Texpatriate Voter Guide

US SENATE - David Alameel (D)
US HOUSE, DISTRICT 2 - Ted Poe (R)
US HOUSE, DISTRICT 7 - James Cargas (D)
US HOUSE, DISTRICT 9 - Al Green (D)
US HOUSE, DISTRICT 18 - Sheila Jackson Lee (D)
US HOUSE, DISTRICT 29 - Gene Green (D)
GOVERNOR - Wendy Davis (D)
LIEUTENANT GOVERNORLeticia Van de Putte (D)
ATTORNEY GENERAL - Sam Houston (D)
COMPTROLLER - Mike Collier (D)
LAND COMMISSIONER - George P. Bush (R)*
(*-Noah M. Horwitz dissented and supported John Cook (D))
AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER - Kenneth Kendrick (G)
RAILROAD COMMISSIONER - Stephen Brown (D)
TEXAS SUPREME COURT, PLACE 1 - Bill Moody (D)
TEXAS SUPREME COURT, PLACE 6 - Jeff Brown (R)
TEXAS SUPREME COURT, PLACE 7 - Gina Benavides (D)
TEXAS SUPREME COURT, PLACE 8 - Phil Johnson (R)
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, PLACE 3 - Bert Richardson (R)
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, PLACE 4 - Kevin Yeary (R)
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, PLACE 9 - David Newell (R)
TEXAS SENATE, DISTRICT 7 - Whitney Bilyeu (L)
TEXAS SENATE, DISTRICT 15 - John Whitmire (D)
TEXAS SENATE, DISTRICT 17 - Rita Lucido (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 126 – Patricia Harless (R)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 128 –
Wayne Smith (R)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 129Dennis Paul (R)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 130Allen Fletcher (R)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 131Alma Allen (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 132 – Luis Lopez (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 133 – Laura Nicol (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 134 – Sarah Davis (R)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 135 – NO ENDORSEMENT
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 137 - Gene Wu (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 139 - Sylvester Turner (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 140 - Armando Walle (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 141 - Senfronia Thompson (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 142 - Harold Dutton, Jr. (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 143 - Ana Hernandez Luna (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 144 - Mary Ann Perez (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 145 - Carol Alvarado (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 146 – Borris Miles (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 147 - Garnet Coleman (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 148 - Jessica Farrar (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 149 - Hubert Vo (D)
TEXAS HOUSE, DISTRICT 150 - Amy Perez (D)
14th COURT OF APPEALS, CHIEF JUSTICE – Kyle Carter (D)
1st COURT OF APPEALS, PLACE 3 - Jim Sharp (D)
1st COURT OF APPEALS, PLACE 5 – Laura Higley (R)
14th COURT OF APPEALS, PLACE 4 - Marc Brown (R)
14th COURT OF APPEALS, PLACE 7 - Gordon Goodman (D)
55th DISTRICT COURT – Jeff Shadwick (R)
113th DISTRICT COURT- Steven Kirkland (D)
157th DISTRICT COURT – Jim Peacock (D)
180th DISTRICT COURT – Randy Roll (D)
182nd DISTRICT COURT – Jeannine Barr (R)
183rd DISTRICT COURT - Vanessa Velasquez (R)
184th DISTRICT COURT – Mark Thering (D)
185th DISTRICT COURT - Mack McInnis (D)
189th DISTRICT COURT Bill Burke (R)
190th DISTRICT COURT – Farrah Martinez (D)
208th DISTRICT COURT - Denise Collins (R)
209th DISTRICT COURT - Mike McSpadden (R)
228th DISTRICT COURT - Marc Carter (R)
230th DISTRICT COURT - Greg Glass (D)
232nd DISTRICT COURT - Mary Lou Keel (R)
234th DISTRICT COURT - Barbara Gardner (D)
245th DISTRICT COURT - Roy Moore (R)
246th DISTRICT COURT - Sandra Peake (D)
247th DISTRICT COURT - Chip Wells (D)
248th DISTRICT COURT – Shawna Reagin (D)
257th DISTRICT COURT – Judy Warne (R)
262nd DISTRICT COURT - Jules Johnson (D)
263rd DISTRICT COURT - Herb Ritchie (D)
269th DISTRICT COURT - George Arnold (D)
270th DISTRICT COURT - James Hippard Jr. (D)
280th DISTRICT COURT - Barbara Stalder (D)
281st DISTRICT COURTTanner Garth (D)
295th DISTRICT COURT - Latosha Lewis (D)
308th DISTRICT COURT - Jim Evans (D)
309th DISTRICT COURT - Kathy Vossler (D)
310th DISTRICT COURT - NO ENDORSEMENT
311th DISTRICT COURT – Sherri Cothrun (D)
312nd DISTRICT COURT - David Farr (D)
313rd DISTRICT COURT – Tracy Good (D)
314th DISTRICT COURT – Natalia Oakes (D)
315th DISTRICT COURT – Mike Schneider (R)
334th DISTRICT COURT - Daryl Moore (D)
DISTRICT ATTORNEY - Kim Ogg (D)
COUNTY JUDGE - Ed Emmett (R)
COUNTY CIVIL COURT #1 Debra Mayfield (R)
COUNTY CIVIL COURT #2 - Scot Dollinger (D)
COUNTY CIVIL COURT #3 - Gloria Minnick (D)
COUNTY CIVIL COURT #4 - Damon Crenshaw (D)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #1 - Paula Goodhart (R)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #2 - Harold Landreneau (D)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #3 – Natalie Fleming (R)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #4 - Niki Harmon (D)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #5 - Ramona Franklin (D)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #6 - Linda Geffin (D)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #7 -Pam Derbyshire (R)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #8 - Jay Karahan (R)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #9 - Analia Wilkerson (R)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #10 - George Barnstone (D)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #11 - Diane Bull (R)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #12 - Robin Brown (R)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #13 - Don Smyth (R)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #14 - David Singer (D)
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #15 - Raul Rodriguez (D)
COUNTY PROBATE COURT #1 - Kim Hoesl (D)
COUNTY PROBATE COURT #2 - Josefina Rendon (D)
COUNTY PROBATE COURT #3 - Jerry Simoneaux (D)
COUNTY PROBATE COURT #4 - NO ENDORSEMENT*
(*-Noah M. Horwitz personally will support James Horwitz (D))
DISTRICT CLERK -Chris Daniel (R)
COUNTY CLERK - Ann Bennett (D)
COUNTY TREASURER - David Rosen (D)

Texpatriate endorses for Governor

Governor Rick Perry, the longest serving chief executive in Texas’ history (by far), will finally leave office next January. A whole lot has happened in the fourteen years since Texas had a different Governor. To put it in perspective, the members of this board were roughly in the 1st Grade when Perry assumed office.

Though such an assertion might be unpopular given our state’s booming economy, we think that Perry has been a poor governor. He wasn’t responsible for putting the shale in the ground, nor was he behind George Mitchell’s innovations in efficiently extracting it. And, despite what his straw-man arguments may have you believe, his support of this energy boom did not put him in a unique place compared to Democrats. While Texas’ economy has boomed under Perry, it has mostly been unrelated to his sloppy tenure.

That tenure has been filled with corruption, cronyism and ineptitude of the highest magnitude. Now, Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Republican candidate for Governor, looks likely to continue along that same misguided path. Recent headlines have shown Abbott was either complicit in the sloppy administration of the Texas Enterprise Fund, which allotted grants to friends of the Governor without any formal application, or was totally checked out of his job as an ostensible watchdog for the state.

Most importantly, Abbott looks like he will not only continue but expand Perry’s rotten legacy of mollifying the Tea Party above actually solving the state’s problem. We have crumbling highways, but Abbott appears complacent with maintaining the ludicrously low gas tax. Our schools are failing, but Abbott is perfectly content with the deleterious effects of 2011 cuts he repeatedly defended.

On a plethora of other issues, Abbott espouses rhetoric that, generously, belongs in the 20th century. He opposes a statewide ban on texting-while-driving, supports the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act and opposes abortions even in cases of rape and incest. He supports the terrible idea of allowing college students to bring their concealed handguns on campus. We could go on like this for a few hundred more words, but we digress.

For Abbott and others, the legacy of Lyndon Johnson and Bob Bullock is only a distant memory. Pragmatism and otherwise working together to reach consensus on the serious problems facing our state has almost become passe, compared to getting a soundbite in on Fox News or for the next Tea Party meeting. Abbott is no statesman, just another demagogue who will try his hardest to run Texas into the ground.

State Senator Wendy Davis (D-Tarrant County), the Democratic candidate, is not perfect either. She has run a rather mediocre campaign, with grandiose plans that lack specifics or funding targets. Some of the specific ideas, such as allowing the Top 20% of High School students to receive automatic acceptance to the state’s public universities if they pledge to major in education, are just comically terrible. Her commercials have been off-key and her debate performances abysmal. Sadly, in many situations, Davis has evidently developed a penchant for dancing around the truth. But no matter the roughness of her campaign, she is a significantly better choice than Abbott. Simply put, while our objections to Davis are based on her — or, quite likely, her campaign’s — incompetence, our objections to Abbott are based on his unmitigated malice. We find the former quality to be the lesser of the evils.

Davis cares more about helping Texans than necessarily implementing her ideology; Abbott is the opposite. Despite what some frustrating newspaper editorials from around the state may have insinuated, Davis would work well with Republicans if elected. She has done so on both the Texas Senate and in her previous position as a member of the Fort Worth City Council. To think that her respect and open-mindedness would  subside abruptly at this time is without any rationalization.

Like most of the other statewide choices this year, the race for Governor presents a fairly easy question. Only one candidate wants to protect women by ensuring health clinics that provide a wide variety of services stay open. Only one candidate recognizes LGBT people as worthy of dignity and respect. Only one candidate unequivocally would not defend a ban on interracial marriage (yes, we did not mis-type there). That candidate is Wendy Davis. And despite some serious concerns about her campaign and the depth of her platform, she is just the right choice over Abbott for Governor.

Accordingly, this board endorses Wendy Davis for Governor.

The Texpatriate Editorial Board is comprised of Noah M. Horwitz & Olivia Arena of Austin, George Bailey of Boston, Luis Fayad of College Station and Andrew Scott Romo of New Orleans. Editorials represent a majority opinion of the voting board.

Texpatriate endorses for Lieutenant Governor

 

The post of Lieutenant Governor, serving as the President of the Texas Senate, holds remarkable power over the state. Long thought to be the most powerful post in state government, even more than the Governor, its power has waned in the past dozen years as a result of both Governor Rick Perry centralizing power and Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst’s milquetoast leadership. Dewhurst, long a steward of bipartisan statesmanship, has tacked far to the right in recent years because of pressure from the Tea Party wing of his party. State Senator Dan Patrick (R-Harris County), who defeated Dewhurst to become the Republican candidate for this post, embodies this extreme wing frighteningly effectively. Divisive, grandstanding, rabble-rousing and without any core principles, Patrick embodies all the terrifying aspects of James “Pa” Ferguson, Huey Long and George Wallace rolled up into one.

He would make a poor Lieutenant Governor, not only because of his political ideology, but because of the very way he operates. Mean-spirited and a pathological liar, Patrick has a poor working relationship with many of even his Republican colleagues in the Senate. Observers opine that there is a possibility that the Senate may revolt against Patrick’s leadership, and strip away most of the Office of Lieutenant Governor’s duties. To do so would be a mistake; a statewide elected position to reign over the Senate is an effective guarantor that regional squabbles will not dominate the agenda. But that might just be what happens if Patrick is elected.

His big priority appears to be what he calls “border security;” in actuality, a dog-whistle for xenophobic rhetoric directed toward the Hispanic community. He wants to put up a big wall and, in the style of Mitt Romney, make life a living hell for the undocumented immigrants already here. To accomplish this goal, Patrick just makes stuff up. The allegation that immigrants carry “third-world diseases” such as leprosy cross our borders? Completely fabricated. Those commercials of his that contend ISIS terrorists are plotting to swim the Rio Grande? An outright lie. We think he might blame them for the Kennedy assassination soon too.

Patrick believes that abortions in all case should be disallowed, equates homosexuality with a mental disorder and supports the teaching of creationism in public schools. Most importantly, Patrick supports the abolition of the 2/3rds rule in the Texas Senate, which mandates that consensus must be reached before bringing a bill to the floor. Patrick, in a desperate attempt to mollify his Tea Party brethren, would seek to turn the chamber into a more dysfunctional mock-up of Washington DC.

No matter your politics, this board strongly urges you, as a matter of principle, to not vote for Dan Patrick. If you are otherwise conservative, please consider the Libertarian candidate, Robert Butler, or just undervote. But we think that the Democratic candidate, State Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D-Bexar County), is the exact type of pro-business and centrist Democrat who could attract support from across the aisle.

Van de Putte placates all the liberal causes by being supportive of gay marriage and opposed to onerous and unnecessary restrictions on abortion. But, more significantly, she is big on pro-business policies, be it simplifying the tax code, promoting a strong public school system or keeping Texas friendly for immigrant labor. Van de Putte is obviously the pragmatic and sensible choice in this year’s election.

Some of Van de Putte’s policy proposals have been lacking in specifics, and she has taken actions — particularly when it came to aligning with the Democratic gubernatorial nominee — that we have disagreed therewith. But nobody is perfect and Van de Putte, at her core, is a very good politician who appears to legitimately care about her constituents.

Van de Putte wants to calmly, and with great restraint, address many of the problems facing Texans in coming years. Patrick wants to burn down the barn to deal with the roaches, so to speak, and he would be willing to do it five times over to appease his extremist base. We have talked time and time again about clear choices in this year’s general election (indeed, there are a plethora of lousy candidates), but this one might just be the most clear. It’s definitely the most important.

Accordingly, this board endorses Leticia Van de Putte for Lieutenant Governor. If, for whatever reason, you can’t bring yourself to support a Democrat, please consider voting third party or just undervote.

The Texpatriate Editorial Board is comprised of Noah M. Horwtiz & Olivia Arena of Austin, George Bailey of Boston, Luis Fayad of College Station and Andrew Scott Romo of New Orleans. Editorials represent a majority opinion of the voting board.

Texpatriate endorses for Civil District Courts

In our last but not least series of judicial endorsements, this board takes a took at Civil District Courts. Typically, these courts deal with disputes over large sums of money, but they also consider general cases regarding the constitutionality of state laws or action at the most local level. Once upon a time, they bustled with activity of individuals trying to seek justice against those who had wronged them. Sadly, since the advent of so-called tort reform, which we believe has mercilessly slammed the courthouse door shut on many, much activity in these courts has ground to a complete halt. Compared to these courts’ brethren across the street in the Criminal District Courts, which are always popping with filled dockets, the load over here is relatively light. It’s not unheard of to only have a few things all day. Our first recommendation, simply put, is to disband many of these courts for inactivity. But it’s not the Judge’s call, so we digress.

Looking at these benches, we need individuals who will be fair, knowledgeable and experienced. Those who will not be afraid of doing what is right, even if it is isn’t popular or helpful to re-election.

Additionally, we need to stipulate a general rule in our endorsement process that we broke repeatedly when coming to these decisions. Generally, we defer to incumbents unless a challenger can prove how they fail. We did not do that in this election, given not only the vast number of relatively new incumbents, but how many uniquely qualified challengers were running for benches. Many of the incumbents we did not endorse are still good Judges — who have definitively not failed at their jobs — nonetheless.

There are 11 Civil District Courts up for election this year. All of them are contested.

55th DISTRICT COURT
Our pick is Judge Jeff Shadwick, running for his second full term after getting elected in 2010. He previously served an appointee from 2007 to 2009. A Republican, he runs with courtroom with a pristine sense of fairness and equity nearly unheard of around the courthouse. Among the plethora of attorneys we contacted in our research for this race, Shadwick’s name repeatedly came up as a fair and just arbiter of the law. He is a good judge who should be rewarded by Harris County voters with another full term in office.

Kay Morgan, the Democratic candidate, is an equally well-qualified and well-tempered opponent. She would also make a good judge, but Shadwick already does his job remarkably well.

Accordingly, this board endorses Jeff Shadwick for the 55th District Court.

113th DISTRICT COURT
Judge Michael Landrum, a Republican appointee of Governor Rick Perry in 2013, has a short record a judge. Thus far, he’s done a pretty good job, but much remains to be seen. We think Harris county should go with the bird in the hand, and return Steven Kirkland to the bench instead.

Kirkland, a Democrat who served as a Civil District Court from 2009 to 2013 and has served as a Municipal Judge in the interim, ran a remarkably just and efficient courtroom throughout his years on the bench. Those who practiced in his court never had an ill-word to say. Most pressing for us, Kirkland even has a record of making rules that were right, even if they were not fair. One such ruling, a $13 Million judgment against prominent attorney George Fleming for gouging his clients, even cost him his job.

Fleming poured millions into an unqualified opponent to run against Kirkland in the Democratic primary in 2012 — as well as another in 2014 — who used homophobic and other caustic tactics in a despicable attempt to knock the noble Kirkland off of the bench. The strategy worked in 2012, but not in this year’s primary. Voters should correct this injustice, and return a great jurist to the bench.

Accordingly, this board endorses Steven Kirkland for the 113th District Court.

157th DISTRICT COURT
Judge Randy Wilson, a Republican who has served in office for three full terms, has in some respects forgot the true meaning of being an impartial adjudicator. In case after case, attorneys who practice in his court tell us that he favors big interests over smaller ones. Nothing against him personally, but that style of Judging just isn’t right for Harris County.

Jim Peacock, his Democratic opponent, is a well-respected civil litigator, who would better understand neutrality on the bench. Attorneys from across the political spectrum note his non-partisanship and objective approach to complicated disputes. He would make an all-around better judge.

Accordingly, this board endorses Jim Peacock for the 157th District Court.

189th DISTRICT COURT
Judge Bill Burke, a twelve year veteran on the court, is a fair and neutral jurist who treats all parties with respect while objectively considering their cases. An active Republican, he notoriously checks his politics at the door and fairly considers all the cases before his court.

Ursula Hall, a longtime Municipal Judge and the Democratic candidate for this bench, is indubitably well-qualified to be a fantastic Judge. Hall also is active in promoting fairness throughout the entire legal system, embodying progressive values in a way that is constructive but not detrimental to her impartiality as a judge. The choice between her and Burke is a tough one.

On the balance, we tend to think that if the court isn’t broken, don’t fix it, so we will stick it out with Burke. But we fully encourage our readers to consider if your priority is a progressive mindset on the bench rather than merely a well-tempered Judge. If that is the type of official you are looking for, Hall is your candidate.

Accordingly, this board endorses Bill Burke for the 189th District Court.

190th DISTRICT COURT
Judge Patricia Kerrigan often makes her courtroom a hostile place for plaintiffs small in size, sometimes playing irresponsible favorites for the corporation or insurance company. However, our misgivings with her do not end just at her service as a jurist.

Kerrigan has been on the bench since 2007, but she had a long career before that in private practice. The attorneys with whom we consulted with to reach these decisions all similarly lamented the cases they worked on involving Kerrigan, deriding her as dishonest in the practice in law. We have some serious concerns that this dishonesty may not have subsided following her transition to the judiciary.

The Democratic candidate, Farrah Martinez, is a well-qualified and tempered attorney. She would honestly and fairly uphold the law if elected. We strongly encourage Harris County to make that a reality.

Accordingly, this board endorses Farrah Martinez for the 190th District Court.

234th DISTRICT COURT
Judge Wesley Ward was first appointed to the bench by Perry in 2012. Much like Judge Landrum before him, we have nothing but nice things to say of Ward, but he is still largely untested as a jurist. In the limited circumstances we can judge so far, though, Ward has demonstrated himself as a force to be reckoned within the Civil Courts. If your priority is the efficient operation of the courts, and for competent judges to serve, Ward is your choice.

But we also like Barbara Gardner, the Democratic candidate. She brings up a few troubling points about the incumbent’s operation of the court, including resetting cases for trial a few too many times and possibly being too reluctant to adjudicate disputes. All in all, though, her strongest points are her long resume and experience as a civil litigator. Gardner makes good points about the courts in general being too anti-consumer, which we absolutely agree with her about. She also points to the surplus of experience she has compared to her competitor. Thus, we think she would be the superior Judge.

Accordingly, we endorse Barbara Gardner for the 234th District Court.

269th DISTRICT COURT
Judge Dan Hinde is arguably known as the most intellectual of any Civil District Judge in Harris County. However, what he possesses in brainpower, he evidently lacks in certain judicial ethics. A few years back, Hinde got in trouble for improperly finding the addresses of candidates in the jury pools, then sending campaign materials to their homes. A columnist at the Houston Chronicle opined that he may have committed a felony. Many around the city may have forgotten, but we surely remember. Hinde, a Republican, also has a reputation, like many other Judges, to improperly favor big defendants over little plaintiffs.

George Arnold, a Democrat, would be a fairer and more ethical judge. With more than two decades of the practice of civil law under his belt, he would be able to capably interpret the law and fulfill his judicial activities. He fully expect him to be a fairer adjudicator, as well one who will not abuse his office for political purposes.

Accordingly, this board endorses George Arnold for the 269th District Court.

270th DISTRICT COURT
Judge Brent Gamble, who has served four terms in office, is ready to retire. A Republican, he regularly rules against the little guy and is just not a good jurist for the people of Harris County.

The Democrat, James Hippard Jr, should sound familiar to every lawyer in Houston. His father, James Hippard Sr, was a hero in the local integration movement and a venerated Professor at the University of Houston School of Law. Like his father, Hippard strives to fight for the everyday Texan throughout his practice of law. Seeking deference for neither rich or poor, Hippard would be a fair and noble Judge if elected. With many decades of experience as both an attorney and law professor, he would also be ready to hit the ground running on day one.

Accordingly, this board endorses James Hippard Jr. for the 270th District Court.

281st DISTRICT COURT
Judge Sylvia Matthews, a Republican who has served for six years, is an adequate Judge. But her Democratic opponent, Tanner Garth, would likely be an even better Judge. With decades of experience, Garth would be both just as qualified as the incumbent but compassionate and open-minded in ways she just would not.

A business-litigator by trade, Matthews has a history of representing the big entities looking to clamp down on activity at the courthouse. A personal injury trial lawyer, Garth seeks the opposite. He has a history of helping people who have been wronged by seeking out justice for those who have been wronged. It is a noble background, one Harris County could simply use more thereof.

Accordingly, this board endorses Tanner Garth for the 281st District Court.

295th DISTRICT COURT
Judge Caroline Baker has a passable record on the bench. On the bench for about six years, she has developed the same reputation for arguably being a little preferential to bigger business interests. Harris County definitely has a good judge with Baker, a Republican, but they could have a great judge if they selected her Democratic opponent, Latosha Lewis.

An environmental lawyer by trade, Lewis has direct experience in litigating torts for those who have been wronged by malice or negligence. She understands that these cases are about more than just numbers and statistics; they are about people. Recognized by Texas Monthly as one of the top lawyers in the State every year for the past seven years, she would — without a doubt — be a fantastic addition to the courts.

Accordingly, this board endorses Latosha Lewis for the 295th District Court.

334th DISTRICT COURT
We find both the Republican incumbent, Grant Dorfman, and the Democratic opponent, Daryl Morre, to be rather well qualified and well versed contenders. Our preference of one over the other one is somewhat hard, as they are both good options. Ultimately, we think that Moore, a plaintiff’s attorney and son of a prominent labor activities, would be the better choice. We recommend a vote for Moore.

The Texpatriate Editorial Board is comprised of Noah M. Horwitz & Olivia Arena of Austin, George Bailey of Boston, Luis Fayad of College Station and Andrew Scott Romo of New Orleans. Editorials represent a majority opinion of the voting board.

Texpatriate endorses for Attorney General

This should be a long and intellectual editorial about the political history of the Attorney General’s office, about the nuanced policy disagreements between the major candidates and the different criteria one should use before making a decision on whom to support for the state’s top lawyer. But this decision is just not complex enough to warrant all that. One candidate is an admitted crook, and should stay far away from high office.

State Senator Ken Paxton (R-Collin County) has admitted to engaging in securities fraud, a felony in Texas, when he solicited clients to a capital management firm without properly registering himself, despite being paid to do so. He has been officially reprimanded and fined by the State Securities Board. The Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s office has even initiated an investigation against Paxton, though any indictments that might be issued would not occur until after the November election.

Now, if Paxton wins the election but still gets disbarred for his unethical behavior and just shoddy lawyering, he would still be able to continue on in office (our state’s founding fathers, in their grand wisdom, decided you don’t have to be an Attorney to be Attorney General). But if convicted of a felony, he would be removed from office. This is not that small of a possibility.

In our opinion, Paxton is already a confessed crook. Someone like him is either too nefarious or too mindless to follow the law; either way, he should not be rewarded with the privilege to help enforce it. And Texas should not have to relive the excitement of the 1980s when it comes to dealing with public officials who have been found guilty of felonies.

The Democratic candidate, Sam Houston, has a great deal of problems himself that make us think perhaps he is also not ready for prime time. But being camera shy and perplexed on some more complicated issues is a far cry from a felonious crime-spree.

Houston specifically has a rather unclear stance on what criteria the Attorney General should use when determining to defend a state law or not. We don’t know exactly what he believes, and this ambiguity troubles us to some extent. However, we do agree with Houston on many of the underlying principles, such as personal opposition to Texas’ strict anti-abortion laws and homophobic constitutional amendments.

In our view, the second-most obvious difference between Houston and Paxton is their legal experience. Paxton is a second-rate lawyer who has been propped up merely by his skills in Tea Party rabble rousing. Sam Houston, on the other hand, is a well-respected attorney in the City of Houston area, focusing on litigation as a named partner in a major firm.

Though most of all, Houston is willing to approach the issues of the Attorney General with an open mind. This stands in contrast to Paxton’s small and petty ideological approach, which results in the exact type of hubris that can lead to the aforementioned hubris.

What type of laughing stock will Texas be when it has the only Attorney General in the country who is no longer an attorney? We’re not sure what the punch-line would be, and we don’t care to find out by electing Paxton.

Accordingly, this board endorses Sam Houston for Attorney General.

The Texpatriate Editorial Board is comprised of Noah M. Horwitz & Olivia Arena of Austin, George Bailey of Boston, Luis Fayad of College Station and Andrew Scott Romo of New Orleans. Editorials represent a majority opinion of the voting board.

Texpatriate endorses for Comptroller

 

The Comptroller of Public Accounts has an inquisitorial quality about it. While reforms throughout the 1980s and the 1990s gradually gave the office most of the powers of the former State Treasurer position, its two original duties are still arguably the most important. The Comptroller is charged within collecting the taxes of the State of Texas, namely the sales tax and excise taxes. The post also comes up with a biennial revenue estimate, which the Comptroller relays to the State Legislature, and the legislature is compelled to use when writing their budget.

Without a doubt, the current officeholder of this position, Susan Combs, has failed in both respects. Tax revenue has been down around the state considering our population. This stands in stark contrast to some of the bombastic Democrats, namely Bob Bullock, who have held this position in the past. Bullock infamously organized high-profile raids to tax evaders, and cleaned up inefficiencies and corruptions to ensure that coffers remained filled. His two successors, John Sharp and Carole Keeton Strayhorn, one a Democrat and one a Republican, also ensured that revenue forecasts were accurate.

This is greatly important, because an incompetent or malevolent Comptroller could fudge the numbers and wreak havoc on the state. That is precisely what happened in 2011 when Combs negligently low-balled the revenues, prompting enormously painful austerity cuts, especially to education, that just weren’t necessary.

Democratic candidate Mike Collier, a longtime CPA who calls himself “the watchdog,” pledges to fight exactly this type of ineptitude. Previously an apolitical person, Collier jumped into the race after witnessing the deleterious effects caused by Combs’ dereliction of her responsibilities. He wants to run the office better, not as a stepping stone to higher office but as an actual place of accounting and reasonable forecast.

In our opinion, the office of Comptroller should not be elected to begin with. And while lifelong politicians such as Bullock did great things with the post, the era of the goodhearted statesman is simply a thing of the past in the same respect as black-and-white televisions and horse drawn carriages.

The Republican candidate, State Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Harris County), is not an accountant or in any way well-versed in the financial sector. He is a farmer, and his claim to the fame in the legislature was authoring the omnibus anti-abortion bill that Wendy Davis filibustered. He offers no specifics as to how to improve upon the office form Combs and his campaign has consisted of little more than right-wing sound bites heralding his support from anti-abortion rights and anti-LGBT interest groups.

Hegar, in one of the few issues pertaining to the office he is actually running for, advocating lessening property taxes. This is all good and fun, as few Texans besides masochists in Austin would actually be comfortable with their property tax bill, but Hegar’s proposed alternative is much, much worse. He wishes to replace the property tax with a new statewide sales tax that climbs more than 20 cents on the dollar. This stupid — and there just isn’t a better word for it — regressive tax would greatly hurt the poorest among us. It would result in an effective tax hike for a majority of the population.

Like many of this year’s elections, the choice in November is crystal clear. Collier is qualified, would do the job capably and does not want to raise your taxes. Hegar is not qualified, would not do the job capably and wants to raise your taxes. Don’t raise taxes, vote Democrat.

Accordingly, this board endorses Mike Collier for Comptroller of Public Accounts.

The Texpatriate Editorial Board is comprised of Noah M. Horwitz & Olivia Arena of Austin, George Bailey of Boston, Luis Fayad of College Station and Andrew Scott Romo of New Orleans. Editorials represent a majority opinion of the voting board.

Texpatriate endorses for Land Commissioner

The Commissioner of the General Land Office, commonly known as the Land Commissioner, has broad powers over relatively random portions of state government. Public land (including beaches), education and veterans’ affairs round out their duties. It is a job that requires both political acumen and considerable policy knowledge. In these categories, the choice that is best for Texas is clear.

Republican candidate George P. Bush is about far, far more than a continuation of a political dynasty. The son of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and nephew of former President George W. Bush, he has a lot to live up to in arguably the most visible conservative political dynasty in the country. But unlike the partisan excesses pushed by his family members, Bush is pragmatic in his outlook. And standing in stark contrast to his uncle, the last member of his family in Texas politics, Bush has demonstrated considerable mastery of the issues at hand for the Land Commissioner office.

A former teacher, Bush has a special place to understand the plight of many within the public school system. Overseeing the moneys that would go to many schools, Bush has no power to change standards or increase funding, but he does have the capacity to ensure that funds are spent efficiently and responsibly. We have every reason to think he would capably do this.

On veterans, Bush pushes a plan that is both realistic considering the powers of his prospective office and has the capacity to greatly improve the lives of many veterans affected by debilitating conditions such as post traumatic stress disorder. It’s relatively simple; he would publicize and tout the myriad programs Texas already has in place to assist veterans, such as low-interest loans and subsidies involving healthcare. For all our reputation of being a no-frills state when it comes to social welfare programs, Texas already ostensibly does a great deal regarding veterans; we just do a lousy job advertising that fact. Bush would change that.

Most importantly, regarding public land, Bush would push for programs that respect the integrity of our parks and reserves while still allowing the responsible exploitation of the resources underneath the ground. It’s a win-win situation.

Contrary to many in his party, Bush is an environmentalist. One of the mantras of his campaign is that there is no “false choice between protecting the environment…and promoting job creation.” He acknowledges the reality of climate change, as well as the terrifying phenomenon of rising sea levels. Texas would do well to have such a pragmatic steward of both positions in office.

The former Mayor of El Paso, John Cook, is also running as a Democrat. He is a passionate candidate, but his criticisms are far more pointed at the incumbent Land Commissioner, Jerry Patterson, than they are directed toward Bush. To put it bluntly, Bush commands a mastery of the issues regarding the office that Cook simply does not possess. Despite an impressive resume, he has largely dropped the ball on a serious campaign ahead of the general election.

Educated by the best institutions of higher learning in the state, Rice University and UT Law, Bush is obviously smart. But he is also a passionate and comprising politician as well. Such qualities make him stand apart in Texas politics to most of his compatriots in the Republican Party, much less his family. Texas voters have an easy decision to make, so as long as they do not blame one candidate for the sins of his father.

Or his uncle.

Accordingly, this board endorses George P. Bush for Land Commissioner.


 

Noah M. Horwitz dissented from this editorial, and wrote his own addendum.

My colleague makes some good points in his editorial that urges support of George P. Bush for Land Commissioner. He is, indeed, a pragmatist compared to those within his party, believing in things such as climate change and the need to allocate resources protecting both schoolchildren and veterans from the perils of austerity. Such beliefs were also somewhat evident back in February, when I joined with my colleagues in unanimously selecting Bush as the best choice within the Republican primary. But the points just don’t hold water when Bush is challenged by the reasonableness of John Cook, a Democrat vying for the position.

While it is true, for example, that Bush recognizes the very real danger presented by climate change, he is still willfully ignorant regarding the source of these dangers. Bush still officially doubts the idea that people are the main source of climate change, despite the fact that 97% of pertinent climate scientists agree on that point. Why? The reason is that, like nearly all of the high profile figures within his political party, he has to mollify a zealous, extreme and anti-intellectual faction that dominates primary elections.

What good is a steward of public lands if he does not acknowledge the driving source behind the greatest danger to them? Recognizing that climate change exists merely means you are not delusional as to present realities, but if you think humans are not causing it, there is little you can do besides wring your hands and lament the conundrum while you refill the oversized gas tank in your hummer. He is without any type of actual strategy to deal with the rising sea levels that threaten to eviscerate our beaches.

Speaking of beaches, Bush supports an abominable ruling of the Texas Supreme Court that guts the state’s venerated Open Beaches Act. While the law mandates that all of Texas’ beaches are state parks, to be used by anyone, the high court has adulterated the state constitution to fit their bizarre interpretation that an exception may be carved out if a property owner’s previous non-beachfront land becomes the “first in line,” so to speak, as a result of erosion. With the state’s rapidly eroding coastline (which, not to keep beating the same point, is not a result of mysterious circumstances, but the obvious byproduct of the rising sea levels and increased tropical activity that come with man-made climate change), this terrible ruling will affect more and more parcels of land in the forthcoming decades.

Bush supports this misguided ruling. On his watch, Texas beaches could easily find themselves like the northeast, where the rich and powerful monopolize all the good locations, hogging these pristine landscapes from the public. Now, Bush can just go to his family’s compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. But for most honest Texans, the state beaches are all we got.

John Cook opposes this silly ruling, and recognizes the very real threat that man-made climate change poses to the state’s beaches and other public land. With years of experience as both the Mayor of El Paso and a member on the El Paso City Council, Cook is not a political novice. Since my colleagues evidently values policy acumen so highly, it should be worth mentioning that Cook also knows the nitty-gritty intricacies that this office faces remarkably well. Cook doesn’t have Yankee family money underwriting his travels around the state, so he may not be quite so ubiquitous of a presence around our humongous state this general election. But that just should not be important.

Be it the editorial board of this publication, or those of just about any newspaper in the state, it appears everyone has lost sight of their priorities this election. Obsequious adulation is directed toward Bush for his passion, campaign skills and the size of his war-chest, as if those are things any articulate person would prioritize in an endorsement. We’re better than that, we’re better than the sophomoric illogic used in picking the student council candidate with the prettiest posters; at least, I think we are.

What far, far too few people have done is actually look at the policy disagreements between the two, albeit well-qualified, candidates. Bush ascribes to the fairy tale that climate change is not caused or affect by people, whereas Cook thinks we should be vigilant in trying to stop it. Bush thinks the One-Percent should be entitled to steal state parks along the ocean from the average Texan to ensure their million-dollar second homes are protected from eminent domain; Cook thinks this 55 year-old law is valid and should remain enforced. Most importantly, Bush simply will go through the motions of this office for four years while he plots his campaign for Governor, as everyone in this state fully expects him to do. Cook actually wants to get into the weeds and leave his mark on the General Land Office.

I don’t punish Bush for the sins of his father, or his uncle. I punish him for his own. Respectfully, but sternly, I urge you to disregard the majority’s opinion and vote for John Cook for Land Commissioner.
—Noah M. Horwitz

The Texpatriate Editorial Board is comprised of Noah M. Horwitz & Olivia Arena of Austin, George Bailey of Boston, Luis Fayad of College Station and Andrew Scott Romo of New Orleans. Editorials represent a majority opinion of the voting board.