Clint
vs
Scott.

There are several key differences between Clint Morgan and Scott Walker that Republican voters should consider.

Clint is the clear choice for a better Court of Criminal Appeals.

Clint
vs
Scott.

There are several key differences between Clint Morgan and Scott Walker that Republican voters should consider.

Clint
is the
clear choice
for the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

CLINT MORGAN
SCOTT WALKER
Legal Briefs Written
375+ briefs written
“over 100” briefs written*
Wins at the Court of Criminal Appeals
10 wins
1 win
Board-Certified in Criminal Appellate Law
Prosecutor
Originalist Track Record
*source: campaign website

Career prosecutor not pro-defendent activist

First, there’s a difference in philosophy. Scott Walker is a former defense lawyer who consistently pushes the Court in a pro-defendant direction. Scott Walker has never dissented to a case where a defendant won. Clint is a career prosecutor who will respect the rights defendants have and not use the court to create new ones.

High productivity for swift justice.

Second, Scott Walker is the least productive judge in the recorded history of the Court, averaging a paltry four opinions per year. At his salary of $184,800, that’s $46,200 per opinion.

Clint is the most productive appellate prosecutor in Harris County, and one of the most productive in the state. In nine and a half years he’s written nearly 400 briefs. Clint will speed up the Court of Criminal Appeals to ensure the court delivers justice quicker, and keeps lower court activists under control.

Career Excellence and Experience.

Third, Clint is Board Certified in Criminal Appellate law, and has much more experience with criminal appeals than Scott Walker had when elected five years ago.

Pol. ad. paid for by the Clint Morgan for Judge campaign in compliance with the voluntary limits of the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act.