One Name on the Ballot. Enormous Power. Who Holds Collin County's District Attorney Accountable?

Collin County’s future depends on economic opportunity, public safety, and confidence in its institutions. As North Texas becomes more diverse, the district attorney’s priorities matter not only for criminal justice but also for the region’s ability to attract investment, retain workers, and remain a desirable place to live.

Nearly 1.3 million people live in Collin County. Yet in November 2026, they will find only one name on the ballot for criminal district attorney: Greg Willis, a Republican.

That absence of competition matters because the district attorney is among the county’s most powerful elected officials. His office decides which criminal cases to pursue, negotiates plea agreements, determines access to alternatives to prosecution, and influences how criminal justice operates in everyday life.

Those decisions also have economic consequences. Businesses depend on enforceable laws and protection from fraud. Workers depend on safe workplaces. Families need confidence that they can report threats, exploitation, and violence without being ignored. Residents facing financial hardship need a justice system that holds people accountable without imposing unnecessary barriers to employment and stability.

A prosperous region cannot rely on business incentives, corporate relocations, and population growth alone. It also needs public institutions that people trust.

Willis’s Republican affiliation is politically relevant. The Texas Republican and Democratic parties disagree over criminal justice, prosecutorial independence, reproductive rights, and the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

But party affiliation is only part of the story.

Willis’s public record includes prosecutions involving serious violence, political demonstrations, hate crimes, and financial fraud. His office has also faced controversies involving workplace accountability and racial fairness in jury selection.

The important questions concern not only which cases his office prosecutes, but also which cases receive institutional attention, how consistently prosecutors exercise discretion, and what information residents can obtain about the results.

These questions become more consequential as Collin County’s population and economic circumstances change.

An uncontested election does not settle disagreements over prosecutorial priorities. It removes a prominent opportunity to debate them.

Collin County Has Changed. So Have Its Needs.

Collin County is no longer the relatively small, predominantly white suburban community it was several decades ago.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county grew from approximately 1.06 million residents in 2020 to nearly 1.3 million in 2025, an increase of almost 22 percent.

Its population is increasingly diverse. Approximately 45 percent of residents are non-Hispanic White, 23 percent are Asian, 17 percent are Hispanic or Latino, and 12 percent are Black. Nearly one-quarter were born outside the United States.

Although the county’s median age has increased, children and young families remain an important part of its growth.

Diversity does not determine anyone’s political beliefs. But a changing population brings new experiences and expectations to public institutions. It raises practical questions about language access, victim assistance, protection from discrimination, and the consistent application of criminal law.

Economic conditions add another layer of urgency.

Collin County’s median household income exceeds $120,000. But the median value of an owner-occupied home is approximately $475,600, and median monthly rent approaches $1,900. Housing, transportation, childcare, and healthcare impose substantial demands on household budgets.

According to the North Texas Food Bank and Tarrant Area Food Bank, an estimated 149,550 Collin County residents experienced food insecurity in 2024, including 53,040 children.

The county’s overall food-insecurity rate was 12.9%, compared with 13.6% in Denton County, 16.5% in Tarrant County, and 19.2% in Dallas County.

Collin’s overall rate was lower than those of its neighbors. But its child food-insecurity rate rose from 15.6% in 2023 to 18.4% in 2024, an increase of 9,270 children in a single year.

Nearly one in five Collin County children experienced food insecurity in 2024.

Financial hardship is not evidence of criminality. But it can make encounters with the criminal justice system particularly consequential. Court appearances may mean lost wages. Supervision requirements may conflict with employment. Legal expenses and program fees may deepen existing financial difficulties.

Economic vulnerability also creates opportunities for exploitation. Fraudsters target retirement savings, impersonate trusted institutions, and take advantage of people who cannot afford substantial losses.

Public safety therefore cannot be evaluated solely by counting violent-crime convictions or announcing long prison sentences. Protecting residents also requires attention to financial exploitation, discrimination, threats, and offenses affecting vulnerable workers.

These concerns connect criminal justice directly to the county’s economic future.

South Asian Texans Are Part of the Region’s Economic Growth

North Texas’s growing South Asian population is not merely a demographic development. It is also part of the region’s economic transformation.

Indian Americans, alongside residents with roots in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and other South Asian countries, participate in the region’s businesses, professions, schools, and civic institutions.

Frisco illustrates the scale of this change. According to Census-based estimates reported by The Texas Tribune in May 2026, approximately 19 percent of Frisco residents are Indian, making the community an important part of the city’s population and future.

The economic relationship between Texas and India is substantial.

According to the Texas Governor’s Economic Development and Tourism Office, trade between Texas and India totaled $17.9 billion in 2024. During the decade ending in 2024, Indian companies reported 74 investment projects in Texas, representing approximately $2.7 billion in capital investment and more than 8,650 new jobs.

These figures describe trade and investment by businesses connected to India, not the total economic output of South Asian Texans. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the importance of the relationship to the state.

The connection is visible in Collin County.

In March 2018, India-based technology company Wipro opened a technology center in Plano, including cybersecurity and advanced-analytics operations. The company announced plans to expand its Texas workforce and described its partnerships with local universities to recruit graduates and develop technical skills.

South Asian Texans also contribute through their own employment, businesses, professional practices, and household spending.

A 2025 American Immigration Council report estimated that Asian and Pacific Islander households across Texas earned $100.6 billion in 2023, contributed approximately $27.3 billion in federal, state, and local taxes, and retained $73.4 billion in spending power.

That broader category includes East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian, Pacific Islander, and other communities. It should not be mistaken for a South Asian-only estimate.

Taken together, these figures establish an important economic reality: Texas’s future prosperity is closely connected to the contributions of an increasingly diverse population and to its relationships with international businesses.

Governor Greg Abbott has publicly recognized the importance of India’s economic relationship with Texas, including through a 2024 business-development mission designed to encourage trade, investment, and job creation.

But attracting investment and retaining a skilled workforce require more than favorable business conditions.

People deciding where to establish companies, pursue careers, buy homes, or raise families may also consider community safety, educational opportunities, housing costs, and the reliability of public institutions.

A company can receive economic incentives, but a workforce still needs a place where employees and their families feel secure.

That is where criminal justice enters the economic-development conversation.

The laws protecting people from violence, fraud, and exploitation are not separate from economic growth. They help establish the conditions in which people can work, invest, and build stable lives.

Those protections matter for everyone, regardless of economic contribution. People do not have to demonstrate financial value to deserve equal treatment under the law.

But recognizing their economic significance underscores how public safety, civil rights, workforce stability, and economic development intersect.

Republican Politics and Prosecutorial Power

Political affiliation does not determine every decision made by an elected prosecutor. But political disagreements concerning the office should not be dismissed as irrelevant.

The 2026 Republican Party of Texas Platform, under Criminal and Civil Justice, Plank 178, states:

We believe district attorneys have a duty to seek justice for victims of all forms of crime and oppose policies that systematically decline to prosecute crimes.

Plank 179 supports allowing the Texas Attorney General to investigate and remove district attorneys who fail to enforce state law.

Plank 171 takes a different position concerning hate crimes:

We urge the complete repeal of hate crime laws, since ample laws are currently in effect to punish criminal behavior toward other persons.

These provisions appear on page 33 of the Republican Party of Texas platform.

The 2026–2028 Texas Democratic Party Platform emphasizes rehabilitation, alternatives to incarceration, protection against prosecutorial misconduct, and preservation of the discretion of locally elected prosecutors.

Under Pretrial, Sentencing, & Court Procedures, page 41, it supports:

Protecting the prosecutorial discretion of democratically elected, local prosecutors, and preventing such officials from being ousted from office for acting within such discretion.

The differences are substantive. They concern the authority of state and local prosecutors, the treatment of defendants, and the policies intended to protect victims.

The hate-crime provision raises a particularly relevant question for Texas’s economic future.

The state actively seeks investment from India and other international partners. Its economic-development officials promote the benefits of locating businesses and skilled workers in Texas. At the same time, the state Republican Party has adopted a platform calling for repeal of laws that specifically recognize bias-motivated crimes.

These positions are not necessarily a logical contradiction. Supporters of repeal argue that general criminal laws already protect victims and punish offenders. Supporters of hate-crime laws argue that proven bias motivation deserves explicit legal recognition because such offenses can intimidate communities beyond their immediate victims.

For an increasingly diverse state, that disagreement has consequences beyond sentencing policy. It concerns the protections available to residents and the messages public institutions communicate about safety and equal treatment.

Willis’s individual positions cannot be inferred entirely from his party’s platform. But voters are entitled to know where an elected district attorney stands when his party proposes changes to laws the office currently enforces.

The Republican platform’s call to repeal hate-crime laws is especially relevant to Collin County.

Hate Crimes Against Asian Residents: What Happens When the Cameras Are Gone?

In August 2022, four women of South Asian descent were targeted outside Sixty Vines in Plano.

According to investigative documents and video described by prosecutors, Esmeralda Upton assaulted three women and threatened a fourth while making racist remarks concerning their ethnicity and national origin.

The incident was captured on cellphone video, circulated widely online, and attracted national news coverage. The footage prompted public outrage and drew attention from community organizations concerned about anti-Asian hostility in North Texas.

In June 2024, Willis’s office announced that Upton had pleaded guilty to four hate-crime charges. The convictions included three misdemeanor assaults and one terroristic-threat offense, each carrying an enhancement based on racial or national-origin bias.

Upton received two years of community-supervision probation and 40 days in county jail on each charge, with jail time served concurrently, along with fines.

Willis publicly condemned the attack and credited the Plano Police Department, federal prosecutors, and the FBI for their work.

That prosecution was a meaningful use of Texas’s hate-crime laws. The office recognized the racial motivation behind the attack and pursued charges reflecting that evidence.

But the circumstances also raise an important question: Would a similar attack have received the same prosecutorial attention without the viral video, national media coverage, and public outrage?

The prosecution demonstrates what Willis’s office did in a highly visible case. It does not establish how the office ordinarily handles less-publicized hate-crime allegations.

That distinction matters.

In a June 2024 interview with CBS Texas, Willis himself acknowledged that misdemeanor assault charges are common while hate-crime enhancements are rare.

Rarity does not necessarily indicate improper prosecutorial discretion. Hate-crime enhancements require proof of specific statutory elements, and not every assault involving people of different backgrounds is motivated by legally provable prejudice.

Nevertheless, Willis’s observation raises questions about how often investigators refer potential hate crimes, how prosecutors evaluate evidence of bias, and how frequently enhancements are sought when the evidence supports them.

The political context adds another reason to examine those questions.

Willis is a Republican elected official. The 2026 Republican Party of Texas platform explicitly calls for repealing hate-crime laws. Yet Willis’s office successfully employed those laws in one of Collin County’s most widely publicized incidents of racial hostility.

These facts do not establish that Willis personally opposes hate-crime protections, nor do they prove that public pressure caused his office to pursue the Upton prosecution. A reasonable alternative explanation is that prosecutors pursued the enhancements because the video, witness testimony, and other evidence supported the charges.

Still, the contrast warrants an explanation of policy rather than assumptions about motive.

Does Willis support retaining the hate-crime protections his office used in the Upton case? Does he disagree with the Texas Republican Party’s call for repeal? How many less-publicized allegations of bias-motivated violence has his office reviewed, and what decisions followed?

The concern is not that the Upton prosecution should be dismissed as a publicity exercise. The victims deserved a fair and serious response, and the office’s actions are part of its record.

The concern is that a highly publicized success cannot, by itself, demonstrate a consistent commitment to enforcing hate-crime protections when public attention is absent.

In a county where Asian residents make up nearly one-quarter of the population, that distinction deserves particular examination. Many victims will not have cellphone footage that goes viral, national media attention, or widespread public pressure supporting their cases.

Those victims are entitled to the same careful evaluation under the law.

The issue also reaches beyond the immediate victims.

In May 2026, The Texas Tribune documented anti-Indian rhetoric directed at Frisco’s growing Indian American community, including hostile remarks at public meetings.

Offensive political speech does not automatically constitute a crime, and prosecutors must respect constitutional protections for speech. But credible threats, assaults, and other conduct meeting the elements of criminal offenses must be evaluated consistently, regardless of the victim’s background.

A community’s confidence in its safety can matter when people decide where to establish businesses, accept employment, or raise children.

That does not mean a district attorney alone determines those decisions. Schools, housing, infrastructure, employers, public attitudes, and many other institutions also matter.

But a fair and reliable criminal justice system is one part of a community’s attractiveness and stability.

That makes aggregate data essential: how many suspected hate crimes are reported, how many are referred for prosecution, how often enhancements are considered, and what outcomes result?

Without those records, neither the claim that Willis ordinarily neglects hate crimes nor the claim that his office treats every comparable allegation consistently has been established.

The Upton case shows that the office can prosecute racist violence under Texas law. The broader record is needed to determine how reliably it does so.

Punishment Is Prominent. What About Accountability?

A review of the Collin County District Attorney’s newsroom reveals frequent announcements highlighting convictions and lengthy prison sentences.

Many involve murder, sexual assault, child abuse, and violence against police or security officers. Prosecuting serious violence is an essential responsibility, and victims deserve protection and justice.

Yet public communications also reveal which achievements an office chooses to emphasize.

In May 2025, after a member of the white supremacist Aryan Circle gang received a life sentence for firing at a Plano police officer, Willis praised the officers involved.

He concluded:

“In Collin County, we back our officers, and we don’t tolerate violence against them.”

Supporting officers who face armed violence is consistent with the office’s public-safety responsibilities.

But prosecutors have another duty that requires independence from law enforcement.

They must evaluate police testimony, disclose favorable evidence to defendants, investigate potential misconduct, and pursue charges against officers when legally justified.

Cooperation with police and accountability for police are both important. They are not interchangeable.

A district attorney’s office may publicly celebrate successful prosecutions involving injured officers. Residents should also be able to examine its record when officers themselves are accused of criminal misconduct.

How many referrals are received? How many are declined? What independent review occurs when a potential conflict of interest exists?

Those questions concern the structure of accountability, not whether police officers deserve protection.

Travis County offers a contrasting experience

Travis County DA José Garza publicly emphasized investigating police conduct, including incidents associated with the 2020 protests.

That approach produced conflict between his office and the Austin Police Department. KUT reported in June 2025 on the strained relationship, disputes over prosecutions, and attempts to improve cooperation.

This is not evidence that Travis County’s approach was uniformly successful. It demonstrates that police accountability and prosecutorial effectiveness can involve difficult institutional tradeoffs.

A useful comparison should therefore examine both counties’ actual handling of officer-misconduct referrals, rather than treating either public support for police or conflict with police as proof of prosecutorial integrity.

The Prosecution of Political Protesters

In April 2025, Willis announced indictments against 14 individuals following a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of Texas at Dallas.

The indictments concerned obstruction of a passageway, a Class B misdemeanor. Seven other arrested individuals were not indicted.

Willis defended the prosecution by stating:

“Free speech is protected. Blocking access and refusing lawful commands is not.”

The statement identifies a valid legal distinction. The First Amendment does not provide an unlimited exemption from generally applicable laws.

But prosecutorial discretion involves more than identifying an offense.

Were the charges proportionate to the conduct? Were diversion or other alternatives considered? How have comparable obstruction cases unrelated to political demonstrations been handled?

The decisions cannot be labeled viewpoint discrimination without evidence that protesters were treated differently because of their beliefs.

Nevertheless, criminal cases arising from political expression warrant careful scrutiny, particularly when discretion could affect whether participants face incarceration, fines, or lasting criminal consequences.

The Karmelo Anthony Case and Racial Fairness

The 2026 murder trial of Karmelo Anthony raised another question about prosecutorial decision-making.

Anthony, who is Black, was convicted of murdering Austin Metcalf, who was white, following a confrontation at a high-school track meet. A jury sentenced Anthony to 35 years in prison.

The killing was a tragedy, and Metcalf’s family suffered an irreplaceable loss.

During jury selection, prosecutors struck three prospective Black jurors. The defense objected under Batson v. Kentucky, arguing that race had improperly influenced their exclusion.

The judge rejected the challenge after prosecutors offered explanations for the strikes.

The resulting jury contained no Black members.

The dispute was documented by KERA and Texas Public Radio. Prosecutors defended their decisions, and the trial court did not find a constitutional violation.

The unresolved question is whether the prosecutors applied their stated jury-selection criteria consistently to similarly situated prospective jurors of different races.

That issue can be examined through the jury-selection record.

Public confidence in a criminal conviction depends not only on the evidence presented at trial but also on the fairness of the procedures used to reach a verdict.

When the Prosecutor’s Office Faces Scrutiny

In 2022, six current and former employees filed a federal lawsuit alleging sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation involving Willis, First Assistant District Attorney Bill Wirskye, and county officials.

Willis denied the allegations.

In April 2023, the litigation ended in a $1.75 million settlement. The plaintiffs had amended their complaint to remove sexual-harassment allegations before settlement. The claims were dismissed, and Willis admitted no wrongdoing.

County Judge Chris Hill said an outside investigation identified inaccuracies in the original allegations. Attorneys for the plaintiffs defended their clients’ decision to bring the lawsuit.

KERA reported that the county declined to release the external investigation report under attorney-client privilege, even after county officials invoked its findings publicly.

The settlement does not establish the truth of the original allegations.

But the dispute raises questions about institutional transparency, employee reporting procedures, and the public’s ability to evaluate competing claims about an investigation involving senior officials.

A district attorney’s office is responsible for holding others accountable under the law. Public confidence also requires meaningful accountability within that office.

Rehabilitation Should Not Depend on Financial Flexibility

Willis’s office operates diversion programs offering eligible defendants alternatives to conventional prosecution.

Its Burden to Blessing program can lead to dismissal and eligibility for expunction after successful completion.

A September 2024 program agreement lists a $500 admission fee that may be waived for indigent participants. It also specifies a $60 monthly supervision fee that cannot be waived, alongside potential charges for classes, testing, and other requirements.

The agreement describes community-service requirements of 80 hours for misdemeanor cases and 120 hours for felony cases, with opportunities for reductions.

For someone with stable employment, reliable transportation, and financial savings, these conditions may be manageable.

For someone working unpredictable hours, relying on public transportation, or struggling to pay rent, completing the same program may present greater difficulty.

That creates a distinction between formal eligibility and practical accessibility.

There is also an economic dimension.

When a person charged with an eligible offense can complete an appropriate diversion program, retain employment, and avoid unnecessary disruption to family life, the benefits may extend beyond the defendant.

Employers retain workers. Families preserve income. Communities avoid some of the costs associated with unemployment and repeated involvement in the criminal justice system.

These potential benefits depend on program design, eligibility, successful completion, and whether the intervention actually improves long-term outcomes. They cannot be assumed merely because a diversion program exists.

That is why the relevant questions concern who applies, who is admitted, how often costs are waived, who completes the program, and what happens afterward.

An office cannot demonstrate equal access or economic effectiveness solely by establishing that a program exists.

A Criminal Justice System Is Part of a State’s Economic Infrastructure

Roads, utilities, schools, and a skilled workforce are familiar foundations of economic development.

The justice system is another part of that foundation.

It protects individuals and businesses against criminal conduct, establishes consequences for violations of the law, and helps sustain public confidence that disputes and allegations will be handled through fair procedures.

Its economic significance can be seen in several areas of daily life.

Financial fraud and the security of investments

Investors, businesses, retirees, and consumers depend on protection from financial fraud.

A substantial investment scam can destroy household savings, damage confidence in financial transactions, and impose lasting costs on victims.

Collin County has prosecuted serious financial crimes. In 2018, former McKinney pastor Timothy Lloyd Booth received a 68-year sentence in a case involving approximately $23 million in securities fraud and theft. The Texas State Securities Board documented the prosecution.

That case establishes the office’s ability to pursue complex financial misconduct. It does not reveal the broader outcomes of financial-crime enforcement.

For an expanding economy, the public has reason to examine how many fraud complaints reach prosecutors, how many cases are accepted, and how much money victims recover through restitution.

Successful economic development should include protecting the wealth people have already earned, not merely attracting new investment.

Healthcare-worker safety and workforce stability

Healthcare is also a major part of Texas’s economy.

Hospitals, clinics, and medical practices depend on their ability to recruit and retain qualified employees. Violence and threats against healthcare workers can undermine that objective.

A 2025 American Hospital Association study estimated that workplace and community violence imposed $18.27 billion in annual costs on hospitals nationally in 2023. The estimate included treatment of victims, staffing costs, security measures, and prevention efforts.

This is a national figure covering several types of violence. It is not an estimate of criminal assaults against Collin County healthcare workers or of costs attributable to local prosecution decisions.

Nevertheless, the study demonstrates that workplace and community violence can affect healthcare institutions financially and operationally.

Texas law provides enhanced penalties for certain assaults against hospital personnel. Collin County grand-jury records show that such offenses have been indicted.

The question is how consistently those cases are handled, what outcomes result, and whether hospitals and prosecutors coordinate effectively when criminal conduct threatens healthcare workers.

A region seeking to attract medical professionals, expand healthcare services, and support employers has a practical interest in those answers.

Public trust and the ability to retain talent

Businesses choose locations for many reasons: infrastructure, taxes, labor costs, market access, education, and workforce availability.

Workers and families consider additional factors, including neighborhood safety, social connections, schools, and their experiences with public institutions.

A reliable justice system cannot guarantee economic growth, and no available evidence establishes that one Collin County prosecutorial policy has caused businesses or workers to relocate.

But as a matter of economic policy, it is reasonable to examine whether fair enforcement, transparent institutions, and protection against exploitation support the conditions that make communities attractive to employers and residents.

The point is not that prosecutors should maximize convictions to attract investment.

Excessive or inconsistent prosecution can also impose economic harm, particularly when it unnecessarily disrupts employment, damages reputations, or creates unequal treatment.

A justice system contributes to long-term stability when it protects victims, respects due process, applies the law consistently, and uses public resources effectively.

Economic development and equal justice are not competing goals. They can reinforce each other when public institutions protect people, preserve opportunity, and earn community trust.

What Other Democratic-Led Texas DA Offices Make Public

Comparisons between counties require care. Dallas, Harris, Travis, and Collin differ in size, resources, caseload, and criminal activity. Individual initiatives do not establish that one prosecutor achieves better overall results.

But their published programs illustrate different approaches to explaining prosecutorial priorities.

In Dallas County, Democratic DA John Creuzot’s administration publicly describes specialized financial-crime and elder-abuse units, along with diversion programs and a conviction-integrity division. Dallas also publishes a mission statement emphasizing evidence-based decisions and reducing unnecessary incarceration. Creuzot lost the March 2026 Democratic primary to Amber Givens, illustrating another difference from Collin County: Dallas voters had competing candidates debating the office’s direction.

The presence of dedicated financial-crime and elder-abuse units offers a concrete basis for comparing how prosecutor offices explain their protection of vulnerable consumers and investors.

In Travis County, Democratic DA José Garza’s administration established an economic-justice initiative addressing wage theft and other potentially criminal employment-related conduct.

In November 2024, the office renewed its cooperation agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor, emphasizing coordination on investigations and enforcement.

Not every wage dispute is criminal, and the existence of an initiative does not prove its success. But it demonstrates how a prosecutor can identify certain forms of economic exploitation as a public concern.

Garza’s office also publishes case-processing information through its Data and Reports page.

In Harris County, Democratic DA Sean Teare’s administration operates a Data Transparency Dashboard developed with the University of Houston’s Data Science Institute. The office also identifies a Special Crimes Bureau handling financial fraud, elder exploitation, organized crime, and other complex offenses.

Teare’s administration has faced criticism involving prosecutor turnover and caseloads. Garza’s office has faced disputes over cooperation with law enforcement. Democratic leadership does not eliminate prosecutorial controversy or guarantee better outcomes.

The comparison should therefore focus on actual practices rather than partisan assumptions.

It should examine whether residents can identify prosecutorial priorities, review performance data, evaluate the use of discretion, and understand how decisions affect both public safety and economic security.

For Collin County, that includes information about financial-crime enforcement, hate-crime referrals, assaults against healthcare workers, police accountability, diversion outcomes, and case dispositions.

These are measures that can be compared across offices, provided differences in case volume, offense severity, staffing, and reporting methods are accounted for.

What Public Accountability Should Look Like

Collin County already publishes certain criminal justice information through county records and budget reports. Its district attorney’s office also publicizes convictions, programs, and prosecution announcements.

But those materials serve different purposes.

A press release generally describes a selected case. A budget report may describe staffing or aggregate workload. Neither necessarily reveals whether similarly situated cases receive consistent treatment.

Meaningful oversight requires enough information to evaluate patterns rather than isolated successes.

That includes regular public reporting on charging decisions and case outcomes, financial-crime investigations and restitution, hate-crime referrals and enhancements, assaults on hospital personnel, diversion admissions and completion rates, and the handling of misconduct allegations involving law enforcement.

The reporting should distinguish cases referred by police from cases accepted or declined by prosecutors. It should also account for differences in offense severity, available evidence, criminal history, and legally relevant circumstances.

Where practical, the public could also examine longer-term outcomes of diversion programs, including completion, repeat offending, and employment-related effects, while respecting privacy and the limits of available data.

Personal information should remain protected where confidentiality is required. But legitimate privacy concerns need not prevent the publication of useful aggregate statistics.

These standards would apply regardless of which party controls the office.

They matter because economic development is not measured only by how much investment enters a community. It is also measured by whether residents can earn a living, protect their property, participate in the workforce, and build stable futures.

One Candidate Does Not Mean One Acceptable Answer

Collin County’s growth has transformed its neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and communities.

Its population is increasingly diverse. Its wealth coexists with financial hardship. Its residents face risks ranging from violent crime and racial harassment to investment scams and threats against essential workers.

South Asian residents and businesses are an important part of that transformation. So are residents from other backgrounds whose work, investment, spending, and civic participation support the region’s prosperity.

The relationship between Texas and India illustrates the economic opportunities created by international investment and a globally connected workforce.

But those opportunities do not exist in isolation from the communities where people live.

A state seeking to attract employers must also consider the conditions that help workers stay. A county seeking economic growth must protect residents against exploitation, violence, and financial crime. And a justice system entrusted with extraordinary power must remain accountable for how it uses that power.

Willis’s record includes serious prosecutions, a successful hate-crime case involving South Asian victims, financial-fraud convictions, and rehabilitation programs. Those accomplishments are part of the evidence and deserve examination alongside the controversies.

But the public deserves more than selected outcomes.

It deserves to know how cases are chosen, how resources are distributed, how victims are protected, how defendants are treated, and how prosecutors respond when their own institutions face scrutiny.

Other Texas counties demonstrate that district attorneys can publish detailed descriptions of specialized units, create programs targeting economic exploitation, and make case-processing information available for public examination.

Those examples provide concrete standards for examining Collin County’s operations, even when they do not establish comparative effectiveness.

Republican and Democratic disagreements over criminal justice remain relevant. So do Willis’s individual decisions, his public statements, and the actions of the office he leads.

An election with competing candidates would offer residents an additional opportunity to debate those matters. The absence of an opponent makes independent examination of the public record especially important.

Collin County’s economic future depends not only on the companies it attracts or the wealth it creates, but also on whether the people who live and work there can trust its institutions to protect their rights, their safety, and their opportunities.

One name on the ballot does not remove the obligation to explain how public power is used. And an uncontested election must not become an uncontested account of justice.