The last thing District Attorney Pat Lykos needs in an election year is being defended by a defense attorney. But, I want to set the record straight about her.
Lykos's election in 2008 was the first hostile takeover of the Harris County District Attorney's Office since Frank Briscoe beat incumbent Dan Walton in the 1964 Democratic Primary. For 44 years, the outgoing DA had a big say in picking his successor. Things just rocked along in the DA's office both with personnel and policies.
As Lykos prepared to take office in late 2008, she gave quite walking papers to quite a few longtime assistant district attorneys. I agree with some of the personnel decisions and disagree with others. Some of those given the boot were supporters -- often vocal supporters -- of Kelly Siegler, the longtime, well respected assistant district attorney defeated by Lykos in the Republican runoff. One had "anonymous"blog which was and still is critical of Lykos and her top assistants. He even calls them "the gang who couldn't shoot straight." After publishing a blog comparing Lykos to the GEICO gheko, he probably wasn't too surprised when he got the boot.
Are there problems in the District Attorney's Office. You bet. A good number aren't Lykos's fault. Shortly after she took office, the county slapped a hiring and pay freeze on all county departments. So, as people quit, retire or get fired from the DA's office, they aren't replaced. People get promoted but they don't get raises to go with their new responsibilities. There are fewer people to do the same amount of work.
Is morale low. Probably. I'd be unhappy if I got a "promotion" with more work and responsibility but no more money.
Lykos has done quite a few things which are good. She's the DIVERT program which tries to keep drunk drivers from doing it again. She has caught a lot of heat for doing it but it appears to be working. People charged with first offense DWI can be screened and it they qualify, they go through a program which hopefully keeps them from re-offending. While some people call it an "illegal" form of deferred adjudication, it isn't illegal or a form of probation. It is pretrial diversion which prosecutors both state and federal have been using for years.
The police also don't like Lykos's policy of not accepting felony charges for possession of trace amounts of cocaine, so-called "dirty crack pipe" cases. There are good public policy reasons for this decision.
First, the code of criminal procedure requires that persons convicted of possession of small amounts of cocaine get probation.
Second, it costs a small fortune to arrest a person, process him into jail, house him and get him a court appointed lawyer if he's indigent (and most crack users are). And, both if he's jailed pretrial and sentenced to prison, that person takes up a bed which could be used by a violent or more dangerous person. Many people have forgotten the late 1980s and early 1990s, when prison overcrowding forced state officials to parole just about everyone who was eligible so they would have beds for new inmates.
I for one would rather have that prison cell reserved for a rapist or armed robber than a crack addict.
Third, many of the dirty crack pipe cases are the result of constitutionally questionable police detentions or searches. Takikng those cases encourages police to ignore the constitution.
Lykos has done other things which have improved the operation of the district attorney's office. Before the hiring freeze, she would bring on newly hired prosecutors who were waiting for their bar results and assign them to work under supervision in felony courts. When they finally passed the bar and became lawyers, they had some experience and knew that there are no capital DWI cases in Texas.
For my money, Lykos is a mixture of good and bad things, just like every other public official from the president to the county surveyor. And, yes, Patricia Lykos will never win the award for being sweet and cuddly. That's just not her.
Like all elected officials, she has to answer to the voters for her conduct in office. But, it should be done with facts, not inuendo and half truths.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
I deeply support free speech but....
No one believes in free speech and the First Amendment than I do. That is, except for eight justices of the Supreme Court.
Today, the Court held 8-1 that a church group could picket the funeral of a Marine killed in combat carrying signs with slogans like "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." Other signs included "God Hates Fags" and "Fags Doom Nations." The church group is very anti-gay and takes the position that events like 9/11 and the death of members of the military is God's punishment for allowing homosexuality. Members of the church travel around the country doing the same thing at other military funerals. They've done it hundreds of times.
The Marine's father sued the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress. His theory was that he is a private person who shouldn't be subjected to this kind of abuse during the funeral of a son who gave his life for his country.
While I agree that the church members have the right to be anti-homosexual and to express those opinions, it raises my hackles to see them use my precious First Amendment to, in the words of Justice Samuel Alito, "brutalize" the father of this fallen Marine. I don't often agree with Justice Alito but I think he's right on point here.
If they want to shout down President Obama and tell him he will burn in hell for allowing gays in the military, I'd represent them. If they want to picket a gay political caucus meeting, more power to them. It's their right. I disagree with them but I believe in their right to express their views on public matters in public.
However, I also believe that all private persons have a zone of privacy which should be protected. We can pass laws forbidding picketing at private homes. The Supreme Court has said so. We all should have other zones of privacy where we can be protected from intrusions.
That Marine's family was entitled to mourn their son in peace. They sure didn't need to be forced to pass pickets on the way to the funeral with signs suggesting that their son's death was God's punishment for homosexuality in society. The church had thousands of places it could have picketed without intentionally torturing this grieving family.
I recently buried my mother. Losing a loved one, even a mother who had lived 100 years and died after only a short illness, is tough. It has to be even harder when the person being buried is a child who gave his life to protect our country -- and the church's right to protest homosexuality.
Funerals are a way for us to get closure after a loved one's death. Virtually every country's military recognizes this and provides special ceremonies for those who have worn the uniform. I've been to too many military funerals recently. My friends who served are reaching the age where they are dying. When I look at that coffin covered by a flag, hear a bugler play Taps and the firing of three volleys, it always brings tears to my eyes.
To Albert Snyder and his family, I say, thank you for the sacrifice of your son Matthew. Without young men like him, the United States would be at the mercy of those who would destroy us and take away our freedoms. All over the world, there are young Americans in uniform carrying weapons who are guarding us while we sleep.
It is a terrible price you had to pay but I for one am grateful for Matthew's service and your sacrifice.
As to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, you won in the Supreme Court but someday you will appear before a higher court. I hope you have a good explanation for your acts in torturing the families of our men and women who gave their lives for our country.
I'm a pretty good defense lawyer but I can't think of a good explanation for you.
Today, the Court held 8-1 that a church group could picket the funeral of a Marine killed in combat carrying signs with slogans like "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." Other signs included "God Hates Fags" and "Fags Doom Nations." The church group is very anti-gay and takes the position that events like 9/11 and the death of members of the military is God's punishment for allowing homosexuality. Members of the church travel around the country doing the same thing at other military funerals. They've done it hundreds of times.
The Marine's father sued the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress. His theory was that he is a private person who shouldn't be subjected to this kind of abuse during the funeral of a son who gave his life for his country.
While I agree that the church members have the right to be anti-homosexual and to express those opinions, it raises my hackles to see them use my precious First Amendment to, in the words of Justice Samuel Alito, "brutalize" the father of this fallen Marine. I don't often agree with Justice Alito but I think he's right on point here.
If they want to shout down President Obama and tell him he will burn in hell for allowing gays in the military, I'd represent them. If they want to picket a gay political caucus meeting, more power to them. It's their right. I disagree with them but I believe in their right to express their views on public matters in public.
However, I also believe that all private persons have a zone of privacy which should be protected. We can pass laws forbidding picketing at private homes. The Supreme Court has said so. We all should have other zones of privacy where we can be protected from intrusions.
That Marine's family was entitled to mourn their son in peace. They sure didn't need to be forced to pass pickets on the way to the funeral with signs suggesting that their son's death was God's punishment for homosexuality in society. The church had thousands of places it could have picketed without intentionally torturing this grieving family.
I recently buried my mother. Losing a loved one, even a mother who had lived 100 years and died after only a short illness, is tough. It has to be even harder when the person being buried is a child who gave his life to protect our country -- and the church's right to protest homosexuality.
Funerals are a way for us to get closure after a loved one's death. Virtually every country's military recognizes this and provides special ceremonies for those who have worn the uniform. I've been to too many military funerals recently. My friends who served are reaching the age where they are dying. When I look at that coffin covered by a flag, hear a bugler play Taps and the firing of three volleys, it always brings tears to my eyes.
To Albert Snyder and his family, I say, thank you for the sacrifice of your son Matthew. Without young men like him, the United States would be at the mercy of those who would destroy us and take away our freedoms. All over the world, there are young Americans in uniform carrying weapons who are guarding us while we sleep.
It is a terrible price you had to pay but I for one am grateful for Matthew's service and your sacrifice.
As to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, you won in the Supreme Court but someday you will appear before a higher court. I hope you have a good explanation for your acts in torturing the families of our men and women who gave their lives for our country.
I'm a pretty good defense lawyer but I can't think of a good explanation for you.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Death of a hero
Major Dick Winters died last week. He was 92.
He is best remembered from the book and television series "Band of Brothers." He was commander of Easy Company, 2nd Batallion, 506 Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division.
Winters won the Distinguished Service Cross shortly after D-Day in Normandy when he led an attack on a fortified German artillery position. The attack was so well planned and executed that it still is used as an example of how to do it at West Point and the Army Infantry School. He likely would have won the Medal of Honor except for strict limitations placed by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower on the number that could be awarded during the Normandy campaign. In recent years, a group of his friends and neighbors started a campaign to have President Obama award him the nation's highest award for valor.
After the war, Winters went into business with another Easy Company veteran until he was recalled to active duty for the Korean War. After he left the Army, he built a business and a farm. He retired in 1997.
Major Winters is an example of the World War II generation, the generation of my parents, the generation rightly called the Greatest Generation. After the war, Winters and his comrades returned to civilian life and worked hard to build a better society for themselves and their Baby Boomer children. By and large, they did a pretty good job. They used their wartime experience and lessons of teamwork to create the greatest economic boom in history. They built suburbs and the Interstate highways. They cured polio and put men on the Moon.
The generation is dying out now. It has been 66 years since D-Day, so the youngest veteran would have to be 83 or 84. They are coming to the end and when they are gone, we will miss them.
He is best remembered from the book and television series "Band of Brothers." He was commander of Easy Company, 2nd Batallion, 506 Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division.
Winters won the Distinguished Service Cross shortly after D-Day in Normandy when he led an attack on a fortified German artillery position. The attack was so well planned and executed that it still is used as an example of how to do it at West Point and the Army Infantry School. He likely would have won the Medal of Honor except for strict limitations placed by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower on the number that could be awarded during the Normandy campaign. In recent years, a group of his friends and neighbors started a campaign to have President Obama award him the nation's highest award for valor.
After the war, Winters went into business with another Easy Company veteran until he was recalled to active duty for the Korean War. After he left the Army, he built a business and a farm. He retired in 1997.
Major Winters is an example of the World War II generation, the generation of my parents, the generation rightly called the Greatest Generation. After the war, Winters and his comrades returned to civilian life and worked hard to build a better society for themselves and their Baby Boomer children. By and large, they did a pretty good job. They used their wartime experience and lessons of teamwork to create the greatest economic boom in history. They built suburbs and the Interstate highways. They cured polio and put men on the Moon.
The generation is dying out now. It has been 66 years since D-Day, so the youngest veteran would have to be 83 or 84. They are coming to the end and when they are gone, we will miss them.
Monday, November 22, 2010
My former colleagues played like a drum
A jury in Washington today convicted Igmar Guandique, 29, of murdering Chandra Levy in 2001. Now, will my former colleagues in the news business apologize to former U.S. Representative Gary Condit.
It's a story that has faded into the background. After Levy disappeared in 2001, her parents played the press like a drum by pointing the finger at Condit, a California Democrat. The theory was that Condit had an affair and disposed of the evidence. Her family asserted that Condit wasn't being forthcoming with the authorities.
Well, it wasn't true.
But that didn't make much difference to a lot of editors and reporters who dogged him for months. The story didn't really fall off the radar screen until 9/11. Predictably, Condit lost his re-election bid and his life was career went down the toilet. For a while, he ran an ice cream franchise but that went out of business. Now, he describes himself as retired.
When Condit testified in Guandique's trial this month, he continued to refuse to admit he had an affair with the 24-year-old former government intern. He said his refusal was on principle.
I don't blame Levy's parents for doing everything they could to drum up interest in their daughter's disappearance. I have a daughter and probably would think about doing the same thing. But that is no excuse for those editors and reporters who took up the banner for them and dragged Condit through the mud.
At worst, Condit had an affair with an adult woman who was about half his age. If every member of Congress -- or for that matter, every business executive or lawyer or judge or anything else -- was on the front pages for this kind of relationship, Washington would be a much emptier place.
We forget that when President Clinton was impeached for an affair with a White House intern, several Republican members of Congress leading the charge resigned from Congress after their similar affairs were outed.
Reporters and editors are supposed to keep things in perspective and not trash someone's reputation without proof. It's just wrong.
I spent 15 years as a reporter at the Houston Chronicle and looking back, I can see it is easy to forget that when I wrote a story, I was telling it to a half million people. It's easy for reporters and editors to go for the cheap story but they should remember that they are dealing with people's lives.
Yes, the Condit case also involved a bungled police investigation. But the focus on Condit allowed Guandique to hide in plain site until he went to prison a few years later for attacking young women in the park where Levy's body was found a year after her disappearance.
So, the long and short of it is that Levy's parents played the press with their speculation about Condit's involvement in their daughter's disappearance. And the press went along with it. They had a good story, even without the facts to back it up.
Is anyone going to give Condit his reputation back? How about his career?
Nope. They are shot.
And, will there be editorials in the Washington Post, the New York Times, on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN apologizing to Condit?
When pigs fly.
And, it will happen again, just count on it. Decades ago, retired Admiral Daniel Callaghan, a WWII hero who took to writing fiction, said the ethical standards among reporters is the lowest of any person involved. His theory was that no one wanted to "miss" a good "story" even if it wasn't true.
I think he was right.
As for my former colleagues, all I have to say is:
Shame On You.
It's a story that has faded into the background. After Levy disappeared in 2001, her parents played the press like a drum by pointing the finger at Condit, a California Democrat. The theory was that Condit had an affair and disposed of the evidence. Her family asserted that Condit wasn't being forthcoming with the authorities.
Well, it wasn't true.
But that didn't make much difference to a lot of editors and reporters who dogged him for months. The story didn't really fall off the radar screen until 9/11. Predictably, Condit lost his re-election bid and his life was career went down the toilet. For a while, he ran an ice cream franchise but that went out of business. Now, he describes himself as retired.
When Condit testified in Guandique's trial this month, he continued to refuse to admit he had an affair with the 24-year-old former government intern. He said his refusal was on principle.
I don't blame Levy's parents for doing everything they could to drum up interest in their daughter's disappearance. I have a daughter and probably would think about doing the same thing. But that is no excuse for those editors and reporters who took up the banner for them and dragged Condit through the mud.
At worst, Condit had an affair with an adult woman who was about half his age. If every member of Congress -- or for that matter, every business executive or lawyer or judge or anything else -- was on the front pages for this kind of relationship, Washington would be a much emptier place.
We forget that when President Clinton was impeached for an affair with a White House intern, several Republican members of Congress leading the charge resigned from Congress after their similar affairs were outed.
Reporters and editors are supposed to keep things in perspective and not trash someone's reputation without proof. It's just wrong.
I spent 15 years as a reporter at the Houston Chronicle and looking back, I can see it is easy to forget that when I wrote a story, I was telling it to a half million people. It's easy for reporters and editors to go for the cheap story but they should remember that they are dealing with people's lives.
Yes, the Condit case also involved a bungled police investigation. But the focus on Condit allowed Guandique to hide in plain site until he went to prison a few years later for attacking young women in the park where Levy's body was found a year after her disappearance.
So, the long and short of it is that Levy's parents played the press with their speculation about Condit's involvement in their daughter's disappearance. And the press went along with it. They had a good story, even without the facts to back it up.
Is anyone going to give Condit his reputation back? How about his career?
Nope. They are shot.
And, will there be editorials in the Washington Post, the New York Times, on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN apologizing to Condit?
When pigs fly.
And, it will happen again, just count on it. Decades ago, retired Admiral Daniel Callaghan, a WWII hero who took to writing fiction, said the ethical standards among reporters is the lowest of any person involved. His theory was that no one wanted to "miss" a good "story" even if it wasn't true.
I think he was right.
As for my former colleagues, all I have to say is:
Shame On You.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Traffic arrests causing jail crowding?
Friday, the Houston Police Department announced that it would cease arresting people for minor traffic offenses, presumably those punishable by fines only, because they were causing a jail overload.
This raises the question of how many traffic offenders are arrested by the Houston Police Department and who they are. Are there enough arrests for traffic offenses that it can fill up the jail?
Police in Texas can arrest Texans -- but usually not those with out-of-state driver's licenses -- for any traffic offense except speeding and drinking while driving. Each police officer has the discretion to issue a traffic ticket or arrest the driver for things like driving without a buckled seat belt or making an illegal lane change or a turn without a signal.
And, the Supreme Court has held that it is constitutional for police to have discretion to arrest people and slap them in jail for crimes for which jail is not a possible punishment.
I've had my share of traffic tickets over the years and I've never been arrested. And, I can't recall any of my friends or colleagues being arrested for minor traffic violations. But, I've had a lot of clients arrested for failure to signal a turn.
The difference? Well, maybe it's because because I'm white and middle class and my arrested clients usually are neither.
Some probably arrested for what Chuck Miller, a former judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals, called "poor person in a no poor person zone." I've heard the same sentiment expressed but normally it comes with a racial connotation. I've seen people get arrested on traffic because they were white people in a no white people zone and, yes, you guessed it, black clients arrested in a no black people zone.
Why do the police arrest these folks for minor traffic violations. Well, if they can impound the car, they can search it and look for contraband like drugs. Shocking, isn't it.
Maybe my former colleagues at the Chronicle ought to take a look at the statistics of those arrested on minor traffic violations rather than being issued a citation. I'm curious how many of those people have River Oaks or Memorial home addresses and how many have Third or Fifth Ward addresses. And, I'm curious about their races. How many are white, black or Hispanic?
If I were a betting man, I would bet that the vast majority are young, minority males.
And, why you ask, can't they arrest people with out-of-state driver's licenses? It's because Texas, like most states, is a member of an interstate compact on traffic offenders. That compact which was passsed by the Legislature and approved by Congress, requires issuance of a ticket to persons from compact states if the officer has any discretion about arresting traffic offenders or giving them a ticket, the officer must give the driver the chance to sign the ticket and promise to appear.
The compact was adopted to prevent people from being arrested by Deputy Fife in Mayberry and being required to post a bond before being released.
Of course, most Houston police officers probably haven't heard about the compact. Or, they think it doesn't apply to people they think may have contraband.
This raises the question of how many traffic offenders are arrested by the Houston Police Department and who they are. Are there enough arrests for traffic offenses that it can fill up the jail?
Police in Texas can arrest Texans -- but usually not those with out-of-state driver's licenses -- for any traffic offense except speeding and drinking while driving. Each police officer has the discretion to issue a traffic ticket or arrest the driver for things like driving without a buckled seat belt or making an illegal lane change or a turn without a signal.
And, the Supreme Court has held that it is constitutional for police to have discretion to arrest people and slap them in jail for crimes for which jail is not a possible punishment.
I've had my share of traffic tickets over the years and I've never been arrested. And, I can't recall any of my friends or colleagues being arrested for minor traffic violations. But, I've had a lot of clients arrested for failure to signal a turn.
The difference? Well, maybe it's because because I'm white and middle class and my arrested clients usually are neither.
Some probably arrested for what Chuck Miller, a former judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals, called "poor person in a no poor person zone." I've heard the same sentiment expressed but normally it comes with a racial connotation. I've seen people get arrested on traffic because they were white people in a no white people zone and, yes, you guessed it, black clients arrested in a no black people zone.
Why do the police arrest these folks for minor traffic violations. Well, if they can impound the car, they can search it and look for contraband like drugs. Shocking, isn't it.
Maybe my former colleagues at the Chronicle ought to take a look at the statistics of those arrested on minor traffic violations rather than being issued a citation. I'm curious how many of those people have River Oaks or Memorial home addresses and how many have Third or Fifth Ward addresses. And, I'm curious about their races. How many are white, black or Hispanic?
If I were a betting man, I would bet that the vast majority are young, minority males.
And, why you ask, can't they arrest people with out-of-state driver's licenses? It's because Texas, like most states, is a member of an interstate compact on traffic offenders. That compact which was passsed by the Legislature and approved by Congress, requires issuance of a ticket to persons from compact states if the officer has any discretion about arresting traffic offenders or giving them a ticket, the officer must give the driver the chance to sign the ticket and promise to appear.
The compact was adopted to prevent people from being arrested by Deputy Fife in Mayberry and being required to post a bond before being released.
Of course, most Houston police officers probably haven't heard about the compact. Or, they think it doesn't apply to people they think may have contraband.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Crime doesn't pay. But traffic tickets do.
Two posts in one day. Amazing.
USA Today had another interesting story on page one. It's about increased enforcement of traffic laws because cities and counties need the money.
Gee. Like Captain Louis Renault, the character played by Claude Rains in Casablanca, I'm shocked.
You can bet that police officers who hear rumors of layoffs will be quick to write tickets in the hope of keeping their jobs.
But, public officials shouldn't count on that fine money to keep flowing. Back in the 1980s, when Kathy Whitmire was mayor of Houston, members of the police department used ticket fines to jerk her administration around.
At one point during her administration, the police were writing tickets galore. The money just poured into municipal court and the city coffers. And, Whitmire counted on that money to balance her budget.
But, she was unpopular with many police officers. So, when she was committed to spending that money, all of a sudden the police turned off the money spigot. It was darn difficult to get a traffic ticket in Houston. The income from fines plummeted.
Enough said.
USA Today had another interesting story on page one. It's about increased enforcement of traffic laws because cities and counties need the money.
Gee. Like Captain Louis Renault, the character played by Claude Rains in Casablanca, I'm shocked.
You can bet that police officers who hear rumors of layoffs will be quick to write tickets in the hope of keeping their jobs.
But, public officials shouldn't count on that fine money to keep flowing. Back in the 1980s, when Kathy Whitmire was mayor of Houston, members of the police department used ticket fines to jerk her administration around.
At one point during her administration, the police were writing tickets galore. The money just poured into municipal court and the city coffers. And, Whitmire counted on that money to balance her budget.
But, she was unpopular with many police officers. So, when she was committed to spending that money, all of a sudden the police turned off the money spigot. It was darn difficult to get a traffic ticket in Houston. The income from fines plummeted.
Enough said.
As long as judges are for hire, justice is for sale
In 1984, in Borgen v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed a conviction in which the prosecutor argued that "as long as lawyers are for hire, justice is for sale." The same can be held true for the judiciary.
USA Today has a front page story today about states abandoning judicial elections or at least changing the way judicial races are financed. In an accompanying chart, the newspaper says Texas led the nation in political contributions for high court races in 2008, with $5.2 million raised for Supreme Court races.
That's nothing new for Texas. In the 1980s, the CBS program 60 Minutes showed Supreme Court justices courting the plaintiff's lawyers at functions for the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. After those Democrats were replaced by Republicans, then-Chief Justice Tom Phillips railed against election of judges, all while he was setting world records in judicial fundraising.
In the past year, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down two seemingly conflicting rulings on campaign financing as it applies to judicial races. Last year, the Court vacated a West Virginia Supreme Court decision because one of the justices received $3 million in campaign contributions from a coal company executive, then voted to reverse a $50 million judgment against that company. Earlier this year, the Court held that corporations can spend limitless money in political campaigns as long as the corporation does not coordinate its campaign with a candidate's campaign.
Taken together, these decisions mean that a corporation could spend millions to elect judges and losers in lawsuits might be arguing that they were deprived of due process based on those expenditures.
You can bet the checkbooks will be out this year. And if you think that judges won't care who gave them money or spent "independent" money on their behalf, I have a bridge over the Houston Ship Channel I want to sell you.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (a Clinton appointee) and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (a Reagan appointee) have endorsed an end to judicial elections. I don't know that I want to go that far. I'm not sure I want the governor -- any governor -- picking my judges.
On the other hand, I have seen too many partisan judicial wipeouts in Harris County to be comfortable with our current system. In 1982, a bunch of good Republican judges were wiped out when a Democrat was elected governor. The reverse happened in 1994, with a bunch of good Democrats being swept out when a Republican governor was elected. In 2008, a number of outstanding Republican judges were swept out in a Democratic courthouse sweep.
This isn't to criticize the judges who won in partisan sweeps. Some of the winners were better than the judges they replaced. On the other hand, some were clinkers. Like the Democratic Court of Appeals justice who was convicted of getting a handjob in the jail from a female client or the Republican district judge censured by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for cleaning a pistol on the bench in front of a jury panel.
You can bet on one thing. This November, we likely will have a judicial sweep. All of the judges up for election this year in Houston are Republicans. And, either some Republican judges who are outstanding judges will be beat or some who need to be defeated will be reelected.
USA Today has a front page story today about states abandoning judicial elections or at least changing the way judicial races are financed. In an accompanying chart, the newspaper says Texas led the nation in political contributions for high court races in 2008, with $5.2 million raised for Supreme Court races.
That's nothing new for Texas. In the 1980s, the CBS program 60 Minutes showed Supreme Court justices courting the plaintiff's lawyers at functions for the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. After those Democrats were replaced by Republicans, then-Chief Justice Tom Phillips railed against election of judges, all while he was setting world records in judicial fundraising.
In the past year, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down two seemingly conflicting rulings on campaign financing as it applies to judicial races. Last year, the Court vacated a West Virginia Supreme Court decision because one of the justices received $3 million in campaign contributions from a coal company executive, then voted to reverse a $50 million judgment against that company. Earlier this year, the Court held that corporations can spend limitless money in political campaigns as long as the corporation does not coordinate its campaign with a candidate's campaign.
Taken together, these decisions mean that a corporation could spend millions to elect judges and losers in lawsuits might be arguing that they were deprived of due process based on those expenditures.
You can bet the checkbooks will be out this year. And if you think that judges won't care who gave them money or spent "independent" money on their behalf, I have a bridge over the Houston Ship Channel I want to sell you.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (a Clinton appointee) and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (a Reagan appointee) have endorsed an end to judicial elections. I don't know that I want to go that far. I'm not sure I want the governor -- any governor -- picking my judges.
On the other hand, I have seen too many partisan judicial wipeouts in Harris County to be comfortable with our current system. In 1982, a bunch of good Republican judges were wiped out when a Democrat was elected governor. The reverse happened in 1994, with a bunch of good Democrats being swept out when a Republican governor was elected. In 2008, a number of outstanding Republican judges were swept out in a Democratic courthouse sweep.
This isn't to criticize the judges who won in partisan sweeps. Some of the winners were better than the judges they replaced. On the other hand, some were clinkers. Like the Democratic Court of Appeals justice who was convicted of getting a handjob in the jail from a female client or the Republican district judge censured by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for cleaning a pistol on the bench in front of a jury panel.
You can bet on one thing. This November, we likely will have a judicial sweep. All of the judges up for election this year in Houston are Republicans. And, either some Republican judges who are outstanding judges will be beat or some who need to be defeated will be reelected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
