John Schmude
John Schmude (Republican Party) was a judge of the Texas 247th District Court. He left office in 2018.
Schmude (Republican Party) ran for re-election for judge of the Texas 247th District Court. He lost in the general election on November 6, 2018.
Schmude completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2018. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Schmude earned an undergraduate degree in political science from the University of Massachusetts, going on to receive his J.D. from the South Texas College of Law.[1] Prior to his election to the bench, Schmude was a family law and business attorney. He also has experience as the vice-president of a Houston-based bank consulting firm and as a high school teacher of history and science.[2][3]
Elections
2018
General election
General election for Texas 247th District Court
Janice Berg defeated incumbent John Schmude in the general election for Texas 247th District Court on November 6, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Janice Berg (D) | 55.8 | 659,455 |
 | John Schmude (R)  | 44.2 | 522,539 | |
| Total votes: 1,181,994 | |||
| = 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 247th District Court
Janice Berg advanced from the Democratic primary for Texas 247th District Court on March 6, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Janice Berg | 100.0 | 131,561 |
| Total votes: 131,561 | |||
| = 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 247th District Court
Incumbent John Schmude advanced from the Republican primary for Texas 247th District Court on March 6, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | John Schmude | 100.0 | 113,128 |
| Total votes: 113,128 | |||
| = 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. | ||||
2014
See also: Texas judicial elections, 2014
Schmude ran for election to the 247th District Court.
Primary: He was successful in the Republican primary on March 4, 2014, receiving 36.5 percent of the vote. He competed against Meca Walker and Melanie Flowers.
Runoff: Because no candidate received more than 50% of the vote, Schmude faced Walker in a runoff election on May 27, 2014. Schmude won, earning 51.6% of the vote.
General: He defeated Clinton Wells in the general election on November 4, 2014, receiving 53.3 percent of the vote.
[4]
Selection method
- See also: Partisan election of judges
The judges of the Texas District Courts are chosen in partisan elections. They serve four-year terms, after which they must run for re-election if they wish to continue serving.[5]
Though Texas is home to more than 400 district courts, the courts are grouped into nine administrative judicial regions. Each region is overseen by a presiding judge who is appointed by the governor to a four-year term. According to the state courts website, the presiding judge may be a "regular elected or retired district judge, a former judge with at least 12 years of service as a district judge, or a retired appellate judge with judicial experience on a district court."[6]
Qualifications
To serve on the district courts, a judge must be:
- a U.S. citizen;
- a resident of Texas;
- licensed to practice law in the state;
- between the ages of 25 and 75;*[7]
- a practicing lawyer and/or state judge for at least four years; and
- a resident of his or her respective judicial district for at least two years.[5]
*While no judge older than 74 may run for office, sitting judges who turn 75 are permitted to continue serving until their term expires.[5]
Campaign themes
2018
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
John Schmude completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Schmude's responses.
What would be your top three priorities, if elected?
My primary goals as a Judge are as follows: 1) Oversee an efficient court that competently applies and interprets the law. 2) Oversee a user-friendly court that is flexible to the needs of lawyers and litigants. 3) Treat all lawyers and litigants with dignity, compassion and respect.
What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?
I am passionate about the public policies set forth in the Texas Family Code: 1) Ensuring that parents who act in the best interest of their children have frequent and continuing contact with their children; 2) Ensuring that children have a safe, stable and nonviolent environment; and 3) Ensuring that parents have the ability to share in the rights and decisions of raising their children after separation. I am also passionate about protecting children from abuse and neglect while at the same time protecting the fundamental constitutional rights of parents from unlawful governmental interference into the sanctity of the family.
What characteristics or principles are most important for an elected official?
Honesty, integrity and a recognition that elected officials are called to serve the people and not the other way around.
How would you describe your legal philosophy?
I believe that the fundamental rights of individuals do not originate from government or from courts. Rather, such rights are rooted in our dignity as human beings and originate from a natural law that is written on the hearts and consciences of all by our Creator. This principle, expressed so eloquently by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and which served as the cornerstone of the common law system for centuries, is sadly being eroded. The inevitable result is a subjective system of jurisprudence grounded in nothing more than the whims of judges and legislators. Governments have no natural right to abolish or to compromise the rights of the people because such rights are rooted in a higher and objective order. Recognition of this principle, which was universally accepted by our founding fathers, serves as a strong check against intrusions by the government upon the liberty and dignity of individuals. Secondly, I believe, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best which governs least." As such, I believe that the power of the federal government should be limited to the enumerated powers set forth in the U.S. Constitution, and that our state and local governments and our courts should limit intrusions into the lives of its citizenry only to the extent that such intrusions are necessary. I believe that concentration of power ? especially concentration of governmental power ? stifles liberty and invites corruption. Lastly, I believe that judges have a duty to faithfully apply the law and not to create law under the guise of interpretation. When judges legislate from the bench, the rightful authority of the elected representatives of the people is usurped, which undermines the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers established by our founding fathers. When courts legislate from the bench, this results in a corruption of law and a perversion of our constitutional principles.
Is there a particular judge, past or present, whom you admire?
I admire Justice Benjamin Curtis, the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the dissenting opinion in the infamous Dred Scott case. Justice Curtis noted in his dissenting opinion that when the subjective views of judges are permitted to determine the interpretation of the Constitution, then we no longer have a Constitution. Our nation is a constitutional republic, which means that the Constitution provides the objective framework for the limitations of government power, the protection of our rights and the structure of our federal system. Our founding fathers established a Constitution with a fixed meaning - not a sitting constitutional convention of nine unelected lawyers who interpret the Constitution not according to what it says but according to what they think it should say. Justice Benjamin Curtis did an great job in his dissenting opinion in pointing out this flaw in constitutional jurisprudence, which is so prevalent today.
Have you ever been rated by a Bar Association? If so, what was the rating?
In the most recent HBA Bar Poll, I was rated as being either Outstanding or Above Average by nearly three quarters or more of family law practitioners in Harris and surrounding counties in every single judicial evaluation category.
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.
Noteworthy cases
Sanctions against state child protection agency
In August 2016, Schmude issued an order sanctioning the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) that included the following requirement:
| “ | all individuals currently employed by TDFPS who were affiliated with any investigation or conservatorship placement related to the parties and/or to the child the subject of this suit, including but not limited to caseworkers, supervisors and program directors, to read Chapter 262 of the Texas Family Code and Article 1 of the Texas Constitution (“BILL OF RIGHTS”). | ” |
| —Judge John Schmude[9] | ||
Schmude’s order required all TDFPS personnel involved in the case to submit a sworn statement stating that he or she had read those documents, and he strongly suggested that those documents, as well as the U.S. Constitution, should be read by all TDFPS personnel within Harris County, Texas. The agency was also required to reimburse the plaintiff for legal fees in the amount of $27,500. The decision arose from a lawsuit filed by a parent seeking sanctions against TDFPS for unlawfully removing his daughter from his home during a child custody proceeding in 2014. Schmude determined that the agency acted improperly and misled the court during that case and decided that sanctions were appropriate and necessary to educate TDFPS personnel and deter future violations.[10]
See also
| Harris County, Texas | Texas | Municipal government | Other local coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
 |
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Official campaign website of John Schmude, "About John," cached August 6, 2014
- ↑ Official campaign website of John Schmude, "Home," cached August 6, 2014
- ↑ Dave Beaudoin, "Email communication with John Schmude," May 28, 2017
- ↑ Texas Secretary of State, "2014 March Primary Election Candidate Filings by County (A-L)"
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Texas," archived October 3, 2014
- ↑ Texas Courts Online, "Administrative Judicial Regions," accessed September 12, 2014
- ↑ Texas State Historical Association, "Judiciary," accessed September 12, 2014
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ In the District Court of 247th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas, "In the Interest of J.M.M., a child," accessed July 18, 2017
- ↑ Breitbart, "Texas Judge Orders CPS to Read Constitution After Misleading Court," September 12, 2016
| |||||||||||
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
