David Newell

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

The First Amendment prohibits any laws that would restrict the free exercise of religion. In other words, it was not meant to ban religion from the public square, it recognized the rights of citizens to live according to their beliefs.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

I believe that Jesus Christ is my Savior who died for my sins and by accepting him as my Savior I will eventually enter Heaven. Moreover, by having a personal relationship with Him, I will be better able to live a life on earth according to His example. I believe his example teaches the importance of sacrifice and service to my fellow man.

Did not answer

I have not done any pro bono legal work, though I have volunteered my time to charities such as the Houston Food Bank and the East Fort Bend Human Needs Ministry in the past.

2012 Republican Primary, 2012 General Election, 2014 Republican Primary, 2014 General Election, 2016 Republican Primary, 2016 General Election, 2018 Republican Primary, 2018 General Election

Conservative

That is impossible to do given how broad your question is and how expansive the well from which I am expected to draw support. Further, by highlighting particular economic or social issues, I may run afoul of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct by suggesting how I might rule in a particular case.

I have over two decades of experience as both an attorney and a judge handling criminal appeals. As a prosecutor I have appeared before courts at every level of the court system, justice of the peace, county courts at law, district court, intermediate courts of appeals, both the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. I have handled interlocutory appeals, direct appeals, juvenile appeals, CPS appeals, post-conviction writs of habeas corpus, death penalty appeals, death penalty writs, writs of mandamus. I currently serve as an appellate court judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals, and I have done so since January 2015. I am Board Certified in both Criminal Law and Criminal Appellate Law. I currently serve on the Criminal Appellate Law Exam subcommittee for the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. In that capacity I design and grade the Criminal Appellate Law Specialization Exam.

I have primarily practiced criminal appellate law. I have also handled juvenile and CPS appeals. Having a broad understanding of appellate law, both criminal and civil, is the type of experience necessary to sit on an appellate court bench.

No

I believe I am the best qualified candidate for the job. I have over two decades of experience in criminal appellate law. I am Board Certified in Criminal and Criminal Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. I also have been doing the job for almost six years and I have consistently received the highest rankings of any judge on my court in local bar polls. I believe my qualifications for the position are unmatched, as is my temperament.

I believe I am the better candidate for this position. I have a record of writing well-researched, thoughtful, and fair opinions. I defer to the text of the Constitution and statutes, and I adhere to precedent unless it is absolutely necessary to overturn it because it was wrongly decided at its inception and demonstrated that it is unworkable in practice. I am also the only candidate with actual experience at the job as I am running for re-election. I hope that voters will give me a chance to continue to serve them in the future.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

None consistently adhere to a judicial philosophy

The text of the statute is the best evidence of legislative intent. If a statute is unambiguous, the statute should be interpreted according to its text. If a statute is ambiguous or would result in absurd consequences such as a constitutional violation, then extra-textual sources such as legislative history can be considered in ascertaining which interpretation of the statute our Legislature intended. However, that legislative history is merely persuasive and should not be used as a justification for judicial amendment of the statutory text. The text of a statute is the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.

Judges should adhere to precedent unless that precedent was wrongly decided and has proven unworkable. When precedent is bad, it typically proves to be unworkable.

I believe you have to consider the text of the Constitution and the understanding of inalienable rights that existed at the time the Constitution was passed.