I. Does the Texas judicial system's approach to
recusal, in conjunction with judges' collaborative
fundraising and expenditure activities, as viewed
under the due process requirements established
in Williams v. Pennsylvania and Caperton v. A.T.
Massey Coal Co., violate the Fourteenth
Amendment's due process guarantees? This
inquiry examines whether these practices, along
with failures of lower courts to ensure impartial
tribunals and systemic judicial misconduct,
demand, a Supreme Court review to affirm
constitutional principles of fairness, impartiality,
and freedom from bias in the judiciary, especially
in light of potential conflicts of interest arising
from judges' joint campaign activities or shared
financial resources.

2. In the context of the principles established in
Williams v. Pennsylvania and Caperton v. A.T.
Massey Coal Co., does the Texas system's
handling of judicial recusal and disclosure rules
sufficiently protect parties' due process rights?
This question probes whether the Texas
framework for judicial recusal, particularly when
judges are involved in collective fundraising and
expenditure matters, aligns with Supreme Court
precedent to ensure that parties and judges can
make informed decisions about potential
conflicts of interest. It explores whether the
state's approach effectively safeguards against
judicial bias and conflicts of interest, especially
in cases where a judge serves in both trial and
appellate roles, or where judges campaign
together, thereby necessitating Supreme Court
intervention to uphold the integrity of the legal
process and to establish guidelines for addressing
systemic deficiencies in the judiciary and find
remedy.

3. Does the imposition of excessive court costs,
attorney fees, and judgments on civil litigants,
resulting from judicial bias, procedural
irregularities, and failure of justices to recuse
themselves, violate the Eighth Amendment's
prohibitions against excessive fines and cruel
and unusual punishment, necessitating Supreme
Court intervention to ensure the application of
Eighth Amendment protections in the civil
context?

4. Considering the extensive financial burdens,
procedural hurdles, and the prevalence of judicial
misconduct, including judges' delayed recusals in
instances of bias, political or personal
connections, lack of legal competence, or
undisclosed conflicts of interest, does this pattern
infringe upon the Fourteenth Amendment and
other constitutional provisions ensuring due
process, access to courts, and equal protection,
thus necessitating a Supreme Court review to
affirm the principles of fairness, integrity, and
equitable access in the judicial process for all,
regardless of financial capacity?

Does the Texas judicial system's approach to recusal, in conjunction with judges' collaborative fundraising and expenditure activities, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantees?