About a week ago, Jan Patterson started running an attack ad on Austin cable stations taking aim at Burnt Orange Report endorsed candidate Amy Clark Meachum. This ad was not put online, isn't on Patterson's website, and has yet to find it's way to YouTube as a recording or otherwise. This is a shame because for the purposes of this post, it would be helpful to contrast the following ads and put into context why the Meachum campaign is responding in kind. In words, the Patterson ad takes aim at Meachum with typical black and white grainy footage and red circles over her face, targeting her experience and subtly her youth.
Below, is the return ad in response to Patterson.
Up until this point, the Meachum campaign has been decidedly positive in their TV message. The following as is the one they opened with on TV, and I would argue is one of the most effective judicial ads I have seen in years. I find myself wanting to rewatch this ad multiple times, possibly because I keep hoping that see Jack Donaghue come on to the 30 Rock set.
Patterson applied to Perry's office for a direct appointment instead of an election because she thought it would be a good "short cut" around having to run an actual election. (See below)
Patterson initially said she never made any requests, then said she only did it because Perry told her to submit it. (See below)
Much like Kay Bailey Hutchison hoping for Perry to resign so she could be coronated Governor of Texas, Jan Patterson initially sought appointment from Republican Governor Rick Perry in order to avoid having to run in an election for the353rd Civil District Court. By seeking an appointment from Perry, Patterson looked to -- in her own words -- find a "short cut" around the election.
So, why did Patterson instead seek appointment to the 353rd? According to Patterson, she didn't: "They actually approached me," she said. Indeed, Patterson says Perry's office came knocking several times, inquiring as to whether she would consider submitting her name for consideration. She declined the first few times but ultimately agreed to apply – that's why she wrote the letters, she said, because Perry's office asked her to do so.
She thought about it, she said, and a "short cut" to election didn't sound so bad.
Even more incredible to me about this is that Patterson is trying to completely deny involvement in this at all. Let's look at Patterson's attempts to cover this up -- from the Austin Chronicle story, "Political Dust Clouds 201st: Patterson vs. Meachum"
Reconsidering the dust-up over her application for appointment to the 353rd Court, Patterson now insists that she never "sought to undermine" the work of the 3rd Court. "I do lament the controversy," she says. "I'll concede perhaps I made a mistake – if I hadn't, I wouldn't be having all of these conversations" about what happened. Still, she says that though she "did contribute to this controversy," any "suggestion that I was not truthful" about what happened "is simply not right."
Patterson is calling the Austin Chronicle a bunch of liars, then, because earlier in that same story we learned about this:
When the Chronicle initially reported the story in October, Patterson said that Perry's office had pursued her for the appointment; the Governor's Office later told us that was not true and, after open records requests, released Patterson's two letters requesting the appointment. Patterson initially said the requests never happened; after the publication of the letters, she said they were written at the request of the Governor's Office.
Patterson's supporters want to defend her record -- fine. Many animals are known to bury their head in the sand when the heat gets turned up.
Patterson wants to run negative attack ads in her race and not put them up online for others to scrutinize -- fine. She can avoid honest public scrutiny if she wants.
But Patterson, no matter how hard she tries, does not get to take a "short cut" around the voters of Travis County and pretend like it never happened. At least not with me. A judge who believed in fairness and ethics should know to act better. Patterson apparently believed it was okay to circumvent the voters and put her trust in Republican Governor Rick Perry. Anyone seeking appointments to courts where an election is appropriate is not acting in the best interest of citizens -- they are acting in the best interests of themselves.
A pre-emptive last note --
Patterson's supporters have come to BOR to call out those critizing her outreach to Perry. One supporter claims it is "vindictive politics" while another is trying to claim that Patterson "got played by Gov. Rick Perry's" office. I'd like to respond pre-emptively to those criticisms, since they've already been on here once and I'd just assume not have to answer them again in the comments below:
I don't think it's "vindictive politics" to point out the facts. As a voter I get to choose what I want to care about, and I choose not to trust someone who trusted Rick Perry.
If Patterson was set up by Perry, as her supporter claimed, then her lack of judgment is far worse than I'd originally thought.
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.
(There are many lessons to be learned in this important case. It's a poignent reminder why the 3rd Court of Appeals is so important and why there are very real repercussions to some of the choices that Judge Jan Patterson was prepared to make. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Many of us were angered by Justice Jan Patterson's recent attempt to give the rightwingers the majority of the Third Court of Appeals. Today, a case thsy shows why this court is so important to progressives illutstrates the point for our anger at Patterson.
This week a second precedent setting case dealing with GLBT rights in regards to marriage and divorce occurred here in Travis County. Last year, a Dallas judge granted a divorce to a gay couple citing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Monday, Judge Scott Jenkins granted the second.
Though the State of Texas does not officially recognize same-sex marriages, a Travis County judge has approved a same-sex divorce. Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly married in Massachusetts five years ago. Naylor sought a divorce, but Daly initially wanted to "void" the marriage. The Travis County Court clerk for Judge Scott Jenkins said the divorce was approved, and not voided.
In both cases, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has jumped into the fray The Dallas case has been appealed to the the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals. Now, the Travis County case will be appealed to the Third Court of Appeals.
The attorney general's office had previously said when two people of the same sex wish to terminate their union and are in a different state, the proper legal procedure is voidance, not divorce. After the judge's decision was announced, Attorney General Greg Abbott's office has issued a petition to intervene, saying, "Texas does not recognize marriages between persons of the same sex, and the parties do not qualify for a divorce."
This is a classic case of why progressives were so outraged by 3rd Court of Appeals Judge Jan Patterson's attempt to give her seat to Rick Perry for appointment of a conservative and the Court a Republican majority. In AG Abbott's appeal of this lesbian couple's divorce, the 3rd Court will now determine this matter of law. The Court has a 3 Democrat and 3 Republican divide currently. Patterson's deal would have made the Court 4-2 Republican.
So easily, for her own personal gain, Patterson would have sold out the GLBT community of Texas. What other progressive cases would also have faced the same fate? She sold out her Democratic constituents.
So when you vote in the Democratic Primary, you can thank her by casting your vote for her opponent (Amy Clark Meachum) in her race for a District Court seat. Patterson should not be rewarded for almost stabbing us in the back.
Given some of the comments in my post earlier this morning about the 201st District Court race between sitting 3rd Court of Appeals Judge Jan Patterson and Amy Clark Meachum, it appears I need to write a follow up post in order to explain a couple of timeline and process points.
The first point is a timing question with regard to vacancies, seeking other seats, etc. Here are the basic points to remember- all of which are based on fact.
Jan Patterson's 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 4 seat is the only 3rd Court seat that is on the ballot in 2010. This seat was scheduled to be up for election this year regardless of whether Judge Patterson chose to run for re-election or not.
As early as December of 2008, right after the presidential election, Jan Patterson had made it known she was planning to finish her term on the 3rd Court of Appeals (not resign) and run in the 2010 primary for the 201st District Court which was going to be an open seat with Judge Covington's planned retirement. As such, Kurt Kuhn was to (and did) become the Democratic nominee for Patterson's Place 4 seat for the same scheduled 2010 election.
In July of 2009, after the death of 353rd District Court Judge Scott Ozmun in May of 2009, Jan Patterson actively sought appointment by Gov. Rick Perry to the 353rd District Court. At the time of this request, she was still serving as the sitting judge for the 3rd Court of Appeals and was an unopposed candidate for the 201st District Court.
Jan Patterson would have had to resign her 3rd Court of Appeals seat mid-term to accept Perry's appointment to the 353rd vacancy. This would have created a vacancy for her Place 4 seat.
While this next point is based on a hypothetical, it is more than reasonable to argue that Gov. Perry would then appoint a Republican to fill Patterson's unexpired Place 4 term whom Kurt Kuhn would face in the general election assuming Perry's Republican appointee won the GOP primary. It very well could have been Melissa Goodwin, who is currently one of two Republicans seeking to be the GOP nominee against Kuhn and whom Perry has appointed to fill vacancies in Travis County before (the 427th District Court where she was defeated in 2008 by Jim Coronado).
Beyond this point, we can argue about whether Perry would have actually appointed someone to fill Patterson's 3rd Court of Appeals seat and if they would have been a Republican. I think the answer to that is certainly yes (he would have) and yes (it would have been a Republican).
So assuming that, we'd have had a 4-2 GOP controlled 3rd Court of Appeals from (best guess) October of 2009 and through the 2010 election- over a year. That's a long time for the GOP appointee to also use that power of incumbency against Kurt Kuhn.
And why is that relevant if there was a GOP incumbent instead of an open seat? Because the 3rd Court of Appeals district is the most evenly drawn district in the entire state and every sitting judge on the 3rd Court today, regardless of party, has been elected by less than 52.5% of the vote.
Look at the numbers below- the winners are bolded.
2008-
Chief Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals District
Ken Law(I) REP 407,243 47.59%
Woodie Jones DEM 448,373 52.40%
2006-
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals District, Place 2
Alan Waldrop(I) REP 248,966 51.30% Jim Sybert Coronado DEM 236,314 48.69%
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals District, Place 3
Will Wilson REP 241,811 49.52%
Diane Henson DEM 246,411 50.47%
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals District, Place 5
David Puryear(I) REP 256,044 52.26% Mina A. Brees DEM 233,876 47.73%
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals District, Place 6
Bob Pemberton(I) REP 250,657 51.24% Bree Buchanan DEM 238,491 48.75%
2004-
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals District, Place 4
Bill Green REP 361,904 48.19%
Jan Patterson(I) DEM 389,064 51.80%
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals District, Place 6 (Unexpired)
Bob Pemberton(I) REP 386,274 51.55% Diane Henson DEM 362,955 48.44%
And remember, the 3rd Court of Appeals covers 24 counties many of which are not friendly at all. Here's the map.
These elections are heavily dependent on a lot of work by the candidate to work the mid-tier counties and convince swing voters with local endorsements. And one of the most important keys is having a good relationship with and supporting the Democratic Coordinated Campaigns in Travis County which is the single largest source of votes no matter how you slice it.
In Patterson's 2004 race, Travis County was responsible for 208,806 of her 389,064 total Democratic votes.
In the four 3rd Court of Appeals seats on the ballot in 2006, the votes from Travis County ranges from a low of 127,655 for Mina Brees to 134,176 for Diane Henson. Of those four candidates, only Henson won. But if you analyze the Travis County difference between Henson's vote and that of the three losing Democrats, it's interesting.
The Travis County drop off of 2,052 votes for Coronado from Henson's Travis Democratic total makes up only 32% of the votes he needed to flip across the district to win. For Buchanan, her Travis County Democratic difference of 3,127 votes from Henson was 51% of the total votes she need to flip to win. For Brees, the 6,521 Democratic decline from Henson's number was a stunning 59% of the vote she needed to flip across those 24 counties to win.
This is all to say that any edge a candidate has can mean a great deal to win over those critical few thousand votes out of a half million that will get cast this year. Money matters. Name ID matters. Incumbency matters- all you have to do is look at the election results above to see the power of that.
I will concede that I would prefer all of these judicial races to not have to be partisan elections (or even elections at all), partly because it can lead to technical, procedural, and partisan discussions like this! But this is the system we have, and it's entirely reasonable for Democrats to consider these facts in making their decision as to whom they will support in the 201st District Court race. I think it's fair to consider the higher value and importance of maintaining balance on the 3rd Court of Appeals, the most important appeals court in the state- due to it receiving all of the appeals from Travis County (think Public Integrity Unit from the Travis County District Attorney's office, Tom DeLay, and state lawsuits involving the environment, education, energy, and public corruption).
I hope this has clarified and provided some background for readers as to why this issue has been brought up and is important to many activists and attorneys.
Last Saturday, the Austin Central Labor Council (CLC) met to endorse candidates for the upcoming Democratic primary on March 2. Those endorsements included the following.
Mindy Montford - 299th District Court
Cliff Brown - 147th District Court
John Lipscombe - County Court at Law #3
Yvonne Williams - Justice of the Peace - Precinct 1
Karin Crump - Justice of the Peace - Precinct 2
County Commissioner Precinct 4 - no endorsement between Margaret Gomez and Raul Alvarez
But the biggest story was Amy Clark Meachum's upset of Justice Jan Patterson for the 201st civil district court.
This is a sign that Meachum has the momentum in this high-profile judicial race. Last week, Meachum announced endorsements from Senator Watson, Councilman Martinez, Representatives Strama, Rodriguez and Bolton, Constable Elfant, and County Attorney Escamilla. Rumors persist about a potential fundraiser for Meachum to be hosted by Senator Watson at his Austin home.
BOR has obtained a copy of the Patterson application to Perry that labor leaders distributed at the endorsement meeting on Saturday. Multiple sources who participated in the endorsement meeting confirmed that Meachum's outstanding presentation combined with Patterson's application to Governor Perry tipped the scales in Meachum's favor. As BOR and the Austin Chronicle have previously reported, had Senator Kirk Watson not blocked the potential Patterson appointment, Patterson would have delivered Governor Perry a 4-2 Republican majority on the all-important 3rd Court of Appeals.
On July 23, 2009, Patterson signed a letter to Governor Perry "seeking appointment" to the 353rd civil district court. She also filled out an application and submitted a long questionnaire to the Governor. These documents actually raise more questions than answers.
For example, in section 10 of the Patterson application to Perry, Patterson lists two references; Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice, Wallace Jefferson, and former Texas Supreme Court Justice, Scott Brister. Both Justices are Republican, and both are Rick Perry appointees. In fact, Justice Brister is considered by many to be among the most conservative Justices to ever serve on Texas' Supreme Court. Could Judge Patterson not find a Democrat to vouch for her, or was she just embarrassed to list one?
The application includes other interesting tidbits. For example, Patterson boasts about "serving under United States Attorney Rudy Giuliani", and claims she has "actively participated" in NO political activities in the past 10 years. Most of our Democratic judges in Travis County are actually PROUD to be Democrats, and regularly participate in party activities.
Perhaps the most significant and enlightening aspects of Patterson's application to Perry are the cases Patterson cites on pages 5 and 6 of her application. The civil cases Patterson cites are opinions she issued that contain pro-tort reform and anti-worker rulings. For example, in Newsom v. Ballinger Independent School District (2007), the Patterson application states that Patterson authored "unanimous opinion granting summary judgment in favor of school district in worker's compensation case." This ruling came at the expense of a worker. If the cases Patterson cites in her own application to Perry are any indication of her judicial philosophy and judgment, no wonder her references are 2 Republican judges.
Finally, the packet documents a $5000 contribution to Patterson from the right-wing group called Texans for Lawsuit Reform - a group that has literally spent tens of millions of dollars more or less electing Republicans and defeating good Democrats over the past decade. TLR refers to Patterson as a "Democratic candidate that TLR PAC supports," and takes credit for helping Patterson win her last election.
I'm not making any of this up - you can read through the attached packet yourself that comes complete with a Jan Patterson signature.
Austin attorney Amy Clark Meachum filed for the 201st District Court earlier today at the Travis County Democratic Party headquarters. Meachum will face Jan Patterson in the Democratic primary. We have recently documented the controversy that has surrounded Patterson, who had at one time been expected to be unopposed.
Meachum has locked down much of the Travis County Democratic activist and establishment support. Austin political consultants David Butts and Alfred Stanley, who had not backed Meachum until she switched races, were both present as she filed at the TCDP office. So were long time party activists like Donna Beth McCormick, Ginny Agnew, Pat Crow, Cecilia Crossley and Shirley Johnson, among others.
Meachum's campaign has released the following list of elected official endorsements earlier today:
Hon. Kirk Watson, Hon. Eddie Rodriguez, Hon. Mark Strama, Hon. Mike Martinez, Hon. David Escamilla, Hon. Bruce Elfant, Hon. Ken Oden, Hon. Margaret Moore, Hon. Bill Aleshire, Hon. Garnet Coleman, Hon. Jim Dunnam, Hon. Pete Gallego, Hon. Lon Burnam, Hon. Jessica Farrar, Hon. Abel Herrero, Hon. Mike Villarreal, Hon. James E. "Pete" Laney, Amb. Lyndon Olson
Meachum with supporters outside of TCDP office after filing for District Judge.
It is no secret that an army of Democratic party activists, loyalists, and democratic elected officials are hoping that Justice Jan Patterson decides to retire rather than follow through on a run for the 201st civil district court. Interestingly, a flurry of activity and action seems to be replacing hope.
This morning, Patterson’s campaign treasurer, Katie Naranjo, sent Patterson a letter resigning her position. Naranjo declined to comment for this post saying, “Even though I can no longer serve in that capacity, I would prefer to keep the contents of my communications with Judge Patterson between the two of us. I have no idea if Judge Patterson intends to retire or not – you’ll have to ask her that question.”
Multiple Democratic attorneys in town are reaching out to Judge Patterson to discuss retirement as a better option than a contested democratic primary. If Patterson opts not to retire, BOR has confirmation that at least a dozen highly motivated activists, attorneys and elected officials have been diligently working to line up support for a credible challenger to Patterson in the 201st.
The filing deadline is January 4.
What brought all this about?
As you might remember, Patterson and Senator Kirk Watson had a recent dust-up over Patterson lobbying Governor Rick Perry for his appointment to the 353rd Civil District Court after the untimely passing of Judge Scott Ozmun. Had Perry honored Patterson’s request, Perry would have been able to give the all-important 3rd Court of Appeals a 4-2 Republican majority. Patterson’s attempt to obtain a Perry appointment and thus give the Republicans a 4-2 majority on the 3rd Court infuriated Democratic elected officials, donors and activists who have labored for a decade to bring the 3rd Court to partisan parity.
Thankfully, Senator Kirk Watson had the good judgment to block the Patterson appointment from Perry. According to the Austin Chronicle, “Patterson's nomination was not approved by Sen. Kirk Watson, according to documents obtained through an open records request, and Perry ultimately appointed Jeff Rose, former deputy first assistant attorney general, to replace Ozmun.”
The Chronicle has chronicled this drama here and here.
In a report filed with the Texas Ethics Commission this week, Democratic candidate Kurt Kuhn reported that he raised $63,193.00 in contributions during the last three weeks of June. He is running to fill the seat held by Democrat Jan Patterson who will be leaving her bench to run for a District Court in Travis County.
Kuhn's fundraising figure exceeds all previous fund-raising by any non-incumbent candidate for the Third Court during a comparable time period and was exceeded by only one incumbent, Republican Robert Pemberton, who was in the unusual position of having to run in back-to-back elections in 2004 and 2006.
"The July 15th report is traditionally the best early indicator of who is a serious candidate and who is not," said Democratic political consultant Alfred Stanley, an advisor to the Kuhn campaign. "Kurt was in our office making calls just about every weekday during the last three weeks in June, and he is absolutely committed to exceeding all previous efforts to campaign for and win a position on the Third Court."
Candidates for the 3rd court cannot begin legally raising money until June the year prior to the election so this is quite an impressive and necessary haul for Democrat's efforts to hold on to the Democratic seat on the court which is currently 3-3 and covers 24 counties.
The Third Court of Appeals serves 24 counties, including Travis County. Because the state capitol is within its jurisdiction, the Third Court issues more opinions concerning state agencies and state government than any other appellate court. The six-member court is now evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, none of whom was elected with more than 52.4% of the vote. The district covers 22,543 square miles-bigger than nine states-adding to the challenge of campaigning for this bench.
A scary story is unfolding about our courts. According to Statesman 3rd Court of Appeals Justice Jan Patterson who says Chief Justice Ken Law refuse to let her file a dissent in a politically charged case involving two associates of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Justice Jan Patterson, a Democrat, is asking the Texas Supreme Court to intervene. She claims that Law, a Republican who's up for re-election, blocked the filing of her dissent to last week's ruling on whether fellow Justice Alan Waldrop, also a Republican, should step aside in the money-laundering case involving DeLay's associates.
In addition to the controversy swirling around the 3rd Court of Appeals, Texans for Public Justice has filed a complaint echoing Justice Patterson's sentiment.
Texans for Public Justice filed a complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct today alleging that Third Court of Appeals Justice Alan Waldrop should not have written an opinion in the criminal case against Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) because his impartiality is questionable.
"Justice Waldrop's August 22 TRMPAC opinion reads like a 'Get Out of Jail Free Card' for Tom DeLay and his cronies," said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. "As counsel for Texans for Lawsuit Reform in related civil litigation, Waldrop announced his bias in this matter years ago, dismissing the civil suit as 'politically motivated.' Waldrop should not have participated in this case."
The infighting in the 3rd Court is apparent. The Republicans seem to be shielding their friends and allies, while the Democrats appear to want justice. Democrat Diane Henson went so far as to ask for a full rehearing on the case. An unprecedented move in any circumstances.
Every day it becomes more and more clear why we need Woodie Jones on the bench. Luckily he is taking on Ken Law, and we can remedy these problems once and for all.
