Commentary

Newly Elected Democratic County Judges Introduce Major New Bail Reform Changes

NNPA NEWSWIRE — “…backlash resulted in Harris County voters showing up to the polls and sending those judges packing, allowing a new crop of Democratic judges to take up the issue of bail reform in a swift and more progressive manner after being sworn in on January 1.”

Published

6 years ago

January 23, 2019

Oakland Post

By Jeffrey L. Boney, NNPA Newswire Political Analyst

There is an old saying that “elections have consequences” and in Harris County, Texas, that saying has new meaning.

This past November, Democrats swept every single race in Harris County during the midterm elections, turning the county completely blue. Prior to the midterm elections, one of the most controversial and highly charged issues at the county level involved bail reform.

There was heavy pushback against bail reform in Harris County, mostly from the Republican judges who had served on the bench for years, which caused backlash amongst many activists and community leaders. That backlash resulted in Harris County voters showing up to the polls and sending those judges packing, allowing a new crop of Democratic judges to take up the issue of bail reform in a swift and more progressive manner after being sworn in on January 1.

This new slate of 15 Democratic county judges recently held a major press conference at the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs building located at Texas Southern University, along with Harris County Criminal Court at Law Judge Darrell Jordan, who has been on the bench since 2017 and who was the first judge to implement bail reform locally, and many other key county elected officials such as new County Judge Lina Hidalgo, and other activists and community leaders, to unveil significant revisions to Harris County’s current bail system.

Jordan announced the passage of Local Rule 9.1, which is a new bail rule that was drafted by the judges, with significant input from Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, as well as from the lawyers who represent the indigent defendants that have been impacted by Harris County’s unconstitutional bail system.

The county contingent believes this change will finally bring effective bail reform to Harris County, and they plan to present this adopted new bail reform change to a federal judge to request it be implemented immediately in order to settle the civil rights lawsuit that has been filed against Harris County. According to county officials, Harris County has spent roughly $9 million in public funds on three outside private law firms to defend itself against the 2016 lawsuit that brought by two civil rights groups and a local law firm on behalf of indigent defendants who could not pay the necessary money to be released from jail.

“We want to settle this within the first 30 days of the new judges taking office,” said Jordan. “I am pleased that we were able to collaborate to ensure we came up with a rule that was in line with national best practices and something feasible for all parties to carry out. Due to the pending lawsuit we have to request to operate under our new rule. This will be a joint motion from the plaintiffs, DA, Sheriff, and the judges. It is our plan to have this up in running in the next 35 days.”

Under the new bail reform changes, 85 percent of individuals who are arrested on misdemeanor offenses will automatically qualify for release on no-cash bonds, according to county officials.

There are some offenses, for which there are absolutely no exceptions. Those who are not eligible to benefit from the new bail reform rules changes include individuals who have violated bond conditions in an open case, have been charged with domestic violence, have violated a protective order and are facing repeated drunk driving offenses.

Under the proposed new changes, defendants will appear before a magistrate or judge within 48 hours, at which time they may also qualify for a personal recognizance bond.

“This is a history making moment for civil rights not only in Harris County but for the U.S., because as the third-largest county in America, which is larger than 26 states, what we do here will be watched by all and can be emulated or replicated by all,” Jordan continued. “This is significant because what this also means is that no one will be in jail because they cannot afford to get out.”

Back in 2017, Chief U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas handed down a historic 193-page decision, finding that the Harris County money bail system was unconstitutional and ordered Harris County to stop keeping people who had been arrested on misdemeanor charges in jail because they could not pay bail.

In her ruling, Judge Rosenthal highlighted statistics that revealed that 40 percent of the people who had been arrested on misdemeanor charges in Harris County had been arrested and jailed until their cases were resolved, and wrote in her ruling: “Harris County’s policy is to detain indigent misdemeanor defendants before trial, violating equal protection rights against wealth-based discrimination and violating due process protections against pretrial detention.”

She also directly cited an amicus brief in her ruling that was filed by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and Harris County Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis, stating: “An amicus filing by Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund notes that African Americans make up 18 percent of Harris County’s adult population but 48 percent of the Harris County Jail’s adult population. A 2011 study found that in Harris County, 70 percent of White misdemeanor defendants obtain early pretrial release from detention, but only 52 percent of Latino misdemeanor defendants and 45 percent of African American misdemeanor defendants do so. The defendants did not dispute this data.”

This is huge news for many Black, Latino, poor and disadvantaged Harris County residents, who have fallen victim to this law.

Commissioner Ellis believes the new rule changes enacted by the newly elected Harris County Criminal Court judges, who have only been in office for less than a month, demonstrates a clear commitment to upholding the Constitution and finally settling the bail lawsuit in Harris County.

“For too long in Harris County, money has determined whether a person languishes behind bars, separated from their family and denied due process because they cannot afford bail for nonviolent misdemeanors, while others — even those charged with violent crimes — are able to walk free if they can put up the cash,” said Commissioner Ellis. “This is an overdue first step toward leveling a two-tiered justice system, where access to justice, liberty and due process has been based on how much money a person has in their pocket instead of their guaranteed constitutional rights. Harris County will no longer be the largest county in the nation to violate the Constitution with its misdemeanor bail procedures. Instead, Harris County now has an opportunity to take the lead in implementing a holistic pretrial system for misdemeanor cases that upholds the Constitution, safeguards due process and protects our communities.”

Tarsha Jackson, who serves as the director of the Texas Organizing Project’s Right2Justice campaign, released a statement on the bail reform plan unveiled by Harris County, saying:

“Elections have consequences, and this is why TOP devoted so many resources to elections to build the progressive infrastructure that made this bail plan possible. When we launched TOP’s Right2Justice campaign in 2015 after Sandra Bland died in a jail cell in Waller County, one of our priorities was to end the money bail system that kept Ms. Bland behind bars simply because she couldn’t afford the $5,000 bond. The plan offered this week is a monumental start, but there’s still work to be done. We look forward on continuing to work with our elected officials and the community to take on bail reform for felony charges. Money should never be the deciding factor whether a person is released from jail or stays locked up.”

Judge Rosenthal’s ruling served as a severe blow to Harris County, and the results of the midterm elections seemingly delivered the knockout punch needed to reform the bail system, which is a major part of the overall criminal justice system, in Harris County.

As a result of these new proposed bail reform changes, it appears that other Texas counties that have bail systems that mirror that of Harris County’s unconstitutional bail system could finally see changes coming their way real soon as well. Time will tell.

In the meantime, the National Newspaper Publishers Association will continue to monitor the issue as it unfolds, particularly during the current Texas Legislative Session, where state legislators could effectively pass comprehensive bail reform legislation that would legally force the rest of the state of Texas to transform their current bail systems to do what is right and fair for all Texas residents. The results in Texas could bode well for other states across the country.

Jeffrey Boney is a political analyst for the NNPA Newswire and BlackPressUSA.com and the associate editor for the Houston Forward Times newspaper. Jeffrey is an award-winning journalist, dynamic, international speaker, experienced entrepreneur, business development strategist and founder and CEO of the Texas Business Alliance Follow Jeffrey on Twitter @realtalkjunkies.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

MLK@90: NBA legend Bill Walton brings levity, laughter to Grizzlies MLK symposium

Don't Miss

Richmond: Overall violent Crime Down 12 Percent in 2018

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

4 days ago

May 25, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Published

1 week ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

1 week ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.