A judicial misconduct complaint filed more than a year ago against Jeff Davis County Justice of the Peace Mary Ann Luedecke is advancing toward consideration by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Journalist and Big Bend Reporter publisher David Flash filed the complaint in April 2025. In a July 14 letter, the commission said its investigation remains active and that the matter will be presented to the full commission once investigators complete their work.
“We will be presenting this matter to the Commission as soon as we have completed our investigation, and we will notify you of their decision,” the agency wrote.
The letter did not provide a date for the commission’s review or indicate what action investigators may recommend. The agency acknowledged the length of the process and thanked Flash for his patience.
Flash said commission investigator Ron Bennett contacted him after receiving the mailed complaint and conducted an extensive interview about the allegations.
Bennett explained that many complaints received by the commission are outcome-based, meaning they come from people who are unhappy with a judge’s ruling rather than alleging actual judicial misconduct. Judges may issue decisions that a party believes are legally wrong, but those disputes generally belong in the appeals process.
Judicial misconduct is different because it involves allegations that a judge stepped outside the proper legal process or misused the authority of the office.
According to Flash, Bennett told him that if his complaint did not involve the type of conduct the commission was established to investigate, “we wouldn’t be talking.”
Flash’s complaint is not based merely on disagreement with a ruling. It alleges a broader pattern of retaliation, conflicts of interest, procedural manipulation and conduct outside normal judicial functions.
Among the conduct under review is an October 2023 courthouse incident in which Flash alleges Luedecke personally attempted to detain him after he photographed a sign outside her office.
Flash later submitted video that he says directly contradicts statements Luedecke provided to prosecutors with the Office of the Texas Attorney General. He alleges those statements included fabricated dialogue, a false claim that he committed contempt in a courtroom and an accusation that he fled the courthouse, none of which is supported by the video.
The complaint also references allegations that Luedecke circulated a regional law-enforcement warning identifying Flash as a “First Amendment auditor” and joined County Attorney Glen Eisen in warning other officials that such an auditor was “on the loose.”
Flash further alleges that Luedecke generated a mock warrant notice containing his home address despite no charge having been filed at the time. Luedecke reportedly described the notice as part of a training exercise involving new court software.
Those allegations were summarized in June by UCLA law professor and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh in a Reason column about Flash’s separate federal civil-rights lawsuit against Jeff Davis County and several county officials.
Volokh cited a report and recommendation from U.S. Magistrate Judge David Fannin that recounted allegations involving Luedecke’s attempted detention of Flash, the regional alert, the mock warrant notice and a failure-to-appear report that allegedly prevented Flash from renewing his driver’s license.
The federal court’s summary also states that Luedecke filed the harassment charge against Flash that was later dismissed. At this stage of the federal litigation, the claims remain allegations and have not been established as findings of fact.
Flash also submitted materials alleging that Luedecke negotiated and acted on a plea agreement through his former attorney without Flash’s knowledge, consent or participation.
He further alleges that Luedecke granted the attorney’s motion to withdraw as though it were unopposed, even though Flash had expressly objected. Flash contends he was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard on both matters.
Another portion of the complaint concerns a September 2024 request that Luedecke recuse herself from a traffic citation involving Flash.
At the time, Flash had already provided notice of potential civil claims against Luedecke, and Jeff Davis County had retained outside counsel in connection with those claims. Flash told the court that he intended to resolve the citation through the legal process but wanted the matter transferred to an impartial judge.
He also asked for instructions about posting an appeal bond if the citation was not dismissed.
A justice court clerk responded by email that the court did not receive anything electronically, despite the court having received the request and regularly communicating by email.
Flash said no judge addressed the substance of the recusal request, no transfer was initiated and no instructions were provided. Luedecke remained involved in the case despite what Flash contends was a direct conflict of interest.
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has asked Flash to continue submitting any new information relevant to the investigation.
Once investigators finish their review, the complaint will be presented to the commission for a decision.
