Two more endorsements from the Chron, one of which may be the least enthusiastic endorsement they’ve ever given.
District Clerk: Chris Daniel
The Harris County district clerk’s office runs behind the scenes in our judicial system. It maintains records for district and county courts at law, accounts for legal fees and deposits and administers the jury summons system. For all the drama and justice that goes down in courtrooms, there is nothing particularly exciting about this managerial position. Over the past four years, Republican Chris Daniel has served as a steady hand and deserves another term.
Daniel is a common presence at community and political events across the county – from heritage festivals to tea party meetings – yet never brings the nonpartisanship of his office into question. With youth and ambition matched by effective governance (he’s 31 years old) Daniel has served as an impressive administrator in an office that had previously suffered from constant turnover.
His Democratic challenger, Judith Snively, 59, works as a lawyer-turned-entrepreneur. You may have seen her at Spec’s promoting the Kardámili line of olive oils, which she imports. In running for the office, Snively points to problems of high turnover among individual district court clerks. That’s a challenge that Daniel needs to investigate in his next term, all while managing the rollout of electronic filing in criminal courts and electronic subpoenas. There is little doubt, however, that Daniel will do his job well.
Daniel had a rough start four years ago after defeating the well-regarded Loren Jackson in the 2010 landslide. I haven’t heard much grumbling about him lately, and the Chron’s assessment of him and his term in office is accurate. Judith Snively made some good points in her interview with me, and she unquestionably has a wealth of experience with the courts. She would certainly make a fine District Clerk, but I’m not surprised the Chron recommended Daniel.
This one, however, was a big ol’ head-scratcher.
County Clerk: Stan Stanart
If you’re an interested voter in Dallas County, then you have the simple pleasure of being able to look at the upcoming November ballot on DallasCountyVotes.org. If you live in Harris County, as of Friday, you get nothing more on HarrisVotes.com than a vague splash page stating that information will be posted “as Soon as it is Available.”
That’s par for the course under Republican County Clerk Stan Stanart.
The county clerk’s office maintains property records, court documents and marriage licenses, but is best known as the office that administers elections. Under Stanart, 58, Harris County elections have been marred by numerous problems and errors. The results of the 2012 primary runoffs were delayed due to technical errors, and the original numbers had to be corrected. His office published an inaccurate manual for election judges during the November 2011 election. And it feels like election information arrives at the last minute in Harris County. Stanart has pointed to human error outside his office as the reasons for delay. There may be truth in that claim, but the buck should stop at the top. After four years of questionable service, Stanart would be a vulnerable target for a strong challenger.
And yet they went ahead and endorsed him anyway, in spite of all that and in spite of the fact that they endorsed Ann Harris Bennett in 2010. This time they decided they didn’t like her, and without seeing a recording of their endorsement interview it’s hard to know exactly why. I will note that despite slapping some Family Court candidates on the wrist for their hostility to same sex couples, the Chron didn’t even mention Stanart’s front and center prominence with the HERO repeal effort. When is this a factor in your endorsements and when is it not, y’all? Some guidance would be appreciated. If they didn’t like Ann Harris Bennett this year for whatever the reason, then they didn’t like her. But that doesn’t mean they needed to endorse Stanart, who has been a mess as County Clerk. They would have been advised to go with “none of the above” instead.