Does the Texas judicial system's approach to recusal, in conjunction with judges' collaborative fundraising and expenditure activities, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantees?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Does the Texas judicial system's approach to recusal, in conjunction with judges' collaborative fundraising and expenditure activities, as viewed under the due process requirements established in Williams v. Pennsylvania and Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantees? This inquiry examines whether these practices, along with failures of lower courts to ensure impartial tribunals and systemic judicial misconduct, demand a Supreme Court review to affirm — constitutional principles of fairness, impartiality, and freedom from bias in the judiciary, especially in light of potential conflicts of interest arising from judges' joint campaign activities or shared financial resources. 2. In the context of the principles established in Williams v. Pennsylvania and Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., does the Texas system's handling of judicial recusal and disclosure rules sufficiently protect parties' due process rights? This question probes whether the Texas framework for judicial recusal, particularly when judges are involved in collective fundraising and expenditure matters, aligns with Supreme Court precedent to ensure that parties and judges can make informed decisions about potential : conflicts of interest. It explores whether the state's approach effectively safeguards against judicial bias and conflicts of interest, especially in cases where a judge serves in both trial and ii appellate roles, or where judges campaign together, thereby necessitating Supreme Court intervention to uphold the integrity of the legal oO -process and to establish guidelines for addressing systemic deficiencies in the judiciary and find . remedy. 3. Does the imposition of excessive court costs, attorney fees, and judgments on civil litigants, resulting from judicial -bias, procedural irregularities, and failure of justices to recuse themselves, violate the Eighth Amendment's ; prohibitions against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, necessitating Supreme Court intervention to ensure the application of ; Eighth Amendment protections in the civil context? ; ; 4. Considering the extensive financial burdens, procedural hurdles, and the prevalence of judicial : misconduct, including judges’ delayed recusals in instances of bias, political or personal ’ connections, lack of legal competence, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, does this pattern infringe upon the Fourteenth Amendment and other constitutional provisions ensuring due process, access to courts, and equal protection, © thus necessitating a Supreme Court review to ; . affirm the principles of fairness, integrity, and . equitable access in the judicial process for all, regardless of financial capacity? | iii .