Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

January 23rd, 2018:

Interview with Rita Lucido

Rita Lucido

Rita Lucido

One reason why I’m combining multiple races into individual weeks – aside from the too-many-contested-races, not-enough-weeks issue – is that unlike the Congressional free-for-alls, most of the other contested races have a more normal-sized field of two or three. There are three candidates running for SD17 on the Democratic side, though I only interviewed two of them. I did do an interview with that third candidate back in 2010 if you want to check that out. I’ve also done a prior interview with today’s candidate, Rita Lucido, as she had been the Democratic nominee for SD17 in 2014; you can find that interview here. She’s a family law attorney and longtime community activist, whom I first met years ago when volunteering for Planned Parenthood. She’s also a fellow alum of Trinity University, and you know how I love it when that happens. Here’s what we talked about:

You can see all of my legislative interviews as well as finance reports and other information on candidates on my 2018 Legislative Election page.

Judicial Q&A: Tracy Good

(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. You can see other Q&As and further information about judicial candidates on my 2018 Judicial page.

Tracy Good

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

My name is TRACY D. GOOD. I am running for the 313th Juvenile Court.

I’m a native Houstonian. I have been married to my wife for almost 29 years. We have two adorable twin daughters. I am a graduate of the University of Houston with a bachelor’s degree in accounting. In addition, I obtained my Juris Doctorate from the University of Houston Law School. I am a Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Internal Auditor. Despite these credentials and many years of experience in corporate America, my passion and focus has always been defending the defenseless, ensuring that the rights of individuals are upheld to the full extent of the law. I want to carry these traits to the bench so that the powers of the government are equally balanced with the rights of individuals. This balance is especially important when it comes to protecting the rights of children and families.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

Juvenile and CPS termination cases.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I have a passion for justice. I believe everyone regardless of economic status, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference should all be seen equally in the eyes of the law. This is especially true with respect to the rights of children. I want lawyers in my court to fight zealously for their "children" clients. I want every legal avenue possible to be explored. We are dealing with their future. And, their presence in court presents them with a huge fork in the road. One path leading to a bright future, and other path leading
to a not so bright future. I believe that the laws of the state of Texas with respect to juvenile justice are designed with a goal, in part, to ensure that the children of the state of Texas have a promising future as contributing members of our adult society.

However, bureaucracy, an inefficient governmental administration, and an imperfect ad litem appointment system are negatively impacting THIS goal of the juvenile justice system. These are just some of the problems that I see.

These are the reasons why I am running. In my courtroom, I will efficiently manage juvenile and Child Protective Services (CPS) cases, and I will ensure that ad litem attorney appointment system is transparent, open, and that ad litem attorney caseloads are manageable.

I want to exam the juvenile justice and child protective services issues from a complete perspective

  • teen pregnancy/prenatal care
  • family therapy/unity
  • mental health issues
  • socioeconomic disadvantages
  • teen peer pressure/gang-related pressures
  • law enforcement and community outreach

I want an impactful and critical examination of the “cradle to prison” pipeline, including resolutions to positively address this serious issue.

Harris County Juvenile Probation Department’s 2016 expenditures were over $105,000,000. There were 11,457 juvenile referrals to the department. This represents over $9,000.00 per referral. See:

It is important that the people elected by Harris County are good stewards of these funds. A primary characteristic of good stewardship is independence. Because of my internal audit background, I am a firm believer in not only the actuality of independence but the appearance of it. Therefore, I will not accept any campaign contributions from attorneys seeking ad litem appointments in my court!

With approximately $105,000,00 million dollar annual 2016 expenditure, the residents of Harris County deserve to be among the nation’s top ranked Juvenile Justice Systems. As your judge, it will be my passion and focus to make the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department a model for the nation.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

Eleven Years of practicing primarily family law, including juvenile and cps matters. I am a CPA with many years of corporate experience.

5. Why is this race important?

Families and children are important, and the system that judges and/or punishes them should be held to the highest standard of fairness, transparency, accountability and professionalism.

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

I am the better candidate for the job.

I’m a strong Democrat. In the past, I have volunteered for such organization as the NAACP legal redress clinic, and the real men read project. I have marched for causes in support of fairness and freedom for all.

Further, I’m a bit of renegade (perhaps it is the Democrat in me), in that I refuse to be a part of or accept court appointments from any Harris County Juvenile Court, for I personally feel awkward attempting to benefit from or acquiescing to a system that I hope to change one day.

Further I don’t understand how any person can have the fortitude to run against a system while simultaneously benefiting financially from that system. This seems a bit hypocritical to me. I’m not sure, but I hope that my primary opponents feel the same the way.

Lawsuit filed over Dallas County bail practices

Bring it on, I say.

On the heels of a federal ruling slamming Harris County for its bail practices, civil rights lawyers have now set their sights on a county with a similar system: Dallas.

Six indigent misdemeanor and felony defendants arrested this week and held in the Dallas County Jail filed suit against the county on Sunday night, claiming the bail system unconstitutionally discriminates against them by holding them in jail for days or weeks while letting similar defendants with cash walk free. One plaintiff, Shannon Daves, is a 47-year-old homeless and jobless transgender woman arrested on a misdemeanor theft charge. She has been kept in solitary confinement in the men’s unit since Wednesday under a $500 misdemeanor bond she can’t afford, the lawsuit claims.

“This system is really devastating for the people who can’t afford to purchase their freedom,” said Trisha Trigilio, a senior attorney at the ACLU of Texas, one of the legal groups representing the inmates. Lawyers with the Civil Rights Corps and the Texas Fair Defense Project are also leading the lawsuits in both Dallas and Harris counties.


In Dallas County, the plaintiffs state that judicial magistrates set money bail based on the alleged crime and prior convictions without considering an inmate’s ability to pay or determining if non-monetary conditions of release, like an ankle monitor or cab fare voucher, could ensure the defendant shows up to court. Texas law requires officials to consider financial ability when setting bail.

Instead, poor inmates who have yet to be convicted usually stay in jail because they can’t afford the bail, sometimes causing them to lose their jobs or housing, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit also argues that the threat of lengthy jail stays while awaiting trial encourages defendants to plead guilty.

Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins said Sunday that he wouldn’t comment on a pending lawsuit, but said the county is working to improve the system.

“I support bail reform because some low-risk suspects that don’t need to be there are held in Texas jails at taxpayer expense simply because they can’t afford to bond out,” he said.

Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price also pointed to the county’s efforts to reform its bail system, touting a decrease in the county jail population. As of December, there were about 5,000 inmates in the jail, which has a capacity for about 8,700, according to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards.

You can see a copy of the complaint here. There are differences between the Dallas and Houston cases – the Dallas one involves felons as well as misdemeanants, and as noted their jail population had already declined by a significant amount. And, not to make too fine a point of it, Dallas County is ruled by Democrats, not Republicans. I would hope that means they’ll be much more amenable to finding a settlement rather than draw this out. (As this story reminds us, the Harris County case hasn’t even been heard yet – Judge Rosenthal’s ruling was an injunction, not on the merits.) We’ll see what happens. The ACLU’s statement on the suit is beneath the fold.


Looks like the House just totally solved its sexual harassment problem

They went and got themselves a new training video. Woo hoo!

[I]t’s a 40-minute video that seems unlikely to change the toxic atmosphere at the statehouse any time soon.

The training is a video of a PowerPoint presentation with a voiceover that also covers discrimination based on race, age, disability and genetics. Just 18 minutes of the video is dedicated to sexual harassment, including boilerplate examples of harassment, reasons to prevent it, laws against sexual harassment, the House’s policy and reporting mechanisms.

“The whole video has a feeling of, ‘Let’s quick minimize liability on every front, watch this video,’” said Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who researches sex discrimination and workplace equality.

Recent research shows that if training isn’t properly designed, it’s unlikely to lead to more reporting of harassment, much less reduce instances of inappropriate behavior. According to Eden King, a psychology professor at Rice University, there’s some evidence that training programs have better outcomes when they are longer than four hours, include face-to-face interaction, involve interactive learning, are conducted by outside experts and actively involve leaders in the workplace. The House video meets none of those criteria.

Instead of being paired with an interactive, in-person training as recommended by researchers, the video is available on the House’s internal server and is probably watched alone. Viewers are required to take a 10-question, multiple-choice test. To pass, you must answer at least seven questions correctly. If you fail, you can simply retake the test without having to watch the video a second time.


When institutions face allegations of sexual harassment, Grossman said, the instinct is often to establish programs that reduce legal liability. The law tends to reward somewhat “superficial or simplistic” measures, she said, such as merely implementing a policy or conducting training. A 2016 report from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that most of the harassment training conducted in the last 30 years has failed to reduce harassment and has instead been used to meet legal requirements. “Ineffective training can be unhelpful or even counterproductive,” the report noted.

Research shows that to create an environment of equality, institutions must go beyond training. One crucial aspect is to ensure that victims feel they have a safe way to report complaints.

“If the video clearly explains the options [to report harassment], but you go to complain and you get the message that you’re causing trouble and you shouldn’t be, then the training will have had no benefit,” said Grossman.

See here, here, and here for some background. I like that seven out of ten is enough to pass this little quizlet. It’s good to know that someone is thinking about all those C- students at the Pink Dome. Think how much better our statewide achievement numbers would be if the STAAR test were like this.

I’ve been asking all the candidates I interview about sexual harassment, since we all need to be talking and thinking and doing something about it. Clearly, we need a process where the person who reports harassment is taken seriously and shielded from retaliation. The rights of the accused need to be respected during the investigation, but once a finding has been reached then there needs to be some transparency. As the story notes, you can’t just fire a legislator who has been found to have harassed someone, but you can make that information public, with redaction of the victim’s name. I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I bet if we asked the women who have come forward and told their stories, we’d get some pretty decent ideas for how to proceed. Better than watching a silly video, I’m sure.