With the Hays County district attorney’s race drawing increasing public attention, and because The Hawk’s Eye is an accountability-focused media organization, we continue presenting each candidate’s positions in their own words to provide voters with clear insight into how prosecutorial authority may be exercised by whoever is elected to that office. The same questionnaire previously submitted to another candidate was received from Landon Campbell on February 18, 2026. Campbell’s responses address issues including political influence, transparency, evidentiary standards, diversion outcomes, and internal accountability within the district attorney’s office.

Early voting in the Hays County Democratic primary is scheduled to run from February 17, 2026, through February 27, 2026with Election Day set for March 3, 2026.

With both Democratic candidates now having submitted responses to The Hawk’s Eye questionnaire, voters have the opportunity to compare each candidate’s stated positions. Campbell maintains a public campaign presence through his website and social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, where additional information about his background, platform, and community engagement may be available. As always, readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and review each candidate’s materials when making an informed decision at the polls.

The following are the questions presented by The Hawk’s Eye and Campbell’s complete responses.

What written policies would you implement to ensure prosecutorial decisions remain insulated from political influence by donors, party leaders, or elected officials?

Prosecutorial decisions should never be influenced by donors, party leaders, or other elected officials outside of the criminal justice system, period.  I am happy to put those exact words in a written policy for the DA’s Office.  When cases do reach the stage where outside political influence may arise (about 2% of all cases), prosecutors are expected to handle the cases without reference to the outside pressure.  I already make clear to line prosecutors that they must handle the case without outside pressure, and I will continue to do so.  A prosecutor’s job is to see that justice is done and that is what we should all work towards.

Have you ever faced pressure—political, institutional, or internal—to handle a case a certain way, and how did you respond?

Yes, outside environmental pressures often come to bear in consideration of cases.  Not necessarily one viewpoint on one case, but broad viewpoints on whole categories of cases.  But a prosecutor’s job is to see that justice is done, regardless of the pressures, and that is how I have operated in my career.  

Would you publicly disclose meetings or communications with elected officials regarding pending criminal matters?

 If a public official is the subject of a pending criminal matter, then the district attorney’s office should not be meeting with them about the matter, and will only communicate through a defense attorney.  That information, aside from publicly available information, should not be made publicly because a case would be ongoing.  If they are not the subject of the criminal matter or involved in some ancillary way (say by being a witness), then that meeting should not be occurring in the first place.  Meetings regarding a criminal matter should be reserved to representatives of the State and Defense in an individual case.  

How would you ensure independent and unbiased investigations or prosecutions involving high-profile public officials in Hays County, particularly if those individuals previously supported or donated to your campaign?

As part of my desire to strengthen our Intake Division, I will be asking the Commissioner’s Court to fund, at-least, a part time prosecutor position to handle white-collar and public integrity prosecutions.  I believe that that specialization will professionalize two areas of prosecution that have previously been allowed to rest at the bottom of line-prosecutors to-do piles.  Starting there, the assigned prosecutor can actively engage with law enforcement to ensure that investigations collect all necessary information in a timely manner to make an appropriate end decision.  Having a specialized decision also allows for insulation from any pressures that might be attempted to influence the prosecution.  This would be a professional line prosecutor with experience at handling high-stress cases.

Would you commit to requesting an outside prosecutor in cases involving political supporters or county leadership, and what objective standard would trigger that decision?

I believe that requesting an outside prosecutor would certainly always be an option if a case arose involving a close personal acquaintance, political associate, or member of county leadership.  However, I can commit that those relationships will never interfere with the DA’s Office’s willingness to see that justice is done in a particular case.  I have prosecuted individuals who later became friends, and have prosecuted former friends who understood that it was part of the job.  There is no bright line point at which I could definitively say that the concern would warrant a requirement to seek an outside prosecutor.  As a cautionary note, I have seen previous cases where a special prosecutor was brought in and the case fell to the back-burner of the special prosecutor’s attention (they have their own county’s cases to deal with after all), I think that maintaining a case in Hays County with a prosecutor’s office ready to address it will often be the best path.

Should campaign-finance relationships ever require mandatory recusal by a district attorney?

I believe that a significant-enough campaign-finance relationship on a higher-level charge would likely warrant heavy recusal consideration and I commit to recusing in that circumstance.  While I appreciate a desire for absolutes, a district attorney’s office with the breadth of representation found in Hays is going to require nuance.  For instance, it will heavily depend on the severity of the charges and the significance of the donation.  Obviously, if an individual donates a significant amount of money and commits an offense that would come under the direct review of the district attorney, there is significant cause for concern and a recusal decision will need to be heavily considered.  However, if we are discussing a smaller and more remote donation from a defendant accused of an offense that might not even come within the attention of the elected district attorney, then recusal will likely not be pursued.  Unless state laws provide clear boundaries, these decisions will likely have to be taken one by one.

Will you publish declination decisions, Brady disclosures, or disciplinary findings involving prosecutors?

I will comply with all laws surrounding public information requests but will not be publishing case resolution decisions that will likely be subject to expunction requests, information that will be subject to employment restrictions, and civil service law restrictions. 

How should the DA’s Office handle public-information requests that could expose internal mistakes or misconduct?

If there is not a material exception to generally applicable public-information request law for a particular matter, then the DA’s Office should release that information.  If there is an exception, then there is likely a good reason to exercise the exclusion. 

What safeguards prevent plea-deal disparities between represented and unrepresented defendants?

In early 2018-19, Hays County courts tolerated relatively large dockets of unrepresented defendants.  Due to constant prompting and pressure from prosecutors, more efforts have been taken to appoint counsel where appropriate.  So, today, we have relatively few defendants ultimately proceeding unrepresented.  Where a defendant does choose to proceed unrepresented, they get the same offer that would be made to represented defendants and the same ability to respond with considered counter-offers.  Unrepresented defendants are treated no different from represented defendants. 

What evidentiary threshold should apply when considering criminal charges against a peace officer for on-duty conduct?

The evidentiary threshold for any criminal action to proceed to court is a finding of probable cause.  This is the same standard regardless of if it is a non-law enforcement member of the community or an officer.  If we have cases where we believe that probable cause exists that an officer violated a criminal statute by going beyond the reasonable limits of their service, we can take that case to the Grand Jury for potential indictment as we have done several times in the last three years.

How will you address credibility issues involving repeat law-enforcement witnesses?

Credibility issues run a pretty healthy and nuanced spectrum.  We have officer disclosures referencing extremely minor concerns and officer disclosures that essentially mean a prosecutor would not be willing to sponsor a given officer’s testimony.  When we have extremely significant credibility concerns, the District Attorney’s Office communicates that with law enforcement and their individual office’s internal civil service employment decisions run their course.  Typically, when a significant enough issue arises and we relay our concerns, it will be something that law enforcement leadership already is acting upon through the civil service process.  

Which three measurable metrics best determine whether a DA’s Office is succeeding?

First, average time from reception of cases to filing decision (charging/indictment/decline) will allow a good measure point to ensure that, regardless of what the answer is, cases are being addressed in a timely manner that recognizes rights to speedy trial and the real-world impacts of criminal cases on both victims and defendants.  Second, recidivism rates in diversion or specialty programs will allow us to view the success of efforts to provide alternatives to traditional prosecution.  If we need to refocus our efforts, then this is typically the best way to determine what is working and what is not working. Finally, average case-resolution times post-arraignment, put another way, how long a case is taking to resolve once defense counsel, the state, and the court are fully involved.  This will be an indicator of multiple different factors, such as whether discovery has been provided and collected effectively, attorneys are working well together in the macro, and questions are being answered efficiently.  

What backlog level is unacceptable, and what structural reform would you implement within six months to prevent recurrence?

Rather than give a number that may fluctuate highly with population growth, I believe that cases should have some final charging decision no later than six months from arrest, whether that is charging or declining.  And to be clear, I believe that this should be an outer limit that is only necessary for the most complex cases.  My goal is for 90% of cases to have an initial charging decision within two to three weeks of arrest.  Three years ago, we had roughly 5,600 cases waiting for a final filing decision.  That meant that victims and defendants were waiting up to a year commonly before they would get the chance to go into the courtroom.  We have reduced that by around 70% by strengthening our evidence procurement processes, developing an intake division, and setting heightened expectations for case reviews.  Going forward, I would like to strengthen our intake division by adding at least one additional attorney so that cases can be reviewed in a more efficient manner.  Additionally, I would like to continue strengthening our new case management and evidence collection system, TechShare, which was launched late last year.  The launch will eventually streamline all aspects of evidence transfer; however, as with any new system, it will take time to fully implement with partner law enforcement agencies.  

How should diversion-program success be measured beyond completion rates?

One of the best measures of success is overall recidivism rate.  Simple completion doesn’t matter at all if individuals are completing and then committing new offenses that bring them back into the criminal justice system.  The intensive programs that underlay our division courts typically require a great deal of inner-change that means we see massive changes in forward-looking behavior.  While overall quality of life and ability to give back to the community are also extremely great intangible results of diversion programs, the recidivism statistic is probably the best determinate of measurable success. 

When does mercy become unequal justice?

Mercy becomes injustice when it is applied capriciously and without a single universal guiding principle.  For instance, giving two different results to similarly situated defendants because one has an expensive attorney and the other chose to represent herself.  We have worked to remove many of these potential disparate results by implementing key benchmarks and metrics within many of our diversion programs that look to the individual case facts and personal history behind a case.  We want prosecutors that are able and willing to see the humanity behind a case; however, it can’t be done without generally applicable guiding principles.  

What is one prosecution decision you believe most district attorneys get wrong?

I believe that many district attorneys forget that a prosecutor can both believe in support services for mental health, substance abuse issues, and other rehabilitative causes but also focus on violent crime and take steps to protect the community from violent crime.  This somewhat goes to the ‘mercy’ question above.  We can have common sense prosecution that works to get people help while not sacrificing public safety.  A good district attorney’s office can do both and not sacrifice one for the other.  

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing about a Texas judge filing a lawsuit over same-sex wedding refusals.

Or you may find our publishing on a TABC agent receiving a stipend for a degree he didn’t hold, of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---