intellectual opinions that adhere to the rule of law. Fresh blood is no substitute for excellence. If your physician is keeping you well, you don’t change just because it’s time to give someone else a chance. Dissenting opinions perform an important function if they help guide the development of the law, but they should not be merely a way for a judge to vent. Consensus provides the certainty people need to order their affairs. Last term, the Texas Supreme Court issued unanimous decisions in 59% of its argued cases. Four years ago, the last study I’ve seen, showed that 57% of U.S. Supreme Court decisions were unanimous. Few people think the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t have enough dissents. Dissents often draw much attention, but it is better that the law be as settled as it can be. If it should change, the arguments should be made in the Legislature, which can change the law, rather than in dissents in courts, which cannot. Voters should retain me because I have decades of proven leadership and demonstrated faithfulness to the law.
Q: No matter what you say here, there will be some voters who will not vote for you simply because they’re straight ticket voters and you’re on the wrong side of their ballot. There is another group of voters who are inclined to do the same, but could be convinced otherwise. What would you say to them? Why should they vote for you even if your political party doesn’t match their values?
A: Partisan politics are poisonous to the judiciary. The idea that a party or lawyer should have to worry that they won’t win their case simply because they voted with a political party different from the judge they happen to be in front of is simply horrifying. It is not justice; it is the opposite of justice. You seek professional services from the person you think can best provide them, based on training and experience. Selecting judges should be the same. They should always be chosen on qualifications and experience.
Amy Clark Meachum
Q: What led you to become a lawyer and a judge?
A: Like so many before me, I was fortunate to have two wonderful professors at Southern Methodist University, Joe Kobylka from the political science department and David McHam from the journalism department. While I did not know any lawyers or judges growing up in the small town of Lorena, Texas, these two professors opened my eyes to the powerful impact that the courts have on our American system of government and our American life, in general, and how the courts have shaped our nation.
Professor Kobylka especially fostered my love of constitutional law and the dynamics of decision-making on the Supreme Court of the United States. He protests that he does not intend to inspire his students to go to law school, but most of his students end up there anyway!
As for becoming a judge, this was more the definition of luck: when preparation meets opportunity. While I did not know any judges and lawyers growing up and would never have been on any short judicial appointment lists, I had the good fortune and work ethic to do well at University of Texas School of Law, making Texas Law Review and graduating with honors. I then worked at two of the best law firms in the state, and eventually became a full equity partner at McGinnis Lochridge by the age of 31.
However, as a young mother of three, I was not always happy with the litigious nature of being a trial lawyer and the grind of Big Law. I always had a quiet dream of being a judge – but it seemed too far beyond my reach to achieve it. A happenstance meeting with our local Travis County Democratic Party chair resulted in my early knowledge that a seat was coming open on the Travis County district court bench in 2010. I had the unbelievable sense and wisdom to be married to the best and most-supportive spouse, Kurt Meachum, who helped me run a successful campaign for district court judge at the age of 34 with three kids under the age of 3.
Q: What led you to enter this race?
A: It is time for a new generation of judicial thought leaders to bring much needed fairness and balance to the all-Republican Supreme Court of Texas. If not me, who? If not now, when?
Texas has never elected a woman chief justice to its highest court, and I am proud to be the first woman to run for this office. We need a system of justice that respects the Constitution, protects the vital role of citizen juries and addresses the economic barriers that too often prevent women, persons of color and working families from seeking and obtaining justice. We need to elect judges who put public service over special interests. Texas needs fair and impartial judges who are committed to common sense rulings that listen to science, facts and evidence in these challenging times.
In 2011, 2015 and 2019, I raised my right hand and swore “to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.” That oath matters to me. The rule of law matters to me. Now, more than ever, we need to elect judges who respect the Constitution, judicial independence and integrity. This moment demands that we all find the courage to stand up for our democracy.
In the most consequential election of our lifetime, I am asking the voters to do something bold. I do not exactly look like my general election opponent, or any of the men previously elected chief justice. I am making a powerful statement for women in the law and women in our state in 2020. After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I have a renewed sense of purpose and commitment to equal justice under law for all persons.
Q: Tell us a little more about your career and how each chapter of your career would help you in your role serving on the state’s most powerful civil court.
A: My trial court experience and my long record of standing up for the values of equality, fairness and justice under the law make me the best candidate in this race. In 2010, I won an election to become one of the youngest district court judges in the state. For the past decade, I have presided over thousands of hearings, trials and proceedings in all the types of cases that the Texas Supreme Court could conceivably take up: personal injury, commercial law, family law, probate, administrative appeals, juvenile justice, CPS, etc.
I have served as a guest lecturer with the Texas Center for Legal Ethics, a board member on the Administrative and Public Law Council with the State Bar and a board member with Volunteer Legal Services of Central Texas.
Before joining the bench, I was one of the youngest partners at McGinnis Lochridge and represented clients on both sides of the docket. I made partner at the firm at the age of 31 – the year after I successfully represented women suing Johnson & Johnson for the unsafe Ortho Evra birth control patch. Thanks in large part to the work I did with my law partner, Ray Chester, this product was removed from the market.
When you investigate my judicial record, it will show a decade of standing up for the values of fairness, equality and justice under the law. After winning a contested Democratic primary in Travis County in 2010, I ran for reelection unopposed in 2014 and 2018. Not a single Democrat nor a single Republican ran against me in 2014 or 2018. That speaks to the quality of my work and the fairness of my rulings.
Finally, I am very respectful for the chief justice’s long service to our state. However, I believe my vision of a more inclusive justice system and one that recognizes its failings and tries to better our system of justice with a renewed commitment to equal justice under the law is a better vision for Texas in 2020. Finally, I can serve my full term under the Texas Constitution, where the chief justice will have to retire at age 75 in the middle of his term.
Q: From your point of view, what is the most important thing that the Texas Supreme Court does in the overall ecosystem in the administration of civil justice in Texas? What would you do to make sure the state’s high court continues to fulfill that purpose?
A: The Texas Supreme Court decides the issues of substantial importance affecting the jurisprudence of the state. The Court is also the head of an entire branch of government and oversees the Office of Court Administration, the State Bar of Texas, as well as all other judicial agencies.
Nevertheless. I believe that continued access to justice and continued funding for – and commitment to – legal aid in Texas is the most important work that the Texas Supreme Court does. Tax dollars invested in legal aid are wise and necessary investments to ensure a better functioning system of justice ad equal justice under law. Courts must be open and accessible for everyone, not just those with the means to pay for an expensive attorney. As chief justice, I will advocate for as much state funding for these programs as we can receive from the state Legislature.
Unfortunately, the San Antonio Express News recently reported that the Texas Supreme Court intends to slash $1.2 million in legal aid funding for low-income families for fiscal year 2021. This is a huge concern since the need for legal aid during the Covid-19 pandemic is more critical than ever with rising evictions, unemployment and domestic violence cases.
The court must continue to fund legal aid programs with tax dollars and advocate for that funding at the Legislature, as well as seek public and private grants and donors. Programs like Volunteer Legal Services of Central Texas, the Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid strive to meet the needs of poor and working-class litigants, and these programs should be funded adequately.
Q: In your role as a trial court judge, what has been the most valuable lesson you’ve learned about the relationship between the Supreme Court and the lower courts it presides over, and how would you use that knowledge as chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court?
A: The importance of respecting trial court judges and juries. While the rule of law is paramount – facts, science and evidence matter – and when appellate courts ignore lower court’s findings of fact and discretionary rulings, and impose their own values, the legal system as a whole suffers. Whether it was reversing a trial court’s awarding of sanctions in Brewer v. Lennox Heath Products or failing to uphold a trial courts judge’s ruling of contempt in the Shelly Luthor case, when the Supreme Court does not respect a trial court, the court appears its most political, and the integrity of the system suffers.
This holds especially true with jury verdicts. The sanctity of a jury of our peers – of diverse Texans deciding liability and damages in groups of 12 – is sacrosanct in American and English jurisprudence, and the fundamental role of juries in our justice system should be respected.
Of course, trial judges and juries sometimes commit errors, but these are the exceptions – not the rule – and appellate courts need to follow appropriate standards of review when reviewing these cases.
Q: What’s the hardest lesson you’ve learned in your career? How would that lesson help you on the Supreme Court?
A: The past six months have been the toughest for trial courts across the country, including in Travis County. No period is legal history has been more challenging or more innovative. Balancing all the competing concerns of litigants, the public and the lawyers remains a daily challenge. All trial judges have had to learn new skills on a daily basis to ensure that all Texans continue to have equal and fair access to justice in the time of an airborne pandemic – especially in the urban counties.
These lessons have been overwhelming – and as a family court judge, as well as a civil judge, we immediately needed to ensure everyone continued to have access to justice – and to quickly relearn our jobs, train staff and members of the bar to try cases online.
In my role as civil presiding judge of all civil and family courts in Travis County, I took a proactive role to protect our community and ensure the administration of justice continued. We acted quickly to transition to virtual court proceedings. We have managed in Travis County to run our dockets at almost 100%, with the exception of jury trials, and are working on a safe pilot program for those as well.
While this innovation has kept courts functioning, trial judges need to be back in courtrooms when it is safe. The issue right now is courthouses are some of the riskiest places to be in COVID-19: crowded, incapable of social distancing, loud and emotional public speaking, poor ventilation, etc. But when the state and federal governments manage to get this virus under control, then we will take the technological advances we have learned and supplement court proceedings in the future – but not supplant them.
As the new chief justice, transitioning into this position in a time of incredible stress and strife, I would continue to implement emergency orders that recognize the need to protect court staff, litigants and members of the public while continuing to operate the third branch of government at the high level that Texans expect.
Q: You’re the first woman to run for chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court. If elected, what would you do to help the advancement of women in the judiciary and legal profession at large in Texas?
A: I think the symbol will be an important step. Moreover, if I win, it is more likely than not that some of the other Democratic candidates will also win – and the Texas Supreme Court, for the first time in history, would be majority female.
As a bench and bar, we must examine why women have been rising in some areas of the legal profession such as judgeships and in-house counsels, and in other areas have stayed stagnant, namely Big Law. We must address how to make the legal profession a more fulfilling career for people who want to raise families and enjoy full lives outside of the profession itself. This would [not] just help women lawyers – but will help male lawyers as well. The whole profession needs to be deconstructed: from the way we bill our time – valuing quantity of work over quality of work – to the way our court dockets work.
If we study how to better the profession and make systemic improvements, we will not only ensure more advancement and equality for women in the profession, but we will also have a healthier and happier profession for the future across all genders.
Q: What kind of change do we need to see at the Texas Supreme Court and how would you oversee those changes?
A: Quite simply put, this monolithic court needs diversity of thought and diversity of opinion, as well as fresh voices and competing schools of legal thought.
While I would follow all applicable laws, doctrines and proper rules of statutory interpretation when interpreting a statute and the Constitution, I would do so fairly and reasonably and not reach absurd outcomes on a debate about the Oxford comma or a secondary definition in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.
Most members of the current court are part of The Federalist Society and are professed adherents to “originalism” and a “strict constructionist” philosophy. But this is too often merely a tool that allows them to reach the decision that justifies a predetermined or partisan outcome. A recent example of this is the In re State of Texas vote-by-mail case from May. Rather than make it clear that all voters could vote by mail in a pandemic, the court failed clarify the Election Code and confused and scared Texans who are seeking to exercise their fundamental voting rights. It did this while writing an advisory opinion in a denial of a mandamus petition. As a result, the attorney general has taken the opinion and used it as a weapon to scare and intimidate voters throughout the state.
Hopefully, fresh voices and new schools of legal thought will result in better decisions and better outcomes for all Texans. These legal debates ultimately make our state and country stronger.
Q: How do you think the High Court has handled the COVID-19 pandemic? What would you do differently, if anything?
A: The Texas Supreme Court has issued 26 emergency orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. I have been complimentary of many of the orders. In Travis County, we have utilized some of the technological tools provided by the Office of Court Administration to hold virtual proceedings during this time.
While many of the Court’s orders have been prudent and have helped to keep judges, staff, litigants and lawyers safe, its decisions regarding evictions have been unreasonable and have had disproportionately negative effects on communities of color. This is not an academic debate; real Texans have been evicted from their homes. The Court could have made this situation safer by keeping its moratorium on debt collections and evictions in place. Instead, as COVID-19 cases continued to rise and nearly 1.9 million Texans found themselves out of work, the Texas Supreme Court decided in May to end their moratorium.
This allowed landlords to evict Texas families in the middle of this pandemic, and left it up to local policies and procedures of justices of the peace. Only after the Trump administration reinstated a nationwide moratorium did the Texas Supreme Court then reinstate some protections for renters last week. Emergency Order 25 now requires renters to be informed of rights and protections under the CDC orders.
I also think the Texas Supreme Court should have been more proactive in leading the state bar. It should have called on the State Bar of Texas, which it oversees, to develop two toll-free hotlines: one hotline to inform Texans about their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly, and a second hotline to inform Texas families about their options concerning access to health care and various COVID-19 relief programs.
Q: Where are some areas you think SCOTX needs improvement? What would you do to make those improvements?
A: This is the same as the answer above about “changes.” The Court needs members with fresh voices and competing schools of legal thought.
While I would follow all applicable laws, doctrines and proper rules of statutory interpretation when interpreting a statute and the Constitution, I would do so fairly and reasonably and not reach absurd outcomes on a debate about the Oxford Comma or a secondary definition in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.
Again, fresh voices and new schools of legal thought will result in better decisions and better outcomes for all Texans. These legal debates ultimately make our state and country stronger.
One other achievable improvement would be more transparency of decisions regarding discretionary review and which of the nine justices vote to grant of deny review. In addition, we need disclosure of campaign donors with current cases pending before the Court. There should be an additional filing required when a campaign donor of one of the justices is a party to the case.
Q: What sets you apart from your opponent?
A: Unlike my opponent, who is constitutionally prohibited from serving his full term, if elected, I can serve my whole term.
Even though we share a commitment to the court system in Texas, as well as a commitment to Access to Justice, I would say we are different in innumerable ways. We come from different generations, different parties, different backgrounds, different schools of legal thought, different genders and we have a different understanding of the role of the judiciary in these challenging times – to name a few.
Q: No matter what you say here, there will be some voters who will not vote for you simply because they’re straight ticket voters and you’re on the wrong side of their ballot. There is another group of voters who are inclined to do the same, but could be convinced otherwise. What would you say to them? Why should they vote for you even if your political party doesn’t match their values?
A: I will be fair, ethical and impartial. I will listen and respect the parties and lawyers in front me. In my 10 years on the bench, I have ruled against my own party and in favor of Republicans because I follow the rule of law with a commitment to just and fair outcomes.
I remain committed to the rule of law and equal justice under law. In my current bench, I have never received a primary or general opponent, which speaks to my reputation for fairness and dedication to my profession. In addition, I remain active and connected, and I am living a real life with connections to my kids, my husband, my friends, on social media and in my community.
At the end of the day, the law works best when all sides are considered and debated. The Supreme Court of the United States has had periods of liberalism and periods of conservativism – but minority voices have always been present. There have been great debates about the Constitution, our democracy and how to ensure an America as good as its promise. The Texas Supreme Court has been missing those diverse and disparate voices for over two decades – and those debates have been lacking. It is quite simply time for balance and a new way forward.
Responses by candidates may be edited to comply with Texas Lawbook style guidelines.
Publisher’s Note: This coverage of the 2020 judicial elections by The Texas Lawbook is being made available outside our paywall courtesy of Thompson Coburn and Carter Arnett.