Why are you seeking this bench and what 3 primary goals do you have in mind if you are elected?
I am seeking this bench because it fits my skillset, experience, and temperament. I have been a civil practitioner for 15 years.
I believe God has a plan for us all and he puts us in the place where he wants us to be when we are supposed to be there. As a consequence, I firmly believe the timing of the creation of this court coincides perfectly with where I am in my life. Exactly one year ago, my wife’s grandfather passed away. Over a year prior, we had sold our house to move in with him to help take care of him. Although it created some financial barriers for us, it was 100% the right decision. But, his circumstances greatly impacted our ability to figure out exactly where WE wanted to live- we had moved to Texas in 1998 in part to be closer to him and his late wife.
My career has involved a substantial amount of travel, both domestically and internationally. For instance, I spent nearly half of 2013 in The Netherlands and England. Because of the travel, Conroe was home base for me, but not necessarily home.
When my wife’s grandfather passed, for the first time in our marriage, we were able to look everywhere and anywhere for where we wanted to call home. I had also resigned from my most recent in-house engagement in January of this year, so the canvas was as blank as it could ever be. We started looking at different opportunities elsewhere- from Seattle, to Los Angeles, to Washington D.C., New York, London, Kentucky, and Houston, we considered many interesting potential career opportunities but always came back to wanting to be here in Montgomery County. It was truly one of those situations where you don’t realize what you have until you almost leave it. What we realized is that we loved this community as a place to raise our daughter. At the same time, and completely unbeknownst to me, the creation of this court was processing its way through the board of judges, the Commissioners’ Court, the local State legislatures, the State legislature generally, and the Governor’s desk.
I’ve always been driven to serve as an elected official. In many ways, I have been preparing myself and grooming myself for this my entire life. When I was a child, I would always respond that I was going to be a lawyer when someone asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. In high school, I was senior class president and was active in my local town and city hall meetings. In undergraduate school, I majored in political science with a focus on American political thought and also served as President of the school’s chapter of Pi Sigma Alpha, the national political science honors society, and led our chapter to winning the Best Chapter award nationally. Of course, I followed that by attending law school, where I excelled academically and was elected as President of the Student Bar, which appointed me as the student body representative in board and faculty meetings. This has been my passion and a quiet goal of mine my entire career as an attorney.
When I learned of this court’s creation, I was incredibly intrigued but cautious because I have not been active locally in politics and my practice did not have me active and engaged in the local legal community. Having never run for public office before, I was also somewhat intimidated by the fear of the unknown. I therefore consulted with 2 of the county’s presently serving civil judges, who both believed I would be a great fit for this role and that I would be someone who could step in immediately to help ease the backlog of civil cases the County presently faces. Their confidence in me also spurned confidence in myself. I prayed and consulted with my wife and my pastor and ultimately came to the belief that, again, God has put me in this position at the right place, the right time, and with the perfectly fitted court for me. I won’t go so far as to say it is destiny, but it sure feels like fate.
I have many goals for this court. I see this role as having basically 3 main functions, so I’ll focus here on one goal per function.
First, the obvious function of a judge is to process cases efficiently and administer fair, impartial, and correct rulings. In this particular court, there is an overwhelming need to get to work quickly and immediately begin processing cases. The good news is that we in Montgomery County are not the first county in Texas or the US to face this problem. I’ve personally been in numerous jurisdictions that faced similar issues in the past. I have first-hand experience with the measures (sometimes effective, sometimes not) employed by different courts to combat a backlog. I have several ideas on how to streamline and manage my caseload efficiently. Generally, those are:
A. Case Management- early scheduling of, and adherence to, case deadlines; staggered daily hearing times based on anticipated length of hearing; and potential use of tentative ruling issuances;
B. Information Management- video and telephonic conferencing; electronic filing; electronic tentative ruling issuance; and
C. Self-Help- especially in exhausting good faith efforts in resolving discovery disputes and motions; referral of appropriate cases to ADR;
D. Preparation- like a quarterback of a successful football team, I need to be the most prepared person in the room. Before any and all hearings, I will refresh myself on the case, the issues, the tensions, the personalities of the attorneys/litigants; review the moving and opposition papers (including any cited cases); and prepare any questions not addressed that I think are probative on the issues at hand. Though tedious on me, this preparation process will make the entire courtroom procedures and engagements move more orderly and expeditiously.
E. Other- I am not perfect and do not believe I know everything. In fact, I continue to learn everyday. As such, I will continue to look at other jurisdictions and courts and see what they are doing that works and try to learn and employ those tactics in my court as I believe they can be successful.
Second, the judge of a district court has a staff, a budget, and other operational parameters as dictated by the public through the board of judges and the County Commissioners. This is the stuff that happens when court is not in session. In many ways, this aspect is akin to running a small business. I have owned and operated my own business for 13 years. I have provided counsel and guidance to countless other businesses throughout my career. I’ve also owned a successful non-legal business for the past 5 years. More, my wife is a small business owner and I’ve helped her in her business. It is clear that I understand business operations and how to effectively and efficiently manage a business. That will be a very important and often overlooked aspect of this court.
Third, I believe that a judge should be “judgely,” as in carrying him/herself publicly in such a way that instills confidence in, and honor to, the legal and justice community. I believe I have the exact right demeanor, strength of character, temperament, intelligence, moral code, and general mindset to be a well-respected judge in this community. This is the stuff that happens publicly, but also out of court. The fact that I have no ties to any public officials, no special interest groups, no specific legal interests, and no local attorneys allows me to be completely unbiased in my analysis and approach. I am not part of the establishment and am a free thinker. I may ruffle some feathers of other elected officials along the way, but I have the resolve to always do what I believe is right and there is nothing anyone can hold over my head to unduly influence me. I am literally as clean a slate as is possible.
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?
I believe the family is the core of values, education, and morals and government should avoid unnecessary interference. At the same time, the child has fundamental rights and naturally entrusts its parents to protect those rights, i.e., the parental power is not absolute. John Locke noted, “…this (parental) power so little belongs to the father by any peculiar right of Nature, but only as he is guardian of his children, that when he quits his care of them he loses his power over them, which goes along with their nourishment and education, to which it is inseparably annexed, and belongs as much to the foster-father of an exposed child as to the natural father of another. So little power does the bare act of begetting give a man over his issue, if all his care ends there, and this be all the title he hath to the name and authority of a father.” What Locke is saying is that a parent does not have the “right” to neglect, abuse, or otherwise not care for a child. In such instances, the government has a duty to the child - who enjoys the natural rights of all persons- to protect the child.
Generally, I think that concept is agreeable. The questions, of course, are how far can the government go in codifying acceptable versus non-acceptable parental conduct, who becomes the arbiter of such a subjective analysis, and what standard of review must that arbiter take? As Justice McRenyolds stated in Pierce, Governor of Oregon, et al. v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) “[t]he child was not the mere creature of the state.”
I believe the law should recognize a presumption that the conduct of the parent is acceptable and work backward from there. Much like in other areas of the law, the presumption is not absolute, but rather is rebuttable by the government in establishing misconduct on the part of the parent. As such, the presumption would require that the government bear the burden of proof rather than the parent bearing the burden of proving the converse. More, I am certain such review is properly placed in front of a judge rather than an administrator or case worker. Finally, I believe there is needs to be heightened scrutiny given to government intrusion into parental “rights.” Constitutional recognition of some form of parental right would be a good starting point and would necessitate a “strict scrutiny” standard of review, which is hard to overcome. Justice Thomas, in his concurrence in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), recognizes that the rights of parents are fundamental rights and therefore require a strict scrutiny analysis to any infringements thereon, but he did not write for the plurality. As it stands, defenders of parental rights must rely Constitutionally on the substantive due process requirements of the 14th Amendment. As such, as a Constitutional family law scholar is keen to note, “… the right to parent, as far as the cases establish one, stands on the same constitutional footing as the rights to use contraception, to terminate a pregnancy, or for consenting adults to engage in homosexual sodomy.” That must be changed.
What carries the greatest influence on your rulings: case law, the Constitutions, or other?
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Texas Constitution, if not in conflict with the US Constitution, then governs and controls. Case law and the doctrine of stare decisis exist decide applications of the law as applied to a specific set of circumstances.
That said, I believe the doctrine of stare decisis is not a fixed rule requiring blind obedience (“judicial passivism”), but instead is a general guideline. “Although ‘[w]e approach the reconsideration of [our] decisions … with the utmost caution,’ ‘[s]tare decisis is not an inexorable command.” Pearson vs. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009).
The Court today follows a balancing test explained by Justice Kennedy in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010): “Our precedent is to be respected unless the most convincing of reasons demonstrates that adherence to it puts us on a course that is sure error. Beyond workability, the relevant factors in deciding whether to adhere to the principle of stare decisis include the antiquity of the precedent, the reliance interests at stake, and of course whether the decision was well reasoned.”
I agree with Justice Thomas, who in concurrence with the majority in Gamble vs. United States, No. 17-646, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) explained that adhering to a demonstrably incorrect judicial decision on the basis of stare decisis is tantamount to courts making law and should be avoided. To Justice Thomas, no balancing test is needed.
In any event, I believe the sound interpretation of laws serves to aid in understanding the application of that law and should be followed for consistency and to uphold the rule of law. In circumstances where the interpretation is “demonstrably erroneous,” however, I also agree the court should and must right the wrong.
Are the United States and Texas constitutions living documents? Please answer in the context of Progressivism versus Originalism.
No, the constitutions are legal documents and are therefore subject to the same rules of construction as statutes and contracts. As such, the plain language of the document in its usual and ordinary sense will govern its meaning. The Founders were clearly in agreement with this notion.
James Madison rejected the notion of a “living constitution” in an 1831 letter to a colleague, “Misera est servitus ubi jus est aut vagum aut incognitum [Being subject to a law is miserable where the law is either vague or unknown] ... Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a constitution should be fixed and known that the meaning of a law should be so? Can indeed a law be fixed in its meaning and operation, unless the Constitution be so? On the contrary, if a particular Legislature, differing in the construction of the Constitution from a series of preceeding constructions, proceed to act on that difference, they not only introduce uncertainty & instability in the Constitution, but in the laws themselves; in as much as all laws preceding the new construction, and inconsistent with it, are not only annulled for the future, but virtually pronounced nullities from the beginning.”
Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be replaced every 19 years in order to keep up with changing societal morals, customs, and norms. In so arguing, however, he points out that this ONE document was not simply to be reinterpreted, but actually repeatedly replaced. He explains his point in a 1789 letter to Madison, “… it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.”
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton writes, “"[u]ntil the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act."
Words must have an affixed meaning. As I write this response, similar to when I draft contractual terms, I am careful to choose the exact word that I mean with its plain meaning so as to be clear and unambiguous. As Madison explains, the rule of law relies upon fixed meanings and applications of the law- fairly and equally to all. There is a legal maxim that says, “the citizen is presumed to know the law.” As such, it is not a viable excuse after breaking a law to say, “I didn’t know.” The fact that the laws have a fixed and unchanging meaning allows for this maxim to be true and allows for our system, governed by the rule of law, to continue.
Please list the key differences between you & your opponent(s) in this race & why your experience/position is better.
The biggest difference between my opponent and myself is experience. I have been practicing civil law for the entirety of my 15-year career. I’ve estimated that 95% of my litigation experience is in general civil law. By contrast, my opponent has been practicing civil law for literally one year and has only been exposed to one type of civil law case. He has unequivocally indicated that 0% of his litigation experience is in general civil law.
Next, a large part of being a judge happens when you are not on the bench. You have a staff to manage, a budget within which to operate, a board of judges on which to participate, and the Commissioners’ Court to whom to answer. In many ways, this is like running a business. I have owned my own business for 13 years and have owned a second small business for the last 5 years. I also help my wife run her small business. My opponent has always been an employee of someone else who runs the business. He has never had to make business decisions for himself or on behalf of other people.
More, a civil judge has a drastically different job than a criminal judge. Much of the civil judge’s work in a case revolves around law and motion hearings. As such, a civil judge will spend a considerable amount of time reading, researching, and writing. My opponent is most likely naïve to this and is not equipped or prepared for it. On the other hand, I love to read, write, and research; I’ve been doing it my whole life.
Next, a judge must possess those intangible qualities that command respect in the courtroom- firmness, resolve, confidence, deliberativeness, etc… I believe I possess these qualities in greater abundance than my opponent.
Finally, a judge should be impartial and unbiased. I have no connections to any local public official. I have no pre-set agenda. I am not, and have not been, part of the local political establishment. By contrast, my opponent is closely linked to the District Attorney, the local criminal judges, and the law enforcement community. While he is a nice young man, he is inexperienced in civil law and has never been put in a position of authority or ultimate decision making. He has unequivocally indicated that his first action if presented with a case of first impression will be to consult others. While I do not oppose the idea of consulting my peers, I will do so after exhausting all available information to me and forming my own initial opinion. I will not shy away from making well-reasoned and fair, though perhaps unpopular, rulings.
Please describe the best way for the average voter to determine which judicial candidate is best.
Generally, the average voter can do best by being informed and unbiased- sort of like a private and personal judge. Often though, people are influenced by miniscule and irrelevant factors. I have heard of support being given to a candidate because the candidate’s mother lives in a certain neighborhood. I have heard also of elected officials leveraging their relationships to garner support for their colleagues and friends. Worse yet, I’ve heard of tit-for-tat relationships where a vote now garners favor in the future. Voters should evaluate candidates on the merits and strictly with respect to the position being sought. It should not matter whether I am a good free-throw shooter as it has absolutely no bearing on my competence and capability as a civil court judge.
In this particular race, experience is THE key factor because the need to get this right in this election is so great. The stakes for the County are incredibly high; the judge of this court has to be effective or the County will suffer greatly and in many respects. Beyond that, I think it is important to average voters that the person they elect “fits the job” from a personality, intelligence, demeanor, and temperament point of view. Meeting the candidates personally is therefore a great way for an average voter to “get a read” on a candidate. The French call this “je ne sais quoi,” which is literally translated as “I don’t know what.” What it really means is that certain quality that you can’t describe, but you know it when you see it. I think when people meet me and my opponent, the differences in this regard are striking and they know “it” when they see it.
What role should government have in reforming criminals?
Law enforcement and policing must be government functions, but the focus of those efforts is determined by the people by and through their elected representatives. As such, there needs to be fundamental and philosophic agreement about the aims and goals of our law enforcement process, starting with an agreement on what our collective goal is for punishment.
There are 5 generally accepted theories of punishment, each I think designed with some type of “reformation” of a criminal in mind:
- Incapacitation- preventing future crime by physically detaining criminals and keeping them away from society. As a method of reform, statistics tend to show it is ineffective since nearly 3 out of every 4 released criminals are arrested within 5 years of their release. Plus, it is incredibly expensive.
- Deterrence- where the threat, or the severity, of the punishment causes criminals to not break the law. My personal belief regarding the effectiveness of deterrence as “reformative,” depends mostly on the severity of the punishment for the crime. In the US, I do not believe our criminal punishments rise to a level where they deter criminals from committing crime.
- Retribution- focusing more on justice to the victim through imposing fines and mandatory sentencing policies. I do not personally see this as effective punishment for “reforming” criminals.
- Rehabilitation- attempts at educating, training, and/or treating criminals so that they overcome the circumstances that caused them to be criminals in the first place. I believe this to be an effective way to reform criminals, though it is also arguably the most expensive to the taxpayers.
- Restoration- where the victim, offender, and community work together to atone for the offender’s act and reform the offender at the same time. I believe this method of “reform” to be effective in cases where the crime committed was not serious and was committed by a minor or otherwise first-offender.
I mention all of these because I think the government’s role and aim differs based on the nature and extent of a given crime. Certain major crimes- murder, rape, etc… necessarily should carry some level of incapacitation and deterrence, while minor misdemeanor infractions may not necessitate such harsh, and often costly, methods.
More, I think government polices entirely too many issues, many of which touch on a person’s privacy and liberty. The “police state” is the most potentially invasive to fundamental freedoms and the most expensive to manage. Jails are overcrowded, at taxpayer expense. Alternatives like drug courts and treatment facilities can reduce the cost and help lower recidivism. I believe we can continue to be “tough on crime,” by being tough on the RIGHT crime.
Please describe what you believe are the most significant issues in this race, why and what you'll do to address them?
The most significant issue in this race is clarifying the role of this specific court. My opponent knows and understands that this court will be a full-time civil court and will handle only civil cases. That role is inconsistent with his background and experience, so his campaign strategy has been to create an illusion that the court “could” hear other types of cases since the court has been designated as a court of “unlimited jurisdiction” by the State. As such, it is technically correct that the court could hear all types of cases- civil, criminal, family, probate, etc… However, what my opponent conveniently omits is that it is common for the State to designate district courts as unlimited jurisdiction courts and leave it to the local Board of Judges/Commissioners’ Court to designate, if they so choose, what type of cases the court will hear. With respect to the district courts generally, including this particular court, our local officials have found it to be a better option to designate its courts to hear specific types of cases- family, probate, civil, or criminal, rather than leave all of the courts to handle all types of cases generally. Since it had been burned in the past by judges campaigning that they would be comfortable hearing a specific type of case, then after being elected “turning” the court into a different specificity than what was promised during a campaign, the board of judges unanimously and unequivocally approved a resolution indicating that this court will hear all civil cases and the Commissioners have also indicated as much. There is no doubt what type of case this court will hear.
More, my opponent is quick to point out that the judge will periodically have to do some quasi-criminal functions like issue warrants and preside over grand juries. While true, it is a minimal, nearly nominal, role of the court and certainly does not require a 10-yar career as a criminal prosecutor. We know because all of the district courts serve this function, most of whom have no criminal law experience, and no one is complaining that they are improperly issuing warrants or failing in this quasi-criminal function.
Finally, my opponent is either unaware of, or ignores, the real need and job of this court- to get working quickly in processing cases, to alleviate the severe backlog of civil cases, and to effectively and efficiently issue fair and correct rulings. Because of his limited experience, I suspect he does not understand the amount of reading, researching, and writing that is required of a civil court judge and is equally unaware of the difference between a criminal court and a civil court in process and structure. At best, he will have a steep learning curve before figuring out how to do the job. This will cost the taxpayers more money and only exacerbate the problems presently faced. At worst, he will successfully convert the court to a criminal court and cause the County to have to ask the State for yet another civil court.
I am not interested in personalizing the race or degrading my opponent. He is a nice young man and I believe wants to do good. He has commented to me that either way the election goes, at least Montgomery County will be in good hands. Unfortunately, I disagree and believe that, if elected, he will cause more harm than good. In campaigning, I will continue to point out the issues identified above and continue to press forward with explaining why I am simply more qualified and equipped to serve on this bench.
Please describe the qualifications and experience that make you the best candidate for the office you are seeking.
I have practiced general civil law for 15 years. I estimate that 95% of my practice has been in general civil law. By contrast, my opponent has unequivocally indicated that 0% of his experience is in general civil law. I have been involved in nearly every type of civil matter- from personal injury; to business relationships of all kinds; real, personal, and intellectual property issues, tax and collections issues; evictions; products liability; and I’ve represented small and medium sized private and publicly-traded companies around the world.
I have owned my own business and have advised other businesses for the entirety of my career. I have managed a staff and have been in positions of ultimate decision-making.
Beyond that, I have the proper demeanor, mindset, and temperament to be a civil judge. I have no ties to any local attorneys or other elected officials that could potentially conflict with my ability to do my job or cause me to recuse myself from certain cases.
Please describe the changes you will make to improve the efficiency of your court, yet remain thoughful about rulings/orders - that allows all parties to be heard and their arguments considered. Please specifically address how many days a year your court will be “in session.”
We will be in session every day that we can and need to be; I don't take days off. There are many ways for the court to be efficient. As mentioned, I have practiced in several jurisdictions and venues and have seen how other courts manage their dockets. Montgomery County is also not the first to experience a civil caseload backlog. We can look to other courts and see what efforts they have made to improve efficiency and try to emulate the ones that have worked and avoid or improve upon the ones that were unsuccessful. Without being in the court firsthand (since this court is newly-created), I cannot make a blanket statement about what will be successful and what will not be. But, I do believe I will have an advantage of being in a position to start fresh- even with old cases- and perhaps find new ways to better manage those that have fallen behind for whatever reason.
As a primary matter, I believe just having a sound, educated, and knowledgeable judge in place will help the current backlog. I expect to be an asset to the existing civil court structure and, just by virtue of having me on a bench hearing civil cases full-time, we will be able to alleviate some of that backlog. Other items I am considering are set forth above, including: (1) Case Management- early scheduling of, and adherence to, case deadlines; staggered daily hearing times based on anticipated length of hearing; and potential use of tentative ruling issuances; (2) Information Management- video and telephonic conferencing; electronic filing; electronic tentative ruling issuance; and (3) Self-Help- especially in exhausting good faith efforts in resolving discovery disputes and motions; referral of appropriate cases to ADR.
Among the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court(SCOTUS), which one do you respect the most, and why? Which one do you respect the least, and why? What judicial philosophy should a SCOTUS Justice have?
I preface my answer with the caveat that I respect the Justices of the US Supreme Court as I respect the office they hold, their willingness to serve, and the great responsibilities they assume. That said, my “favorite” is Justice Clarence Thomas for several reasons. First, I am aligned with Justice Thomas in his view of limited federal government. I also am aligned philosophically with him on originalism and in most of his positions regarding the Bill of Rights. I respect him most for remaining outside of the political fray. He rarely gives interviews and even more rarely asks questions during oral argument. I very much respected him during his much-contested confirmation hearings, in which he remained steadfast and vigilant in the face of sexual misconduct accusations. Finally, he does not seem to be an elitist often hiring clerks from non-Ivy League schools.
On the other side of the spectrum, it is easy to choose Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who I think at one point was a brave and fearless attorney who championed equal rights for women. But, over the last decade, she seems to have become nothing more than a caricature of herself. Her social and cultural status as an icon seemingly now weighs heavier in her written opinions than her duty to review cases impartially.
I believe a SCOTUS Justice should have the judicial philosophy similar to that of a referee. No one goes to a ballgame to watch the referee and the referee should have no personal bearing on the outcome of the game. Chief Justice John Roberts made a similar analogy during his nomination hearing, “… a certain humility should characterize the judicial role. Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire. Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath. And judges have to have the modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench.” I think this is the correct approach.
Do you think judges should be elected by the people, or appointed by a commission?
I’ve thought a lot about this one, especially recently. I’ve come down on the side that judges should be elected because elections provide substantial advantages over the alternatives not least in that they provide a significant level of self-government to voters. In an article published by the Federalist Society, a Texas appellate judge is quoted as saying, “[a]s Texans in the past surely knew, you cannot take the politics out of decisions about who is going to hold what office, but you can take the people out of the politics. This democracy business can be a little messy at times, certainly inefficient and occasionally some bad mistakes are made, but you can trust Texans to get it right most of the time. The secret of our success to date is the dispersal of power, with Texans reserving the last word for themselves.”
We want judges to be accountable, but at the same time there needs to be a level of independence. Commissions and back room appointments are often more political than campaigns and are done in the secrecy of private meetings. At least the politics in an election are public as are the sources of financing. Furthermore, I favor partisan elections to non-partisan elections for the same reason. Political affiliation tends to reflect a person’s social, economic, and philosophic leanings. It therefore serves as a great data point for the electorate to use to help identify and select one candidate over another and I am generally in favor of more transparency and identifying as many data points as possible for candidates.
What amount of indigent defense is appropriate for the State/Montgomery County? And why?
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assistance of counsel for defendants in criminal matters. In 1963, the Supreme Court decision Gideon v. Wainwright affirmed that this right extends to individuals unable to afford an attorney in state felony prosecutions. Today, in Texas, the right to counsel for the indigent is broadly recognized in misdemeanor cases as well.
This issue is often misunderstood by conservatives, but has recently seen a resurgence from conservatives (often fighting along side of none other than the ACLU) in indigent defense reform. To me, this resurgence is not surprising because I have traditionally seen the issue as they are now seeing it: as an issue of limited government. On its face, government-funded indigent defense appears as yet another government handout and in conflict with conservative notions of personal responsibility. But, our Founding Fathers taught us to be leery of government and instilled the principle of innocent until proven guilty into our system of laws. Without adequate levels of indigent defense, the government is arguably able to run roughshod over the citizens, particularly the poor, and set dangerous precedents that can be carried out against all citizens. As such, I argue that this issue is less about “handout” than it is about resisting tyranny. A prominent conservative is quoted as saying, “[t]he government shouldn't exist. But if it does, its primary function should be to protect people from the government.” This, to me, is spot on.
More, I believe that a properly-structured indigent defense program actually saves counties and states money by reducing the costs of unnecessary incarceration, endless legal appeals, and lawsuits from those wrongly imprisoned. The question therefore isn’t whether indigent defense is appropriate, it is more appropriately framed in how to fund and provide that defense.
The three primary methods of providing indigents with court-appointed attorneys are: 1) assigned counsel where attorneys are appointed by the judge on a case-by-case basis, 2) contract systems in which attorneys are hired to provide services for a specified dollar amount, and 3) public defender where a salaried public official represents all indigent defendants.
I am not well-versed in the arguments as to which system is best, or how Montgomery County specifically deals with the issue, but suffice it to say I am in favor of a system that provides the highest and most competent level of defense for the accused at the most cost-effective rate to the taxpayers.
CSPOA says "Civil forfeiture laws pose one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today. They encourage law enforcement to favor the pursuit of property over the pursuit of justice, and they typically give the innocent little recourse for recovering seized property. And without meaningful transparency, law enforcement faces little public accountability for its forfeiture activity or expenditures from forfeiture funds." How should these Civil Forfieture issues be addressed?
Aristotle in the Politics set the utilitarian basis for the need to protect private property. Carrying this notion a step further, John Locke asserted that the preservation of property was the "great and chief end" of government. Locke believed that property rights are given to man as a law of nature and not as a result of a grant from a political authority. Though he vacillated often throughout his life, Thomas Jefferson, mostly rejected Locke’s notion of property as a natural right and instead believed that property rights existed solely as created by society and controlled by it. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, meanwhile, agreed with Locke. I tend to agree with Hamilton, Madison, and Locke. This philosophical discussion is relevant because I think it frames the issue of civil asset forfeiture as whether property is a fundamental right of the people, or whether it is granted by government and therefore rescindable. I believe it is a fundamental right and that the government should have to overcome a high hurdle in order to take it away from its citizens.
Nearly 85% of Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture. At the same time, civil asset forfeitures generate substantial revenue for local law enforcement. The Supreme Court recently visited this issue in Timbs vs. Indiana 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019) and held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment applies to the States. But, the Court did not hold that civil forfeitures necessarily constitute “excessive fines.” So far, the Supreme Court has only held that a criminal asset forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause when it is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.” Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993). More, because these forfeiture cases are civil (and not criminal) in nature, there is no 5th Amendment right to counsel. In many states, forfeiture is valid even without a criminal conviction.
States can curtail improper forfeitures by: (1) requiring a criminal conviction as a prerequisite to forfeiture; (2) requiring appointment of counsel in all forfeitures; (3) directing civil forfeiture revenue into the general fund rather than directly into police department budgets; (4) limiting the assets seized to property that has a direct connection to the alleged criminal act; and (5) increasing transparency with respect to civil forfeiture revenue and distributions.
At present, the laws in the State of Texas allow for civil asset forfeitures with what I consider minimal safeguards and a low threshold of proof. Until the Legislature or Texas Supreme Court changes the law, however, courts are bound to apply the law as written.
Understanding that all courts in MoCo have general jurisdiction, the board of judges has moved towards specialized courts. What types of cases are currently filed in the court you are running for? What is your experiences to handle this specific case type? Are you planning on asking to change the case allocation or case type assigned to the court you are running for if you win?
The board of judges has unanimously passed a resolution indicating that this court will hear all civil cases. The Commissioners’ Court has also indicated that this court will hear all civil cases.
My background and experience is all in civil law. It is what I’ve done my entire 15-year career.
I will not change the case type assigned to this court. Period. Hard stop.
In your view, what is the threshold for determining constitutionality of a legislative act? or a challenge to it?
Government derives its power from the consent of the people and the judiciary should conservatively examine whether Legislative acts are “necessary and proper” or are within the unenumerated (but not unlimited) police power of the states. Judges must be mindful to exercise a level of judicial restraint where warranted while also avoiding judicial activism and “legislating from the bench.” As such, any constitutional analysis must be weighed on a case-by-case basis by the judge- giving great credence to the intent and will of the Legislature and Governor; but also mindful to protect the rights of the citizens.
Please list civic, political or union organization or individuals to whom you have contributed (five years):
Helping Hands- April Sound Church
Lone Star Cowboy Church
Federalist Society
Texas State Bar
California State Bar
Conroe Noon Lions
Magnolia Area Chamber of Commerce
The Woodlands Chamber of Commerce
Montgomery Chamber of Commerce
Conroe/Lake Conroe Chamber of Commerce
Veterans of Foreign Wars
American Legion
Vietnam War Commemorative Association
All 7 Montgomery County Republican Women groups
Rand Henderson, Sheriff Montgomery County
Brett Ligon, Montgomery County District Attorney
Mark Keogh, Montgomery County Judge
James Noack, Montgomery County Commissioner
Bob Milner, Candidate, The Woodlands Township Board
Shelly Sekula Gibbs, Candidate, The Woodlands Township Board
Will Metcalf, State Representative
Brandon Creighton, State Senator
Clyde Vogel, Candidate, Constable
Montgomery County Republican Party of Texas
Wayne Mack, Justice of the Peace
Spring Fire Department
Houston Fire Department
Montgomery County Tea Party
Patriots PAC
Eagle Forum
Please list all conservative groups for which you are or have been a member, and list any positions held in each group.
Young Republicans- Former Member
Federalist Society- Member
Please list who is endorsing you and what their relationship to you is?
I have generated support generally from the persons who will be most affected by this election- namely the civil court judges and attorneys- but no specific endorsements. I do not anticipate receiving any such endorsements. Also, many Republican groups do not issue endorsements in Republican primaries. Finally, I am not seeking any personal endorsements, but only those from relevant conservative organizations.
You are asking for the Republican nomination, what have you done to give back to the GOP?
I have identified as a Republican my entire life. I consider myself both socially and fiscally conservative. During undergraduate school, I interned for free at the local office with a Republican Congressman in order to do what I could to help our constituents. I was also a member of the Young Republican organization at my school. As mentioned, we lived with my wife’s grandfather, who made numerous financial contributions to local Republican candidates. We have supported non-partisan Christian conservative non-profit organizations through our church. I am a member of the Federalist Society.
