On Thursday, in Primary Recommendations, Part I, we covered
the statewide and some Harris County positions. Today we’ll cover the judicial
races, any other county positions, and the four propositions on the ballot.
This is going to be long, but I’m not going to split it into
another post, because early voting is already halfway over, and people are waiting
for my information. So, if you want to go about this the short way, look for the
races and my choices in bold. Again, to get your own sample ballot in Harris County, go to www.HarrisVotes.com.
I’m going to start with the few random races we didn’t cover
already, so we can cover the judicial races all together. I’m still referring
to the endorsements from various groups and friends, including the summary of
such the matrix of endorsements put out by SREC SD7 Committeeman Mark Ramsey. For judicial races,
I’m adding in recommendations from a friend who works in the DA’s office and
has some inside information. Some of the candidates I have met and researched
on my own as well. And for most of the judicial races, I worked through the
information with son Political Sphere, who is working as a prosecutor now. An
additional source you might use for statewide judicial races is www.TexasJudges.org.
County Attorney
According to the official website, “The Harris County
Attorney's Office represents the County, its departments, elected and appointed
officials, and employees in all civil matters that involve county business. Our
Office also represents the Harris County Hospital District, the Harris County
Flood Control District, the Harris County Appraisal Review Board, and the
Greater 911 Emergency Network, which are separate legal entities.” One public
case they handled was a suit against Volkswagen for violations concerning their
fraud to avoid clean air measurements.
This has been a challenging position to decide. I’ve changed
my mind even after my discussion with Political Sphere, based on meeting the
two candidates on Saturday.
Jim Leitner for Harris County Attorney Photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party Facebook |
Jim Leitner receives endorsements from Steve Hotze’s
Conservative Republicans of Harris County and Gary Polland’s Texas Conservative
Review—all the others on Mark Ramsey’s list go to Chris Carmona. Hotze’s and
Polland’s magazine slates are least likely to convince me in the absence of
people I know personally to be conservative. However, Leitner also got the nod
from my prosecutor friend who knows him.
So Political Sphere and I did some online research. Leitner
is older and clearly more experienced. He has worked in the DA’s office. In his
private practice he manages several employees. I looked for a website and found
only a video on YouTube, which listed a website on it, but that site does not
exist. Not helpful.
Carmona is much younger. He has business experience prior to
his law practice, beginning in 2010. His practice covers family law, personal
injury, and other normal solo practice work. He does have a website.
Chris Carmona for Harris County Attorney Photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party Facebook |
After that look, we wondered why the conservative groups,
like CCHC [Conservative Coalition of Harris County, which includes a number of
people I know personally) gave Carmona a near endorsement of 67%. [70% is
considered an endorsement.] Maybe it is because he is a strong constitutional
conservative, we supposed. However, the US Constitution doesn’t come up much in
this job.
So, we were leaning toward Leitner, even against the odds,
pending Saturday’s Tea Party meeting. Both spoke. Leitner first. He made me
uncomfortable. In the brief 10 minutes he had to convince us of his
qualifications, he connected himself with Pat Lykos, the previous DA who was
ousted in the primary a couple of years ago by Mike Anderson (who died of
cancer the year after being elected, and was replaced by his wife, Devon
Anderson). He accused Mike Anderson of creating a specific scandal to blame on
Lykos to oust her. I had never heard of the particular scandal; there was much
else against :sudden accusation against Mike Anderson, who seemed to me very
principled by all reports. Leitner did exclude Devon Anderson from the
accusation.
Leitner seemed defensive—when I was unaware there was any
reason for him to be.
Then Chris Carmona spoke. He pointed out that, while his
opponent has more years of experience, Carmona actually has considerably more
experience in the issues handled by the County Attorney’s Office. He seemed
positive, conservative, and trustworthy. After the dark and scary speech we’d
just heard, I could see clearly why so many conservative friends went with
Carmona.
He changed my choice. I’m voting for Chris Carmona.
Constable, Precinct 5
There are eight Constable precincts in Harris County. This
is a law enforcement division. A large part of their budget comes from
contracts with homeowners associations. They patrol the neighborhoods and
answer house calls. They write citations for violations—and, just to clarify,
none of that goes to their budget, so they do not have quotas, nor would they
have any reason to. They do other law enforcement as well as needed, supporting
the other law enforcement divisions: the Sheriff’s office, Houston PD, other
incorporated city PDs, and anything I’m forgetting.
Precinct 5 is in west and northwest Harris County, south of
Hwy 290. (Technically, south of the railroad alongside 290; and Precinct 4 is
just to the north, so also of interest to our Tea Party.) The two candidates
are Ted Heap and Al Hoang. Phil Camus, the current Constable, is retiring at
age 80.
Ted Heap is the Chief of Precinct 5. He has been a cop for
32 years, holding every position from the ground up in the precinct. He’s aware
of the growth, and believes he understands how to handle it efficiently, which
doesn’t necessarily mean more money and more cops. He has worked with the
budget, which is about $37.5 million.
Ted Heap, for Constable of Precinct 5 photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party Facebookf |
His opponent is a defense attorney with no law enforcement
experience. If he were elected, he would have to spend his first nine months
going through academy training in order to qualify.
It may be that much of the job is administrative. Being a
cop isn’t required. But it sure is helpful. If nothing else, for morale. You
have experienced, hard-working police officers, and instead of bringing in
someone to lead them who has been one of them and understands them, you bring
in an outsider who doesn’t understand what they go through. That makes it hard
to feel respect going both directions.
Hoang has an interesting history, much of it as an activist
in Viet Nam. He has run for state rep. before. I couldn’t find a website for
his campaign and didn’t meet him. There is some information here.
Ted Heap was at
Saturday’s meeting. (We’ve been getting half a dozen candidates at every
meeting for months.) He struck me as the quintessential lifetime good-guy Texas
cop. I’m persuaded he’ll do a good job.
I haven’t studied Precinct
4, nearby, but endorsements across the board are going to Mark Herman, rather than Rolf Nelson. There’s probably good reason for
that.
Harris County School
Trustee
There are two positions up for vote, Position 1 Precinct 2,
and Position 2 Precinct 4. My ballot includes only Position 2 Precinct 4.
(These are not the same precincts as the Constable race, nor the voting
precinct.) Eric Dick gets recommendations across the board. Danell Fields bravely came to speak at our Tea
Party a while back. She loves kids and education, but she was woefully unaware
of any of the issues we are concerned about with the HC School Board and its
very existence. So, Eric Dick gets
my vote.
Statewide Judicial
Races
Texas’s Supreme Court has two divisions, by purpose. The
Supreme Court and The Court of Criminal Appeals. There are three Supreme Court
positions up for election this primary: place 3, place 5, and place 9. And
there are three Court of Criminal Appeals positions: place 2, place 5, and
place 6.
Supreme Court Place 3 and Place 9 are fairly clear-cut
decisions. For Place 3, Michael Massengale
gets 100% endorsement from CCHC (my friends), as well as most of the more
conservative sources, and my DA friend. Debra Lehrmann gets a few of the
magazine slates. Lehrmann is the incumbent, and yet she has this much
opposition. Many who supported her when she was elected are against her now.
She has tried to undo tort reform, using personal leanings rather than the law.
If tort law needs changes, pretending she has the power to do it from the bench
is not the way. Meanwhile, Massengale has been excellent on the court of
appeals in Houston. I’m going with Massengale.
In the Place 9
race, the logical choice is Eva Guzman.
She writes well-reasoned decisions. She receives unanimous support from all the
groups and individuals I’ve gotten recommendations from. Her opponent, Joe
Pool, is the son of a famous Democrat congressman from the Dallas area. He’s a
trial lawyer who has tried three separate times running for a supreme court position,
never garnering more than 30% of the vote. There’s no reason for him to get more
than that this time either.
The Place 5 race
is a little more confounding, not least because both candidates have the same
last name: Paul Green and Rick Green.
Paul Green is the
incumbent. Rick Green is a legislator and radio
commentator, and speaker for WallBuilders, which puts him in favor with
homeschoolers and constitutional conservatives, which is a good fit for me
personally. So it’s not surprising he’s getting some attention. He has a
particular complaint against Paul Green, regarding the Texas v. Naylor case.
It was a case in which a lower court
judge granted a divorce and division of property and child custody to a
same-sex couple—which implies that Texas recognized the marriage as valid,
before the SCOTUS ruling last summer. Paul Green did not concur that the decision
was correct, but that there was no one with standing attempting the appeal. It
was law related, not necessarily his personal feelings. Rick Green is asserting he is against family values.
I don’t understand getting standing. But my son tells me
that in general Paul Green writes reasoned opinions and is well respected.
Meanwhile, Rick Green has very little patience for
disagreement, and possibly very little patience or personality for the
nitty-gritty boring detail of ruling on the actual law as written.
I can see why those who favor Rick Green are doing so. But
in this case I’m avoiding a gut reaction and going for reasoned experience. I’ll
be voting for Paul Green.
Court of Criminal
Appeals Place 2 has three candidates: Mary Lou Keel, Ray Wheless, and Chris
Oldner. Keel is the incumbent. The endorsements are about half and half for
Keel and Wheless. However, looking at their experience, both Keel and Oldman
have board certifications in criminal trials. That implies they have had a
number of years’ experience in the particular field of the certification and
have met other qualifications. Wheless is board certified in civic trial and
personal injury law. Keel has handled 279 criminal appeals, including 5 death
penalty cases; her experience is considerably better than Oldner’s. Wheless
might be good for another type of court, but his experience isn’t a good fit
for this one. I’ll be voting for Mary
Lou Keel.
Court of Criminal
Appeals Place 5 has four candidates: Sid Harle, Brent Webster, Steve Smith,
and Scott Walker. There is no incumbent. The choice among everyone I know is
between Harle and Webster. Harle oversaw a rather famous case in which Michael
Morton was exonerated, leading to the Michael Morton Act, to protect against
the problems that led to his incarceration. A prosecutor withheld evidence of a
second person in the house in which the murder took place. Some years later
that second person murdered again, using the same MO. Eventual DNA evidence
proved who the real perpetrator was, and Michael Morton was released. The
prosecutor, who had moved on to be an elected judge by then, was sent to
prison.
One concern about Harle is that, in general, some who work
in defense go on to focus more on criminal rights than on victim rights and
applied justice. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is true of Harle, just a
stereotype. Webster has some prosecutor training. But he’s younger and may not
be experienced enough for this court. Political Sphere calls it a tough choice.
Either might be good enough. My prosecutor friend goes with Harle, and that might tip
the balance for me. I believe I’ll vote for Sid Harle.
Court of Criminal
Appeals Place 6 has two candidates: Michael E. Keasler and Richard Davis.
Keasler is the incumbent. He gets endorsements across the board. Keasler has
been a good judge. However, he will be forcibly retired a few years into his
term. He’s now 74. The age of retirement is 75, but if the judge turns 75
during his term, he has until the end of the first year after that. So in a
couple of years he will be replaced with an appointee, who will then have the
advantage of incumbency when first facing voters.
Richard Davis is younger, but not young. He has worked in the
Burnett County DA’s Office, and is a guest lecturer at Baylor Law School. His
county work gives him broad experience in civil and criminal law, including
handling appeals work.
So, if you want to give Keasler support, I totally
understand. But I’m persuaded that Richard Davis
might be a better choice because of the forced retirement Keasler is facing.
Mine is a vote for Davis as a choice of the people, not a vote against Keasler
and his work.
County Courts
I am dealing here only with those with primary opposition. I
am unaware of any unopposed Republican judicial candidates that shouldn’t be
supported. And several of them I support enthusiastically. The time for vetting
them is now, because, in November, Democrats tend to vote straight ticket, while
Republicans hesitate to vote for anyone they haven’t vetted. If we don’t want
Democrats to take over courts in our county, this is the time to get to know
the judicial candidates.
14th Court
of Appeals District, Place 2 is between Kevin Jewell and Bud Wiesedeppe. This
is an open court. Both get about equal endorsements on Mark Ramsey’s matrix.
Jewell gets 73% with CCHC, which is a full endorsement. He also gets the
endorsement of my DA friend. I met him on Saturday. He has the right demeanor,
and has good experience specifically in appellate law, since 1998. There’s a
comparison of experience here, which is confusingly absent for Wiesedeppe, although Wiesedeppe has worked as an
attorney at Woodfill & Pressler since 1997, which I believe is former Harris
County GOP Chair Jared Woodfill’s firm. They stand up on many challenging
social issues. However, I’m not seeing his appellate court experience. I’ll be
voting for Kevin Jewell.
80th
Judicial District Judge has two candidates: Ken Shortreed and Will Archer. Shortreed gets 100% endorsement from
CCHC and a number of others, although Archer gets some endorsements as well. He
gets my DA friend and personal friends as well. I’ve met him in person and feel
good supporting him. He reminds us “Near the bottom of a long ballot, there’s a
Shortreed.” There’s a comparison here.
125th
Judicial District Judge has two candidates: L. A. Olson and Sharon
Hemphill. Sharon Hemphill spoke to us on Saturday. She said the Democrat on the
court now had only been involved in 8 cases prior to becoming a judge, and is
near the bottom of the poll ratings. Complaints are that he doesn’t understand
the law. She has 25 years of experience, representing in 378 cases, including
in district courts as well as family, criminal and federal courts. She is
mediation trained—which she has been involved in since 1991, long before it
became common practice. As experienced as she is, Leif Olson also has good
experience. (Comparison here.) It was some time ago that we saw
him at our Tea Party, but he has impressed more of my friends, including my DA
contact. It’s close to a toss-up; either will be a huge improvement over the
Democrat incumbent. But I’m going with Olson.
151st
Judicial District Judge has two candidates: Jess Hastings and Aaron Gabriel
Adams. Hastings has been attending our Tea Party meetings for years, and I’ve
always thought he was worth supporting. Adams has ten years of experience in
intellectual property and real estate law. Hastings has 25 years of experience
with a wide variety of civil law, including much more court experience. Hastings gets endorsements across the
board. I’ll be voting for Jeff Hastings.
178th
Judicial District Judge has four candidates: Xavier Alfaro, Phil Gommels,
Nile Bailey Alfaro
is qualified—and has the right kind of experience—he’s a better bet.
Xavier Alfaro for 178th District Judge photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party Facebook |
339th
Judicial District Judge has two candidates: Mary McFaden and Antonio
Benavides. McFaden has 14 years of experience as a prosecutor. She gets
endorsements from all on the matrix who have endorsed, plus my prosecutor
friend. I’ve met her at our Tea Party. Benavides’s endorsement page shows only
the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston, which mainly endorses
Democrats. I’ll be voting for Mary McFaden.
County Civil Court at
Law No. 1 Judge (unexpired term) has two candidates: Clyde Raymond Leuchtag
and Gloria Cantu Minnick. Leuchtag is the appointed incumbent. The controversy
in this race surrounds Minnick, who is running as a Republican while her
husband, F. Richard Leach, is running for another position as a Democrat. She
answered questions about this at our Tea Party, but not convincing us that she’s
a conservative at her core. Leuchtag’s experience is good. He seems to
be doing a good job. There’s no reason not to keep him there. I’m going with
the entire matrix of endorsements, and the recommendations of my friends, and
going with Clyde Leuchtag.
Propositions
There are four propositions on the ballot. Propositions on a primary ballot are recommendations; they do not have the force of law if approved.
Proposition 1 concerns
replacing the property tax system with a non-income-tax alternative (such as
higher sales tax). Since property tax pays for local services, such as fire and
police protection, and schools and local roads, it makes sense that property
owners contribute. The alternatives are subject to changes to unbelievably
high, bad for business, sales taxes, which we don’t want. So I’m voting NO.
Proposition 2
says we will comply with federal immigration laws—and not allow sanctuary
cities. Cities that defy the law subject themselves to penalizing loss of state
funds. This should be a given. The Harris County GOP recently supported this
proposition. I’m voting YES.
Proposition 3
prohibits governmental entities from collecting dues for labor unions through
deductions from public employee paychecks. I’m not a big union supporter in
general. I’m especially not big on labor unions for public employees. That
means that, from the wages we taxpayers pay them, the union confiscates a
portion and uses it as it sees fit, regardless of how that goes against the
taxpayer or the public employee. That should be stopped. I’m voting YES.
Proposition 4
says Texas should strongly assert 10th Amendment Rights; i.e., “The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Governor Abbott fought for this as Attorney General. We need more assertion of
our rights, as the federal government continues usurping our rights. So, while
this doesn’t change any law, it does express our encouragement for our leaders
to go forward asserting Texas’s sovereignty. I’m voting YES.
No comments:
Post a Comment