2008 Election Contest for the 11th District Bench Mark Davidson loses to Mike Miller Judge Mark Davidson was unopposed in the Republican primary. Unlike most of his fellow judicial incumbents seeking re-election, his campaign sign featured both a photo and a theme. Interestingly, his campaign website also touted endorsements by Democrats, but all to now avail. Democratic challenger Attorney Mike Miller, sole candidate in the Democratic Party's primary for this bench defeated Davidson in the general election. Miller, a long-time trial lawyer who knows both sides of the docket, promised judicial restraint and dignified treatment of lawyers and litigants in the election campaign. |
| GOP Blurb on Incumbent (Keep our Judges dot com) |
Democratic Billing (Judges for All dot com) |
|||||||||||||
From the Harris County GOP Judicial Re-Election Campaign Website: Civil Judges Thirteen of the twenty-five judges who preside over Harris County’s Civil District Courts are up for election in 2008. You can find out about those individual civil judges be scrolling down this page. These courts and these judges work every day to ensure fair, just, and impartial hearings for every person who comes before the bench. Our civil judges hear a variety of cases, both large and small. Comment: There are actually 15 civil bench contests. The local GOP omitted Mark Davidson, and his court. Is he too non- or bi- partisan? The Houston Chronicle has endorsed Davidson |
|
|||||||||||||
| WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE RECUSE? |
WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE RECUSE? |
|||||||||||||
| DAVIDSON IN HIS OWN WORDS |
CHALLENGER MIKE MILLER'S RESPONSE |
|||||||||||||
Judge should recuse themselves when their impartiality could fairly be questioned due to factors outside the merits of a case. It is as important that judges promote confidence in their integrity as it is that they make the correct legal rulings in the cases before them. Source: LWV Voters Guide: Question to candidate |
TRCP 18b establishes the grounds for recusal. Generally, recusal is appropriate if her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, she has a personal bias or personal knowledge of disputed facts, she has been a material witness or lawyer in the case, she has a financial interest, or a family member is or was involved or could be affected by the outcome. Source: League of Women Voters Guide: Candidate Q&A |
|||||||||||||
