David Feldman resigns

The Houston Chronicle reports that David Feldman, the City Attorney of Houston, has resigned. Feldman took office in May 2010, a few months into Mayor Annise Parker’s first term, and has worked under her for the succeeding nearly five years. Now, with just a little more than a year left on Parker’s final term in office, Feldman is out the door.

Ostensibly, it is because he wishes to go into private practice with his son, who is also an attorney. But Feldman, a former partner at the blue-chip firm Vinson & Elkins, would have surely had that opportunity — as well as a plethora of others — waiting for him at the end of Parker’s time in office. Some individuals, namely former Harris County Republican Party Chairman Jared Woodfill, contend that Feldman is leaving because of the firestorm that erupted regarding the recent asinine decision by Feldman’s office to subpoena pertinent sermons from pastors, namely those involving the non-discrimination ordinance and its succeeding referendum effort. Feldman, for his part, claims he did not personally authorize the subpoenas but conceded that the issuing of them was a blunder on his part.

Interestingly enough, Feldman’s resignation — which will take effect on January 16th of next year — occurs just before a planned trial on the validity of petition efforts to overturn the aforementioned NDO. Feldman himself intimated to the Chronicle that he wished to resign before the trial, so that he could testify and not disqualify the Legal Department staff from serving as counsel. However, the cottage legal expert that the Chronicle sought out even noted that such drastic concerns were patently silly. My legal sources have said the same thing.

The Chronicle article is yeoman’s work by Mike Morris, and it essentially pens Feldman’s political obituary; I highly recommend reading the whole thing. One point of note is that, even among ideological opponents on the NDO, such as Councilmember Oliver Pennington (R-District G), Feldman was well-liked as an honest hard worker. Although his legacy will likely be cemented in that controversial ordinance, he does have a history of working hard to achieve many of the other city goals.

I think I am most curious, however, about the exact decision for Feldman to leave office. As the Houston Press notes (as well as the Chronicle article), the city is also approaching a big battle with the Firefighter’s Union regarding contracts. The interim president of that union, as the Chronicle quotes, did not have any kind words for Feldman on the news of his departure.

I’m in Galveston this morning, but I can still hear quacking all the day from City Hall. As Parker enters the final few months of her term, more and more senior staff will begin jumping ship. Not necessarily a judgment on her administration in particular, just a common component of the six-year itch in municipal politics. One must wonder, though, if the negative press over the NDO played a greater part specifically in Feldman calling it quits.

Texpatriate endorses in County Criminal Courts

Harris County’s fifteen county criminal courts are truly where the rubber meets the road of government. Thousands upon thousands make their way through the system every year, for all variety of misdemeanor offenses. The most common of these are driving while intoxicated and possession of small amounts of marijuana. No one’s idea of hardened criminals, these courts should be more about rehabilitation than punishment. And the Judges who oversee them should be willing to fight to that effect.

Among the most obvious differences between the fifteen incumbent Republican Judges and the ten Democratic challengers facing them is the career background. The Republicans, with only a couple exceptions, are former prosecutors while the Democrats consist of more defense attorneys. While we think that both careers should be represented on the bench, this board simply believes that the criminal courts could use quite a few more defense attorneys as Judges.

The rationale is rather straightforward. Simply put, Judges need to believe defendants are innocent until proven guilty, much like a defense attorney does. A prosecutor is the only exception to this rule, maintaining the opposite viewpoint all too often. For a courthouse stacked full of former prosecutors, one does not need to think much to realize how this could be problematic for defendants.

We also look to those Judges who, in our opinion, have been on the bench for far too long. Between racist emails, despotic rulings and callous attitudes, the Courthouse is unfortunately full of these types. We specifically have looked unfavorably upon those who “fight crime from the bench,” by attempting to usurp the prosecutorial authority of the DA.

We first recommend a vote of confidence for the five unopposed Republican Judges on the ballot this November: Paula Goodhart (Court #1), Natalie Fleming (Court #3), Analia Wilkerson (Court #9), Diane Bull (Court #11) and Robin Brown (Court #12). All these Judges share some of the troubling characteristics that we outlined above, but none have committed the truly egregious actions that would warrant a simple vote of no confidence.

For the remaining ten benches, we support 7 Democrats and 3 Republicans.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #2
Judge Bill Harmon, a former prosecutor first elected in 2006, is the epitome of the Judge who believes his courtroom is a fiefdom. An experienced jurist, the Republican made headlines a few years back when he unilaterally decided to ignore a program by the District Attorney to focus on rehabilitation and treatment for first-time DWI offenders.

The program, the DIVERT program, was spearheaded by former District Attorney Pat Lykos, a fellow Republican. Working together with pertinent stakeholders far and wide, Lykos unveiled this new program, which allowed for a form of pre-trial diversion (DA’s probation) to be completed by a first-time defendant in exchange for the dropping of charges. The program included some pretty tough provisions, arguably tougher than normal probation. It kept countless individuals out of prison and, in effect, from a life of recidivism. But the zealots came out in force against the sensible program, which allowed for a defendant’s life to be redeemed rather than ruined. Harmon took advantage of this criticism, and pathetically grandstanded against the program, inviting the news media to his press conferences.

When Lykos was defeated for re-election, the program went away. But in Criminal Court #2, it was already an ancient relic. Unfortunately, this is not the only occasion of Harmon prosecuting from the bench. He sees it fit to examine pleadings and meddle in the agreements between prosecution and defense.

Fortunately, the difference between Harmon and his Democratic opponent, Harold Landreneau, are night and day. Landreneau would respect the process, and not attempt to improperly inject himself into it for political benefit. A criminal defense attorney, Landreneau understands the proper role of a Judge and would strive to represent it. He has the pertinent experience needed, and the mentality to be a fair, understanding and impartial adjudicator of the law. We sure know that County Criminal Court #2 could use one.

Accordingly, this board endorses Harold Landreneau for County Criminal Court at Law #2.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #4
Judge John Clinton, a former police officer, represents business as usual in the Criminal Courts. He has a compelling story, a beat cop who rose up through the ranks, attended law school and got elected to the bench. But, like so many other Judges, he has a tendency to conflate the prosecutorial or police desire to be tough on crime with the Judicial responsibility to be fair on crime.

Clinton, a Republican, has done an satisfactory job on the bench, but Harris County can do better. We think that his Democratic opponent, Niki Harmon, could fill that role. Harmon is uniquely qualified to both understand the complex nuances of judicial management as well as the criminal justice system. She has served as both a defense attorney and as a Municipal Judge for the City of Houston. Serving in both of those roles for roughly the past 25 years, she poses the ability to both be ready on day one and serve as a superior Judge. Harmon is truly a gem of a candidate, and voters should reward her with a spot on the bench.

Accordingly, this board endorses Niki Harmon for County Criminal Court at Law #4.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #5
Judge Margaret Harris, yet another former prosecutor, is another jurist who is not right for Harris County. A Republican, she has been on the bench for nearly a dozen years, and has been a consistent ally for the State against the people. Despite being an ethical Judge, she is not the correct Judge for the job. Harris, like many of her colleagues, has a reputation for unnecessary harshness in some situations. What the county simply needs is a neutral arbiter, one who will act as a fair intermediary between the DA and the defense. This board is simply not satisfied that Harris has done or will do any of that.

Instead, we look toward Ramona Franklin, the Democratic challenger. A defense attorney, she has the expertise and the mindset needed to be a better Judge. But as an adjunct professor and a former prosecutor, Franklin is also well rounded in ways that her opponent simply is not. Franklin, we believe, would not ever torpedo agreements between prosecutors and defense attorneys. Nor do we think that she would try to prosecute or defend from the bench. Rather, she would do what a judge should do: interpret and apply the law.

Accordingly, this board endorses Ramona Franklin for County Criminal Court at Law #5.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #6
Judge Larry Standley should not be on the bench. It is a travesty and a testament to the failures of his party and the county that he still remains in power. Standley, a Republican, first got in hot water a couple years back for controversial emails that he had sent, from his work account, to fellow Judges. The emails contained slurs against blacks, Hispanics, gays and women, to name a few, and were addressed to both female and African-American Judges, among others. The controversy, which is preserved in meticulous detail by the Houston Chronicle, prompted Jared Woodfill, then the Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party, to demand Standley’s resignation. He refused, got re-elected anyways and is now looking to remain on the bench. Voters should not make the same mistake again.

And lest you think that Standley’s prejudice has subsided, he’s just gotten smart enough to conceal it from work emails. Any casual observer of his courtroom will all too often be appalled by what one finds. Standley runs his courtroom like his own fiefdom, willy-nilly vetoing agreements and making callous remarks. He has even turned his courtroom into a makeshift church on one occasion and conducted impromptu prayer and bible sessions from the bench in open court. Any individual with even a grade school familiarity with the 1st Amendment should see the problems with that.

Fortunately, Standley is not unopposed. His Democratic opponent, Linda Geffin, is remarkably well qualified in her own right. A longtime prosecutor, Geffin is familiar with every nook and cranny of the county criminal courts; though she still maintains a good respect for the process. We think she can take all the positives of prosecutorial experience without the negatives of “fighting crime from the bench,” so to speak.

In more recent years, Geffin has transitioned to a leadership role in the Harris County Attorney’s office, prosecuting Public Nuisance cases. In this role, she has put herself at risk and was even viciously attacked in an incident that was likely related to an ongoing case. Still, Geffin soldiered on, doing what was right above all else. This board is simply in awe of her dedication to the ideals of justice. She stands in stark contrast to her opponent.

Accordingly, this board endorses Linda Geffin for County Criminal Court at Law #6.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #7
Judge Pam Derbyshire, yet another Republican former prosecutor, is somewhat different from many of her colleagues. First, she fairly adjudicates the cases before her, and never seeks to become an activist judge who prosecutes from the bench. Nor does she ever improperly entangle herself in agreements between defendants and prosecutors. She calmly and consistently applies her legal touch to the cases before her on her docket.

Derbyshire also has an admirable trait of seeing the good in her defendants. She regularly works with defendants, particularly young ones, to come up with programs designed not for punitive purposes but for turning one’s life around. In a courthouse where there are all too many relics of yesteryear intent upon law and order above all else, Derbyshire is a refreshing change, particularly for a Republican. Additionally, voters would be wise to keep her in office given the breadth of her legal knowledge.

Sheila Acosta, the Democratic opponent for this bench, has been nowhere to be found throughout this campaign. With no website, no Facebook and minimal campaigning, we have little idea what she stands for, but that isn’t even the problem. Derbyshire is simply too good of a judge to not recommend retention thereof.

Accordingly, this board endorses Pam Derbyshire for County Criminal Court at Law #7.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #8
Judge Jay Karahan, a Republican, began his career — like so many others — as a prosecutor. But he later changed courses and become a defense attorney before being elected to the bench in 2002. Throughout that time, Karahan’s unique resume has become readily apparent, as he often approaches issues in a far different manner than his proseuctorial colleagues.

Like we said above, sole experience as a prosecutor can sometimes warp one’s opinions on the criminal justice system, causing a deviation from normalcy, so to speak. This adulteration of the “innocent until proven guilty” maxim is just not present in Karahan. He is a thoughtful, fair and impartial Judge that Harris County is lucky to be represented by.

Karahan’s Democratic opponent is Kelli Johnson, a prosecutor. In this mirror of the typical setup, we believe that Johnson is an experienced and qualified candidate for Judge, but we are quite concerned about the prospect of replacing the sole former defense attorney on the bench by yet another prosecutor. She would make a good Judge, but Karahan already is one.

Accordingly, this board endorses Jay Karahan for County Criminal Court at Law #8.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #10
After many years on the bench, Judge Sherman Ross is retiring at the conclusion of this term. Residents of Harris County should breath a collective sigh of relief, as Ross’ many years were maligned by improper prosecutions from the bench.

Unfortunately, the Republican candidate to succeed him is not much better. A former police officer, Dan Spjut would likewise seek to be a crime fighting Judge. We also have some major misgivings about the strategy Spjut used to secure the Republican nomination, banking on the unethical pay-to-play slates of local Republican powerbrokers.

The Democratic candidate, George Barnstone, also presents some concerns. A grand political activist in his own right, Barnstone has very limited knowledge of the inner-workings of criminal law and even admits he does not practice it. However, he pledges to learn quickly and to be a compassionate advocate for the everyman while in office. We know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a Judge Barnstone would not be an obstacle to defendants seeking justice. We think, on the balance, Harris County voters should take a chance on him. It might not be smooth at first, but it’s a chance we’re willing to take.

Accordingly, this board endorses George Barnstone for County Criminal Court at Law #10.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #13
Four years ago, Judge Don Smyth was first elected. Another Republican and another prosecutor, it would be easy to dismiss him as more of the same, but that simply is not true. For a lengthy portion of his tenure in the DA’s office, Smyth lead the Public Integrity Unit, putting him face to face with all those public servants who betray the public’s trust. It also taught him, we think, something about fairness.

Smyth is a vociferous conservative to those who know him, but his politics end right at the courthouse door. On the bench, he is fair and open-minded, and always strives for meaningful collaboration between defense attorneys and prosecutors. It would be against every fiber of his being to improperly meddle or second-guess their mutually agreed upon decisions, particularly since his court has worked so hard toward a goal of more efficient judicial economy.

A longtime Scoutmaster, sometimes to underprivileged children, Smyth also has an ability to see good in everyone, namely the young people who come before his court. Second-chances are sometimes given, but generally only as a result of a tough probationary program that truly requires defendants to turn their life around. Smyth doesn’t just do what would be best for his docket, or for his popularity at the next Pachyderm meeting; he does what is best for the community.

Jason Luong, the Democratic opponent, is a great attorney himself. He is a qualified, well-mannered and would serve the public remarkably well in office. We truly wish he could have run for another bench. But we just think that Smyth already embodies all the qualities we are looking for in a Judge.

Accordingly, this board endorses Don Smyth for County Criminal Court at Law #13.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #14
Judge Mike Fields, a longtime Republican Judge, will seek yet a fifth term in office this November. We think voters would be wise to ask him to retire. A notorious prosecutor-from-the-bench, Fields has torpedoed agreements between the DA and defense attorneys in the past for little reasons other than the supposed autocratic powers that a Judge has over his own courtroom.

Furthermore, Fields has developed a terrible reputation as a promulgator of so-called “shock probation,” where mutually agreements between prosecutors and defense attorneys are not rescinded per se but are often added with mandatory 5 day jail sentences for little reason other than pure punitive vitriol. If Fields is so serious about revenge, perhaps he should have never left the DA’s office.

David Singer, meanwhile, the Democratic candidate, prompts some questions about his seriousness. His involvement thus far in any type of campaigning has been lackluster at best. But on the issues, Singer, a defense attorney, is clearly the superior choice. He would adjudicate issues fairly and respect agreements between parties.

Accordingly, this board endorses David Singer for County Criminal Court at Law #14.

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #15
Judge Jean Hughes is a staple of the Criminal Courthouse. A Republican and a former prosecutor, she has served in office for nearly twenty years. While undoubtedly a bright and experienced jurist, she is simply not right for Harris County. Her mindset, like many of the other Judges, is simply not the correct one.

Raul Rodriguez, her Democratic opponent, is a criminal defense attorney with a prolific background in misdemeanor cases in particular. He would be a wise Judge, ready to go on day 1, and would also have the right mindset. He would not prosecute from the bench, nor would he attempt to fight crime from there. Rather, with the assumption that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, he would preside over neutral and fair adjudication of cases. Throughout his 22 year career, Rodriguez has earned our respect. He has earned our vote as well.

Accordingly, this board endorses Raul Rodriguez for County Criminal Court at Law #15.

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 of the voting board.

Texpatriate endorses for County Judge

Counties in Texas are managed by a five-person Commissioner’s Court. Four commissioners are selected from different precincts, each representing roughly a quarter of the population. The fifth member is the County Judge, elected countywide to manage the affairs of the county and preside over the commissioners’ court, though no trials.

Since 2007, the County Judgeship of Harris County has been in the capable hands of Ed Emmett. A former member of the Texas House of Representatives for four terms from 1979 to 1987, Emmett represents a seemingly dying breed of moderate Republicans. A transportation planner by trade, he has served on the Interstate Commerce Commission and understands the need for vigorous expansion of mass transit options. He has fought for Texas to assent to Obamacare’s proposed Medicaid expansion, and he is a perpetual advocate for the preservation of the Astrodome. On social issues, Emmett takes a largely moderate stance, and thinks the County should have no role in regulating or commenting upon them.

But Emmett’s greatest asset is his inimitable leadership qualities. In 2008, when Hurricane Ike devastated the entire region, Emmett was a familiar face who tirelessly worked day and night to turn the lights back on and maintain normalcy in Houston. While voters have judged Emmett twice since that time, and we should really be judging his actions in the last quadrennial, his skillful leadership during the tragedy have set the stage for a constantly prepared County Judge. Emmett’s face is usually on a billboard or two every summer, with his signature phrase “Hunker Down,” and his office is one of the best prepared in the State for dealing with possible tropical cyclones.

Simply put, we believe that Emmett is our best representative on the Commissioner’s Court. He shows an understanding and a empathy for the average person to an extent nearly unheard of in today’s crop of politician. And, most importantly, he prioritizes pragmatism and big solutions over ideology and small-minded partisanship.

This was put on full display earlier this year when Emmett put his money where his mouth was, so to speak, on that front. He largely underwrote the campaign of Paul Simpson, who had challenged Jared Woodfill for Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party. Woodfill was a zealot who put undue priority on divisive social issues and bullied more moderate members of the party. Simpson, with Emmett’s help, defeated Woodfill and has begun making the County Republicans arguably a little more of a “big tent” party. We are ecstatic to see it.

Emmett’s only opponent, after his Democratic adversary dropped out, is Green candidate David Collins. While he means well, even he lauds the record that Emmett has. Simply put, we think that, since the incumbent has done a good job, he should be rewarded with another term.

Unfortunately, Emmett has announced that -assuming he wins- this next term will be his past. We thoroughly hope this means that he will run for Governor in 2018. Removed from party labels, he has done wonders for Harris County. Hopefully, Texas will be next.

Accordingly, this board endorses Ed Emmett for County Judge.

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 board.

Texpatriate endorses in HD134

State Representative Sarah Davis (R-Harris County) has now concluded her second session in the Texas Legislature, representing one of the strangest house districts in Texas. It combines the affluent neighborhoods of Bellaire, West University and River Oaks, among others, with the cosmopolitan and LGBT-friendly Montrose area. It also includes most of the heavily Jewish middle class neighborhood of Meyerland. The result is a district that favors Republicans on economic issues, ever so slightly, but is extraordinarily socially liberal. Thus, a Representative such as Sarah Davis is chosen by its voters.

Davis, a Republican, is pro-choice and broadly in favor of gay rights. Last summer, she was the only Republican to stand against the onerous restrictions placed on a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion. The only one, of about 100. She caught a great deal of flak for the brave position, including being publicly derided by Jared Woodfill, the then-Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party. She even drew a socially conservative primary challenger who incessantly lambasted her for her pro-choice viewpoints. As it turned out, Davis handily defeated her primary challenger, Bonnie Parker, amid tremendous support for her convictions from her constituents.

This board has no doubt that Davis will, in the upcoming legislative session, continue to be a tireless advocate for women’s rights and healthcare. Be it standing against HB2 or fighting against devastating cuts to Planned Parenthood and other healthcare sources, Davis has never backed down from a fight. We also expect her to continue “evolving” on the issue of LGBT rights, leading a small but growing caucus of pro-gay marriage Republicans in the next few years.

Still, there are some serious issues we take with Davis’ platform. She voted for an ill-designed bill that would have allowed for university students to bring their concealed weapons onto college campuses, obvious hotbeds of tempers and bad decisions. And, all too often, she followed in lock-step with a Republican budget philosophy still intent on minimizing invaluable services.

Of course, Davis’ only opponent, Democratic candidate Alison Ruff, has been a functionally worthless challenger. She has no online or public presence. Nobody has ever seen her, nobody has ever heard of her. Without anything to say or do, a candidate might as well not exist.

But Davis, on the other hand, has more than plenty to say, even if he disagree with some of it. Still, no one can deny that Davis is an absolutely perfect representative for her unique, economically centrist and socially liberal, district. We look forward to her being one of the venerated voices of reason in her party.

Accordingly, this board endorses Sarah Davis for the Texas House, District 134.

The Texpatriate Editorial Board of 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 board.

NDO petition fight heads to Texas Supreme Court

The Houston Chronicle reports that opponents of the local non-discrimination ordinance passed by the Houston City Council have taken their case to the Texas Supreme Court. Specifically, they are seeking an emergency order to force the issue onto this November’s ballot, following a contentious referendum petition effort.

As I recently explained, a controversy has erupted over the NDO –which codifies existing Federal and State anti-discrimination statutes (protecting against race, sex and religion, for example) onto local law, as well as extends new protections for LGBT individuals– following an effort to override the City Council, which approved the ordinance 11-6 last May. Under city law, such an ordinance could be placed upon the ballot for a referendum if enough signatures are gathered within 30 days. Opponents claimed they acquired more than enough signatures, but most of them were disqualified, either for not being properly registered to vote or not living within the city limits of Houston. City Secretary Anna Russell originally determined the signatures to pass the threshold, just barely, but a subsequent independent investigation by City Attorney David Feldman reversed this ruling. Feldman specifically challenged the validity of any signatures on a petition page circulated by an improperly registered circulator.

This is the crux of a legal argument made against the initial decision by Feldman and Mayor Annise Parker to not humor a referendum on this topic. Originally, the opponents filed in State District Court, and received a temporary restraining order by ancillary Judge Jeff Shadwick (R-55th). However, this order was lifted when the case went to the court of Judge Robert Schaffer (D-152nd), and mandamus was denied by the Court of Appeals. As I had understood the mutually agreed upon result to be, a longer hearing would be held on the matter in January 2015, and the issue would not be on the ballot this year. City officials have even stated that the full deadline to place things on a November ballot is August 18th, which is now in the past.

Evidently, plaintiff Jared Woodfill did not get the memorandum. He is seeking, as expedited as possible, mandamus from the Texas Supreme Court, ordering the City to certify Russell’s –and not Feldman’s or Parker’s– petition decision, thus placing this matter on a ballot. Woodfill, a former Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party, evidently is not sold by the whole “deadline to place on the ballot” idea. Go figure.

Those sagacious followers of this publication I always reference will indubitably know I am skeptical of the life of the NDO if it is ever put up on a referendum. Young people and other socially liberal cohorts just don’t get off their butts on go to a voting booth. They’re just lazy, come election day; there’s no way around it. Opponents of this ordinance, though, and other broadly Tea Party aligned groups, would figuratively walk over hot coals in order to vote.

I had thought, however, that the best chances the NDO would have would be if the referendum were held this November, as opposed to next November or next May. However, its chances would be based on an aggressive and effective campaign to save the NDO. Given that it’s nearly Labor Day and such a campaign is not existent, those bets would surely be off.

All in all, my main point is that this is a mess, and while the Texas Supreme Court may be unpredictable, there is nothing to say the partisan nature of the court should lead it to intervene. The two Courts of Appeals in the Houston area are, sans one Democrat, completely filled with Republicans, and they pointedly denied mandamus. Thus, there is no reason necessarily to think that anything rash will occur. But I’ve been wrong before.

Judge Pratt resigns

The Houston Chronicle reports that Denise Pratt, the Family District Judge in Harris County who brewed up no shortage of controversy over the past year, has resigned effective immediately and is suspending her campaign. Astute readers of this publication will remember that Pratt has undergone much scrutiny from myself and others for both allegedly backdating time-stamps in orders and unilaterally dismissing hundreds upon hundreds of ongoing cases. All of these have drew the ire of Greg Enos, a Galveston area attorney, who has lodged three complaints against Pratt that have been investigated by the District Attorney’s office (Editorial note: The last time we mentioned Enos, this publication was prominently featured in his newsletter, THE MONGOOSE, wherein it was described as a “Republican blog.” For the record, Texpatriate is a non-partisan publication, and the author of both the original post and this post, Noah M. Horwitz, is a registered Democrat).

Pratt’s website has now been reduced to simply a statement. In it, she wrote: “The relentless attacks by my political opponents have become a distraction to the work of the Court, and to the Republican Party in Harris County.  I cannot, in good conscience, allow it to continue. My goal has always been to serve the children and families of Harris County, but I won’t sacrifice my family’s well-being any longer to continue to serve as Judge.”

Click here to read more!

Farewell, Dirtbags!

After every election, Bill Maher typically does a segment where he presents a tongue-in-cheek “in memoriam” video as a tribute to all those most outlandish personalities who lost in their elections. Thus, to quote the words of Richard Nixon, we won’t have them to kick around anymore.

Rep.+Steve+Stockman

Rep. Steve Stockman: “If babies had guns, they wouldn’t be aborted.”

Click here for more!