The aftermath

The blue wave hit Harris County (and even our suburban neighbors to the southwest) yesterday. The Democrats swept every county-wide seat, including all of the county civil and criminal benches, the family court benches, the juvenile court benches and every district court bench up for election.

Today should be an interesting day at the courthouse.

Yesterday's results will likely mean an end to the county's lawsuit to fight bail reform. If you'll recall, 14 of the 15 Republican judges were fighting to preserve a system by which poor defendants were coerced into pleading guilty in order to get out of jail. Only Darrell Jordan and Mike Fields, the two African-American judges in the misdemeanor courts, chose the honorable route.

I am sure we will hear quite a bit from a couple of the ousted judges about how much of a revolving door the courts have become since US District Judge Lee Rosenthal issued her ruling. When you hear it, just remember the source.

The judges fighting the lawsuit have cost Harris County over $6 million so far. But, hey, they are all white Republicans and it wasn't their money they were spending.

And, yes, there were some good judges who will be stepping down at the end of the year. But so fucking what? Not one of them was elected because the folks of Harris County thought they were or would be excellent jurists. Not one of them was elected because they presented voters with a vision of how the courts should operate. They took their seats on the bench because they happened to have an R after their name in an election in which the Republican at the top of the ballot won in Harris County.

For every one of these good judges, there was plenty of jetsam and flotsam. As imperfect as our system of selecting judges is in Texas, it certainly beats any of the alternatives. Party affiliations cut down on corruption in the general election because candidates don't have to raise large sums of money (in fact, a judicial candidate doesn't need to spend a dime after winning the primary because he or she will get about the same percentage of the vote as the candidate at the top of the ballot for their party).

I don't think there is anyone who seriously thinks a better system would be to allow the governor to appoint judges who would stand for periodic retention elections.

Good luck to the new judges and may y'all be lamented as good judges done wrong should the pendulum swing back to the right.

To what depths will they plunge?

There were a number of things I was thinking of writing about today, but when I saw this flyer in my mailbox there was no way I couldn't write about it.

Stan Stanart is the Harris County Clerk. He is a very inconsequential man. He is nothing more than a hack with an R after his name who was fortunate enough to run in an off-year election in which white republican voters from the suburbs voted en masse because they had a problem with a black man living in the White House.

The front of this mailer reads "EMERGENCY NOTICE." It is designed to look like an official piece of mail - it even has a generic seal with a lone star to hint at the seal of his office.

My favorite line is that democratic turnout has exceeded that of prior years. Let's be honest, there is no way to know that because no one has counted the votes as of yet. While it's a very good bet that the democratic turnout within the city has been high, there is no way to verify that claim (unless ol' Stan's been peeking at the results).

Mr. Stanart tells the old white ladies that voter protections are in danger if he loses the election. He warns that there could be voter fraud, intimidation and lack of transparency if a democrat wins the race for County Clerk.

Now this is where republican candidates such as Mr. Stanart try to spin reality on its head. The only voter intimidation going on in Harris County right now are photo ID requirements that are reminiscent of the poll tax. For instance, his office insists on denying college students the right to vote with their student IDs but folks can use their concealed handgun license as a form of ID to get a ballot.

The ad is misleading. It is designed to stoke fear. And, most importantly, Mr. Stanart is lying.

That is all.

The biggest loser

14,278.

That's the number of votes Republican judicial hopeful Brad Hart lost to incumbent Judge Maria Jackson this past November.

The voters of Harris County spoke and they rejected Mr. Hart's effort to move up to the 14th floor at 1201 Franklin from the 4th floor.

I've had a couple of cases over the years with Mr. Hart. He was always very reasonable to work with. He seemed to be the model of a career prosecutor (and I don't mean that in a bad way). His trademark was cutting to the chase. He didn't waste your time with a bunch of bullshit.

But then something funny happened. Judge Belinda Hill announced to the world that she was taking a top job with the DA's office. Even though her new job opportunity made her sitting on the bench the very definition of the appearance of a conflict of interest, there she sat because she couldn't step down until Gov. Goodhair appointed a new judge.

Well, actually she could announce her resignation from the bench but that resignation couldn't take effect until a new judge was appointed. Jacqueline Smith in the civil courthouse found that out the hard way when she tried to quit during the middle of her term to take a job with a white shoe firm downtown but was told that she had to listen to lawyers arguing until someone got around to finding someone else to take her place.

But I digress.

The other day Rick Perry appointed a new judge for the 230th Judicial District Court. Brad Hart.

So, while my colleague Murray is nursing his man-crush of the latest prosecutor cum judge, it's up to me to point out what's wrong with the appointment.

Gov. Perry pretty much told the voters of Harris County to go screw themselves by appointing a person who lost in November to ascend to the bench. Perry's move is a slap in the face to this little thing we call democracy. This also makes it painfully obvious that those who propose that we change our system of selecting judges from popular vote to appointments and retention elections haven't the slightest clue as to what they're talking about.

This is just the thing that the authors of the 1876 Texas Constitution did their best to prevent. As a result of Reconstruction, that document designed a decentralized government with most of the power resting with the citizenry. But what Gov. Perry has done is subvert the will of the people.

And before y'all jump up and scream that down ballot races are largely determined by straight ticket voting at the top, the fact remains that that is the system we have and that's the system we used last November. A good many Republican candidates for judge were banking on voters in the suburbs turning out in large numbers to vote for Mitt Romney. Unfortunately for them, the turnout in the city was enough to overcome the GOP votes in the county and they did not sweep into office.

But Rick Perry and his minions don't care about elections. They don't care about anything other than advancing their right wing philosophy which includes packing the courts with as many Republicans and conservatives as possible.

If we did away with popular elections whoever the governor appointed would sit on the bench until they got tired of doing so because retention elections have become the next best thing to lifetime appointments. All retention elections do is encourage large law firms to pump more and more money into judicial races creating nothing but conflicts of interest in the courthouse.

And, with the pending appointment of a judge to replace Joan Campbell in the 248th, I suppose we could just browse the names of Republican candidates who were rejected by the voters to determine who Gov. Goodhair will select.

Because the will of the people means nothing to him.

Book review: Billionaires and ballot bandits

Greg Palast's latest book Billionaires and Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps is a primer in how the ruling class goes about disenfranchising millions of Americans every year in order to prevent their voices from being heard.

These days elections are stolen by stuffing ballot boxes with phony votes like in Chicago or down in the Valley. Elections are stolen by preventing people from voting in the first place.

Conservative politicians masquerading as election officials have used dubious methods of eliminating folks from the voting rolls. In Florida the lists of voters being "scrubbed" from the rolls included the race of the voter. Anyone who had a name similar to anyone who had been convicted of a felony offense was placed on Florida's list. And no one bothered telling the voter. They would only find out if they showed up at the polling place and asked why they weren't allowed to cast a ballot.

Anyone who showed up to vote whose name had been removed from the rolls was handed a provisional ballot that was placed in a separate envelope - maybe to be counted and maybe not.

Voters in Ohio who showed up on the final Sunday of early voting found themselves standing in long lines as the state consolidated polling stations in black and working class neighborhoods. While standing in line they were handed not actual ballots, but applications for absentee ballots. They weren't voting absentee. And, if any of the information they filled out on the application didn't match the information the voting officials had - guess where that ballot was going.

Back when I went with my mom to vote we still had the machines with the curtain and the levers. Then we had ballots that we marked with special pens. Then came the punch card ballots. Now we have electronic voting machines with proprietary software that no one is allowed to examine (hmm, sounds like one of those breath test machines, doesn't it?). Ever try to conduct a recount of bits and bytes in the hard drive of a computer? Guess what? There's no such thing. Yes, technology is a wonderful thing (sometimes), but not when it comes at the price of eliminating the opportunity to recount the actual ballots.

And then we come to the voter ID laws across the country. These new laws were the brainchild of the American Legislative Exchange Counsel - otherwise known as ALEC - a business lobby that drafts model bills for its "friends" in legislatures across the country. The clear intent of these laws was to discourage voters and to prevent immigrants, the poor and the elderly from exercising their constitutional right to vote.

It's not just about Republicans trying to steal elections from Democrats (though having the Ohio Secretary of State proclaim that the new voter ID law was going to deliver Ohio for Romney spoke volumes). The Republicans and Democrats are opposite sides of the same coin. The Democrats may speak out about the economic policies of the Republicans but they get so much of their money from Wall Street and corporate executives that their proposals are more window dressing than actual policy differences.

The reason to remove folks from the voting rolls is to prevent the disenfranchised from voicing their displeasure with our political and economic system. The politicians know that those voices will be marginalized and that their votes won't count. They know they can go right on along doing what they've been doing to make it easier for corporations and the wealthy to accumulate ever greater sums of wealth while polluting the environment and lowering living conditions for everyone else.

Billionaires and Ballot Bandits will make you think twice about our "one dollar-one vote" electoral system. And that's a good thing.

A few thoughts on the morning after

Despite their best efforts, election officials in Ohio and Florida failed to suppress enough votes to prevent Barack Obama from being re-elected. In Ohio, early voting was curtailed and polling places were almost non-existent in minority communities. Minority voters were handed applications for provisional ballots and John Husted, the Secretary of State, informed local officials that if a provisional ballot was handed in without the voter filling in all of the requested information, the ballot was not to be counted.

Down in Florida the gang in charge of the state house also limited the availability of early voting and provided so few early voting sites in minority neighborhoods that voters stood in line for six hours or more to vote.

Now that the most expensive campaign in American history is over we can all take a deep breath and see that everything's the same this morning as it was yesterday. We can also look back over the past four years and look forward to more attacks on our privacy in the name of security. We can look forward to another four years of government prosecution of whistle blowers who provide information that embarrasses those in power. We can look forward to another four years of drone warfare and extrajudicial killings of civilians abroad. We can look forward to another four years of economic policies designed to benefit big banks and large corporations at the expense of the working class and poor. We can look forward to another four years of having insurance companies make our health care decisions for us. We can look forward to another four years of coddling dictators who sit on vast reserves of oil.

Of course it could have been worse.

In Texas we can look forward to another four years of Judge Sharon Killer Keller sitting on the Court of Criminal Appeals still none the worse for wear after doing everything in her power to prevent Michael Richard's attorneys from filing an appeal to prevent his execution. The state Democratic Party had an opportunity to hand the GOP a defeat in a statewide race and whiffed completely. The party left its nominee, Keith Hampton, to dangle in the wind with no support whatsoever.

In Harris County it looks as though the urban vote will carry President Obama to a slight victory, but his coattails weren't as long this time around as they were four years ago. Most of the judicial races are tight - within a percentage point or two - but it looks as if the Republicans will take back some of the benches they lost in 2008. One notable exception appears to be the least competent judge at 1201 Franklin - Ruben Guerrero.

Mike Anderson, as expected, defeated Lloyd Oliver by the largest margin of the night. Mr. Anderson will take the office back to the future with his plans to pursue convictions in trace cases (cases in which the amount of dope found was less than .01 of a gram). This means more folks will be sitting in jail awaiting trial and more folks will end up with drug convictions for possessing a less-than-usable amount. We still don't know where the money will come from to pay for housing more defendants or how the county is going to afford to ship more inmates to other counties. But, then, those are just details and Mr. Anderson is bringing back the Good Ol' Boy network.

The election of Mike Anderson will also bring about an end to Pat Lykos' controversial (and illegal) DIVERT program for first-time DWI offenders. I would like to know if this means a return to the days of time served and a fine for DWI or if defendants will continue to be given a choice of 30 days in jail or probation on a first offense. One thing that can be assured is the number of DWI cases going to trial will increase as defendants realize they have nothing to lose by going to trial.

I'm also curious how many of our former prosecutors cum defense attorneys (who all announced how much they admired what we did and wanted to be like us) will return to the office now that Ms. Lykos will no longer be occupying the sixth floor.

A little food for thought on Election Day 2012

Here are a few things to think about on this election day...

Is there any reason to keep the antiquated Electoral College system for choosing the president? Back when the Constitution was penned there was a fear among folks from smaller states that the larger states would dominate when it came to picking a president if everyone's vote counted the same. It's the reason the House is apportioned by population and the Senate by state.

Well, as anyone who has followed the campaign this year knows, both President Obama and Mitt Romney pretty much ignored the entire country with the exception of about eight states. If you live in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Iowa or a handful of other states then you've gotten an earful and an eyeful from both candidates - but, if you live in Texas or California or New York, you wouldn't even know there was a presidential campaign going on.

With this election so dependent on a small number of voters, most of us will (or have) cast ballots that are all but meaningless when it comes to choosing the President. What is the incentive for someone in Texas or California or New York to vote when it's not going to count? How democratic is it for such a small number of voters to determine who prevails in an election?

Our problem today is the opposite of the problem at the founding of the republic. No longer are we concerned with the large states dictating who's in power at the expense of the smaller states. Now the large states are at the mercy of the smaller states.

The time is now to abolish the Electoral College and allow the popular vote to determine who sits in the White House.

***

Down here in the Lone Star State it appears that Gov. Rick Perry and his band of merry minions have been doing their damnedest to keep blacks and Latinos from voting tomorrow. The first salvo was the requirement that a voter have a state-issued ID before being allowed to vote.

Way back when I was an election judge in my precinct and folks who wanted to vote needed one of three things. Their voter registration card was as good as gold at the polling station. If they didn't have their card then a driver's license could them a spot in a voting booth. If they had neither then they had to sign an affidavit swearing that they were who they said they were. Those votes could be challenged so they were put in a separate box. The system worked fine.

In the last two weeks, the merry minions launched their second salvo -- they began purging folks from the voter rolls they believed were dead. If someone had a similar name and the same date of birth as a dead person, they were sent a letter (supposedly) asking for proof that they were living in the material world.

The state ran the voter list against the Social Security Administration's death list and whacked some 6,491 voters from the official roster - including one James Harris, Jr., an Air Force vet who has voted in every election since the days of Richard Nixon. The only problem is that Mr. Harris was very much alive.

How many other living folks were stricken from the voter rolls because someone in Austin thought they were someone else? How many people are going to get to their polling station this morning and find out that they don't get to vote because someone in Austin thought they were dead?

The State of Florida tried to purge their voter rolls as well. In Florida they were looking for non-citizens. They struck voters who had similar names or dates of birth to those on a State Department list. And, as it just so happens, just about all of the people they were targeting were Latino.

It's all part of the ruling classes attempt to limit dissent in this country. By reducing the number of poor and immigrant voters on the rolls, the Republicrats and Democans are able to shut out any viable third party alternatives and keep themselves in power.

***

Texas has been a red state for quite some time now (I do find it tastefully ironic that the Republicans are symbolized by the color red). Democratic candidates stand little or no chance of prevailing in a statewide race thanks to the demographics of the state.

One area, however, that Grits for Breakfast thinks is ripe for the taking are seats on the Court of Criminal Appeals. Keith Hampton has the best shot of any candidate of taking a seat for the Democrats. His target is the embattled Presiding Judge Sharon Killer Keller. For those of y'all who don't remember, Judge Keller closed the clerk's office to prevent Michael Richard's attorneys from filing a last minute appeal on the night of his scheduled execution - even though she wasn't the judge assigned to the case.

But even though she presents the best target for Democrats to win a statewide race, the Democratic Party just can't be bothered to spend any money to support Mr. Hampton's candidacy. Whether that decision results from the heads of the state party being brain dead or from the lack of interest of the national party (since Romney will keep Texas in the red column) isn't known.

What is known is that Sharon Keller has no business sitting on a bench in which she makes life or death decisions. If you haven't already, please vote for Keith Hampton.

Stealing a paperless election

If you voted early in Harris County - and a record number of y'all did - then you got to play with the electronic gizmo with the wheel and the select button (a little bit like that machine at HEB that the kids pop in their "Buddy Bucks").

But what happens if there is a need for a recount? How do you recount bits and bytes in a computer? How do you know that the selection you thought you made on the screen is the same as the selection that was sent through the cables to the server?

Voting equipment is made by private companies who have ties with one of the political parties. The software that operates the system is proprietary. The machines are tested before a county purchases them, but they way they work is kept secret (much like the Intoxilyzer).

In the old days of punch cards and optical scanners there was a paper ballot that could be examined if necessary to determine who won a particular race. Sometimes the results from the hand recount (of the actual ballots) differed from the results of the machine that read the ballots. Sometimes it made a difference and sometimes it didn't.

We will never really know who won the 2000 Presidential election after the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the hand recount. We will never really know who won the 2004 election because the state of Ohio used a computerized system that left no paper trail.

We've all had computers crash and cell phones die and VCR's and DVR's that didn't record when they were supposed to. Do you put so much faith in electronics that you are willing to let machines decide who wins the Presidential election?

Without a paper trail it's all too easy for the ruling classes to steal an election without anyone else being the wiser.

Brother, can you spare a bill or two?

I received a mailer a few days ago - well, actually a few weeks ago - from a sitting family court judge who was holding a fundraiser not too far from my office. Why, you might ask, is this newsworthy? That is a good question.

I live and work (for the most part) in Houston which is in Harris County. The judge in question sits on a bench in Montgomery County (hop on the freeway and head north). Now why would a judge in Montgomery County hold a fundraiser in another county? That question kept coming up in my mind.

None of the attorneys (probably a safe assumption that the recipients of the mailer were attorneys) lived in Montgomery County. None of the attorneys are eligible to vote in Montgomery County. But I would say it's a good bet that each of the attorneys has handled at least one case in that judge's court.

Which raises the question of why an attorney in one county would be persuaded to write a check to the campaign of a judge in another county. Could it possibly be the perception that the judge would look more kindly upon those attorneys who "made it rain?"

And what might give someone that impression? Surely judges don't give preferential treatment to attorneys who line their pockets during campaign season. Surely no attorney would give a campaign contribution to a judge in the hopes that it might curry him some favor down the road.

But why else would a Houston attorney give money to a Montgomery County family court judge who's also a deadbeat dad?

Our method of picking judges here in Texas is certainly flawed. There is something just a bit unseemly about attorneys making campaign contributions to judge in whose courtrooms they practice. There's something very unsettling about watching judicial candidates portray themselves as being tougher on crime (whatever that means) and more conservative than the person sitting next to them. It's just plain asinine for entire slates of judges to be elected (or tossed out) because they have an R or a D after their name.

Of course, electing them is the least worst alternative.

My two cents on the contested GOP primary races

Since I don't even know where the Republicans hold their klaverns primaries around here you won't find me behind a curtain casting any votes for the wingnuts, but, as a public service, I have taken a look at who's running for the Harris County criminal benches this time around.

Being that I don't see President Obama carrying Harris County this year like he did four years ago, it is very likely that the winners of the Republican primary will be sitting on the bench come January.

So, here we go...

174th Judicial District

Here we have a match-up between a current prosecutor, Joe Vinas, and a former prosecutor, Robert Summerlin. According to Mr. Vinas' website, he's been with the District Attorney's Office for the last 13 years, the last nine as a prosecutor. Mr. Summerlin, on the other hand, actually has some experience outside the DA's office as he has been in private practice since 2003.

While I don't care for Mr. Summerlin promoting himself as a conservative judge who will be tough, at least he has worked on both sides of the aisle - and that is always a plus.

177th Judicial District

Once again we have a prosecutor, Ryan Patrick, squaring off against a defense attorney, Anthony Benavides. Mr. Patrick went to work at 1201 Franklin right out of law school and has absolutely no experience doing anything other than trying to take away the liberty of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Benavides worked for a year as a prosecutor in Corpus Christi before moving to Houston to open up his own criminal defense practice. As a practicing defense attorney, Mr. Benavides understands what a defendant has to go through in court - he also has an appreciation for the great disadvantage one has as a defendant in Harris County.

Besides, Ryan Patrick's dad is the ultimate wing nut State Senator Dan Patrick - does there need to be any other reason not to vote for him?

179th Judicial District

Either Kristin Guiney or Lana Shadwick will be taking over the 179th in January. Mr. Guiney worked for the DA's Office and now handles indigent defense - which means she relies on appointments. But at least she's seen life outside the DA's office.

 Her opponent, Murray Newman's favorite prosecutor, Ms. Shadwick has worked as a prosecutor, an associate family judge and a municipal court judge. I don't know if working in the den of corruption that the Family Law Center is or as an automaton at 1400 Lubbock is really something I'd be advertising if I were running for a real bench.

So here is one race on which Murray and I agree - Ms. Guiney is the better choice (and couldn't possibly be worse than the person she'd be replacing).

337th Judicial District

Now here's a fun race: a candidate who was once removed from the bench for misconduct, Jim Barr, versus a career prosecutor, Renee Magee. Hey, at least Mr. Barr has been practicing a little criminal defense work over the last decade.

I think I'd vote for Mr. Barr just to fuck with the Republican establishment. Neither one of these two are qualified to sit on the bench, but one of them will in January. I just can't stomach the thought of yet another career prosecutor moving to the Judicial Division of the DA's Office.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

What a shock. The day after the local police unions announce they will not endorse current Harris County DA Pat Lykos in the upcoming election, former judge Mike Anderson announces his entry in the race.

Let the games begin...

A little election post-mortem

In light of the Republican sweep of the judicial races in Galveston County, we once again hear calls for non-partisan judicial elections. Those calls, by and large, come from the folks who came up on the short end of the stick.

Sure, there are some folks who will be sitting on the bench who have no business doing so all because they had an "R" after their name. Of course, there are other folks sitting on the bench who have no business doing so because they a "D" after their name. There are also quite a few folks who are well-qualified to sit on the bench who aren't because of the letter after their name.

What's the alternative to partisan judicial elections, I ask you? There is little a judicial candidate can say on the campaign trail other than they will follow the law and will treat everyone who comes before them with respect. They can talk about their experience and why they're are more qualified to sit on the bench than their opponent, but, outside those attorneys that do their work inside the courtroom, it's an abstraction.

What is most important is that the the political process be fair and transparent. And that judges abandon the politics in the courtroom and chambers. I believe most judges of both parties do their job without regard to politics regardless how they were chosen. I have been elected in a partisan election and lost an election in a partisan primary...I prefer contested elections because I believe the people have the right to choose their state and county judges...Even when my party  or I lose an election I  support the process. The people have the right to choose even  when I disagree with their choice. I  do not have a problem with the partisan process. Partisan primaries are a screening process. I think even  less people would participate in non-partisan elections...Each time lawyers and judges that were aligned with the losing party complained after the loss about the partisan part of the process claiming unqualified judges were elected. The truth is many qualified and unualified people get elected to benches and other offices every election year. Elected judges are not guaranteed infinite job security  in exchange for doing a good job.And sometimes the most qualified applicant does not get the apppointment. No sytem guarantees that that the best person always wins. The system is not flawed just because our party or favorite candidate or applicant does not win.

-- Judge Susan Criss, 212th Judicial District Court, Galveston County, Texas.

In a non-partisan election judicial candidates would have to educate the public about why they should sit on the bench. That means money - and lots of it. And who are the biggest campaign contributors to judicial candidates? It shouldn't surprise you that they are the attorneys who appear in their courts. If you want more special interest money and a handful of ethical dilemmas, make judges run without party affiliation.

Appointing judges is a non-starter in Texas. We don't trust the government any further than we can throw it. Texans wanted a weak state government so they chose to elect judges after Reconstruction.

Retention elections aren't the answer. Talk about a cesspool of special interest money. Judges would be, in essence, running against themselves. What percentage of the vote would be required for a judge to retain a bench? And what would happen if a judge failed to achieve that percentage? Would there be a special election to pick a judge or would we allow the governor to appoint someone to sit on the bench?

I think Judge Criss hit it on the head with her comments on her Facebook page. Partisan elections might not be the best method of picking judges, but it sure beats the alternatives.

Tool to help you find the polls

Today is election day and if you haven't voted and don't know where to go, the Harris County Clerk's Office election website can help. Just put in your name, your address or your precinct number and you'll find out exactly where to go.

Muscling in at the polls

Voters in several minority precincts in Harris County have complained of being harassed while trying to cast their votes in early voting. The County Attorney's Office received 14 complaints on the first day of early voting for the November 2 general election.

The complaints came from Kashmere Gardens, Moody Park, Sunnyside and other predominantly minority neighborhoods. The complaints included poll watchers "hovering over" voters, "getting into election workers' faces" and blocking or disrupting lines of voters waiting to cast their ballots. -- Terry O'Rourke, First Assistant Harris County Attorney

True the Vote, a group associated with the Tea Party and going by the moniker King Street Patriots, promised before the election that they would be on hand to challenge check voters' credentials at the polls. While the attorney for the King Street Patriots denies the members are poll watchers, he doesn't deny the group was out at the polls carrying out their threat promise.

The right to vote is precious and shouldn't be taken lightly - and neither should the efforts of those attempting to prevent citizens from exercising their civic duty.

See also:
"Voter intimidation complaints get second look," KTRK-13 (Oct. 19, 2010)

An open request to the candidates for Harris County District Attorney

Dear Mr. Bradford and Ms. Lykos,

 

My name is Paul B. Kennedy.  I am a criminal defense attorney in Houston, Texas and I publish the blog "The Defense Rests" (http://kennedy-law.blogspot.com).

 

I am offering both of your campaigns the opportunity to answer a series of questions that will run (unedited and unabridged) in my blog prior to the election.  Your responses will run without any editorial comment, as my sole intention is to allow you to speak directly to the voters. 

 

Here are the questions:

 

1. What is your position on releasing minor offenders on personal bonds with a promise to appear in court on a specific date?

 

2. As District Attorney, how would you propose we handle minor drug possession cases?  Specifically, how would your administration handle the issues of overcrowding in the Harris County Jail and the recidivism rate of drug offenders?

 

3. What would your administration do to ensure that Brady material is disclosed to defense counsel in a timely manner?

 

4. What is your position on the creation of a public defender's office in Harris County?  What changes, if any, would you like to see made to the existing appointment system?

 

5. Why should you get my vote (in 100 words or less)?

I look forward to hearing from both of your campaigns and, should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the number listed below.

 

Paul B. Kennedy,
Attorney at Law
800 Bering, Suite 208
Houston, Texas 77057
Tel (832) 606-9432
Fax (866) 587-2584

http://kennedy-law.biz
http://kennedy-law.blogspot.com