Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

January 26th, 2022:

Judicial Q&A: Judge Chuck Silverman

(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. Much more information about Democratic primary candidates, including links to the interviews and judicial Q&As, can be found on Erik Manning’s spreadsheet.

Judge Chuck Silverman

1. Who are you and in which court do you preside?

I am Judge Chuck Silverman, the presiding Judge of the 183rd Criminal District Court.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

The 183rd Criminal District Court handles felony cases.

3. What have been your main accomplishments during your time on this bench?

I am proud of my many accomplishments during my tenure on the bench.

1. As evidenced by articles published in the Houston Chronicle, I was a leader of efforts to reform the felony bail system in Texas.

2. I believe that all defendants are entitled to a vigorous defense regardless of their economic status. That is why I support funding for and the use of the Public Defender's Office.

3. I am proud to partner with the Houston Gulf Coast Building & Trades Council to refer appropriate probationers to the Apprenticeship Readiness Program in order to afford such individuals the opportunity to learn a trade skill and subsequently become a productive member of the community.

4. I am proud of my ability to manage my docket during the pandemic as evidenced by the fact that my court has one of the lowest number of pending cases among the felony courts.

5. I am proud to have tried many cases, including a Capital Murder (Death Penalty), Capital Murder (Non Death Penalty) and many other serious felony cases.

4. What do you hope to accomplish in your courtroom going forward?

I will continue to build on my accomplishments. I will continue to efficiently manage my docket. I will continue to treat all parties with the respect and dignity they deserve. I will continue to be a judge that the community can be proud of.

5. Why is this race important?

We have to ensure that we have fair and unbiased representation on the bench. I am sensitive to the challenges in our judicial system and have worked in collaboration with community based organizations and advocacy groups to address issues such as bail reform, indigent defense and pathways to trade skills and employment opportunities.

6. Why should people vote for you in March?

I love my job. I wake up every day looking forward to coming to work. It is the most rewarding and fulfilling work I have ever engaged in. It's an honor to represent the people of Harris County and I would very much appreciate the opportunity to continue to do so.

With respect to the March primary, I would point out that I have been active in the Democratic Party since 1986. I have been a Precinct Chair (711), volunteered for many City, County and State Democratic Party candidates, been a long time member and supporter of Democratic Party clubs and organizations, and, unlike my opponent, have never voted in a Republican Party primary.

The story of the paper shortage and the voter registration forms, in two tweets

One:

And two:

There was a Chron story about this, but you get the idea. Guess that ol’ supply chain went and got itself unclogged. Funny how these things work. Or maybe SOS John Scott figured out that there’s a whole government department dedicated to printing services, and that perhaps he ought to check with them before declaring that they have no paper. Whatever the case, I think we can put a bow on this one for now. If only we could say the same for the other problem we’re now facing. Take your wins where you can.

Is it time to ditch At Large seats on Houston City Council?

Here’s one argument for it.

The lack of Latinos on the City Council undermines the legitimacy of Houston’s government, experts say, and is something that a prominent Hispanic organization is pushing to change with a lawsuit and ballot proposition.

The League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the largest Hispanic civil rights organizations in the country, is tackling what they characterize as a gross underrepresentation of Latinos in one of the most diverse cities in the U.S. by proposing that the five at-large positions on council elected citywide be replaced with four seats in heavily Hispanic districts.

Currently, just one Hispanic — Robert Gallegos — holds a seat on the 16-member body. By contrast, 45 percent of Houston residents are Hispanic.

“The most serious threat to the legitimacy of Houston city government is this idea that you can have half of the population of the city represented by 6 percent of the council,” said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University. “Imagine if we flipped things around and there’s only one African American on the Houston City Council, or there’s only one Anglo, or there’s only one woman … It would be seen as a national travesty of democracy; it would be the subject of constant outcry.”

The city is expected to look at redistricting prior to its 2023 election, and could redraw the 11 districts if they are deemed unbalanced at that point. But LULAC said replacing at-large seats with more single-district seats would reduce barriers that undercut Latino representation.

“If we had parity, half of this council would be Latino,” said local LULAC leader Sergio Lira, co-chair of a new Houston taskforce created under the direction of the organization’s national President, Domingo García, who launched the effort in a meeting with local leaders last week.

García, a lawyer with offices statewide, said the effort includes a push to bring a charter amendment with the proposition to citizens to vote on and to file a lawsuit against the city.

Houston has the worst Hispanic representation in city councils among all Texas cities with populations over 500,000, all of which have eliminated at-large positions in their governments, according to census and government data.

“Houston is the outlier in Texas when it comes to Latino representation and is the only large city with at-large seats,” García said.

Those cities — San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, and El Paso — all have councils that look much more similar to their cities’ Hispanic populations. Dallas, which is 42 percent Hispanic, has the next-lowest Hispanic representation on council with 29 percent Hispanics.

It’s tough to get elected to Houston’s at-large seats, García said.

“They are very difficult for Latinos to win because of the amount of money, coalitions and logistics it takes to win,” he said. “It’s like running for mayor.”

There’s a lot to say here, and I’ll try to get to the main points, but let me start by saying it’s a little more complex than what Garcia and Lira are arguing. There are multiple districts that have are at least plurality Latino – H, J, F, and A. H, currently held by CM Karla Cisneros, had reliably elected Latinos before Cisneros and likely will again; none of the others have elected Latinos. There is of course a big difference between “population”, “voting-age population” and “citizen voting-age population”, and that’s before we take into account voter registration and who generally turns out to vote in our odd-year elections, where 20% turnout is on the higher end. We could elect more Latinos with the map we have now, at least in theory. It very much hasn’t worked out that way in practice, and I doubt you’d find anyone who would argue that the current map is conducive to having more than two Latinos get elected from the current districts.

It’s also true that Latinos have been shut out from the At Large seats since the days of Orlando Sanchez and Gracie Saenz twenty years ago. We also haven’t had a lot of strong Latino contenders for At Large seats lately. In 2015, no Latinos ran for At Large #3 or #5, and the only one in At Large #1 was perennial candidate James Partsch-Galvan. There were Latinos in all the At Large races in 2019, but none of them raised any money. That’s what Garcia and Lira are saying, and others have said it before them, but it just doesn’t take as much money to run a credible At Large campaign as it does to run for Mayor. Mayoral candidates need well over a million bucks, but the big money candidates for At Large raise in the $200-400K range. Not nothing, but not a huge pile of money either. It’s a bit of a vicious circle – people who might want to run are discouraged because it’s hard for them to raise money and the recent record of citywide Latino candidates is brutal, which leads to a paucity of such candidates for anyone to support.

I can’t leave this point without bringing up, once again, the 2007 At Large #5 runoff, in which Jolanda Jones defeated Joe Trevino in a race where about 25K total votes were cast. Jones had run citywide before (in At Large #3) and was better known, and the other runoffs on the ballot were City Council District D and HISD District II, both of which favored Jones’ candidacy. Trevino was a longshot no matter how you looked at it, but still. This was the clearest shot to get a Latino elected citywide, and he got bupkus in terms of financial support, including from the folks who had been threatening to sue to force City Council redistricting prior to the 2010 Census. Public support of campaigns and candidates is a complicated and nuanced thing that is more often solicited than given, I get that. I’m just saying, none of the folks who were lamenting the lack of Latino representation on Houston City Council were moved to write Joe Trevino a $100 check. Make of that what you will.

(There was also the Michael Kubosh-Roy Morales runoff of 2013. The politics of that one are different, for obvious reasons. I went back and looked, and Roy Morales actually raised about $50K for that runoff, which isn’t too shabby. There were only a couple of Latino names among his donors, though. Again, make of that what you will.)

Moving on. I have generally been supportive of having the hybrid district/At Large Council that we have. At least if you have a sub-par Council person in your district, you still have five At Large members you can turn to for support if you need it, and I think there’s value in having people who need to have a broader perspective. That said, I’d bet that most of the At Large members we have had over the past 20 or so years have come from a limited geographical distribution – this was very much the problem with Austin’s at large system, where nearly everyone on their Council came from the same part of town – and let’s just say that some of our At Large members are better than others and leave it at that. All in all, I don’t think it would be a great loss to change to an all-district system, and I would be inclined to support it if and when it comes to a vote. I’d like to see the proposal first – there are, as we well know, good and not-so-good ways to draw maps – but as a concept, I support it.

Knowing it is a long shot, LULAC decided to initiate a drive to collect 20,000 signatures in February in favor of their proposition, as the early voting for the state primaries begins. The number is the minimum needed to force the inclusion of a charter amendment in the ballot, bypassing the approval of City Council, which would only decide when it should be put for a citizens’ vote.

LULAC is simultaneously preparing a lawsuit it plans to file in court by March to eliminate all at-large positions in favor of single districts.

We’ll see how that goes. Petition drives have been pretty successful in recent years, even if they don’t always get their referenda on the next available ballot. There are already two items scheduled for the ballot in 2023, and with an open seat Mayoral race that will make it a very busy cycle. An item like this could get a bit lost in the noise, or it could be a big issue, as surely the various Mayoral candidates will need to weigh in on it. I’ll be very interested to see how the petition drive and the litigation go.

Have we reached peak omicron?

I sure hope so (fingers crossed).

Omicron’s swift and sudden surge may have peaked, experts said Monday, but hospitals are likely to remain full in the coming weeks, with the highly contagious COVID-19 strain not expected to recede until March.

Two key metrics — transmission rate and wastewater tracking — indicate the variant may be loosening its grip on the Houston area.

Texas Medical Center records show positive case rates are declining. Around 9,000 people tested positive for COVID each day last week in the greater Houston area, down about 40 percent from the previous week, when the region averaged about 13,400 new cases daily, according to TMC data.

But hospitalizations and deaths lag behind new infections, so health care workers still have a challenging couple of weeks ahead, said Dr. David Persse, Houston’s chief medical officer. Intensive care units around Texas are at 92 percent capacity, among the highest levels recorded since the pandemic began.

“It appears that we may have hit a peak,” Persse said. “However, our numbers are still really really high. I hesitate for anyone hearing that we may have peaked to think that its over. It is far from over.”

[…]

Houston’s declining rate of transmission — a statistic used to gauge how likely an infected person is to spread their illness to others — offers some clues. The rate of transmission fell below 1.0 last week for the first time since mid-December, according to new TMC data. That means each infected Houstonian is spreading the virus to less than one other person.

The city’s wastewater offers another optimistic sign of omicron’s decline. The wastewater virus load last week was about half what it was in December, and appears to be falling precipitously from its all-time high recorded on Jan. 7, officials said.

As a reminder, the wastewater dashboard is here. It’s still high, but compare to January 3, and you’ll see how much better things look now. As noted, hospitalizations lag cases, and deaths lag hospitalizations, so while the number of people getting COVID may now be trending down, we’ll still see high levels of hospital bed usage, and a higher death rate for the time being. But at least there we can begin to see the end as well. Hang in there, and stay safe.