Politics and politicians can be puzzling. State Rep. Dan Huberty’s actions to keep Reginald Grant off the ballot in House District 127 is one of those things in politics that puzzles me because it doesn’t make sense to me in any way, shape or form. I mean, other than the obvious that it is always easier to win a race if you don’t have an opponent but that seems like a very weak reason in this specific case.
Take a look at the District 127 comparison page. After almost winning the primary in 2010, he crushed his opponent in the runoff and has crushed anyone that has run against him since. The idea that a teacher/veteran with practically zero name recognition or funding is going to give Huberty a true challenge in this year’s primary is pretty far-fetched. Here is what I found on the funding side (click on the name to view the report):
|Contributions||Expenditures||Cash on Hand|
|Huberty||$ 30,600||$ 76,584||$ 48,262|
|Grant||$ 440||$ 4,141||$ 440|
A couple of things. Huberty’s report is from June 30th last year, his December 31st report has not been filed as of this afternoon. I would be shocked if his latest report doesn’t show more cash on hand. And Grant’s report shows that he owes $3,294.69 to Voter Direct Texas for mailers, so he is already in a deep financial hole. In addition, he did not report any legal expenditures related to Huberty suing him over his residency, so it might be worse than that.
Residency challenges are very hard to prove, just ask HCC Trustee Dave Wilson. In case you forgot, Wilson won his residency challenge and remains a thorn in the side of the HCC board (in a good way). Click here to read Reginald Grant’s affidavit about his residency. In a nutshell, he is going through a divorce, his wife and children remain in the home and he fully intends to reside in the district again when he finalizes the divorce. At least that is what I gathered from reading the affidavit and the mountains of paperwork that Huberty’s attorneys have filed in the case.
Speaking of Huberty’s attorneys, he has a boatload of them. Five attorneys on the record for him, including former County Attorney Mike Stafford. Seems like a bit of overkill to me. Grant does have Tom Zakes on his side, so maybe that is a fair fight.
To wrap up the above, do you understand why Huberty’s actions puzzle me? Grant is going to be lucky to get 15% of the vote.
Now, to something totally unrelated to the merits of the case and totally related to the attorneys representing Huberty. You would think that with all of those high profile names on record, that someone would review their court filings for basic decency and perhaps legal liability.
As I was reviewing the documents submitted by those five high powered attorneys, I noted that in four separate filings (12/20/17, 12/22/17, 12/29/17, 1/11/18) in the case, those five high powered attorneys failed to redact the names and birth-dates of Grant’s two minor children. They did this by including the full divorce petition that Grant filed. Anyone can go to Harris County District Clerk Chris Daniel’s website and see what should be private family information. Notice that if you search for the divorce case of Grant and his wife (case 201748896), you are restricted from seeing this information.
It irked me that five high powered attorneys would put this information in the public domain, so I asked Chris why his office didn’t redact the records. Here is his answer:
The onus is on the attorney to properly file sensitive data documents. Exhibits filed through e-filing on existing cases go automatically into the case file. Versus the original petition which is reviewed by a court clerk.
It really sucks that these five high powered attorneys didn’t bother to properly file documents that had such sensitive data in them.
Perhaps someone could notify the judge of the 189th, Judge Bill Burke, and let him know that these five high powered attorneys did this under his watch. I bet he would be interested to know that.