Some Things That Need to be Clarified
By Jim Bell
This article is published in coordination with the Hood County Bell Tower.
On Monday, November 2, 2026, the Hood County Times, a relatively new digital newspaper page here in Hood County, posted an article about the recall hearing on Friday, October 30, 2026, in the 355th District Court. This is Judge Bryan Bufkin’s Court.
Although there are a number of facts in the Hood County Times article, it is clear that the author did not attend the court session and relied on information provided to him by others. But the Times article did have some relevant facts in it, mixed in with the inaccuracies. I attended the session, so let’s straighten a few things out so our local readers can have some truth from all of this.
Kellie Chewning, representing herself, and Kolton Krottinger were seated at the left front attorney table. The right front attorney table was vacant. Two attorneys representing the city of Granbury, Bruce Wadley (who said he represented himself), and Andy Taylor, who was representing City Council members who sued the city of Granbury—all participated via LifeSize, a relatively new video conferencing situation that the 355th District Court has allowed for remote hearings since April 20, 2026. This is the first time I watched this technology being used in Judge Bufkin’s court.
When the virtual participants stated their names for the court recorder, the two attorneys representing the city of Granbury and Andy Taylor participated via video conferencing. Bruce Wadley had his camera turned off and his name was shown on the screen without his image. After introducing himself and stating he was representing himself, Wadley didn’t say anything for the rest of the hearing.
The Hood County Times reported that Kolton Krottinger’s involvement raised questions after Judge Bufkin asked if he lived in the city.
The Hood County Times wrote, “That was reportedly the only word he spoke during the hearing.” Well, “reportedly” clears things up. It means that whoever wrote this article wasn’t even there. Others relayed this information to the author.
Actually, the judge posed the residency question to Kellie Chewning first. He was trying to establish whether the relators (Chewning and Krottinger) had what is known as “standing” to bring a mandamus action in the court.
The Hood County Times used the following sentence when referencing the case Chewning was referring to when addressing Judge Bufkin:
”Despite repeated attempts, the judge reportedly could not locate the case Chewning was referencing.”
Again, using this language, “reportedly,” indicates that the author of this article was not in the courtroom. “Reportedly” is neither a factual nor a truthful accounting of the event. It is hearsay at best, and rumor at worst. Neither one of which is good reporting. It is misleading and assumptive.
Judge Bufkin could not find the case that Chewning was referring to, and Chewning did say, “Look up Ray.” To hear this verbally, like most of us, I thought of “Ray” as though it was the name of one of the parties of the case. It was not. She was saying “Re.”
In court dockets and records this refers to “In reference to…” Kellie Chewning is not an attorney, but she did some impressive research to prepare for this hearing. To be fair, Chewning not being a lawyer, this is one of the things she could have presented better.
Andy Taylor took this and ran with it. He told Judge Bufkin that the case is an AI case that is only on the internet and doesn’t exist. Once again, the Times wrote, “The remark reportedly drew laughter…” Again, writing like this is nothing if not a clear admission that the author was not in the courtroom. It is not an eyewitness account and uses no quotable source.
After speaking with Chewning and with her help on some research, we found it is indeed a real case. It is not an AI case only available on the internet. We found it on Justia U.S. Law (law.justia.com/cases/texas/supreme-court). Yes, it is on the internet. The case is a Texas Supreme Court case, docket number: 14-0667, and the decision was rendered July 24, 2015. The Case is in re Jared Woodfill. It is a case against the City of Houston, and it concerns Houston City Council adopting a civil rights ordinance, after which citizens organized a petition drive to have the ordinance repealed. There are many similarities between this referenced case and the ongoing situation here in Granbury.
Interestingly, this was Andy Taylor’s case. The following is a quote from the digital news outlet, Click 2 Houston.com:
“Houston—City of Houston Equal Rights Ordinance”
“Andy Taylor was the attorney who argued before the Texas Supreme Court and was successful in getting the court to order the suspension of the City of Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. Mayor Annise Parker and City Council must now decide whether to repeal the ordinance entirely or put the matter on the November ballot for voters to decide.”
Chewning did ask, and Judge Bufkin declined to order a recall election within five to ten days. Janet Logsdon and Daniel Piatt filed to participate in this case, and Judge Bufkin had their filing papers in his hand. Judge Bufkin was calm, resolute, and respectful to all parties throughout the hearing.
The Times reported correctly that Chewning asked Judge Bufkin to intervene in Granbury’s executive session on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, city council meeting—and Judge Bufkin declined.
Again, the times wrote,” Judge Bufkin declined to intervene and reportedly explained the proper legal procedures…” And once more the author used language that could only be the result of him/her not being present in the courtroom.
Taylor suggested to Judge Bufkin that the court schedule the next hearing in January, explaining that any decision will result in an appeal which would push it out past Christmas. He said if you schedule it in January, it can just be settled. Judge Bufkin did not fall for this. Any appeal would still happen after a January decision, and a January hearing would push the date when the dust finally settles on this case well past the time when the recall needs to occur if it is to happen.
Like
Comment
Share
