Low successfully appeals admonishment

A local judge who was admonished by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct for referring to COVID-19 as the “China virus” has won his appeal on the admonishment to the Texas Special Court of Review.

The Special Court of Review, which was created by the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, reversed 161st Ector County District Court Judge Justin Low’s admonishment writing “while we don’t condone Judge Low’s actions we do not find that the comments, when viewed in context, construed a willful violation of the Canons or the Texas Constitution.

“Although we recognize that Judge Low’s comments, particularly those directed at the pandemic, are potentially problematic, we do not find that Judge Low spoke with a ‘conscious objective of manifesting impatience, dis-courteousness, bias or prejudice discouraged by the Canons or Constitution. At best the comments amount to an error in judgment…’”

Low at the time of the appeal said he filed the appeal based on a free speech argument.

Low, who took the bench in 2020, was also ordered to obtain an hour of instruction with an assigned mentor on courtroom demeanor.

According to a commission report, Low was presiding over pre-qualification for jury duty on May 7, 2021, when Low spoke about the “China virus.” Low then said, “Yeah, I said it” and “the attorneys would be upset I said that” to potential jurors. Some of the potential jurors whooped and clapped their hands, and Low encouraged them by laughing and nodding, the report stated.

An Asian-American potential juror reported she felt unsafe and uncomfortable after the comments were made, especially because there had been recent hate crimes committed against Asian-Americans, according to the report.

Low called some of the pre-requisite questions “stupid” and said, “I don’t know why I have to ask this.”

Low testified before the commission he was trying to expose bias and/or prejudices among the potential jurors. He also told the commission he knew it would be offensive to some people, but he was “doing it for a higher purpose.”

Judge appeals admonishment based on ‘free speech’ rights