Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

January, 2020:

January 2020 campaign finance reports: SBOE and State Senate

Jan 31st, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

Let’s finish off our review of state offices. This post will cover State Board of Education, District 6, and the State Senate. My two-part look at the State House was here and here, Harris County offices were here, and statewide races were here.

Debra Kerner, SBOE6
Kimberly McLeod, SBOE6
Michelle Palmer, SBOE6

Borris Miles, SD13
Richard Andrews, SD13
Milinda Morris, SD13

Eddie Lucio, SD27
Sara Stapleton-Barrera, SD27
Ruben Cortez, SD27

Audrey Spanko, SD01
Jay Stittleburg, SD04
Carol Alvarado, SD06
Susan Criss, SD11
Margarita Ruiz Johnson, SD11
Randy Daniels, SD12
Shadi Zitoon, SD12
Michael Antalan, SD18
Roland Gutierrez, SD19
Freddy Ramirez, SD19
Xochil Pena Rodriguez, SD19
Robert Vick, SD22
Clayton Tucker, SD24


Candidate     Raised     Spent     Loan     On Hand
===================================================
Kerner        10,556     2,636    3,000      16,517
McLeod         1,080     1,948        0       1,080
Palmer         6,076     1,722        0       7,394

Miles         52,650    41,355  656,943      29,950
Andrews        4,575     4,946    3,849         219
Morris           260     4,530   10,000       1,250

Lucio        609,622   750,263   34,557      31,972
Barrera        5,384   150,655  141,560           0
Cortez        78,338    27,777        0       6,126

Spanko        21,253    12,150        0       6,572
Stittleburg    4,574     1,499        0       3,147
Alvarado     204,820    39,550        0     386,687
Criss         15,920    33,063        0       9,697
Johnson
Daniels
Zitoon         3,550     2,573    2,250       3,226
Antalan            0         0        0           0
Gutierrez    188,588   201,288        0     109,337
Ramirez       17,690    11,414        0       5,576
Rodriguez     56,038    63,004  125,000     106,347
Vick           2,630     1,985      550       1,515
Tucker        24,059    12,180        0       2,129

There are three SBOE races of interest around the state, but I limited myself to SBOE6 because no one raises any money for any of them. In the general election they can ride the partisan wave – being a state office, they’re near the top of the ballot, so whatever effect the lack of straight-ticket voting there will be, it should be relatively minimal for them – but in a high turnout primary, who knows what will happen. At least all the choices are good.

There are four contested State Senate primaries. Sen. Borris Miles has two challengers, neither of whom has raised much money. I haven’t seen anything to suggest this is a race of interest. Former District Court Judge and HD23 candidate Susan Criss faces former CD22 candidate Margaret Ruiz Johnson in SD11, which is on the far outer edges of competitiveness – if SD11 turns into a close race in the fall, Democrats are having a very good year. Criss should have some name recognition. Johnson has not filed a report.

The two most interesting races are in SDs 19 and 27. SD19 is the seat Democrats coughed up in a 2018 special election following the resignation of Carlos Uresti. State Rep. Roland Gutierrez, who finished third in that special election, decided to forego running for re-election in order to take another shot at this seat. He’s raised the most money, but Xochil Pena Rodriguez has an equivalent amount of cash thanks to her loan. This is probably Gutierrez’s race to lose. Whoever does win will be counted on to take that seat back and force Dan Patrick to kill off the remnant of the two thirds rule, for his short term benefit and the Democrats’ long term gain.

Sen. Eddie Lucio has two challengers, and his finance report shows he’s taking the threat seriously. Ruben Cortez is an incumbent SBOE member, and he was recently endorsed by Texas Parent PAC, which accused Lucio of “following the lead of Lt. Governor Dan Patrick when he pushes legislation that harms public education.” To me, this is a far more consequential primary than the nasty and expensive one going on in CD28, mostly because there are a lot more Congressfolk than there are State Senators, and one rogue State Senator can be the difference in bad legislation passing or good bills dying in a way that one rogue Congressperson seldom is. Nancy Pelosi can take care of her business with or without Henry Cuellar. Carol Alvarado, the next Senate Democratic Caucus Chair, needs a much more reliable ally in SD27. Here’s hoping she gets one.

Lyceum poll: Trump with a mostly modest lead

Jan 31st, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
2 comments

From the inbox:

Among the large pack of Democratic presidential primary contenders still vying for the nomination to be the party’s nominee for U.S. president, former Vice President Joe Biden is currently leading in the Lone Star State, with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders a close second. However, it is Biden who comes in second behind Sanders when matched against President Trump in a hypothetical 2020 general election match-up. This is according to new, independent polling results released today by the Texas Lyceum, the premier, nonprofit, nonpartisan statewide leadership group.

Just five days away from the Iowa caucuses, the traditional start of the presidential primary season, the Lyceum poll, which carries a margin of error of +/- 4.89 percentage points among potential Democratic Primary Voters (n=401), finds Biden leading with 28%, slightly ahead of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders with 26%. Meanwhile, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren tops the second wave of Democratic candidates at 13%, followed by late entrant and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 9%. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew 6%, while Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar has 4%.

Sanders polls closest to Trump for the general election
The survey asked respondents who they would support if the November presidential election were held today between President Donald Trump and Vice President Biden, Senator Sanders, Senator Warren and Mayor Buttigieg, respectively. With fewer than nine months until Election Day, the Texas Lyceum poll shows President Donald Trump holds a lead ranging from 4 to 8 percentage points over each of the potential Democratic nominees, with Senator Sanders polling closest to the president, 50 to 47 among likely 2020 general election voters (n=520, margin of error +/- 4.30 percentage points).

Among the top remaining candidates, Biden trails Trump by 5 points, 51% to 46%, Warren trails Trump by 7 points, 50% to 43%, and Buttigieg is 8 points behind the president, 51% to 43%, in this early look at the November Elections.

U.S. Senate Democratic Primary Race – far from settled
Meanwhile, the race to determine the nominee to take on incumbent U.S. Senator John Cornyn next November is far from settled, as none of the 12 Democratic Primary candidates garnered more than 11% of the vote in the Lyceum survey. Air Force Veteran and 2018 congressional candidate M.J. Hegar is leading the field with 11 points. Trailing Hegar are Dallas State Senator Royce West at 8%, activist Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez at 7%, at-large Houston City Council member Amanda Edwards at 6%, and Beaumont car dealer and pastor Michael Cooper at 4%.

“Texas is always a difficult state for candidates to introduce themselves to the voters due to its sheer size and multiple, large media markets,” said Joshua Blank, Ph.D., research director of the Texas Lyceum poll, “but, in a year in which the political oxygen has been sucked up by the Democratic Presidential Primary and impeachment, it’s clearly been a major challenge for those seeking to take on John Cornyn to break through with the Texas electorate. These new results confirm that it’s still anyone’s race.”

Texans Split over whether the U.S. Senate should remove Donald Trump from office
The Texas Lyceum Poll found Texans split on whether President Trump should be removed from office following his impeachment in the House of Representatives. The poll was fielded Jan. 10-19, 2020 after impeachment proceedings in the House had concluded and before the U.S. Senate trial had begun. Overall, 44% of Texas adults say the Senate should remove the president from office, while 45% disagree. Not surprisingly, views on impeachment reflect party loyalty, as 77% of Democrats believe the president should be removed from office while 86% of Republicans believe he should remain. However, in what is expected to be a more competitive election year by Texas standards, self-identified independents were more inclined to say that the president should be removed from office, 46% to 31%.

Texans’ economic views improved slightly
Evaluations of the Texas economy appear to have improved somewhat over last year. The percentage of respondents who believe Texas is better off compared to the rest of the country increased by 4 percentage points from 45% to 49%. Asked to grade the national economy, a plurality, 39% say that the country is better off than it was a year ago, with 35% saying that the economy is about the same. President Trump job approval divided by party, while Governor Abbott’s marks remain high President Trump’s job approval rating remains remarkably consistent with September 2019’s Texas Lyceum Poll given the tumultuous political environment. Overall, 52% of adult Texans surveyed disapprove of the job the president is doing, while 47% approve. Again, party plays a big role in the president’s job approval rating, with 89% of Republicans giving him high marks. Among Democrats, 85% say the president is doing a poor job. A majority of independents also rate the president negatively, with 60% saying he’s doing a poor job and 37% giving him a positive review.

The executive summary is here, the poll questions and data are here, and the crosstabs are here. A couple of thoughts:

– Biden usually polls best against Trump among the gaggle – see this SNN/SSRS poll from December, for example – but not always – see UT-Tyler and the UT/Texas Tribune polls, both from November. Sanders would usually be a point or so behind when Biden did best, with the others generally a step back (Beto was an occasional exception to that). Here, Sanders is two points closer than Biden is. Both are in the high 40s, which is the figure of greater interest to me.

– I have not followed the primary polling closely, but Biden has easily topped the Democratic field in polls before now – he led Sanders by 11 in UT/Trib, by 10 in UT-Tyler, and by 20 in CNN/SSRS. Sanders’ closeness to Biden here feels like an outlier to me, but he’s doing well nationally, so who knows. Of course, most of the headlines I’ve seen in relation to this poll are about how Sanders is “surging” in the Dem primary in Texas. Have we learned nothing about polling in all these years? One result is not a surge, it’s one result. I expect we will see more polls in the coming weeks, as the primary draws nearer, and then we can evaluate whether this was an indication of a change or just an odd result.

– He has no more chance of being the Democratic nominee than I do, but I’d have liked to see a Trump-Bloomberg matchup polled, if only to get an idea of what 47 gazillion dollars in TV ads can do for you.

– Forty-four percent of registered voters said they were more likely to vote in the Democratic primary. Forty-three percent said Republican primary. Have I mentioned that Dem primary turnout is going to be off the charts?

– Trump continues to have bad approval ratings in Texas, though here he outperforms them in the general election matchups. Note, however, that the approval question is asked of the entire sample, which is 1200 adults (the registered voter sample is 920), while the “who will you vote for” sample is 520 likely voters. In other words, it seems likely there are a significant number of people in this sample who dislike Trump but either aren’t registered or aren’t seen as likely voters. That right there is a turnout issue. Keep registering voters, and keep pushing them to the polls.

– The pollsters gave the name of all 12 Senate candidates to the respondents. My eyes are glazing over just at the thought of sitting through a robot saying “Press one for Amanda Edwards, press two for Adrian Ocegueda, press three for Jack Daniel Foster”…you get the idea. I don’t even know how you poll in that race.

Anyway. This was our first poll of the year. UT/Trib usually does a poll in February, and UT-Tyler has been doing them every couple of months and may be due for another soon. With the primary looming, I’d expect to see even more numbers soon.

The next round in the Motor Voter 2.0 lawsuit

Jan 31st, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Score one for the plaintiffs.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

Finding Texas in violation of federal law, a U.S. judge gave civil rights lawyers a small win Thursday — fueling hopes of a wider victory in a continuing fight over the state’s online voter registration practices.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia said the 1993 National Voter Registration Act requires that Texans be able to register to vote at the same time they go online to renew or update a driver’s license.

Visitors to the Department of Public Safety website, however, must click through to another website, download a form, print it out, fill it in and mail it to their county registrar — extra steps that violate the federal law’s “motor voter” provision designed to encourage voter participation, Garcia said in a written order.

“Congress lifted these burdens to make voter registration easier, not more confusing and difficult,” he wrote.

Noting that Monday is the deadline to register to vote in the March 3 primaries, Garcia limited the scope of his order. He required state officials to update the voter registrations of three Texans who sued over the motor voter law, using the information already provided to DPS when they renewed their driver’s licenses.

Longer-term solutions remain under consideration and will be ruled on in the future, the judge said.

See here for the background. An earlier storylaid out the arguments.

Pressing for speedy action with a key voting deadline only days away, civil rights lawyers returned to federal court Tuesday to argue that Texas continues to violate a U.S. law designed to make voter registration easier.

Under the “motor voter” provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, Texans who renew their driver’s license online must be allowed to simultaneously register to vote or update their registration with a new address, Beth Stevens with the Texas Civil Rights Project argued.

For years, however, Texas has required potential voters to take extra steps in violation of the law, Stevens said, urging U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia to take action against the state.

“It will refuse to comply with federal law until it is forced to do so, Texas voters be damned,” Stevens said during a 2½-hour hearing in Garcia’s San Antonio courtroom.

Under the state system, Stevens estimated, more than 735 Texans lost the right to vote in 2018.

[…]

The Texas Civil Rights Project recently filed a new lawsuit with three voters who had moved, renewed their driver’s license online but are still registered to vote at their old address. Two nonprofits, MOVE Texas and the League of Women Voters of Texas, also joined the newest lawsuit, arguing that they have standing because they are forced to spend time and money signing up voters who should have been able to update their registrations on the DPS website.

Stevens said the new lawsuit still seeks to require simultaneous voter registration, but she asked Garcia to issue an order no later than Friday to require state officials to let the three plaintiffs register to vote using the information already provided to DPS to renew their driver’s licenses.

Monday is the last day to register to vote in the March 3 Texas primaries, she noted.

The state argues that nothing is stopping these three people from registering by other means. That’s true, but also not the point. The point is that the law says that they are supposed to be registered this way. In the initial lawsuit, the Fifth Circuit said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing because by the time the lawsuit was filed they had been registered and thus there was no injury claim to remediate. If that’s the case, then the state is arguing that the plaintiffs should invalidate their own case. As we now see, that didn’t work. I would expect the court to rule in the plaintiffs’ favor on the larger question at some future date, and from there we’ll see if the Fifth Circuit admits that they fixed the problem with the first lawsuit or finds some other pretext to throw out this one. In the meantime, kudos to all for a job well done. A press release from the Texas Civil Rights Project is here, and from the TDP is here.

Judicial Q&A: Grant Harvey

Jan 30th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to those who plan to vote in March. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates.)

Grant Harvey

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

My name is Grant Harvey, and I am running for judge of the 164th Civil District Court in Harris County. I have practiced law for nearly 30 years and currently serve as a volunteer Special Prosecutor for the Harris County DA’s office where we’re working to prosecute environmental crimes. I am married to Elizabeth Marroquin Harvey. We have an incredible 13-year-old daughter, and I have a wonderful 31-year-old stepson who teaches music in public school. We also have two other family members—a German Shepherd-mix rescue puppy and a Yorkshire Terrier that thinks he is a German Shepherd.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

As a Texas civil district court, the 164th is the highest-level state trial court. In Harris County, we have a number of specialized district courts including family courts, criminal courts, and probate courts. The 164th is a non-specialized court of general jurisdiction for matters that would not otherwise be filed in the specialized courts. Examples of the types of cases heard in the 164th include medical malpractice, personal injury, contract disputes, disputes with insurers, disputes with homebuilders and many more. In addition, major disputes between or involving local branches of government are filed in courts like the 164th. For instance, when the Fire Fighter’s Union sued the City of Houston in 2017, that case was handled by a civil district court like the 164th. Because of its wide-ranging jurisdiction and potential impact on every Houstonian, this is a very important court, and it is critical that we have the best judge possible on this court.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

Having practiced for almost 30 years and appeared in front of 100+ judges, I understand how critical to our judicial system it is that we select only the best of the best to be judges. “Just okay” isn’t good enough. Great judges excel at understanding and applying the law, working hard, being impartial and fair, being respectful, and ensuring that the courthouse doors are open to everyone regardless of their race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or the size of one’s bank account. Great judges understand that being a judge is not a job—it is a commitment of service to one’s community—a community that is entrusting the fair and impartial administration of justice to the judges it elects. That is an awesome responsibility to shoulder. I am qualified for this position, I am committed to public service, and I am running because I want to restore integrity and respect back to this important position.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have practiced law for almost 30 years. I attended law school at the University of Texas where I graduated in the top 10% of my class. I “graded on” to the Texas Law Review. I clerked for Judge David Ebel who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit immediately upon graduating from law school. Next, I started as an associate with the Gibbs & Bruns, LLP law firm, was promoted to partner in five years, and then worked as a partner and senior partner for nearly twenty. Gibbs & Bruns is recognized throughout the United States as one of the best trial law firms in the country. Throughout my legal career, I have represented hundreds of clients before 100+ judges in courts throughout Texas and in on other states. I have represented plaintiffs and defendants, individuals and corporations on all sorts of cases—medical malpractice, personal injury, complex commercial litigation, partnership disputes, oil and gas disputes, eminent domain, employment litigation etc. My extensive background includes litigation, trial work and appellate work. I’ve been fortunate enough to have received recognitions from various legal ratings groups including Chambers Leadings Lawyers; World’s Leading Litigators; Leading US Trial Lawyers by Legal 500; Expert Guide’s “Best of the Best USA;” Thomson Reuters Texas Super Lawyer’s Top 100 List;” and others.

Today, I hold an of-counsel position with my law firm and spend my time practicing law on a pro bono, volunteer basis. I currently am serving as a Special Counsel for the Harris County DA’s office as we work on behalf of Texans on a criminal case involving a pollution event that took place during Hurricane Harvey. I also serve on the Board of Directors and the executive committee for Today’s Harbor for Children, a home for abused and abandoned children. I have served on the board for nearly twenty years (three of which was spent as Chairman), and I led a volunteer legal team that obtained a $5+ million settlement from a city that was interfering with the charity’s ability to use its land. In sum, I have been preparing for more than thirty years to serve my community at the highest level and am ready to serve my community as judge of the 164th Civil District Court.

5. Why is this race important?

Today, with the concern over how our executive and legislative branches are functioning, it is more important than ever that we have complete confidence in the third branch of government—the judicial branch. This race is critical not only because the 164th District Court is an important court but because the role of a judge is crucial to the administration of justice. The incumbent judge for 164th District Court has been suspended from serving by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. That makes it all the more important that voters do their research and that they make an informed decision before selecting the person they want to entrust with the weighty responsibility of administering fair and impartial justice in the 164th.

6. Why should people vote for you in the primary?

Both because of their impact on Houstonians and their role as pillars of free and fair governance, it is vitally important that we elect only the best of the best to serve as judges. Not only should our judges have an established track record of professional success at the highest level—but they should also demonstrate a commitment to public service. I have an established track record of professional success and public service beginning with law school, continuing through my tenure as an associate and partner at one of the best law firms in the United States, and culminating today in my present position as a volunteer Special Prosecutor for the Harris County DA’s office. I have received endorsements from the AFL CIO, Area 5 Democrats, Bay Area New Democrats, and the Greater Heights Democratic Club. If I am elected judge, the 164th District Court will once again be a court of which the citizens of Harris County be proud.

Andrea Duhon would like you to vote for someone else in her HCDE primary

Jan 30th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Andrea Duhon

As you may recall, Andrea Duhon has been appointed to the HCDE Board of Trustees to replace Josh Flynn. As you may also recall, Duhon had filed for a different position on the HCDE Board in the March primary. If that sounds a bit confusing, it is, but don’t worry, I’m here to help. I had a conversation with Duhon about this, and we had the following question-and-answer exchange to clarify the situation:

1. What is your current status with the Board?

I was appointed to the Precinct 3, Position 4 seat on December 18th and took my first vote that day. This is the same seat I ran for in 2018, receiving 49.7% of the vote. Josh Flynn, who had won the election, resigned from his position in order to run for State Rep in HD138, leaving a vacancy which could be filled based on a board vote. The term will be up in 2024.

2. Why are you still on the Primary ballot?

The deadline to have my name removed from the primary ballot was December 17th, the day before my appointment to the board. I was unable to have it removed before the deadline.

3. What should voters do?

I’m asking voters to choose a different candidate in Democratic Primary for HCDE Trustee At-Large, position 7. I look forward to being able to affect change while in my current position and am excited about the diverse group of Trustees that will make up the HCDE board after the 2020 election.

Me again. The bottom line is that once the short window to withdraw from the primary has passed, you’re on the ballot (barring death or some other disqualification) whether you want to be or not. See the Jerry Garcia situation for another example of this. The reason why you should vote for one of the other candidates is that Duhon doesn’t want or need to be the nominee in Position 7 At Large now that she is already the Trustee in Precinct 3 Position 4. The best way to ensure that someone other than Andrea Duhon is the nominee is to vote for one of the other candidates. Your choices are:

David W. Brown
Obes Nwabara
W. R. “Bill” Morris, who does not have any campaign presence I can find, but who does have a questionable voting history.

So make a good choice this March for HCDE Trustee Position 7 At Large, and make sure that choice is not Andrea Duhon, because Andrea Duhon is already on the HCDE Board of Trustees. Thanks very much.

Crunch time for I-45

Jan 30th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

The rubber is meeting the road, as it were.

Three Houston Planning Department meetings scheduled for this week, days prior to a key state deadline, could prove pivotal in shaping how Interstate 45 is rebuilt — with ramifications for years to come.

The meetings, which start Thursday, will be the first chances for residents opposing the $7 billion-plus project to realign and widen I-45 from downtown north to the Sam Houston Tollway to view the city’s proposed adjustments, which Houston will convey to the Texas Department of Transportation this spring.

[…]

Mayor Sylvester Turner tasked Houston planning officials to develop a set of recommendations to TxDOT aiming to address community complaints and how the projects can overcome them. Those recommendations and TxDOT’s response, city officials said, will determine their next steps.

“He is prepared to say ‘thanks but no thanks if that is what the decision is,’” District H Councilwoman Karla Cisneros said of Turner.

In the meantime, TxDOT is moving ahead in its environmental process on the project, releasing 641 pages of its draft environmental report outlining community impacts along the roughly 18-mile route, including the removal of 1,079 homes — including 433 apartments and 486 units deemed low-income or public housing — 344 businesses, 58 billboards, five churches and two schools.

The two reports, available for public comment until Feb. 7, are the final two pieces of the draft environmental analysis TxDOT must complete before a final environmental report is released.

As state officials proceed, however, there is a growing sense that opponents — who have spent the past year vocally urging changes — are transitioning from improving the project to opposing it.

“I have come to the conclusion talking to TxDOT is a waste of time,” project critic Michael Skelly told the Jan. 11 gathering, encouraging people to lean on city and state officials to apply pressure.

Well, lots of people have concluded that the I-45 project is more bad than good, though the TxDOT plan is supported by Metro because of HOV capacity increases, which factor into its mobility plan. I would encourage you to review those city recommendations and try to attend one or more of these meetings – you can find the time and place information at either the city link or the story link. I still don’t think there’s any stopping this behemoth, but there’s still time to try to change it.

Texas blog roundup for the week of January 27

Jan 30th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

The Texas Progressive Alliance double checked the calendar and can confirm that it is in fact still January as it brings you this week’s roundup.

(more…)

Interview with Ann Harris Bennett

Jan 29th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

Ann Harris Bennett

As I said before, I wasn’t originally expecting to do interviews in the Democratic primary for Harris County Tax Assessor, but once that became a contested race then of course I had to fit it into the schedule. We all interact with the Tax Assessor in various ways – property taxes, vehicle registration, and of course voter registration. (The full title for the office is Tax Assessor Collector & Voter Registrar.) Ann Harris Bennett is serving her first term as Tax Assessor. She had run for the office before, in 2012, and had run for County Clerk in 2010 and 2014, and finally got her chance after the 2016 election. She tends to keep a low profile, and given the well-publicized failures of several of her predecessors, that’s not at all a bad thing. I’ve interviewed her several times before, most recently in the 2016 primary, and you can listen to this interview right here:

The Erik Manning spreadsheet is back! You can track information for candidates on the Harris County ballot here.

    PREVIOUSLY:

Elisa Cardnell – CD02
Travis Olsen – CD02

Michelle Palmer – SBOE6
Kimberly McLeod – SBOE6
Debra Kerner – SBOE6

Chrysta Castañeda – RRC
Kelly Stone – RRC

Vince Ryan – Harris County Attorney
Ben Rose – Harris County Attorney
Christian Menefee – Harris County Attorney

Jolanda Jones – Harris County Tax Assessor

Ann Johnson – HD134
Ruby Powers – HD134
Lanny Bose – HD134

Akilah Bacy – HD138
Josh Wallenstein – HD138
Jenifer Pool – HD138

Sarah DeMerchant – HD26
Lawrence Allen – HD26
Rish Oberoi – HD26
Suleman Lalani – HD26

Rodney Ellis – Commissioners Court, Precinct 1

Judicial Q&A: Bryan Acklin

Jan 29th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to those who plan to vote in March. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates.)

Bryan Acklin

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

My name is Bryan Acklin, and I am running to become the Democratic candidate for Judge of the 176th District Court in Harris County, a felony district court. I am a Houston native, and returned here to teach bilingual education at Gallegos Elementary School in HISD following my graduation from Vanderbilt University. I attended law school at the University of Texas School of law and spent the first part of my career at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. While there, I gained invaluable experience trying both felony and misdemeanor cases. I am currently in private practice where I have continued handling felony and misdemeanor cases.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

The 176th District Court hears felony offenses ranging from state jail felonies to Capital Murder. The Court also hears motions involving the revocation of probation and other forms of community supervision, as well as matters dealing with bonds.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I am running for this bench in particular because many of my colleagues and I have become disturbed and saddened by 176th’s current practices. These practices include denying attorneys the right to zealously advocate on behalf of their clients on the record and bond practices which are neither fair nor aligned with relevant case law and statutes. I strongly believe that the people are entitled to have qualified, competent, and fair judges serve on the bench. I am running for this particular bench to make that a reality for the 176th District Court.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have prosecuted and defended thousands of felony cases. I even had the solemn honor of trying a Capital Murder case as a prosecutor. As a prosecutor, I worked in the Trial Bureau, the Family Criminal Law Division, the Intake Division, and the Grand Jury Division. I want to put the experience that comes with personally trying felony cases to good use by serving my community and state as a judge.

5. Why is this race important?

This race is important because every single person, whether the accused or the victim, a defense attorney or a prosecutor, deserves a courtroom in which the presiding judge is qualified, competent, and fair. Unless and until the current judge is replaced, that simply will fail to be the case in the 176th District Court. The outcome of this race is important to show that people care about justice in our criminal courts and to show that the people will not stand for malfeasance and incompetence.

6. Why should people vote for you in the primary?

People should vote for me because I am the more qualified candidate and the only candidate who is capable and willing to accurately and consistently apply the law in a manner that is fair and coherent. The liberty of the accused and the rights of victims are too precious to allow the 176th to continue as is. People should vote for me to protect their fellow citizens by ensuring that the 176th District Court is placed in the hands of a judge who is qualified, compassionate, fair, and competent.

Runoff results: Eastman wins, Markowitz loses

Jan 29th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

I’m posting this before all the votes are in, but the results are not in doubt.

Anna Eastman was leading Luis La Rotta by a 67-33 margin in HD148 after 26 of 37 vote centers were in. See here for the numbers. Eastman faces multiple candidates in the March primary, which will be the more difficult race for her.

Eliz Markowitz was trailing Gary Gates by a 59-41 margin, with some unknown-to-me number of election day votes counted. See here for those numbers. Given that Meghan Scoggins got a bit less than 46% in 2018, this would not count as beating the spread. Special legislative election runoffs have not been very kind to Dems in recent years – see SD19 in 2018 and HD118 in 2016 for examples. That said, Dems won back HD118 that fall with no trouble, and that embarrassing setback in SD19 was not in the least indicative of what was to come later that year. So pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and remember that as with those years, it’s November that counts.

Finally, Lorraine Birabil was leading James Armstrong 68-32 in the HD100 runoff, to succeed Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson. See here for those numbers. That was a D-versus-D race in a deep blue district, though there was criticism of Armstrong for taking money from Texans for Lawsuit Reform. I’m never sad to see those guys lose a race, so I’m fine with this one.

Anyway, congrats to all the winners. Early voting for the March primary starts in 20 days. You’re welcome.

Judicial Q&A: Megan Daic

Jan 28th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to those who plan to vote in March. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates.)

Megan Daic

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

My name is Megan A. Daic and I am running to become judge of the 165th Civil District Court of Harris County, Texas.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

This court hears civil cases related to civil disputes, such as breach of contract, personal injury, products liability, premises liability, temporary injunctions, consumer disputes, fraud, claims over insurance disputes, slander/libel, to name a few.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I decided to run for this position not because I have had a life-long dream of becoming a judge, but rather because I knew that there was current frustration with a lack of efficiency in how the 165th Judicial District Court is currently being run.

Unfortunately, it seems difficult to obtain rulings on motions, and difficult to impossible to obtain a trial setting or hearing on a motion. This has been made evident by the number of mandamuses filed against the current judge, as well as by the recent HBA Judicial Preference polling results.

I believe that the Courts should run efficiently and effectively and afford people the opportunity to be heard – and to provide them with rulings – in a timely manner. At the point in time in which a lawsuit is filed, individuals and/or companies have likely been in disagreement (or injured) for quite some time and the litigation process only prolongs a decision/determination being made in their matter.

People deserve the right to be heard AND to have a decision made as expeditiously as is practical and possible in an effort to allow them to start moving forward with their lives.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

My varied legal experience, coupled with my organizational skills and ability to manage a team and multiple projects at one time, make me qualified for this position.

I help manage a firm with over 4,000 cases while managing my own docket of approximately 1,000 cases. I also remain involved in the various organizations and associations that remain important to me, our profession, and our community, while also coaching and teaching at the University of Houston Law Center.

I am efficient, decisive, and objective, which are important qualities for a judge.

I also believe that it is important to be a clear & communicative leader for your peers, co-workers, and staff.

5. Why is this race important?

This race is important particularly because we need to see some significant changes in this court. The people who go in front of the courts deserve to be treated fairly and to have their matters heard in an efficient and effective manner.

6. Why should people vote for you in the primary?

I pride myself on leading by example. I believe it is important to take responsibility for your actions, strive to elevate the people & communities around you, and be fair and objective when making decisions.

In order to be a great and fair-minded leader, it is vital to take responsibility for your actions, hold yourself accountable, and inspire others by your actions, not just your words.

Committing to serving others and helping to inspire others to follow their dreams are central to life's passions.

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly at [email protected]!

Chron overview of HD134

Jan 28th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

Is this the year Sarah Davis loses? That’s the question.

Rep. Sarah Davis

The March primaries are weeks away, but the first question at a recent forum for the three Democrats running to unseat state Rep. Sarah Davis centered on November: “How do you plan to win this race if you are the nominee?”

The answer has evaded Democrats since the 2010 tea party wave, when Davis flipped the highly affluent and educated House District 134. Widely viewed as the most moderate Republican in the Texas House, she comfortably has retained the seat in four subsequent elections, despite strong headwinds atop the ballot the last two cycles.

Those electoral results are on the minds of voters, and the candidates themselves, in the sleepy Democratic primary between educator Lanny Bose and attorneys Ann Johnson and Ruby Powers. With little evidence of public rancor between them, they instead are directing their attacks toward Davis’ record, each trying to convince voters of their ability to beat her in November.

“My attitude is, we’ve got three folks who are applying to be team captain. I’m going to be a part of this race in the general whether or not my name is on the ballot,” Bose said. “This primary is about talking about our shared vision for what this seat and what Houston should look like.”

[…]

Republicans are skeptical Democrats will be able to wield the Abbott endorsement against Davis, or that she will lose under even the most unfavorable conditions.

“I don’t think the voters really — other than the inside baseball participants — care about political endorsements,” said Chris Beavers, a Republican strategist who is not involved in the race. “They care about service, and there is nobody who serves their district more passionately and fully than Sarah Davis does.”

Last cycle, Davis accurately predicted that some statewide Republicans could lose her district — which encompasses the Texas Medical Center, Southside Place, Bellaire, Rice University and West University Place, where she lives — amid a “blue wave” of Democratic voters. The results varied wildly: Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke won 60 percent of the House District 134 vote, while Republican Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick narrowly beat her Democratic opponent there.

Davis captured 53 percent, winning by about 5,600 votes out of nearly 89,000.

That, Davis said, shows the district’s voters “cross the ballot to vote for people, not for parties.”

“My opponents who refer to the district as ‘flippable’ just don’t get it,” Davis said. “It isn’t about the party label, it’s about representing the priorities of this unique district regardless of party.”

Here’s the sum total of Republicans who carried HD134 in 2018:
Ed Emmett (56.31%) beat Lina Hidalgo (41.46%).
Glenn Hegar (48.60%) beat Joi Chavalier (48.52%).
Christi Craddick (49.00%) beat Roman McAllen (48.60%).
Seven Republican judicial candidates out of 74 total judicial races.

That’s it. Every other Republican, running for every other office, lost in HD134. Some by a hair, others by a landslide, they all lost. You can hang your hat on Christi Craddick and Glenn Hegar if you want, those are some strong headwinds.

It’s also the key reason why HD134 looks so much more winnable than in the past. Far fewer Democrats won HD134 in 2016, including judicial candidates. The district wasn’t just blue at the tippy top in 2018, it was blue pretty much all the way through.

There are plenty of antecedents for this race. Former Congressman Chet Edwards won three races in a very Republican, DeLay-redrawn district, until 2010 when a bunch of people who used to vote for him decided they were better represented by a Republican. Former State Rep. Ellen Cohen won two terms in this same HD134, which was about as Republican downballot then as it is Democratic now, until 2010 when a bunch of voters who had once supported her decided they were better represented by someone like Sarah Davis. I’m not saying that’s how this election, under very similar circumstances, will go. I’m just saying we’ve seen elections like it before. The voters there may still decide that she represents them well, regardless of her party. Or they may decide that even if she is the best that the Republican Party has to offer these days, the fact that it’s the Republican Party that’s making the offering is enough for them to change their minds.

That’s the point that the three Dems running for the nomination, all of whom are running actual, active, engaged campaigns unlike Davis’ opponent in 2018, would like to make with the voters. You may say that boiling this down to red versus blue is a disservice to the voters, and that making up their own independent non-partisan minds is more valuable. I say the difference between re-electing Sarah Davis and ousting her in favor of one of those three fine Dems is at least possibly the difference between a State House that spends 2021 passing a bunch of anti-trans bills and anti-abortion bills and anti-immigrant bills (Sarah Davis co-sponsored SB4, the “show me your papers” bill, and voted for the sonogram bill in 2011, in case you’ve forgotten) and new maps that heavily favor Republicans, and a State House that doesn’t do those things. The voters can decide for themselves which of those outcomes they prefer.

In case you need a reminder, my interviews with the HD134 candidates are here:

Ann Johnson
Ruby Powers
Lanny Bose

We have an Astros apology

Jan 28th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

From a former player, not a current player. It’s still something.

Dallas Keuchel

Twelve days later, an apology appeared on the south side of Chicago, from a bearded face that was constant throughout the Astros’ now-ruined renaissance.

“Was it against the rules? Yes it was,” Dallas Keuchel said. “And I personally am sorry for what’s come about the whole situation.”

Keuchel, now a member of the White Sox, became the first Astros player past or present to formally acknowledge and apologize for the electronic sign-stealing scandal that’s rocked the sport and cost four men their jobs.

The 2015 Cy Young winner spoke Friday at White Sox FanFest, directly addressing many topics his former Astros teammates have avoided. Keuchel, who left Houston as a free agent after the 2018 season, was an All-Star who threw 1452/3 innings during the 2017 World Series-winning season.

“It’s just what the state of baseball was at that point in time,” Keuchel said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “… It is what it is, and we’ve got to move past that. I never thought anything would’ve come like it did. I, myself, am sorry.”

Of the five current Astros players who’ve spoken since Major League Baseball released its findings Jan. 13, none have expressed remorse or assumed any culpability. Owner Jim Crane said this week he expects the team to come together at spring training, discuss its next steps and perhaps issue “a strong statement” of apology.

“First and foremost I think apologies should be in order for, if not everybody on the team,” Keuchel said. “It was never intended to be what it is made to be right now. I think when stuff comes out about things that happen over the course of a major-league ball season, it’s always blown up to the point of ‘Oh, my gosh, this has never happened before.’”

Keuchel said that he’s spoken to some of his former Astros teammates and reported “there is sorrow in some guys’ voices.”

Most, Keuchel said, are unhappy at Mike Fiers’ decision to speak on the record about the ploy to The Athletic in November. Fiers’ on-record account was the catalyst for MLB’s investigation.

“A lot of guys are not happy with the fact that Mike came out and said something or the fact that this even happened,” Keuchel said. “But at the same time, there is some sorrow in guys’ voices. I have talked to guys before and this will be going on for a long time and I’m sure in the back of guys minds this’ll stay fresh.”

I mean, was that so hard? It’s not even that abject, doesn’t really admit wrongdoing, but it at least acknowledges that an apology is called for. Keuchel gets a bit of a discount, for being a pitcher and thus not a beneficiary of the banging scheme, and for being a former Astro, but if you start from there and are sincere about it, what you end up with should be fine. But the longer this drags on, the less it will mean. Don’t keep us waiting.

What to expect in HD28?

Jan 28th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
2 comments

Time to play the expectations game.

Eliz Markowitz

It is hard not to argue Democrats have gone all in on the special election runoff for House District 28.

Ahead of the Tuesday election, at least three presidential candidates have come to the aid of Democratic candidate Eliz Markowitz. State and national groups have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into her race against self-funding Republican Gary Gates. And Beto O’Rourke has practically made Fort Bend County his second home, spending days at a time there to help Markowitz to flip the seat — and give Democrats a shot of momentum as they head toward November intent on capturing the lower-chamber majority.

But all the activity belies the reality that District 28 is far from the most competitive district that Democrats are targeting this year, a point they are increasingly making as expectations balloon around Markowitz’s campaign. Republicans, meanwhile, are voicing confidence after the early-vote period, raising the prospect of a decisive win Tuesday that delivers an early blow to Democrats’ hopes of flipping the House.

“We want to send a message after this election,” Gates said at a block walk launch here Saturday morning. “We don’t want to win by 2 or 3, 4 points.”

Markowitz and Gates are vying to finish the term of former Rep. John Zerwas, R-Richmond, who won reelection in 2018 by 8 percentage points while O’Rourke lost the suburban Houston district by 3. Those numbers do indeed put HD-28 far down the list of 22 seats that Democrats have designated as pickup opportunities in November — 16th, to be exact.

But there is no denying that the deluge of high-profile Democratic attention has laid the foundation for a highly anticipated result Tuesday, complicating efforts to keep the race in perspective. Texas Democratic Party spokesman Abhi Rahman said Friday that Democrats “have already won by the fact Republicans have had to invest as much as they have in this district.”

“I’m hard-pressed to see how we lose on Tuesday regardless of the outcome,” Markowitz said in an interview Sunday evening. “Whether or not we walk away having won [the runoff] … we will have walked away establishing a movement for change and that movement will continue across the state of Texas through November.”

[…]

The four-day early voting period ended Friday, and turnout was 16,332, which blew past that of the November special election, which drew 14,270 voters. That is especially notable because there were 12 days of early voting for the November election, and many more polling places were open. Also, Gates was vying against five other Republicans, while Markowitz was the sole Democratic candidate.

But who that increased turnout benefits is a separate question. In the Gates campaign analysis, the early vote was 53% Republican, 30% Democratic and 17% independent — auguring a massive disadvantage for Markowitz heading into Election Day. Democrats have not offered similarly detailed numbers, but Markowitz said their “analysis is showing that we’re at a dead heat and it’s really going to come down to Election Day turnout.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but winning is better than losing, and only one side gets to win. Covering the spread is a reasonable consolation prize and a thing one can hopefully point to as a portent for November, as long as one remembers that special elections can be goofy and are often not a great predictor of what will follow. But in the end, losing by a smaller-than-expected margin is still losing, as Sen. Ted Cruz can tell you.

We will overcome the narrative of this race, whichever way it goes, and move on to the next race, because that’s what we all do. I don’t care what pundits and Republicans will say if Markowitz winds up losing by a not-respectable margin. I do care that some of the people who worked so hard to elect her may be discouraged by such a result, but at least we know there are plenty of races to focus on, including this one in November. We all remember that the winner of this race has earned the right to serve until the end of this year and still has to win in November to be a part of the actual legislative process, right?

Whatever we learn twelve hours or so from now, Markowitz ran a strong race and had a lot of support, from within the state and from outside it. Win or lose, whatever the final score, we have to learn from that experience and build on it for November. That’s what really matters.

Interview with Commissioner Rodney Ellis

Jan 27th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Commissioner Rodney Ellis

I don’t think I need to spend too much time introducing County Commissioner Rodney Ellis. A longtime State Senator after serving on Houston City Council, Ellis became the 2016 Democratic nominee for County Commissioner in Precinct 1 via that weird Precinct Chair vote that I was part of following the death of El Franco Lee. Ellis was a force for criminal justice reform in the Senate, which he continued on the Court during the bail lawsuit. He’s a father of four, an avid bicyclist, and a man you don’t have to ask many questions to get a whole lot of good information. I will say here that it was my intent to interview his opponent in this primary, Maria Jackson, as well. I reached out to her campaign, but in the end Jackson declined to talk to me. So be it. We have my interview with Commissioner Rodney Ellis, so what more do you need?

The Erik Manning spreadsheet is back! You can track information for candidates on the Harris County ballot here.

    PREVIOUSLY:

Elisa Cardnell – CD02
Travis Olsen – CD02

Michelle Palmer – SBOE6
Kimberly McLeod – SBOE6
Debra Kerner – SBOE6

Chrysta Castañeda – RRC
Kelly Stone – RRC

Vince Ryan – Harris County Attorney
Ben Rose – Harris County Attorney
Christian Menefee – Harris County Attorney

Jolanda Jones – Harris County Tax Assessor

Ann Johnson – HD134
Ruby Powers – HD134
Lanny Bose – HD134

Akilah Bacy – HD138
Josh Wallenstein – HD138
Jenifer Pool – HD138

Sarah DeMerchant – HD26
Lawrence Allen – HD26
Rish Oberoi – HD26
Suleman Lalani – HD26

Judicial Q&A: V. R. “Velda” Faulkner

Jan 27th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to those who plan to vote in March. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates.)

Velda Faulkner

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

I am V.R. “(Velda)” Faulkner. I am a candidate for Justice, 14th Court of Appeals, PL 7.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

The 14th Court of Appeals hears intermediate appellate civil and criminal cases appealed from the County Courts at Law and the District Courts, in 10 Counties, which are: Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris (the most populous of the 10 counties), Grimes, Waller, and Washington.

For the most part, there is a 3-judge panel who hears each case, unless an En Banc decision is ordered, wherein all 9 justices are ordered to hear and decide the case(s). “An En bank decision is to be ordered to secure or maintain the Court’s uniformity of the Court’s decision or extraordinary circumstances require such.” Tex. R. App. P. 41.2(c).

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

The 14th Court of Appeals has been in existed for over 52 years. During these years, there has NEVER been an Black American Female elected to this Appellate Court. It is Time to Change the course of HISTORY with this Court!

If elected, I will the first Black American Jurist to sit on this appellate court, which will be a substantial and significant moment in Texas History! I am running for this seat to bring competence, fairness, integrity and justice to the appellate bench, for ALL litigants. I want to inform the public that the 14th Court of Appeals is “The People’s Court,” and everyone, NOT a select few, has the right and is entitled to access to the Appellate Courts and the Appellate Process, as well as to expect judicial fairness and respect.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I am a 30+ year veteran lawyer. I have represented clients (both adults, minors and person with disabilities). I have handled complex civil litigation and represented clients on both sides of the docket. I have handled misdemeanor and felony cases, during my 30+ years career. I have handled civil and criminal appellate cases and presented Oral argument before the Court of Criminal
Appeals, the Highest Criminal Court in Texas. I am versed on the appellate process and presentation of Oral argument. I have a Published Criminal Opinion, obtained, during a time of adverse decisions under prior Judicial oversight.

5. Why is this race important?

This race could be a monumental moment in Texas and U.S. History, when THE VOTERS, decide to place me in this position, and not relegate this valuable place of Public Servant to an unwarranted political appointment. I want to be “The People’s Jurist.” I intend to bring integrity, competence, experience and Judicial fairness to the judiciary. Otherwise, our legal system, including our judicial system will continue to fall into decay, anarchy and disrespect. Every litigant has the right of access to the Appellate Courts, without threat or fear of intimidation, exorbitant fees or economic ruin. The Laws of this State and the U.S. Constitution must be followed and applied to ALL cases, regardless of political preference of a learned jurist. The legal procedural guidelines must be adhered to, regardless of individual or political affiliation. All Voters should “Elect” a Jurist, based on the voters’ “initial” selection and not a secondary election-selection.

6. Why should people vote for you in the primary?

I am ready to begin working as “The People’s Jurist” on my first day at work. I will carefully read, review, carefully listen to litigants or their representatives, then rule on cases, according the Law and Procedure, opining a legally sound decision, for “ALL” litigants. The public needs to know that the 14th Court of Appeals may be a Court of last resort for some people, so it is imperative to Rule, Justly, Fairly and with Impartiality.

The busking lawsuit

Jan 27th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Interesting.

Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian

A Houston accordionist is feeling squeezed by an obscure city law aimed at restricting where musicians can play for tips.

Anthony Barilla, also a composer whose work can be heard on the radio program “This American Life,” lodged the lawsuit in federal court recently in hopes of striking down the decades-old Houston ordinance, contending that it violates the First Amendment.

As the law stands, a performer — regardless of their talent or instrument, be it a guitar, violin or their voice — must have a permit to serenade the streets with any hope of making a buck. And that permit confines them to the Theater District.

Barilla does not consider himself solely a busker, a musician who performs in public places — often with a belly-up hat or an open instrument case to invite a toss of the coin. But he traversed Houston’s permit process in 2018 to see what would happen and to brush up on the accordion.

[…]

For most of the 20th century, musicians were barred from public street performances in Houston. Chronicle archives show that musicians began wooing the city for permits in the 1980s, but nothing serious happened until 1990, when the G-7 Summit was predicted to draw visitors to Houston.

City officials OK’d an experimental program to allow street performers — in the Theater District only. The program, if it worked and were then made permanent, would lure more people downtown, especially during conventions, then-Mayor Kathy Whitmire hoped. According to reports, only five permits were issued during the pilot.

The following year, City Council signed off on the ordinance.

Unlike Houston, some cities do not require permits. Musicians don’t need one to entertain straphangers amid the roar of New York City’s subway system. Busking has been street legal in most areas of Seattle for more than 40 years

“Houston is such a business-friendly town. This is my business,” Barilla said. “You’d think Houston, given our pro-business climate, that we wouldn’t be that way. The law is archaic. We haven’t caught up to other world-class cities.”

Let me say up front that I agree with the basic premise of this lawsuit, that the ordinance in question is overly restrictive and at the very least needs an overhaul. Busking isn’t going to be viable in many parts of the city, but there’s no reason to restrict it to the Theater District. Let people busk, as long as they’re not blocking pedestrian or vehicular traffic, and as long as they’re not disturbing the peace. It would be wise for the city to offer a settlement and fix this law.

District B lawsuit has its hearing

Jan 27th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Feels like we’ve been waiting forever for this.

Cynthia Bailey

Lawyers for the third-place finisher in Houston city council District B’s election told a judge Friday that the city erred in failing to declare an opponent ineligible because of her felony conviction and asked the court to throw out the votes that landed Cynthia Bailey in a still-to-be-scheduled runoff.

The judge, they said, should discount the votes Bailey received in the Nov. 5 election and put their client, Renee Jefferson-Smith, into the runoff against top vote-getter Tarsha Jackson.

Visiting Judge Grant Dorfman did not make a ruling Friday, but said he hoped to have a decision by the end of next week.

[…]

Jefferson-Smith’s legal team argued that Bailey’s well-documented 2007 felony conviction makes her ineligible to run under state law, and the city should have declared her as such when they they submitted a packet of supporting documents to the city secretary on Nov. 13. Bailey served 18 months of a 10-year sentence for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks from North Forest Independent School District.

Jefferson-Smith is basing her case on a state law that says a person cannot run for elected office if he or she has been finally convicted of a felony from which they have not been pardoned or otherwise released from its “resulting disabilities.”

The law does not define “resulting disabilities” and courts have interpreted it differently. Bailey has said she can run because she completed her sentence and can vote. Jefferson-Smith’s team has cited at least one case in which a candidate similarly disclosed a conviction and then was almost immediately removed from the Galveston City Council under the same law.

The City of Houston received documents from Jefferson-Smith’s lawyers on Nov. 13 — a week after Election Day, but before city council canvassed the results. The documents included a Harris County record of Bailey’s conviction and a Texas Attorney General opinion stating that restored voting rights do not mean a restored ability to run for office.

“They are not allowed to ignore conclusive proof of ineligibility,” said Lindsay Roberts, a lawyer for Jefferson-Smith. “They have to make that determination of eligibility and, importantly, they have to do so before certification.”

Attorneys for the city rejected those claims, arguing the submitted documents did not conclusively prove that Bailey had not been cleared of those “resulting disabilities.” They also said the documents were sent and received after Jefferson-Smith already had lost two court rulings in a separate lawsuit.

In that case, filed two days after the election and separate from the one heard Friday, Jefferson-Smith asked a judge for an emergency order — and then a preliminary injunction — declaring Bailey ineligible. Both requests were denied, and the First Court of Appeals and Texas Supreme Court have upheld those rejections.

With those initial denials in mind, Senior Assistant City Attorney Suzanne Chauvin said, the city council certified the results Nov. 18, as it is required by law to do.

“Essentially, they’re saying we should have second-guessed two rulings by the district court,” Chauvin said.

See here for the previous update. As you know, as a matter of principle, I disagree with Jefferson-Smith’s argument. I think the city should have accepted Bailey’s application, as they did with several other candidates who had prior felony convictions, and if there needed to be a legal challenge it should have happened after the filing deadline and before the election. That’s all water under the bridge now, and hopefully something the Lege will address (in a constructive manner) in 2021. For now, all I care about is getting a ruling, and then maybe a confirmed date for the next election. I don’t envy Judge Dorfman the decision, and I really hope that any appeals are resolved quickly.

Weekend link dump for January 26

Jan 26th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

“Trump May Be Even More Unpopular Than His Approval Rating Shows”.

“This passage is one of many reminders that the equation of Christianity with homophobic, racist, misogynist and false beliefs did not originate with any of these writers. It’s an equation that some parents, teachers and church leaders make again and again: To be a good Christian you must not be gay. To be a good Christian you must submit to your husband. To be a good Christian you must believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. To be a good Christian you must vote Republican. Their children have simply taken them at their word.”

OMG, this Twitter thread of a person watching The Princess Bride for the first time is amazing.

Turns out, paying for Medicare for All isn’t that hard to do.

“The next aircraft carrier to be built will be named for the grandson of slaves and a son of sharecroppers.”

“Which tech companies are really doing the most harm? Here are the 30 most dangerous, ranked by the people who know.”

“The start of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump is a reminder that the American political system does include safeguards and norms that are meant to protect the citizenry from corruption and misdeeds in the highest offices of the land. What happens in the Senate over the next few weeks will show whether these measures still matter.”

“35 vintage photos taken by the EPA reveal what American cities looked like before pollution was regulated”. (Spoiler alert: They were so, so dirty.)

“But I think people need to focus a bit more on the fact that this trial isn’t just about winning an acquittal for Trump, but also about keeping him minimally viable as the Republican presidential nominee.”

“Jack Van Impe started his ministry 68 years ago, assuring his followers that the Rapture, Argmageddon, and the End of Time were poised to occur at any moment. At no moment in any of those 68 years did the Rapture occur.”

RIP, Terry Jones, legendary actor and director with the Monty Python troupe.

RIP, Jim Lehrer, longtime journalist for PBS.

“Two Trump Lawyers Dismissed His Own Constitutional Argument Against Impeachment”.

Karlie Kloss is Jared Kushner’s sister-in-law. She will not be voting for Donald Trump. Good luck at the next Thanksgiving, Karlie.

Jay Sekulow is the Emily Litella of impeachment.

“It hurts the brain to think that Ukraine would eagerly blame themselves for something that Russia did, but that was the demand Trump made of them. Did Trump know it was untrue? Was he asking for something legitimate in his own mind, as Lindsey Graham argues?”

RIP, Carol Serling, widow of Rod Serling and keeper of the Twilight Zone flame.

“The House opening arguments in the impeachment trial of President Trump mark the first time lawmakers have explicitly presented the entirety of their evidence about Trump’s handling of Ukraine aid — and thus far, they’ve been nothing short of damning.”

January 2020 campaign finance reports: State House part 2

Jan 26th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Here’s Part 2 of my look at the finance reports from State House races. Part 1 was here, Harris County offices were here, and statewide races were here. You may also want to refer to this Trib story and this Reform Austin post for more about the finance reports in the top tier House races.

Martin Shupp, HD03
Lorena Perez McGill, HD15
Jeff Antonelli, HD23
Brian Rogers, HD24
Patrick Henry, HD25
Lawrence Allen, HD26
Sarah DeMerchant
Rish Oberoi, HD26
Suleman Lalani, HD26
Ron Reynolds, HD27
Byron Ross, HD27
Eliz Markowitz, HD28
Travis Boldt, HD29
Joey Cardenas, HD85


Candidate     Raised     Spent     Loan     On Hand
===================================================
Shupp            450       230        0         450
McGill
Antonelli        200       750        0         200
Rogers         1,225       750        0         475
Henry          1,750     1,019        0       1,750
Allen         20,712     8,733        0       4,994
DeMerchant     6,543    10,250        0         169
Oberoi        27,750    39,159   20,000      55,222
Lalani        40,996    29,092   90,000      91,210
Reynolds      21,654    27,511    5,100       3,741
Ross
Markowitz    244,460   240,034        0     118,308
Boldt         10,445     2,991        0       7,378
Cardenas         250       805    2,000         250

I skipped the Republicans this time, because life is short and I didn’t feel like it. Ron Reynolds did pick up a primary opponent, at the last minute, but now that he’s served his sentence and has no other clouds over his head that I know of, it’s harder to see the motivation to knock him out. The only other primary of interest is in HD26, which will likely go to a runoff. As with the other top-tier races for Dems, there will be plenty of PAC money coming in, but it’s always useful if the candidate can do some of that heavy lifting. No one stands out on that score yet but there’s time.

Of course the marquee event is Eliz Markowitz and the special election runoff in HD28, which continues to draw national interest. If Markowitz falls short it won’t be from lack of effort – there’s been a concerted door-knocking effort going on for weeks, and Beto O’Rourke appears to have taken up residence in HD28 for that effort, if my Twitter feed is any indication. It’s important to remember that this race is just for the remainder of John Zerwas’ term. Markowitz will have to win in November, again against Gary Gates, to be a part of the next Legislature. There will be plenty of Narrative about this election, but in the end November is the real prize. Don’t lose sight of that.

I’ll have SBOE and State Senate next, and will do Congress when those reports are available. As always, let me know what you think.

HISD considers metal detectors

Jan 26th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

It’s (maybe) come to this.

Houston ISD officials are exploring the idea of installing metal detectors at the district’s middle and high schools in response to last week’s fatal on-campus shooting of a student, a step few districts in the region have taken following nationwide incidents of mass gun violence at schools.

In a blog post, Houston ISD Interim Superintendent Grenita Lathan wrote that she will be meeting with students and community leaders to determine whether the district should increase security measures following the Jan. 14 shooting of Cesar Cortes, 19, at Bellaire High School. Authorities have said they believe a 16-year-old classmate accidentally shot Cortes while showing off a semiautomatic pistol.

“These meetings, along with reconvening safety and security council committees on every campus, will be a catalyst for increased vigilance and preventative measures in our schools,” Lathan wrote Tuesday. “Another measure the district is exploring includes assessing middle schools and high schools for metal detectors as a screening measure for entry onto campuses.”

HISD does not regularly employ metal detectors or require clear backpacks at its campuses. Aldine and Spring ISDs are the only two large Houston-area districts that use metal detectors each school day. Cy-Fair ISD, the region’s second-largest district, issued a clear backpack mandate for students following the May 2018 shooting at Santa Fe High School that left 10 people dead.

[…]

The addition of metal detectors would represent one of HISD’s costliest and most significant security upgrades in recent years. While prices for metal detectors vary, outfitting all 106 campuses that serve grades 6 and higher could be costly, particularly if the district installed multiple machines at larger schools. Chicago Public Schools officials last year approved the purchase of an undisclosed number of metal detectors for nearly $4,000 per unit, with installation and warranty included.

HISD officials have not said who would operate and maintain metal detectors, which could carry additional costs.

Any districtwide purchases of metal detectors likely would require approval of the HISD school board. Trustee Patricia Allen, a former elementary school principal, said she supports the installation of metal detectors in middle and high schools, arguing the increase in security outweighs the logistical hurdles of screening students daily.

“You already see them so much, even at the football stadiums where they have lots of people going through those,” Allen said. “It’s better to be safe than sorry.”

However, Trustee Dani Hernandez said she opposes metal detectors at schools, largely because of the message they send to students. Hernandez added that she heard backlash to metal detectors from community members following the November 2018 death of 18-year-old Delindsey Mack, who was killed in an apparent gang-related shooting within feet of Lamar High School grounds.

“We would need to figure out more about the cost, but also how that plays into the school-to-prison pipeline,” said Hernandez, a former elementary school teacher.

Here’s the blog post in question. A little back of the envelope math based on the Chicago schools’ experience suggests this would cost at least $4 million for the equipment, with likely additional costs for the personnel to operate the machines. As the story notes later, HISD will be getting an additional $2 million from the state for “safety-related upgrades”, which is both insufficient and doesn’t address ongoing costs.

Now, the additional cost this would impose on HISD may still be worth it. I’ve got two kids in HISD, and one of my older daughter’s best friends attends Bellaire, so I very much have skin in the game here, and the safety of HISD’s students is something I care a lot about. The first question is, would this be a good way to improve school security? As the story notes, the studies we have so far have not yet shown evidence that metal detectors do improve safety; there wasn’t enough data to draw a conclusion. We’ve all seen news stories of metal detectors at airports failing to detect guns. There’s already evidence that other “security” enhancements at schools, like live shooter drills, has had an overall negative effect on students’ mental health and well-being. Suffice it to say, I’m skeptical.

How many explosions is too many explosions?

Jan 26th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
6 comments

Unfortunately, we’re on track to find out.

It’s a scene that’s all too familiar to Houston residents.

Explosions, flames reaching into the sky, plumes of black smoke, calls to shelter in place, evacuations, injuries and deaths.

The explosion early Friday morning at a manufacturing plant was the latest deadly reminder of the potential danger posed by hazardous material facilities in the Houston area.

In 2019, there were at least five major chemical incidents in Southeast Texas.

[…]

The Houston area is home to more than 2,500 chemical facilities. A 2015 Houston Chronicle investigation found there was a major chemical incident in the greater Houston area every six weeks. The investigation found many facilities posed serious threats to the public but were unknown to most neighbors and largely unpoliced by government at all levels.

In November, the Trump administration rolled back a number of chemical safety regulations created in response to the 2013 West Fertilizer explosion that killed 15 and injured more than 200. A coalition of environmental groups sued to stop the rollback.

With those regulations off the books, companies will not have to complete third-party audits or a root-cause analysis after an incident. Companies also will not have to provide the public access to information about what type of chemicals are stored in these facilities either.

While the federal government weakened regulations, Harris County has taken a more aggressive stand with the petrochemical industry in recent months.  The county brought civil lawsuits and criminal charges to multiple chemical companies after incidents in 2019. This has led to a race to the courts as the state and the county fight over taking the lead in penalizing polluters.

I was awake and getting dressed when that explosion happened. It was loud enough that I thought it was something that happened in my house, and I’m a long way from the 4500 block of Gessner. All things considered, we’re damn lucky there weren’t more casualties.

The story goes on to list the other recent disasters, a rogues’ gallery that includes the likes of Intercontinental Terminal Company, KMCO, and the Exxon Mobil plant in Baytown. You can now add Watson Grinding & Manufacturing to that list. It’s just a matter of time before that list grows again.

And look, we all know the stakes of the 2020 election, but this list and the two parties’ responses to it are the stakes of every election. The Republicans roll back regulations that are in place to prevent and mitigate disasters, to hold the negligent companies responsible, and to inform the public of dangers in their midst. The Democrats support and enforce such regulations, and seek to make sure the people know about what’s out there. We know what we’re fighting for this year. Put “fewer giant explosions caused by under-regulated and uninspected facilities that contain all kinds of dangerous materials” high on the list of things we should be fighting for in 2022 and beyond.

January 2020 campaign finance reports: State House, part 1

Jan 25th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

I’m going to take a two-part look at the finance reports in State House districts. Part One will be from Harris County, looking at both contested primaries and contested November races. Part Two will focus on races in the counties around Harris. Previous entries in this series include Harris County offices, and statewide races.

Undrai Fizer, HD126
Natali Hurtado, HD126

Sam Harless, HD126

Josh Markle, HD128
Mary Williams, HD128

Briscoe Cain, HD128
Robert Hoskins, HD128

Kayla Alix, HD129

Dennis Paul, HD129
Ryan Lee, HD129

Bryan Henry, HD130

Tom Oliverson (PAC), HD130

Alma Allen, HD131
Carey Lashley, HD131
Deondre Moore, HD131
Elvonte Patton, HD131

Gina Calanni, HD132

Angelica Garcia, HD132
Mike Schofield, HD132

Sandra Moore, HD133

Jim Murphy (PAC), HD133

Lanny Bose, HD134
Ann Johnson, HD134
Ruby Powers, HD134

Sarah Davis, HD134

Jon Rosenthal, HD135

Merrilee Beazley, HD135
Justin Ray, HD135

Akilah Bacy, HD138
Jenifer Pool, HD138
Josh Wallenstein, HD138

Josh Flynn, HD138
Lacey Hull, HD138
Claver Kamau-Imani, HD138

Jarvis Johnson, HD139
Angeanette Thibodeaux, HD139

Senfronia Thompson, HD141
Willie Franklyn, HD141

Harold Dutton, HD142
Richard Bonton, HD142
Jerry Davis, HD142
Natasha Ruiz, HD142

Shawn Thierry, HD146
Ashton Woods, HD146

Garnet Coleman, HD147
Colin Ross, HD147
Aurelia Wagner, HD147

Anna Eastman, HD148
Adrian P. Garcia, HD148
Cynthia Reyes-Revilla, HD148
Penny Shaw, HD148
Emily Wolf, HD148

Lui La Rotta, HD148

Michael Walsh, HD150

Valoree Swanson, HD150


Candidate     Raised     Spent     Loan     On Hand
===================================================
Fizer            800       319        0         500
Hurtado       25,091     9,588        0      11,752

Harless       73,265    11,022   20,000     103,669

Markle        78,906    12,426        0      68,081
Williams

Cain         125,891    39,462        0     133,616
Hoskins        4,575    26,033        0       3,804

Alix           2,141     1,343        0         898

Paul          85,621    38,444  156,000     116,486
Lee           10,720     4,779        0       5,879

Henry          3,385     2,901        0       3,385

Oliverson     56,555    62,895   60,000     101,693

Allen         11,100    13,251        0      32,798
Lashley
Moore
Patton        43,075     1,100        0      10,000

Calanni       82,002    24,571        0      70,770

Garcia        28,045    20,076        0      21,309
Schofield     27,400    24,152        0     152,549

Moore          2,000     2,539        0       1,502

Murphy       120,076   132,583        0     487,913

Bose          54,573    13,702        0      40,871
Johnson       58,287    31,075        0     148,054
Powers        43,015    40,852        0      18,299

Davis         89,750    76,040        0     230,958

Rosenthal     70,841    42,143        0      41,320

Beazley            0       465        0           0
Ray           52,666    24,644        0      47,082

Bacy          28,066     6,799        0      14,455
Pool
Wallenstein   42,137    35,766   10,000      51,786

Flynn         12,080    20,761        0       9,166
Hull          50,068     4,551        0      45,516
Kamau-Imani   18,800     2,229        0      16,570

Johnson        8,775     3,619    2,500      26,946
Thibodeaux     7,000     2,069        0       4,931

Thompson     104,216   136,801        0     889,738
Franklyn           0     1,873        0       1,336

Dutton        26,876    16,676        0      79,263
Bonton
Davis        139,565     9,787        0     129,928
Ruiz

Thierry       13,710    11,825        0      13,446
Woods          1,485     1,263        0       1,690

Coleman       97,990   129,532        0     110,589
Ross
Wagner

Eastman       75,378    57,861        0      33,967
Garcia        12,100     2,500        0       4,000
Reyes-Revilla  3,547         0    8,000       3,547
Shaw          11,635    15,531   34,000      15,454
Wolf               0         0      200         235

La Rotta      11,280    10,602        0       4,095

Walsh              0        33        0          33

Swanson       10,201    27,643   34,040      34,657

You may also want to refer to this Trib story and this Reform Austin post about the finance reports in the top tier House races. I don’t have the bandwidth to look at all of them, so check them out for their reporting on it.

There are several contested Democratic primaries, including five challenges to incumbents in safe D districts. This was a popular pastime in the 2000s, during the Craddick era – Alma Allen beat Ron Wilson, Armando Walle beat Kevin Bailey, Borris Miles took three out of four against Al Edwards. The latter of those occurred in 2012, and while there have been primary opponents to incumbents over the past few cycles, none have come close to succeeding; Edward Pollard in HD137 and Demetria Smith in HD149, both of whom got about 35% in their races in 2016, came closest. The one this year that has the greatest potential to upset the status quo is in HD142, where longtime State Rep. Harold Dutton faces unrest over his role in passing the TEA takeover bill as well as the tumult in City Council District B. Still-current District B incumbent Jerry Davis, who transferred all of his city campaign funds into his State Rep campaign treasury, is the main threat to Dutton. I can’t wait to see how the endorsements play out – Davis has already gotten the nod from the Texas Gulf Coast Area Labor Federation (TGCALF), AFL-CIO, the only challenger to an incumbent in Harris County to do so. Elvonte Patton, who was a candidate for HCDE in the 2018 primary, has a nice fundraising total, but most of that is in kind, and Alma Allen has vanquished previous challengers with 85% or more of the vote in the past.

On the Republican, there’s not much action outside of an attempt to install a grownup in HD128. As I understand it, Robert Hoskins has some establishment support in his effort to knock out Briscoe Cain, but as you can see not a lot of money. We both know which speaks louder.

The four most hotly contested seats, one of which is open, is where the bulk of the action is. All three contenders in HD134 raised similar sums, but Ann Johnson has a commanding lead in cash on hand thanks to a big first half of the year. Akilah Bacy and Josh Wallenstein both raised a few bucks in HD138, with Wallenstein doing a bit better, while Lacey Hull led the pack on the Republican side. I have to assume now that his spot on the ballot is assured, Josh Flynn will ramp it up. Freshman Reps Gina Calanni and Jon Rosenthal both outpaced the totals of their potential opponents. The HD132 GOP race will be interesting, as Angelica Garcia has Greg Abbott’s endorsement but former Rep. Mike Schofield still has cash left over from his 2018 loss. To some extent, none of these totals matter that much because there will be a ton of PAC money on both sides in all of the competitive districts. Still, a candidate or incumbent who can raise cash on their own is stronger than one who relies mostly on others doing that work.

In HD148, where there’s both a contested primary and a special election runoff (happening now!), the main thing to note is that these totals are all from October 27 through the end of the year, as all of the candidates save Emily Wolf had eight-day finance reports from their November 2019 races. Penny Shaw has gotten a couple of early endorsements, so the 30-day report in early February will tell a more detailed picture for this race. As for the special election runoff, there’s nothing to suggest anything unusual, Erica Greider’s weekend daydreams aside.

Beyond that, not a whole lot else to discuss. Jim Murphy’s cash on hand total is one reason why I speculated he might consider a run for Mayor in 2023 if the Lege is no longer amenable to him. Sarah Davis would probably have more cash on hand right now if she hadn’t had to fend off primary challengers in the past. As above, I’m pretty sure she’ll have the funds she needs to run that race. The Dems have some longer shots out there, with HD126 being the most competitive of them, so keep an eye on Natali Hurtado. I’ll be back next time with the State House races from elsewhere in the region.

Dan Patrick makes the most predictable announcement ever

Jan 25th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
6 comments

Really, who didn’t see this coming?

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said Thursday he may further lower the threshold required to bring bills to the Senate floor if Republicans lose one or two seats in November.

Patrick made the comment at a conservative policy conference in Austin while discussing the current makeup of the upper chamber, which has 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats. Currently, 19 votes are required to put legislation on the floor for passage. But Republicans are facing the real possibility of losing at least one caucus member in 2020. Sen. Pete Flores, R-Pleasanton, is running for reelection in a solidly Democratic district after winning his seat in 2018 special election upset.

“I’m right there at that number, and if we lose one or two seats, then we might have to go to 16 next session,” Patrick said. “We might have to go to a simple majority because we will not be stopped in leading on federalism in the United States of America.”

Honestly, this is good news and we should be thankful for it. For one, this is the closest thing any Republican will come to admitting in public that they expect to lose SD19, a seat that they had the very good fortune to borrow for the 2019 session. There’s no reason Dan Patrick would voluntarily say this out loud to people who might report on it otherwise. He’s laying the groundwork. But look, while the two-thirds-that-is-now-three-fifths rule had its place in an older time, when the parties were less sorted by ideology and that rule wasn’t generally used for partisan reasons, it’s an anti-majoritarian abomination that just has no place in a democracy. Just look at the devastation that the filibuster wrought in the US Senate during the Obama presidency. You can’t be in favor of killing the filibuster and preserving the 2/3-3/5 rule. At least, I can’t.

Sure, in the short term, if Dems don’t take the House this year, losing the 3/5 rule will suck. Patrick and his cronies will get another session to shove through all the ridiculous wingnut crap they can, and may get to keep doing it even longer given that they’d be in control of redistricting. But someday, maybe even someday in the 20’s, the Dems are going to retake the Senate. Maybe it’ll happen in 2022, when all of the Senate is on the ballot, and maybe it’ll happen in conjunction with Dems winning statewide and keeping the House. Now ask yourself, in a Senate where Dems have 16 or 17 members: Do you want to let Senate Republicans control that chamber’s agenda by blocking every single bill the House passes that they don’t like? Or would you rather let those 16 or 17 Dem Senators do the job they were elected to do?

The brilliant thing is that when the Democratic Lieutenant Governor announces the Senate rules, which do not include a 2/3 or 3/5 rule, no one can cry about the vicious partisanship of it all, because Dan Patrick will have already set the precedent. He’ll get to have it first, but we’ll get it next, and we won’t have to do any work to make it happen. If you don’t see that as a golden opportunity, even if it is one whose timeline is unknown, I don’t know what to tell you.

Is there an Astros apology coming?

Jan 25th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Maybe.

Did not age well

A “strong statement” of apology could be forthcoming from the Astros players involved in electronic sign-stealing during the 2017 and 2018 seasons, owner Jim Crane said Tuesday.

In response to interviews given by Jose Altuve and Alex Bregman on Saturday at FanFest, Crane said his players are “just getting some advice to take it easy.”

Neither Altuve nor Bregman addressed specifics of the sign-stealing scheme — one Major League Baseball determined was “player-driven” — nor did they accept culpability for the fallout when presented the option. Manager A.J. Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhnow were fired after the league released its investigative findings.

“When we get down to spring training, we’ll all get them together and they’ll come out with a strong statement as a team and, I think, apologize for what happened and move forward,” Crane said Tuesday prior to the Houston Sports Awards.

Crane said the players who’ve spoken have been “holding back a bit” and are apparently awaiting spring training to formulate a response.

“Everyone is split up. It’s a team,” Crane said. “We’re going to sit in a room and talk about it, then we’ll come out and address the press. All of them will address the press, either as a group or individually. Quite frankly, we’ll apologize for what happened, ask for forgiveness and move forward.”

You know my opinion. I just hope that if and when they do offer an apology, it’s genuine and heartfelt and not one of those “if anyone was offended” abominations. Better to fully embrace being the heel than to half-ass it, that’s my advice. Joe Holley has more.

Judicial Q&A: Ana Martinez

Jan 24th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to those who plan to vote in March. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates.)

Ana Martinez

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

My name is Ana Martinez and I am running for the 179th District Court. I am originally from Colombia and have been living in Houston for 15 years. I am a naturalized citizen, have law degrees from Colombia and Texas. I clerked for the Texas Supreme Court after I graduated law school. I am a former prosecutor and founding member of the former Human Trafficking Section of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. I currently serve as an appointed defense attorney and represent indigent clients.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

A Criminal District Court hears all felony (from State Jail to 1st Degree) cases within Harris County assigned to the court. A District Judge will handle all pre-trial and trial procedures arising from said charges. This includes pre-trial release, bonds and bond hearings, hearings on pre-trial motions, docket settings, trial (guilt/innocence and punishment), motions to adjudicate and revoke probation hearings, post-conviction / writ hearings, PSI hearings, issuances of orders and findings of fact / conclusions of law, assignment of attorneys for indigent clients, and overall docket management.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I am running for the 179th District Court because I believe change and improvement is needed in that court. As an illustration, the 2009, 2017 and the 2019 Judicial Polls from the Houston Bar Association show that 40% or more of the attorneys who answered the poll stated the incumbent judge needed improvement in almost all categories. (Follows the law, is courteous and attentive towards attorneys and witnesses, demonstrates impartiality, uses attorney’s time efficiently, works hard and is prepared).

Also, the current Judge has practices, that in my opinion, target those defendants battling with addiction. His Court records show he revokes bonds if a defendant tests positive for use of controlled substances – regardless of the charge and in most occasions, without a hearing or due process. I believe these types of practices keep subjecting the mentally ill – including those struggling with addiction – to a disparate and unfair treatment, and I believe the current Judge continues to perpetuate an unfair and biased system.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I am an experienced criminal attorney. I have exclusively practiced criminal law for nine years in Harris County. I have been a prosecutor and I am now a defense attorney. I have handled hundreds of cases ranging from Class C to First Degree Felonies. At the District Attorney’s Office I successfully tried dozens of misdemeanor and felony jury trials and I handled cases in the Family Law Criminal Division, Mental Health Division, Writs Section, and spent my last two years as an Assistant District Attorney at the former Human Trafficking Section.

As a defense attorney I have handled hundreds of misdemeanors and felony cases. Being one of the few certified bilingual appointed attorneys, allows me to represent minorities who are underrepresented and I am able to advocate for their rights.

I graduated from law school in Colombia from Universidad de los Andes, one of the top law schools in the country, and became fully licensed to practice in my home country back in 2004. During my last year of law school in Colombia, I served as an appointed criminal defense attorney for indigent clients.

I moved to Houston, Texas in 2005, and later became a U.S. Citizen. I obtained an LLM degree from the University of Houston Law Center. I then attended South Texas College of Law – Houston, and obtained my J.D., which allowed me to be fully licensed in the State of Texas.

After graduating from law school in 2010, I spent my first year as a licensed attorney in Texas as a clerk for the Texas Supreme Court.

5. Why is this race important?

Criminal Judicial races affect everyone in the community. The safety of our community is influenced by the criminal justice system and the rights of the accused are protected by a fair and knowledgeable judiciary.

6. Why should people vote for you in the primary?

I believe I will have a better judicial temperament than my opponent. I will be dignified and courteous to any litigant, juror, witness, lawyer and others with whom I deal in an official capacity and my words and conduct will not manifest bias or prejudice. I also believe I have a better understanding and knowledge of the law.

January 2020 campaign finance reports: Statewide

Jan 24th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

There’s a whole lot of candidates of interest for state offices. I’m going to break them down into several groups, to keep things simple and the posts not too long. Today we will look at the candidates for statewide office. This will include the statewide judicial races, and both Republicans and Democrats. I have previously done the Harris County reports.

Roberto Alonzo, RRC
Chrysta Castaneda, RRC
Kelly Stone, RRC
Mark Watson, RRC

Ryan Sitton, RRC

Amy Clark Meachum, Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Jerry Zimmerer, Supreme Court, Chief Justice

Nathan Hecht, Supreme Court, Chief Justice

Kathy Cheng, Supreme Court, Place 6
Lawrence Praeger, Supreme Court, Place 6

Jane Bland, Supreme Court, Place 6

Brandy Voss, Supreme Court, Place 7
Staci Williams, Supreme Court, Place 7

Jeff Boyd, Supreme Court, Place 7

Peter Kelly, Supreme Court, Place 8
Gisela Triana, Supreme Court, Place 8

Brett Busby, Supreme Court, Place 8

William Demond, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Elizabeth Frizell, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Dan Wood, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3

Gina Parker, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Bert Richardson, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3

Tina Clinton, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4
Steve Miears, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4

Kevin Yeary, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4

Brandon Birmingham, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9

David Newell, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9


Candidate     Raised     Spent     Loan     On Hand
===================================================
Alonzo         1,500     8,458    7,340       3,840
Castaneda     46,297    42,196   26,000      46,297
Stone         25,331    23,465    3,875       3,018
Watson           750     3,762        0         750

Sitton       480,850   154,832  378,899   2,514,759

Meachum      139,370    42,854        0     119,067
Zimmerer      10,680    22,213   20,000      45,251

Hecht        296,168   146,575        0     531,660

Cheng          1,315    41,200   84,167       8,129
Praeger        1,280     5,227   10,000       1,280

Bland        335,707    73,945        0     277,965

Voss         100,696   135,076  100,000     169,470
Williams      55,154   105,936        0      59,074

Boyd         134,844   100,193      177     562,533

Kelly         30,527     7,037        0      50,963
Triana       100,970    39,710        0     106,577

Busby        260,378   129,825        0     542,918

Demond        4,250      5,050    5,000       3,599
Frizell       1,000        988        0          11
Wood          6,490     68,592        0      41,291

Parker       58,195     82,247   25,000      21,055
Richardson   52,975     21,690    4,500      35,207

Clinton           0     10,216   25,000       4,944
Miears            0      3,750        0           0

Yeary        14,355     11,203    3,004       6,245

Birmingham   29,770     16,375   10,960      25,003

Newell        8,879      7,370        0       1,391

Railroad Commissioner is not a high profile office and not one for which a bunch of money is usually raised, though Ryan Sitton has clearly made good use of his five-plus years on the job. If you’ve listened to my interviews with Chrysta Castañeda and Kelly Stone, you know that I’m a little scarred by goofy results in some of our statewide primaries in recent cycles. Strange things can and do happen when people have no idea who the candidates are, as the likes of Grady Yarbrough and Jim Hogan can attest. On the plus side, I’d say three of the four candidates running in this primary would be fine – Castañeda and Stone are actively campaigning, Roberto Alonzo is a former State Rep, you can have confidence they’ll do their best. As for Mark Watson, at least I could identify him via a Google search. It’s a low bar to clear, you know?

I don’t often look at finance reports for judicial candidates – there’s just too many of them, for one thing, and they usually don’t tell you much. None of what I see here is surprising. The Republican incumbents have a few bucks, though none of their totals mean anything in a statewide context. I’m guessing the Dems with bigger totals to report had cash to transfer from their existing accounts, as District Court or Appeals court judges. It’s possible, if we really do see evidence of the state being a tossup, that some PAC money will get pumped into these races, for the purpose of making sure people don’t skip them. Everyone has to be concerned about the potential for undervotes to have an effect on the outcome, in this first year of no straight ticket voting.

As for the Court of Criminal Appeals, well, the money’s on the civil side of the house. It is what it is. I’ll be back with the Lege next, and then the SBOE and State Senate after that.

Looking ahead in CD07

Jan 24th, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
7 comments

This story is primarily about the Republican primary in CD07. I don’t care about that race or those candidates, but there’s some good stuff at the end that I wanted to comment on.

Rep. Lizzie Fletcher

Since she’s taken office, some Houston Republicans — old school, Bush-acolyte types — concede [Rep. Lizzie Fletcher is] an on-the-ground presence and a force to be reckoned with for whoever the Republicans nominate.

That assessment is, in part, thanks to her fundraising. She is the top Democratic fundraiser in the Texas delegation and only lags behind Crenshaw among U.S. House members from Texas. And while the Republican primary is expected to drag on into a runoff in May, Fletcher can watch from the sidelines while banking her money for the coming general election television ad wars.

Because of those factors, non-partisan campaign handicappers at Inside Elections rate the 7th Congressional District as “Lean Democratic.”

“She is formidable, as evidenced by nobody on the Democratic side running against her,” said Jason Westin, a rival from her 2018 primary fight who has donated to her campaign this time around. “She’s done an excellent job … and I think she’s been checking boxes and basically doing what she said she was going to do, which is what got her elected over an incumbent the first time.”

And there’s an urgency in GOP circles that if they are to defeat Fletcher, it must be this cycle. Incumbents are traditionally at their weakest during their first term.

But also, the next cycle will take place after redistricting. Even if Republicans hold the map-drawing power in the state Legislature, it will be difficult to shore up the 7th District into their favor this time around. Any attempt to draw nearby Republican voters into the district could risk destabilizing the other Republican-held districts in the Houston metropolitan area.

In the here and now, members of both parties privately acknowledge that for all the fundraising, campaigning and strategizing, the 7th Congressional district is likely to be the Texas seat most susceptible to national winds.

After all, it is Trump who is most credited with pushing this district into the Democratic column. In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney carried the district by 21 percentage points. But in 2016, Trump lost the district by one percentage point, giving Democrats the impetus to compete in West Houston.

As I’ve said before, I consider CD07 to be Lean Dem. Rep. Fletcher could certainly lose, but she hasn’t done anything to make her position any more vulnerable. She’s done the things she campaigned on, she’s raised a ton of money, she’s not committed any gaffes, and she’s been very visible in the district. As the story notes, she won by five points in a race that was expected to be a photo finish, and in which the polling we had tended to show John Culberson up by a small margin. Don’t underestimate her, is what I’m saying.

If there’s one thing that gives me a little bit of pause, it’s that while Democrats in 2018 exceeded their countywide totals from 2016, Republicans lagged theirs, by 70 to 100K votes. Their turnout will be up from 2018, and so it’s a question of how much Dems can increase theirs. I expect it to be up to the task, but it is a factor. I mean, Culberson got 143K votes in 2016 but only 116K in 2018, while Fletcher got 128K. I expect she will need more than that to win this year.

Of course, some of those votes Fletcher got were from people who had previously voted mostly Republican. It was those people, who voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump while otherwise voting GOP in 2016, that out CD07 on the map in the first place. These people voted for more Democrats in 2018, as precinct analysis makes clear, but they still voted for some Republicans. My sense is that those people will mostly stick with Dems in 2020 – if being anti-Trump drove their behavior in 2016 and 2018, it’s hard to see why it wouldn’t drive their behavior in 2020 – but that is a variable. And as for what happens in 2022 when we are post-Trump (please, please, please), that’s anyone’s guess at this point.

As for redistricting, I don’t know what the Republicans will want to do with CD07. First, it matters whether they have control over the process or if they have to deal with House Democrats, and second it matters if they’re seeking to protect a new incumbent or enact a strategic retreat, in which case they can use CD07 as a Democratic vote sink and shore up all three of CDs 02, 10, and 22. Or, you know, try to win back one or more of them – if Dems take at least one of those seats, they’ll need to figure out how to protect those new incumbents, too. I know that redistricting is at a basic level a zero-sum partisan game, but it’s also more than two-dimensional. There are a lot of interests to balance, and it’s not always obvious what the best move is. I mean, who would have ever expected that we’d be talking about this back in 2011, right?

Interview with Suleman Lalani

Jan 23rd, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Suleman Lalani

One last time in HD26. Election results on the SOS webpage only go back as far as 1992. In that time, HD26 has always been held by a Republican – through the 90s, when Fort Bend had two State Rep districts, the 2000s when it had three, and the 2010s when part of a fourth was added. It’s mind-boggling to think that not one but two Republican-held seats in Fort Bend could go Democratic this year, but here we are. My final conversation with an HD26 candidate is with Dr. Suleman Lalani. A specialist in internal medicine, geriatric and palliative care, Dr. Lalani is an immigrant to the US who arrived in the 90s and has practiced here for over 20 years. He has served as the Chairman for the Regional Committee of the Aga Khan Foundation USA, and a Board member and also has served as Ambassador to US Congress for the Alzheimer’s Association. Here’s the interview:

The Erik Manning spreadsheet is back! You can track information for candidates on the Harris County ballot here.

    PREVIOUSLY:

Elisa Cardnell – CD02
Travis Olsen – CD02

Michelle Palmer – SBOE6
Kimberly McLeod – SBOE6
Debra Kerner – SBOE6

Chrysta Castañeda – RRC
Kelly Stone – RRC

Vince Ryan – Harris County Attorney
Ben Rose – Harris County Attorney
Christian Menefee – Harris County Attorney

Jolanda Jones – Harris County Tax Assessor

Ann Johnson – HD134
Ruby Powers – HD134
Lanny Bose – HD134

Akilah Bacy – HD138
Josh Wallenstein – HD138
Jenifer Pool – HD138

Sarah DeMerchant – HD26
Lawrence Allen – HD26
Rish Oberoi – HD26

Judicial Q&A: Tamika Craft

Jan 23rd, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to those who plan to vote in March. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates.)

Tamika Craft

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

I am running for the 14th Court of Appeals, Place 7.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

I will hear appeals of all civil and criminal cases in the lower courts from the 10 counties covered by the 14th Court of Appeals. The only cases I will not hear are capital murder cases.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I am running for this particular bench because I am qualified to serve as a Justice on the Court of Appeals. Further, there has never been an African American on the 14th Court of Appeals so I am also running to bring diversity and balance to the Court.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have practiced in every area that I will address on the 14th Court of Appeals, including but not limited to, civil law, criminal law, family law, labor and employment law and probate law. I am also a licensed mediator and arbitrator and have conducted hundreds of mediations and arbitrations since 2003. Though I will never hear a capital murder case on the bench, I have been heavily involved in a capital murder case and even attended an execution in 2005. I have also been an Administrative Judge for the Texas Education Agency since 2013 and I have presided over many hearings and written legal opinions to school boards throughout Texas. I am licensed in all Texas district courts, Federal courts and the 1st, 13th and 14th Court of Appeals and in 2017 I became licensed by the United States Supreme Court.

5. Why is this race important?

This race is important there are important issues that are heard and decided at the 14th Court of Appeals and people deserve an experienced Justice on the bench.

6. Why should people vote for you in the primary?

I am the youngest candidate running for this position but I am also the most qualified and experienced candidate. I have earned and deserve the vote of the people in the Democratic primary.

Speaking of voter registration

Jan 23rd, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

The Chron notes the latest milestone.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

For the first time in history, Texas has topped 16 million registered voters and is adding voters faster than its population grows heading into the 2020 presidential election.

With the voter registration deadline for the March 3 primaries just two weeks away, the state is already on the brink of having 2 million more registered voters than it did just four years ago when President Donald Trump was first elected.

“What you’re seeing is a true transformation of the Texas electorate,” said Antonio Arellano, interim executive director of Jolt, a voter advocacy group focused on registering young Latino voters and getting them involved in politics.

He said despite all the barriers Texas has put in place to depress voter registration and voter turnout, groups like his are drawing younger and more diverse voters, which is making the politics of Texas more reflective of its demographics — about 40 percent of the state’s population is Latino, census data shows.

Since 2017, the population in Texas has grown by about 5 percent. But the state’s voter registration has grown about 8 percent during that period. The increase is even more dramatic in urban areas such as Harris County, the state’s most populous county. While Harris County’s population has grown an estimated 4 percent since 2014, its voter registration has jumped 14 percent.

In Bexar County the population has grown an estimated 11 percent since 2014, while the voter registration has jumped 19 percent.

[…]

While Texas doesn’t require voters to register by party, Texas Democratic Party officials say their internal data shows that the voter gains are largely due to voters that skew their way — younger and more diverse.

Cliff Walker, Deputy Executive Director of the Texas Democratic Party, said as the state has looked more competitive with each election, that in turn has drawn even more younger and diverse voters to sign up, which then makes the state still more competitive. In other words, the success begets more success, he said.

See here for the background. The correlation with the growth in urban voter registration is no surprise. I’ve tracked the Harris County numbers before, and while the surge in statewide voter registration lags a bit behind, it’s all happened in the last couple of years. Which, not coincidentally, is when Democrats and Dem-aligned groups have made voter registration a priority and really put a bunch of resources into it. That latter bit is key, because registering voters in Texas is even harder than you thought.

In 2013, former campaign operatives who worked with President Barack Obama launched a group called Battleground Texas. The mission was to more aggressively register voters in Texas, a place that has a history of making it difficult to register to vote. That was a tall task, given a 2011 Texas law that significantly toughened voter registration rules to require people wanting to register voters to go through county-specific voter registrar training; the law also blocked non-Texans from joining that work.

So to register voters statewide, a volunteer would be forced to attend 254 different trainings. Texas also does not accept online voter registration applications — the paperwork must include a handwritten signature, and that signature cannot be a copy, digital signature or photo of a signature.

But slowly Battleground Texas and other groups started to make headway. Other groups have joined the cause, with Jolt, The Lone Star Project and Be One Texas among them.

This strategy also includes litigation, over things like the “motor voter” law and electronic signatures, but those won’t yield any fruit for this election. In a sane world, voter registration would be easy, but this is Texas. We have to do it the hard way. Put fixing all this on the agenda for when Dems finally control state government.

One more thing, which I have discussed but which I don’t see get mentioned in other stories, is that boosting registration totals is by itself a turnout program. I’ll say again, turnout as a percentage of registered voters was down in Harris County in 2016 compared to 2008, but because there were so many more registered voters the total number of folks who showed up increased. Statewide turnout in 2016 was 59.39%, for 8,969,226 total voters. Taking the 16,106,984 number we have now – and remember, that will go up some more before the primary deadline – and at the same 59.39% turnout rate you get 9,565,937 voters, or 600K more. If the 18 million goal is reached, that puts turnout at 10.7 million if the rate is the same. Now of course there’s no guarantee of reaching the same rate – as was the case in Harris County, the statewide turnout rate in 2008 (59.50%) was higher than it was in 2016 – my point is that you can catch more fish with a bigger net. Add in a real turnout push on top of that, and who knows what can happen. It all starts with getting more people registered.

Texas blog roundup for the week of January 20

Jan 23rd, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

The Texas Progressive Alliance will be stepping back from its primary duties as a member of the royal family, but will continue to bring you the weekly roundups.

(more…)

Interview with Rish Oberoi

Jan 22nd, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Rish Oberoi

Continuing on with HD26. One of the ironies of incumbent Rep. Rick Miller’s racist comments about Asian voters in this district was, as State Rep. Gene Wu noted, HD26 was specifically drawn to make it easier for an Anglo candidate like Miller to win over Asian opponents. Turns out that even scuzzy gerrymanders have an expiration date, as did Rep. Miller. Rish Oberoi has worked on a variety of Democratic campaigns in Fort Bend County, from Nick Lampson to Mark Gibson to Mike Collier. He has also served as a policy aide to former Speaker Joe Straus, and worked with a non-profit that invests in school construction in India. Here’s the interview:

The Erik Manning spreadsheet is back! You can track information for candidates on the Harris County ballot here.

    PREVIOUSLY:

Elisa Cardnell – CD02
Travis Olsen – CD02

Michelle Palmer – SBOE6
Kimberly McLeod – SBOE6
Debra Kerner – SBOE6

Chrysta Castañeda – RRC
Kelly Stone – RRC

Vince Ryan – Harris County Attorney
Ben Rose – Harris County Attorney
Christian Menefee – Harris County Attorney

Jolanda Jones – Harris County Tax Assessor

Ann Johnson – HD134
Ruby Powers – HD134
Lanny Bose – HD134

Akilah Bacy – HD138
Josh Wallenstein – HD138
Jenifer Pool – HD138

Sarah DeMerchant – HD26
Lawrence Allen – HD26

Judicial Q&A: Jimmie L.J. Brown, Jr.

Jan 22nd, 2020
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to those who plan to vote in March. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates.)

Jimmie L.J. Brown, Jr

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

My name is Jimmie L. J. Brown, Jr.

I am an African-American Male. I am an attorney, licensed since Nov. 2, 1984.
I graduated from Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Texas Southern University June 1984.
I was born October 14, 1957.
My parents were Jimmie L. Brown, Sr., father/deceased and Mary L. Richard, mother/deceased.
I am and elder and the Assistant Pastor, Harvest Time Church of God In Christ, I am running for the position of Judge, 165th Judicial District Court, Harris County.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

The Texas district courts are the trial courts of general jurisdiction.

The district court has exclusive jurisdiction over felony cases, cases involving title to land, and election contest cases. It shares jurisdiction with the county courts, and in some case justice of the peace courts, for civil cases (its lowest limit for hearing a case is a mere $200 in controversy, while JP courts can hear cases up to $10,000). Family law jurisdiction varies depending on the existence of a county court-at-law; in some counties, the district courts share jurisdiction over divorces, child custody and support matters, adoptions and child welfare cases with county courts at law. Probate jurisdiction varies, depending on the existence of a statutory probate court in the county. In some larger counties, such as Harris County, the district courts are specialized, with designated sets of courts hearing criminal cases, juvenile cases, family matters, and non-family civil cases. In the smaller counties, a single district court handles all types of cases. In rural areas, as many as five counties share a single district court; urban counties.

Government Code, Chapter 24. District Courts
Sec. 24.112. 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (HARRIS COUNTY).
(a) The 11th Judicial District is composed of Harris County.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (g), the provisions of this section apply to the 11th, 55th, 61st, 80th, 113th, 125th, 127th, 129th, 133rd, 151st, 152nd, 157th, 164th, and 165th judicial districts.
(c) Repealed by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1082 (H.B. 3481), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2017.
(d) In all suits, actions, or proceedings in the district courts, it is sufficient for the address or designation to be “District Court of Harris County.”
(e) The judge of each district court shall sign the minutes of each court term not later than the 30th day after the end of the term and shall also sign the minutes at the end of each volume of the minutes. Each judge sitting in the court shall sign the minutes of the proceedings that were held before him. (f) The judge of each district court may take the same vacation as the other district court judges of Harris County at any time during the year. During the judge’s vacation, the court term remains open, and the judge of any other district court may hold court during the judge’s vacation. The judges of the district courts shall, by agreement among themselves, take their vacations alternately so that there are at all times at least six district court judges in the county.
(g) Subsection (h) applies to the 11th, 55th, 61st, 80th, 113th, 125th, 127th, 129th, 133rd, 151st, 152nd, 157th, 164th, 165th, 189th, 190th, 215th, 234th, 269th, 270th, 280th, 281st, 295th, 333rd, and 334th judicial districts.
(h) The judges of the district courts listed in Subsection (g) by agreement shall designate one of the listed district courts as the domestic violence district court for Harris County. In designating the domestic violence district court, the judges shall give preference to a district court:
(1) that has a judicial vacancy at the time of the agreement; or
(2) for which the sitting judge of the district court has not at the time of the agreement announced a candidacy or become a candidate in the upcoming election for that judicial office.
(i) Subject to any jurisdictional limitations, the district court designated under Subsection (h) as the domestic violence district court shall give preference to domestic violence cases, including cases involving:
(1) dating violence, as defined by Section 71.0021, Family Code; and
(2) family violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code.
(j) For the purposes of determining the preference the designated domestic violence district court is required to give cases under Subsection (i):
(1) a domestic violence case means:
(A) an original application for a protective order under Title 4, Family Code;
(B) an original application for a protective order under Title 4, Family Code, that involves both parties and is filed concurrently with an original petition under the Family Code; and
(C) any matter involving custody of a minor child if one parent is alleged to have caused the death of another parent and there is a history of domestic violence in the parents’ relationship; and
(2) subject to judicial discretion and resources, the designated domestic violence district court may also hear divorce and custody cases in which:
(A) a court has made an affirmative finding of family violence involving both parties; or
(B) a protective order has been issued under Title 4, Family Code, involving both parties.
(k) The designated domestic violence district court shall:
(1) provide timely and efficient access to emergency protective orders and other court remedies for persons the court determines are victims of domestic violence;
(2) integrate victims’ services for persons the court determines are victims of domestic violence who have a case before the court; and
(3) promote an informed and consistent court response to domestic violence cases to lessen the number of misdemeanors, felonies, and fatalities related to domestic violence in Harris County.
(l) The Harris County district clerk shall create a form and establish procedures to transfer a domestic violence case that qualifies for preference under this section to the domestic violence district court.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

The Incumbent Judge is not doing the job. I believe I can do the job and certainly do the job better than the present incumbent. I have been a Summary Court Martials Judge – three times, a military conscientious objector hearings officer for not less than 25 hearings and an administrative law judge – Texas Railroad Commission, Transportation Section (prior to deregulation).

I have practiced law for 35 years. I have tried cases, both criminal and civil, conducted discovery, filed and argued motions, familiar with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure/Civil Practice and Remedies Code/Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and filed appeals – State and Federal. I have argued appeals before the 1st and 14th Court of Appeals (State), and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal).

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

See Paragraph 3 above.

5. Why is this race important?

I am not certain what is meant by important. I believe it is a factor and is a positive or negative. For me a positive. It lends a perspective and insight of the judicial system – access, bias, impartiality and partiality, that will shape me as a judge. I believe it allows me to have a perspective on the impact of the role of the law, trial, the process and as a judge as seen from a person and a people who have come to value the need of the courts and the law.

Quoting Cesar Chavez: “History will judge societies and governments and their institutions, not by how big they are or how well they serve the rich and the powerful, but by how effectively they respond to the needs of the poor and the helpless.”

Quoting Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”

Quoting Benjamin Franklin: “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”

6. Why should people vote for you in the primary?

One of the many reasons people should vote for me is that I’m the BEST candidate for the job of Judge for the 165th Judicial District Court. Not that I am perfect, nor that I have been perfect. Not that I have not made mistake. Not that I will not, but that I am human and strive to do what is right and to follow the law as best as I can and to – when the situation requires – deviate from the law to see justice/equity done.

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.” ― Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws

← Earlier Posts