Primary Picks, Part III: Judicial Races and Propositions

This is the third post of three going through our extraordinarily long ballot. In Part I we went through statewide races. In Part II we covered Congressional and County races.

Here in Part III, we’ll be covering just the contested Primary judicial races, starting at the statewide level.

As a reminder, Texas has a two-part Supreme Court. One part is called the Supreme Court; it handles civil law cases. The other is called the Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the Supreme Court level in Texas for criminal cases.

Texas Court System diagram found on Judge Scott Walker's website

Supreme Court, Place 9

The choices are David J. Schenck and Evan Young. Young has the endorsements of Conservative Coalition of Harris County (with 83% of their vote), my SREC committeewoman Deborah Fite, and Texas Home School Coalition. I took a look at Houston Region Business Coalition, The LinkLetter, and Texas Conservative Review; all three went with Evan Young.

Texas Right to Life supports David Schenck, as do Texas Eagle Forum, True Texas Project, and Grassroots America. He has been on the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals (that’s the Texas 5^th Circuit). He claims to be a strict constructionist. But I’m unaware of any reason to particularly challenge a Republican incumbent who seems to be doing well.

Evan Young was appointed to this position on the Texas Supreme Court by Governor Abbott, so he’s the incumbent. I’m unaware of complaints about Young. He has videos on his website from his swearing in ceremony, and he sounds like a constitutionalist. He clerked for Antonin Scalia. His wife, by the way, clerked for Neil Gorsuch.

I’m going to take the word of so many and give Evan Young my vote.

 

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 5

The choices are Scott Walker and Clint Morgan.

Scott Walker was elected to this position, winning handily. If there’s reason to oust an incumbent, it had better be good. Clint Morgan is not afraid to take on his opponent directly; he lays out some stats on his website that are pretty convincing. Walker lacks credentials and productivity by comparison to Morgan. But then Morgan shows a couple more graphs. One compares Walker to all other appellate judges elected since 1992 who have served 5 years or more; Walker underperforms all of them, by quite a lot. Since his election, most judges have ruled on 35-50 cases, one as high as 60. Walker has ruled on only 18. Morgan’s website claims, “Scott Walker is the least productive judge in the recorded history of the Court.” He also notes that Walker, a former defense attorney, leans toward leniency. You might need to look case-by-case to know whether that assessment is accurate. Morgan is a prosecutor, and a very productive one, from here in Harris County.

comparison chart from Clint Morgan's website

Before taking a look, I would have thought there wasn’t reason to go against an incumbent. But Morgan has the practically unanimous support of all the endorsement lists I look at, including Texas Right to Life. CCHC gave him 100% support. Deborah Fite, my SREC committeewoman, added a comment only on this race, saying, “This race may be the most important on ballot.” Walker lists no endorsements on his website, and I didn’t find any. I’ll be voting for Clint Morgan.

 

County District Judicial Races

Note that, with Democrat sweeps the past two elections, the only Republican judges are appointed ones. There aren’t any Republican judges being challenged in the Primary. And there are only a few races in which there are multiple Republicans running. Those are the only ones I’ll cover here.

 

Family District Judge, 308^th Judicial District

The choices are Todd Frankfort and Michael Patrick Delaney.

I am told by another lawyer who is also running for a judge position that Todd Frankfort is one of the best around, excellent. He’s board certified. And he has a good judicial temperament. According to his website, he “has been selected as a ‘Super Lawyer’ every year since 2012, received the Houston Bar Association ‘President’s Award’ for outstanding service in 2004 and 2012, and received the Houston Bar Association ‘Merit Award’ in 2003.” He has the endorsements from the LINKLetter, Texas Conservative Review, Houston Region Business Coalition, and my SREC representative.

Delaney has been a family law attorney for 26 years in private practice. His website mentions no endorsements, and I found only a 67% vote (not enough for an endorsement) from the Conservative Coalition of Harris County.

Frankfort looks to me like the better pick.

 

Family District Judge, 311^th Judicial District

The two candidates are Gardner Eastland and Ray VanNorman. Many significant endorsements go to Ray VanNorman: CCHC (100% endorsement), Texas Right to Life, Texas Home School Coalition, Texas Conservative Review, my SREC committeewoman. He has strong conservative credentials.

Gardner Eastland has fewer endorsements: Houston Region Business Coalition, BIZPAC, and C Club.

However, when I talked with a lawyer friend, he pointed out that VanNorman lacks experience in the area of family law. On Eastland’swebsite he says, “My Republican opponent has never handled a divorce in Harris County, Texas. In fact, he has never filed a lawsuit of any kind with the Harris County District Clerk’s Office.” Eastland has handled over 500 family law cases in Harris County.

Family law is an area where experience gives better results to families. A wrong decision can ruin lives, maybe for generations.

I feel odd going against the conservative majority here. I think VanNorman must be truly conservative. Maybe civil law would be a better fit for him. But on this one I’m going with the experienced candidate, Gardner Eastland.

 

Family District Judge, 313^th Judicial District

The two candidates are Julie A. Ketterman and Rachel Leal-Hudson, I think.

This race is confusing to me. By the time I got ready to study the race, it looked like this was over. Ketterman had filed suit, saying Leal-Hudson lacked the minimum 250 signatures. Most judicial candidates, by the way, got over 750 signatures, which allowed them to waive the filing fee. Leal-Hudson, I’m told, got into the race late and missed all the signature signing parties. There was a jury trial. Leal-Hudson lost. That meant that, even though the ballot would have her name on it, votes cast for her would not count.

That’s what I thought almost two weeks ago. But since then I continue to get campaign emails. I got a mailer a couple of days ago—those aren’t cheap. And endorsements continue to come in.

I looked up the case. The jury found for the plaintiff, February 4. However, there’s a note that says an appeal has been filed.

I don’t know what to do with this information. Leal-Hudson has endorsements from THSC, CCHC (100%), Deborah Fite, LINKLetter, Texas Conservative Review, HRBC, Rep. Briscoe Cain, PoliceInc, Houston Police Officers Union, and Kingwood Tea Party.

Kettering has 22 years of experience in family and CPS law, and has taught courses on the subject. Leal-Hudson has 11 years of experience in family and CPS law, plus the addition of being the oldest of 19 adopted children, so she has a lot of first-hand experience as well.

I don’t know how to decide this. If there were no court case, I’d probably be swayed by the outpouring of support going for Leal-Hudson. Ketterman didn’t answer the questionnaire for CCHC, so I couldn’t learn more about her. I may go ahead and vote Rachel Leal-Hudson, trusting those who have vetted her, and hope that the court case is resolved appropriately.

 

Justice of the Peace, Precinct 5, Place 2

The candidates are Zee Adam Gire, Bret S. Kisluk, and Bob Wolfe. Bret Kisluk spoke to our Tea Party and was impressive (video here). I haven’t met the others.

Gire is a businessman, not a lawyer. A law degree isn’t required for the job, but understanding of the law would sure help. He has a couple of precinct chair endorsements. Wolfe got the LINKLetter endorsement. Kisluk has endorsements from CCHC (92%), Texas Conservative Review, Houston Region Business Coalition, and my SREC Committeewoman.

I read their questionnaire answers for CCHC.  Gire was unaware that the Justice of the Peace doesn’t do criminal cases (see answer 13). It looks like there would be a steep learning curve.

Norman Rockwell's "Marriage License"

I try not to judge too harshly on grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors, because most people need someone like me to clean up their writing. (Even I could use such a person from time to time.) But Wolfe’s questionnaire answers were remarkably error-filled, enough to be a serious distraction. It says to me that this person doesn’t handle details well. Wolfe also seems to think it’s wrong for Justices of the Peace to spend their time performing weddings. But—the single thing most of us know that JPs do is marriages. There’s a Normal Rockwell painting of a couple going before the JP. He’s an attorney, but he doesn’t have judicial experience.

Kisluk is a part-time municipal judge in three jurisdictions. He knows the law, and he knows how to handle a court docket with proven efficiency. Wolfe brought up that he spends too much time performing marriages, supposedly for the extra money (again, it’s what JPs do) and has even done same-sex weddings. While I would prefer that he didn’t, the law requires that someone be available to do it. I think we would be happy with Kisluk as Justice of the Peace; I’m voting for him.

 

Propositions

These are put forth by the SREC Committee, the two committee members from each senatorial district representing that district at the state level. The propositions, even if approved by the vote, are non-binding. They do not become law. They are intended to direct the next legislative session on issues and policies of importance.

I trust the SREC as a whole. But, as with any legislative body, they are made up of a fairly diverse membership representing different interests and points of view. You do not need to feel required to agree with all these. You might even want to start from the position: convince me to vote for this.

So, I’ll just go through the list and give my impressions. Take it for what it’s worth. Do your own thinking. The numbers after the title are the SREC members voting for, against, or not voting; there are 62 SREC members plus a chair and vice chair who don’t typically vote.

 

Proposition 1: Border Security (61-0-2)

In light of the federal government’s refusal to defend the southern border, Texas should immediately deploy the National Guard, Texas Military Forces, and necessary state law enforcement to seal the border, enforce immigration laws, and deport illegal aliens.

 

This is already taking place. At our expense. I’d like to see a way to get the federal government to pay us back for doing its job. But no one has yet to come up with a way. I’ve offered an idea—have all income tax earned in Texas to go through a sort of escrow account handled by the state of Texas, from which we extract what the federal government should not be collecting; and then we pass along the appropriate remainder. But maybe there’s not a legal way to accomplish it. Anyway, I’m voting YES.

 

 

Proposition 2: Eliminate Property Tax (57-3-3)

Texas should eliminate all property taxes within ten (10) years without implementing a state income tax.

 

Son Political Sphere is absolutely against this; he doesn’t believe this plan—particularly Huffine’s would be anything but extraordinarily unfair to everyone. Do the math. I have heard from people who actually had to move because they couldn’t afford the property taxes on their life-long home that they had paid off. That’s just wrong. So I’m willing to look at alternatives. But, unlike many friends, I’m going to vote NO on this until I can see a plan I feel better about.

 

 

Proposition 3: Vaccine Mandate (61-1-0)

Texans should not lose their job nor students be penalized for declining a COVID-19 vaccine. 

 

This is an obvious YES. Coercion is wrong, which we determined in the Nuremberg Code of 1947.

 

 

Proposition 4: Parents’ Rights and Critical Race Theory (60-0-1)

Texas schools should teach students basic knowledge and American exceptionalism and reject Critical Race Theory and other curricula that promote Marxist doctrine and encourage division based on creed, race, or economic status.

 

Let me edit for clarity: Texas schools should must teach students basic knowledge and American exceptionalism; our schools must  and reject Critical Race Theory and other curricula that promote Marxist doctrine and encourage division based on creed, race, or economic status.

There might be other improvements to make, but in general I like this concept. We did pass a law basically doing this during the past legislative session. Still, in support of the idea I’ll vote YES.

 

 

Proposition 5: Right to Life (61-0-1)

Texas should enact a State Constitutional Amendment to defend the sanctity of innocent human life, created in the image of God, from fertilization until natural death. 

This would codify into the Constitution what the Republicans, and frankly a majority of Texans, want. We already have a trigger bill, outlawing abortion in Texas when/if the US Supreme Court reverses Roe, which could happen this year. Laws, however, can change; it’s harder to amend the Constitution and requires the approval of the people. So this would be a stronger protection. I’m voting YES.

 

 

Proposition 6: Committee Chairs (61-1-0)

The Republican-controlled Texas Legislature should end the practice of awarding committee chairmanships to Democrats. 

I agree with this. I have been told by a representative that the theory was, if you give them some chairmanship where they won’t do much mischief, it keeps them from spending all their energy thwarting Republicans. I don’t think that strategy is working. And certainly any legislator who fled the state to deny a quorum ought to expect no favors from our side. So, I’m voting YES.

 

 

Proposition 7: Election Integrity (58-0-2)

Texas should protect the integrity of our elections by verifying that registered voters are American citizens, restoring felony penalties and enacting civil penalties for vote fraud, and fighting any federal takeover of state elections.  

I support this, of course. I think the phrase “restoring felony penalties and enacting civil penalties for vote fraud” is difficult to understand. They’re trying to say a lot in a short statement, but I need explanation there. I think there must be some we had felony penalties for that were lowered to misdemeanors and we want to restore the felony penalties. Then, also, there are addition penalties (are they all civil?) for other types of vote fraud that don’t yet have penalties attached. Anyway, the intent is good, and this is a resolution, not a law. So I’m voting YES.

 

 

Proposition 8: Gender Modification (59-1-0)

Texas should ban chemical castration, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital mutilation surgery on all minor children for sex transition purposes. 

Excellent concept. It’s already in our platform. Plank 246 looks like this:

246.             Gender Identity: We oppose all efforts to validate transgender identity. For the purpose of attempting to affirm a person 21 or under if their perception is inconsistent with their biological sex, no medical practitioner or provider may engage in the following practices:

a.       Intervene in any way to prevent natural progression of puberty.

b.       Administer or provide opposite sex hormones.

c.       Perform any surgery on healthy body parts of the underage person.

I’m not fully satisfied with that wording either, but the intention of both the proposition and this plank are to outlaw permanent sex transition of minors. There have also been attempts to label this sort of “therapy” as child abuse. Anyway, I’m in favor of the concept and will vote YES.

 

 

Proposition 9: Parental Educational Relief (57-0-0)

Texas parents and guardians should have the right to select schools, whether public or private, for their children, and the funding should follow the student. 

I’m strongly in favor of school choice. We also need to make sure that the state does not attach any strings to that funding. You’d be surprised how many Republican legislators don’t believe in this concept and don’t want a public vote that will reveal that to their constituents. I’m voting YES.

 

 

Proposition 10: Freedom of Conscience (45-7-1)

Texans affirm that our freedoms come from God and that the government should have no control over the conscience of individuals.  

Our freedoms—our rights—either come from God or from some fallible human. If it’s a human, such person can take away whatever they have granted. But God’s promises are sure.  Governments are instituted among men to protect our rights, not to grant or deny them. If a government isn’t protecting our rights, that tyranny’s power needs to be taken away and restored to the people. So, I’m voting YES.

Primary Recommendations, Part II

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.

14^th 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.  

80^th 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. 

125^th 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.

151^st 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.

178^th 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

Copeland, and Bash Sharma. Alfaro gets most of the endorsements of friends. I’ve also met Gommels and Sharma at recent Tea Party meetings. Sharma wasn’t impressive. I liked Gommels. But my DA friend comments, “Gommels would be very defense oriented; Alfaro has been a prosecutor and defense attorney.” That stereotype is there for a reason. Since

339^th 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 10^th 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.