So check it out. His first few posts cover a little of everything.

The order is here.

The Court is scheduled to meet for a full conference next Monday and Tuesday. The next oral argument sitting will begin on March 23, 2010.

Place 3

In a remarkably close six-way election, Rick Green and Debra Lehrmann appear set for an April 13th runoff for the Republican nomination to Place 3 on the Texas Supreme Court.

With 99.98% (all but two) of Texas’s precincts reporting:¹

Jeff Brown	188,033	16.73%
Rick Green	212,788	18.93%
Debra Lehrmann	204,537	18.20%
Jim Moseley	203,717	18.13%
Rebecca Simmons	202,595	18.03%
Rick Strange	111,871	9.95%

The top two vote getters make the runoff. Rick Green finished first with 18.96%.²

The margin between 2nd (Debra Lehrmann) and 3rd (Jim Moseley) to qualify for the runoff appears to be just about 1,000 votes out of more than 1.1 million votes cast in this primary. The margin between 3rd (Jim Moseley) and 4th (Rebecca Simmons) is roughly the same.

That’s a very thin margin, and these results might still change as provisional ballots or other votes are counted.

The winner of the April 13th runoff will face Jim Sharp (D) and William Strange (L) on the November ballot.

Place 9

As noted last night, Justice Eva Guzman has staved off a primary challenge from Rose Vela.

Justice Guzman will face Blake Bailey (D) and Jack Armstrong (L) on the November ballot.

1. Updated to reflect numbers accurate as of 12:48 p.m. on March 3. As votes continue to trickle in, the numbers have closed slightly, with Lehrmann down from 18.22% to 18.20% and Moseley up from 18.12% to 18.13%.
2. This was a six-way race, so everyone expected a runoff, but the evenness of this race was pretty remarkable. I am going to study those numbers a little more, once they are finalized.

In Place 9, Eva Guzman has held off a challenge from Rose Vela to hold the Republican nomination for the fall. At this point, Guzman has roughly 65% of the vote to Vela’s 35%.

Three candidates (all for Place 3) responded to the Q&A sent out by the blog — Rebecca Simmons, Rick Strange, and Debra Lehrmann.

If you need more information, you can get links to the official campaign websites for Place 3 candidates or Place 9 candidates.

Judge Debra Lehrmann currently serves as District Judge of the 360th Judicial District in Fort Worth. She is one of six Republicans vying for the nomination for Place 3, the seat being vacated by the retirement of Justice Harriet O’Neill.

More information about the candidates is available through our Texas Supreme Court “2010 Elections” page

SCOTXblog Q&A with Debra Lehrmann  About these questions

Why are you running for this office?

The caseload of the Texas Supreme Court involves an increasingly large number of children and families who are the subjects of litigation; however the Court does not have the level of family law and child protective service (CPS) experience that is necessary to handle these critically important cases. Having served as a family law judge for over 22 years, my election would fulfill the need for a jurist with this amount of family law experience. No other candidate in this race has this type of expertise.

What about your background prepares you for this office?

My 22 years of service as a judge is almost double the amount of judicial experience of any other candidate in this race. The type of court that I preside over requires a broad understanding of all types of matters handled by civil courts. Contested issues involve complex property, real estate, corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, intellectual property, trusts, oil and gas, tax, torts, constitutional law, domestic violence and child protection. A strong grasp of civil procedure and evidence is also required, as cases are tried to both the bench and the jury.

In 2003, I was appointed by Governor Rick Perry to represent Texas as a Uniform Law Commissioner, responsible for drafting the many uniform codes adopted throughout the United States. As part of the Texas delegation to the Uniform Law Commission, I participate in the study and drafting of uniform acts that harmonize and bring efficiency and predictability to vital areas of interstate interaction. This experience affords me invaluable expertise in all areas of civil law.

I author two legal treatises which are updated yearly, Texas Annotated Family Code (Lexis Nexis‐Matthew Bender) and Court Appointed Representation of Children in Texas Family Law Cases—A Practical Guide (Lexis Nexis‐Matthew Bender). The author of numerous published articles, in 2003 I received the Texas Bar Foundation’s award for the best bar journal article of the year.

How should a voter think about casting their vote for an individual Justice, who will be one member of a nine-member Court?

Voters should consider the unique qualifications of the individual candidates, in light of the current make-up of the Court, to determine which candidate will best enhance the Court in terms of balance and expertise. The Court currently is deficient in child protection (CPS) and family law experience. My election would fill this void. As the author of Texas Annotated Family Code (Lexis Nexis‐Matthew Bender), I read every case in this area of the law from our fourteen appellate districts and the Texas Supreme Court.

A proven commitment to the legal community and a demonstrated ability to work with others are important factors to consider when determining who to vote for. I have been an active leader within the legal profession for many years. I currently serve as the Chair‐Elect the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association (ABA/FLS). I also serve as the Section’s liaison to the Judicial Division of the ABA. I am a past member of the Executive Committee of the Section Officer’s Conference (SOC) of the ABA.

I am a Past President of the Texas Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), a Past President of the Tarrant County Young Lawyers Association, and a Master Member of the Eldon B. Mahon Inn of Court. I served on the Advisory Board of Tarrant County Dispute Resolution Services, am a Fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation and the American Bar Foundation, and am a Charter Member of the Tarrant County Bar Foundation.

In 2005, I received the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Scott Moore Award as recognition for outstanding contributions to families and children. In December of 2009, I received the prestigious Judge Eva Barnes Award for outstanding service, leadership, dedication and uncommon contributions to the legal profession. In 2000, I was recognized as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Tarrant County.

The poll asked Texas attorneys to choose a preferred candidate from the entire field, regardless of party affiliation.¹ Although I list each candidate’s party affiliation below, the official bar poll results do not.

The envelope please…

Place 3

In this very crowded field, the plurality winner was Jim Sharp of Houston, the Democrat in the race. Close behind were Republicans Jeff Brown (also of Houston) and Rebecca Simmons (of San Antonio).

Focusing just on the voters who chose one of the Republican candidates, the two leaders were Brown with 25.1% and Simmons with 24.4%.

If none of the Republican candidates get a majority, the top two vote-getters will qualify for a runoff.

Place 5

This seat does not have a contested primary. The incumbent Justice Paul Green won a majority.

Place 9

The plurality winner was the incumbent, Justice Eva Guzman. She is in a contested Republican primary with Justice Rose Vela of Corpus Christi.

Focusing just on the voters who chose one of those two Republicans, the breakdown was 71.6% for Guzman and 28.4% for Vela.

1. More than 13% of Texas attorneys participated.

The big event next week is the primary election on Tuesday, March 2nd. See the “2010 Elections” page for links to our candidate Q&As, other news stories, and newspaper endorsements.

Justice Rick Strange currently serves on the Eleventh Court of Appeals based out of Eastland. He is one of six Republicans vying for the nomination for Place 3, the seat being vacated by the retirement of Justice Harriet O’Neill.

More information about the candidates is available through our Texas Supreme Court “2010 Elections” page

SCOTXblog Q&A with Rick Strange  About these questions

Why are you running for this office?

Thanks for the chance to address these questions. We’ve reached that point in the campaign where the new has worn off, but it’s still a lot of fun to talk about the issues that really matter. I’m running for the Court to bring needed energy and property law expertise to the Texas Supreme Court. The Energy Industry is vital to our State’s economy; in fact as an industry I understand that it is the State’s largest taxpayer and is one of the largest employers. Property law impacts everyone who owns a home or business, or pays rent for housing. Because the law has become so specialized, and because tort issues have assumed primary importance in recent Supreme Court races, no one has served on the Court in several years with practical energy or property law experience. I am board certified in both oil, gas, and energy law, and in civil trial law. My experience and expertise will fill this critical gap.

What about your background prepares you for this office?

I graduated with honors from University of Texas School of Law in 1985. I handled complex oil and gas and commercial litigation in private practice for 20 years and in that time tried over 100 cases to a verdict in courtrooms all across the State of Texas, New Mexico and even tried one case in Washington DC. Almost all of these were as first chair. I also handled numerous appeals in both State and Federal Court. I’m board certified in oil, gas, and mineral law, and in civil trial law. Finally, I’ve served as a Justice on the 11th Court of Appeals for the last 4 ½ years.

How should a voter think about casting their vote for an individual Justice, who will be one member of a nine-member Court?

Voters should first consider whether a candidate is qualified to serve as a Justice. If so, voters should then ask whether this individual has demonstrated the ability to operate effectively in a collaborative decision-making environment. Finally, voters should consider whether the candidate has expertise that would enhance the Court’s overall reputation and their ability to decide the complex and difficult cases the Court faces.

Please describe your approach to deciding cases.

I am a judicial conservative. I believe that as an appellate justice we should defer to the legislature’s authority to pass laws, the jury’s resolution of fact issues, and the trial court’s discretion to operate its court. In practice, I take all of the briefs and read them from page one of the Appellant’s brief to the last page of the last-filed brief. As I do, I outline the issues. I then work issue by issue, starting with the outcome determinative issues. I will read the major cases cited by the parties, will perform my own research, and will read those portions of the record necessary to resolve the issue. I normally write my opinion as I go. Usually this involves ascertaining the standard of review, defining the issue, and summarizing the relevant evidence and law. My decision making is not dissimilar to solving a math problem. Using the standard of review and law as my formula and the facts as my variable, I then solve the problem.

Is there a specific Texas Supreme Court decision from the past few years that you disagreed with? Why?

Because I am a sitting Justice, I cannot criticize an individual case. I do believe that the Court’s energy and property jurisprudence over the last several years suffers from the Court’s lack of any practical experience in these areas.

The Court has significant discretion over which cases it hears. What factors would be most important to you in deciding which cases the Texas Supreme Court should review?

I would look for cases with unresolved questions of law. I believe that the Court has too often taken cases that it believes are important – which typically means cases with big verdicts, or to correct what it perceives as errors. If we focus on important cases, then cases with small numbers are excluded. Thus, if the party is an individual or small business, their chances of obtaining Supreme Court review is diminished. If we focus on error correction, this can result in the Court taking too many cases.

A common situation in appellate courts is for a party to have a meritorious or even compelling issue but to have lost the case on a procedural ground. How should the public feel about those cases?

Rather than attempt to tell anyone how they should feel, I would suggest that as Judges we continually work hard to educate people on the process so that they do not feel as though someone lost on a technicality. Our goal should be to educate people that our procedural rules exist to promote justice and that if we do not consistently apply them, then we show favoritism and we have the rule of man rather than the rule of law.

The Court has been criticized for the average time that it takes to resolve a petition on the merits. How do you see this situation, and what changes (if any) are needed to the Court’s procedures for handling cases?

I believe that the Court’s backlog is primarily due to the Court taking too many cases. In my opinion the Court has stopped asking itself if an individual case presents an unresolved question of law, but instead asks if a case is sufficiently important to merit Supreme Court review. I believe each of the Justices is working hard but if delays are attributable to one or more chambers, I would support internal deadlines for things such as reviewing another Justice’s draft opinion, or to prepare a separate opinion.

The Texas Supreme Court has oversight over the practice of law in Texas. How do you see the practice of law being different in ten years? Are these changes good or bad?

I think our practices will continue to become more specialized, that the use of technology will continue to become more prevalent, and that the costs of litigation will continue to rise. These changes are both good and bad. Specialization and technology will improve our representation. Increased costs will make impose greater burdens on our clients and will reduce their ability to access the courthouse.

Do you have a policy about which campaign contributions you will refuse or a personal recusal policy that is triggered by having received campaign contributions?

I have always followed the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act. I do not have a personal recusal policy. I have not yet had a recusal request triggered by a campaign contribution. If I receive one, I will give it fair consideration. As a practical matter, we cannot announce a personal policy that will allow litigants to use recusal motions inappropriately. However, I have been pro-active in this area and have recused myself a number of times without a formal motion.

The clock shows you have just one minute left on your argument. What is your closing reason why you should be the voters’ choice?

We need someone with practical energy and property law experience on the Court to improve the Court’s jurisprudence in these vital areas, and to bring some measure of predictability and consistency to the Court’s energy and property decisions. We also need someone who has demonstrated the ability to effectively work in a collaborative environment, and someone who will help the Court address its backlog.

Thanks so much for the opportunity to participate in this process.