The Texas 3rd Court of Appeals: Some Electoral History

RE: Third Court of Appeals is important to issues Democrats case about (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate your reporting on this issue.  The Third Court of Appeals is important becausse it handles appeals concerning regulatory rulings concerning the environment, pollution, insurance, constitutional challenges to government acts that infringe on individual liberties, etc

We are lucky to have a Democratic candidate the caliber of Kurt Kuhn, an appellate attorney who is respected state wide.

Thanks.

"Be kind to dogs - and vote Democratic!" -Senator Tom Eagleton

---

by: mondalejones @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 00:42:21 AM UTC

interesting, but still... (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Musselman, thank you for the added factual background and the breakdown on the votes.  It definitely does add another dimension to our earlier discussion.

While I respect the logic of your argument, I still have to say that I consider the judiciary races too important to serve as avenues for this kind of political retribution.  It feels irresponsible to me for our party to waste resources and eat our own as a punishment for something bad that might have come to pass, but didn't in the end.

In this specific race, it seems that we will be handing a defeat to either an established and respected jurist, or a promising and popular attorney/aspiring politician.  When we consider the higher values of the party, as you put it, either of those losses feels like too big a long-term price to pay simply to make a point about loyalty.  I'd rather see more Democrats winning in more races than the "right" Democrats in only a few.

Ideally, judicial temperament, effectiveness, and legal acumen would guide our choices for the judiciary; and we would confine favor-trading to legislative and administrative races, where partisan fervor is actually an asset.  While I'd cheerfully vote straight-ticket in other races, the judiciary is one place where party just isn't the most important consideration.

---

by: Adam Ayres @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:18:24 AM UTC

I agree again! (0.00 / 0)

You took the words right out of my mouth.

The charges of disloyalty - based on events that didn't even happen and which, at most, MIGHT have given a Republican candidate a SLIGHT advantage are ridiculous. No elected official could measure up to those standards - apparently, all personal ambition and/or desires must be sacrificed for even the slightest electoral advantage or you are betraying your party.

I don't know Meachum, but I am sure she is a sharp and talented young attorney. Until a few days ago, I thought she was running for JP. But when your first move in your first campaign is to distort your opponents record and viciously attack her, I seriously question that persons judgement and temperment. That "fact sheet" is about as low and cheap as you can get. Pure distortion.

If you want elections to be better, cleaner and more thoughtful, then don't immediately reach for the mud and start slinging.

PS One last thing, Kurt Kuhn is a strong candidate to replace Judge Patterson and will probably win. That seriously undermines this whole "Patterson sold us out" bullshit.  

---

by: el_longhorn @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:35:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

can you clarify? (0.00 / 0)

Which events "didn't even happen and which, at most, MIGHT have given a Republican candidate a SLIGHT advantage"?

Did Judge Patterson not seek and submit appointment from Gov. Perry for a vacant District Court seat while she ran for a nearly identical District Court seat that she was unopposed for and had she not sought the appointment would have had close to zero chance of drawing a primary or general election opponent?

That event "did happen".

Your statement assumes that you agree that Rick Perry would have appointed a Republican to fill her 3rd Court of Appeals seat (with which I concur). Do you disagree that this would make Woodie Jones's court 4-2 GOP majority for over a year? Lastly, are you arguing that being an incumbent does not give a candidate an advantage they would otherwise not have?

I would like to hear an explanation for why Judge Patterson needed to be seated to the 353rd District Court (and cause the unnecessary fallout listed above) instead of just sticking to seeking the 201st District Court which no one was going to contest her for otherwise. What was the rush or why the 353rd over the 201st?

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:59:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd also (0.00 / 0)

Like him to elaborate on how the first move in Meachum's campaign was to "distort her opponents record and viciously attack her".

Because I've been following her campaign since June when she was being recruited to run for JP.  She's been nothing but upbeat, positive, and gracious.  Her campaign blast after she filed for the 201st said this:

Choosing a person to fill these judicial responsibilities is a decision that belongs solely to Travis County Democratic voters. Insiders don't pick our judges...I realize that some may believe I am the underdog in this race.  That's nothing new to a girl from Lorena. Because of where I come from, I am always cognizant that the first experience most people have at the courthouse is often their only experience at the courthouse. It is our duty as lawyers and judges to make that experience fair, efficient and understandable for all of our citizens.  Travis County citizens deserve a judge who knows the law, has an even temperament, an open mind, and respect amongst her peers.  A judge worthy of the voters' respect presides over a courtroom where attorneys and the citizens they represent feel welcome and comfortable, not intimidated.  These are standards I pledge to uphold.

That's the same thing she's been saying for 6 months, long before this whole Patterson nonsense.  I'll disclose that I am a supporter of hers.  It's because she's an incredibly bright, talented lawyer that's been positively campaigning for months.  She doesn't need to viciously attack her opponent, she presents an excellent case for why she'd be an great judge.

---

by: Joe @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:28:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Fact Sheet" is bad (0.00 / 0)

I don't like the fact sheet full of distortions and innuendo. And, obviously, a lot of time and talent was used to put together a fact sheet and 25 pages of supporting documentation. It is very well researched, very well put together, and totally misleading.

I don't like when someone criticizes a judge for not "actively participating in politics." That is good judicial ethics and should be encouraged. It increases public confidence that the judiciary is fair and impartial.

I don't like when someone takes one $5000 contribution from TLR in 2004 and then claims that Patterson is a tool of right wing corporate interests. How many Democrats take money from TLR? And $5000 is peanuts for them. They give in the six figures.

I don't like that kind of politics. Especially in a primary for a judicial race.  

---

by: el_longhorn @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 06:10:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's nasty politics (3.00 / 1)

and the "fact sheet" is as unfair as you say it is, but it's not Amy Clark Meachum who is driving the nastiness. A number of prominent Austin-area politicos and lawyers are furious at Jan Patterson, partly because of the business about the 353rd vacancy, but there are lots of other reasons. As long as Jan was in a secure position, they didn't dare speak out against her. Now that she's wounded, they're attacking mercilessly, and are loving every moment of her torment.

Meanwhile, Amy impressed a lot of people in the last few months of campaigning, and The Machine evidently settled on her as the right person to take on Patterson. Amy's got a really tough balancing act to manage, taking advantage of The Machine's support to get elected without losing her soul in the process. So far, Amy has been consistently positive and respectful, and I expect her to continue to be that way.

Is she just playing innocent while others do the dirty work, or is she genuinely committed to a positive campaign but can't keep others from slinging mud? Or is it somewhere in between, with her not wanting a nasty campaign but not doing anything to stop it? For now, I'm giving Amy the benefit of the doubt.

There will continue to be cheap shots against Jan, much like the "fact sheet". Hopefully, enough of us will cry "foul", without responding in kind, that the nastiness will settle down. (Not likely, but it's worth a try.)  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 15:48:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

unfortunate scenario (0.00 / 0)

That was what I was getting at.  Not only is the petty nastiness demeaning, but by convincing Amy Clark Meachum to run against Judge Patterson, the party is now guaranteed to hand a loss to a good candidate, either way.  If the point was just to make a point, I'd rather they'd have run a disposable candidate.  It would still be a way to flex and show our judges that they are expected to toe the party line above else (not that I advocate that, but that seems to be the subtext), but we'd at least not tarnish a young candidate with so much promise for the future.

I'll be voting for Patterson after these discussions, and seriously reconsidering my party affiliation before the next primary rolls around.  The point of this seems to be to send a message about the Democratic Party in Travis County and where the power lies.  For me, the message is received, just not as the machine intended.

---

by: Adam Ayres @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 17:12:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One point I don't understand (0.00 / 0)

If Amy had stayed in the race against Tim Sulak, are you saying a good candidate would not be guaranteed a loss in that race?

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

---

by: PI Lawyer @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 18:23:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good point. (0.00 / 0)

I don't know enough about Tim to answer that one way or the other.  I didn't intend to imply that every primary race should be uncontested, though I see that I did just that.

My understanding in this case is that Amy was recruited to this race by party leaders specifically to run against Jan, primarily as retribution.  I'd be much less concerned if this was an organic (for lack of a better word) contest, but it appears to be manufactured, and manufactured with the narrow goal of punishing one individual.

As a footnote, in general I would prefer to be voting for candidates with judicial experience for the district level and above.  That isn't intended to denigrate Amy in any way, and it's certainly a general preference rather a hard and fast rule.

---

by: Adam Ayres @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 19:13:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what? (0.00 / 0)

Let's say Patterson resigns, gets appointed, Perry appoints her replacement. What is that worth in a general? 2000 votes? 4000 votes? 1% of the vote? Who cares? The race is winnable regardless. And what cases is the Third Court hearing in the next year that are so crucial Patterson shouldn't have resigned?

Reality is that the Third Court's area is trending Democratic pretty strongly. Kuhn has a damn good chance of taking the open seat. And the Dems will have the court soon.

Of course, none of this matters since the Supreme Court is a hard right 9-0. Which is why this whole debate is so silly. 4-2, 3-3, whatever - the hard right Republican supreme court will wipe out any real wins that the Dems get in the Third Court.

 

---

by: el_longhorn @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 06:18:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thank you (0.00 / 0)

I think you make some fair points, but there is something that is written into your writing which I feel is more of a concern for you than it is for me (and possibly many Democratic activists here). There seems to be a concern of "eating our own" or "wasting good Democrats".

If there is one there there is not a shortage of in Travis County judicial elections, it's a shortage of good Democrats to serve as judges. In fact, we have a surplus. Case in point- a few months ago Cliff Brown, Karen Sage, and David Crain were all running against each other for the same seat! And even after each of them ended up in their own seat due to unexpected openings, there were still some more good Democrats who ran against them in their new seats. There are good Democrats currently serving in Travis County who beat other good Democrats who are now leading candidates this year. And if someone poisoned the queso at the SAD endorsement meeting tonight and knocked out the entire judicial slate- we could easily fill it back up again with a whole other new crop of good attorneys to take their place.

Your closing paragraph is important, but mostly because of the word it begins with- "Ideally". I respect that, but in Travis County, we have the- luxury? opportunity? something... which allows us to be a little more watchful of our judiciary since the Republicans choose not to give general election voters a choice. And for me, I fundamentally disagree (in Texas anyways) that "the judiciary is one place where party just isn't the most important consideration". In Texas, it's hugely important- because I trust Democrats to have a guiding general philosophy that values reason, respect, shrewdness as well as equality, egalitarianism, and the public interest. Lord knows we could use any of those qualities on the 100% Republican and corporate controlled Supreme Court. Same goes for the 3rd Court of Appeals.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:47:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

no, thank *you* (0.00 / 0)

I'm really concerned that you mentioned the queso - please don't give the other side any ideas!

I understand your point about having a broad field of candidates, and I do know many great people who are Democrats and attorneys in Travis County.  Still, while I would vote for most of those people for a legislative position or a state or local office without hesitation, there's an extra 'something' I look for in a judge that narrows the field considerably.

We're very much in agreement about the guiding general philosophy to be hoped for in Democrats.  Heck, I hope for those things in judges period, regardless of party.

I also accept what you are saying about the ideal versus the reality... but aren't we Dems because on some level we are idealists?  It concerns me that we, as a party, can't seem to get a coherent positive vision out there and sell it to the people, at least on a state level (Travis County being an exception).  I'll feel safer about discarding Dems when we've turned more of the state executive blue -- until then, I wish we could play a little nicer with each other.

Your points are well-made and thought provoking.  Thanks for the discussion.

---

by: Adam Ayres @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 17:40:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RE: Taking contributions from TLR a no no (0.00 / 0)

I think El Longhorn stated that in a 2004 race Meachum took $5000 contribution from Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR), a corporate PAC aimed at denying families their day in court.  If so, this is reason to really scrutinize Meachum, as you are scrutinizing Patterson. TLR is bad news.

"Be kind to dogs - and vote Democratic!" -Senator Tom Eagleton

---

by: mondalejones @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 10:40:21 AM UTC

I think you misread the comment (0.00 / 0)

It's Patterson, not Meachum, who accepted a $5K TLR contribution in 2004, a fact that TLR later touted. I'm pretty sure that Meachum didn't run for anything in 2004. El Longhorn was arguing that accepting a contribution isn't that big a deal, and doesn't make Patterson a TLR tool.

I agree. When you get contributions from The Other Side, it's usually spun as evidence that you're so good that even Republicans recognize your quality. For instance, Jack McDonald was touting his Republican contributions as evidence that he could attract Republican and Independent votes, and could win the general election.

In practice, politicians only refuse contributions from incredibly unsavory people or organizations, and then only after somebody calls them on it. If Jan Patterson actively solicited the TLR contribution, it would mean something. If she just cashed the check, it means nothing.  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 16:05:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jan Pattterson Sued by Yoko Ono? (3.00 / 1)

Did anyone else read the part of Patterson's appointment application where it asked if she had ever been party to litigation?  She replied "yes".  The details she provided described a water leak in an apartment in NYC in 1986.  The lawsuit was dismissed, but Patterson said she was sued by her downstairs neighbor, Yoko Ono!  

Was it the same Yoko Ono?  Has to be, right?  This has nothing to with this race, but I can't stop picturing Yoko Ono yelling at Jan Patterson in some apartment hallway about a water leak.

Wait . . . maybe this is a mail piece.  Does anyone have Yoko's email address?  I think a Yoko attack piece could be the nail in the coffin.

---

by: Mark Littlefield @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 15:04:14 PM UTC

I told myself I'd stay out of this (2.33 / 3)

It pains me to see this.  I promised myself I'd stay out of this, and I'm now stepping into it a little.

Going forward, I don't care to endorse in any primaries again.  I'd prefer focusing on the general Dem ticket.  I've only given my name to two people this primary campaign season, which I gave to these 2 individuals over a year ago, and one of them is Jan Patterson.  

I've known Jan Patterson for about 4 years.  From what I've been a witness to, I have yet to meet another person on this green earth with the amount of courage, conviction, and sense of justice as her.  

And until 6 months ago, I've never heard a hint of anything negative about Patterson.  Nothing but the absolute highest compliments about her.

I sat in the front row of the SAD event last night and watched a sitting judge give a speech asking for support against unprecedented adversity.  I don't  know of many that could have done the same.  

I hope to stay out of this as much as reasonably possible going forward, as it saddens me.  We all have better things to do, but I wanted to say how proud I am of Jan Patterson for having the courage, strength, and conviction to get through this.  Whatever side you're on, I hope that all of us can appreciate what I'm talking about.  Few possess these qualities.  

One other note.  I've gotten to know Amy Clark Meachum through casual conversations over the last 6 months, and she is a smart, delightful candidate with a great future.  I'm sorry to see all this happen within our own party in Travis County.

David

---

by: David Kobierowski @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 16:49:46 PM UTC

David (0.00 / 0)

Courage was Amy Clark Meachum running this race after Jan Patterson called numerous partners at Amy's law firm...that was not a classy move on Patterson's part, nor did it reflect the type of judicial temperament or judgment that Travis County citizens deserve.

---

by: Carlos82 @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 21:27:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Patterson Judicial Race (1.25 / 4)

Glen Maxey started this vendetta against Judge Patterson by filing a bogus complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission,alleging that Judge Patterson "misstated the facts". Could it be that Glen is still smarting from his losses in 2004 and 2008 when he ran unsuccessfully for State Party Chair and County Tax Collector?  Quoting the late Kelly Fero in the December 14, 2007 issue of the Chronicle re: Maxey's ill-advised  race against Nelda Wells Spears (which Glen lost 76-24%), when Fero referred to Maxey's  false charges against Spears as "Swift Boat attacks" and "wilful distortions"; in the same issue, Judge Bill Alshire said that Maxey was "misinforming the voters".
It is a shame that the Maxey crowd is running Ms. Meachum's campaign-a campaign not based on experience but on smear tactics.

---

by: Patriot 1 @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 20:12:01 PM UTC

Sheep.... they're all sheep (5.00 / 1)

I'm not involved in Amy Clark Meachum's campaign.   Other than simple cordial remarks at a couple of events where we've run into each other, we've not had substantive communications. I was supporting Tim Sulak when it appeared Amy and Tim were running against each other.

I believe Jan Patterson created the situation she now finds herself in.

I do not flatter myself to think that most of the legislative delegation, a raft of Travis County officials, respected attorneys, activists and others are blindly marching to my dog whistle of filing of a complaint.  

Where there is fire, somebody must have supplied fuel and a match.  I think Jan Patterson did this all to herself.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 04:55:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Justice Patterson took 5k contribution from TLR (0.00 / 0)

That says it all

"Be kind to dogs - and vote Democratic!" -Senator Tom Eagleton

---

by: mondalejones @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 04:28:21 AM UTC