Please describe what you believe are the most significant issues in this race and why.

I believe our State’s judicial system is best served by the election of a judge who will uphold the Constitution.  I have a proven record of doing so.

Also, the Texas Supreme Court best serves our citizens when a judge brings experience and know how to the important work of the Court.  I bring both and have demonstrated my competence and my absolute commitment to uphold the Constitution.

Are the United States and Texas constitutions living documents?  Please answer in the context of Progressivism versus Originalism.   

I am committed to the original text of the Constitution.  I do not believe the Constitution is a “living” document.  It can be changed, but only through Constitutional Amendment.

Please describe the best way for the average voter to determine which candidate for this office is best.

Thank you for this important question.  I believe voters should look to a candidate’s qualifications, ask other members of the legal profession for information, but also look to civic and political groups who represent their values for guidance.  For more information on my qualifications and endorsements, go to www.evaguman.com

How many days off per year should the officeholder of this position take to learn (seminars & workshops) or teach (give educational or motivational talks) or network with other county officials?

  A judge is an elected official and must balance many demands of the job. It is crucial for a judge to remain competent in the law through continuing judicial education. Though giving educational presentations to others and making presentations to schools and community groups about our laws and legal system takes additional time and effort, I have put in the extra work required because it is important for leaders in the judiciary to engage with citizens. Yet, the most important work of a judge is to serve the people by performing the primary functions of the job, as described above. 

Who is endorsing you and what is their relationship to you?

For a list of full endorsements please visit www.evaguzman.com

Here is a partial list:

Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum*

David Barton, WallBuilders*

Adryana Boyne, VOCES Action*

JoAnn Fleming, Grassroots America: We The People*

Tom Giovanneti, Institute for Policy Innovation*

Sylvia Guzman, “Amigos de Patriots”*

Anne Hettinger, Concerned Women for America*

Lawrence Billy Jones III, The Blaze*

Honorable Weston Martinez, Conservative Leader

Elida Munoz, Catholic Pro-Life Activist

Steve Navarre, Conservative Hispanic Society*

Katrina Pierson, National Tea Party Leader & Fox News Contributor

Honorable Paul Pressler

Jonathan Saenz, Texas Values*

Tom Schlueter, Texas Apostolic Network*

Kelly Shackelford, Free Market Foundation*

Aurora Q. Tinajero, Catholic Pro-Life Activist

Kyleen Wright, Texans For Life Coalition*

Governor Greg Abbott

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick

Comptroller, Glen Hegar

Senator Paul Bettencourt, SD7

Senator Donna Campbell, SD25

Representative Phil King

Why are you running for this office and what 3 major goals do you want to be measured by if you are elected?

I am committed to serving the people of Texas by upholding the Constitution, exercising judicial restraint, and ruling fairly, independently and efficiently.  Since I joined the Court, the Court’s docket has been reduced to a zero backlog.  That is the result of a collective effort, but I am proud to have seen the backlog of cases reduced every year since I joined the Court.

I want to be measured by my record, which reflects a strong work ethic, a principled application of the law, and a commitment to excellence.  In addition to these core functions, I am committed to making our system of justice accessible to all citizens and to working to protect children in our child welfare system.

What are the three main reasons you are running for this office? Do you see any potential conflicts of interest?

The breadth and depth of my legal and judicial experience and my commitment to uphold the Constitution.

Judicial Experience.

I am proud to have served Texans at 3 levels of the Texas judiciary. On the Texas Supreme Court, I have ruled on thousands of petitions for review, mandamus filings and other original proceedings.  I have authored dozens of opinions on complex legal issues. During the course of my judicial service on the 14th Court of Appeals, I ruled on over two thousand cases and authored hundreds of published opinions, including many on issues of first impression.  In addition, some of my opinions have been cited by courts across the country.  As a trial court judge, I ruled on thousands of family law disputes and I presided over hundreds of temporary hearings and many trials.  

Academic/Teaching Experience.  As a former member of the University of Houston Law Center adjunct faculty, I have taught law school students in the area of civil trial advocacy at the Law Center.  I have made numerous legal education presentations to audiences at local, state, national, and international levels. (The list of my presentations consumes many pages and covers a wide range of topics.) I have served as a legal education program planner as well as a presenter and panelist.  And, I have presented at the Texas Center for the Judiciary.

Professional Affiliations and Recognition.  For many years, I have been an elected member of the American Law Institute. I now serve as an ALI Adviser to the Restatement of the Law, Children and the Law.  I also serve on the Board of Visitors of Duke University School of Law and the Board of Directors of South Texas College of Law. I am also a Board member of the Appellate Judges Education Institute.   Prior to my appointment to the Supreme Court of Texas, I served by appointment to the Supreme Court of Texas Advisory Committee. For several years, I sat on the board of the Garland Walker Inn of the American Inns of Court. I have held leadership positions in bar associations and other professional groups and have received awards for my service both to the bar and to the public. For a detailed listing, go to www.EvaGuzman.com.

Honors and Awards. I have received national, state, and local honors and awards from bar associations and law enforcement groups for my service on the bench and in the community. For a detailed listing, go to www.EvaGuzman.com.

Leaders in the legal community (practitioners as well as former judges) and leaders in many conservative circles have given me high marks for my performance on the bench and my service and leadership in the Texas judiciary and in the community at large.  Their endorsements attest to my strong track record for the people I serve. For more information, go to www.EvaGuzman.com

What are the top 3 areas where the budget for this office needs to be adjusted?

As members of the high court and as elected public servants, we must always be mindful of our obligation to act prudently with respect to budgetary matters.  That said, the Court operates on a comparatively speaking very limited budget.  Thus, when we are asked to cut the budget, it is usually comes in the form of staff cuts as that is the primary item in our budget.   

How will you improve the transparency and access to financial and other records for the public?

Our legislature passes laws that impact the Public’s right to access. My job is to ensure those laws are properly interpreted to protect legislative policy choices. 

With respect to the work of the Court, all of our oral arguments are webcast for the public.  They may be accessed at anytime through the Court’s website.   Members of the public may also come into the Courtroom to view any argument.    Moreover, all briefs and filings are readily accessible to the public through our website.  www.txcourts.gov/supreme.aspx

To what extent do you believe the state or federal government should be able to obtain court orders directing parents to do things for their children that the parent does not believe should be done?

Generally speaking I don’t believe the Government should be able to do that.  But I cannot offer more specifics because this is an issue that might well come before the Supreme Court of Texas. While I, of course, have opinions on many areas of substantive law, I have made it a practice to give litigants the opportunity to thoughtfully present their case and persuade me based on the facts of their case and any developments in the law. That opportunity is, in my opinion, a component of due process.  Moreover, statements made during a campaign for judicial office could cause a judge’s impartiality to be questioned and thereby raise possible grounds for recusal. I have an obligation to minimize how often I exercise recusal, and I strongly adhere to my obligations and the oath I took when I assumed my duties as a Judge. It is important that judges avoid recusal that could result from campaign statements indicating an opinion or predisposition on an issue that could come before the court or that may be subject to judicial interpretation. Because the question posed is an issue that might come before the Supreme Court of Texas, undertaking to answer it at this time and in this context would not be prudent in that the answer might suggest a probable decision and ultimately lead to recusal.  For this reason, the better course is to abstain from public comment on the issue at this time.

Do parents have the right to block grandparent "rights" or doctor intervention? Why/not?

This is an issue that might well come before the Supreme Court of Texas. While I, of course, have opinions on many areas of substantive law, I have made it a practice to give litigants the opportunity to thoughtfully present their case and persuade me based on the facts of their case and any developments in the law. That opportunity is, in my opinion, a component of due process.  Moreover, statements made during a campaign for judicial office could cause a judge’s impartiality to be questioned and thereby raise possible grounds for recusal. I have an obligation to minimize how often I exercise recusal, and I strongly adhere to my obligations and the oath I took when I assumed my duties as a Judge. It is important that judges avoid recusal that could result from campaign statements indicating an opinion or predisposition on an issue that could come before the court or that may be subject to judicial interpretation. Because the question posed is an issue that might come before the Supreme Court of Texas, undertaking to answer it at this time and in this context would not be prudent in that the answer might suggest a probable decision and ultimately lead to recusal.  For this reason, the better course is to abstain from public comment on the issue at this time.

Where do you perceive the greatest corruption exists in Montgomery county courts?

I am not personally aware of corruption in the judiciary.  I do believe judges must continue to work in earnest to protect the rule of law.

What can you do in your court to protect citizens from harm by illegal aliens?

Enforce our laws and uphold the Constitution. 

Do the taxpayers have a responsibility to provide an interpreter for non-English speaking illegals?  As well, do taxpayers have-to-have one available during courtroom hours just in case someone might need their services?

This is an issue that might well come before the Supreme Court of Texas. While I, of course, have opinions on many areas of substantive law, I have made it a practice to give litigants the opportunity to thoughtfully present their case and persuade me based on the facts of their case and any developments in the law. That opportunity is, in my opinion, a component of due process.  Moreover, statements made during a campaign for judicial office could cause a judge’s impartiality to be questioned and thereby raise possible grounds for recusal. I have an obligation to minimize how often I exercise recusal, and I strongly adhere to my obligations and the oath I took when I assumed my duties as a Judge. It is important that judges avoid recusal that could result from campaign statements indicating an opinion or predisposition on an issue that could come before the court or that may be subject to judicial interpretation. Because the question posed is an issue that might come before the Supreme Court of Texas, undertaking to answer it at this time and in this context would not be prudent in that the answer might suggest a probable decision and ultimately lead to recusal.  For this reason, the better course is to abstain from public comment on the issue at this time.

What is the job of a judge?   What is your judicial philosophy?

What is the job of a state supreme court justice? 

The Supreme Court of Texas is the court of last resort for civil matters in the State of Texas. Together, the nine members of this court of discretionary review consider issues presented and decide points of law. We read briefs, hear oral arguments, and write legal opinions.  Members of the Supreme Court of Texas also have various administrative duties. By statute, the Supreme Court of Texas has administrative control over the State Bar of Texas and is the sole authority for licensing attorneys in Texas. The Court also promulgates the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Texas Rules of Evidence and other rules and standards. To improve the quality of justice in Texas, the Supreme Court has established special commissions. I am the Court’s liaison to the Texas Access to Justice Commission and the Chair of the Supreme Court Commission for Children, Youth, and Families, and I have many responsibilities in these roles.

What is your judicial philosophy:

I believe a judge's judicial philosophy is key to how the judge approaches the task of judging. My judicial philosophy is simple:  A judge must not legislate from the bench.  A judge must faithfully adhere to the rule of law, interpret statutes as written, and interpret our Constitution with a deep respect and loyalty to the original meaning of the constitutional text.  In sum, that means a judge must not create rights out of whole cloth or deprive people of rights delineated in our Constitution. Finally, I believe a judge must be independent, fair, and competent.

What is the proper role of a lawyer?

Lawyers have well defined duties under our Codes and Rules of Professional Conduct.  The most important role for a lawyer is to protect and advance the interests of the lawyer’s clients.  The lawyer, however, must always be mindful of the lawyer’s overarching obligation to protect the Rule of Law.

Among the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, which one do you respect the most, and why? Which one do you respect the least, and why?

I respect and admire the work of Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Sam Alito.  I had the great privilege of learning from both at Duke University School of Law School.  I have also read Justice Scalia’s books.

Justice Scalia is brilliant, colorful, and conservative.  He is a truly gifted writer whose signature style both persuades and entertains.  He always seems to know just what to say and just how to say it.  That is a gift.

Justice Alito is equally brilliant and though his writings are more tempered, he is no less a strong conservative voice on the nation’s high court.

Finally, I share Justice Scalia’s principled judicial philosophy that (1) judges should interpret the United States Constitution as it was written by the drafters and not according to the changing times and (2) that judges should interpret statutes according to the text so that the ordinary meaning of a statute’s language governs its meaning.

I do not admire justices with a record of re-writing the Constitution or creating new laws in areas more properly left to the legislative process. These acts deprive the people of a voice in matters of public concern.

What is the single most important action the county needs to do to keep this a great community to live in?

I believe we must ensure our elected leaders uphold the Constitution. 

Please explain your view of recidivism and how it affects the sentences you given

Not Applicable.

Should the state license barbers?  Lawyers? Why or why not?

This is an issue that might well come before the Supreme Court of Texas. While I, of course, have opinions on many areas of substantive law, I have made it a practice to give litigants the opportunity to thoughtfully present their case and persuade me based on the facts of their case and any developments in the law. That opportunity is, in my opinion, a component of due process.  Moreover, statements made during a campaign for judicial office could cause a judge’s impartiality to be questioned and thereby raise possible grounds for recusal. I have an obligation to minimize how often I exercise recusal, and I strongly adhere to my obligations and the oath I took when I assumed my duties as a Judge. It is important that judges avoid recusal that could result from campaign statements indicating an opinion or predisposition on an issue that could come before the court or that may be subject to judicial interpretation. Because the question posed is an issue that might come before the Supreme Court of Texas, undertaking to answer it at this time and in this context would not be prudent in that the answer might suggest a probable decision and ultimately lead to recusal.  For this reason, the better course is to abstain from public comment on the issue at this time.

What carries the greatest influence on your ruling: case law, the Constitution, or other?

The Constitution is always first.

Is there anything in your background of an embarrassing nature that should be explained before your election?

No

To what extent would you need to recuse yourself from cases because of conflicts of interest?

Rarely.

Can the legislature effectively write law that makes sense for 30 million people? Please explain your thoughts

Legislatures work diligently to write laws that have broad applicability.  Courts are often called upon to interpret statutes for a variety of reasons, including the fact that legislatures may not always envision the factual scenarios that will ultimately play out in courtrooms across our state.  That is why it is so important to elect judges that will remain faithful to the text and not act as a super-legislature.