In the off chance that you haven’t heard, Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos has a challenger in the Republican primary this year. At least one – with the filing deadline moved back a couple of days to December 19, there may be another one or two. For now, only former Judge Mike Anderson has officially filed and he was gracious enough to sit down with me and discuss the race and his reasons for challenging DA Lykos.
Who is Mike Anderson?
Imagine my surprise when I found out that we were from the same hood. That’s right; he’s a Pasadena boy, having lived there until his junior year in high school. He even spent his summers as a lifeguard at the Houston Yacht Club, which is just down the street from where I live now. He even recognized the name of the church I went to as a kid. Heck, most likely we threw elbows at each other playing basketball at the PAL (Police Athletic League) gym during the summer. Game, set, match – I’m voting for him! Just kidding. He actually looks like he could still play basketball. Me? Not so much.
We’re alike in another aspect as well – we both say that the most important thing that ever happened was meeting and marrying our wives. His wife is Devon and they married shortly after he became a judge in 1999. They have two children and live in Bellaire.
Mike Anderson, the prosecutor
After graduating from South Texas College of Law, he entered the Harris County District Attorney’s office at the tail end of the Carol Vance era and the beginning of the Johnny Holmes era. Through hard work he rose quickly in status, eventually landing in Special Crimes, where he spent 10 years prosecuting the worst of the worst.
It was easy to see that he loved being a prosecutor. He was single at the time and it wasn’t unusual for him to spend extra hours at the office or in the field trying to achieve justice for victims. He told of walking into low-rent bars with investigators trying to find witnesses to crimes and wondering if they were going to make it out alive. One of his fondest achievements was starting the gang unit at the DA’s office and working with the Vietnamese community to improve relations and gain their trust. Remember, these were fairly new immigrants to our country and certainly didn’t trust government after what they had seen in their country. His passion shines through on these subjects.
He told me that he wasn’t a very good politician but that he was working on getting better. If he can figure out a way to communicate the passion that I saw with the general public, he won’t need to worry about being a good politician.
Mike Anderson, the judge
I asked him why he gave up what was clearly his passion to become a judge. He told me that in working with judges through the years, he found that he related to them and liked them and that he thought that being a judge was the natural next step in his quest for justice. He first thought about running in 1996 but the timing wasn’t right, so he waited until 1998. To be honest, I got the impression that he became a judge more out of a sense of duty than passion. If you could have seen the passion in his eyes when talking about being a prosecutor, you’d understand what I am saying. Mind you, these are my words, not his.
Interestingly, when he talked about his time as a judge, it was more about justice for the whole, not just the victim. One of the first things he said was that the reason he worked so hard on his docket and efficiency was so that defendants didn’t spend unnecessary time in jail. That surprised me so much that I asked him about his reputation as being a “prosecuting judge”. He seemed just as surprised at my question, saying he would take issue with that characterization because it simply wasn’t true. He then told me about his philosophy as a judge in a way that I could relate – as a referee of a basketball game. Both “teams” want fairness and consistency – rule using the law and apply those rules in a consistent manner. No one likes a basketball referee that lets you bang elbows for 47 minutes of a game and then decides not to do that in the last minute, which creates confusion and anger. Very good way to put it.
His passion sparked again when he talked about his work in the “drug court”, which is designed to give addicts a second chance. I asked if he believed in rehabilitation for criminals or solely in punishment. He said he is a strong believer in rehab because he as seen it change lives and challenged me to attend a “drug court” graduation, saying that it would show me that rehab works. I might just take him up on that.
The reason he is running
Mike thinks that the number one issue in this race is DA Lykos’ lack of experience as a prosecutor. She has never tried a case, has never had to work through the process of trying a case, and has never looked a juror in the eye and asked them to sentence a person to death. He said that it wasn’t her fault, and gave her credit for running in 2008 and attempting to clean up the office after the problems of the previous administration, but that her efforts had failed because of that lack of experience.
I was skeptical and asked why would she need to have prosecuted a case in order to administer the office? He told me it was for the same reason he wouldn’t run for a job like County Sheriff after not being a law enforcement officer – you miss too many little things along way to be effective. Things like training – he told me that the prosecutors today are not receiving the level of training that they should be receiving. He thinks that DA Lykos simply doesn’t have the ability to make sound decisions because of this. Again, he was complimentary of her for trying but stated that 90{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the office despises her for this.
He also told me that her managerial style is not suited to being a manager of professionals like Assistant District Attorneys. He stated that she yells and curses at them in meetings and that she has surrounded herself with top staff that cower and say “Yes” instead of telling her what they really think about this initiative or that one. He noted that over 20 section chiefs had left the office, in addition to approximately 100 prosecutors. Once again his passion shined through when he told me a story about an ADA that was embarrassed to say he worked at the DA’s office and instead just told people that he was a lawyer. Mike seemed really, really upset by that, saying that no one should be embarrassed to say that they work at the Harris County District Attorney’s office.
I then asked him the bottom line: does he think that justice in Harris County…he stepped in and finished my sentence: “do I think that justice in Harris County has suffered because of DA Lykos? Yes, absolutely yes! And that is why I am running.”
The issues
There are several “issues” floating around that I wanted to know about. As you may remember, I wrote about a runaway Grand Jury a few weeks ago and that is certainly something I wanted to know about. As well, his comments on DIVERT (a DWI diversion program), and the “crack pipe” issue that has police so upset. So I started with the Grand Jury.
Obviously, the first question was about the foreperson, Patricia Pollard. How do you know her? Is she a friend? A neighbor? I think that relationship is critical because of the political implications brought about by the investigation the grand jury is undertaking.
Mike told me that he first met her about 10 years ago at a Habitat for Humanity event. She told him that she was a retired lawyer and would like to be on a grand jury. He thought that would be a great thing and appointed her to two grand juries during his term as a judge. He then told me that she excelled at the work and that any judge at the courthouse would fight to get her on their grand juries. He stated that she was very efficient and went out of her way to investigate cases. He mentioned one in particular in which she found out that an organization wasn’t doing criminal background checks on their volunteers, wrote a letter to the Governor, and got the policy changed. He also told me that Bellaire is a small community, so he runs into her from time to time but that was the extent of their relationship. I also asked him, if that was the extent of their relationship, why did his wife perform the duty of swearing Ms. Pollard in as a regent of Sam Houston State University? He told me he really didn’t know but in any case it had nothing to do with a grand jury.
I also asked him about the other players in this case, Stephen St. Martin, Jim Mount, and Chip Lewis. He said he knew all three men from the courthouse but that he had no special relationship with any of them. He said he completely understood my concerns about the appearance of impropriety with this Grand Jury but that he did not have anything to do with their investigation and had no inside information about it. He also noted that when he made the decision to run, the Grand Jury investigation did not factor in the decision – he only wants justice to return to Harris County.
About DIVERT, he states unequivocally that it is an illegal program and that if it ever gets to the appellate level, it will be ruled illegal. He says that you can accomplish the same thing legally through pre-trial diversion. In addition, he told me that the program undercuts the legislature’s intent to have offenders pay into the criminal justice system, costing the state approximately $10 million a year and the county approximately $3.5 million a year. I have to say that, in listening to him talk about this, I get the impression that he and DA Lykos are not in major disagreement about the effectiveness of giving first time offenders a chance to redeem themselves – just on the method used. Again, those are my words, not his.
We then talked about the “crack pipe” issue, the one in which DA Lykos’ detractors are saying that she is ignoring the law because she has told prosecutors not to accept felony charges if there isn’t enough crack to test. Mike stated that the District Attorney is bound to follow the law – if there is an evidentiary problem, that is a different story but to make a blanket policy not to charge for possession is not following the law. He then mentioned “drug courts” again, almost begging me to go so that I could see how people’s lives get turned around if they take advantage of the opportunity presented them. He told me that he has had countless graduates of that court tell him that the best day of their lives was the day that they were arrested with a crack pipe and put into the “drug court” program. He said that crack addicts now know that if they smoke the entire rock, and only residue is left, they will not be charged and can return to smoking crack, which they have to do because crack is so addictive. And to fund their crack addiction, they break into homes and rob people, creating a cycle that isn’t broken until they are arrested. Once again, the passion flared in his eyes – he was fighting for both sides, the crack addict and the homeowner.
The takeaway
Pasadena boy or not, I’ve already said that I wish he hadn’t filed. And he told me last night that he wished he hadn’t been convinced that he had to file. After meeting him and hashing this out over an hour and a half, I’m convinced that his run isn’t a run against Pat Lykos as a person, as I thought previously. I had the impression that he was one of the bitter, ex-ADA, ex-Johnny Holmes devotees that take their vitriol to a new level each day not because of the performance of the office but simply out of hatred. I’m happy that he was able to convince me that wasn’t the case for him. He wants to “give victims his best effort” and to do that, he decided that he had to take on the monumental task of upending a sitting Republican District Attorney via a primary. If he and his team can find a way to communicate his passion in a positive way to the voters in the Republican primary, the task will become a little easier.
A special thanks to Mike for taking the time to visit with this voter from Shoreacres by way of Pasadena. I’m living the dream meeting some very fine people.
Website: AndersonDA.com
Don Hooper says
So if DIVERT is illegal why does his wife have clients in DIVERT, is his wife breaking the law with her clients? Did he happen to mention how many Judicial bypasses (Abortions) he or his wife has granted?
Leif says
Case documents and rulings on requests for judicial approval of a no-notification abortion are confidential. If Anderson spoke about such things except to report suspected child abuse to the DFPS, he'd be revealing the contents of confidential proceedings and breaking the law. That's all spelled out in Chapter 33 of the Family Code.
Don Hooper says
So Leif are you saying Mike can't say whether or not he has granted Judicial bypasses at all and not state individual cases, because he could certainly do that under the code. Or, are you saying if Mike told the truth about his granting of judicial bypasses he would be unelectable and unsupportable in Harris County? I bet I can get some waivers from people to allow him to speak about it.
Since your running for office what is your perspective.
Anonymous says
Judicial Bypass Information:
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_5500.jsp
Leaf, you may want to review the Code of Judicial Conduct. It applies to judicial candidates, as well. I have provided it here for your convenience:
http://www.courts.state.tx.us/judethics/canons.asp
Both Mike Anderson and Pat Lykos are South Texas College of Law graduates. How appropriate is it for the Public Relations Manager for South Texas College of Law, Sheila Hansel, to advocate for one particular candidate?
Anonymous says
2010 State of Texas Republican Party Platform, Page Eight, Protection of Women's Health:
http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf
What is a JUDICIAL BYPASS?
A judicial bypass is an ORDER FROM A JUDGE THAT ALLOWS A MINOR TO HAVE AN ABORTION without telling or receiving consent from a parent or legal guardian.
Where is this law located?
Chapter 33 of the Texas Family Code
Who can hear a judicial bypass?
A county court at law, court with probate jurisdiction or district court, including family court.
Leif says
My "perspective" as a candidate is threefold. One, David did his usual excellent job of asking questions that illuminate both the candidate's character an the candidate's motivations and goals. I'm looking forward to his interviews with Lykos and with the rest of the candidates in the contested primary races. Two, I'm happy to answer questions about me and my race; even if it weren't required by the judicial code of conduct, I would, as a matter of courtesy, leave questions about other races to those candidates. Three, uh … Three is ….
Don Hooper says
Leif,
Let me help you here the question is has Mike Anderson ever granted a judicial bybass, an abortion for a minor without the parents consent. It is real simple and I think you know know if I ask the question I know the answer The last time I asked you a legal question you supported Lynne Hughe's outrageous position on the red-light-camera issue. I say butch up and admit Mike Anderson supports abortion against parental wishes. He should tell Terry Lowery and Steve Hotze he has done so on many occasions . No big deal an abortionist and someone who who does not support abortion is a legal right, its a matter of wright and wrong. Mike Anderson is wrong and abortionist.
Don Hooper says
Leif,
I guess since you support Mike Anderson's right to grant abortions do you as well?
Martha Johnson says
Don,
if you are gonna pick a fight, lets talk about how you waived Rachel Palmer's badge at two different parties to threaten to arrest the folks there if they didn't leave. Let's talk about how Pat Lykos still hasn't prosecuted you for impersonating a police official, because it might threaten Rachel Palmer's job at the DA's office.
Or let's talk about how Rachel Palmer is Pat Lykos's pet and therefore you are clearly biased in protecting your better half's future job.
Or lets talk about how you claim to be a CEO of a fake corporation.
Or let's talk about your messy divorce and child custody battle.
Or.. Or.. Or..
Quit picking on Leif and lay off Anderson. I'll argue on Anderson's behalf that he can be AGAINST abortion but still have to follow the letter of the LAW in granting a Judicial Bypass in rare and life-threatening circumstances (like the mother's father is also the child's father in an abuse case).
Go back to your "consulting" job.
Leif says
Don, given that you have — as everyone who was at that Downtown Pachyderm meeting can attest — completely misrepresented what I said at that meeting, I leave to others the evaluation of what you "know". I invite anyone else who has questions about my candidacy or positions to contact me. I'm easy to find.
David, I apologize for the inadvertent thread-jacking. Keep up the good work.