Jim Jordan
From Judgepedia
| Texas Supreme Court |
|---|
|
| Sitting Justices |
| Wallace Jefferson Don Willett Harriet O'Neill David Medina Paul Green Nathan Hecht Dale Wainwright Phil Johnson Scott Brister |
| Former justices |
| Texas on Judgepedia |
Contents |
Jim Jordan was the 2008 Democratic candidate for Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, challenging current Chief Justice, Republican Wallace Jefferson. Jordan currently serves as a District Judge of the 160th District Court in Dallas County. He received his Law degree from Texas Tech University in 1977 after obtaining a Bachelor of Arts from Austin College in 1974. Jordan lost in his bid for the Chief Justice of the State's highest court.
2008 General Election results
- Justice Wallace Jefferson won reelection, defeating both Democrat Jim Jordan and Libertarian candidate Tom Oxford on November 4. Jefferson received 53% of the vote to Jordan's 44% and Oxford's 3%.[1]
For more information see the article Texas Supreme Court elections.
Legal biography
- District Judge, 160th District Court, Dallas County
- Local Administrative District Judge, Dallas County
- Dallas County Juvenile Board
- Attorney at Law, Licensed 1977 by the Supreme Court of Texas
- Civil Trial Specialist, Texas Board of Legal Specialization, 1984 - present*Former State District Judge, 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas
- Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller, L.L.P., Partner, 2000-2006
- The Jordan Law Firm/Jordan Cox & Reznicek/Jordan & Blanscet, 1996-2000
- Middleberg, Riddle & Gianna (formerly Riddle & Brown, P.C.), Director & Chair of Commercial Litigation Section, Dallas, Texas, 1987-1996
- Former Assistant City Attorney, Garland, Texas, 1983-1984
Lecturer
- Prior Instructor at SMU School of Law, Trial Advocacy Class
- Instructor at LSU School of Law, Trial Advocacy Class
- Instructor for the ABA National Institute for Trial Advocacy & Deposition Courses
- Lecturer and author for CLE programs sponsored by the State Bar of Texas, the Center for American and International Law, the National Business Institute, Inc., and the Texas City Attorney Association.
Awards and associations
- American Board of Trial Advocates
- Texas Association of Defense Counsel (former member)
- William Mac Taylor Inn of Court
- The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London, England (former)
- College of the State Bar
- Garland Bar Association (President ‘87-88)
- Dallas Bar Association
- Texas Bar Foundation
- American Bar Association
- Appointed to the District 6A Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas for the 2002 - 2005, and 2005-2008 terms (resigned upon taking the bench)
Campaign contributions
According to the most recent campaign disclosure report, Jordan has raised $36,270 for his 2008 Texas Supreme Court challenge. Approximately 61% or $22,275 of his donations has come from lawyers and lobbyists. His opponent Wallace Jefferson has outraised him nearly ten fold with $309,023 on hand as of the most recent disclosure filing.[2] To view the complete summary, visit Follow the Money.
Candidates in their own words
Dallas Morning News Questionnaire. For the complete questionnaire, click here.
Why should voters choose you over your opponent?
"I bring a wide range of legal experience and leadership to the highest civil court in Texas. I have served as a trial judge for the 44th and 160th District Courts in Dallas County. I am and have been since 1984 certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the Texas Board of Specialization, a specialization earned by less than two percent of the attorneys in Texas. Before going on the bench, I had over 25 years experience in representing, in both trial and appeals court, a wide variety of clients, including small business men and women, police officers, individuals, and businesses as both plaintiff and defendant. I am a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates, an organization that recognizes only the most experienced attorneys representing both plaintiffs and defendants whose purpose is to protect the right of trial by jury for all citizens, and the William Mac Taylor Inn of Court, the purpose of which is to mentor younger attorneys and to support the Constitution. My leadership experience includes serving as President of the Garland Bar Association, co-chairing committees of the Dallas Bar Association, and presently serving as the Local Administrative District Judge for 39 Dallas County District Court Judges. Because the Texas Supreme Court hears a variety of different types of cases, my broad experience makes me uniquely qualified to serve. I have prior judicial experience on the bench, which my opponent did not have prior to his appointment by Gov. Perry. As a trial judge, I have encountered first hand the legal issues that the Supreme Court ultimately reviews, including the frontline reality of the application of the rules and decisions handed down by it. The Chief Justice is the leader of the entire judicial branch. My service in leadership positions for both attorneys and judges gives me the experience to take on this leadership position with confidence."
What value do you place on precedents? What would motivate you to deviate from precedent?
"If a legal issue has been previously decided, the ruling becomes precedent and therefore binding for that same issue when the issue arises again in the future. While the legislature is free to change the laws, a court should not overrule its own precedent unless there is an extremely compelling reason to do so. Brown v. the Board of Education, which did away with the cruel fallacy of “separate but equal” public education systems is an example. Precedent is critical to the Rule of Law because is provides stability and predictability for our legal system, and allows us to know how our conduct and decisions will be treated by the law."
Does the Court have the right to intervene if the Texas Legislature fails to fund key constitutional responsibilities such as schools, jails and highway? If so, how does the court enforce that obligation?
"The Court has the right to consider any case brought before it that is within its jurisdiction. Whether there would be any “intervention” would depend upon the Constitutional provision at issue, the law surrounding it, and the specific facts of the case. Historically, in Texas, a ruling of unconstitutionality has prompted the Legislature to act. Whether the Legislative remedy is adequate may then be challenged in court. It is not the role of the Court to set policy."
