(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for Democratic judicial candidates. I ran a series of these for candidates in contested primaries, and now these are for the rest of the candidates. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates. Much more information about Democratic candidates, including links to interviews and judicial Q&As, can be found on Erik Manning’s spreadsheet.
Julie Countiss
1. Who are you and what are you running for?
I’m Former Justice Julie Countiss.
I’m running to be a judge on the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, Pl. 4.
2. What kind of cases does this court hear?
This court is an intermediate state appellate court that hears appeals from the trial courts in Harris County and the surrounding ten-county region. The court hears cases from all of the trial courts including civil courts, criminal courts, family courts and probate courts and corrects any reversible error that occurred in those courts. Each case is decided by a panel of three justices who issue a written opinion on the merits of the case. These written opinions interpret, apply and shape the law in Texas. During my time on this court, I authored over 350 opinions on the merits and participated in deciding thousands of cases.
3. Why are you running for this particular bench?
I’m running to return to this court where I proudly served for six years before losing my re-election in 2024 during the Republican wave in Texas that re-elected Trump. I’m running for this specific bench because the current justice in Place 4 is a Republican who was appointed by Gov. Abbott only two years ago and I am a Democrat who wants to return to serving on this Court. I have more judicial experience than my opponent, I participate in more community service and outreach than my opponent and I can manage the docket more efficiently than my opponent.
4. What are your qualifications for this job?
I’m a seasoned former judge on the First Court of Appeals where I served a six-year term. I have a combined 23 years of experience as a Texas Appellate Court Justice, Assistant County Attorney in Harris County, and civil litigator. I was named the 2022 Appellate Justice of the Year by the Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists.
5. Why is this race important?
The intermediate appellate courts in Texas are often the last chance for parties to obtain justice in our state courts. At the First Court of Appeals, every properly filed case is heard and decided by the justices. By comparison, the highest courts in the state, the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, have discretion to choose which cases they want to hear and decide. They only hear and decide a small percentage of the cases that are appealed to them. So for the majority of people involved in litigation or the criminal justice system in the Houston area, this court of appeals is where their case will end and their fate will be decided. If there is reversible error from the trial court below, the justices on this court are tasked with correcting the error. For these reasons, it is very important to elect justices who respect the independence of the judiciary and who will not bend to political pressure.
6. Why should people vote for you in November?
I previously served for six years on this court and I loved the work. I worked hard everyday ( and will do so again) to fully and fairly represent and serve the people of this District that is so culturally rich and diverse. From 2019-2024, I was one of the most productive judges on the court and I never had a backlog. I contributed to the legal community by serving on committees and mentoring interns. I served for 5 years as a commissioner on the Texas Children’s Commission by appointment of the Supreme Court of Texas. I served on committees for the Houston Bar Association and The State Bar of Texas and my memberships in the Association of Women Attorneys, the Houston Lawyer’s Association, the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston and the South Asian Bar Association of Houston. Throughout my time on the bench, I was a member of the National Association of Women Judges and had the privilege of serving on the Houston Color of Justice host committee alongside a diverse group of judges from the trial and appellate bench. The purpose of this program is to enhance diversity in Houston’s legal profession and judiciary, one student at a time. My campaign is endorsed by the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston, the LGBTQ+ Caucus of Houston, and the Texas Gulf Coast Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.
PREVIOUSLY:
Judge Damiane Dianne Curvey, 280th Family District Court
Judge M. Monica Singh, Harris County Civil Court at Law #4
Judge Cory Sepolio, 269th Civil District Court
Samantha Davis, 313th Juvenile District Court
Judge Melissa Morris, 263rd Criminal District Court
Judge Toria J. Finch, Harris County Criminal Court at Law #9
Judge Linda Marie Dunson, 309th Family District Court
Judge Kelley Andrews, Harris County Criminal Court at Law #6
Judge Angela Lancelin, 245th Family District Court
Judge Shannon Baldwin, Harris County Criminal Court at Law #4
From the primaries:
Judge Kristen Hawkins, Supreme Court Justice, Place 7
Sarah Beth Landau, Chief Justice of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Judge Tanya Garrison, 157th Civil District Court
Julia Maldonado, 183rd Criminal District Court
Judge Brian Warren, 209th Criminal District Court
Judge Josh Hill, 232nd Criminal District Court
Judge Leah Shapiro, 315th Juvenile District Court
Judge James Horwitz, Harris County Probate Court #4
Ebony Williams, Harris County Civil Court at Law #2
Judge Andrew Wright, Harris County Criminal Court at Law #7
RE: Vote for me because I am a Democrat!
Judicial races are low-information partisan contests in which the candidate’s party is the major cue for most voters’ choice. The next cue is sex inferred from the first name. Most voters will vote for this appellate bench candidate because she is identified as a Democrat on the ballot, with female likely being a plus in a judicial race.
Assuming this race is competitive in the 10-county appellate district, the key question should be: Why should independents or even Republicans vote for this candidate?
She says “it is very important to elect justices who respect the independence of the judiciary and who will not bend to political pressure.” Then mentions representation and sports her allegiance to various special interests on the Left. Leaving aside the incongruity, these liberal and labor interests will support her anyhow.
She faults her opponent for less experience. But she was once new to the appellate bench herself, so this is no different from Republicans bewailing a partisan clean sweep resulting in a loss of experience (experience of Republican incumbents).
Then the profession “I love the work.” – Don’t they all? – Why else would you seek the office?
MISINFORMATION:
“The court hears cases from all of the trial courts.” – The appellate courts don’t entertain appeals for JP courts, and about half of the district court appeals go to the 14th Court of Appeal, which has co-extensive geographic jurisdiction (some now go to the statewide 15th). An appellant doesn’t get to chose the court, or the panel, for that matter.
“Each case is decided by a panel of three justices who issue a written opinion on the merits of the case.” – Many cases are dismissed for various reasons (giving up, settlement, nonpayment of fee or clerk’s record, missed deadline) and many others are decided on non-merits grounds. Mandamus cases are routinely disposed of with a pro-forma one-page denial “opinion” that does not address the merits, and often does not even mention what the underlying complaint was against the trial court judge.
A REAL ISSUE OF JUDICIAL ADMIN
The First Court of Appeals has been sending many cases of mediation lately, thereby reducing its own workload and avoiding adjudication. If the case settles in mediation, a short non-substantive opinion will issue. It will count in the stats but will not advance the law (jurisprudence) and will provide no guidance for other litigants facing similar legal issues. But it’s also more efficient in that it relieves the court from doing its works on the affected appeals, freeing up time and staff resources for others.
What are her views on that? Diversion of appeals into mediation.
If mediation is good (despite the additional cost to the parties), what criteria should the court employ in deciding whether to send a case to mandatory mediation? Should the nature of the dispute and/or the specific legal issues (as identified in the docketing statement) matter?
Should the Court send cases to medication where it is clear that an attorney in the trial court messed up badly, or should the deficient performance be exposed in an opinion for deterrent and educational effect to enhance appellate performance by others?
What are her views on failure to preserve error and insufficient briefing as grounds for deciding points against an appellant? Short-shrifting and procedural fault-finding also advances efficiency, but it may dent the reputation of the attorney and will likely harm their client(s).
ANOTHER ONE
Should the Court she seeks to return to engage in strategic delay practices?
An example:
On May 19, 2026 the First Court of Appeals decided an appeal from a voting rights case brought in the wake of the pandemic: Trial Court Case No. 2021-57207. The appeal was filed in 2022. This was a pre-enforcement challenge to a new election law. Opinion here:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?scidkt=13607475649774789835&as_sdt=2&hl=en
Should it take 5 years for a constitutional challenge to a voting law to be resolved? Note that this is longer than the 4-year presidential election cycle.
Judicial candidates shouldn’t comment on specific cases or issues while campaigning, but the matter of multi-year delays – here in a public-law case no less – is a question of judicial administration & efficiency.
What are the candidate’s views on disposition time standards?