Republicans Running in the Democratic Primary

Infiltrators or converts? (0.00 / 0)

It's pretty clear that Connor is a Republican running in the Democratic primary, and deserves to be trounced by Scott Ozmun.  With Krug it's not so clear.  She won't get my vote (Jim Coronado is much more qualified), but I welcome her identification with the Democratic Party. Her 1998 primary vote shouldn't be held against her.

Lifelong Democratic activists deserve our praise, but if we're going to expand the party, we also need to welcome those who saw the light more recently.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 17:45:16 PM CST

I welcome converts but (3.00 / 1)

Shouldn't recent converts be working within the party before they start running in Democratic primaries?  I'm backing Scott Ozmun and Judge Jim Coronado who got it right the first time around the block.  Better qualified and smarter too!

---

by: sonia @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 19:55:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Getting involved, that's the key (3.00 / 1)

Office holders can hold a press conference and change parties. But all others could call a press conference and no one would really care.

If Krug is a convert she should have become involved in the Democratic Party, joined a group or at least attended meetings and met people, etc.

Seriously, we can't get bent out of shape just because someone voted in a Republican primary 10 years ago, especially judicial candidates. They may well be supporting a friend or coworker who happens to be a Republican. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that all judges are particularly partisan. It's a job and if they need to change parties to keep their job, that's what they do.

Consider someone who is not very involved in politics. Many of them decide which primary to vote in at the polls on primary day. Sometimes it is determined by which line is shorter! Really, I've worked as an election judge for a primary.

On the other hand Krug mentioned at the candidate forum last week that she voted in the R primary to vote against a Keel. Anyone who says they vote in a primary to vote against someone is a fool, a liar or both.

---

by: cbking @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:25:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting (4.00 / 2)

In 1998 the only Keel on the ballot was Terry Keel and he ran unopposed.

At least that is what the Travis County Elections records show.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:14:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've heard other reports as well on some flip-flopping by Krug (4.00 / 2)

I hear that Krug told the West Austin Democrats screening committee that she voted in the '98 Republican primary to support Julie Kocurek.

Impossible because Julie Kocurek wasn't on the ballot till 2000.

Krug then told the Capital Area Asian-American Democrats and a roomful of Democrats from six different clubs, that you voted in the '98 Republican primary to support Julie Kocurek or to vote against a Keel. Terry Keel, the only Keel on the ballot, had no opponent in the '98 Republican primary.

This is beginning to sound too suspicious.  If I ever found a reason to vote in the republican party's primary, I'd remember who it was I was so eager to vote for.  

Unless of course it's not the truth. You know lies are so much harder to stick to.

---

by: sonia @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:02:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Trashing Krug (2.00 / 1)

As a criminal defense attorney, I have known Jim and Karyl for many years now.   I have supported Jim in this and previous judicial campaigns.  Jim always treated me and my clients respectfully, and I appreciate all he has done politically, particularly his run for the Austin Court of Appeals (a harder fight for Democratic Party candidates, given the court's multi-county jurisdiction).

On the other hand, I know Karyl Krug to be one of the brightest legal minds in the field.  I agree with her observations in her post, including the "unique" challenges our male colleagues did not have to face when, as younger women, we were representing criminal defendants during the 1990's.  If judicial selections were based on intellectual gifts and a life's work of zealous advocacy for society's dispossessed, Karyl has earned a place on the bench.  

Compared to Judge Coronado, Karyl may not have the "Democratic credentials" to have earned our party's vote; however, she certainly has the experience to be a District Court judge.  Let's not trash Karyl Krug, one of the "good guys" doing the hard and thankless work representing our citizens who stand accused.

Mary Kay Sicola

---

by: mksicola @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 00:46:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Democratic credentials" (3.00 / 1)

Well there lies the problem.  This is the Democratic primary we're talking about.  And if Karyl does not have the Democratic credentials that Jim Coronado does, the case is closed for me.  I'm voting for Jim Coronado - end of story.

The work that Jim did while running for the 3rd Court of Appeals was amazing grassroots work.  And he came damn close to winning too.  That's the kind of zeal he's going to show when he wins the primary and this court race in the fall too.  He is more than qualified for this court.  He was qualified for the 3rd Court of Appeals and he's qualified for the 427th District Court.  

The trashing has been more about her claim to be a real Democrat than her judicial credentials for the most part.  

---

by: sonia @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 15:05:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It is no coincidence that the West Austin Democrats endorsed (4.00 / 2)

Jim Coronado by 97% to 3% and Scott Ozmun by 100% to 0%.

The West Austin Democrats' judicial endorsements were flawless.

Likewise, it is no coincidence that the politically astute South Austin Democrats and the Southwest Austin Democrats each endorsed both Coronado and Ozmun.

Embrace the primary challenge because it gives our best candidates a chance to get out and meet the voters and gather critical name identification and media attention, but make no mistake that progressive Democrats have an easy choice in supporting Jim Coronado and Scott Ozmun.

http://yanezhoustonjordanfortx...

---

by: Take Back the Texas Supreme Court @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 17:46:00 PM CST

Karyl Krug - definitely not a Republican (3.50 / 4)

This is my first campaign, and it has been a real eye-opener to see that my voting record is the only thing about me that many (though thankfully not all) inside the Democratic Party are interested in.  When I started this process I thought I could run on my lifetime of achievements.  I grew up in the Brackenridge Apartments right here in Austin, the oldest daughter of a secretary and a grad student.  As most debutantes do, I left home at the age of 18 with only $50 and a 1970 Volkswagon bug.  I have a B.A. and an M.A. from the U.T. English Department, that notorious enclave of right-wing zealots. My thesis, which is somewhere on-line and ripe for oppo research, was a feminist defense of Faulkner called, "Those Durned Men:  Faulkner's Critique of the White Southern Patriarchy." I started my legal career working at the Court of Criminal Appeals for Judge Charlie Baird.  Since then I've defended the indigent, and a number of people sentenced to death, including one on Death Row now and another one Travis County is currently seeking to put to death.  I worked to achieve what was only the 2nd DNA exoneration here in Texas, when nobody else knew how to do one of those.  I've essentially been a half-time single mom since the beginning of my career because my airline-pilot husband (a Vietnam vet unlike so many Republican chicken-hawks) is gone half the time.  Nonetheless, I became Deputy Chief of the Habeas Corpus Division at the State Attorney General's Office from 1999-2001, which means that I was deputy chief prosecutor on all felony cases challenged in federal court except death penalty cases.  I'm one of only about six female defense attorneys here in Travis County who is board-certified in Criminal Law.  Last year, I became only the second woman Exam Commissioner in the history of the specialty (which means I write and grade the test now). The office I am running for is a criminal court bench.  So not only am I qualified, I am extremely qualified.  Jim is only a magistrate, so he has basically been sitting there taking guilty pleas for most of the last sixteen years while I have been doing all these other things and raising a child.  I ran because I think an in-depth knowledge of criminal law, such as Judge Baird possesses, is an extremely important quality for a criminal court judge to have, which is what finally compelled me to file in this race.  About half the time I'm standing in front of a state court judge I feel like I might as well be speaking Chinese, because such is the calibre of judges this process tends to attract.  I'm also tired of practicing in front of the same group of men, every one a Democrat, who told me I was in the "wrong profession for a woman" fourteen years ago.  And I ran as a Dem because the Republican Party for the most part makes me sick.  I've always thought of myself as a Democrat, so it has been very enlightening to read that I am, in fact, something other that what I have always believed myself to be.  I will grant you that I am not "the very best Democrat," as Jim describes himself, but I am absolutely the best-qualified candidate in this race.  That my lifetime of achievement -- of defending the constitutional rights of the poor, the accused, and the condemned, which I thought was at the very heart of what it meant to be a Democrat -- means nothing to so many in the Party next to my voting record is, quite frankly, terrifying.  Let me set the record straight -- I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

---

by: KarylKrug @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:47:02 AM CST

Well, those were enlightening and candid comments (0.00 / 0)

I feel very strongly about Jim Coronado, but I certainly appreciate your passionate and frank statement of your beliefs and your reasons for seeking the judicial office.

http://yanezhoustonjordanfortx...

---

by: Take Back the Texas Supreme Court @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:22:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes Karyl, thank you for introducing yourself (5.00 / 1)

And setting the record straight -

"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party."

Good to hear that.

---

by: sonia @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:26:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please Explain (5.00 / 1)

I will grant you that I am not "the very best Democrat,"

Rather than saying you are not a Democrat, I would be interested to hear why you voted in the Republican primary and why you abandoned the Democratic Primary to pledge your support for Carol Strayhorn (the Republican Comptroller).

Instead of explaining your Democratic credentials, you attack a Judge by saying he doesn't do anything but "taking guilty pleas.

Give us a vision. Explain why you were so compelled to abandon the party not once, but twice.

Thanks for posting a comment, but actions speak louder than words.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:17:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Come on, Matt -- play fair (2.00 / 2)

Your taking that line totally out of context does no good to anybody.  

I like, respect, and support Jim Coronado, but characterizing Karyl Krug as a Republican running in the Democratic primary does nothing to support his campaign.  That sort of slander only discredits the Democratic party and the BOR community.

In a race for Congress or the Legislature, I do want my candidate to show that he or she supports Democratic (and democratic!) principles and won't undercut the party's program.  A record of party activism is very important, and the burden of proof is on the candidate.  

A race for judge is different. I want my judicial candidate to show legal expertise, a liberal worldview with compassion for the defenseless, and, above all, a keen sense of fairness. From what I've seen, Karyl Krug meets all those requirements. She won't get my vote this time, but against a different opponent she might have.

Applying partisan purity tests to judicial candidates is a bad idea, and branding a sincere candidates as a fake is just plain wrong.  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:21:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I signed for Grandma! (3.00 / 1)

I skipped the Dem primary in '06 and signed Grandma's petition.  Why?  Because I thought she'd split the Republican vote and give Bell/Gammage a better chance in the general.  Didn't work out like I hoped, but the mofo was held under 40%.  I don't consider that "abandoning the party."  Regarding Karyl Krug, I'm glad to see her engaging the community and her story sounds impressive.  But it's hard to win endorsements/elections without first developing a relationship with the voters.  I hope she continues to engage us and maybe down the line she'll start to earn some victories.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 13:10:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reasons (3.00 / 3)

I am a Democrat -- I simply conceded that I was not "the very best" one according to the standards you have set forth.

Unfortunately, no one ever asks me about my professional credentials at any of the Dem meetings -- I just keep getting asked to explain that one 1998 vote over and over again, which I will do one last time.  

It took me a while to remember why I would have done that ten years ago.  At first I thought it was to vote for Julie Kocurek, who I did vote for and who was welcomed back into the Democratic Party with open arms this past year, but then one of Jim's paid campaign operatives was kind enough to shout out while I was speaking that she had run in 2000, at which point I said I thought I might have crossed over to vote against a Keel.  I would have done just about anything to get rid of Terry Keel at that point in my life.  I was working on a death penalty case in 1997-98 in which he had been a major, and majorly bad, player. So I thought I must have crossed over to get rid of him. Then a friend reminded me that was the year Cheryl Johnson ran as a Republican for the Court of Criminal Appeals.  Against seven men.  I know I voted for Cheryl.

I don't believe that either one of those women was ever a real Republican -- I would not have done what they did, put an R by my name to get a bench -- but I supported both of them because I know who they really are.  Cheryl was a career defense attorney with a master's in chemistry, and she is currently the best defender of the Constitution on that Court.  

I cannot tell you how fun it has been to try to remember exactly why I did one particular thing ten years ago, and to have the Democratic Party try to make that, with some apparent measure of success, the focus of this campaign.  That completely trivializes what is at stake here, which is the lives and liberty of accused citizens.  Even assuming arguendo that I am completely wrong about why I voted in the 1998 Republican primary, I understand that Julie Kocurek is now safely back in the Democratic fold -- and not catching one iota of the flack that I am, even though she actually did put the scarlet "R" by her name.    

As for Grandma Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn, I figured her presence on the ballot as an Independent would siphon votes away from Governor Goodhair.  I did not vote for her.  

But back to the judicial races involving the women:  There are three women on the felony court bench here in Travis County -- two were appointed by Governor Perry.  Until recent years, two of the males judges, both Democrats, groped the women in the Travis County Courthouse -- with the full knowledge and approval of the men, who protected them when the women complained.  Smart women are not allowed to get very far in state felony court here, despite this being an oasis of blueness in a red state.  Women are not appointed nearly as often as the men to the serious felony cases.  And it's not just the women lawyers who are disrespected.  

So my vision is a truly democratic courthouse, where the law and the Constitution are honored as they should be, and where women achieve true parity and are treated with respect.  

I do agree that "actions speak louder than words," and I think my actions are wholly consistent with what I understand to be this Party's core principles.  I don't think defending a person on Death Row is a less meaningful action than voting in a primary.  I also think demanding absolute ideological purity from your membership is way too rigid.  Certainly demanding ideological purity from only certain of your candidates is problematic.  I guess what I am wondering is why my voting record negates a lifetime of service consistent with the Party's core principles.  And if that's really a very smart way to run a party.  

As for attacking Jim, who is a magistrate and not a judge, I think I am the one being swiftboated here with my non-existent membership in the Republican Party, because that's all you've got.  My statement that Jim mostly does guilty pleas is not only true, it is a response to to several statements on this thread that I am not the most qualified candidate to sit on this criminal bench.  The fact is that Jim's knowledge of the law is thin at best, whereas I am recognized as an expert in criminal law.  I have worked on a large number of the most serious felony cases imaginable in both state and federal court.  The criminal law magistrate is not a judge, does not preside over any case, has no independent jurisdiction, does not hear serious cases, cannot make a judicial decision, and only one of the judges here ever refers anything to him.  That's the reality.  To have "presided" over more than 30,000 felony cases as he claims to have done, he would have to have disposed of one per hour, eight per day, 40 per week, 50 weeks a year, 2000 per year, for more than fifteen years in a row to even get to that number.  That number is absolutely preposterous.  He must have counted every case the landed on his docket for even ten seconds pre-indictment to come up with that number (once indicted, they go to an actual felony court).

This is the substantive stuff that should be under discussion.  Not the times I voted for Democrats pretending to be Republicans eight to ten years ago.    

---

by: KarylKrug @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 15:21:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Of course it's none of my damn business, but reading how passionate (5.00 / 1)

you obviously are about the death penalty and how motivated you are about standing up against incompetent judges presiding over life-and-death cases, I'm pulling my hair out in disappointment that you didn't run against Cathy Cochran, the unopposed deathmonger who will be reelected to Place 9 on the Court of Criminal Appeals.

http://yanezhoustonjordanfortx...

---

by: Take Back the Texas Supreme Court @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 17:34:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why Dems Vote in GOP Primaries (0.00 / 0)

Why would any Dem vote in a GOP primary? Oh, I don't know...maybe because The  Kos tells them to?

---

by: Robbie @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 16:05:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh sure we're all Kos bots (0.00 / 0)

Kos commands and we obey.  I'm sure they would love to think they had an impact in Michigan but for the most part it was a joke.  There was plenty of action in the Democratic primary for Democrats to take part in.

There is absolutely no reason to play in their sand box when we have all the cool kids in ours.

---

by: sonia @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 21:05:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The "Best Dem" faces off with the "Second Best Dem" in the race (0.00 / 0)

For any who are interested in hearing Jim Coronado and I field actual questions of law, there will be a non-partisan forum at the Mexican-American Cultural Center, 600 River Street, at 6:00 p.m. tomorrow night, January 24.

---

by: KarylKrug @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 20:53:53 PM CST

Why this is important (3.88 / 8)

I appreciate everything you've written today, and welcome to BOR too, by the way.

With great respect, however, partisan identification is not without substance in a judicial race in Travis County.

Travis County has long been a Democratic stronghold, even stronger in recent times. Thus, if a lawyer wants to run and win a judgeship, he or she best do so in the Democratic primary, because the odds of winning in November in Travis County these days as a Republican are between "slim" and "ain't gonna happen, bucko, unless your opponent gets hit by a truck two weeks before early voting, and even then the race is gonna be a squeaker."

So because of this, yours would not be the first race in which a Republican tried to slip into office through the Democratic primary. As is obvious in another judicial race, yours isn't even the only race ON THIS BALLOT in which that is true. So please forgive Democrats for their valid questions on this front.

I particularly remember Judge David Puryear, whom at the request of another Democrat who now holds office in the courthouse I had even blockwalked for in his earlier years as a Democrat. He eventually abandoned his commitment to the Democratic Party because it was politically expedient to do so, and switched parties. He originally ran on the Democratic ticket, just like you're doing. He used to say he was a good Democrat. Oops. Fool me once, shame on me...and so on.

When you sign up to run in a Party's primary election, you adopt a label -- a commitment -- and I think most readers here would agree that the Democratic label should mean something. Most here would readily agree that it should mean far more than it does to some candidates. It's a commitment to a set of shared values, and those values say a lot to the non-lawyers among the Democratic electorate about what kind of judge you might be.

And, importantly, the vast majority of those participating in a primary election will not be lawyers. They'll be regular folks, looking for whatever cues they can derive about the values of those asking for their votes, and hoping those candidates' values are similar to their own.

And again, with great respect, your record on this front is...well, it's completely missing. I think it shows that you haven't voted in either Party's primary in 10 years, and when you did, it was at the other Party's show.

It means that when Judge Charlie Baird, whom you mentioned working with closely in past years, was running in a tight primary in 2006, you decided to sit it out. It also means that, in the same primary, when Democrats had a proposition on the ballot to restore the rights of citizens to a jury trial of their peers in civil cases, you were silent. That says something.

It means that in 2004, you sat out the Democratic primary election in which Judge Gisela Triana was opposed in a tight race. From your comments today it is clear that you believe that it's important to put more women in the courthouse. Thank you for that belief - I agree. It might have been good for you to weigh in on it then with your vote, before your name being on the ballot suddenly made it more important to you now. Your lack of participation says something.

I could go on and on, but my point is that important things happen in Democratic primaries in Travis County, and the answers to those questions are sometimes on the very points you made in defending yourself in this discussion.

Of course none of that makes you a bad person, or even necessarily a bad Democrat, and none of it makes you absolutely unelectable. But it bring up questions, and those question are no less substantive and valid than the important issues you bring up.

Personally, I'd already decided to support your opponent before you ever filed to run. I would do the same thing if I were making the decision today.

But we Democrats try hard not to slam the barn door shut when new folks are wandering in, so I do honestly welcome you. And in the event you don't prevail in this election, I hope you don't return to non-participation, because your continued participation will prove that you didn't wander in only because of your self-interest. But at this point in time, you sure can't blame people for wondering.

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 00:56:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I see your point (2.75 / 4)

I certainly see your point.  And I am sorry you got burned by David Puryear.  I have to read his opinions each and every week, and all I can say is, I know how you feel.

Again, if I wanted to stick a label by my name just to win, I could have run as a Republican years ago for the Court of Criminal Appeals, or do as David Puryear did and run for the Third Court as a Republican. In fact, I did inquire about running for the Third Court as a Dem in 2006, which was far from a sure thing, only to be told by one candidate that all the Democratic slots were "filled" through 2008.  I did work as a Dem poll watcher four years ago -- at least I think it was four years ago -- with a group put together by Chris Elliott.  As is well-known with regard to eyewitness ID issues, nobody's memory is perfect, so I hope you guys will cut me at least a little slack in that department.    

One reason I ran this year is because I was tired of waiting for it to be my "turn." Peculiar to judicial races in Travis County, and this has been the case for years, a person is anointed by political insiders and it is considered bad manners, anathema, or career suicide to run against the anointed one or even support their Democratic opponent. The pressure to stay in line is really incredible.  When I filed for this race, I was told by a number of men that it wasn't my "turn," and that I should get off the ballot while I could still get my money back and before something bad happened.  

And, as I said, the Democratic Party has stuck us with judges over the years whose attitudes toward women are very mid-20th century.  Wilfredo Aguilar was vigorously defended by political insiders, despite his totally inappropriate physical touching of women, until Williamson County busted him on his third DWI.  I'll never forget the day Judge Aguilar asked me in chambers for a "full body hug." Some of the same men who are being ugly to me now are the same ones who told me to keep my mouth shut with regard to Aguilar.  Janet Stockard, love her or not, was vilified for challenging Aguilar, when the truth is she is the only one who had the guts to do the right thing, for which she was given zero support.  And Aguilar is not the only one who was like that.  The same judge who told me that I was in the wrong profession for a woman is still on the bench here, and is probably considered an impeccable Democrat.

Like it or not, David Puryear was exactly the same person when you supported him that he is today.  He is the same calibre of judge today that he was then.  If, when he was running as a Dem, I had run against him and told you what kind of a judge/person he was, contrary to whatever view you held of him then, you would have blown me off and voted for him anyway.  

I am offering myself as a very well-qualified alternative to the Party's pick, an expert in my field.  And I believe you've already told me which way you are going to vote.

But I do see your point.  I've been so busy practicing law and raising my kiddo over the past fifteen years, which in my defense has been exhausting, that I failed to interact with the larger world of really great, like-minded people out there.  I think my view of the point of such undertakings was also colored by the dismal politics of the criminal courthouse.  But I've met some terrific people out there on the campaign trail, and I now feel much more hopeful about the possibility of positive change within the system.  Win or lose, I plan to stay involved in this process and keep going.  Maybe when I've earned enough Dem street cred, you will consider voting for me some time in the future.

---

by: KarylKrug @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:27:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I beg your pardon? (3.25 / 4)

Ma'am, would you please explain for me how you've managed to pry into my head, and determine what I -- a person you've never met -- would do in this hypothetical situation?

"If, when he was running as a Dem, I had run against him and told you what kind of a judge/person he was, contrary to whatever view you held of him then, you would have blown me off and voted for him anyway."

I await your documentation of your E.S.P.

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 13:48:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No ESP required (3.00 / 2)

As it stands today, I am telling you that Coronado is very light on the law, and you have already made it clear that I have zero chance of changing your mind or your vote for the reasons you have stated.

I am merely pointing out that, given that logic, had I run against Puryear and told you exactly the same thing about him at the time you were walking the block for him, the same result would have occurred, for exactly the same reasons you have already given for your continued support of Coronado.  

I am also pointing out that Puryear is exactly the same legal thinker, jurist, and man today that he was then -- he is no more or less qualified for the bench now than he was then -- the only difference is that he has switched parties.  It makes it kind of hard to argue that they are not the best qualified person in the race, even if that happens to be true, when you have already supported them.  

I am not saying you would have voted for him back then had you known he was going to switch parties in the future.  What I am suggesting is that perhaps, just maybe, in judicial races it might be incredibly important to look hard at the legal thinker behind the Dem label.  

---

by: KarylKrug @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 15:34:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And therein lies our fundamental disagreement (3.00 / 1)

Just because you have deemed your opponent "light on the law," you now judge your opinion to be fact. It's not. It's your opinion. I have my own, and it differs. How interesting. We'll chat the day after the primary, when we can discuss how all this worked out for you. Good luck.

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 16:14:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The day after the primary came and went... (0.00 / 0)

...and I didn't get that call to chat. Stunning. :)

You could be ready in 4 years, or even 2. Here's hoping you are. And here's hoping you stick around and keep participating, even if you're not on the ballot.

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:22:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Karyl, I admire your persistence (1.50 / 2)

This has been a very illuminating thread - it goes straight to the heart of what is wrong with the Democratic Party in Texas.

The original post, while shedding absolutely no light on the legal qualifications of either candidate, paints Ms. Krug as a Republican based on a single primary vote, and a lack of voting in democratic primaries.  Granted, this voting record is somewhat surprising, and is a legitimate topic for discussion, as part of a larger debate.  What is not surprising is that Matt Glazer, a party functionary who has of course chosen the anointed party candidate, would write a front page post focusing only on this tiny shred of political fodder, and would associate Ms. Krug with a candidate that is truly a Trojan Horse Republican.

Admirably, Ms. Krug has taken a good deal of time on this forum to explain her voting record, and to encourage debate about what really matters in a judicial race - the candidates' records of service.  The record is massively important in these races where candidates cannot take stances on policy issues, unlike most other political races.

Let's review:  Ms. Krug has worked on the Court of Criminal Appeals, our state's Supreme Court for criminal cases.  She was a pioneer in DNA exoneration of wrongly convicted death row inmates.  She has defended the indigent in Travis County, including those who have been sentenced to death.  She obviously feels very strongly about the disenfranchisement of women in the upper echelons of the legal system.  She wrote a feminist critique of Faulkner, for Christ's sake!  Does that sound like a Republican to you?

Ms. Krug is eminently qualified to be a judge - she actually writes the test to become board certified in criminal law!  She also worked at the state AG's office, and has argued (I assume) many many cases in the criminal courts.  This is a fantastic opportunity for democratic primary voters to put someone on the bench who is a true expert in the field of criminal law.  She is easily more qualified than Judge Coronado in every way that matters.

Ms. Krug is also correct to point out that being a magistrate judge does not at all qualify someone to be a district court judge.  Judge Coronado is basically a clerk of court, doing a lot of rubber stamping but not much serious engagement with the issues, and does not run full trials.  "Presiding" over cases, as Ms. Krug points out, does not entail much responsibility at all.  Coronado also spent ten years in private practice before being appointed a magistrate.  What kind of work was he doing all that time?  Has anyone even bothered to ask?  Would Judge Coronado like to come on this website and tell us more about his record in private practice, since his website is completely devoid of any details?  I doubt it, but I can tell you this much - Jim Coronado was collecting a fat paycheck for the first ten years of his legal career, while Karyl Krug was earning a government salary at the state's highest criminal court and representing the indigent and wrongly accused.  Who sounds like the real Democrat to you?

The party purity test is a simple-minded way for the party apparatus to undercut candidates that it disfavors.  If you really care about supporting the best candidate, don't fall for this ruse.

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 15:03:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jeff (3.00 / 3)

"What is not surprising is that Matt Glazer, a party functionary who has of course chosen the anointed party candidate..."

Jeff, you need to read the Community Guidelines we put up today:

Users who are bashing or attacking any other user on the site, especially authors of diaries and frontpage postings, will be warned and/or banned.

You have absolutely know knowledge of why Matt has chosen to write this post. Your continued comments against KT, Matt, and myself more than constitute bashing and attacking the authors of the front-page postings. It doesn't matter if you don't think they do -- we think they do, and we're the editors.

Most of your points are fine opinions, but you seem incapable of not bashing and attacking us any time you express your opinion. Learn how to express your opinion without attacking one of us, or you will be banned. This is your last warning.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 15:25:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I did read the community guidelines (0.00 / 0)

As with any set of rules, interpretation is everything.  Apparently these new rules are being interpreted very strictly.  I'll try to be more oblique in my criticism from now on.

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 15:37:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Apparently" (0.00 / 0)

We've discussed this several times with you already. This shouldn't come as any sort of a surprise to you. If you have a direct criticism for KT, Matt, or myself, you have all of our e-mails, and are free to write to us there.

Also, we have a "comment ratings" guideline, which says the following:

1- Unproductive: A rating given by other users that indicates that a comment is inappropriate, lacking content or analysis, or unnecessarily abrasive.

Nothing in what I wrote previously is inappropriate, lacking content or analysis, or unnecessarily abrasive. I'm simply pointing you in the right direction so that you can continue to comment here on BOR. Now, certainly, if you want to rate my comment a "1" you can -- but it reflects poorly on yourself.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 16:03:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh please (1.00 / 1)

There are myriad worthless comments on this site that have been given a "5" rating, probably by the editorial staff, even after KT came out and told people to cut it out.  I don't see you posting reprimands under any of those comments.  

If you must know, your previous comment was both lacking in analysis on a SUBSTANTIVE issue, and unnecessarily abrasive - you threatened to ban me.  Do you really feel that it's appropriate as a site mod to be publicly questioning a commenter's ratings?  Of course my ratings are biased, so are everyone else's, and that's why a rating system for comments is a terrible idea in the first place.  

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 16:21:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jeff (5.00 / 1)

No one is making you visit this site. But if you'd like to continue visiting and commenting here -- which we certainly welcome you to -- then it's in my best interest, since you have been such an active participant over the past few days, to ensure you are familiar with all of the rules. That is the only context in which I made a comment.

I'm sorry if you don't like our rating system, but you're going to have to live with it so long as you are commenting here. Your call.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 17:32:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What, no reprimand for Harold Cook? (0.00 / 0)

Harold rates the above comment a "5", even though it's very average and echoes other comments that have already been made.  The real problem with comment ratings on this site is trusted users giving out 5's every time they like something.  But as long as you're raking in the 5's, Phillip, I guess you have no incentive to put a stop to this silliness.

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:19:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I rated his post a 5... (0.00 / 0)

Because I strongly support board owners taking control of their own board, explaining guidelines, then enforcing them. I don't pay for this board, nor do I put in the huge commitment to keep it going, and neither do you. Other folks do that, and are kind enough to let us quibble, debate, and express ourselves on it, even when they disagree with us. If somebody gets out of line, it's their option to herd us back into line, or throw us out. I strongly support it because I value this place. Disagree if you want, but your judgments are meaningless to enforcing the rules around here, and so are mine. If I objected to that, I'd start my own board. If you object to it, I suggest you do the same. But do have yourself a peachy day, sunshine.

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:35:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you Captain Obvious (0.00 / 0)

So other people run this site, not me or you?  Insightful stuff.  I didn't see you cheering when KT wrote an entire post telling people like you to stop giving out 5s like candy on Halloween.  Guess you must have missed that one.  No doubt your post will be rated a 5 by one of the site mods any minute now.

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

you asked a question about my action... (0.00 / 0)

...and I answered it. But again, do have a peachy day, Sunshine. Love ya. Mean it.

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:41:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Jeff, you have bought very quickly into Karyl Krug's claims about Jim (3.00 / 1)

You assert "Judge Coronado is basically a clerk of the court." Allow me to refer you to an American-Statesman article from January, 2004:

Judge rules on camping ban; Law on public sleeping called unconstitutional

Let me offer you the following excerpt:

"Coronado---appointed as district court magistrate in 1991 to handle preliminary hearings, plea bargains, sentencings and other "nuts-and-bolts" court proceedings ---has listened to hours of legal argument since last July, after the Third Court of Appeals asked Travis County to conduct a full hearing on the matter.

"Tuesday, he said that arresting someone for sleeping violates a person's right to due process because the wording is so vague it could encourage police to enforce the law against only certain people.

"'In particular, it fails to provide any standard for an officer to discern whether one is camping in public or taking an innocent nap in a public place,' Coronado said, reading his ruling aloud in court."

Indeed, Jim does whatever work the seven district judges he works for send him. Rarely do they send him a case involving ruling on the constitutionality of a law, and rarely would they have one to send. They send him this one, and obviously he did a heck of a job and took a stand for human rights.

A lot of his day-to-day work involves keeping the Travis County jail from becoming overcrowded, which is why he moves so many cases. He's one of the hardest working judges at Travis County, and he is highly productive. He is serious about the law and serious about reflecting well on the dignity of the bench.

He has devoted an enormous amount of volunteer time to the local and state bars and to the local, state and national bar organizations. He has chaired committees dealing with such substantive issues as legal services to the poor, jury pay and setting standards for courtroom interpreters.

I will have more to say about Judge Coronado, someone whom I have known for 30 years, since we were young Democratic activists block-walking for candidates together in the days before we knew anyone who actually owned their own computer and there was not yet any such thing as a blog.

"The eyes of the people are fast opening! Fight on!"--Andrew Jackson

---

by: Al Stanley @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:45:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Let me correct these typos in my own post (0.00 / 0)

I meant to say:

He has devoted a tremendous amount of time to the local and state bars and to the local, state and national Hispanic bar organizations.

Can't figure out if one can edit one's own replies. (Probably not.) So let this suffice to set the record straight.

(I also meant "sent" not "send" in the paragraph fourth from the bottom.)

Late. Need sleep.

"The eyes of the people are fast opening! Fight on!"--Andrew Jackson

---

by: Al Stanley @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:20:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your post is pretty unconvincing (0.00 / 0)

Al, couple of things about the blogosphere:

1) Full disclosure is very important if you want people to respect your opinion.  Posting under your own name is a good start, but you need to disclose that you are Jim's campaign manager when posting in a new thread.  I had to learn that from Karyl's reply.

2) You can't correct comments on here.  But if you use the Firefox browser, it will spell check as you type.

I am a law student at UT, Al, and I've taken criminal law and criminal procedure, so I know very well what a magistrate is and what he does.  You say it yourself - he only does what the judges give him, and is there to move cases as fast as possible.  The fact that you only have one constitutional ruling to point to, in the 16 YEARS that Coronado has been on the bench, basically makes my point for me.  You also neglected to point out that Coronado upheld most of the camping ban ordinance, which I had to learn from Karyl's reply as well.  Frankly, your candidate doesn't sound like much of a civil rights champion to me.

I have no doubt that Coronado has been a good magistrate, and is productive and efficient.  But this simply makes him a good foot soldier.  We need judges in this county who are experts on the law - that, more than anything else, will keep the dockets clear in the trial courts, AND the appeals courts, many of which are severely backed up now.  I know this because I worked at a state appeals court last summer.  We were backed up two to three years on some cases, and we were getting cases from other courts of appeal who were even further backed up!  A lot of our time was spent correcting simple errors made by district court judges who didn't know what the heck they were doing.  We need to be getting things right the first time in the lower courts, and expertise is crucial here.

Since you have known Coronado for so long, let me ask you about the ten years he spent in private practice before becoming a magistrate.  Who was he representing during that time, and what law firm did he work for?

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:15:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

While in private practice, Jim Coronado ... (5.00 / 1)

... was a solo practitioner. His clients were everyday people with everyday problems requiring the help of an attorney.

Your statement:

"I can tell you this much - Jim Coronado was collecting a fat paycheck for the first ten years of his legal career ..."

is simply not accurate as just about anyone who has ever run a solo practice could tell you, especially in one's first years out of law school.

Neither is your statement: "Judge Coronado is basically a clerk of court." I thought that the example of a constitutional ruling he made after holding hearings over a period of nine months might at least persuade you to concede that there is more to his job than you had given him credit for. Instead, you essentially say that the ruling didn't go far enough (without, I presume, having read it yourself) and that he "doesn't sound like much of a civil rights champion" to you.

Your opinion doesn't square with what homeless advocates were saying at the time. Richard Troxell, president of House the Homeless, had this to say:

"We're elated," said Troxell, who pumped his fist in the air upon hearing Coronado's decision. "The judge found the most damaging piece of this ordinance is unconstitutional."

"The eyes of the people are fast opening! Fight on!"--Andrew Jackson

---

by: Al Stanley @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 22:39:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This really doesn't address my concerns (0.00 / 0)

Al, I appreciate your reply, but I could use more detail about Jim Coronado's ten years in private practice.  First of all, it is very unusual for a person fresh out of law school to start a solo practice with no prior experience.  I've never heard of anyone doing that, and I don't know anyone who is currently a student who is even contemplating going solo straight out of school.  Why did Coronado decide to go this route instead of gaining experience and a client base at a firm?  Did he turn down offers from firms in order to create a solo practice?  Also, did he ever represent indigent clients on a pro bono basis?  How often?  And can you give me more detail about his legal specialties in solo practice, such as tax, transactions, personal injury, criminal defense, etc.

As far as the ruling on the camping ban goes, I was not saying that the particular ruling in question did not go far enough.  It sounds like it went as far as it could have, and was a positive thing for the homeless.  My point was that if Coronado upheld many other parts of the ban, then citing the one ruling where he struck down part of it is not the whole story.  I still feel that one positive ruling in 16 years as a magistrate does not effectively make the case for him.  Can you give me examples of other progressive rulings that Coronado has made?

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:19:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Jeff, I hope you're not expecting Al to play fair . . . (0.00 / 0)

At an endorsement meeting yesterday, one of the other candidates, a very highly respected Democrat, pointed out to me that Al was surreptitiously picking up my bumper stickers and putting them in his pocket.  I couldn't believe it.  Swiping your opponent's campaign materials seems particularly inappropriate in a judicial campaign.

---

by: KarylKrug @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 14:06:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And now a word from the real world ... (3.00 / 2)

I picked up one bumper sticker and one push card from a table of literature from which attendees were supposed to pick up materials about the candidates running.

"The eyes of the people are fast opening! Fight on!"--Andrew Jackson

---

by: Al Stanley @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 22:27:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Too Funny! (4.00 / 2)

LOL! So when a judicial candidate misrepresents an action where Alfred Stanley picks up a sample card and bumper sticker and amazingly construes said action as

"Al was surreptitiously picking up my bumper stickers and putting them in his pocket.  I couldn't believe it.  Swiping your opponent's campaign materials seems particularly inappropriate in a judicial campaign."

by: KarylKrug @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:06 PM CST

Is this supposed to be evidence of judicial temperament? Just curious....

---

by: Melissa G @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 23:02:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have to say I believe Alfred (3.00 / 2)

Accusing someone of pocketing your campaign literature is just going a bit low.  Let's get back to the issues.

I've been at a lot of campaign events when I've had to clean up materials because candidates or their campaigns just left them behind.

---

by: sonia @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 23:20:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Al's office is right down the hall from mine (0.00 / 0)

in the same building and he could have the information he wanted any time he wanted it.  See invite below.

---

by: KarylKrug @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 13:21:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Was That what was supposed to pass for an Apology? (0.00 / 0)

Because to my mind, an apology would be what you, Karyl Krug, owe Alfred Stanley for publically accusing him of swiping your campaign literature. Did I miss something?

Here is my understanding of what happened.

1) You or your staff have information out on a public table for anyone to pick up.

2) Alfred picked up a sample.

3) Because Alfred Stanley picks up a sample of the info you put out for folks to pick up, You, KarylKrug, AMAZINGLY construe this to be him swiping your campaign literature and publicly accuse him of this behavior.

4) Two people call you on this POOR Behavior and you have the audacity to propose that he should have gone to your office to ask you for the information instead of picking it up from a public table?

Are you actually expecting me to believe that this is a rational train of thought? Is this the kind of thinking you plan on bringing to the bench?

An Apology or an explanation with additional facts is what is called for.

---

by: Melissa G @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 17:23:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Al were telling the truth, you would be right, I would owe him an apology. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: KarylKrug @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 18:27:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Al, still no reply (0.00 / 0)

on the specifics of Jim Coronado's time in private practice.  Can you fill me in by answering my questions in the post above?

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:42:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Camping case not from 2004 -- but that's okay (0.00 / 0)

The article Jim's campaign manager cites is not from 2004; it is from 2000.  But I will not hold that against him because as we get older our memories do get a little fuzzy.  I just ask those folks to cut me the same slack with regard to dates that I am cutting them now.

I was one of the lawyers challenging the camping ban way back when.  I actually had the cleanest case, a suppression issue challenging a search incident to arrest for sleeping in a felony drug case, but I could not get a ruling on anything, such as the cop who was dodging my subpoena, after my case got tossed to the mag court.  My case was ultimately dismissed by the prosecution, but my co-counsel from the DNA case assisted Cecelia Wood in briefing her case, which is the subject of the article referred to by Al.  The lawyers in the trenches are the ones who had to press this case for four solid years before they could get a ruling out of anyone.

I encourage everybody to go to the Statesman, pull up the articles from 2000 by Leah Quin, and read the entire text as it pertains to those issues, because the truth is that Jim upheld the bulk of the camping ban ordinance.  It is still against the law in this county for the homeless to store belongings, pitch a tent, or pull up a cardboard box to sleep in.

As to whether Jim is actually a judge, which is an issue I have briefed and presented to his campaign via the Party Chair, the guiding provision is in Chapter 54 of the Government Code.  There are about 15 years of Court of Criminal Appeals cases that flat-out say, "an appointed criminal magistrate is not a judge." His campaign is relying on the definition of "judge" that describes who is subject to discipline under the Code of Judicial Conduct in Chapter 33 of the Government Code.  This is a difficult argument for the public to grasp -- that the definition of who is a "judge" for purposes of being disciplined is different from whether it is fair to refer to yourself as a felony court judge in campaign literature under the Election Code, or legally correct under the statute that creates his job as well as a decade and a half of Court precedent.  The highest court in the State has said that an appointed criminal magistrate is not a judge, but Jim and Al refuse to back off their position.  Regardless of what the newspaper has to say about Jim and whether or not he is a judge, Jim's duties are defined by statute, and the Court of Criminal Appeals has said repeatedly that an appointed criminal magistrate is not a judge.  

An appointed magistrate in Travis County cannot jump until a district court judge tells him how high.  Judges can refer cases to Jim and allow him to do certain things as prescribed by law, but without a specific order of referral saying, "You may do X with case Y," he has no power.  To the extent that he is allowed to do anything, such as preliminarily rule on a pretrial motion, an actual district court judge always has the final say.  It's right there in Chapter 54 of the Government Code.  

This goes back to what I was saying about Jim's claim of presiding over 30,000 cases in the last 16 years.  At an average of one case per hour for more than a decade and a half, how much time could he have spent on any one case?  At last night's forum in front of the Texas Hispanic Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association, Jim basically told the crowd that the reason guilty pleas take 45 minutes to an hour in his court is because he must read from a script prepared by the district judges.  That is his excuse for wasting untold numbers of hours of attorney and court time for the last decade and a half.  If he really was reading from a prepared script for all these years, then how much thought really went into the bulk of these 30,000 cases?

   

---

by: KarylKrug @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In all fairness (3.00 / 1)

Aren't we supposed to be winning people over to our side?

Aren't we recruiting incumbent, elected repubs to join us?

Wasn't there a post on Robby Cook's seat in support of someone who had voted in repub elections?

Wasn't our former party chair a converted repub?

I don't know Krug. The only thing I heard her say was something about representing folks on death row, and completely fumbling a question about voting in the repub primary.

I would hope that a plant or a conniver would be a little more prepared than she was. She appeared to not really know why she voted. Maybe she doesn't.

Did anyone verify with Chris Elliot if she helped 4 years ago? That seems pertinent in order to establish if she is some scam artist.

Karyl, welcome to the party. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I hope you stay around.

BTW, it's kind of cool that some people are filing as a Dem because they know a repub can't win. I wish more of Texas was like this.

---

by: colin @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 22:56:12 PM CST

Karyl Krug a Republican?!? (0.00 / 0)

Wow, that sounds so vulgar.  I've known Karyl for a number of years now, being a close friend of her airline-pilot husband.  My humble take on this slander is that, judging by the sheer number of Al Franken books and the like on Karyl's coffee table, she definitely qualifies as a bona fide Democrat!  Karyl has been in the trenches of some very high profile cases over the years, both as a prosecutor vehemently opposed to the death penalty and as a criminal defense attorney.  Having served in both of these capacities gives her the perspective to be a very fair and decent judge with an intimate knowledge of criminal law.  If one takes a careful look at her qualifications, one will find that she is the "best Democrat in the race."

---

by: Tim @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:45:44 AM CST

"Judge" Jim Coronado (0.00 / 0)

It seems to me that Karyl Krug is not the one in this race who is misrepresenting herself.  

---

by: Tim @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:30:14 AM CST