Two Dallas Judges Warned for Endorsing Each Other's Candidacy in Election Slate
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has disciplined two Dallas district court judges who ran on a political slate together last year and endorsed each other's candidacy.
January 04, 2019 at 01:53 PM
4 minute read
The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits state judges from endorsing political candidates. And that's why the State Commission on Judicial Conduct has disciplined two Dallas district court judges who ran on a political slate together last year and endorsed each other's candidacy.
The commission issued two public warnings to both Kim Cooks, judge of the 255th District Court, which handles family law, and Andrea Martin, judge of the 304th District Court, which handles juvenile law.
According to their warnings, during their 2018 campaigns for re-election, Cooks and Martin produced and distributed a campaign mailer that featured their names, titles and likenesses, urging voters to vote for each of them for their respective judicial races. The mailer included statements such as “Keep this talented team working for our families and for our children.”
Cooks and Martin also produced two campaign videos and posted them on social media in which they ask voters to support both of them in their reelection efforts. In one of the videos, the judges state: “We are your Dallas County Judges, your people's judges. We are the community judges. And we need your help.”
Cooks and Martin also told the commission that they jointly hosted a fundraising event, at which separate tables were set up for each campaign. They also stated that their individual campaigns shared equally in the costs associated with the mailer, the videos and the fundraising event.
The commission concluded that both Cooks and Martin violated Canon 2B of the judicial conduct code, which prohibits a judge from lending “the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others” and Canon 5(2) which prohibits a judge from “the public use of his or her name endorsing another candidate for any public office, except that either may indicate support for a political party.”
“The commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that by engaging in joint campaign efforts with Judge Martin, including holding a joint fundraiser, and producing and disseminating campaign materials featuring both judges suggesting they were running as a team, Judge Cooks lent the prestige of her judicial office to advance the private interests of Judge Martin, in violation of Canon 2B,” according to the warnings.
“Moreover, by authorizing the use of her name, title, and likeness on advertisements supporting Judge Martin's campaign as well as her own, Judge Cook's conduct constituted a public endorsement of Judge Cooks expressly prohibited by Canon 5(2),” according to the warning.
Martin's separate warning contained nearly identical language. Both Cook and Martin were ordered to obtain two hours of instruction with a mentor and additional education in the area of campaigning.
Cooks and Martin both said they do not plan to appeal the warning and that they learned something from their interactions with the commission.
“We are thankful for the judicial conduct commission because they gave us excellent guidance,” Cooks said. “Now we know. You know better you do better.''
Martin said that both she and Cooks are close friends and that it just made sense to them to campaign together — they just didn't realize they were running afoul of the judicial canons.
“We told them when we went to new judges school, they didn't teach us about campaigns. We thought we were following the rules and the commission was helpful,'' Martin said. “The way we're looking at it, it's an opportunity to learn more about what we didn't learn about campaigns. We're friends, we work out together, that's not going to change.”
The commission has also suspended South Texas judge Rodolfo “Rudy” Delgado for a second time. Delgado, a former judge of the 93rd District Court in Edinburg, was suspended by the commission last year after he was indicted in a federal court for allegedly accepting bribes from a lawyer who was working as a confidential informant for the FBI.
Days after his March 2018 indictment, Delgado won the Democratic primary election for a seat on Corpus Christi's 13th Court of Appeals. Delgado resigned his trial court bench and later won the November general election for the seat.
Because of Delgado's election to another judicial office, the commission again reviewed the facts and circumstances related to his indictment and again voted to suspend him without pay.
Delgado, who has plead not guilty to the federal charges, did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSamsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
Haynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
3 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250