El Paso Matters – Q&A: 120th District Court judge candidates in Nov. 3 midterm election

Chris Anchondo: Any backlog in any court is a significant challenge that must be dealt with.  Making sure criminal and civil cases are dealt with timely is important to all the parties involved.  Understandably, not all cases can be simple cases, and some will take more time than others, but there is a need to have some level of urgency so all parties can have finality.

Ben L. Ivey: Delay is one of the biggest challenges facing the court, especially when managing both a busy criminal and civil docket. I address it through good docket management, prompt rulings, and efficient use of courtroom time. I believe in letting lawyers be lawyers and do not unnecessarily interfere with how they prepare or resolve their cases. My job is to keep cases moving, rule on the issues presented, and ensure everyone receives a fair hearing.

Chris Anchondo: Cases move more efficiently and fairly when the parties are able to discuss the cases frequently.  The criminal docket will have a number of pre-trial settings and a trial date set. This allows for any negotiations or discussion of missing evidence, etc.  Having the trial date is the deadline to help facilitate the completion of the case.  The same principles apply to civil matters.  A scheduling order will be in place so the parties will have a deadline by which to keep the case. moving. 

Ben L. Ivey: Efficiency and fairness are not competing goals. I keep cases moving by setting clear expectations, ruling promptly, and avoiding unnecessary hearings and delays. But efficiency never means rushing a party or prejudging an issue. Each side gets a meaningful opportunity to be heard. I let the lawyers try their cases, and I make the decisions the law requires.

Chris Anchondo: In cases where the law is unclear or where competing legal principles may apply, we have to look case law and see how other courts in this jurisdiction or other jurisdictions may have handle similar questions.  We must look at the legislative notes to determine why the legislature created the law in question.  The words they chose, did not choose, or left out.  Then apply the facts from the present case to the research and make the decision based on what was determined from the research.

Ben L. Ivey: I believe in judicial restraint. A judge’s job is to apply the law, not make it. I start with the statute and controlling precedent, listen to both sides, and decide only what is necessary to resolve the case before me.

Chris Anchondo: The legislature has set out the standards to use when determining recusal. Bias or impartiality, personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute, a financial interest by the judge, or family members of the judge, etc. I would follow the law set forth by the legislature. As for disclosure of a potential conflict, once a potential conflict is realized then I would immediately remove myself from the case and ask that it be assigned to another judge because of the conflict.

Ben L. Ivey: I follow the law and the rules governing recusal and disclosure. If there is a circumstance that could reasonably call my impartiality into question, I disclose it. If recusal is required, I recuse. The parties should have confidence that their case will be decided fairly and only on the law and the facts.

Chris Anchondo: I believe my judicial philosophy comes from the U.S. Constitution and Texas Constitution, not from a party affiliation. I believe every person in this country deserves Due Process, Equal Protection, and to be treated fairly in a court of law.  My responsibility as a judge is to apply the law impartially, and as long as you guide yourself with fairness, equality, and justice then partisan beliefs will not matter.   

Ben L. Ivey: My party affiliation may tell voters something about my general values, but it does not decide cases. Once I take the bench, my job is to follow the law, apply it fairly, and decide the case in front of me. Politics has no place in a judicial ruling.