When Robert and I walked into Courtroom 471 on August 22, 2022 for the hearing on Tommy’s Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), the first thing I noticed was that the bald, elderly gentleman sitting at the judge’s bench was definitely not Judge Andrea Bouressa.
It turned out that Judge Bouressa had a conflict, in that she was scheduled to appear before the Collin County Commissioners Court that morning. The “Commissioners Court” is not really a “court” in the traditional sense; rather, according to the county website, the Commissioners Court “conducts the general business of the county and oversees financial matters.”
As the Local Administrative District Judge for Collin County, Judge Bouressa was the liaison between the District Courts and the Commissioners Court. The commissioners were finalizing a budget for the fiscal year that would begin on October 1, and they needed her input on the financial requirements of the District Courts. (Basically, the state pays the salaries of the judges, but the county pays the courts’ operating expenses.)
I understood why Judge Bouressa was unable to preside over the MSJ hearing that morning. But I didn’t understand why she had not simply postponed the hearing, instead of sending an old bald guy to pinch-hit for her. She had already presided over an earlier hearing in the case, so she was familiar with the parties and the issues – why not postpone the MSJ hearing until a day when she did not have to appear before the Commissioners Court? Why change horses in midstream just because of a one-day scheduling conflict?
And the answer is: I have no idea.
Proceedings in the Judicial System in the State of Texas can have profound effects on people’s lives (like mine). Despite that, the people who run that system don’t seem to feel any pressing need to explain what’s going on beyond what the rules require them to reveal. And I’ve learned that judges, who hold in their hands the power to ruin the lives of people who are accused of violating those rules, don’t necessarily feel that they’re under any obligation to follow those rules themselves.
But enough grousing. It’s time to meet the new judge.
Judge Ray Wheless
It turned out that the old bald guy was none other than Judge Ray Wheless, the Presiding Judge of the First Administrative Region of the State of Texas (the “1st AJR”), which included Collin County. (The courts in Texas are divided into 11 regions for administrative purposes; each region is managed by a Presiding Judge.) Judge Wheless had been a judge in Collin County from 2000 until he was appointed to the position of Presiding Judge of the 1st AJR by Governor Abbott in 2018.
Later, after I’d done some research about Judge Wheless, I learned that he had made an abortive run for the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals in 2016. On February 11 of that year, he was interviewed by Chad Hasty, a talk-radio host in Lubbock. During that interview, Judge Wheless said:
“The fella that I’m running against is the Democrat in office. He was a Republican for a long time, but he switched to the Democratic Party in 2013. And the reason for that is because he had always been a little bit ‘out there’ on his rulings, and so he finally decided to join the party where he was most comfortable.”
It turned out that Judge Wheless was more than a little optimistic. He wasn’t running against “the Democrat in office,” Judge Lawrence Meyers; he was running in the Republican Primary to determine who would have the right to run against Judge Meyers in the general election. Judge Wheless lost that primary, so he never got the chance to run against “the Democrat in office.”
What really disturbed me about Judge Wheless’ comment was his underlying philosophy that there are Republican rulings and there are Democratic rulings. I’ve always assumed that judges rule according to the dictates of the law, as they have sworn to do – but Judge Wheless apparently believes that judges actually rule according to the dictates of their political party.
Think about it: Judge Wheless pointed out that Judge Meyers used to be a Republican, but his rulings were always “a little bit ‘out there,’” so Judge Wheless felt that Judge Meyers was more “comfortable” as a Democrat. In other words, in any given case, Judge Wheless believed that a Republican judge would rule one way, but a Democratic judge might rule the other way. And when a supposedly Republican judge rules a certain way on a legal issue, you can tell that the judge is actually a Democrat in disguise.
Now Judge Wheless was going to preside over a hearing in my easement case. Could I count on him to issue a ruling that was fair, unbiased, and strictly in accordance with the dictates of the law? Or could I expect a ruling that was somehow “Republican” in nature, which would be a different ruling from the one I could have expected from a judge who happened to be a Democrat? And should I be worried about the fact that opposing lawyer Tommy Garrett’s law firm regularly contributed to Republican candidates?
I guess I would have to wait until Judge Wheless heard the case and issued his ruling, at which time I’d have a detailed explanation of how he had applied the law and how he had arrived at his decision. Right?
Leave a Reply