Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

Paxton attacks Guzman – why?

by

I received an interesting email from the Ken Paxton campaign this morning. It’s the first one that I have received that has him attacking Eva Guzman in his quest to remain the Texas Attorney General. Why?

It’s easy at first glance to think that she is gaining on him in the polls. I doubt that. Sure, she may have gained a few points in polling with her television advertising blitz but she isn’t playing to be the front runner, she’s trying to get into a runoff. So why would Paxton start attacking her?

First, here is a body of Paxton’s email:

Theme of the Day: Eva Guzman Is Too Woke for Texas 

Eva Guzman was “woke” before many progressives even caught on to the popular trend.

~ In 2016, Eva Guzman led the planning efforts for a taxpayer-funded “woke” gathering called Beyond the Bench: Law, Justice, and Communities Summit, an event particularly focused on “racial” and “implicit” bias in the criminal justice system and promoting the principles best known now as “Critical Race Theory.”

~ The conference attendees and hosts developed a list of controversial “Big Ideas” to “spur action,” ideas that come from the woke ideology that is now pervasive, such as mandating training on the cognitive and implicit bias from “all stakeholders in the criminal justice system.”

~ While parents worry that their children will be subjected to divisive “Critical Race Theory” programs that seek to divide us further on racial lines, Eva Guzman’s conference suggested as one of their top five “Big Ideas” developing an app geared towards children to recognize bias at “a really young age.”

~ Another highly ranked suggestion outlined by the conference Guzman hosted was to require every institution “to have a racial and bias audit that is public for accountability.”

Here’s the bottom line: Texans can’t trust Eva Guzman to defend our conservative values because Eva Guzman simply doesn’t share our values at all. Her “woke” agenda has no place in Texas.

Here’s where Team Paxton needs your help. We need you to share Eva Guzman’s woke record with your friends and followers on social media. Share the suggested post above on your social media accounts and make sure this critical update makes it across the Lone Star State. We need to make sure conservatives across Texas know the truth about Eva Guzman before the upcoming primary on Tuesday.

Pol. Adv. Paid for by the Ken Paxton Campaign

His campaign also produced a Facebook video on Guzman’s wokeness.

Okay, so Guzman is woke. Or maybe she’s just a Latina that was trying to prove that she was not the typical Republican. Who knows?

The more interesting thing to me is how campaigns work in the final days of an election cycle. The email above is based on an “article” on Townhall.com titled Republican Primary Challenger to Texas AG Helped Organize Summit Promoting CRT Ideas on ‘Implicit Bias’ by Rebecca Downs which clearly comes from oppo research handed to Ms. Downs by the Paxton campaign. Once again a campaign is using Townhall.com to push their talking points. Why does Townhall continue to do that? Content, what else?

And back to the question, why? In talking to several ‘insiders’ (not from the Paxton campaign) the latest polling is showing that Paxton isn’t going to make the 50% plus 1 vote to avoid a runoff.

The polling also shows that Guzman is sneaking up on George P. Bush for second place and that Gohmert remains at the back of the pack.

If those polls are accurate, it’s pretty clear that Paxton would rather face Pee Bush in the runoff. Pee is so far removed from the grassroots level of Texas politics that if he does squeak into a runoff with Paxton, he’ll get blown back to Florida where he belongs.

On the other hand, Guzman might well have a shot at Paxton in a runoff. Paxton’s ethical problems are clearly on the minds of Texas Republicans if he does get dragged into a runoff. Traditionally, the most conservative person in a statewide Republican primary usually wins (see Cruz, Patrick). But between those ethical problems and Guzman’s ability to get funding from the more liberal/moderate contributors in the Republican Party, she might be able to put a scare into him or in a longshot actually win the runoff in an upset.

I wouldn’t bank on her winning but it is plausible. It’s also plausible that by attacking Guzman now he can pull a few votes away from her and avoid a runoff altogether. I don’t see that one happing but again, who knows?

Filling out my ballot in the Republican Primary

by

I like to wait to vote on Election Day because it gives me more time to get to know the candidates. This year I haven’t spent much time doing that, mostly observing from the outside via the various social media platforms, the candidate websites, the campaign finance reports and the reports in the mainstream media outlets. I’m close to finalizing my choices and this is how my ballot looks thus far, starting from top to bottom for contested races.

Governor – Don Huffines

While I don’t think that Gov. Abbott has been as bad as some R’s think, I do believe that he is a reactive politician and I don’t much like that. I have no doubt that he will win the primary and I’ll vote for him in November but for now I’ll do a “protest” vote and hope that Abbott chooses to use his next four years wisely.

As for Huffines himself, it’s basically a process of elimination for me. I’m not going to vote for Florida Man (Allen West) or for the comedian (Chad Prather), so Huffines it is. Although it’d be fun to vote for Rick Perry.

Lt. Governor – Dan Patrick

This really isn’t a contested race but it’s on my ballot, so there you go. Dan has done far better than I thought he would when he first ran, so it’s an enthusiastic vote.

Attorney General – Ken Paxton

This one was a bit harder than it should have been. If it weren’t for Paxton’s ethical problems it’d be a slam dunk because he has been a good conservative AG. And I’d probably vote for Eva Guzman if it weren’t for the sources of her campaign cash. Ain’t no way in Hades I’m voting for P Bush and Gohmert is too far out there for me.

Comptroller – Glenn Hegar

Another one that’s not really contested but on my ballot. Hegar has run the office with efficiency and proficiency and this is an enthusiastic vote.

Commissioner of the General Land Office – Ben Armenta

In a crowded field there are some good choices and any of them will be an improvement over P Bush. Mr. Armenta gets my vote because of a clear vision and an ability to communicate it. On my ballot he barely edges out Dr. Jon Spiers. I assume that Dawn Buckingham will be in the runoff but she’s a professional politician at this point and to top it off, she hired a guy in Houston that works for Democrats to defeat Harris County Republicans.

Commissioner of Agriculture – Sid Miller

Truth is, I just like Sid Miller. He’s personable, affable and very conservative. Another enthusiastic vote. James White has become just another politician, spending his time attacking Miller instead of telling us why he has better ideas and policies.

Railroad Commissioner – undecided

Justice, Supreme Court, Place 9 – David J. Schenck

Seems like a good judge with lots of experience. The incumbent was appointed by Abbott for reasons other than being a good judge and if you get a chance, take a look at his campaign finance reports (filer id 00086069). No thanks.

Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 5 – Clint Morgan

The guy has gotten every endorsement that matters to me and the incumbent was elected solely on the basis of his name.

State Senator, District 11 – Mayes Middleton

Mayes is young, got a good conservative head on his shoulders, has a stellar record as a State Representative and is a leader. Dr. Armstrong is also a good candidate but doesn’t have the record Mayes has. And Bob Mitchell lost me completely with the way he highlighted the Houston Chronicle’s endorsement of him. No Republican in their right mind would do that.

Family District Judge, 308th Judicial District – undecided

Family District Judge, 311th Judicial District – undecided

Family District Judge, 313th Judicial District – undecided

County Judge – undecided Alexandra del Moral Mealer (click here to find out why)

Leaning towards Vidal Martinez but could go with Alexandra del Moral Mealer. Ruled out Martina Dixon based on her school board experience and campaign finance reports. Like Randy Kubosh but this isn’t the job for him.

County Treasurer – Kyle Scott

An enthusiastic vote because Kyle is a solid conservative. Eric Dick is a joke, he basically single-handedly turned the Harris County Department of Education into a Democratic controlled, Critical Race Theory pushing liberal institution. At this point it appears that he is using political campaigns to pick up clients that want to sue insurance companies. Just for fun ask him if he is going to close or suspend his law practice if he is elected. He’ll probably win based upon spending and name recognition and if he does, I’ll skip the box in November.

County Commissioner, Precinct 2 – Jack Morman

Another enthusiastic vote. Jack did great in his previous terms as commissioner and would be even better now that he has a different perspective.

And there you have it, as it stands today. Another good thing about waiting until Election Day is that you continue to get mailers from candidates and see them getting shriller and shriller every day. Dixon is now claiming that she cut school taxes 15% in Humble. Just ludicrous.

Texas Republicans are protecting your vote

by

In the last session of the Texas Legislature, a Senate Bill 1 was passed regarding election integrity and ballot protection. One of the aspects of the bill was to change the identification requirements for voting by mail. We have long assumed that there were many counts of fraud in the system but we had no way to verify it. Now we do.

And Democrats are whining about it.

Harris County is asking the Department of Justice to intervene after thousands of mail-in ballots and applications were rejected in the wake of a strict new voting law passed in the Texas Legislature.

In a letter addressed to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, county leaders pointed to an “alarmingly high number” of rejections based on new rules enacted in Senate Bill 1, which went into effect Dec. 2 and created new voter ID rules that elections administrators across the state say have tripped up voters as they seek to use mail-in ballots.

The letter — signed by Harris County judge Lina Hidalgo, County Attorney Christian Menefee and Elections Administrator Isabel Longoria — asks the DOJ to step in and investigate.

from Houston Public Media

And yet they are the ones that are having to enforce the law. And guess what? They are!

Of 33,270 mail-in ballot applications received by Harris County, 4,598 — or 14% — were flagged for rejection due to the new voter ID requirements, and 13,736 — or 41% — were “flagged for rejection for any reason.”

Just 4,227 applications were flagged for rejection during the same period in March 2018, the last midterm election, the letter says — 6.6% of all applications received.

On top of that, 35.5% of mail-in ballots themselves were flagged as of Tuesday due to new ID requirements, the letter says — 3,491 of the 9,809 ballots received in Harris County.

from Houston Public Media

In case you weren’t aware, Democrats run Harris County, so they are the ones that have to enforce the law. The fact that they are doing it is surprising but appreciated!

Oh, and thank you to the Republicans for passing a law that confirms what we already knew but couldn’t prove.

Keep up the good work!

Downtown Pachyderms host 4 candidates

by

Doug Smith, Sophia Mafrige, Tom Zakes, Mark Ramsey, Brett Guillory, Dan McKaughan, James White, Dale Gibble

The Downtown Houston Pachyderm Club hosted four Republican Party Primary candidates at their weekly meeting January 20, 2022. The four candidates were: James White for Texas Agriculture Commissioner; Dan McKaughan for TX CD-8; Mark Ramsey and Brett Guillory for TX CD-38.

James White

James White concentrated his remarks on the ethics (or lack thereof) of incumbent Sid Miller. He repeatedly referred to Sid Miller’s campaign consultant Todd Smith, who was recently indicted by the Democratic District Attorney of Travis County. Used to be that Republicans would dismiss political indictments out of Travis County but a campaign is a campaign I guess.

White also mentioned a few things that he thinks are relevant to the office, such as border security, economic security and food security. I sort of understand how those issues are tangentially related to the office but I wish that he had talked more about the issues that the office directly affects. White’s website has no policy issue section.

I think that James White is a great candidate and he would be a very good commissioner. I also think that it is unfortunate that he is basing his campaign upon negative personal attacks on Sid Miller. There are a number of things that White could focus on regarding Miller’s performance. And he did mention some in passing, namely Miller’s huge budget request and then subsequent steep increases in fees to farmers and ranchers, but mostly focused on Miller’s ties to Smith. When I asked him if he had any direct evidence that Miller was corrupt, he couldn’t provide any.

James White is the Houston Chronicle’s choice for this position.

Dan McKaughan

Dan McKaughan is running for the district that Kevin Brady used to represent. I was impressed by his passion for conservative issues, particularly in the question/answer portion of the meeting.

I’m pretty sure but not certain that he said that he wasn’t using a campaign manager but I didn’t write it down. Whether he did or didn’t, whomever wrote his bio on his website is one heck of a writer. I urge you to go and read the whole thing if you want to be inspired and pumped up like I am after reading it. Here’s a snippet:

But while these East Texas values—these truly AMERICAN values—these basic fundamentals of a moral people—are still alive here and in most parts of this Union, they seem to be daily under attack by forces that want to see them destroyed and purged from the country.  These forces are not content to live and let live, not content to let Americans be Americans.

And a complicit government only aids their cause.

Brett Guillory

Brett Guillory is running in the new district that was drawn for establishment choice Wesley Hunt. Brett is a teacher who stressed that he is not running for a job (unlike Wesley Hunt) but is passionate about serving the people of the district. His teacher background show up on his issues page, where he has this interesting bullet point:

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is infecting our education system at every level. The indoctrination of our youth with this radical, Marxist agenda must be stopped. I will work to ban this ideology from our schools. 

During his remarks he said that he would do away with the Department of Education if he could. That’s certainly a good position from my point of view.

Mark Ramsey

Mark Ramsey is also running in the new district that was drawn for Wesley Hunt. Or, as Mark called him, Washington Wesley. Mark is familiar to anyone that has been involved in the Republican Party in Harris County and the Republican Party of Texas. He has represented Senate District 7 as the SREC rep, he chaired the platform committee for the RPT and he created and chaired the legislative priorities committee for the RPT. He also was a representative in the electoral college and cast his vote for Donald Trump. In other words, he is the antithesis of Washington Wesley.

Mark’s issues are standard fare for any solid conservative Republican. His issues page is boilerplate bullet points on those issues. Where Mark stands out from any of the candidates on the ballot is on what he called his references page. If you take a look at that page you’ll see a long list of precinct chairs that are supporting him. These leaders are the backbone of the Republican Party and know the work that Mark has done and how solid of a candidate he is.

Mark stressed that there are three things that voters need to consider when hiring someone to be their representative.

  1. Experience
  2. References
  3. Integrity

Without question, Mark has the most experience of the candidates in Republican Party politics. Without question, his “references” are the backbone of the Republican Party. I’ve known Mark for many years now and I’ve never heard a single person question Mark’s integrity.

If I were a voter in CD-38, I’d vote for Mark Ramsey in a heartbeat. I damn sure wouldn’t vote for Washington Wesley.

It feels good to get out and be with other Republican activists and leaders. It’d be great to meet you if you have an opportunity to attend a meeting of the Downtown Houston Pachyderm Club.

Commissioner’s Court to Discuss Circumventing the Heartbeat Law

by

 

In September 2020 there were 4,313 abortions in Texas.  In September 2021 that number dropped to 2,164.  This is because of the Heartbeat law.  Later today Commissioner’s Court is set to take up ways to circumvent the Heartbeat law, courtesy of a request, “responding to the County Judge’s request to investigate opportunities to support individuals impacted by (SB8) or otherwise mitigate the law’s negative effects.”  Judge Hidalgo appears to be paving the way to use our tax dollars to pay to transport women who want an abortion out of state so they can have the abortion.

The “opportunity” not only says pay for transportation, but also for childcare and lodging for those seeking an abortion.

The timing of this action is especially puzzling if it is truly an attempt to combat the Heartbeat law.  Outside of the Supreme Court decision upholding the law as a matter of federal Constitutional law an attack against the enforcement mechanism is being waged in the state courts.  This attack is based on the Texas Constitution, and it recently had some success in Travis County.  The state constitution Article I, Section 13, in pertinent part, reads:

every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.

This argument was enough to have a court in Travis County find that parties could not petition the courts for enforcement since they did not have injury.  While the Texas Supreme Court is unlikely to agree the matter will still have to wind its way through the Third Court of Appeals, which will doubtless uphold the judge’s decision.  Even if ultimately unsuccessful, the ruling sets the pattern for judges across the state to temporarily halt the enforcement mechanism until the United States Supreme Court releases the Dobbs decision which will give clarity as to the future of abortion battles.

Judge Hidalgo’s request seems to be laying the framework to support abortion in a post Roe world should Dobbs go against the abortion providers.  This is especially concerning in light of the recent tax rate cut that has impacted the county health initiatives.  Indigent health care in Harris County is above average for the state, but it’s still woefully inadequate.  Every year I have clients die waiting on disability hearings that would be alive if better health care was available.  Rather than spend county resources to help those in need with healthcare Judge Hidalgo wants to spend tax dollars to pay for transportation, lodging, and childcare for those who want an abortion.

In a post Roe world, abortion doesn’t end.  Overturning Roe simply creates a logistical barrier to abortion since many states will still allow abortion.  The only inhibiting factor is how does the mother get to a state that allows abortions.  Judge Hidalgo wants to make sure that our tax dollars are used to overcome this logistical barrier.

55,848 defendants are out on felony bond from Harris County courts

by

Back in March I wrote about the number of people Harris County courts had let out on felony bond. The district attorney’s office was kind enough to update those figures under another Public Information Act request.  This post looks at how the bond situation has changed in the past eight months.

By way of reminder, here is what the Texas Penal Code states the factors to consider are in determining bond:

Art. 17.15. RULES FOR FIXING AMOUNT OF BAIL.  The amount of bail to be required in any case is to be regulated by the court, judge, magistrate or officer taking the bail;  they are to be governed in the exercise of this discretion by the Constitution and by the following rules:

  1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.
  2. The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression.
  3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered.
  4. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this point.
  5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community shall be considered.

So how have things changed?

To begin with, we now have 55,848 felony defendants out on bond (as of November 4, 2021) compared to 53,830 back in March, an increase of 3%.  No discernible pattern could be detected regarding the type of crime that was being given bond.  However, looking at the number of defendants out on bond by court revealed some striking data.

Looking at offenses shows not much has changed in the past eight months.  It’s noteworthy the number of defendants out for murder/capitol murder is increasing by just under 2 per week (66 defendants in 35 weeks.)  The number of defendants out on felony bond for prostitution has risen significantly, and likely is an artifact of the change in the state law and initiative by Councilman Pollard and Commissioner Ramsey dealing with the Bissonnet track.  I office in the middle of the track, and it does seem like “business” along the track has ticked down.

Consolidated list of crimes: March/November  +/- difference

Animal Cruelty 189/186 -3
Arson 84/79 -5
Assault 15290/14387 -903
Auto Theft 861/744 -117
Burglary 1938/1778 -160
Capital Murder 76/87 +11
Child Abandon/Endanger 276/282 +6
Child Pornography 63/74 +11
Controlled Substance (excluding marijuana) 7204/6566 -638
Criminal Mischief 1505/1666 +161
Deadly Conduct 131/186 +55
DWI 15186/15512 +326
DWLI/DWLS 263/108 -155
Environmental 137/146 +9
Ex parte 4/2 -2
Failure to ID 504/548 +44
Firearm 3776/4415 +639
Fraud 1594/1458 -136
Gambling 102/55 -47
Human Trafficking 187/172 -15
Interfering/Obstruction/Resisting/Evading 4034/3644 -392
Kidnapping 92/102 +10
Liquor 49/59 +10
Manslaughter 122/142 +20
Marijuana 316/389 +82
Money Laundering 94/90 -4
Motor Vehicle – Intox Assault 89/93 +4
Motor Vehicle – Non-DUI 1762/2408 +646
Murder 256/311 +55
Organized Crime 330/314 -16
Other 1605/1663 +58
Prostitution 413/611 +198
Retaliation 405/420 +15
Robbery 1570/1544 -26
Sexual Assault 1451/1635 +184
Solicit/Conspiracy 3/7 +4
Stalking/Harrassment/Threat-FV 1860/2018 +158
Theft 3842/3776 -66
Trespass 745/910 +165
Violation of Protective Order 642/844 +202
Weapon 907/936 +29

Looking at the number of defendants out on bond by court shows significant outliers both up and down.  Note: I’m not displaying data for the 482 since it was not available back in March.  The following courts had statistically significant increases in the number of defendants out on bond:

Court at Law: 3, 10, 13, 16 – with the 16th having a whopping 22% increase.

District Court: 179, 232, 337, 338.

The following courts had a statistically significant decrease in defendants out on bond:

Court at Law: 7

District Court: 174, 178, 184, 209 with the 178 and 184 both seeing a greater than 20% decrease in the number of defendants out on bond.

Court at Law

001         2662/2841           +179      +6%

002         2605/2659           +54        +2%

003         1558/1771           +213      +13%

004         2583/2559           -24          -1%

005         2012/2196           +184      +9%

006         2507/2545           +38         +1%

007         2162/1867           -295       -14%

008         2697/2666           -31          -1%

009         2258/2316           +58         +2%

010         2216/2620           +404      +18%

011         2643/2735           +92         +3%

012         2368/2723           +355      +3%

013         2575/2851           +276      +10%

014         1733/1870           +137      +7%

015         2281/2326           +45         +2%

016         2384/2908           +524      +22%

District Court

174         1928/1605           -323       -17%

176         1352/1259           -93          -7%

177         973/909                -64          -7%

178         1388/1069           -319       -23%

179         1775/2078           +303      +17%

180         1997/2115           +118      +5%

182         1566/1487           -79          -6%

183         1298/1212           -86          -7%

184         1424/1018           -406       -29%

185         2064/2125           +61         +2%

208         1847/1681           -166       -9%

209         1521/1333           -188       -13%

228         1750/1672           -78          -5%

230         1930/1764           -166       -9%

232         2028/2232           +204      +10%

248         1919/1899           -20          -3%

262         2130/2037           -93          -5%

263         1634/1594           -40          -3%

337         1150/1321           171         +14%

338         2039/2255           216         +10%

339         2194/2058           -136       -7%

351         2163/2136           -27          -2%

It is troubling that the fifth prong in the factors to be considered when assigning bail, “The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community shall be considered.” appears to not be given much weight by the courts.  We have just shy of 2 defendants per week who are alleged to have committed murder make bond.  Violations of protective orders and other family violence offenses are also being released at an alarming rate of a tick over 10 per week (combined 360 in 35 weeks.)

We are almost in the primary season, and it’s time we take a hard look at the criminal judges up for election and our candidates who want to replace them.  I will update these figures again when it’s close to the primary election.