With two Black women judicial candidates having their bids derailed by legal challenges brought by white Democratic judges, many in Harris County’s Black community are once again asking whether history is repeating itself.
Similar lawsuits were levied against Black women candidates in 2024, but those candidates ultimately prevailed and appeared on the ballot. This time, the outcome was different, and for critics, more troubling.
Overview
In recent weeks, four judicial candidates withdrew from the 2026 election after incumbent judges and other Democratic opponents filed lawsuits alleging procedural irregularities in their filings. Two of those candidates were Black women: Angela McKinnon, who was running for the 295th District Court; and Velda Faulkner, a candidate for the 190th District Court. Neither woman will appear on the March 2026 primary ballot or the November general election ballot.
The other two candidates who withdrew—Allison Mathis, a candidate for the 180th District Court, and Anna Eady, a candidate for Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 3—are white women. Party leaders point to that fact as evidence that race was not the determining factor. Still, the removal of two Black women candidates has reignited concerns about equity, power, and access within the Democratic Party.
The challenge against Faulkner centered on procedural issues, including an allegation that her original filing failed to list the office she sought to represent. McKinnon’s candidacy was challenged due to claims that she had not submitted the required number of valid signatures.
Past as prologue
For many observers, the controversy feels familiar. In the run-up to the 2024 general election, several Black women judicial candidates in Harris County faced similar challenges under a then-new Texas law, House Bill 2384. Those efforts largely failed.
Judge Erica Hughes fought a lawsuit that reached the Texas Supreme Court, which declined to remove her from the ballot. Judge TaKasha Francis remained on the ballot after a temporary trial court ruling. Amber Boyd-Cora also prevailed at the Texas Supreme Court, though she later lost her general election bid.
All three were part of a broader legacy that dates back to 2018, when 19 Black women ran for judicial office in Harris County, and 17 won, dramatically reshaping the bench and drawing national attention.
That 2018 moment became a national media example of positive, progressive change. The 2024 lawsuits went viral as an example of targeted attacks on Black women judicial candidates. Many in the community now see the 2026 challenges through the same lens.
‘It’s painful, but I’ve been Black all my life’
State Rep. Jolanda Jones, who was one of the loudest voices defending Hughes, Francis, and Boyd-Cora in 2024, is among those who believe the pattern is unmistakable.
“What disappoints me most is that Black women judicial candidates in Harris County are not being targeted by Republicans; they are being targeted by white Democratic judges,” Jones said. “And they are being removed from the ballot without voters ever being allowed to decide. It’s painful, but I’ve been Black all my life. I know that we, as a people, are forced to fight through things others never have to face.”
Asked about the accusation that Black women candidates are being sidelined so incumbent judges do not have to face them in the March primary, Harris County Democratic Party (HCDP) Chair Mike Doyle strongly disagreed.
“There’s actually four candidates who, after a lawsuit was filed, withdrew their applications; two Anglo women and two Black women,” Doyle said. “We have more of our judges and more of our candidates who are Black female judicial candidates than anybody.”
Doyle explained that Texas law allows opponents to file objections if they believe the filing requirements were not met, and stated that the process itself, not race, drove the outcomes.
Faulkner: ‘I can read between the lines’
Faulkner remains unconvinced. With more than 30 years of experience practicing criminal and civil law, she believes she and McKinnon were targeted precisely because of who they are.
“Number one, we’re knowledgeable, we have fortitude, we will be fair, and we have compassion,” Faulkner said. “Our courts should represent the very fabric of our communities. We need more African American women on these courts.”
Faulkner said she was “able to read between the lines” of the lawsuits that blocked her and McKinnon.
“Black women have been the backbone of this country, period,” she said. “I see now there’s a group of incumbents who want to run the table to make sure that nobody gets in their way.”
Judge Beau Miller of the 190th District Court filed the lawsuit challenging Faulkner’s candidacy.
Faulkner also acknowledged the financial realities that shaped her decision to withdraw.
“Forensics experts are expensive,” she said, estimating costs between $75,000 and $150,000. “I had to make a business decision.”
She added that the Black community itself must be more discerning.
“We need to stop ingratiating these people in our culture and thinking that they’re going to do right by us,” Faulkner said.
McKinnon and a system without notice
McKinnon’s case exposed another vulnerability. Judge Donna Roth sought a temporary restraining order on Dec. 29, 2025, preventing party officials and County Clerk Teneshia Hudspeth from placing McKinnon’s name on the ballot. The order was granted the same day.
Because the lawsuit named party officials rather than McKinnon herself, she was not automatically notified until after the ruling was issued. The result: Her candidacy was effectively ended without her having a meaningful opportunity to respond. Both her case and Faulkner’s unfolded during the final week of the year, when securing legal representation is often more difficult.
Party responsibility and moving forward
Doyle rejected claims that the HCDP plays favorites, citing extensive training offered to candidates and precinct chairs.
“That one is so far off base, it’s honestly insulting,” he said.
Still, TSU professor and former Houston City Council member Carroll Robinson pushed back.
“The HCDP continues to demonstrate a lack of proficiency in assisting judicial candidates in filing for a place on the ballot. What happened during the 2025 filing period was not an anomaly; it was a major problem that keeps repeating itself,” said Robinson. “The Party can’t help some candidates and not help others. The Party’s job is running a fair filing and primary process.”
Jones offered advice—and a warning—for the future. She urged Black women candidates to run with “resilience, vigilance, documentation, and community.” She added, “I also hope Black voters remember exactly which white Democratic judges sued to get us off the ballot, and vote accordingly.”
“At the end of the day,” Jones said, “the truth is simple: it is hell to be a Black woman.”
