Developments in the 201st District Court Race

Want to talk about acting like Republicans? (3.00 / 1)

It's more than slightly disturbing to see this judicial race become so politicized, and I hope that Amy Clark Meachum will publicly distance herself from the vicious and shameful hyperbole that started with Glen Maxey's ethics complaints against Judge Patterson.  It's like the tax assessor race all over again -- a respected public servant being dragged shamefully through the mud by her own party for not being partisan enough.

I am a Democrat because I think critically and carefully about issues, and because I believe that Justice transcends political football.  To use smear tactics to punish a respected judge, especially one in our own party, is to diminish us to the level of rabid Republican fundamentalists.  What's next - push polling suggesting Jan Patterson has an illegitimate black lovechild?  That's not the road our judicial races need to be on.

And while Mr. Musselman is "not making any of this up", the briefest glance at the cited documents shows that the conclusions drawn here are hugely exaggerated.  To wit: In the pre-printed blank that asks for it, Judge Patterson lists the United States Attorneys she served under - Rudy Giuliani is one of three - it's disingenuous and misleading to call it a "boast".  Likewise the complaint about "no political activity"; why do I think that if she had listed political activities, the complaint would be that such activities are ethically compromising for a sitting jurist?

Can we have a sober, responsible, intelligent conversation about who is the most experienced and qualified candidate for the 201st court, instead of smearing and denigrating the members of our own party?  This petty nastiness is beneath us as Democrats, and does not serve the party, the people, or Justice.

---

by: Adam Ayres @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 18:04:07 PM UTC

I totally agree. (3.00 / 2)

Judge Patterson has an excellent reputation as a thoughtful and competent judge. These smear tactics against a judge who has quietly and competently gone about her work for the last decade or more are embarrassing to you and the others that make them.

This is horrible:

"The application includes other interesting tidbits.  For example, Patterson...claims she has "actively participated" in NO political activities in the past 10 years.  Most of our Democratic judges in Travis County are actually PROUD to be Democrats, and regularly participate in party activities."

You do realize that the canons of judicial ethics limit the political activities that a judge can participate in? As an attorney and a citizen, I think it is GREAT that a judge refrains from political activities - this is the type of ethical behavior we should demand of all judges! How do you think people who disagree with the judges politics feel when they are in that judge's court? Have you not been watching what has been happening to our judiciary under the Republicans who "actively participate" in politics?

Talk about Karl Rove politics - elections are all that matter and the truth is irrelevant.  

---

by: el_longhorn @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 18:26:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The hypocrisy!! (0.00 / 0)

Funny how just a few months age Jan Patterson was a good judge and strong Democrat for fighting the get out of jail free card that the Third Court was giving to DeLay over his illegal money laundering. Now she is a tool of the the tort reformers and a Republican in sheep's clothing.

http://www.burntorangereport.c...

---

by: el_longhorn @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 18:36:42 PM UTC

really? (0.00 / 0)

Seems to miss the point that the problem being caused in the very post you linked to was because Republican Chief Justice Ken Law was blocking the 2 Democrats in what was then a 4-2 court. Democrats rallied to defeat Law and put Woodie Jones in as Chief Justice. But Jan Patterson is totally ok with letting Woodie Jones and Diane Henson go back to being the only 2 Democrats on a 4-2 minority court by allowing Rick Perry to appoint a Republican replacement for her because she couldn't leave her job at the end of her term and wanted to leave early.

Yeah, so hypocritical.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 19:15:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

clarification (0.00 / 0)

Her term is up now though, right?

The outcome of this election doesn't affect the makeup of the 3rd court at all?

We're strictly talking about punishing an experienced jurist for possibly failing to put the needs of her party first in the past?  And she didn't, in fact, leave the 3rd court before her term was up?

I'm also a little baffled by why we would have wanted Judge Patterson to remain on the 3rd court if she was more conservative than the Republicans in her decisions, as your summary above implied to me.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm just concerned about playing this kind of politics in judicial races.

---

by: Adam Ayres @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 19:36:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Her term ends this cycle (0.00 / 0)

Her seat on the 3rd Court of Appeals is up this cycle, but in seeking the appointment to deceased Scott Ozmun's seat, it would have created a vacancy on the 3rd Court of Appeals which Perry would also then be able to appoint a replacement for where he would likely have placed a Republican which would be a serious advantage going into the November election making it that much more difficult for Kurt Kuhn. Besides flipping the court to 4-2 Republican control for an entire year, the power of a year of incumbency would be a real plus for a Republican to win the seat over Kuhn this November in a district where the entire court has been elected by margins of around 53% or less.

Since she was denied the appointment and is simply running in a normal general election now, there won't be a vacancy created on the 3rd (thank heavens). But in actively seeking the appointment, it would have done exactly that.

That action in itself may not speak to judicial temperament (that debate is for the public timeline of statements of who said what and denied saying what) but it relevant to primary voters who care about maintaining at least an even 3-3 balance on the most important Court of Appeals district in the state.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 21:21:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your logic fails (0.00 / 0)

If a Democrat (Woodie jones) just defeated a Republican (Ken Law) to get on the Third Court of Appeals, then how is Jan Patterson "abandoning" anyone? Shouldn't Central Texas Democrats be able to win this seat? And didn't Diane Henson just win in 2006 as well? These are all phony political arguments.

Not only that, but I don't think Perry gets to appoint anyone - Patterson leaves at the end of her term and an election fills her seat. No gubernatorial involvement required. Not 100% sure about that, but she has not resigned and I don't believe she has to or she will.  

---

by: el_longhorn @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 19:49:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interim appointment (0.00 / 0)

Perry would have appointed somebody to serve until the next election. Maybe we could have taken it back, but Kurt Kuhn would have had a harder time running against that pseudo-incumbent than running for an open seat.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 20:21:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, my logic doesn't fail with the facts (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure why everyone thinks the 3rd Court of Appeals is a cakewalk to win. Winners are bolded below. You can see how incredibly close this court is and remember, it covers 24 counties many of which are not friendly at all. Here's the map.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 21:38:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is over the top (3.00 / 1)

Congratulations to Amy Meachum for getting the endorsement. She's a good candidate, and may turn out to be the best choice for this race. If she wins, I hope it's because of her virtues, and not because of the incredible nastiness being leveled against Jan Patterson.

To answer K-T's points, and the points raised in page 1 of the insert:

This is an application to Perry, so of course it doesn't trumpet Jan's most liberal rulings. Instead, it pushes five rulings where she was absolutely right -- some where she authored a unanimous opinion, and some where her dissent formed the basis for a unanimous over-ruling. She's not making the case that she always rules for the big guy or that she always rules for the little guy. She's making the case that she always rules by the law. Isn't that what judges are supposed to do?

As Adam pointed out, the Giuliani "boast" was just a listing of who hired her (Robert Fiske), and who she worked for (John Martin and Rudy Giuliani), in the US Attorney's office. What was she supposed to do, leave Giuliani out?

As for political activities, Jan has been active in the West Austin Democrats and the Saturday Sages (aka Yellow Dog Democrats), but has always been careful to abide by the limitations of being a sitting judge. The question asked about being a "campaign manager, fundraiser, treasurer, poll watcher, etc.", not about being a team player on the Democratic ticket and a supporter of the local party, which she has always been.  

As for the TLR connection, there's a heck of a difference between accepting a campaign donation (how may of you routinely return checks for $5000?) and making a campaign donation (as with Shami's support for Ted Cruz). TLR's support for Patterson's last campaign says far more about TLR's wanting to "play nice" with the winner, and wanting to claim to be bipartisan, than it says about Patterson.

Mind you, there are things that I find disturbing about the filing. The fact that it was written in a "let's please Perry" style undercuts Patterson's claim that the appointment was entirely Perry's idea and that she had to have her arm twisted to agree. Using GOP Supreme Court justices as her references is also unseemly.

In other words, there is some smoke, and there may even be some fire, but this is hardly the thermonuclear explosion that you make it out to be.

C'mon, guys. Let's compare Amy and Jan on their merits, and let's lay off the exaggerations and cheap shots.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 20:20:07 PM UTC

Jan Patterson's Candidacy (5.00 / 1)

These extremely over the top attacks on Justice Jan Patterson are just crazy. She is a loyal Democrat and her hundreds of decisions on the Third Court reflect her consistent liberal, progressive views.  Her record speaks for itself. Something very unusual is going on in this race when a small faction of local Democrats start devouring their own like Republicans jihadis or Tea baggers. I feel like I am watching Fox News when I read these ridiculous claims.

Justice Patterson is a native Austinite and is known, respected and liked by everyone in the community.  This attempt to portray her as something she is emphatically not will not work. She has practiced law for 35 years and been an appellate judge for about a decade. Her opponent is roughly 32 years old and has no previous judicial experience. What are her qualifications for such a sensitive judicial post in contrast? I want to have a judge that knows the law, not one that is "tight" with the right political consultants or party boss.

Further, why can't a judge seek another court position if they choose? Justice Patterson has indicated that the trial courts like the district court position she seeks are where the "rubber meets the road." Justice denied there often means a permanent denial since appealing a bad decision is expensive and time consuming. As an old Federal prosecutor, she misses the interaction of trial work and feels she could make a real difference on the district bench. I think we should all applaud her desire to serve our community.

Lastly, there is no reason why another Democrat cannot be elected to the position on the Third Court of Appeals Jan is vacating. Kurt Kuhn stands an excellent chance of winning that seat with the help and backing of Senator Watson. Let's all get behind him for that position and quit wasting time acting like Republicans in debating who among us is the truest shade of Blue.

---

by: richardcraig @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 20:32:45 PM UTC

Let's be fair to Amy, too (3.00 / 1)

Richard,

Amy may be young, but she's a hot-shot lawyer who certainly understands the law. You don't make partner at McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, or get cited by Texas Law and Politics, for nothing.

The irony is that, for much of the campaign season, Amy was the smart outsider who had trouble getting traction against candidates who were better connected politically. Now, The Machine has decided to turn against Jan Patterson (who is respected and liked by a lot of people, but who also has made a lot of enemies in the local party and in the judicial community), and has placed Amy in the surprise role of Insider.

For the record, I'm not in Jan's camp, and I'm not in Amy's, either.  I'm just a public scold who objects to either of them getting treated unfairly.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 21:48:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]