Why voters should replace Judge Alvarez
On Sunday, we strongly recommended Republican challenger over 45th District Court Judge Mary Lou Alvarez, the Democrat. Our concerns about this court, and the need for voters to embrace change, merit further explanation.
Before we turn to our concerns about Alvarez — whom the 4th Court of Appeals has reversed 25 times over the past year — it’s important to recognize Jay is qualified for this bench. She has been practicing law since 2006. She has focused exclusively on family law since 2018, and this court largely wrestles with family law cases. We believe she would also capably handle other civil matters, such as contract disputes and personal injury cases.
Beyond this, Jay served on the executive board of the San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association for 10 years, including a term as its president. This is a civil court, but her experience practicing criminal law is relevant. As a criminal defense attorney, she handled domestic violence cases. Civil courts often grapple with family violence issues, and we see benefit in understanding both sides of the justice system when dealing with these matters. Jay comes by our recommendation on her own merits.
We did not recommend Alvarez in the 2018 general election. While Alvarez has an undergraduate degree from Stanford University, is a graduate of Seton Hall University School of Law and practiced law with Texas Riogrande Legal Aid, we saw no need for change at that time. The incumbent, Republican Stephani Walsh, had more than 30 years of experience and was board-certified in family law.
But Alvarez won and has taken on an activist role from the bench. As we mentioned, Alvarez has been reversed 25 times this year. That is an extraordinary number. Many of the reversals involved children without placement cases and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of — or perhaps simply a refusal to recognize — the separation of powers.
For example, in one instance, Alvarez, frustrated with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services’ inability to place a child, ordered a caseworker to report to her courtroom at 9 a.m. and not leave until placement was secured for that child. If the caseworker failed to achieve this by 6 p.m., she would have to return to the court the next day.
There were three problems with this approach. First, there is no record the caseworker was present for the order. Not surprisingly, she did not show. Second, Alvarez is a judge, not an agency department head (separation of powers). Third, the order restrained the
caseworker’s liberty. Alvarez was reversed. In other cases, Alvarez has ordered the Department of Family and Protective Services to spend certain amounts, $500 per day on counseling or $2,000 per day on placement; and she has removed a caseworker, or even removed other cases from a caseworker. Again and again, the 4th Court of Appeals has reversed her for violating the separation of powers.
To quote one reversal, Alvarez “figuratively removed her judicial robe and stepped into the role of directing Department operations.”
“A court may not overhaul the functions of another branch of government, no matter the public interest at stake,” it said.
At our recommendation meeting, Alvarez said these orders were needed to place children and push for change at a struggling agency, and she characterized the reversals as dealing with “minutia.”
“A lot of the children that are without licensed placement have high needs. They need attention. They needed childspecific contracts,” Alvarez said. “And what didn’t get disclosed, is that the 4th Court didn’t say I could not order child specific contracts for the children to be placed. It was the minutia of what the daily rate could be or should be or would be that was reversed.”
We appreciate her concern for children and frustration with an agency in crisis, but we don’t view consistent violation of the separation of powers to be a small matter. The court also must treat all parties with appropriate respect and follow the rule of law.
As Jay told us, the reversals raise concerns about acting without bias and maintaining proper temperament, as well as “clear misassessment or misapplication of the law.”
“And, I mean, those are fundamentals of what should be going on in a courtroom,” she said. “It’s an abuse of discretion out of one court.”
Voters would be wise to not view judicial races through a partisan lens but rather assess judicial candidates on their temperament, experience and ability to properly apply the law. In this race, Jay is clearly the superior choice.
She’s been reversed 25 times — just this year; it’s time for a change