Justice, Supreme Court of Texas, Place 2 (unexpired term)

⚠️This seat is for an unexpired term, which is how the certification prints it: the heading on the Secretary of State’s ballot certification reads "JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT, PLACE 2 (UNEXPIRED TERM)". The seat was Jimmy Blacklock’s until he became Chief Justice, and the court’s own page (www.txcourts.gov/supreme/about-the-court/justices) records that James P. Sullivan was "appointed to the Supreme Court of Texas by Governor Greg Abbott in January 2025" to Place 2. The Supreme Court of Texas is the state’s highest court for civil cases; criminal appeals go to the Court of Criminal Appeals instead, and three of those seats are on this ballot too. Nine justices sit on it, elected statewide to six-year terms that are staggered, which is why four of the nine seats — Chief Justice, Place 2, Place 7 and Place 8 — are on the 2026 ballot and five are not. This is the court that decided the central cannabis question of this cycle. On 2026-05-01 it decided No. 23-0887, Texas Department of State Health Services v. Sky Marketing Corp., argued 2026-01-14, holding that the health commissioner may treat manufactured delta-8 THC as a controlled substance and reversing the Travis County injunction that had kept the 2021 schedules out of force. The opinion (www.txcourts.gov/media/1462654/230887.pdf) closes: "We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals as to standing and reverse as to the ultra vires and APA claims. We render judgment reversing the trial court’s order that granted the temporary injunction." ⚠️Who decided it, exactly, and what that does not tell you. The opinion was delivered by Justice Evan A. Young, who is not on this ballot. It prints no concurrence and no dissent, and the only member it names otherwise is in one line: "Justice Sullivan did not participate in the decision." A Texas Supreme Court opinion of the Court does not list the justices who joined it, so this site records which candidates were members of the deciding court on that date — a fact their own court publishes — and does not attribute a separate writing to any of them. And in this race that line names a candidate. The one justice the delta-8 opinion singles out is the sitting justice in this seat: "Justice Sullivan did not participate in the decision." The opinion gives no reason, and this site does not supply one — a recusal, an absence and a disqualification all print the same way. More of this Court’s cannabis record, read from its own pages on 2026-10-16. Smokable hemp, 2022: on 2022-06-24 the court decided No. 21-1045, Texas Department of State Health Services v. Crown Distributing LLC (opinion: www.txcourts.gov/media/1454470/211045.pdf), a direct appeal from a Travis County judgment that had permanently blocked the state’s ban on processing and manufacturing smokable hemp products. It held that the hemp companies’ complaints "do not assert the deprivation of an interest substantively protected by the Texas Constitution's due-course clause", reasoning that "the manufacture and processing of smokable hemp products is neither a liberty interest nor a vested property interest the due-course clause protects." Because the department no longer defended the part of its rule that banned the distribution and retail sale of smokable products, the opinion records that "the trial court's injunction against enforcement of that portion remains"; the rest of the judgment was reversed. Justice Boyd, who is not on this ballot, delivered the opinion of the Court, and its heading records: "JUSTICE YOUNG filed a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice Hecht, Justice Devine, and Justice Blacklock joined." That concurrence (www.txcourts.gov/media/1454471/211045c.pdf) is the only role the opinion prints for anyone on this ballot: Jimmy Blacklock joined it. Brett Busby was a member of the court that day, appointed in 2019 by the court’s own account; the opinion names no justice as joining the Court’s opinion, so none is attributed to him. James P. Sullivan and Kyle Hawkins joined the court in 2025 and were not members. The City marijuana ordinances, 2025—2026: the court’s published order lists record what it did with the State’s suits against San Marcos, Austin and Elgin, which this site’s local-law record identifies as the suits over those cities’ voter-approved marijuana ordinances. On 2025-09-12 it denied review in No. 25-0439, City of San Marcos v. State, from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals’ No. 15-24-00084-CV, decided 2025-04-17 (order list: www.txcourts.gov/media/1461266/supreme-court-of-texas-orders-09-12-2025.pdf); the order list prints no non-participation note on that entry. On 2025-12-19 it denied review in No. 25-0591, City of Austin v. State, from that court’s No. 15-24-00077-CV, decided 2025-04-24, and the entry carries the note "(Justice Sullivan not participating)" (order list: www.txcourts.gov/media/1461782/supreme-court-of-texas-orders-12-19-2025.pdf). On 2026-02-27 it denied rehearing in the San Marcos case, and that entry carries the same note (order list: www.txcourts.gov/media/1462244/supreme-court-of-texas-orders-02-27-2026.pdf). On 2026-09-18, in No. 25-0973, Paris v. State, the Elgin case, it granted review on joint motions and, "without hearing oral argument or considering the merits", ordered: "the Court vacates the judgment of the court of appeals and dismisses the case as moot. The Court denies the Petitioner's request to vacate the court of appeals' opinion." That entry too carries the note "(Justice Sullivan not participating)" (order list: www.txcourts.gov/media/1463341/supreme-court-of-texas-orders-09-18-2026.pdf). ⚠️What these orders are not. Denying review is not a decision on the merits; it leaves the court of appeals’ decision standing. The order lists record no justice’s vote on any petition and give no reason for any non-participation, so this site attributes no vote to anyone and supplies no reason. Kyle Hawkins was appointed in October 2025, after the first of these orders. The court of appeals whose judgment No. 23-0887 reviewed was the Third Court of Appeals: the Supreme Court’s order list for 2026-05-01 shows the case as coming from its No. 03-21-00571-CV, decided 2023-09-28 and reported at 711 S.W.3d 227 (www.txcourts.gov/media/1462650/supreme-court-of-texas-orders-05-01-2026.pdf). Chari Kelly sat on that court in 2023, by the Texas Tribune’s account cited on her card, but neither that order list nor the Supreme Court’s opinion names the justices who decided the appeal, so no part of that judgment is attributed to her. The candidates’ silence here is required, not evasive. The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5(1)(i), says a judge or judicial candidate shall not "make pledges or promises of conduct in office regarding pending or impending cases, specific classes of cases, specific classes of litigants, or specific propositions of law that would suggest to a reasonable person that the judge is predisposed to a probable decision". Hemp and cannabis cases are exactly such a class of cases before this court, so this site does not read a judicial candidate’s silence the way it reads a legislator’s, and it does not send these candidates a questionnaire. (Texas Code of Judicial Conduct: www.txcourts.gov/media/1462935/texas-state-code-of-judicial-conduct.pdf)

All 2 candidates on this ballot are listed.