David Schenck

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
David Schenck
Image of David Schenck

Republican Party

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge
Tenure

2025 - Present

Term ends

2030

Years in position

0

Predecessor
Prior offices
Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals Place 7
Elections and appointments
Last elected

November 5, 2024

Education

Bachelor's

State University of New York, Albany, 1989

Law

Baylor University, 1992

Personal
Birthplace
Syracuse, N.Y.
Religion
Christian: Methodist
Profession
Attorney, Judge
Contact

Official website

Campaign website

Campaign Facebook

Campaign Twitter

Personal LinkedIn

David Schenck (Republican Party) is the Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He assumed office on January 1, 2025. His current term ends on December 31, 2030.

Schenck (Republican Party) ran for election as Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He won in the general election on November 5, 2024.

Schenck completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. Click here to read the survey answers.

Biography

David Schenck was born in Syracuse, New York. Schenck earned a bachelor's degree from the State University of New York at Albany in 1989 and a J.D. from Baylor Law School in 1992. His career experience includes working as deputy attorney general for legal counsel with the Texas Attorney General's Office, commissioner of the Texas Lottery Commission, chair of the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, and attorney with the law firm of Dykema Gossett PPLC. Schenck has been affiliated with the American Law Institute, Patrick Higginbotham Inn of Court, and the Federalist Society.[1][2][3]

Elections

2024

See also: Texas Supreme Court elections, 2024

General election

General election for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge

David Schenck defeated Holly Taylor in the general election for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge on November 5, 2024.

Candidate
%
Votes
✔
Image of David Schenck
David Schenck (R) Candidate Connection
 
58.1
 
6,330,389
Image of Holly Taylor
Holly Taylor (D) Candidate Connection
 
41.9
 
4,558,856

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source 1 Source 2

Total votes: 10,889,245
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Democratic primary election

Democratic primary for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge

Holly Taylor advanced from the Democratic primary for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge on March 5, 2024.

Candidate
%
Votes
✔
Image of Holly Taylor
Holly Taylor Candidate Connection
 
100.0
 
829,500

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 829,500
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

Republican primary for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge

David Schenck defeated incumbent Sharon Keller in the Republican primary for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge on March 5, 2024.

Candidate
%
Votes
✔
Image of David Schenck
David Schenck Candidate Connection
 
62.6
 
1,174,795
Image of Sharon Keller
Sharon Keller
 
37.4
 
702,464

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 1,877,259
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Campaign finance

Endorsements

Schenck received the following endorsements.

2022

See also: Texas Supreme Court elections, 2022

General election

Special general election for Texas Supreme Court Place 9

Incumbent Evan Young defeated Julia Maldonado in the special general election for Texas Supreme Court Place 9 on November 8, 2022.

Candidate
%
Votes
✔
Image of Evan Young
Evan Young (R)
 
56.4
 
4,474,900
Image of Julia Maldonado
Julia Maldonado (D)
 
43.6
 
3,458,103

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 7,933,003
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Democratic primary election

Special Democratic primary for Texas Supreme Court Place 9

Julia Maldonado advanced from the special Democratic primary for Texas Supreme Court Place 9 on March 1, 2022.

Candidate
%
Votes
✔
Image of Julia Maldonado
Julia Maldonado
 
100.0
 
922,595

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 922,595
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

Special Republican primary for Texas Supreme Court Place 9

Incumbent Evan Young defeated David Schenck in the special Republican primary for Texas Supreme Court Place 9 on March 1, 2022.

Candidate
%
Votes
✔
Image of Evan Young
Evan Young
 
54.9
 
860,852
Image of David Schenck
David Schenck Candidate Connection
 
45.1
 
708,359

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 1,569,211
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Campaign finance

Endorsements

To view Schenck's endorsements in the 2022 election, please click here.

2016

See also: Texas judicial elections, 2016

Schenck ran for re-election in the 2016 elections as a Republican. He faced Republican challenger David Hanschen in a primary election and defeated him. He faced Dennise Garcia in the general election. [4]

Election results

November 8 general election
Incumbent David Schenck defeated Dennise Garcia in the general election for the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals, Place 7.
Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals, Place 7, 2016
Party Candidate Vote % Votes
     Republican Green check mark transparent.png David Schenck Incumbent 51.59% 635,952
     Democratic Dennise Garcia 48.41% 596,728
Total Votes (100% reporting) 1,232,680
Source: Texas Secretary of State Official Results
March 1 primary election
Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals, Seat 7, Republican Primary, 2016
Party Candidate Vote % Votes
     Republican Green check mark transparent.png David Schenck Incumbent 61.53% 131,790
     Republican David Hanschen 38.47% 82,387
Total Votes (100% Reporting) 214,177
Source: Texas Secretary of State Official Results

Campaign themes

2024

Ballotpedia survey responses

See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection

Candidate Connection

David Schenck completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Schenck's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.

Expand all | Collapse all

Justice Schenck served for 8 years on the state’s largest appellate court and as Chairman of the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Prior to this, he served as Texas Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel and lead counsel for the state in the defense of its plans to redistrict its congressional and state legislative districts. He is a recognized and board certified appellate and constitutional lawyer, having argued or led dozens of major civil and criminal appellate matters in state and federal courts, including serving as lead counsel for TSRA and 47 other state organizations before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Heller decision. He has received the highest “AV’ rating from the Martindale Hubble lawyer review service, is an elected member of the American Law Institute, and repeatedly recognized as “superlawyer’ in state rankings prior to assuming the bench.
  • Unquestionably qualified and fair.
  • A proven, principled conservative
  • Only candidate eligible to serve the term and represent the voters.
Judicial ethics reform. I believe we need to reform the way judges run for office and raise money. We need to assure the accountability of office holders that only elections can provide. But, we do not need judges sitting in cases where they’ve received massive contributions from one of the participants. We need immediate and effective disclosure to other parties of financial and other relations between the judge and the parties and we need effective recusal rules to protect the integrity of the courts. Our criminal courts need to be staffed and led by judges who are fair in fact and can be fairly perceived as such.
My grandmother. She raised 12 children in a 3 bedroom farm house and still managed to lead the local school board and send my dad off to college for a PhD in physics and an MD.
The movie Marie with Sissy Spacek. It’s based on a woman I knew in undergraduate school who told me to got to law school and to Baylor in Texas.
Depends on the office. For judges it’s patience, fairness and intellect.
Patience, integrity and firmness of purpose.
To be fair and hard working. The Court needs improvement in both respects in my opinion. I don’t believe judges should be serving if they have promised to be or have acted as demonstrably partial to one side of the docket.
An honest and highly competent public servant.
Shooting of President Reagan
I delivered newspapers in the winter in upstate New York when I was 14 and continued until I went to college. I then scrubs toilets toilets and washed dishes at a restaurant.
The dictionary and the Bible. Both are ever reliable sources of guidance and security.
Ben Kenobee — “these are not the droids you’re looking for”
Baby shark! Now it won’t leave, thanks for asking.
Patience.
Rule making for the Court itself and rules of procedure, ancillary statutory and administrative responsibilities.
I believe in adhering to the text of the Constitution as reflected in ordinary understanding of the words as of the time they were enacted. The same for statutes. I believe courts should not make law and must stay in their lane to assure public confidence in their elected institutions. Above all they must be fair and impartial as among all who might have business before them.
Past, Antonin Scalia and my judge, Henry Politz Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit. Current, Sam Alito.
Yes, but not as an influence on rulings.
Yes. Dallas Bar Poll. I rated well but don’t recall the numbers.
Public perception of impartiality as a product of inadequate disclosure of relations and financial matters and competence of some judges in some parts of the state.
It’s critical. The state has two terminal courts; both are vital to the functioning of government and should carefully constrain their roles to avoid overstepping their assigned sphere of operation and not truncating the proper functioning of the others.
In the general sense yes.
I can’t.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, Texas Right to Life, Grassroots America, Texas Eagle Forum, True Texas Project, TURF, Parnell McNamara, Troy Jackson, Jo Anne Fleming, Cindy Castilla. Others pending

Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.

Campaign website

Schenck’s campaign website stated the following:

“

IT’S TIME FOR A NEW GENERATION OF LEADERSHIP
The rules governing all Texas courts and judges are made by the state’s two highest courts, the Supreme Court governing civil and the Court of Criminal Appeals governing criminal matters. In big ways and small those courts must implement ethics and rules changes to reassure public confidence in the fairness and competence of its courts, the fairness of its elections, and the fidelity of state government to the Constitution.

TEXAS DESERVES TRANSPARENTLY FAIR COURTS
The judiciary’s authority depends entirely on the public’s confidence in the integrity and impartiality of those who issue its decisions, and – in Texas – that confidence has been shaken. Over my career, spanning almost 30 years, I have repeatedly fought – winning, in many instances – to maintain judicial systems free from outside influence.

I spent eight years as a justice on the Dallas Court of Appeals, where I adhered to my oath and the constitutional command for a judiciary that is fair and impartial both in reality and in appearance.

Texas, however, has traditionally struggled with this.

A 2001 study, “Pay to Play: How Big Money Buys Access to the Texas Supreme Court,” examined petitions filed in the Texas Supreme Court and compared them to the contributions made by the law firms who filed them. Those who did not contribute were heard 9% of the time, and firms giving more than $100,000 did disproportionately better. Even in innocent situations it doesn’t look good, and worse, it erodes confidence in a system that has to be above reproach.

The U.S. Supreme Court took note of the problem. In 2009, it held that the federal constitution forbids judges to sit where there is an objective appearance of a “likelihood” of bias, urging states to consider stricter recusal standards. In 2015, it adopted the position urged by myself and other attorneys in the case Dimick v. Republican Party of Minnesota, saying that states can regulate judicial fundraising to promote public confidence in impartiality. And, in 2016, it held that due process concerns arising from a single judge were shared across all judges serving on an appellate court.

Other states responded to this by enacting new ethics rules.

Texas, meanwhile, actually made things worse, removing an established barrier preventing judges from coordinating their campaign activities. As a result, litigants appearing in multi-member appellate courts are left to wonder whether a member might be coordinating the collective effort or directing other members on the interests at stake.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, things haven’t improved. Another study of cases through 2016 again showed a direct correlation between contributions and outcomes, with the same small handful of law firms making the massive donations, along with several more added to the list.

This, combined with the prospect of dark money and PAC contributions, leaves the court and all of the judges on it needlessly open to the awful suggestion that outcomes are driven in response to massive contributions from third parties.

Surely no one person or firm is to blame for this problem or the resulting crisis of confidence, and the overwhelming bulk of Texas business and citizens will come before the court not participating in or perhaps even aware of this problem. However, accountability and action are sorely lacking and long overdue.

That’s why, if elected, I will advocate for an efficient system of Justice, including the following ethics rules none of which currently exist

  • A rule forbidding judges from directly contacting parties or lawyers to parties with pending cases to request campaign contributions.
  • A recusal from sitting on any case where judges or justices, or any colleague they may have coordinated with regarding any campaign activity, have accepted excessive contributions (whether by themselves, by direct expenditures or through PACs) or other financial assistance in the four years preceding the filing.
  • Prohibiting law firms and employees of law firms from giving amounts collectively over what an individual might give in a cycle.
  • Requiring lawyers and parties represented by them to disclose to the other side any amounts given to a member of the court within the last four years, whether directly or indirectly and immediately when the contribution is made in a pending case.
  • Forbidding judges or justices from acting as bundlers or coordinating financial or other campaign activities that might be a basis for one judge or justice to influence another’s decision.
  • Requiring that parties have access to the Personal Financial Statements judges are required to annually file to evaluate possible relations to their opponent, rather than filing Public Information Act requests.

These are basic and important steps that will fight back against allegations of “pay for play” and go a long way toward restoring the public’s trust in our judiciary here in Texas. It’s also why I have made it a centerpiece of my campaign as I run for the Presiding Judge seat on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Texas Needs Criminal Courts That Work
The Court of Criminal Appeals is the supreme authority over the state’s criminal jurisprudence. If Texans are to have any confidence in the efficient and fair operation of their criminal laws they can look only to that Court, it’s presiding judge, and the 8 remaining members of that court. But, the Court‘s judges down fewer opinions and did so more slowly than virtually any other appellate court with criminal jurisdiction of like size, state or federal. And when the Court does actually hear and decide cases, practitioners and lower court judges alike are often left uncertain of the state of the law, as the Court’s decisions often leave readers to wonder about the court’s rationale and process.

The Court too often decides simply not to hear matters posing basic, recurring questions of law. And yet it also sometimes decides to accept review and grant relief on issues not even raised by the defendant—without allowing the state notice of the issue or an opportunity to be heard. Other times the Court will accept review and decide the case without allowing either side to argue at all. And, in many other cases, the Court will accept review and then go into hibernation while the parties, who are often incarcerated under convictions the lower courts may have already declared to be unlawful, simply wait for the cases to be resolved some day. There is simply no excuse for a case filed with the Court in 2019 to be so delayed as to be sitting, parked and undecided in 2024.

Since 1981, Texas criminal cases have all been directed to intermediate appellate courts before the parties might petition the Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review. Judges on those lower courts have all studied those cases and developed a depth of expertise in the area The rules of appellate procedure should direct any of those justices hearing a case to certify the presence of any issue of potential merit or of importance to the state’s criminal jurisprudence, whether or not the issue warrants relief in that case. The presence of such a certification should signal a need for heightened and expedited scrutiny in the Court of Criminal Appeals separate and apart from the existing petition process.

Meanwhile, the Court should be hearing considerably more cases, perhaps twice as many as at present, and deciding them in the same time frame as its colleagues in the local federal appellate courts—that’s months not years. And, every case important enough to warrant review should be argued—or the lawyers at least offered the opportunity to argue—by remote electronic means if necessary to accommodate health or travel concerns.[5]

”
—David Schenck’s campaign website (2024)[6]


2022

Candidate Connection

David Schenck completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Schenck's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.

Expand all | Collapse all

Justice Schenck has served on the state’s largest intermediate appellate court since January 2015. He also serves as chair of the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, and previously served as Deputy Attorney General. He is board certified in civil appellate law and has long championed judicial reforms in Texas, including those relating to the structure of the state’s appellate courts and the manner by which judges are selected and campaigns are funded. He is a member of the American Law Institute and has received the Texas Bar’s highest award for service to promote access pro bono legal services.
  • Justice Schenck has a proven record of commitment to the Constitution and, in particular, to the right to an impartial tribunal.
  • Judicial reform in Texas is overdue to restore confidence among the public that their courts are operating independently, and upholding the rule of law.
  • The chronic appearance of a relation between outsized financial contributions to outcomes in the courts has undermined public confidence. It must be stopped.
Justice Schenck urged the U.S. Supreme Court to approve ethical restrictions on judicial fundraising more than a decade ago, pointing to empirical data from Texas — showing large contributions from some law firms to correlate to outcomes before the Texas Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept review in that case, but subsequently accepted that states have a compelling interest in promoting public confidence in judicial integrity and restraining judicial fund raising. It held in yet another case that the federal Constitution forbids state judges to sit where an objective appearance of probable influence exists. Sadly, Texas has done virtually nothing to promote confidence in its courts a decade later. A 2020 empirical study showed — again — a continuing appearance of a correlation between outsized contributions from a handful of law firms, as highlighted by Justice Schenck a decade ago. That same study noted a “revolving door” between these firms and the Supreme Court. Even after the most recent study, every appointee to the Supreme Court has come directly from those same law firms. While these law firms are violating no laws, reforms from the other side of the bench are grossly overdue. Justice Schenck’s record on his current court confirms that he is committed to acting where necessary to uphold the Constitution and promote public confidence in the impartiality of the courts.
The ability to speak truth.
Having done it repeatedly and honorably
Uphold the law and the oath—even when it hurts.
Honesty, courage and fidelity to the Constitution.
I remember my father waking me for a rocket launch. I believe it was Apollo 11.
I delivered newspapers from the age of 15 to 17.
Confronting matters that I believe the oath compels.
The Texas Supreme Court is responsible for the drafting of rules of civil procedure and the canons of judicial conduct that govern recusal and other important matters.
I am a constitutionalist. I believe that judges draw their authority from the Constitution and have the obligation under it to remain “in their own lane’ and, concomitantly, to keep other branches in their own as well—acting as a check on encroachments. I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that judicial authority ultimately rests on the public perception that the courts are fair to all both in reality and in appearance.
There are many. I have tremendous respect for the Texas judges who labor extensively without fanfare and largely under compensated for their efforts.
Yes and no. I don’t believe it should color the outcome of a case on appeal. We are law courts first and last. We should, however, be mindful of the challenges in practicing law and be cautious in our treatment of lawyers and their right to be heard fairly and on the merits.
Yes. The Dallas Bar Association conducts a review of all judges in the area. My ratings reflect broad support from both sides of the docket.
Access and perceptions of fairness.
It is supposed to constrain both the executive and the legislature insofar as either is encroaching on the judicial function or impairing it’s ability to acquit its role. It should also be prepared to referee contests between the governor and the legislature where a case or controversy is properly before it.
In general yes. There will be inveterate partisans or outcome-driven assessments. Conversely, I suspect if a judge is doing his or her job, then they will be disappointing this people sometimes. But largely they reflect lawyers bona fide perceptions.

Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.

Campaign finance summary

Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.

David Schenck campaign contribution history
YearOfficeStatusContributionsExpenditures
2022Texas Supreme Court Place 9Lost primary$90,200 $152,785
Grand total$90,200 $152,785
Sources: OpenSecrets,  Federal Elections Commission ***This product uses the openFEC API but is not endorsed or certified by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).


State supreme court judicial selection in Texas

See also: Judicial selection in Texas

The nine justices of the Texas Supreme Court are selected in statewide partisan elections. The elected justices serve six-year terms, after which they must run for re-election if they wish to remain on the court.[7]

Qualifications

To serve on the Supreme Court, a justice must be:

  • a U.S. citizen;
  • a resident of Texas;
  • licensed to practice law in the state;
  • between the ages of 35 and 75;[8][9] and
  • a practicing lawyer and/or justice for at least 10 years.[7]

Chief justice

The chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court is selected by voters at large. He or she serves in that capacity for a full six-year term.[7]

Vacancies

See also: How vacancies are filled in state supreme courts

In the event of a midterm vacancy, the governor appoints a replacement who must be confirmed by the Texas Senate. The appointee serves until the next general election, in which he or she may compete to serve for the remainder of the unexpired term.[7]

The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.


See also

Texas Judicial Selection More Courts
Seal of Texas.png
Judicialselectionlogo.png
BP logo.png
Courts in Texas
Texas Courts of Appeals
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Texas Supreme Court
Elections: 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017
Gubernatorial appointments
Judicial selection in Texas
Federal courts
State courts
Local courts

External links

Candidate

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge
  • Website
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
    		•

    Officeholder

    Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge
  • Website
    		•

    Personal

  • LinkedIn
    		•

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Dallas Morning News, "Schenck named to Dalas appeals court," January 8, 2014
    2. ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on January 30, 2022
    3. ↑ Martindale, "David J. Schenck - Lawyer Profile," accessed January 12, 2015
    4. ↑ Texas Secretary of State, "2016 March Primary Election Candidate Filings by County," accessed December 19, 2015
    5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ David Schenck for Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, “Issues,” accessed February 19, 2024
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Texas," archived October 3, 2014
    8. ↑ While no justice older than 74 may run for office, sitting justices who turn 75 are permitted to remain on the court until their terms expire.
    9. ↑ Texas State Historical Association, "Judiciary," accessed September 12, 2014

    Political offices
    Preceded by
    Sharon Keller (R)     		Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge
    2025-Present    		 Succeeded by
    -
    Preceded by
    -     		Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals Place 7
    2015-2022    		 Succeeded by
    -



    Texas courts

    Federal courts:

    Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Eastern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, Northern District of Texas, Southern District of Texas • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Eastern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, Northern District of Texas, Southern District of Texas

    State courts:

    Texas Supreme Court • Texas Court of Appeals • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals • Texas District Courts • Texas County Courts • Texas County Courts at Law • Texas Statutory Probate Courts • Texas Justice of the Peace Courts

    State resources:

    Courts in Texas • Texas judicial elections • Judicial selection in Texas

    v • e
    2024 State Judicial Elections
    State supreme court elections by stateBallotpedia Election Coverage Badge.png
    Intermediate appellate court elections by state


    Flag of Texas
    v • e
    State of Texas
    Austin (capital)
    Elections

    What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

    Government

    Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy


    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=David_Schenck&oldid=10197303"