Hidalgo County state district judge fined for alleged ethics violation

Luis Manuel Singleterry is seen in this Oct. 2014 file photo. (Courtesy: Judge Luis Manuel Singleterry for 92nd District Court/Facebook)

A state district judge was fined $500 by the state after filing a campaign finance report more than seven months late.

The Texas Ethics Commission found credible evidence that state District Judge Luis M. Singleterry violated the Texas Election Code by failing to file a campaign finance report on time, according to an order and agreed resolution issued on Dec. 16.

The state required all candidates to file a January 2022 semiannual campaign finance report by Jan. 18, 2022, a deadline extended from Jan. 15, 2022, because of the holiday weekend. The judge, however, did not file his report until Aug. 24, 2022, according to the order.

Singleterry did not respond to multiple messages left with his office seeking comment for this story.

The commission first received notice of the alleged violation through a sworn complaint filed on Feb. 4. The commission did not disclose who filed the complaint.

After receiving the complaint, the commission attempted to notify Singleterry by mail on Feb. 10, but tracking records from the United States Postal Services indicated the notice was lost in transit.

A second notice was mailed to Singleterry on Feb. 18, which tracking records showed was delivered to Singleterry on March 2.

“This notice informed the respondent that the alleged violation was a Category One violation,” the order stated, “that a response was required not later than 10 business days from the date the notice was received, and that failure to respond constituted a separate violation for which a separate civil penalty may be assessed.”

Singleterry was required to respond to the sworn complaint by March 16, but he did not.

He finally did so on Aug. 26, 163 days after the initial response deadline, though he did not explain the delay, the order said.

If someone does not respond to a notice of a violation that is a Category 1 violation by the 10th business day, their failure to respond constitutes another Category 1 violation, according to the order.

The order adds that if a respondent, in this case being Singleterry, does not respond within that time period, the ethics commission may impose a civil penalty.

When Singleterry did respond, he “acknowledged the violation and swore that the late filing was a complete oversight,” the order stated.

His campaign finance report disclosed $0 in total political contributions, $3,690 in total political expenditures and $146,351.91 in total political contributions maintained.

Singleterry agreed to neither admit or deny the findings of the ethics commission and consented to the entry of the order for purposes of resolving the sworn complaint. He also waived any right to further proceedings in the matter.

He further agreed to comply with the legal requirements of filing two campaign finance reports each year, the second being due on Jan. 15, and to respond to any possible sworn complaints in the future that contain a Category One violation no later than 10 business days after receiving notice of the complaint.

For the violation, the ethics commission imposed a $500 civil penalty.