Farewell, Texpatriate!

10678726_10152602834172144_3048421849160351295_n

After keeping this publication on life-support for the past half-year, I have come to one of the most difficult decisions in my life: to end Texpatriate.

I started this blog about three years ago, as an exercise-in-futility to keep up with local politics while I was away at college in Boston. As time went on, I started writing better and more-often; and for some reason, people started reading. When I returned to Houston for a lengthy summer after my freshman year, three of my friends and former co-workers from City Hall joined me. All of a sudden, Texpatriate turned into a force to be reckoned with, not only in Houston, but around the state.

I think I first realized everything had changed when representatives of mayoral campaigns began contacting me, asking for our endorsement. Our questionnaires were completed by all the campaigns and, when our endorsements were published, they were spread far and wide by those who received them.

Eventually, I left Boston behind and continued college at UT-Austin. It was at this point that my path began to stray from this publication. I joined the staff of The Daily Texan, and quickly rose up the ranks, first to the editorial board and now as Senior Associate Editor, the second name on the masthead. I concurrently started working in public relations and government affairs in Houston for the Clifford Group, which obviously brought me into a whole new side of municipal politics that sometimes added conflicts of interest into local issues. Some of my colleagues lost interest in local politics, and I really can’t blame them for that.

Three years is a remarkably long time in politics. When I started this publication, no one had heard of Wendy Davis or Ted Cruz. But, more pressing for me, it feels like this blog has been a part of my life for time immemorial.

I wrote the posts of Texpate in my dorm room, in my parents’ house, in bars, in cafeterias, in lecture halls, in friends’ apartments, in hotel rooms, in cafes, in airplanes, in the state capitol and in city hall. I posted content on my phone, at the beach, in the backseat of cars, while hiking, at the pool and — embarrassingly — at parties. I offered Texpatriate’s submissions to the Texas Progressive Alliance roundup on a whole array of Sunday mornings.

This was an integral part of my life, and it is weird to think how I will live without it, even already after six months of minimal updates. Looking toward the future, I likely have two more semesters of undergraduate education, and then will continue onto law school. All this is to say I still have some years before I officially enter the workforce. I might return to blogging, but I don’t want to make a promise about that. What I can promise is that I will be still be quite active in Houston and Texas politics; it just might take on different forms.

So thank you to my family, who got me interested in politics, taught me how to write and even came up with one of the greatest blog names I have ever seen.

Thank you to Andrew, George and Olivia for providing the backbone of this publication for so many years.

Thank you to Sophia and Simone for proving I’m not the youngest person in Houston interested in politics; I definitely learned as much from y’all as y’all did from me.

Thank you to Charles, Neil, Perry, Stace and Wayne for welcoming me into the Houston blogging community. Thank you to Greg for proving friends in blogging can still exist on the other side of the aisle. Thank you to Harold, Karl-Thomas, Ted, Trey and Vince, for welcoming me into the statewide blogging community, particularly at last year’s convention.

Most of all, thank you to you, the reader, for sticking with me through thick and thin for so long. It’s been one of the most preeminent privileges of my life to write this publication precisely because of you. I will always appreciate your support.

Advertisements

Magic Island nostalgia

This will be, for once on this publication, a rather non-political post. I had considered making this a lengthy Facebook comment, but figured a site such as this one would be the far more appropriate venue.

The Houston Chronicle has a terrific commemoration of “Magic Island,” the one-time dinner theater magic club located at Highway 59 and Greenbriar. The club/restaurant opened in the 1980s at the height of the pomp and ostentatious extravaganza that accompanied the oil boom. After years of decline, it closed its doors in 2008 following a fire caused by Hurricane Ike. Although it was supposed to reopen, that never ended up happening.

Magic Island piques an unique sense of nostalgia in me. Growing up, it was my absolute favorite place in the world. As a little kid, I went there twice with my family in fairly rapid succession; once for my grandfather’s 70th birthday and the other for — I think, at least — my brother being a National Merit finalist. I was five or six years old at the time, so everything was twice as big and twice as impressive. Anything that the adults may have found to be tacky or gaudy, I found absolutely mesmerizing and sensational. They must have had a good kids’ menu or something, because I always remembered the food with great fondness as well.

Then, for many years, we never went back. I get the feeling that, for my parents, the entire experience may have been forgettable, but not for me. When they would ask me, years later, where I would want to go to eat, in the whimsical way that parents always humor their children with decision-making responsibilities, I would invariably suggest Magic Island (well, there or Luby’s, but that’s a completely different story). It didn’t matter if it was a Saturday night right before Christmas or a Tuesday evening when everyone was just too tired to cook, my idea for sustenance would be Magic Island.

My romanticizing of the restaurant only increased as the years went on. Starting in the 4th grade, I began attending school at St. Stephen’s in Montrose. Every morning, as my dad would drive me to school on his way to work, we would exit 59 on the Greenbriar/Shepherd exit, and thus pass right by Magic Island without fail.

Magic Island became part of the legend that was Houston in my mind, one of the landmarks upon the pedestal I placed the city on. There was the big blue skyscraper, seemingly standing all by its lonesome, that my dad called “Transco” but my teacher called something else. There was the big white building, which almost looked abandoned, that my dad told me used to house this great newspaper, one that was bought and shuttered by its anti-intellectual competitor. Most importantly, there was Magic Island, the great infallible restaurant representing all that was perfect with Houston.

Finally, after eight long years, I went back (for another one of my grandfather’s birthdays). I was taller, wiser and more cynical. Everything looked a little sadder and everything looked a little cheaper. A few months later, Ike hit and the club closed its doors forever.

In some ways, I’m glad that I went back, but in other ways I wish I hadn’t. If there is anything that government, journalism and politics have all taught me, it’s that ignorance is truly — more than bliss — enviable. And my ignorance at five or six years old was, like most children, rather intense. In 2000, everything seemed invincible: myself, my family, my city. Magic Island, fittingly created during an era when everyone apparently believed the city was invincible, was a poignant representation of that.

Why I am backing Sylvester Turner

Since Texpatriate went dormant, I’ve realized a few things. One of them is that I no longer have to keep my cards close to the vest, so to speak, with respect to municipal elections until October. With that in mind, I want to explain some of my picks to lead Houston sooner rather than later (in this case, much sooner). By far the easiest pick, and one I basically determined a year ago, is State Representative Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, for mayor. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, he is the right person for the job. Briefly, I would like to explain why.

A little over a year ago, I had the privilege of sitting down with the frontrunners for mayor in lengthy interviews regarding city issues. What I noticed is that Turner and former Congressman Chris Bell, D-Houston, his main competitor, have totally different visions as mayor, despite not really diverging from one another too much in their political positions. Bell is obsessed with policy, whereas Turner is obsessed with the process. One might not think that a benefit for Turner, but his track record in the state legislature speaks for itself.

Turner has a wealth of experience that none of his opponents can even approach. With more than 25 years in the legislature, he has repeatedly proven himself to be a master of the rules and procedures that govern the State House. As the Vice-Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he wields a disproportionate amount of power for a member of the minority party, but he puts it to good use. Last session, he was particularly instrumental in killing a bad water bill and bringing about a much better, bipartisan alternative.

If elected, Turner would bring all that knowledge and experience to the 3rd floor of city hall, where he would no doubt be able to form an inclusive and more effective coalition to lead the city.

Perhaps most important, Turner would be the perfect successor for Mayor Annise Parker, who I think has been an overall positive mayor but has certainly had some hiccups along the way. The other candidates tend to characterize her as either infallible or the cause of everything wrong in the city, both of which are pretty silly overgeneralizing assertions.

Specifically, Turner would not only double down on Parker’s positive steps in the right direction on things such as LGBT rights, he would address the issues Parker did not, such as our crumbling roads or the impasse on the firefighters’ pensions. On the latter front, Turner has already been instrumental in brokering a good first step in that long process.

Accordingly, Turner is already being supported by not only some of Parker’s historical base, including parts of the LGBT community and inner-loop business Democrats, but by historical enemies as well. The Firefighter’s Union, obviously no friend of Parker’s, has already endorsed him, as have both the Police Officer’s Union and HOPE, the municipal employee’s union. Expect a plethora of other organizations to soon follow.

Furthermore, I’m not especially impressed with Turner’s competition. Given the growing polarization of politics and the toxicity of some state Republican principles, I do think it is important to have a Democrat as mayor. I also think that Turner, a native Houstonian, has a better connection to this city than some who, for example, was previously the mayor of another town. Turner is also brilliant; aside from his legislative accomplishments, he’s a gifted attorney who graduated from Harvard Law School.

Now, I wasn’t alive (even by Dan Patrick’s definition) in 1991, so I don’t have a personal recollection of the shenanigans that surrounded that election. Sadly, much of the electorate does. Channel 13 libeled Turner in such a slimy way back then, and it would cause me to lose all my respect for any of the other mayoral candidates if they brought up those discredited lies at some point throughout the campaign.

One of the biggest things I have learned about politics in the last year is that, in the absence of other skills and capabilities, being a policy wonk will not get you very far. That and a dollar will get you a coke. A successful mayor needs to also be an expert at the procedures and processes of government. The big stuff will follow, as I’m sure it will with Turner.

Accordingly, I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly endorse Sylvester Turner for mayor!

The two big things wrong with politics

I tried for a good ten minutes to find a title that briefly and succinctly describes our broken political reality without using any type of expletive; I failed. It goes without saying that, particularly at the national level, the red-versus-blue tribal mentality of the day is extraordinarily awful. I’ve been trying to figure out the underlying causes for a couple years now, and think I have finally zeroed in on two central ailments.

The first is an adulteration of sincere information, which runs hand-in-hand with the demonization of views that challenge one’s own. This, in my opinion, has by far the most deleterious consequences.

As I have noted repeatedly in a somewhat jovial manner, the degradation of the consumption of “healthy” information has been somewhat rapid in this state. Newspapers are shriveling, news radio stations are shuttering and local television news has largely been reduced to 30 minutes of shooting coverages and cats of the week. Make no mistake, this is not because of a lack of competent journalists in all mediums. It is because the average Texan — indeed, American — is far more comfortable getting his “news” from the television monitors at a gas station than in something he actually has to read. I purposefully say he because the problem is significantly worse with men.

However, apart from apathy on the part of the average citizen, many political inclined individuals have moved away from the fair arbiters of newspapers and other unbiased news sources. Fox News and MSNBC are rather trite examples, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Many blogs allow partisans to create a completely alternate universe where their fantasies can become reality –ever so briefly. For a liberal in Austin who got 100% of her politics from Burnt Orange Report or Addicting Info, perhaps there could have been genuine shock to the utter shellacking that Wendy Davis and the Democratic slate received in Texas last year.

However, to cast this issue as equally bad on both sides would be monstrously disingenuous. When it comes to blogs and other online sources that spin the truth or just make stuff up, nobody even comes close to the Tea Party. I’m friends on Facebook with a few rabble-rousers within those organizations, and I see no shortage of evocative headlines from sketchy sources littering their timeline. They are the political equivalent of the National Enquirer, though that would probably be an insult to the Enquirer for the 5% of stuff they don’t make up.

Take this recent article from “Next Generation Patriots” about a supposed report linking Hillary Clinton to the Benghazi terrorist attack once and for all. Nevermind that even the Republican committee that orchestrated the investigations have cleared the administration. This is a BOMBSHELL REPORT! Sadly, all too many people believe this drek, because somehow they have been deluded into thinking that these uber-partisan online tabloids are more reliable than actual newspapers. I am baffled and speechless.

Similarly, I saw a Facebook friend share this nearly year-old post from “America’s Freedom Fighters,” which alleges that the Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating the American government. At this point, I’m really at a loss for words. Are the authors of these sites actually delusional, like in a clinical way? Or do they just sit around a big room thinking of provocative things to completely lie about? And yet, individuals heavily involved in Tea Party causes, the 1% of the political process in this state, actually believe them and are influenced by them.

The decline of the information process has a companion in the elimination of robust opinion journalism. In my view, the harmful effects are comparable. We have become a nation of echo chamber dwelling simpletons, who become offended by anything that challenges our own preconceived notions.

For example, since the summer, I have served on the editorial board of The Daily Texan (one of the top 10 largest newspapers in the state), also serving as an editor for the opinion/editorial section. I like to think that the Texan runs our editorial content the way a reputable publication should. For the three semesters I have sat on the editorial board, our consensus opinion has been somewhat left-of-center, but we have always gone to lengths to ensure we have a plethora of conservative voices as columnists.

Sadly, few appear to appreciate this dedication to diversity in the editorial pages. The columns chock-full of liberal talking points get spread far-and-wide by like-minded individuals and groups; same for the conservative talking points. The few times I have shared columns that I disagreed with, but were particularly thought-provoking nonetheless, I faced nothing but derision by the “Tea Party Democrats” who incessantly accused me of being some type of horrendous political traitor who should be ashamed of myself.

Opinion content is not about validating all of your existent beliefs. Rather, it is about challenging your conventions. I have always been raised to believe if you cannot defend your views and positions against criticism and derision, they weren’t very good beliefs to begin with. With politics, that is especially true.

I subscribe to three magazines: The Atlantic, The Economist and Texas Monthly. If I had extra time and money, there would likely be others on that list, but those three in particular have always struck me as understanding how opinion content should work. They are unafraid to taking bold, new positions, and they defend these points with logic and reason remarkably well.

Particularly with the Economist, I found myself Freshman year of college disagreeing with a great deal of its content. The sophomoric juvenile in me wanted to just stop reading and retreat to the trite, backwards leftism of The Nation or Mother Jones —but the adult kept on reading. After a semester or two, two major developments had occurred in my political thought process. First, I had gotten a lot better at defending my tried-and-true liberal positions in the face of unwavering criticism. For example, the Economist is thoroughly skeptical of affirmative action, a program that I have always greatly supported. I like to think my defense of that position has been made more competent.

Second, and perhaps most important, some of my lousier political positions changed. Most notably, when I was in high school, I was a paleoliberal on topics such as free trade and protectionism. I opposed NAFTA. I favored silly, outdated things like tariffs and foolishly thought that such a course of action — say, by heavily taxing Japanese automobile imports —  could do things like pay down our deficit and assist in economic prosperity.

The more I did research inspired by those articles, the more I realized that free trade — arguably the Economist’s biggest trademark — is not an inherently bad idea. My introduction to economics class at Brandeis — a “saltwater school” in Boston, not a “freshwater school” in Chicago — corroborated this, and that was that.

Sadly, few people use opinion-based political content for such reasons anymore. All too often, it’s just used as a way to support what one already believes. Anything with which one disagrees with is immediately labeled heresy or worse.

The second, and admittedly probably less important, problem plaguing our political system is a total elimination of respect for authority. Let me clarify: I do not mean blind allegiance to one’s government or jingoistic patriotism or the like. Instead, I mean respecting the opinions of experts in their pertinent fields.

The most egregious example of this, in my opinion, is the Tea Party total adulteration of the word “constitutional.” In their topsy-turvy world, the constitution has taken on this divine power in which it is revered as a truly perfect piece of literature. “Look to the constitution” is the cliche that is the answer to nearly every single political quandary, much how “look to the Bible” is the trite retort for a proselytizing fundamentalist.

First, it goes without saying that the constitution is far from perfect (3/5ths compromise, anyone?), but the real issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of how we adjudicate disputes about the nation’s founding charter: the court system.

Even otherwise reasonable conservatives fall into this trap, quickly calling Obamacare some type of “unconstitutional” trainwreck. Most criticisms fall within the realm of one’s opinion, but the constitutionality of a law is not one of them. The Supreme Court explicitly upheld the crux of Obamacare’s constitutionality in 2012. By definition, that means it’s constitutional. I would say you’re supposed to learn about stuff like judicial review in the 11th grade, but the Oklahoma Legislature is definitely doing their best to prevent that.

The Tea Party, egged-on by those aforementioned political tabloids, has taken it upon themselves to usurp the judicial system’s authority to call something constitutional. To a lesser extent, the left has done this as well. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard a Democrat insist the campaign finance restrictions struck down in Citizens United were indeed “constitutional,” I could’ve bought an extra Dr Pepper at lunch today. You might disagree with the decision (I do), but, by definition, it’s not constitutional. My father, an attorney, made a point of teaching me that lesson in 2008 after the District of Columbia v. Heller case. If 14 year-old Noah can understand, you can too!

Sadly, the distrust of lawyers on legal matters is not the only example of such willful ignorance. Teachers have lost their ability to teach children without criticism and, of course, doctors and other medical professionals are accused of not knowing better than parents on medical knowledge. This was recently exemplified by the recent brouhaha over vaccines.

These deleterious beliefs of one’s superiority over everyone and anyone — no matter how knowledgeable or qualified on pertinent issues — have penetrated even ostensibly professional quarters of our society. I recently found Greg Groogan, a reporter for the local Fox affiliate, promulgating that exact type of hooey, specifically on the vaccine issue. (If you want to have some fun, check out the succeeding conversation on Twitter. I called him out, and he went off on me in especially sanctimonious and patronizing way. This, from someone who just straight-up fabricated stuff during the last mayoral election.)

This was a little more longwinded than I was going for, but those are what I believe to be the two most harmful impediments to a functional political system that we currently face. I fully admit I have broken these rules myself on a variety of occasions, but I have recently been trying my best to follow them.

A little bit of housekeeping

As you may have noticed, posts on this publication have become less and less frequent in recent months. This reflects a changing reality for me, and a transition when it comes to some of my priorities. Don’t worry, this isn’t the “End of Texpatriate” obituary; rather, it is a admittance that this blog no longer can function the way it did in 2013, when we had 3 active contributors and at least 3 articles per day, if not more.

While the Texpatriate Editorial Board is still extant, its membership has been truncated and its activity has been rather dormant. I can’t really imagine that changing, in all honesty.

For at least the remainder of this academic semester, I will not be opining about national or state politics on this blog. I might break that rule is something really big happens, but probably not. When it comes to local politics, I will do my best to interject a fresh opinion every now and then, but I just do not have the time to report on breaking news in a timely fashion. When I first started Texpatriate, I often made a point of urging readers not to use the publication for first-hand news. That principle is as true now as ever. The Houston Chronicle, despite my myriad critiques, truly does yeoman’s work in reporting local political stories. Their newest addition to that beat, Teddy Schleifer, is particularly talented.

Since I started college (which, not coincidentally, is when I started this blog), I have been involved with the  newspaper on campus. At Brandeis that was The Justice and here at UT-Austin that is The Daily Texan. I am currently the Senior Associate Editor at the Texan, which essentially means that I am an overseer of the editorial section as well as have a few side projects of my own.

If you’re still interested in what I have to say on state politics, I actually do edit and contribute to another blog at the Texan, named “A Matter of Opinion.” I write 2-3 posts a week there, all about state politics, and my colleagues also contribute stellar analyses. Further, I pen most all of the editorials pertaining to legislative and political topics, which run most every day. Finally, I also host a radio show (in Austin) on KVRX every Monday at 4:00 PM, predominantly about state politics, which is recorded and uploaded online as a podcast. For copyright reasons, I cannot post the actual content on this publication.

If you are so inclined, please consider checking it out. The Texan is the only college newspaper in the state that actually produces serious political content — news and editorial — that becomes part of the conversation with some frequency. I have been honored to get the opportunities I have there, but running this blog may have been one of the greatest honors of all. Thank you all for reading, and please come back!

In the shadow of the Tower

I have five classes on Tuesdays. Combined with some shuffling back and forward to my office at The Daily Texan (speaking of which, I recently received a new title there), this meant a full day of walking around campus. By my estimations, I walked past the Main Mall, just in front of the Tower, about a half dozen times. One such time was a little past 11:45 in the morning, as I was leaving Astronomy and (unsuccessfully) attempting to not be late to Japanese Politics. About 48 1/2 years ago, at that exact time, I would have been in the crosshairs of a psychopathic sniper named Charles Whitman, who had barricaded himself at the top of the observation deck and started shooting at random, murdering 17 people in all that day.

Now, as the Houston Chronicle reports, legislators are determined to liberalize gun laws on college campuses all around the states, including at UT-Austin. Specifically, 19 of the 20 Republicans in the state senate co-sponsored SB11, which would do exactly that (the one exception was State Senator Joan Huffman (R-Harris County)). It would mainly allow concealed handgun license (CHL) holders to bring the weapons to campuses.

I wrote somewhat extensively about this topic throughout the 83rd Legislature. In a wonderful example of how much things can change in just two years, I was opining back then all the way from Boston, instead of actually on the 40 acres. At the time, the bill passed the House but got lost in the Senate. Since that does not look to happen again this time, I would say get ready for this horrendous proposal to get enacted into law.

The reason I reference the Tower sniper attack in my introduction is not to suggest that this will open the floodgates to more mass shootings. Rather, it is to demonstrate the futility of such a proposal. Say, for example, one of the students had a legally concealed handgun. The likelihood of him or her effectively firing at the top of the tower and subduing Whitman would have been quite low.

The Daily Texan has an editorial, coming to print tomorrow morning, that addresses most of the other points on “Guns on Campus” one way or another, but the main argument remains the same: this is a spectacularly bad idea. As time goes on, I will continue to closely follow these bills.

In other news, the Texas Tribune reports that Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has announced that the “Open Carry” proposals currently do not have the votes to move the legislation. He also implied to the Tribune that other priorities would likely come first. This has drawn the ire of right-wing grassroots.

Texpatriate endorses in Probate Courts

Editorial note: James Horwitz, the father of Editorial Board member Noah M. Horwitz, is the Democratic candidate for Probate Court No. 4. While we have sent questions to both candidates and will be publishing a completed questionnaire by James Horwitz, we have decided to not offer an endorsement in or otherwise cover that race between him and incumbent Judge Christine Butts, a Republican.

Picture

One of the candidates for these courts always opens his remarks by noting that the Probate Courts hold a special place for the residents of Harris County. Ideally, one will never have to experience the process of Criminal Courts as a victim, witness or defendant. Likewise, with squabbles over money at Civil Courts or divorce at Family Courts. But every person close to you, and then yourself, will eventually die. The Probate Courts serve as a legal bookend for this inevitability, presiding over the distribution of an individual’s estate. They also deal with guardianship and mental health hearings.

Obviously, compassion and expertise is needed for these benches. Dealing with the elderly and deceased is an obviously sensitive subject that requires restrained jurists, willing to always hold themselves with integrity and respect. This board has found a number of key policy disagreements that we have with the incumbent Republican judges. In the three contest we will make a pick in, we choose the three Democrats.

First and foremost, we have been disturbed to see the cozy relationship — one that hovers around the line of impropriety — that judges take in recruiting and appointing ad litems. These coveted positions should not merely be the product of a spoils system between officeholders and their political friends, but should reflect the best and brightest of the legal system.

Probate Courts are also renowned for having somewhat light dockets. Compared to their absolutely swamped colleagues at the Criminal Court, these courts have comparably few cases. In fact, a compelling point could be made to reduce the number of courts, saving the County and its taxpayers money, if some simple and fiscally prudent actions are taken. First, in disputed probate matters, the Courts should rely more on mandatory mediation before full court proceedings are initialized. The practice is already commonplace in Family Courts, and could have the effect of significantly reducing the case load.

Furthermore, only the Democratic candidates have been vocal about the need to provide education throughout the county on the importance of probate planning. The families of those who die with a valid will can often wrap up their court experience somewhat rapidly. Comparably, the families of those who die intestate (that is, without a will) take up a far bigger portion of the court’s time. Quite literally, the amount of court time saved by implementing such policies could put these candidates out of a job if courts are consolidated. But these candidates aren’t merely looking for a paycheck from Harris County, they’re looking to help the residents of Harris County.

Finally, perhaps most importantly, this board has looked for open-minded candidates for these courts. In the next few years, unique conundrums will likely arise in these courts, such as the question of a common-law married same sex couple. For example, if two men who were legally married in another state (a union, therefore, currently recognized by the Federal Government) were residing in Texas, and one such man died without a will, would the court consider recognizing his husband as his common-law spouse? State ethical rules, of course, prohibit candidates from publicly opining on such issues, but we have tried our best to find candidates who would approach this conundrum ethically and compassionately.

COUNTY PROBATE COURT #1
Judge Loyd Wright, seeking a second term in office, has done a passable job on the bench. A Republican, the Houston Chronicle thought the most impressive action from his first term was getting a staff member to answer the court’s phone during business hours. I guess this is a good thing, but those are some pretty comically low standards. Harris County simply deserves better.

Wright has also made a point of not separating partisanship from the bench. From his official online social media accounts, he often espouses divisive political rhetoric that has little to do with the administration of probate courts. Tropes over the supposed “cultural war” and quotes galore from Rush Limbaugh line the page. Now, unless the infamous shock-jock has made some recent comments we are not aware of pertaining to wills and trusts, this is just inappropriate.

His Democratic opponent, Kim Hosel, is herself a tremendously experienced attorney who would not make the same mistakes. Impartial and compassionate, we have no doubt that Hosel would be a superior judge in all the issues we delineated above: ad litems, mediation, education and open-mindedness.

Accordingly, this board endorses Kim Hoesl for County Probate Judge #1.

COUNTY PROBATE COURT #2
Judge Mike Wood, a six-term incumbent, is a very well versed and qualified jurist. A former President of the National College of Probate Judges, he is uniquely situated to lead the court. Once again, if your number one goal is stability in the court and an efficient docket, we have no choice but to recommend Wood, a Republican, for re-election. He is a good judge who has, and would continue to, serve Harris County well.

But his opponent is also remarkably qualified. Serving both as a Municipal Judge in Houston (on two different occasions), as well as a Civil District Judge, Josefina Rendon, a Democrat, has more than 30 years of experience on the bench. If there is anyone who would have even more experience in the courthouse than Wood, it might just be Rendon.

In addition to her tremendous experience, Rendon also strikes us as the right choice on those same contentious issues. While in office as a Civil District Judge, her courtroom was a model of ethical behavior, among other praises. She has also pledged to seek out mediation with more vigor and work toward educational goals in the community. Both of which are admirable aspirations worthy of our support.

Accordingly, this board endorses Josefina Rendon for County Probate Court #2.

COUNTY PROBATE COURT #3
We do not often go out of our way to speak ill of a public servant. Thus, in most of these contentious judicial races, we will have good things to say even about the candidate we choose not to endorse. Unfortunately, this race is simply not one of them. Judge Rory Olsen, a Republican, seeking his fifth term on the bench, has morphed into the epitome of what is referred to in courtroom politics as “black robe syndrome.” Rude, abrasive and petty with counsel —  especially those he may have a political disagreement therewith — all too often, Olsen has figuratively transformed his courtroom into a personal fiefdom. By losing the respect of those we must practice law with, Olsen has lost much of his legitimacy as a judge.

His Democratic opponent, on the other hand, Jerry Simoneaux, is a true breath of fresh air. A longtime probate attorney, Simoneaux has many years of experience as both an attorney in private practice and as staffing attorney for a Probate Court. With valuable experience on both the inside and the outside oft he process, we have no doubt that Simoneaux would be ready to lead on day one. Further, we have every reason to believe that Simoneaux would otherwise be an ethical, compassionate and intellectual jurist. He’s beyond the shadow of a doubt the right choice.

Accordingly, this board endorses Jerry Simoneaux for County Probate Court #3.

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.