Candidates for County Court at Law Judge

1 – Serving as Judge, what would your guiding principles be?

My guiding principles are rooted in respect for the rule of law, judicial restraint, and the equal application of the law to every individual who appears before the court. I believe a judge’s role is to apply the law as written—not to legislate from the bench or substitute personal views for those enacted by the Legislature.

I am guided by constitutional fidelity, due process, and personal responsibility. These principles are especially important in cases affecting families and children. Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children, make decisions for their families, and do so without unnecessary government intrusion. Courts should respect those rights while ensuring that the law is applied fairly and that children’s best interests are protected within the bounds set by statute and precedent.

I believe strong families are the foundation of strong communities, and the judiciary should approach family-related matters with seriousness, balance, and common sense. That means enforcing the law consistently, encouraging accountability, and providing a fair and orderly forum where disputes can be resolved efficiently and respectfully.

Above all, I am guided by humility in the role. Judicial authority is a public trust, and it must be exercised carefully, independently, and with an unwavering commitment to justice, integrity, and the community the court serves.

2 – Please describe your philosophy on taxpayer-funded lobbying.

I believe taxpayer-funded lobbying raises serious constitutional and separation-of-powers concerns and should be narrowly limited. The role of government entities is to carry out the laws enacted by the Legislature—not to use public funds to influence future legislation or advocate for political outcomes.

Taxpayer dollars are appropriated for defined public purposes, and using those funds to lobby risks blurring the line between executing the law and attempting to shape it. From a constitutional standpoint, that distinction matters. Citizens should not be compelled to fund advocacy efforts that go beyond providing factual, technical, or compliance-related information to lawmakers.

Any interaction between government entities and the Legislature should be transparent, restrained, and strictly tied to statutory duties. Courts play an important role in enforcing those limits and ensuring that public funds are used in accordance with legislative intent.

Respect for separation of powers, fiscal accountability, and the proper role of government is essential to maintaining public trust and the rule of law.

3 – How would you define the role of the courts?

The role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law as written, not to create policy or substitute judicial judgment for that of the Legislature. Courts exist to resolve disputes fairly, protect constitutional rights, and ensure that the rule of law is applied consistently and impartially.

A properly functioning judiciary exercises restraint. Judges must decide cases based on the facts before them and the governing law—not personal beliefs, political pressure, or desiredoutcomes. When courts remain within their constitutional role, they provide predictability, stability, and confidence in the legal system.

Courts also serve as a safeguard for due process. Every person who comes before the court is entitled to be heard, to receive a fair proceeding, and to have their case decided according to established legal standards. That fairness is essential to public trust.

Ultimately, the courts are not instruments of social change or political advocacy. They are guardians of the law, entrusted with applying it faithfully, maintaining constitutional boundaries, and ensuring justice is administered with integrity and discipline.

4 – What are your thoughts on the current pay of county/city employees and pay raises (how often, how much, how is a raise applied – across the board or merit-based)?

I believe compensation for county and city employees should reflect fiscal responsibility, transparency, and respect for taxpayers. Public service is important work, but pay decisions must be sustainable and grounded in the financial realities of the community.

Raises should not be automatic or driven by politics. A merit-based approach—tied to performance, responsibility, and demonstrated value to the public—is generally more consistent with good stewardship than across-the-board increases. That approach rewards excellence, encourages accountability, and respects limited public resources.

Any adjustments to pay should be deliberate, clearly justified, and made through an open process so taxpayers understand how and why their money is being spent. Conservative governance requires balancing fair compensation with disciplined budgeting and long-term financial stability.

As a judge, my role would not be to set compensation policy, but I believe courts should always be mindful that public funds come from taxpayers and must be handled with care, restraint, and integrity.

5 – Do you think the county court budget is sufficient or lacking in some way? Please explain.

I believe the key issue is not whether the county court budget is simply larger or smaller, but whether existing resources are being used efficiently and responsibly to carry out the court’s constitutional duties. Conservative governance requires careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars and a focus on results, not automatic budget growth.

Courts must be adequately funded to ensure due process, public safety, and timely resolution of cases. At the same time, any claim that a budget is lacking should be supported by specific, demonstrated needs—such as case volume, staffing demands, or technology gaps—rather than assumptions or generalized requests.

Before seeking additional funding, courts should prioritize efficiency, accountability, and prudent management of existing resources. If targeted increases are necessary, they should be narrow, transparent, and directly tied to improving the administration of justice.

As a judge, my responsibility would be to manage the court effectively within the budget provided, respect the role of the commissioners court in fiscal decision-making, and ensure taxpayer funds are used carefully and for their intended purpose.

6 – In regards to the July 4th flood, tell us what you think of the local response? What should be the focus for the rebuilding efforts?

The July 4th flood was a serious and unexpected event, and the immediate priority was protecting life and ensuring public safety. From what I observed, the local response reflected strong cooperation among first responders, emergency personnel, and community volunteers. That kind of local coordination and neighbor-to-neighbor assistance is one of this community’s greatest strengths.

Going forward, the focus of rebuilding efforts should be practical, transparent, and locally driven. Resources should be directed first to restoring essential infrastructure, helping families and businesses recover, and reducing the risk of similar damage in the future. Rebuilding should be done thoughtfully—based on sound engineering, responsible planning, and an honest assessment of what failed and what can be improved.

A conservative approach to recovery emphasizes accountability and stewardship. Relief funds should be used efficiently, with clear oversight, and with respect for taxpayers who ultimately fund those efforts. The accountability and stewardship of the donated funds should be completely transparent to ensure that those donated funds are applied directly to their donated purpose. The goal should not be temporary fixes or political gestures, but long-term resilience that strengthens the community while respecting private property rights and local decision- making.

Ultimately, recovery is most successful when it remains focused on people, guided by common sense, and carried out at the local level with transparency and responsibility.

7 – In what ways can the county court operate more efficiently?

County courts operate most efficiently when procedures are clear, consistent, and focused on resolving cases without unnecessary delay or expense. Simple improvements—such as firm scheduling, clear expectations for filings, and consistent enforcement of deadlines—can make a meaningful difference for litigants, attorneys, and court staff.

Efficiency also comes from good case management and thoughtful use of technology, where appropriate, to reduce paperwork and streamline routine tasks. These tools should support the work of the court, not complicate it.

From a conservative perspective, efficiency is about respecting people’s time and taxpayers’ money. A well-run court is one that moves cases forward fairly, avoids waste, and focuses on delivering timely justice with professionalism and discipline.

8 – What are the top three issues facing the court and staff and how would you address them?

The top three issues facing the County Court at Law and its staff—indigent defendants, timely resolution of cases and trial settings, and respect toward court staff—directly affect the community’s confidence in the justice system and the efficient use of local resources.

Timely resolution of cases matters to families, small businesses, and individuals who rely on the court for closure and certainty. Consistent trial settings, predictable procedures, and accountability for readiness help ensure cases move forward without unnecessary delay. In accordance with local rules, parties should attend mediation in a timely manner, and cases should only return to mediation after an impasse when there is a substantial reason to do so. This approach respects the time and resources of everyone involved.

Indigent cases must be handled with fairness and efficiency so that defendants receive due process while also safeguarding limited taxpayer-funded resources. Clear scheduling, firm deadlines, and active case oversight reduce delays and help ensure public funds are used responsibly.

Respect for court staff is essential to a well-functioning court. Staff serve the public every day and are critical to the administration of justice. Professional conduct by attorneys and consistent enforcement of courtroom standards promote a culture of respect, efficiency, and professionalism.Addressing these issues with fairness, discipline, and common sense strengthens public trust and ensures the court operates in a way that serves the community—efficiently, respectfully, and with integrity.

9 – Has there been anything during the COVID pandemic and the government’s response to
it that you would change? If so, what?

The COVID pandemic presented unprecedented challenges, and many decisions were made under difficult and rapidly changing conditions. That said, with the benefit of hindsight, I believe greater restraint and clearer constitutional boundaries would have better served the public.

Emergency powers should be narrowly tailored, time-limited, and subject to meaningful oversight. Prolonged, broad restrictions—particularly those imposed without legislative input or clear standards—risked undermining public trust and blurred the proper balance between executive authority, legislative responsibility, and individual liberty.

Decisions affecting schools, businesses, families, and the courts are best made as close to the local level as possible, where officials understand community needs and conditions. Transparency and consistency were essential, and in some instances those were lacking.

As a judge, my role is not to second-guess policy choices, but I believe the experience reinforced an important conservative principle: even in emergencies, the Constitution does not disappear, separation of powers matters, and government authority must always remain accountable to the people and the law.

10 – What are your thoughts on term limits?

I believe term limits are an important tool for promoting accountability, preventing the concentration of power, and encouraging fresh perspectives in government. Public office is a position of trust, not a lifetime entitlement, and regular turnover helps ensure that officials remain responsive to the people they serve.

From a conservative standpoint, term limits can help guard against entrenched bureaucracy, reduce complacency, and reinforce the idea that government exists to serve the public—not the other way around. They encourage disciplined leadership and a focus on results rather than permanence.

At the same time, term limits should be implemented thoughtfully and in a manner consistent with constitutional principles, respecting the will of voters and the distinct roles of different branches of government. When balanced properly, term limits can strengthen public trust and reinforce limited, accountable government.

1 – Serving as Judge, what would your guiding principles be?

My guiding principles would be judicial restraint, humility, adherence to the rule of law, fairness/neutrality, and ethical integrity. Judges should respect the proper role of the courts, refraining from substituting personal views for the law and leaving policy decisions to the legislative branch. A judge must interpret and apply the law faithfully, honoring constitutional limits, legislative intent, and established precedent, while remaining free from personal bias, political influence, or external pressure. Fairness requires treating all parties equally, listening attentively, and basing decisions strictly on the law and the facts.

Integrity and ethical conduct are essential to maintaining public trust and confidence in the judicial system. Consistency, sound judgment, and clear reasoning ensure predictability and stability. Above all, a judge should pursue justice with balance, applying the law firmly yet compassionately, while safeguarding individual rights and preserving the orderly administration of justice

2 – Please describe your philosophy on taxpayer-funded lobbying.

As a judge, my role is not to advocate for or against public policy, but to uphold the rule of law and maintain the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Public confidence in the courts depends on judges remaining above political influence and policy debates, and deciding cases solely based on the law and the facts presented. When issues involving the use of public funds or governmental authority come before the court, a judge must apply constitutional principles, statutory requirements, and established precedent without regard to political considerations.

Respect for separation of powers requires that policy decisions be made by elected officials, while the judiciary ensures those decisions are carried out in a lawful and transparent manner. By exercising restraint, neutrality, and ethical integrity, judges help preserve public trust and confidence in the fairness and independence of our legal system.

3 – How would you define the role of the courts?

The court system serves as the foundation for upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice in society. Its primary role is to interpret and apply the law fairly and consistently, resolving disputes between individuals, organizations, and government entities. Courts protect constitutional and statutory rights by ensuring laws are enforced as written and by providing a neutral forum where all parties receive due process. The court system also maintains public order by adjudicating criminal cases, determining guilt or innocence, and imposing lawful penalties while safeguarding the rights of the accused. In civil matters, courts resolve conflicts involving contracts, property, family issues, and personal injuries.

Additionally, courts act as a check on the other branches of government by reviewing the legality of governmental actions. Through reasoned decisions and adherence to precedent, the court system promotes stability, accountability, and public confidence in the legal system.

4 – What are your thoughts on the current pay of county/city employees and pay raises (how often, how much, how is a raise applied – across the board or merit-based)?

As a judge, my responsibility is to manage the court fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the law. Within the judiciary, professionalism, accountability, and high ethical standards are essential to maintaining public trust. Judges must ensure that court operations respect taxpayers, use public resources responsibly, and promote excellence in the administration of justice, while following all applicable laws and regulations governing compensation and employment. Decisions regarding pay and personnel policies are matters for the appropriate legislative and administrative authorities, and a judge’s role is to apply those policies neutrally and lawfully, without political or personal considerations.

5 – Do you think the county court budget is sufficient or lacking in some way? Please explain.

As a judge, my role is not to set funding policy, but to ensure that the court fulfills its constitutional and statutory responsibilities fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the law. Courts must manage their resources responsibly while addressing significant case backlogs and increasing statutory responsibilities imposed by the Legislature. Judges have a duty to administer justice promptly and protect public safety within the resources provided, while respecting the separation of powers and the budgetary authority of elected officials. Regardless of funding levels, I would focus on efficiency, sound management, and responsible stewardship of public resources to ensure the court performs its core functions and maintains public confidence in the justice system.

6 – In regards to the July 4th flood, tell us what you think of the local response? What should be the focus for the rebuilding efforts?

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, the judiciary’s role is to help restore stability by ensuring continued access to justice and the fair application of the law. Courts must function efficiently and transparently so that individuals, families, and communities can resolve disputes, address legal issues, and move forward during recovery. Judges must apply existing laws and standards as written, respect the separation of powers, and remain neutral when disputes arise concerning rebuilding, contracts, insurance, or governmental actions. By maintaining impartiality, accountability, and orderly court operations, the judicial system supports public confidence and helps communities recover within the framework established by law.

7 – In what ways can the county court operate more efficiently?

A County Court at Law can improve efficiency by responsibly managing cases and using tools authorized by law, including technology and sound scheduling practices. Judges have a duty to reduce unnecessary delay, address case backlogs, and ensure that matters are resolved fairly and promptly. The appropriate use of e-filing, virtual proceedings where permitted, clear scheduling practices, and access to mediation or other alternative dispute resolution options can help courts serve litigants more effectively while preserving due process. Effective court administration also depends on well-trained staff, clear public communication, and cooperation with other courts and justice partners. By focusing on fairness, efficiency, and accountability within existing legal frameworks, courts can better serve the public and strengthen confidence in the judicial system.

8 – What are the top three issues facing the court and staff and how would you address them?

Courts face several practical challenges, including outdated technology, limited facilities, and significant case backlogs. These factors can affect the pace at which courts process civil, criminal, and family law matters and may create delays in resolving cases. Judges must work within existing resources to manage dockets efficiently, protect due process, and ensure that cases are handled fairly and in accordance with the law. Addressing these challenges requires careful case management, adherence to legal requirements, and continued focus on maintaining access to justice and public confidence in the court system.

9 – Has there been anything during the COVID pandemic and the government’s response to
it that you would change? If so, what?

A judicial candidate must remain neutral, impartial, and free from personal or political bias. The judiciary’s role is not to make policy, but to apply the law and uphold the Constitution. Courts are sometimes called upon to review actions taken by government officials, including during declared emergencies, to ensure those actions are authorized by law, consistent with constitutional principles, and respectful of the separation of powers. Each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and governing law. My commitment as a judge would be to carefully and fairly review any challenge to government action, protect constitutional rights as written, and ensure that all parties receive due process, without preconceived conclusions or favoritism.

10 – What are your thoughts on term limits?

Questions about judicial term limits are matters for the Constitution and the legislative process, not for judges to decide or advocate. As a judicial candidate, my responsibility isto respect the framework established by law and to serve with integrity, impartiality, and accountability within that framework. Public confidence in the judiciary depends on judges applying the law fairly, maintaining independence, and upholding the ethical standards of the office, regardless of the length of service permitted by law.

1 – Serving as Judge, what would your guiding principles be?

The Judge should officiate in a respectful but firm manner—to both the State, Defendants Petitioners or Respondents. The Judge should only interpret the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers in rendering decisions and not in an effort to legislate. In addition, the Judge should rule in accordance with the law and prior statutes and precedence. Also, I believe that the Judge should be a backup to the Judicial District Courts and County Court for efficiency.

2 – Please describe your philosophy on taxpayer-funded lobbying.

This is a role of the legislative branch and not the judicial branch. Otherwise, a taxpayer-funded lobbying should be a decision made independently by each taxpayer.

3 – How would you define the role of the courts?

The duties and roles of the Judge and the courts include promoting justice in the prosecution of misdemeanor criminal cases. In addition, these duties and roles would include family law and miscellaneous civil cases. The role of the Judge would be to provide transparency and diligence in scheduling hearings and moving cases at a faster pace toward resolution with an open courtroom philosophy to all, whether individuals, businesses or families.

4 – What are your thoughts on the current pay of county/city employees and pay raises (how often, how much, how is a raise applied – across the board or merit-based)?

The current pay of county/city employees and pay raises is a responsibility of the County Commissioners and/or the City Council and Mayor. Employees should be paid fairly and in accordance with the statutes and regulations of the governing bodies determining the pay scale and how raises should be applied. Across the board pay raises may be too liberal, but merit-based should certainly be addressed.

5 – Do you think the county court budget is sufficient or lacking in some way? Please explain.

Due to what the County of Kerr has endured over the last year, it would seem beneficial to increase the budget. However, until I have had the opportunity to better review and evaluate the four corners of the budget details, I do not have an opinion at this time.

6 – In regards to the July 4th flood, tell us what you think of the local response? What should be the focus for the rebuilding efforts?

The local response to the July 4th floor has been astounding. On a scale of 1 to 10, the love, compassion and giving of each and every citizen to those so sadly affected would be a 10.

The focus on the rebuilding effort should be for every victim of the floor—whether an individual or an entity affected by the flood. This may be in incentives, monetary compensation, and basic rebuilding of homes and businesses damaged and/or injured by the flood. It also involves relying on our faith and prayers. In addition, this may well be a long endeavor. However, I have every confidence that the needs of everyone will be met.

7 – In what ways can the county court operate more efficiently?

I believe the county court at law could operate more effciently by utilizing the courtroom more expeditiously and with in-court hearings exhibiting true transparency.

This philosophy would assist in moving the dockets at a faster pace and assuring a swifter resolution of each party’s respective case, whether a criminal case, a family law case, or a civil matter.

8 – What are the top three issues facing the court and staff and how would you address them?

The top three issues facing the court and staff is moving the cases more expeditiously, addressing the mental health issues involved in each case—especially criminal defendants and being accessible to the parties. However, this is also apparent in family law cases and the needs of the children involved in each case.

These issues can definitely be addressed through transparency, showing respect for every party, and seeng hearings and responding to motions and petitions in a timely manner. It is my understanding a mental health court is being established, and the County Court at Law should be active in this process.

9 – Has there been anything during the COVID pandemic and the government’s response to
it that you would change? If so, what?

The Court should not have been shut down or inaccessible to the public. Court Hearings and addressing the needs of Defendants under bond or sieng in the jail was grueling for these parties. Families in distress required the assistance of the courts, and they were let down in a big way. The mental health issues increased threefold due to the shutdown. The Courts should have remained open and transparent through electronic means.

10 – What are your thoughts on term limits?

Judges in county courts should not be permitted to remain on the bench from their first term until they are ready to retire. More specifically, judges should not be permitted to continue after being on the bench for 12 years. Judges get burn out the same as many people get burn out when they have been in a position for years.