In the race for the Place 7 seat on the Supreme Court of Texas, incumbent Republican Jeff Boyd is paired against Staci Williams, judge of the 101st District Court in Dallas County.
Boyd was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2012 by Gov. Rick Perry, filling a vacancy created by the resignation of Republican Justice Dale Wainwright, who resigned to take a job in Austin with Bracewell & Giuliani, now known as Bracewell. (Wainwright is now co-chair of the national appellate practice at Greenberg Traurig.) At the time of his resignation, Wainwright was the third longest-serving justice on the court.
Boyd, a former Church of Christ minister in Austin, served under Perry as general counsel for the governor’s office and, later, as the governor’s chief of staff. He spent a bulk of his private practice years at Thompson & Knight in the firm’s appellate group and launched his legal career as a clerk in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Williams, a two-term district judge in Dallas County, was previously a municipal court judge for the city of Dallas. In private practice, according to her campaign website, she handled cases involving employment law, commercial disputes, personal injury claims and criminal defendants. That included her work as an arbitrator for DART, U.S. Postal Service, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, NASD (now FINRA) and the Washington Metropolitan Airport Board.
She is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., and the prestigious Hockaday School for girls in Dallas.
Boyd is a self-described “judicial conservative who understands that a judge’s role in our constitutional system is to interpret and apply the law and not to create it or make policy decisions that belong to the Legislature.”
Williams says she decided to run for a seat on the state’s highest civil court “because it is time that the Supreme Court of Texas have justices who have real life experience, who understand the needs of the working people of Texas and who reflect the diversity of this state.” She is the first African American woman to seek a Supreme Court seat.
The Texas Lawbook sought to learn more about both candidates. Below are their answers to a questionnaire prepared by The Lawbook.
Jeffrey Boyd
Q: What led you to practice law?
A: As the first and only lawyer in my middle-class military family, I stumbled into the law. After college and five years in ministry, I decided I needed a graduate degree and thought a law degree might open the most opportunities. Studying the law captivated me immediately as a 1L, and I knew then I wanted to pursue a career as practicing attorney.
Q: Tell us about your life and career before joining the Supreme Court of Texas and how those experiences have shaped you into the justice you are today.
A: I grew up in a military family, moving continuously around the country and overseas. These experiences laid a foundational understanding and appreciation for differences in cultures and perspectives and a desire to engage in public service. I worked (and borrowed) my way through college at Abilene Christian and then served for five years as a youth and family minister in Austin. Through those experiences, I developed a strong desire to promote the kind of merciful justice that is central to the Christian faith. My time at Pepperdine Law School (made possible by generous scholarships and my hard-working wife) gave me a lifelong love for the law and its ability to improve real lives and solve real problems. I then clerked for U.S. Fifth Circuit Judge Thomas Reavley, who taught me how important it is that judges fairly apply the law regardless of their personal or political preferences. I spent the next eight years litigating cases and arguing appeals in the Austin office of Thompson & Knight, followed by three years as deputy attorney general managing all civil litigation involving the state and its officers and agencies. After eight more years at Thompson & Knight, during which I established and managed its government-litigation practice, I served for two years as general counsel and chief of staff for the governor’s office, until the governor appointed me to the Court. These experiences gave me crucial insights into the relationship between the judicial system and other branches and the key but limited role the Court plays within our governmental structure.
Q: What led you to become a justice at the Texas Supreme Court?
A: While serving as the governor’s chief of staff, he informed me that he had decided to appoint me to fill a newly vacant position on the Court. Although I had not applied for or sought the position (indeed, I had led his selection team and recommended others I thought he should appoint), I clearly could not say no when he asked me to serve.
Q: What do you love the most about this job
A: Solving legal puzzles. The process of reasoning through issues and arguments to reach the “right” result and then communicating that analysis in writing can be grueling, but the ultimate satisfaction of completing the task is always rewarding.
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: I cannot think of such a vote or opinion.
Q: What are one or two opinions you’ve authored that are you most proud of?
A: I’m particularly proud of my majority opinion in Crosstex v. Gardiner, in which I tried to provide much-needed clarity for the difficult and confusing concept of a “nuisance.” As for dissenting opinions, I’m particularly proud of my dissent in Genie Indus. v. Matak, in which I defended the principle that courts should not overturn jury verdicts unless there was truly “no” supporting evidence.
Q: What sets you apart from your opponent?
A: The confidence I have earned from those who know and care the most about the Court, including plaintiffs and defense attorneys, Democrats and Republicans, women and men, from all ethnicities and geographical regions. See www.justicejeffboyd.org/supporters/.
Q: What makes a good Supreme Court justice?
A: Diligence, intellect and a commitment to deciding cases based solely on the law, without regard to the judge’s personal or political preferences.
Q: What are the biggest challenges the Texas Supreme Court faces today (COVID and beyond) and how is the court addressing those challenges?
A: The Court has made great progress in efficiently handling its own docket over the past 10 years. As the entity responsible for overseeing the entire state judicial system, our greatest challenge is to implement the same kind of efficiency and predictability throughout the system, especially in the trial courts. Promoting changes that help everyday Texans overcome financial barriers to the justice system must be the first step.
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: Lawyers (and voters) who hold that view will appreciate that I am by far the Court’s most dissenting justice over the past eight years.
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 simply have no political party when I put on the robe.
Staci Williams
Q: What led you to become a lawyer and a judge?
A: Growing up in the 1960s, I saw the evolution of the Civil Rights movement. I witnessed the assassinations of President Kennedy, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy. I saw the world change, rapidly, and realized the best way to make a difference was to become a lawyer.
Q: What led you to enter this race?
A: Ten words: If it is to be, it is up to me. Ebby Halliday, the woman who spoke those words decades ago, is something of a hero to me and many other women from Dallas. That phrase is one I think about often any time I see something that needs to change, and the Texas Supreme Court desperately needs change. Its orientation toward corporate interests must end and balance needs to be restored. We need impartial justice on the court, and rather than whine and wish, I decided to act.
Q: Tell us a little bit 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 arc to the judiciary and out of private practice started as an administrative judge, which led me to arbitrator, municipal court and finally to running for the 101st District Court in Dallas. At every step, I have held fast to my belief that the world needs bias-free decision-makers, and that is something at which I excel. I come to every case before my court with an open mind, focused only on the facts and the law.
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 Court can give justice to those who haven’t found it in the lower courts. As the final stop for civil litigation, it’s important that all parties know they have someone hearing their case who has an unmatched breadth and depth of experience. I would, as part of furthering the goal of giving people finality, urge my colleagues to take the tough cases and help those who haven’t been able to fight for themselves on an equal footing.
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 a justice of the Texas Supreme Court?
A: That those on the Court, including my opponent, sincerely care about the quality of justice in the State of Texas and how it’s delivered.
Q: What’s the hardest lesson you’ve learned in your career? How would that lesson help you on the Supreme Court?
A: That perfection doesn’t exist and that having that as a goal is ultimately counterproductive. The focus should be on continual improvement.
Q: What kind of change do we need to see at the Texas Supreme Court and how would you oversee those changes?
A: Breadth of cases, types of rulings and effectively governing the judiciary in the State of Texas. I would address each of these issues by working with my colleagues on the Court to produce an outcome that is just, in all situations.
Q: How do you think the High Court has handled the COVID-19 pandemic? What would you do differently, if anything?
A: As this is a matter likely to come before me in either my current position or in my capacity as justice should I win in November, I must respectfully decline to answer as doing so would violate Canon 3 and Canon 5 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Q: Where are some areas you think SCOTX needs improvement? What would you do to make those improvements?
A: The Court and the justices should be more accessible and work to help Texans understand the civil court system. My CCA program could be a template, and I would be happy to share it with my colleagues.
Q: The SCOTX races are unique this year due to the diversity of the challengers — all women — who are running against the incumbents. It is our understanding that you are the first African American woman to run for the Texas Supreme Court. If elected, what would you do to help advance diversity among the judiciary and legal profession at large in Texas?
A: I will do my best to work with my colleagues to broaden the applicant pool for Court committees with a focus on bringing in qualified people of color for appointment.
Q: What sets you apart from your opponent?
A: The diversity of experience I bring to the Court. Before taking the bench, I had over 11 years of judicial/arbitral experience. I was an arbitrator for DART, U.S. Postal Service, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, NASD (now FINRA) and the Washington Metropolitan Airport Board. I was an administrative judge and a municipal court judge. I have been trained by the Texas Center for the Judiciary and the National Judicial College. I have attended many continuing legal education programs on the various issues arising in my court. Most importantly, I have worked on litigation for clients large and small. I know the problems inherent in litigation and how they can affect a plaintiff and a defendant. My history and experience give me an insight into the judicial system that my opponent does not have.
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. Q: What would you say to them? Why should they vote for you even if your political party doesn’t match their values?
A: I would ask them to focus on what they would want if they were standing before the Court. They would want someone with the highest integrity, decades of broad legal knowledge and who had a reputation for being unbiased in her decisions. While it’s wonderful to see ‘our team’ win on election night, it’s even better to know that should you ever arrive before the Court, there is someone there with an open ear and mind.
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.