Incumbents best for 1st and 14th benches

Democratic voters this year must weigh how much emphasis to put on diversity on the two courts of appeal for the 10-county region that includes Houston. In all six races, voters could elect someone from an underrepresented background, and in four of the races, a Black woman. While we applaud the challengers, many of whom have had distinguished careers, we prioritize candidates’ experience with appellate law.

The ideal candidate pool is both qualified and reflects our state’s demographics. That goal is impeded by several factors, not the least of which is the salary for this kind of bench. Experienced appellate lawyers make good money. First-generation lawyers are simply less likely to take a big pay cut to serve as a justice, though there are notable exceptions.

1st Court of Appeals, Place 2: Gordon Goodman

In 2018, Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton brought what would become an infamous voter fraud case before a Chambers County grand jury and secured indictments against Jefferson County Sheriff Zena Stephens. When Stephens appealed, the 1st Court of Appeals — a court with a strong majority of Democratic judges — ruled against her nonetheless. Justice Gordon Goodman, 70, and elected in the 2018 Democratic sweep, wrote a dissenting opinion based on the separation of powers enumerated in the Texas Constitution. He argued the state’s highest law plainly states that the attorney general, a member of the executive branch, cannot prosecute such criminal offenses. To some observers’ surprise, the all-Republican Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the Democrat, quoting extensively from Goodman’s dissent when it decided against Paxton. That case was among the most important constitutional law cases in recent years and continues to reverberate through this election cycle as Paxton seeks revenge. Goodman showed this editorial board several more cases in which his dissents were ultimately vindicated in the higher courts. “Before I joined the court, other members of the court had taken a very different posture, very few dissenting opinions were written,” he told us, highlighting that he brought a diversity of opinion not just with Republicans but Democrats as well.

Goodman faces Brendetta Scott, 49, in the primary. She has more than 20 years practicing law and teaches appellate law at Texas Southern University. She had a case before the 14th Court of Appeals that is referenced in O’Connor’s, a reference for Texas appellate law. She’s also handled some bankruptcy appeals at the district court level. Scott did not cite any concerns with Goodman, could not provide any examples of specific cases in which she would rule differently and did not articulate any broad differences in terms of judicial philosophy. Scott would bring greater diversity to the court as a Black woman, but Justice Goodman had a demonstrable impact in his first term and voters should return him for a second one.

1st District Court of Appeals, Place 8: Richard Hightower

Challenger Ysidra “Sissy” Kyles, 55, has practiced law in the lower courts but acknowledged that she has “no appellate experience.” Before Richard Hightower, 67, won this bench in 2018, he specialized in representing educational institutions and estimates that he brought eight cases before appeals courts, including one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s a fifth-generation lawyer with a recognizable last name in Texas law and politics —- a born advantage that’s a reminder of why institutions should actively work to help those from underrepresented backgrounds gain experience in the higher courts. Now with five years on the bench, high ratings from the Houston Bar Association questionnaire, and an overwhelmingly strong majority of votes in the statewide bar poll, Hightower is the clear choice.

1st District Court of Appeals, Place 9: Peter Kelly

Challenger Amber Boyd-Cora, 43, has no experience in courts of appeal, while the incumbent, Peter Kelly, 60, was an appellate specialist before winning this place in 2018. It’s an easy call.

Yet, there’s more to this race. Justice Kelly attempted to have his challenger removed from the ballot. According to Kelly, BoydCora overstated her legal background in a disclosure statement required by a new Texas law. Ultimately, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that party officials did not have the authority to remove Boyd-Cora from the ballot. In our screening with the candidates, Kelly also alleged that Boyd-Cora was recruited by Republican lawyer and former Houston controller named Lloyd Kelley, who has represented a client named Ali Choudhri whom Justice Kelly had ruled against. While Boyd-Cora’s campaign finance statement does list the Republican lawyer a contributor, she told us that she was not recruited by him and that he only provided in-kind support to help her fight the ballot challenge. That’s a lot to chew for an ordinary voter. So we’ll keep it simple. Boyd-Cora is not qualified at this time. We encourage her to gain appellate experience, continue pursuing her judicial goals and avoid even appearances of conflict that would compromise her integrity. In the meantime, voters should reelect Justice Peter Kelly.

14th Court of Appeals, Place 3: Jerry Zimmerer

Four years ago, Justice Jerry Zimmerer ran in the Democratic primary for chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court against a Travis County judge. A Texas Tribune article at the time quoted him as saying his female opponent was “selfish” for wanting to “break barriers” as the first woman to serve as chief justice. That quote, along with others, earned him a Bum Steer Award from Texas Monthly. He lost that primary and in his current race for reelection to the 14th Court of Appeals, he has three challengers who all cited those quotes in our screening as a principal reason that voters should throw him off the bench.

We asked Zimmerer, 68, if he regretted his choice of words. He denies calling his former opponent “selfish” and stresses he “believes in strong women,” like those in his family, adding, “I am sorry for the appearance that this has.” We found him sincere and, when he discussed his judicial record, persuasive.

His challengers do have notable backgrounds. Velda Renita Faulkner has practiced law for 30 years and has some experience in criminal appellate law. She stresses that she would be the first Black woman, elected or appointed, on this bench. Mark Ritchie, 55, is a self-described “appellate nerd” who has written prolifically for law publications. Chuck Silverman, 63, was a civil litigator before being elected to a Harris County criminal district court. Although voters have reasonable alternatives, Zimmerer has gained valuable experience in the last five years and deserves a second term.

14th District Court of Appeals, Place 4: Charles Spain

Before he ran in 2018 to become the first openly LGBT appellate judge in Texas, Justice Charles Spain had worked in some capacity as a staff attorney for 23 years in different appellate courts, including the Texas Supreme Court. Spain argues that the other eight justices on the 14th Court of Appeals bring expertise in different aspects of the law but that he is the only one who practiced appellate law his entire life. That can come in handy. He was appointed by the Texas Supreme Court to create new rules for court procedures to speed up rulings on parental termination. He spoke with nuance about implicit bias and the need for diverse backgrounds on the court. He can pass as an old, straight white guy, he told us, but added, “I can also remember when I had to hide who I was, or I wouldn’t get anything except the door or beat up.” He said that his belief in due process and fundamental constitutional fairness comes in part from that experience.

Spain’s challenger, Derek Obialo, 55, is originally from Nigeria where he first practiced law before immigrating to the U.S. and earning a second law degree. He ran for a district court in Fort Bend County, but in the past five years, his work in construction law has increasingly involved appeals, which he has enjoyed. We found Obialo to be thoughtful and encourage him to continue seeking a place in the court system, but we agree with his own assessment that “Spain has been a good justice.” Voters should reward the incumbent with another term.

14th District Court of Appeals, Place 6: Meagan Hassan

In 2018, this editorial board endorsed several incumbent Republicans over their less experienced Democratic challengers, who ultimately prevailed. That was the case for Meagan Hassan, 46, who argued six years ago that she would improve the court by bringing greater diversity of opinion and experience. She pointed to the low number of dissenting opinions at the time. In addition, she had a major civil rights victory to her name that guaranteed the right to record police officers. The Democratic sweep of appellate courts in big cities set up a natural experiment to test her hypothesis and a study by Haynes and Boone showed the courts were less willing to overturn judgments against major corporations. Judges’ robes aren’t red or blue, but on average the mixed courts did perform differently and, she argues, more fairly. Hassan’s challenger, Sara Cordua, 40, and originally from Mexico, has the pedigree — a degree from Harvard and time at high-profile law firms before hanging her own shingle — but she did not offer compelling reasons to toss Hassan. Hassan received more than twice the votes as Cordua in the State Bar of Texas poll. The incumbent, again, merits another six years.