More chaos has ensued since The Dallas Express first reported that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct appeared to have lost an election fraud complaint filed by Ian Camacho against Loving County Judge Skeet Lee Jones.
Camacho, a Texas-based election integrity activist, received a letter from the agency on August 2 stating, “We have received your complaint against a Texas judge. All complaints receive a thorough review and investigation relevant to the allegations and are presented to the Commission.”
The letter then stated that state law prohibited the agency from referring to the accused judge by name and that it would only refer to the case number: “CJC No. 24-1096.”
However, the case number was incorrect.
After a lengthy exchange with Camacho, who pointed out the error, the commission officer realized it was a “transcription error” and noted that the case was CJC No. 24-1069, not CJC No. 24-1096.
Still, Camacho does not feel confident that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) did not lose his complaint. DX previously reported that Camacho sent the complaint via certified U.S. Mail, which was signed for at the SCJC P.O. Box on April 9; however, an administrative assistant who answered the agency’s phone told Camacho they never received it.
In the numerous emails Camacho shared with DX, he pressed the responding information officer for confirmation that the agency had his complaint, despite initial confusion about whether the complaint was lost or if he was referring to a separate, earlier complaint.
Eventually, he was emailed a scanned copy of the envelope in which his complaint would have been sent, but it did not include the original complaint or a copy.
SCJC sent duplicative responses with conflicting information regarding another of Camacho’s complaints against Jones in November 2023.
Both letters referred to similar alleged election misconduct on the part of Jones in the 2022 primary. Yet despite comprising nearly identical language, one response stated that SCJC would close out the complaint on April 10, 2024, and the other said April 11, 2024.
Both letters showed the misspelling of Camacho as “Camancho.” These letters were signed by General Counsel Zindia Thomas and numbered 24-0196, a bizarre similarity to the most recent case number.
The current complaint regards alleged ultra vires action on the part of Jones, DX reported.
Jones and three other men were indicted for cattle rustling in 2023. According to SCJC’s website, the commission suspended Jones without pay for a “Pending Criminal Matter.”
Nevertheless, numerous documents previously reported by DX indicate that he continued to sign off on official documents in his capacity as a county judge, including the Democratic Party’s March notice of primary election.
Camacho believes this to be a violation of “the Texas State Constitution and Commission on Judicial Conduct.” If correct, such a violation could result in Jones’ removal from his seat.
However, replacing the county judge would be extremely difficult. Loving County is only populated by 64 people, according to the most recent Census. Moreover, state law has stringent qualifications to serve in this role, such as a law degree and several years of experience in certain legal positions, so it is unlikely a replacement could be quickly found amongst such a small population.
“I’m going to have to file this again and make sure they got it because I’m still not entirely sure that they did, let alone that they entered it correctly,” Camacho told DX.
“I mean, there’s no point in getting this far and quitting. Maybe next time the SCJC will give this complaint a number other than 0196, 1069, and 1096. Given what you saw with the date and case number issues, they’re either intentionally confusing things or are being negligent and reckless in their responses, with the hope that I give up,” he said.
DX contacted SCJC Executive Director Jacqueline R. Habersham to confirm if the complaint had been received.
She responded, “Article V, Section 1-a(10) of the Texas Constitution and Section 33.032 [of the Texas Government Code] strictly prohibits this agency from confirming whether a complaint has been received or an investigation is pending against any Texas judge. Therefore, we have no comment with respect to your inquiry.”
The text of that section of the state constitution reads,”(10) All papers filed with and proceedings before the Commission or a Master shall be confidential, unless otherwise provided by law, and the filing of papers with, and the giving of testimony before the Commission or a Master shall be privileged, unless otherwise provided by law.”
Yet the constitution provides a caveat, “However, the Commission may issue a public statement through its executive director or its Chairman at any time during any of its proceedings under this Section when sources other than the Commission cause notoriety concerning a Judge or the Commission itself and the Commission determines that the best interests of a Judge or of the public will be served by issuing the statement.”
Section 33.032 of the Texas Government Code states, “If the commission issues an order suspending a judge who has been indicted for a criminal offense, the order, any withdrawal of the order, and all records and proceedings related to the suspension shall be public.”
