(Election Day is tomorrow, Tuesday November 8! Please vote. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
This November, Texans have the opportunity to vote on 10 statewide constitutional amendments. Ranging from minor statutorial changes to large bonding initiatives, these amendments are the result of the most recent session, which demonstrated how feeble and ineffective the Legislature is, especially with a Republican super-majority.
While several of us at Burnt Orange Report disagree on principal with the need to vote on minor procedural changes (such as the El Paso amendment, #7, or past years' votes on term limits for Emergency Services Districts) this year we take bigger issue with the fact that major policy initiatives can only gain traction through a series of uninspiring Constitutional amendments. On education funding, land use authority, and water conservation, is this really the best the Legislature can come up with? Sadly, for the time being, the answer appears to be yes.
So while we encourage you to get out and vote FOR every amendment but Proposition 6, we want to see more leadership on crucial issues facing Texas from our supposed leaders in the capitol.
Below are our endorsements on the 10 statewide propositions. These are the weighted consensus of our staff. Staff members with material or professional interest in any of these amendments (or the Travis County bonds, below) recused themselves from voting on that item.
Texas Constitutional Amendments
Proposition 1: Homestead Exemptions for Veterans' Spouses -- FOR. This amendment fixes a major problem for the families of disabled veterans, at minimal cost to the state. We do hope that a future amendment adjusts this exemption such that if the surviving spouse remarries, they lose the exemption. But for now, this is an important measure to help those who serve our country. Burnt Orange Report endorses a vote FOR Prop 1.
::
Proposition 2: Water Bonds -- FOR. It is frustrating that this amendment is the best our legislature can come up with to support water infrastructure, and that this is the sole mechanism to fund such projects. However, it's a start, so we encourage voters to support this amendment and we encourage the Legislature to get real about water stewardship and conservation. Burnt Orange Report endorses a vote FOR Prop 2.
::
Proposition 3: Low-Interest Student Loans -- FOR. If this proposition is not approved, a very important source of financial aid for Texas students will run dry. College costs are escalating, and Texas families can't keep up. Burnt Orange Report endorses a vote FOR Prop 3.
::
Proposition 4: Tax Increment Financing -- FOR. Counties only have the land-use authority expressly granted them by the state constitution and/or Legislature. This amendment will allow counties and unincorporated areas to use TIFs to rebuild or redevelop unused or blighted areas. This is procedural, but important. Burnt Orange Report unanimously endorses a vote FOR Prop 4.
::
Proposition 5: Interlocal Contracts -- FOR. This will allow cities and counties to enter into inter-local agreements longer than one year, which is important for long-term planning. This will provide a tool for cities and counties to work better together. Burnt Orange Report unanimously endorses a vote FOR Prop 5.
::
Proposition 6: Permanent School Fund -- AGAINST. If there is one issue that defined the 2011 legislative session it was cuts to education funding. However, Proposition 6 does nothing to solve the serious structural instabilities facing public education in our rapidly growing state. A majority of our staff feels that it is necessary to point out that that while passing Prop 6 will probably help some students in the short run, it is akin to putting a band-aid over a gushing artery. We want to see a real, sustainable plan to fund education long-term in Texas, and we want our leaders to show us the plan and engage us, the people of Texas, in supporting it. In the meantime we can't get excited about this quick fix. Burnt Orange Report narrowly endorses a vote AGAINST Prop 6.
::
Proposition 7: El Paso Bond Authority -- FOR. Residents of El Paso County should have the right to decide if they want to tax themselves to fund conservation and reclamation districts. Burnt Orange Report unanimously endorses a vote FOR Prop 7.
::
Proposition 8: Water Stewardship -- FOR. The vast majority of land in Texas is privately owned, so if our state is to engage in real conservation and stewardship efforts, we need tools with which to do so. Prop 8 provides a mechanism to encourage private land-owners to engage in activities that benefit water quality and water conservation. More and better water conservation tools, please. Burnt Orange Report endorses a vote FOR Prop 8.
::
Proposition 9: Pardons for Deferred Adjudication -- FOR. This resolves an inconsistency in the law. Burnt Orange Report unanimously endorses a vote FOR Prop 9.
::
Proposition 10: Resign-to-Run Dates -- FOR. On a procedural level, this adjusts our election code to comply with SB 100's changes to our election calendar, enabling current officeholders to announce they're seeking a different position without forcing an early resignation. Here in Travis County, we've seen this play out as potential candidates for offices other than that which they hold are forced to dance around whether or not they're running, delay launching a campaign or raising funds, or reaching out to voters. It's silly. If folks want to run, let's make it easier for them to make their intentions known. Burnt Orange Report unanimously endorses a vote FOR Prop 10.
For more information, you can read our overview of Amendments 1-5 here and our overview of Amendments 6-10 here.
This year, Burnt Orange Report also chose to weigh in on the Travis County bonds on the ballot. All Travis County voters can vote on these propositions. Early Voting locations are here and more information from the campaign to pass them was posted on BOR here.
Travis County Propositions 1 & 2
Proposition 1: FOR. While the proportion of spending in Prop 1 is still heavy on road upgrades, this mobility oriented package contains new monies for needed improvements to county sidewalks, bike lanes, roadways, and transportation infrastructure. Travis County is taking a step in the right direction by diversifying its transportation spending and working directly with communities of interest to prioritize project spending. Burnt Orange Report unanimously endorses a vote FOR Travis County Prop 1.
::
Proposition 2: FOR. New parklands, land conservation projects, and the preservation of even more open space makes Prop 2 an easy sell to Austin voters. More please! Burnt Orange Report unanimously endorses a vote FOR Travis County Prop 2.
Early Voting runs through this Friday. Election Day is next Tuesday, November 8. Now go VOTE!
(Remember- today is election day! - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
With one day left in early voting, and still, only 1% of voters having cast a ballot in Travis County, we at Burnt Orange Report offer the following endorsements in contested races for the ACC & AISD School Board elections.
Note: ACC Places are district-wide. A map of AISD districts is here with place 9 being district-wide.
ACC Place 5: Davis Jones
As the only student running for the Austin Community College board, a board with no students currently elected, we agree with Davis's argument that a student's voice should be heard.
ACC Place 6: Guadalupe Sosa
A long time advocate for ACC, Sosa is more than qualified to serve and would make an excellent addition to the board.
AISD Place 6: Lori Moya
While Moya can be uneven as a trustee, her opponent has no education experience and is an active member in the Tea Party movement.
AISD Place 7: Robert Schneider
An incumbent, we don't see any particular argument to vote Schneider out.
AISD Place 9: Tamala Barksdale
With 5 candidates in the race, it's entirely possible this election will go to a runoff. Barksdale is an impressive candidate- an African-American woman with Democratic credentials, a passion for education, and hopefully a bright future in public service. We see her as a better fit than her leading opponents who include former Cap Metro manager Dianne Mendoza (who if left to run AISD like CapMetro means classes will start 2 years after they are scheduled to begin) and Julie Cowan who has voted in over a half dozen Republican primaries.
Travis County voters will elect a judge next Tuesday to replace retiring incumbent Charlie Baird. Fortunately, no matter who voters ultimately choose, justice will be served as candidates Karen Sage and Mindy Montford are both excellent choices. It is because of this reason that Burnt Orange Report issued a dual-endorsement of both candidates in last month's primary.
Since that time our writing staff has been surveyed in full to try to reach a decision in choosing one candidate over the other. Much like our readers, who have been split (giving Montford an outright majority in our Reader Poll and at various points the lead for both Sage and Montford in a more limited registered users poll), our staff has been split.
The runoff election for the 299th District Court judge has never been about choosing the good candidate over the bad candidate. This election is about choosing the better candidate over the good candidate. We believe that Karen Sage is a good (if not great) candidate who deserves to be elected to the Travis County bench should she lose this election. We also believe that Mindy Montford is the better candidate who deserves to be elected next Tuesday.
There are few questions about Montford's preparedness to serve Travis County. Raised in Austin and a graduate of UT-law, she has served as both a prosecutor and defense attorney for well over a decade in Travis County courts. Montford has practiced in front of every criminal district court in the county, including some of the toughest and most complex cases. She's served as an Assistant District Attorney as well as in the Public Integrity Unit on the prosecution of Tom DeLay. She has won the respect of her peers, earning 60% of the Austin Bar Association poll among the original 4-way race.
As such, it's no surprise that she's being supported by a member of just about every level and type of government in Austin & Travis County- from Sen. Kirk Watson, Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell, City Councilman Mike Martinez, County Judge Sam Biscoe, County Attorney David Escamilla, County Commissioner Karen Huber, and Representative Dawnna Dukes as well as a host of former electeds in town. Her support is widespread across Austin's various minority communities reflected in endorsements from groups or publications serving the city's Hispanic, African American, Asian, and GLBT populations.
But what those endorsements don't reflect is Montford's deep compassion to deliver appropriate and rehabilitative justice that is in line with this communities standards- something which will serve her well in replacing Judge Baird on the 299th District Court. Montford's positive nature is reflected in her positive campaign with a certain brightness in both intellect and deliberation that we look forward to seeing at the courthouse.
As such, we endorse Mindy Montford in the 299th District Court runoff. We also hope Karen Sage joins her at the courthouse as soon as 2012.
We know that dual endorsements aren't the boldest of decisions. But the 299th District Court race is a four-person field destined for a runoff between Mindy Montford and Karen Sage -- even the supporters of each of those campaigns will tell you that. Montford and Sage deserve to be in a runoff. They are each excellent candidates who bring a lot of talent to this particular race. We also want to notify our readers -- and the campaigns -- that once the race goes into a runoff, we are committed to engaging directly with each campaign, and we will make a firm decision before the runoff.
Before we tell you why voting for either candidate makes sense, we wanted to show you how split the endorsements have been for this race -- and make sure to note that a lot of the votes amongst the clubs were pretty close. Ultimately, we're not the only ones who can't make up our minds:
We'd like to offer an argument for why a vote for either Montford or Sage is a good vote on March 2:
Why You Should Vote For Mindy Montford
Montford worked as Assistant District Attorney for nine years under Ronnie Earle. She worked on the Public Integrity Unit that investigated and ultimately indicted Tom Delay. She also has extensive experience handling cases that would come before the court here in Austin -- which, as her supporters argue, gives her a terrific read/feel for what our community expects when it comes to balancing justice and fairness in trials. Montford can credibly say she has grown up among us, learned among us, and now is ready to give back to the community she's worked in and served in for years.
Montford's support in the Austin Bar Poll is another sign of her strength -- earning 60% in a field of four is an incredible feat. A quick straw poll among the staff confirmed that none of us would get a 60% approval rating from each other. Montford is clearly a leader among her peers, and that level of respect is an important barometer for how Montford develops trust in relationships with colleagues. If you want to decide your vote based on what the people who know the work of the 299th District Court think, then a vote for Montford is for you.
Sage once knocked on doors for Paul Wellstone. When she joined the Travis County District's office in 2006, she was appointed by Rosemary Lehmberg to create and prosecute cases before the Menal Health District Court with the goal of finding alternative forms of treatment. Her prior work around the country is impressive (read about it on her website), and she has designed and teaches a class on the Ethics of Criminal Law at the University of Texas. Sage has not had as much experience inside the Austin community as Montford, but her endorsements from a wide array of Democratic clubs and organizations has shown that she's been here long enough to earn the trust of many here in Austin.
Anyone who gets the chance to hear Sage speaks about the issues is immediately impressed with how well she explains the various sides to a case, as well as pinpointing and justifying the precise reasons for why she takes action. She will actively discuss her views on the judicial system, and even as she discusses how she has one convictions in all five of her murder cases she has tried, she comes across as thoughtful, understated, and always willing to listen.
Last year at an event at Scholz Garten, a member of our editorial staff asked Judge Jan Patterson about the rumors that she was seeking an appointment by Gov. Rick Perry to the vacant 353rd District Court seat of deceased Democratic Judge Scott Ozmun.
Patterson was asked if she was considering or would ever consider taking any action that would result in a mid-term vacancy on the 3rd Court of Appeals in which Gov. Perry could appoint a Republican and create a 4-2 GOP majority on the court prior to the 2010 election. Patterson said that she had not and was not going to seek appointment to the 353rd District Court and that she was focused on running for the 201st District Court in the regular election.
We took Judge Patterson at her word, but it appears that her words were lies.
It is now well documented here, here, and here that Patterson sought Rick Perry's appointment mid-term to the 353rd bench. We have written down the simple facts of how such an action put the 3rd Court of Appeals at risk to both short term and long term GOP control. Amy Clark Meachum's campaign, former officeholders, past and current candidates for the 3rd Court of Appeals, and even Patterson herself in prior campaigns have all noted the extreme importance of Democratic control of the 3rd Court of Appeals. We have previously provided and will reiterate below a number of facts that raise eyebrows about Patterson's words and actions.
The most baffling thing about this situation is that Patterson would have won election to the 201st District Court without challenge had she not chosen to short circuit the electoral process by seeking Rick Perry's appointment to the 353rd District Court. That was her choice, and it was a bad one.
Patterson has called into question her party credentials and her personal credibility which makes her a poor choice for Democratic primary voters.
Amy Clark Meachum is breath of fresh air, free from the cloud of doubt that would surround Patterson's courtroom. She has earned our endorsement and we hope that she will earn your vote.
Cliff Brown has run a refreshing campaign and is not your typical candidate. We have had wide ranging conversations with him about his vision for the 147th District Court, an open court bench due to the retirement of Wilford Flowers. The most important thing we have taken away is Brown's orientation towards putting the community first.
Having served among the people as the Austin Police Department's Police Monitor, he's accustomed to the checks and balances required in our judicial system. We see him taking a view that our judiciary should not be a one way street where criminals are delivered at its doorstep and then shuttled through the system. Like preventative care in health, Brown has shown an eagerness to find creative solutions to reduce repeat offenses and create a more positive community environment that hopefully gives people opportunities to never have to arrive at the courthouse in the first place.
We endorse Cliff Brown for the 147th District Court.
Currently the sitting judge for County Court at Law #3 (where we have endorsed John Lipscombe), David Crain is taking a step up and running for the 331st District Court located in Travis County which is being vacated by Judge Bob Perkins after 27 years.
David Crain is experienced and prepared to take his service as a Judge to a new level.
We are happy to endorse Crain for the 331st District Court.
Two years ago we endorsed John Lipscombe in his run for County Court at Law #8. While he unfortunately didn't win that race, we are glad to see him on the ballot again for County Court at Law #3 and once more we offer John Lipscombe our wholehearted endorsement.
John is a progressive, extensively qualified, and warm person. We are confident that he will use his experience to deliver appropriate justice to those who deserve it, while ensuring that those who commit minor offenses are not set down a road of larger crime by an overzealous judiciary.
Lipscombe is the type of judge we wish there were more of in Travis County. We encourage you to read our prior endorsement from 2008 and then vote for him in this year's Democratic primary.
It is rare that we cannot choose between two candidates. It is even rarer for us to determine that neither of them will earn our endorsement. That's the situation for us in the Pct 4 County Commissioner race in Travis County.
We'd prefer to agonize over races where our inability to decide was due to a pair of outstanding candidates- a situation we have faced elsewhere on our ballot. In this County Commissioner's race, we've debated over a pair of disappointing campaigns.
Incumbent Commissioner Margaret Gomez has failed us when it comes to the future of transportation in Travis County. As Chair of the Capitol Metro board (after having served on it for 11 years), not only did she preside over fare hikes that disproportionally hurt her district's constituants, but she was party to the incomparable incompetence of the agency in getting a single commuter rail line up and running. We can only hope that her lack of leadership in transit does not do irreparable harm in voters' minds to the concept of mass transit via rail and the more useful (not Cap Metro run) Austin Urban Rail plan.
One would think this, among other issues such as the BFI landfill vote of 2007 or divergent housing costs across the district would provide amble opportunities for her opponent former Austin City Councilman Raul Alvarez to drawn clear, proactive contrasts on. Slow to start, his campaign has not stepped up to draw specific critiques of the incumbent or offered confident explanations of what he would do differently.
We cannot endorse change for change's sake. We also cannot reward Gomez for her failures.
As such, we cannot offer our support to either campaign and issue No Endorsement in this race.
We do want to work with the eventual winner of this race and hope that the timidness shown on the campaign trail can be turned into bolder action that moves Travis County forward.
For the first time in over 30 years, voters of Precinct 1 in Travis County will elect a new Justice of the Peace. Covering much of traditionally African-American East Austin out to the county line, this district is much different than it was 30 years ago and that is reflective in the two Democrats running to replace outgoing JP Richard Scott.
Democrat Daniel Bradford had announced his candidacy months prior to the revelation that Judge Scott was going to retire. An openly gay candidate, Bradford's youth would have contrasted with three decades of service from Scott, and his candidacy was reflective of the some of the demographic changes in this precinct. But Scott retired and Bradford instead faced Yvonne Williams, an energetic and engaging African American, certified mediator, and Associate Municipal Court Judge for the City of Austin.
Some have compared this race to recent Travis County Democratic primaries where anglo gay candidates have faced off against African Americans (Brian Thompson v. Dawnna Dukes for State Rep, or Glen Maxey v. Nelda Wells Spears for Tax Assessor, or Rosemary Lehmburg v. Gary Cobb for District Attorney). That comparison is unfair and simplistic.
This issue has weighed on our editorial board. We, like many Austin Democratic voters, support increased minority representation in public office and generally respect communities of interest to elect representatives reflective of their community. The issue is, in JP Pct 1, that community is changing and both Daniel Bradford and Yvonne Williams are deserving to stand for election and be representative of that district. Therefore this issue of Williams' and Bradford's race and sexuality has to be taken off the table.
Instead we look, as we should in any race, to the candidates' positions, background, ideas, and experience. On those measures, we feel that Yvonne Williams is better suited and prepared to carry out the duties of Justice of the Peace in Pct 1 and she has earned our endorsement.
Williams and Bradford are future leaders in our Party. Both are good, qualified candidates. This was reflected in our Reader Poll where the margin was so close, the results were reviewed and hand recounted to remove voting errors and some accidental double votes. The final results of the poll were as follows.
Yvonne Williams: 115 50.4%
Daniel Bradford: 113 49.6%
