In 2018, Harris County witnessed a historic moment as 17 Black women were elected to the bench, marking a significant shift in Texas’s judicial landscape. Fast forward to 2022, and a new state law, H.B. 2384, is causing controversy as it is being leveraged to challenge the qualifications of three Black women running for judicial positions in Harris County’s March primary.
The law, which took effect in September with widespread bipartisan support, aims to ensure that candidates for district court or appellate court judgeships meet specific educational and training prerequisites. These requirements include courtroom experience, an active law license, and recent legal practice. However, recent incidents suggest that the law, while ostensibly neutral, may be open to misuse.
Three Democratic primary challengers, all Black women, are facing legal challenges under H.B. 2384. Erica Hughes, who made history in the 2018 elections, is running for the 151st District Court position; Amber Boyd-Cora seeks the 1st District Court of Appeals position, and TaKasha Francis is vying for the 152nd Civil District Court seat. In each case, a white, male incumbent judge has attempted to use the law to remove them from the ballot.
The lawsuits against these candidates allege various improprieties, including lacking qualifications, failure to disclose information, and even forgery of required signatures. Notably, these legal challenges have generated negative publicity and substantial legal expenses for the candidates, despite subsequent findings that they are qualified for their respective offices.
Critics argue that H.B. 2384, while seemingly fair in its intentions, is being weaponized against Black women, who have become a formidable voting bloc. Incumbents are exempt from meeting the new requirements, further raising concerns about potential discriminatory impacts.
Vanessa Gilmore, a retired US district judge, expressed her concerns, stating, “This new law has been weaponized against Black women to protect the incumbents. It doesn’t have to have discriminatory intent to have a discriminatory impact.”
Despite dismissals in the cases of Hughes and Boyd-Cora by the Texas Supreme Court, challenges persist. Lloyd E. Kelley, an attorney representing the candidates, argued against the law’s subjective application, alleging its unconstitutional use to disqualify Black candidates.
State Representative Jolanda Jones emphasized the targeted nature of these challenges, highlighting that similar legal actions are not observed against non-Black candidates running against incumbents. Concerns are growing that such tactics may disenfranchise voters and hinder candidates as Texas continues to evolve demographically.
As the Lone Star State witnesses demographic shifts, critics fear that these legal challenges may be part of broader efforts to discredit candidates and obstruct the path to a more inclusive political landscape. Vanessa Gilmore aptly summarizes the situation, stating, “Every time we start running the race, they move the finish line. This is another effort to create an obstacle.”