Edward Hernandez

1. What is the most important issue facing the court?

Fairness and competence are the two most important issues facing any court. With corruption scandals throughout the county and the public wondering how the system became so corrupt, it is critically important to elect competent judges with the moral courage to be fair in the face of political and other pressures to go with the flow or look the other way. As a Yale Law school educated attorney with extensive experience in civil rights cases protecting regular and even unpopular clients from governmental abuse I believe my background best exemplifies the competency and moral courage to be fair.

2. Is the local system of oversight sufficient to protect the public from unfair judges?  If so, why, and if not, how would you change it?

The current system does not protect the public from unfair judges. We have an electoral system in which the candidate squeezing the most money out of donors can portray themselves and their opponents in whatever light they wish before an election. As the founder and former co-editor of El Pulso I conducted and published a judicial performance survey which allowed all El Paso attorneys to anonymously rate judges in El Paso County on their competence and fairness. The results were quite surprising. This is a much better way of informing voters as to the competence and fairness of judges.

3. What experience do you have with the law that will make you a good judge?

The problem with experience is that one can be a bad lawyer and even a bad judge for years and survive in both. What makes me the best candidate for judge is the ability, humility and willingness to learn and the proven moral courage to be fair. Intellectually, I have practiced with some of the most prestigious firms in the city as well as with legal aid. As a civil rights lawyer I have often battled to protect my clients’ constitutional rights, even in the face of harassment and intimidation. I have successfully brought a Court of Inquiry against a public official and earned the national Henry B. Gonzalez Civil Rights Award.

4. How do District Courts Differ from County Courts?

The Texas Legislature created the 448th District Court with general jurisdiction but primarily civil in nature. It is my understanding from a conversation with a member of the Council of Judges that the Council and the County agreed that the 448th is to be an all civil court in order to save the County the cost of yet another District Attorney team in the 448th. I am perfectly fine with the 448th being a civil-case-only court although I have years of both civil and criminal law experience. District and County courts in El Paso have the same civil monetary jurisdictional limits. They do differ in that only District Courts hear family law cases and County Courts do not. In Criminal cases, District Courts hear felonies and County Courts hear misdemeanors.

5. What is your position on the trend at the state level to either consolidate the county and district courts or to allow them to hear the similar cases?

You do whatever best suits the needs of your particular community. That is my position.

6. In El Paso, it seems like lawyers and judges know each other, something perhaps similar to most communities. What are some of the situations under which you think a judge ought to recuse himself or herself? Are the rules clear enough and if not, how would you change them?

The rules on recusal, bias and conflicts are numerous and the various interpretations of those rules are even more numerous.  The ultimate solution for voters is not in more rules but in knowing the judicial candidates they are voting for and electing those who are both intelligent enough and inherently fair. The solution for and responsibility of attorneys is to establish a means by which judges can be rated anonymously on their performance and bias and by which that information can be conveyed to the community at large. Many communities already have such a rating system. El Paso does not. As for individual judges, they should recuse themselves whenever they feel they can no longer make an impartial decision or when there exists a conflict of interest.

7. Is there fair access to justice for everyone? How would you improve access; specifically, how would you support public defenders?

The Constitution only guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases in which one faces incarceration. Many states provide appointed counsel to the poor in some limited civil cases. The result is that the most of the poor and many of the middle and working classes financially devastated when they end up in court. Short of creating a universal legal care system in which all attorneys are paid by the state and everyone gets a free attorney appointed by the court, the cost dilemmas associated with the current system will continue. From an individual court perspective, there are a couple of limited things judges can do to help in the defense of those appointed by government appointed counsel. One is to stop the process of paying only a set fee such as $150 in misdemeanor cases if a case does not go to trial. Such set fees encourage attorneys to do as little as possible if they think a case will not go to trial. The other change is to stop punishing lawyers by not appointing them to future cases if they actually work hard to represent their clients and bill accordingly.