Two Maverick County residents, Rolando Salinas and Roberto De Leon, have filed a verified petition to remove Maverick County Judge Ramsey English Cantu from office.  The petition, which was filed in the 293rd Judicial District Court on April 29, 2026, states that Salinas and De Leon are acting under Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code and have asked a district court judge to cite Cantu to appear for a removal hearing. The petition seeks his temporary suspension and, after trial, permanent removal from office; it asks the court to order a replacement to perform the duties of county judge during the suspension, as allowed by Section 87.017(a) of the Local Government Code.  The petitioners list dozens of exhibits and affidavits to support their accusations and allege that Cantu’s continued service threatens public safety and financial stability, arguing that only suspension can prevent further harm. 

Allegations of Financial Mismanagement and Improper Contracts

At the core of the petition are claims that Judge Cantu repeatedly violated procurement laws and fiscal controls.  The document states that he approved a telecommunications contract for telephone and internet service without following competitive bidding procedures, thereby ignoring statutory duties meant to protect public funds.  Petitioners allege that Cantu oversaw the purchase of $195,000 worth of gym equipment under a grant program but failed to follow procurement requirements; auditors later asked for documentation and found the equipment languishing unpaid in a warehouse while interest accrued.  The petition accuses him of entering into an unfunded interlocal agreement with the City of Eagle Pass for fire and ambulance services, binding the county to obligations that were never budgeted, which, according to the petition, exposed residents to the risk of losing emergency services.  It further claims he neglected to ensure the county paid health‑insurance premiums and claims for county employees, creating potential financial and personal harm for workers and their families.

The petition also alleges that Cantu adopted budgets that were arbitrary and unrealistic.  For example, it says he allocated only $86,000 for sheriff’s deputy overtime even though historical expenditures averaged about $200,000 and budgeted a mere $500 per year for an assistant warden position with an expected salary of about $56,000.  Petitioners argue that he knowingly proposed figures that could not support essential county functions, violating state statutes that require budgets to be prepared in good faith.  They further allege that Cantu refused to sign a purchase order for the county auditor’s independent legal counsel despite approval by the commissioners court, thereby interfering with the auditor’s statutory authority.  He is also accused of trying to issue a tax note on behalf of the county while bypassing the county auditor’s oversight, a move that petitioners contend violated fiscal control laws.

Claims of Misuse of Authority and Grant Mismanagement

Beyond financial mismanagement, the petition accuses Cantu of misusing his authority in several other ways.  It alleges that he allowed the de‑obligation or loss of grant funding—including a $700,000 grant for the sheriff’s office and an auto‑theft grant—by failing to comply with grant conditions and reporting requirements.  Petitioners claim he attempted to divert funds belonging to the county’s Housing Finance Corporation into the county budget to balance accounts, an act they say was illegal because those funds are subject to statutory limitations and contractual obligations.  They also allege that Cantu failed to preserve revenue‑producing intergovernmental agreements with Polk and Webb counties for inmate housing, resulting in lost income for Maverick County.

The document contends that Cantu diverted personnel funding from two district courts—reducing their budgets by roughly $75,000 and $266,000—and then used those funds for unrelated expenses like health‑insurance premiums and a memorial monument.  Petitioners argue that this action interfered with the judiciary by depriving the courts of essential personnel resources, and they claim at least one court will cease to operate most of its docket due to the lack of funding.  The petition also recounts an incident from October 30, 2023, in which Cantu allegedly ordered a citizen’s arrest during a commissioners court meeting for expressing opposition to a financing proposal; the court later determined that Cantu’s contempt authority did not extend to such a summary detention.  Petitioners view these actions collectively as evidence of a pattern of abuse and argue that they warrant both immediate suspension and ultimate removal from office.

Statutory Authority for Suspension and Case Law Background

The petition relies on Section 87.017 of the Texas Local Government Code, which allows a district judge to temporarily suspend a county officer after issuing an order requiring citation and to appoint another person to perform the duties of the office.  The statute also requires the temporary appointee to post a bond before assuming duties and mandates that the county reimburse the suspended officer if the officer is vindicated.  In a letter dated May 1, 2026, to Senior Justice Patricia Alvarez, attorney Poncho Nevárez cited this statute and argued that it grants authority to suspend the Maverick County Judge without a prior hearing, noting that the order requiring citation had already been signed.  He referenced the Texas Supreme Court’s 1907 decision in Griner v. Thomas and the 1889 case Poe v. State, both of which held that statutes authorizing temporary suspension of county officials pending removal proceedings are constitutional and do not require advance notice.  In Griner, the court reasoned that a temporary suspension is merely incidental to a valid removal proceeding and is within the Legislature’s power to authorize.

Nevárez’s letter, included with the petition, contends that these cases remain good law and provide clear precedent for suspending Cantu without a hearing.  He argued that the statutory scheme and case law ensure that such suspensions do not violate officers’ property rights because they occur under pre‑existing law and include safeguards such as the right to a trial and eventual compensation if the suspension proves unjustified.  The petitioners contend that the scope of Cantu’s alleged conduct—ranging from fiscal improprieties to unlawful use of contempt power—justifies invoking these provisions.

Temporary Suspension Ordered and Next Steps

After reviewing the verified petition and attachments, Senior Justice Patricia O. Alvarez issued an order on May 4, 2026, temporarily suspending Judge Cantu pending a trial on the merits, according to a court filing.  Under Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code, the court appointed a replacement to perform county‑judge duties and directed that the appointee post a bond in accordance with Section 87.017.  The order indicates that the allegations show a continuing pattern of conduct affecting county operations and resources, which the court deemed sufficient to justify temporary removal.  A hearing on the petition has not yet been scheduled, but the case will determine whether the judge is ultimately removed from office or reinstated. 

---

---

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

---