SUBJECT: Rebuttal of Extra-Legal Claims and Clarification of Tex. Const. Art. V, § 1-a

I. Constitutional Eligibility and Mandatory Retirement Standards

The assertion that the Incumbent is legally precluded from seeking re-election based on chronological age constitutes a fundamental misconstruction of Article V, Section 1-a(1) of the Texas Constitution.

• Rule of Law: A District Judge is rendered ineligible for office only if they have attained the age of 75 years prior to the commencement of the relevant term.

• Application of Fact: Judge Travis Kitchens Jr. attains the age of 75 on May 26, 2027. As he will be 74 years of age on January 1, 2027—the date of term commencement—his eligibility is absolute under prevailing state standards.

• The Continuous Service Proviso: The Texas Constitution explicitly provides for the completion of the full four-year term (2027–2030) for any judge who attains the age of 75 subsequent to the start of said term. Any claim of a "legal bar" to service is, therefore, without merit and legally wrong.

II. Mandatory Recusal, Judicial Ethics, and Emergency Funding

Opposition narratives characterizing judicial recusals as "absenteeism" demonstrate a profound ignorance of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the administrative response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Ethical Mandate: Under Rule 18b, a judge must recuse themselves in proceedings where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Given Judge Kitchens' 41-year tenure in private practice, such recusals are not discretionary "no-shows" but are legally mandated to preserve the integrity of the record.

• Utilization of Emergency Relief Funds: To address the significant court backlogs caused by the pandemic, the 87th Texas Legislature (SB 8) and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) specifically appropriated millions of dollars (including $7,000,000 to the Comptroller's Judiciary Section) for the express purpose of funding visiting judges.

• Fiscal Allocation: The use of visiting judges is a state-sanctioned strategy to ensure the "surge staffing" of courts. Claims of $400,000 in local "taxpayer costs" are actuarially unsubstantiated. By law, the state—utilizing these dedicated COVID-19 relief funds—covers the base salary and daily rates of visiting judges, ensuring that justice continues without imposing a primary fiscal burden on county treasuries.

III. Statutory Retirement and Salary Adjustments

The argument that the Incumbent’s re-election bid is a maneuver to influence pension benefits fails to account for the self-executing nature of the Judicial Retirement System (JRS Plan 2).

• Vesting Milestones: The Incumbent’s retirement eligibility is a byproduct of statutory service requirements. Reaching the 8-year milestone in January 2027 satisfies the vesting requirements for judges reaching the mandatory retirement age.

• Legislative Sovereignty: The recent adjustment of judicial salaries was executed via Senate Bill 293 (89th Legislature). This was a statewide legislative mandate applied to all district judges to ensure competitive compensation; it is not subject to the discretion or "maneuvering" of any individual jurist.

IV. Conclusion

The record establishes that Judge Travis Kitchens Jr. remains in full compliance with all constitutional and statutory requirements for the 258th District Court. Experience in a court of general jurisdiction is a vital state interest. The electorate is encouraged to weigh the verified legal record against extra-judicial campaign rhetoric.