Update on 201st District Court Race

Thankful there may me a choice... for the issues we care about. (0.00 / 0)

at the Third Court AND in this district court.

The Third Court is the most important in Texas for civil liberties, the environment, choice, public education and every issue we hold dear.

Every appeal of state agency rulings and regulations and constitutional issues usually flow through this court.  Two prime examples are the ongoing cases over the decades of equity in school funding, one of the most important judicial issues of my time in public service.   The Third Court heard those cases.   Additionally, I would not have been able to run for office as an openly gay person and take an honest oath to defend the laws of Texas, if the Third Court of Appeals not previously ruled that the homosexual conduct law was unconstitutional.

Jan Patterson tried to make a deal to give this court to Rick Perry and go from a 3R and 3D court to a 4Rep and 2 Dem majority.  That's not about "party loyalty" that's about selling out the core values of Travis County Voters who elected her.

For that action, she should NOT be rewarded with a district court seat. Period.

I'm proud that Travis County Voters might have a choice before this filing period ends.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 18:38:49 PM CST

This isn't about reward and punishment (0.00 / 0)

We're supposed to be electing the best possible judge for the 201st. Not the best Democrat (whatever that means), but the best judge. I haven't heard anybody making the case that Jan wouldn't be that person. Hasn't she been on the right side of all of those all-important decisions by the 3rd court?

Amy Clark Meachum is well-qualified to be a judge, and would probably be a good one. But by almost everybody's analysis, Jan Patterson has been an excellent judge.

As Michael Hurta pointed out in another thread, this is a good example of why we shouldn't have partisan judicial elections. We do, and we have to work within that systems, but we don't have to make them hyper-partisan.  

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 23:16:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It is not partisan (0.00 / 0)

Jan Patterson was on the right side many, many times, but she decided to allow the court to fall back to 3D/3R. And for what reason?

In low information races like this one, having a partisan identification is sometimes good because it allows voters to choose the candidate who most represents their values.

Jan Patterson's actions in her attempt to make a backroom deal with Rick Perry completely goes against the values I want a district judge to represent.

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 23:45:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

re: (0.00 / 0)

meant to say tried to cut a deal that would have changed 3rd court to 4R/2D

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 23:49:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

For what reason? (0.00 / 0)

I don't know, and neither do you. But leaving a job and thereby allowing it to fall into the opposite party's hands isn't exactly a hanging offense. Would you have the same reaction if Chet Edwards accepted a cabinet position, knowing that his district was almost certain to go Republican? What if Edwards simply retired, with much the same effect? What about Lloyd Bentsen, who allowed KBH into the Senate by accepting a job as treasury secretary? Nobody tarred and feathered him. Does it make that much of a difference that Jan Patterson is stepping "down" instead of "up"?

All we know for sure is that Jan Patterson wanted to leave the 3rd Court, that she wanted (and wants) to be a district judge, that she was eager to make the switch before her term ended, and that she was willing to stick it out on the 3rd court when Kirk Watson blocked her appointment.

I don't like her willingness to bail on the 3rd court, especially considering the kind of judge that Perry was likely to appoint to finish off her term. (Would it make a difference to you if part of the deal was having Perry appoint a reasonable Republican?) Yes, she has some serious explaining to do, but that doesn't make her a bad judge, and it doesn't begin to disqualify her for the 201st.

Judges, unlike legislators, aren't supposed to "represent values"! They're supposed to decide cases, according to the law and a sense of fair play. Jan Patterson has done a great job at that on the 3rd court, and there's no reason to think that she wouldn't do just as good a job on the 201st. Isn't that the most important thing?  

---

by: LSadun @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 00:16:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

re (0.00 / 0)

Once Jan announced that she was leaving the 3rd Court and running for the 201st, no one was going to run against her. That was all clear from the outset. After it was evident that Jan would have an uncontested primary and no real challenge for the seat--essentially, that by doing the minimum work necessary she would have a guaranteed District Court bench--only then did she pursue the 353rd, following the untimely death of Scott Ozmun. So while she had a "safe" seat--a seat that no one else was going to run for--she tried to circumvent the will of the voters and be appointed to the 353rd by Rick Perry.

That itself is perhaps not very little-d democratic. But when you consider that in going for the appointment she would put the most important court in Texas in Republican majority, then it becomes all the more irrational. She was already going to get what she wanted in a district court bench, so why would she go to all this trouble to harm the entire state?

Whether or not you believe in partisan judicial elections, partisan judges, or judicial elections at all, the fact is, this is the system we're dealing with, and the right-wing Republicans on the Third Court will continue to do serious harm to this state if they regain the majority.

I think Jan Patterson owes Travis County an answer: why, when no one was going to challenge her for the 201st, did she choose to pursue the 353rd in order to circumvent the will of the voters and harm the most important appeals court in Texas in the process?

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 12:25:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is she a good judge? (0.00 / 0)

So Lorenzo, if Patterson is such a great judge, why are so many of the most respected attorneys in town tripping over themselves to put their names out there in the hope that a candidate will file against her?  There's a huge amount of risk in that for them.  That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of her judicial abilities.

If Patterson is such a great judge, why is it almost impossible to find another judge who has anything positive to say about her?  I believe good judges play well with others and are trusted and respected by their colleagues and contemporaries, especially at the District Court level - that isn't the case for Patterson.

I believe good judges have good judgment - surely we can agree that Patterson exhibited extremely POOR judgment in asking Rick Perry for an appointment that would have turned the 3rd court 4-2 Republican.

I believe good judges are honest - Patterson is still advertising on her website support from folks who have asked that their names be taken off her list.  That's not honest.

I believe good judges are ethical - Patterson is violating the canons by listing current judicial candidates as supporters even though they have asked that their names be removed.

I believe good judges support everyone's right to have their day in court - Patterson is supported by TLR, an organization whose mission is to DENY people their day in court.

These reasons lead me to conclude that Patterson is not a good judge.  

---

by: DukeBlueD @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 12:38:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's a fair question -- and the only fair question (0.00 / 0)

The only question we should be asking ourselves is who would make a better district judge. If that's Amy, so be it.

What bothers me is the extent to which people treat this as "Jan deserves to be punished" instead of "who is the best person we can hire for the job". I don't give a damn about saving Jan's career, or any other office-holder's. (OK, I do care on a personal level, since I've become friends with a lot of local pols, but as a voter I don't give a damn.) It's not what they deserve that matters.  It's what we deserve.

(I'm also troubled by how people who have supported Jan over the years, praising her as a judge, are now saying that she's no good and never was. What's a non-expert to believe?)

A number of knowledgeable people have told me that "there's more to this than meets the eye". Fair enough. Instead of a stampede, let's have a calm and fair comparison of Amy's and Jan's suitability for the district court bench. May the best person win.  

---

by: LSadun @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 00:57:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The system we are in (0.00 / 0)

You are right, this is the system we are in.  I am very skeptical over partisan judicial elections, but since we have partisan elections here I will work in order to push the system towards its best possible outcome.

And that is, in part, where we have our problem today.  

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 11:06:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Lorenzo (0.00 / 0)

She tried to sell the court that hears the most partisan cases like redistricting to Rick Perry and the Republicans. That's a career ending mistake. She should resign.

---

by: DukeBlueD @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 00:07:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Judicial Temperament? (0.00 / 0)

In most judicial races in a Democratic Primary there never develop issues to differentiate the candidates.   Those races then devolve into discussions of which candidate has the best "judicial temperament".  

A district court judge deals with people...often many in crisis.   It takes a person with people skills to be the kind of judge the excels.  

The stories are legend.   Many of us have worked with Jan Patterson when she was "our" candidate.   She is difficult to deal with often, and clearly does not play well with others.

Just ask around and you'll hear stories already in THIS race over this week of phone calls and threats and bullying and demands coming from Jan Patterson.   You usually run FROM a candidate with that proclivity, and surely should not have that kind of volitile person on a bench making decisions about people's lives and about critical issues for us.

Not a good sign, Lorenzo.   Not a good sign at all.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 13:25:02 PM CST

Point made (0.00 / 0)

When the rumors started, and were confirmed by posts here in Burnt Orange Report, that Amy Clark Meachum might challenge her, Patterson quickly called over a half dozen of her colleagues at McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore to try to get them to pressure her not run against her among other pressuring tactics.

That may be politics, but it does speak to temperament.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 18:37:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]