A new Texas law is being used to weaponize the city’s judicial races, according to several African-American women who are running in the upcoming March primary. Takasha Francis, Erica Hughes and Amber Boyd-Cora all overcame efforts to be removed from the ballot by their judicial competition (all white males).
“When you get a candidate that might beat you, you resort to desperate measures,” said Lloyd Kelley, who has represented all three women and asserts that incumbents are using the new law to selectively exclude challengers of African-American origin. “I’m really offended by what they’re doing. What is it about a Black woman that you find offensive when she runs for office? Can’t the people decide? You’re using a lawsuit as a campaign tool.”
In 2023, the Texas Legislature enacted H.B. 2384, which created a list of criteria intended to establish professional qualifications viewable to the public for any person seeking elected office as a district court judge or appellate court justice. Kelley has called H.B. 2384 the “Incumbent Protection Act” because incumbent judges are exempt from having to answer the new application about qualifications.
“They are just trying to weaponize these lawsuits to cast doubt in the voter’s mind.”
Lloyd kelley
TaKasha Francis
TaKasha Francis is running to replace 152nd District Court Judge Robert Schaffer, who alleges that Francis is not qualified to be a judge. Kelley says Schaffer dropped an earlier claim to have Francis removed from the March primary ballot because he “has no evidence to support his claim but plans to re-file his lawsuit” and “use discovery” to try and “find” a witness “after the primary election is over.”
“Schaffer’s weaponization of his frivolous lawsuit is nothing but a sneaky attempt to cast doubt in the public’s mind about Ms. Francis’s qualifications to be a Judge,” Kelley said.
The Defender spoke with Schaffer’s attorney, John Raley, who says they filed the suit because as the Director of the City of Houston Department of Neighborhoods, Francis does not work as a practicing lawyer, which is a requirement.
“Under the Texas Constitution, Ms. Francis is not eligible to run for District Judge because she has not been a practicing lawyer or judge throughout the previous eight years. Everything we found publicly available regarding Ms. Francis’s role since 2016 as Houston’s Director of the Department of Neighborhoods does not describe her as practicing law. According to Houston’s City Ordinances, lawyers with the City Attorney’s office represent the City of Houston in all legal matters,” Raley said.
Francis, who has worked in the legal field for nearly 20 years, unequivocally denies that she is not a working attorney.
“Part of her job is to analyze cases and decide who to prosecute for deed violations, all that kind of stuff. She’s actually like a city prosecutor, handling legal stuff for the city,” said Kelley. “She also has practiced law for her family and her friends, which is allowed. She put that in her application. She swore under oath that she’s been practicing law. This was a bogus lawsuit, which they originally brought as a challenge that she had not filled out the blanks correctly. They dropped that, recast it, and are now suing on a declaratory judgment that she’s not qualified. So they can use it in the campaign. If she wins, they’re trying to have the seat taken so Governor Abbott can appoint somebody (other than a Black woman) to take that seat.”
Added Francis, “These same sitting judges have had people challenge them before. They’ve never gone to these lengths. So I probably wouldn’t take it personally if this is just the order of how they operate. It’s not a coincidence that their challengers have been white men or either they’ve been uncontested.”
“This is the beginning of harassment, keeping people off the ballot just like they tried to keep people in 1920 from voting. It’s the same crooked system,” Kelley said. “But they don’t have a single witness to refute one single fact so that’s a frivolous lawsuit. So bring it. When you do, I’ll be there. Absent that, it’s the people’s choice. I’ve encouraged Ms. Francis to just go forward with her election and make sure that she lets the people know what they’re, what these people are doing.”
Erica R. Hughes
In 2018, Judge Erica R. Hughes was elected to the Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 3, where she joined 17 other accomplished women of color. Together, they made history in Houston by forming the largest group of African-American female Judges ever assembled in Texas. Judge Hughes was chosen by Attorney General Merrick Garland to serve as an Immigration Judge, where she will preside over cases beginning in January 2022. She’s also worked in the Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 3 and as a Harris County Veterans Court judge, having presided over both courts concurrently from 2019 to 2021.
Despite her credentials, 151st District Court Judge Mike Engelhart has contested the eligibility of Erica R. Hughes, arguing for Hughes’ removal from the March primary ballot for her alleged failure to disclose certain information and using forged signatures to get on the ballot.
The courts ruled that Hughes could remain on the ballot, but Hughes says it’s ridiculous that their character continues to be attacked.
“Forging signatures is a felony offense,” Hughes said. “I’ve served the country, in the Army. I served as a US immigration judge and we’ve exhausted resources, time and money fighting these claims. We remain on the ballot, but the fights that we’ve had to go through to get on the ballot and stay on the ballot, we shouldn’t have to face those challenges in 2024.”
Early voting
Feb. 20, – March 1, 2024.
Election
March 5, 2024
Amber Boyd-Cora
Last month, Peter Kelly, incumbent Place 9 Justice at the First District Court of Appeals asked the Texas Supreme Court to resolve whether a challenger to his seat, Amber Michele Boyd-Cora, can remain on the Democratic Party primary ballot.
Kelly alleges Boyd-Cora failed to describe appellate briefs and/or oral arguments she claimed to have made in the prior five years; has no board certified specialization, and gave vague answers as to her alleged courtroom experience.
Responding to Kelly’s challenge through the Texas Democratic Party chair, Boyd-Cora supplied answers to three questions, “admitting she was not board certified, specifying that she had one jury verdict case, and describing her last appeal—an appeal from an eviction,” according to a petition.
Kelly’s attorney argued that Boyd-Cora’s response was an amendment to her application and amendments are not allowed in the Election Code. She then demanded the Texas Democratic Party Chair remove Boyd-Cora from the primary ballot. The party refused.
Boyd-Cora has been practicing commercial, real estate, construction and contract law throughout her career.
“There is nothing wrong with her qualifications, as set by the Texas Constitution,” Kelley said, noting that Boyd-Cora is a licensed attorney and U.S. citizen who lives in the district.
