Republican Primary Picks 2026

 

samples of recent campaign flyers

Early voting for the Primary Election starts Tuesday, February 17, here in Harris County, Texas, with Election Day on Tuesday, March 3. So I’m working to make my choices and recommendations.

Once again, we have the longest ballot in the nation—maybe the world. And this may be my longest post ever. I didn’t want to split it up, because early voting is only days away, and people are asking me for my picks.

The quick version is this chart. While I try to make it all worth reading, this is so long, you may want to scroll to what you need.

As I’ve written this blog for the past 15 years, I stand by what I’ve said. Occasionally further information comes out, which may change what I would say, and a few times I’ve gotten information from sources that turned out to be wrong. Those instances have been few. But when I write about my ballot choices—which mainly comes up at these biennial Primary Election times—I am less certain than I am about my other writing. I have consistently, always, tried to make the best choices, among the choices available, to support strong constitutional conservative candidates. But I have at times been disappointed.

This is to say, feel free use my opinions here as a data point, but do your own research. Get to know as much as you can about the candidates. I’ll share what I know, but under a time crunch, I might not yet know enough.

We’ll go down the ballot, US Senate and Congress, then statewide races first. Then we’ll do local races and propositions.

To read the full article, FOLLOW LINK TO SUBSTACK.

Deterrence, Prevention, and Real-Time Intervention

This past Saturday, at our local Tea Party meeting, we had the privilege of hearing from Alan Vera on election integrity—including a heavy dose of what we need to do. Alan is an expert on the subject and trains people nationwide in fighting various kinds of election fraud. As one of the originators of True the Vote, he was mytrainer for poll watching back in 2011.

Unfortunately, I missed the first 20 minutes or so of his talk; I was stuck in traffic, spending 40 minutes to travel the last 2 miles. Of course there was no warning of the slowdown until after the only previous exit. I recorded it (here), but I’m missing that first part. Still, there was enough in the hour, including Q&A, that I heard to share a few gems here.

He reiterated the refrain that we need “Deterrence, Prevention, and Real-Time Intervention.” I’ll mostly be looking at his stories of real-time intervention—the stories of what regular citizens have done and need to do, because, as he puts it, “Law enforcement ain’t comin’ over the hill to save us.”

Alan Vera, former Army Ranger, election integrity expert,
speaks at the Cypress Texas Tea Party, July 23, 2022
screenshot from here

This first story is from way too close to home—about three miles down the street:

The day before Early Voting in 2020, I got a call from a lady here in West Houston. She had been to the Food Town Grocery at the corner of Highway 6 and FM [farm-to-market road] 529. She came out of the Food Town and was stopped by a young man and young lady, each of whom was pulling a big wagon full of canvas bags. And they said to her, “Would you like to earn a $100 gift card?” And she said, “Well, yeah. What do I have to do?” “Well, just take a handful of these home, sign them, put a stamp on them, and send them in.” And she said, “What are they?”

So they pulled out a stack. It was all mail ballots. Already filled out. Every Democrat candidate was checked. And they showed her, “Just check the name of the voter here. Fold it up, and before you seal it sign your name across that seal. And here is the roll stamps to send it in with.”

And she said, “I don't feel comfortable with that.” She went home and called the Harris County Sheriff's Office, but they said, “We don't do election fraud.”

We don’t do election fraud! Law enforcement ain’t comin’ over the hill to save us.

Sure, we need laws on the books, and we’ve done well at upping some the crimes to felonies. But once the crime is committed, it’s often too late. We need to deter, prevent, and step up—in real time—to stop the steal from happening in the first place.

Another of Alan’s stories is from 2020, when the interim county clerk, replacing the elected county clerk who stepped down amid ethical violations “for health reasons because of COVID,”—that interim clerk did all he could to use the COVID crisis, proving that mail ballots are their chosen election fraud tool:

Back in 2020, you know, County Clerk Chris Hollis held a press conference. He announced that there was going to be a record number of mail ballots in Harris County for that election: 285,000 mail ballots was his confident prediction. We knew the Democrats were going to use try to use mail ballots as their key fraud that election.

So in March of 2020, my wife, Colleen, published the first of two articles exposing the mail ballot fraud ring in Harris County, to get started on it. And we published that, and we said, “What do we do now?” And we said, “Let's pray.” So we prayed.

some of the evidence found by Colleen Vera,
in her 2020 post here

Two days later, I got phone calls from four private investigative agencies. They'd seen the article. They said, “What can we do to help?” We said, “What do you know? How can you help me again?” They said, “We know where the two buildings are which are the mail ballot factories in Harris County. One’s owned by a guy named Womack [?—couldn’t tell what he said]. The other owned by a guy named Dallas Jones. We know where those are.”

So I said, “Tell about that.”

“Well, there's buildings, two-story buildings. People come in, and they go to the top floor, and they work there all day, signing mail ballots—fraudulently signing mail ballots. We know where they are.”

I said, “Well, can you surveille them?” They laughed, and said, “We'll do better than that.”

So they surveilled these two buildings. But they didn't do it clandestinely from two blocks away with binoculars. They were on the sidewalk outside the front door of each building, with video cameras. They were recording the face of everyone going in their door. They were taking photos of their driver's licenses. [I think he means license plates, visible on every car.] They were making it very uncomfortable to go in and out of those buildings.

Two weeks before early voting began, they shut down both facilities, thanks to four private eyes who said, “We’re going to do something.”

That’s only the first part of the story. Here are some more details of a win for the freedom fighters:

And you all have seen the movie 2000 Mules. We didn't have unmanned drop boxes in Texas. But we had worse. Governor Abbott, in his COVID wisdom, extended early voting by a week in 2020. Then he did something much worse. He changed the rules for dropping off your mail ballot in person.

The Texas Election Code says you can drop off your mail ballot in person on only one day: Election Day between 7 AM and 7 PM, and only at the main office of the Early Voting clerk, which is the EA [election administrator]. One day, 12 hours. Governor Abbott extended it to 62 days. 62 days, you could drop off your mail ballot.

Well, I wrote and sent off a letter of protest. Got [Senator] Bettencourt involved, Senator Hughes involved. Said, “You guys got to do something about this.” And then I just prayed. Prayed and prayed and prayed.

Two days later, I got a call from a church leader I'd never met before. She said, “I hear you need some help with mail ballots.” I said, “Yeah, I need 35 poll watchers who will be around 24/7 at NRG Arena and stop the mail ballot fraud to that venue.” She said, “Give me two days.”

Two days later, she had me 35 poll watchers willing to go round the clock at NRG. And I trained them by Zoom call Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights. And they did it. They did it. They stood at NRG through rain, and through heat, through wind, thunderstorms. They were there 62 days at NRG Arena.

mail ballots being turned in at NRG Arena in Houston in 2020,
Getty image by Go Nakamura, found here

Did they stop stuff? You betcha.

Car after car would pull up with banker's boxes full of mail ballots filled with mail ballots. And these church poll watchers said, “No, the law says you can only drop off your own mail ballot. That's it. And you must show ID to do so. And the name and signature on your driver's license has to match the name and signature on the carrier envelope. And then you have to sign this form here,” it’s a sign-in form with the time you dropped off your mail ballot.

They upheld that. And they turned away car after car after car, full of mail ballots to be dropped off. They stopped it.

Now, there were a couple of nights that got kind of harry. And, believe it or not, the private detective guys were across the street from NRG Arena with binoculars, making sure our polls were okay. They were watching over them.

Chris Hollins said 285,000 mail ballots. We got 163,000, just average for Harris County in a presidential election. We beat him. We beat him without a single act by law enforcement or any elected official. Real time intervention.

This is not to say you don’t also work with the legislature and law enforcement. This next story is a good look behind the scenes of the legislative fight. To remind you, in the 2021 legislative session, we had a bill, SB1, that would strengthen voter laws in a number of ways. The legislators cut work short by a day, preventing some final bills from passing, which included this one. So the Governor called a special session. The Democrats fled the state so no business could be done. So the Governor called a second special session, by the end of which some Dems were trickling back in. There were three sessions in all, but the “time bomb” was planted in the second:

From August 2020 to October 2020, there were four of us working clandestinely to write the bill that eventually became Senate Bill 1. It was myself representing Harris County Republican Party. It was the Texas Public Policy Foundation. It was Texans for Lawsuit Reform. And it was the Opiela Law Firm up in Austin. We worked for three months drafting Senate Bill 1, and the bill was finally filed that January. 80% of the language was ours.

So we got it done. We hand it off. And now it belongs to Senator Bryan Hughes. And we got to watch the Democrats go apoplectic over Senate Bill 1. They broke quorum. They fled to Washington. They held press conferences. They yelled voter suppression. And we're all sitting back here laughing. The four of us again going, “Gee, no one knows we did that.” But it’s fun to watch them melt down.

So then Senate Bill 1 didn't pass in the regular session, because they broke quorum.  It didn't pass in the first special session. And Democrats are starting to trickle back. Between the first and second special session, we were doing a project for Mike Schofield, and I suddenly remembered, because I’m old, that—Holy Cow! We've got another problem. In Harris County, since the Democrats took over in 2019, in every election we have had more ballots and voters. Another miracle of the loaves and fishes. Every election there were more ballots cast than voters who signed in.

So I approached Senator Bettencourt and Senator Hughes, and said, “Guys, I need to add two sentences to Senate Bill 1.” Just two simple sentences. Just requiring that, every election there be a reconciliation of the number of voters and the number of ballots. They snuck it in there between the sessions.

Now, because the special session starts all over again, Senate Bill 1 was refiled. It wasn’t like an amendment from the floor of the Senate. It was refiled. So these two sentences are at the bottom of page 38 and an 80 page bill. Nobody noticed them. They fought over the poll watchers. They fought over the civil penalties. They fought over everything, but not over that reconciliation issue. It sailed through and was finally passed in the second special session.

So, like a good Army Ranger booby trap, the tripwires were set. The detonators were all primed. and the ammo was all live; the explosives were all live. And it just sat there sat there. It sat there until the March 1^st Primary. Isabel Longoria [the appointed Elections Administrator, after the County Commission removed oversight of elections from the County Clerk] had pretty much screwed up everything about the elections. She had screwed everything up. And it was getting harder and harder for [Harris County] Judge Hidalgo to continue to support her—especially when the Communist Chronicle [the Houston Chronicle] even said, “Sorry, Dems, this mess is not the Republicans’ fault.”

Then, on election night, of course we had to sue, because she was not going to finish counting the ballots in the 24-hour period required by law. We had to go to court to sue to give her more time to count the ballots. It took her 41 hours instead of 24 hours.

And then came the moment of truth: the reconciliation form. They signed it at 3:00 in the morning, on March 3^rd. They're all sleepy, they're all groggy. And they signed it and sent to Secretary of State. The next day, he called and said, “Harris County, you seem to have forgotten to count 10,000 ballots. Boom! Trip wires went off. Detonators went off. It was great. Lina Hidalgo then asked for Isabel's resignation.

No one knows who did that. Bettencourt knows was, because he helped me get it in there. But it's fun. There's real satisfaction in doing things quietly behind the scenes that nobody will ever know about. It’s important. It's important.

So real time intervention, it's up to us.

There were more stories, and there was more advice. But this is enough for now. Again, he makes sure we understand—this November 8^th, no one gets to sit home on election day. We’ve all got to volunteer. Work the polls, or be a poll watcher. Or volunteer at central count. Between now and then, we can help check the voter rolls and clean them up; we can get our neighbors to understand how important it is to vote in this election.

I asked Alan afterward if what I’m seeing is true: if we don’t stop the voter fraud this election, and we lose to Democrat cheating, is that the end of our freedom? Are things that dire?” He said yes, things are that dire.

Don’t be caught sleeping through the demise of our great country, when you could be taking a day off to deploy to somewhere in your county to guarantee free and fair elections. Join in our fight to recover our constitutional republic. Be there for the real-time interventions.

Coercive vs. Cautious Response

We’re seeing daylight after the onset of the pandemic now. Coming back, not quite to the normal we knew, but toward more functional than a shutdown. We don’t know all the data we would like for a complete picture, but it’s enough to conclude some things in general.

It has been a scary thing. The illness is real. It has taken many lives. But it has not taken anywhere near as many lives as we were told were likely—the scare that caused the world to shut down. In fact, the Imperial College model used to make that call was so wrong that it takes one’s breath away. Looking into it, people who do the technical work and coding for such things report they are appalled at the sloppy work and wonder how anything so full of trash was ever given credibility.

That’s a question I’d like answered at some point. How did a model by a British doctor who had been wildly inaccurate in every data model he’d ever produced—a person who violated his own lockdown protocol to carry out an adulterous affair—how did this person’s model get put forth as credible in the first place, let alone so credible that the world shut down over it?

The good news is that the virus was much less virulent than the model predicted.  And the changes society made to keep it from spreading at overwhelming rates accomplished their purpose.

But the accomplishment may not be in lives saved, but in deaths postponed. Because the virus spread slower, but not halted. Slow and steady wins the race, as the fable says. So the virus will still make it’s way through the population. The two advantages to a slower spread are preventing the hospitals from getting overwhelmed, and giving time for development of treatments.

Both of those goals are worthwhile, but it is debatable whether they have been worth what they have cost us. It isn’t a matter of saving lives vs. saving an economy. It is postponing lives lost in this particular way vs. losing lives in other ways as a result of the economic and social shutdown.

There are tradeoffs with almost any decision. Do you risk X to get Y? Do you know enough to judge whether the risk is worth it? Leaders in policy-making positions have to make this kind of decision every day.

But one thing I think we’re observing from this pandemic response is that there have been generally two categories of response: coercive or cautious. There has been very little cavalier, incautious response. So let’s look at just the two ways.

I’m in a state with a cautious response. We did do a statewide economic pause—with most businesses closed or working from home. Food, electricity, and emergency hospital care were still available. People began wearing masks a week or so into that time. And now that we’re nearly a month into slowly opening back up, most people in stores and more crowded places (by these new standards) still wear masks.

While Harris County, which contains most of Houston, has a comparatively high number of cases for the state, it has a low rate per population. Some of the darker spots in the graphic are actually smaller populations with a fairly low number of cases that wreak havoc on their stats.

Covid-19 cases per 1,000 residents in Texas, by county, as of May 28, 2020
Interactive graphic from Texas Tribune

The news from the Department of State Health Services today says that Texas is approaching the million tests milestone. With the increase in testing, positive responses are down in the 3% range. Hospitalizations for the virus peaked three weeks ago and have remained flat for a month. Active cases are down over 600. We’ve had our first two-day decline: down 391 Tuesday, down 216 more Wednesday.

In other words, even though we worried about a spike in new cases following phases 1 and 2 of opening up—which was certainly a common and logical expectation—we had a temporary rise, but that spike did not happen.

It may be that we’re coming into the hot humid weather that this virus doesn’t like. Florida's outcomes are similar to ours. 

But New Zealand, in their fall/winter season, just announced that their last Covid-19 patient left the hospital; they have zero active cases. So it may be that the virus has simply run its course, at least for now. It’s unknown whether we’ll get another surge in the fall. That will depend on whether there has been sufficient mutation of the virus to become essentially a new strain—like we get with the annual flu, which, if I understand correctly, is the ever-present remnant of the 1918 flu pandemic. So, that information is still unknown.

But, if the virus has actually been running its course, and we’ll be done with it, then some lives actually were saved by our slowing the spread. I’m open to that possibility. I know I’ve personally felt safer in public when people around me wear masks. Since I’m badly affected just by a common cold, I have to say the mask wearing and better hygiene by everyone has actually made me personally feel safer. But, I don’t think I have the right to ask everyone to wear masks forever (they’re not comfortable, and they cover everyone’s smile) just so I feel a bit safer.

So, for now I’m willing to look at mask wearing as a gesture of goodwill. But you don’t shame people for failing to step up to a particular level of goodwill just because you’re willing to step up there. Shaming is the opposite of a gesture of goodwill. And besides, you can’t coerce people into actual goodwill.

Which brings us back to the coercive version of leadership. Our county judge, Lina Hidalgo, is a handy example. She has tried mandating mask wearing—stopped by the governor. She has attempted to shut down parks. She has attempted to keep businesses closed longer than the governor’s recommendation—even though our hospitals have plenty of capacity and our population has not been hard hit. She has tried letting felons out of prison out of her compassion while simultaneously threatening to jail regular citizens for daring to go about their lives in some way she’s not willing to permit.

Last Thursday, when Mr. Spherical Model and I drove up to see our kids and grandkids for the first time in all these months, Hidalgo announced that the shutdown in Houston had to remain in effect until June 10. It took her an additional 15 hours to post the edict. Whether she has power to enforce it is another question. 

Yet we have, safe, cautious, goodwill moves to open things back up—not a sudden mobbing of the public spaces and businesses. So coercion was never necessary.

Coercion has a purpose other than our safety.

There is a direct correlation between coercion and economic damage; the harsher the shutdown rules, and the longer they are left in place, the more unemployment and economic fallout, obviously. But there is no correlation between coercive long shutdown and low death rates, at least in the United States. In fact, there appears to be almost an inverse correlation. Texas, Georgia, and Florida so far are getting great numbers after opening up. In fact, after some brief worry in mid-March, none of these states had much to worry about.

The hardest hit states seem to be those with more coercive measures.

Texas is 15th in order of total deaths. But when you take into account population, it's down near the bottom, in 41st place. 

Rate of Covid-19 cases per 100,000 population, by state, as of May 28, 2020
Original chart from Statista.com

I considered developing a graphic, to see whether there was a correlation by party and death rate. Maybe another day. I think we have the more typical urban/rural divide to explain many differences.

But I’m guessing that there are personality differences between the different reactions. People who are fearful submit more easily to more coercion. People who generally feel they’re in control of their own lives and destinies tend to resist coercion.

So, if you’re a power monger, a tyrant (or would-be tyrant), you stir up fear as a strategy to control your subjects.

Since you’re not a subject, but a citizen, you need to assert your own authority. In order to avoid being oppressed by a tyrant, you need to know as much as you can, to decide for yourself what you are willing to do for your own health and for others (two quite different values).

If you’re scared enough, you might trust government to decide for you when to attend church in person again. But if you’re capable of figuring out how to be as safe in a church as you are in Walmart or on a city bus, then maybe you don’t trust a government that keeps your church doors closed. Maybe you find something really wrong with how Chicago’s mayor sent authorities, swat style, to shut down a church. 

Or maybe you can decide, without the help of an overseer, when to go get a haircut from a stylist who wears a mask and washes everything carefully between customers. 

You might be living under tyranny if you are allowed to go to Walmart, but not to the beach and go out, alone, on a surfboard, because of the need to “flatten the curve.”

You might be living under tyranny if you’re allowed to take your family to the beach, but can’t sit on or picnic on the sand; you have to go directly from your car into the water. (Ben Shapiro suggested maybe he should use a cannon to shoot his children into the water from his car.)

You might be living under tyranny if golfing or skateboarding are considered risky for spreading a respiratory virus.

You might be living under tyranny if you’re allowed to walk on a path but not bicycle, because of the need to prevent spreading coronavirus.

You might be living under tyranny if you’re allowed to have online services broadcast from your church, but only if no one sings.

The stories pop up daily. Consider looking at each story and asking, does this make logical sense? And than ask, is this a cautious response or a coercive response?

One thing I think we’ll see is that coercive governments lead to much worse economic situations for their people, possibly combined with worse health outcomes. Again, some of the health differences will be because of urban density. And the density of Houston or Los Angeles is simply not the same as the density of New York or New Jersey. But, what if the coercive measures—for the sake of public safety—don’t actually accomplish public safety? What if your protective government enforces policies that put nursing homes at risk, and continue to run public transportation, but force you to lose your job or shut down your small business, stay in your home, and don’t leave for any reason except to get food? Are they keeping you safe, or keeping you controlled?

At what point are you willing to consider reasserting your own authority?

That’s what I’m suggesting. Breathe deep. Look at the actual real-time data for your location. Get a full picture—not just number of deaths, which goes up with no chance of going back down, obviously. But death rates per population, infection rates per population, intensity of infection for your demographic, and anything else that gives you something other than just the scariest numbers without context.

We can beat this thing. We’re doing that. And it seems to be letting up, possibly naturally without our doing anything but pray. (By the way, it looks to me that the worldwide fast day we had April 10 marked the beginning of the downward trend of the virus. Like this chart shows for Houston’s new cases per day.)

The 7-day rolling average of new cases is better than
the daily count, because testing gets reported irregularly. The upper line is
Harris County, which is much more populous than surrounding counties.
The chart is from the Houston Chronicle today, p. A20.
I added the red line to mark the date of our worldwide fast.

But can we beat the tyranny that has opportunistically used our fear for its evil purposes?

As plagues go, Covid-19 has been bad but not “Black Death” bad. But the government-caused economic and social devastation in the name of safety from the virus has been a worldwide plague not seen since—I don’t know. Pompeii? The flood?

Our recovery depends on reasserting our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property—to pursue happiness. It’s doable. Maybe in a relatively short time. But we have to throw off the fear to take away the tyrants’ power.

My 2020 Primary Recommendations

Early voting ends tomorrow. Primary voting day here in Texas is next Tuesday, which is “Super Tuesday,” voting day along with 13 other states plus American Samoa.

I’ve been procrastinating. Both going ahead and voting and writing about my recommendations. The main reason is that I am sincerely undecided about my state representative race. So I’ve put a deadline on myself to get this out today—giving me one more possible day to early vote.

I’ll walk down the ballot, pretty much skipping the uncontested races. It’s a shorter list than in many previous primaries. We can do this!

TEXAS STATEWIDE RACES

President

While there are other names on the ballot, I only recognize having encountered one in addition to the obvious. Unlike four years ago, now that he has followed through with conservative promises, I’m voting for Donald Trump. And I will campaign as well as I know how against whichever socialist the Democrats put on their ballot.

US Senator

The incumbent senior Texas senator is John Cornyn. I expect him to win. And I will gladly support him against any Democrat. But, in the primary, to get his attention that we actually expect conservative representation, I am voting for Dwayne Stovall. I’ve met him before. His main point is federalism—issues being taken care of at their appropriate level, as local as possible. He’s very Texan. Worth this vote. But you do what you want.

Incidentally, I’m not the only one thinking this way. I have an endorsement matrix put together by my SREC (State Republican Executive Committee) Chair, of various individuals and PACs that have put out their choices. He’s giving Stovall his vote, and two others on the matrix as well.

US Representative

I’m in District 2; my Rep is Dan Crenshaw—because four years ago we—along with our hard work and campaigning for him—got lucky. He has been stellar. He's unchallenged in the primary.

A nearby district is District 7, with three candidates: Wesley Hunt, Cindy Siegel, and Maria Espinoza. I’ve met them all at our local Tea Party meetings. I would give Cindy Siegel my support. She handled the financial report at our county GOP meetings for several years. Before that she was the Mayor of Bellaire, a suburb of Houston, until term-limited out. She has run things. She handles finances well. She’s consistently conservative.

Wesley Hunt looks good on paper. He’s an African-American military veteran, the kind of person you want to be pleased about voting for. However, his voting record shows never having voted in a Republican primary. Maybe we have to forgive him for 2008 (although I’d rather not), but all other primaries? It’s hard to convince me of your dedication to the Constitution without even that minimal record.

Maria Espinoza is impressive enough in person. I like her. A vote for her would also not be wasted.

Railroad Commissioner

Ryan Sutton is the incumbent. He has been excellent. He’s also one of my favorite people to listen to on freedom and the US Constitution. I’ve heard nothing from, and know nothing about, his primary opponent.

Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3

The Texas Supreme Court is divided into criminal and non-criminal courts. This is an opening on the criminal side. The two lawyers I turn to for their opinions both said Bert Richardson over Gina Parker. I think I’ll agree with them. As my former assistant DA friend said, Bert Richardson “is the most experienced candidate with no glaring weaknesses that I’m aware of. His opponent has far less relevant experience, and her main appeal seems to be she has the most politically conservative credentials.” Conservative credentials are helpful. But, I’ve got those, and I wouldn’t consider that as qualifying for a state supreme court position. Addendum: he also says that Rick Perry didn’t like a Richardson ruling in which Perry was charge, so he firmly supports Parker instead.

SREC 7 Chair Mark Ramsey's matrix of endorsements

HARRIS COUNTY RACES

State Representative, District 138

This is the one I’m undecided on. The three candidates on the ballot are Lacey Hull, Claver Kamau-Imani, and Josh Flynn. Lacey contacted me personally early on. I like her. I relate to her. She’s a homeschool mom who has spent time with nonprofits, dealing with legislative details. She’s married to a veteran, who seems to be a good support to her. She lives in the heart of the district, Spring Branch. However, she’s quiet and gentle. She’s basically me, with a lot more youth and energy. She has the endorsement of Governor Abbott, also Tim Lambert of Texas Home School Coalition.

Some good friends (not in my district) whose opinions I trust, are strongly supporting Claver Kamau-Imani. He’s an African-American preacher—his title is Apostle. He also just recently started homeschooling. There’s a lot we agree on. And he makes a good point that he has a unique ability to outreach to communities we Republicans tend not to reach, and we need that in a district that won by only about 42 votes last time. (The retiring Rep. Dwayne Bohac won in my precinct by about 30 votes, which makes me feel like we’re significant.) Claver is a force of nature. There are moments he seems extreme—although if you spend enough time getting a longer answer, he’s not so scary. But there have been times at past district conventions when I simply didn’t agree with him on various issues—none of which I can remember, though. He has the endorsement of Texas Right to Life.

The third candidate is Josh Flynn. I have not heard from him. He didn’t show up at our Tea Party—although he was scheduled for a forum last Saturday that unfortunately got cancelled, not at all his fault. However, there’s an asterisk: he has been ruled ineligible. This is being challenged, and under law he’s still allowed to have his name on the ballot. He has nevertheless been endorsed by more on the matrix than the other two.

Here’s what I understand of the dispute. He had been serving on the Harris County Board of Education as a trustee. Technically it’s a paid position, paying something nominal like $6 a month. Maybe enough to cover parking, or gas. But there’s an emoluments law that says you can’t run for office while serving in a paid position. There’s a footnote about this on the HCGOPcandidate info page: s

* In response to challenge after the filing deadline, Josh Flynn was declared ineligible to run in the primary. Per Texas law, his name remains on the ballot. Unless a final court ruling holds otherwise, he remains ineligible. Votes for this race will be counted in accordance with Texas Election Code Section 172.058.

As it was explained to me, Flynn was required in the HCBOE bylaws to resign but continue in his duties until he had been replaced on the board. But he failed to show up at the final meeting, and as a result the Democrat vice-chair was able to get installed as chair, put another Democrat in as vice-chair, and appoint another Democrat to the vacancy. The result was flipping the board from long-fought-for conservative leadership to a 5-2 Democrat majority. We all want to get rid of that board altogether, but until then, we at least would have liked what we’d voted for.

So, in the absence of his being able to convince me that doesn’t represent how he’ll function, I’ll at least cross him off my list. I’ll either vote for Lacey Hull or Claver Kamau-Imani.

Justice, 1^st Court of Appeals District, Place 5

About 92% of cases stop at the Court of Appeals level. So it’s important. There are nine justices, on three-judge panels.

There are four candidates in this race. I am told Terry Adams has the most appellate experience. I met him in January and liked him. The other favored candidate is James Lombardino, who I’ve also met a number of times. He’s older, friendly, quite experienced, will be aged out in about four years, I think he said. He represented that as a plus, because he won’t be trying to run again, so he can easily be impartial. But I’d prefer good experienced justice that can hold onto it for a while. So, I’m going with Terry Adams.

Harris County District Attorney

The incumbent Democrat, Kim Ogg, has been a disastrously bad DA. Whoever can get us out of the mess she has created, I’m in favor of. So I will support whoever is the Republican nominee.

There are three candidates: Mary Nan Huffman, Lori DeAngelo, and Lloyd Wayne Oliver. I’ve met the two female candidates; I don’t recall meeting Oliver. I liked both DeAngelo and Huffman. They were in the same candidate forum and were respectful toward each other. Huffman seems very young, although impressive. I felt more confidence in DeAngelo. My former assistant DA friend prefers DeAngelo for her experience as a prosecutor. He’s also concerned about Huffman’s youth, as well as her being “too cozy” with the police. While it’s a good thing to always support law enforcement, the DA is often required to investigate the police. Can she stand up to them when necessary, is the question. Huffman is getting a lot of the endorsements on the matrix, but DeAngelo gets them from those I know to be conservative. So that gives me confidence in voting for Lori DeAngelo.

Harris County Sheriff

There are three candidates for sheriff: Paul Day, Randy Rush, and Joe Danna. This is one of the more important races on the ballot, but I’ve heard less from these candidates than from sheriff candidates in other years. We have a Democrat sheriff right now, and replacing him would be a good step in the right direction.

I believe I met Paul Day almost a year ago but haven’t heard from him since. Joe Danna came to our January Tea Party candidate forum. I liked him well enough, although my notes show very little about him. My former assistant DA friend voted for Rush. He offers this insight I hadn’t seen elsewhere:

I met him while investigating a case. He’s very experienced. He struck me as a person of strong convictions who would do the right thing regardless of what others thought. His opponent will probably win, but the big knock on him is he got fired for falsifying a legal document saying he had served a subpoena when it was proven conclusively that he had not.

He added that Danna’s experience was with another agency, while Rush served for a long time with the Sheriff’s Office, which is more helpful in getting to work on day one.

The matrix is almost entirely for Danna. Nevertheless, based on this close-up recommendation, I’m giving my vote to Randy Rush.

Harris County School Trustee, Position 5, At Large

I’m going for Fred Flickinger. He seems to have good experience. He’s never run for office before, but he’s handled large budgets in a logistics business, and also has experience running a smaller family-owned business. I don’t know his opponents, Bob Wolfe and Connie Dubroff. I guess it makes a difference for a candidate to come out and meet people.

Harris County School Trustee, Position 7, At Large

The two candidates are Don Sumners and Kay Smith. Sumners gets the endorsement across the matrix. I can’t remember now what position he’s held before, something school related. I have nothing against him and will support him if he wins. Kay Smith has been on the HCBOE before, stepping down in a run for state House rep (which she managed legally, without the disturbance to the board caused by Flynn’s leaving). She’s dedicated to getting rid of this artifact of an old system, which is a way to spend money and control curriculum without spending a dime on actual education of any student. Harris County is the only county with a school board. It’s redundant, and anywhere there’s more government than necessary, that’s dangerous. An at large position covers the whole county, but Kay is very local, and has been very active politically for longer than I’ve lived here. So she gets my vote.

Justice of the Peace, Precinct 5, Place 1

I’m voting for Russ Ridgway. If memory serves (it might not) I served as a juror in his court a long time ago. If that was him, I very much approved of his work in that case. Anyway, he’s been doing a good job and is well liked. My DA friend has appeared before him and approves of him.

Harris County Republican Chairman

I’m voting to keep Paul Simpson. He’s been easy to work with and seems to me to be tireless in a job that doesn’t pay. And he seems to me to always be fair to the various differing opinions within the party. I know some people are panicky because we lost the countywide races, but I think that was a side-effect of Obama and Beto ground teams, and not actual change. I don’t think it’s because of laziness or ineffective leadership.

PROPOSITIONS

These are expressions of opinion on the ballot; they do not automatically become law, but they do become a prominent part of the party platform, if I’m understanding this correctly. Vote yes or no for each. They come as recommendations from the SREC since our last convention.

Proposition 1: Texas should not restrict or prohibit prayer in public schools.

Yes, we should support our First Amendment right, as free Texans.

Proposition 2: Texas should reject restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Yes, we should support our Second Amendment right, as free Texans.

Proposition 3: Texas should ban the practice of taxpayer-funded lobbying, which allows your tax dollars to be spent on lobbyists who work against the taxpayer.

This is a little more troublesome. In my very large county, I’m very much in favor of this. It was one of our legislative priorities this past session. However, the fallout on small counties is that the one way they have to lobby against unfunded mandates from the state, which can actually bankrupt them, will be taken away. So I am voting No on this for now, while working on refining the concept to exempt smaller counties and jurisdictions.

Proposition 4: Texas should support the construction of a physical barrier and use existing defense-grade surveillance equipment along the entire southern border of Texas.

Yes. It’s a US government responsibility. If we value our sovereignty, we need this.

Proposition 5: Texas parents or legal guardians of public school children under the age of 18 should be the sole decision makers for all their children’s healthcare decisions including, but not limited to, psychological assessment and treatment, contraception, and sex education.

Yes. Of course. But why limit it to parents of public school children? Because that’s where the conflict arises. But we should just say that fit parents have the right to the care and upbringing of their children.

Proposition 6: Texas should ban chemical castration, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital mutilation surgery on all minor children for transition purposes, given that Texas children as young as three (3) are being transitioned from their biological sex to the opposite sex.

Yes. Permanent physical alterations to a child should be considered child abuse. If a child reaches adulthood and wants to make those decisions, that is at least their own decision and not the adults whose responsibility it is to care for them.

Proposition 7: Texans should protect and preserve all historical monuments, artifacts, and buildings, such as the Alamo Cenotaph and our beloved Alamo, and should oppose any reimagining of the Alamo site.

There’s a hidden problem with this. I’ve gone over and over the plans for the “Reimagine the Alamo” project. Everything about it is to preserve and protect this historic site. But there are some people who have been coming out against it, it appears to me for political purposes only. They claim they will protect, while the General Land Office is all about tearing down. I don’t know why they’re lying. But moving and restoring the Cenotaph to a better location that will allow better preservation of the Alamo structure and the archaeology there is not “tearing down” either the Cenotaph or the Alamo. Because of that lie, I’m voting No on this proposition, even though of course I am for protecting and preserving all historical monuments, etc.

Proposition 8: Texas election officials should heed the directives of the Office of the Governor to purge illegal voters from the voter rolls and verify that each new registered voter is a US Citizen.

Yes. Of course.

Proposition 9: Bail in Texas should be based only on a person’s danger to society and risk of flight, not that person’s ability to pay.

Wording problem here. There are seven different things to consider, not just danger and flight risk. This would eliminate those other considerations, which are needed. So, No.

Proposition 10: Texas should limit our state legislators’ terms to 12 years.

Yes, I could go for that.

Primarily Speaking, Part III

We’re going through the long ballot for the Texas Primary, where we vote for judges, in addition to the more typical elected positions. In Part I, we got through the statewide races. In Part II, we covered the statewide judicial races and a few local races. I expect we’ll finish today, with district (Harris County) judicial races and whatever we’ve else is left (county party leadership). Today covers a few of the more interesting races I’ve been wanting to think through. We’ll go in order, however, rather than just most interesting first.

Gaahhh!!! This additional avalanche showed up
in the mail while I was writing Part III

 

District Judge 246^th Family Court:

This is an open bench (no incumbent) with two candidates, Angelina Gooden and Charley Prine. I heard both of them briefly. Gooden has 24+ years of experience in family law, appointed by the court to represent children. Prine has been an associate judge in the county, for Judge Sheri Dean. His work as a grassroots Republican go back to working for Phil Gramm, and campaigning for Reagan. Both candidates get 50% support from CCHC. Prine gets the nod from TCR, HRBC, DA, and PC. Considering his judicial experience, I’m going with Charley Prine.

 

District Judge 247^th Family Court:

This is also an open bench, and one of the most difficult to decide—because there are good choices. We’ve been hearing from the candidates for this position since last spring, and they’ve been coming faithfully, so that we feel like they’re part of us. I’m not going to endorse, because I want to be open to change my mind up until the last, but I’ll give you some info about each. Melanie Flowers and MLWalker are both African American women—not what you’re told you find at Tea Party meetings. (If I recall correctly, Angelina Gooden fits that demographic as well, as does Governor candidate Lisa Fritsch.) Walker has been functioning as associate judge in this court for some time. Flowers has a certification in family law (the only candidate with this credential, but it isn’t a requirement to do the job).  John Schmude is the third candidate (there used to be a fourth, who dropped out). When he came to our Tea Party to introduce himself, he gave one of the best 10-minute speeches on Constitutional philosophy that I had heard. It was impassioned and memorable. If I were going just by my first impressions based on those 10-minute talks, he would have earned my vote. But there is more. Walker is currently doing the job, for example. And she gets support from my DA friends, as well as one of our regular Tea Party members who has a family law practice. She also has continued to come to our meetings, to become one of us. Only Melanie Flowers has done that more. I see her everywhere—she hands out flowers to remind voters of her name, and I’ve gotten a bouquet-ful.  

I got a heads up to ask the question about long-term conservative principles. Only Schmude voted against Obama in 2008. He has always been conservative. I asked Walker about her vote at a Tea Party meeting, and she answered with considerable grace. Up until that point in her life, she wasn’t political, didn’t pay attention to politics. She voted for Obama, caught up in the hype about it being a historic moment. But shortly into 2009 she realized what a mistake that was, started paying attention, became a Republican and hasn’t looked back. Someone asked Melanie Flowers that question at a forum elsewhere. She admitted she voted for Obama in 2009 (not 2012), because it was historic. She was at that time a GOP precinct chair, which strikes me as unacceptable. Disqualifying? Maybe. But I didn’t get to talk with her about it, and I don’t know of anything else I disagree with her on. Of all the candidates, I think I’d feel most comfortable going to lunch for fun with her, and I think she’d probably do well as a judge. But in this close race, not realizing what a disaster Obama would be is a significant problem. 

Schmude gets 89% support from CCHC, my guess is because conservative philosophy is his native language. He also gets support from PC. Walker gets support from DA, TCR, and HRBC. I hope this is enough info to help you make a decision. Fortunately, it looks like you can’t really make a terrible choice.

 

District Judge 263^rd Criminal Court:

The candidates are Jim Wallace and Robert Summerlin. Wallace has been the sitting judge on this court since 1994. DA as well as TCR support him. But Summerlin gets 100% support from CCHC, plus HRBC and PC. Hmm. I don’t know if the challenge is just because he’s been there so long. It’s odd to challenge a sitting judge. It does appear the challenger has conservative bonafides. He has experience as both a felony prosecutor and defense attorney. I’m not sure which way I’ll go, but the CCHC recommendation has me leaning toward Robert Summerlin.

 

District Judge 269^th Civil Court:

Dan Hinde is the sitting judge on this bench. He was appointed by Governor Perry in 2008 and was a number 1 target of democrats in 2010, but stayed put. He has reduced his docket backlog by 27%. His opponent is John Wittenmyer. All my resources except TCR are behind Hinde (including 100% from CCHC), which means he’s perceived as doing well as the sitting judge. Dan Hinde suggests you remember, “Be kind, vote Hinde, for 269.”

 

District Judge 311^th Family Court:

This is an interesting if confusing race. As an outsider, I’m uncertain if I have all the facts. Denise Pratt is the sitting judge. She has four challengers from her own party. That suggests there’s a problem in that court. The Houston Chronicle agrees the court has problems. In December, hundreds of cases were dismissed without a ruling. Pratt explains that the lawyers had been detaining and then failing to follow up and reschedule—some for years. She insists that she considers the child individually in each and every case. When she spoke at our Tea Party meeting, she seemed sensible, although I wondered about the defensiveness about not being pressured to rule, because we’re all aware of how inefficiency is a huge failure for justice. She was impressive enough that she won our straw poll by a single vote (a snapshot opinion of those attending that day, including candidates and their helpers if they choose to vote). I saw later one of her supporters citing that victory as if it were an endorsement from us. Not true. And we do not, as a group, endorse any candidates. She did not win the next straw poll. Denise Pratt got 65% from CCHC, which is not an endorsement, but a response to specific questions, which relate to conservative principles, not to orderly running of the court. I can see how that could happen in the absence of additional information. 

I had heard about this court previously, but I didn’t immediately make the connection, since there are so many courts, and we’ve met so many candidates, in pretty random order. But what we hear from people dealing with this court is that it’s a huge problem. They say the judge comes in late, leaves early, and simply fails to make rulings. Some have speculated either unadmitted health issues or mental issues, although I don’t see evidence of that from Judge Pratt in person. But there’s enough rumbling that I think it’s fair to say she isn’t doing a good job of managing her court. The challengers have gone as far as to say, “I don’t even care which one of us you vote for; we just have to get someone who will do the job.” Wow!  

So the challengers are Donna Detamore, Alicia Franklin, Philip Placzek, and Anthony Magdaleno. I tend to lean toward whomever I’ve heard from lately. Donna Detamore is supported by PC. Alicia Franklin is supported by DA (which might sway me) and TCR. Anthony Magdaleno is also supported by PC. In straw polls I’ve voted once for Detamore and once for Magdaleno. And there’s a good chance I’d support Franklin as well. Without additional info or support for Placzek, I guess I’ll eliminate him. But otherwise I think the choice is anyone but Pratt.

 

Judge County Criminal Court 10:

There are four candidates for this open bench. Dan Spjut brings experience from 27 years at the Houston Police Department with 14 years as an attorney. (He doesn’t seem old enough, so I’m not sure if the attorney years are included in the other.) Mary Heafner has been a private detective, and worked for the FBI, and in real estate, plus 30 years as a defense attorney. (I’m often amazed at the impossibly long careers of judicial candidates, and wonder if I’ve gotten numbers wrong. Similarly, I fail to understand billable hours.) Tonya Rolland McLaughlin has been a Harris County prosecutor and defense attorney. She points out that she has been through hundreds of trials, while her opponents combined have tried less than 10 cases. The other candidate, Ken Wenzel, I have not met. Spjut gets support from TCR and HRBC. But McLaughlin gets 60% (less than an endorsement) from CCHC, plus DA and PC. I think I’ll go with Tonya Rolland McLaughlin. She suggests you remember, “Tonya for the 10^th.”

 

Justice First Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3:

The candidates for this bench are Dan Linebaugh, Chad Bridges, and Russell Lloyd. Lloyd has been an assistant DA and has 31 years of civil practice before becoming a civil district judge. He was first vetted by Phil Gram for appointment by Governor George Bush (not approved by the then-liberal legislature, however). David Linebaugh is appeals board certified, and was name a Texas Superlawyer every year since 2008. He has spent 15 years on the jury charge committee, training judges on how to give jury charges. He did litigation for 18 years. Chad Bridges spent 11 years as a prosecutor, and has experience in both small and large counties, covering a large variety of cases.  CCHC gave 90% support to Lloyd, and NRBC, DA, and PC also support him. Linebaugh got support from TCR. I think I’ll go with Russell Lloyd.

 

Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, Place 2:

A justice of the peace does not have to have a law degree, but it helps. This bench just came open after 30 or so years, so this opening is a great opportunity. The candidates are Lena Engelage, Layssa Korduba, Nasir Malik, Dean Combs, and Louis Guthrie. The first three have come to our Tea Party to introduce themselves. Both Engelage and Korduba have returned and made themselves at home. Korduba also showed up at the King Street Patriots judicial candidate forum.  She has ten years of practice, and 5 years as a judge—in the City of Tomball since 2008, the first woman judge there. She seems to understand the way this court is run, and has ideas for improved efficiency. Nasir Malik is running as an outsider, claiming the other candidates are party insiders. He’s a businessman. I’m unconvinced about his claims of conservatism. I liked Louis Guthrie when he ran for Sheriff last time around, but I don’t think he has any judicial experience, and he hasn’t campaigned anywhere I’ve seen him. Lena Engelage teaches criminal justice at a high school. She has 5 years’ experience with the FBI and 18 years’ experience as an attorney (and doesn’t look old enough). Her background is diverse, which helps with the variety that comes up before a justice of the peace. All of my sources go with Laryssa Korduba (CCHC gives 90% support), and I will too.

 

Justice of the Peace Precinct 5, Place 2:

The two candidates are Jeff Williams and Erik Hassan. Williams is the incumbent. He has 28 years’ experience as a practicing attorney, plus three years as a judge. His opponent doesn’t have a law degree. Again, a law degree isn’t required, but it helps. He handles a staff of 40, with 9,000 new cases a month. It’s not a good place for on-the-job learning. All of my resources support Jeff Williams, and so do I.

 

Harris County Republican Party Chair:

Jared Woodfill is the six-term (12-year) incumbent for this unpaid position. He is being challenged by Paul Simpson. His challenger complains that he’s a corrupt trial attorney, but I’ve hunted and there’s surprisingly little evidence of corruption, so I’m unconvinced. Simpson, by the way, is also an attorney, just not a trial lawyer. Simpson is claiming that things have gone downhill with Woodfill there. Actually, that’s debatable as well. Precinct chairs need to be filled. Both candidates agree on that; I’ve seen Woodfill acting on it; maybe there should be more action, though. Simpson says he will do something about it; but I didn’t catch exactly what he would do. There’s a third person on the ballot, but if she can’t even make herself known to people like me, she doesn’t know how to spread the conservative message for the party in this key county, so I’m not even giving her a mention. 

Simpson claims to be both a longtime Republican grassroots activist, and a party outsider. I’ve also heard that Simpson is part of a group working to move out the most conservative elements of the party. Seriously, I don’t know what to believe. But at our Tea Party, while Simpson was impressive enough, when he said the reason we have Obama is because “Mitt Romney wasn’t the best candidate to talk about conservatism,” he lost me. He was listening to the enemies of Romney and believing them, instead of vetting the candidate himself. Truly I understand how difficult that is—for someone like me. But I found it pretty easy to find the truth about Romney and always wondered why so many ON OUR SIDE failed to see, and failed to support the best candidate in my lifetime as a result. We simply can’t have someone that obtuse running the party for the county. I don’t actually know Woodfill’s personal opinions about Romney, but when it counted all I saw coming from him was appropriate support. 

Woodfill got 78% support from CCHC. Other sources went for Simpson. I’m open to hear more, but for now I’m staying with Jared Woodfill.

Primarily Speaking, Part II

It’s a long ballot this primary season. Yesterday we only got through the statewide races. We still need to cover judicial and local/county races. And I’m ignoring for now the races with no challenger in the primary. (Technically that includes my uncontested race for precinct chair; I’m told that at the close of voting day, that makes me official. Yay me!)

By way of review, among other sources, I’ve been looking at endorsements from several sources. CCHC is the Conservative Coalition of Harris County, and is a self-funded grassroots group, including several people I know personally; they try hard to get to know the candidates and share what they find. They do a silent ballot, and offer the percentage of the vote; 70% or more means endorsement. TFR stands for Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, which gives scrutiny to taxes and other fiscal issues. TCR stands for Texas Conservative Review, and HRBC stands for Houston Realty Business Coalition. These both claim conservative credentials. I vary in how much I agree with them, but they give me additional data. I also have personal resources: DA stands for a couple of friends in the DA’s office who share their inside opinions on judicial races with friends who ask. PC is a neighboring precinct chair with quite a lot of experience, so I add her endorsements to the data. 

Texas is set up with a two-part Supreme Court, consisting of the Supreme Court, which handles mainly civil cases, and the Criminal Court of Appeals, which is the “supreme court” for criminal cases. 

going through the avalanche of info

In Harris County (which includes the Greater Houston Area), the courts are divided into district courts, with numbers based on whatever number came up when the division was made. Different courts typically have a specific assignment, like criminal courts, or family courts. 

Usually when there’s a primary challenger, it’s because there’s an open seat: a judge has retired or been appointed to another court. Candidates don’t necessarily know who their challengers are prior to signing up to run. So sometimes we find a number of really good people in one race. We’ll eventually get to a couple of those.

 

Chief Justice, Texas Supreme Court:

I am struggling to make a decision here. Nathan Hecht is the incumbent, recently appointed by Governor Perry. He has been a justice on the court since 1988. Among my sources, DA, TFR, and HRBC support Hecht. His opponent is Robert Talton, whom I became aware of during his tenure as a Texas representative. He was a brave standard-bearer of conservative causes. He left the Texas House to run for US House, a race he didn’t win. Because I recognized his name, my first reaction was to lean toward him. He also gets 60% support from CCHC, as well as support from TCR and PC. However, there ought to be a good reason to take out an incumbent. Last time around, David Medina had come to our Tea Party and talked about his position on the Supreme Court. He had been appointed by the governor as well. I liked him. I thought he was the better candidate, from what I could find. But he lost—because he’d been appointed rather than elected to the position. While I don’t think appointments just need to be rubber stamped, I think judges need to be taken on their actual merits. I can’t find a significant reason for removing Hecht, who has served well as an elected Supreme Court Justice for so long. So I am inclined, right now, to vote for Nathan Hecht.

 

Supreme Court Justice, Place 6:

The two choices are Joe Pool and Jeff Brown. CCHC gives Brown 100% support. He also gets support from all of my other sources. No one gives anything positive about Pool. I can’t add any additional knowledge to this race. So I’m voting for Jeff Brown.

 

Supreme Court Justice, Place 8:

Phil Johnson gets 100% support from CCHC, plus support from TFR, HRBC, DA, and BC. Only TCR supports Sharon McCally. I am inclined to go with Phil Johnson.

 

Court of Criminal Appeals 3:

Bert Richardson gets 85% support from CCHC, plus DA, TCR, and HRBC support. PC supports Barbara Walther. I haven’t met either one, but I think I’ll go with Bert Richardson.

 

Court of Criminal Appeals 4:

This is an open seat with three people running: Richard Dean Davis, Kevin Patrick Yeary, and Jani Jo Wood. All of my sources support Yeary, with CCHC giving him 100% support. Incidentally, the Houston Chronicle thinks Yeary is a nice guy but prefers Wood. I don’t know what criteria they use, but I seldom agree with them, so an endorsement might be a point against. I think I’ll vote for Kevin Yeary.

 

Court of Criminal Appeals 9:

David Newell and W. C. “Bud” Kirkendall are running for this position. I met David Newell at a judicial candidate forum recently and found him quite impressive. I haven’t met his opponent. David Newell gets 90% support from CCHC, plus support from DA, HRBC, and TCR. PC goes for Kirkendall. I think I’ll go with my personal opinion and go for David Newell.

 

That finishes the statewide races. Now we’ll go to more local/regional.

 

State Senate District 7:

This position opened up when Dan Patrick decided to run for Lieutenant Governor. Paul Bettencourt and James Wilson are running for the position. Paul Bettencourt, former Harris County Tax Assessor, was nicknamed the Tax Man, and was known for going out of his way to inform people on how to get their property assessments lowered. Locally, we’ve liked him a long time, and he has name recognition. James Wilson used to work with the legendary Phil Gramm. He seems like a nice guy. But he doesn’t have the fire to overcome Bettencourt’s name. I hope he’ll do some other good work in the future. But I’m voting for Paul Bettencourt—who also got 100% support from CCHC, plus HRBC, PC, and TCR.

 

State Representative District 150:

I’m not in this district, and wouldn’t comment, except that I want to give a good word for Representative Debbie Riddle, who has been a treasure. It’s hard to overstate how hard-working she has been, and responsive to the very issues important to us grassroots conservatives. Her opponent, Tony Noun, was scheduled to speak at a recent Tea Party meeting and didn’t show. I can’t figure out why he’s running.

 

State Representative District 132:

I’m not in this district either, but it’s close to mine. I have a lot of friends in this district. It’s an open seat, because of the retirement of Bill Callegari. Of the four candidates, I think I like Michael Franks best, a lawyer, very logical and well spoken. However, I think the leading candidates are Justin Perryman and Mike Schofield. People feel strongly positive about both; Schofield is new to the district, but has been active nearby for a long time. Perryman has a resume that looks like a character on NCIS—varied and talented, with some military, some business, some out-of-country experience. There may be some family challenges going on there, however. All I can say is, good luck deciding.

 

County Treasurer:

The incumbent is Orlando Sanchez. He has been quietly effective as a conservative in liberal-run Houston for many years. I know very little about his opponent, Arnold Hinojosa. Sanchez gets the support of all my sources (100% CCHC), and my support as well.

 

District Clerk:

Chris Daniel came from among us in the grassroots. I think he was a law student his first time as a state delegate, the same time I was. I think he’s done a good job as District Clerk. I like his opponent, Court Koenning, who offers suggestions for technological improvements. However, most of those improvements are already underway, within the constraints of the actual budget, but making what looks to me like real progress. So I’m going to stay with Chris Daniel. All of my sources agree (82% from CCHC), except PC, who likes both and won’t endorse.

 

OK, we’ve gotten through the statewide judicial races and most of the local non-judicial races. But the interesting races, the ones, I’ve wanted to write about in order to think through them fully, are still to come. There are some additional county judicial races as well, but I need one more post to cover the 247^th Family Court, the 311^th Family Court, and the Justice of the Peace Precinct 4 Place 2 race. And after all those, I’ll render my decision about the County Republican Chair. I don’t usually post on Saturdays (or Fridays either, this year), but it’s a long ballot, and now is the time, if it’s going to be useful to people getting ready to vote. So stay tuned for Part III.