Posted on 03/11/2004 10:43:27 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
Analysis of Third Court district voting results Smith / Green /Pemberton In the 3rd Court of Appeals area, three candidates for appellate courts were endorsed by Rick Perry, and two won.
The loser was Ernest Garcia. Why?
The one candidate on whose behalf Gov. Perry was most active was Paul William Green, who defeated Justice Steven Wayne Smith for the Supreme Court. The candidate who beat Ernest Garcia was William Paul "Bill" Green.
William Paul Green is a long-time Democrat and environmentalist whose commitment to the environment is so strong he rides a bus or bicycles to work rather than drive. Paul William Green is a 10-year San Antonio Appeals judge.
Paul Green out-spent Smith by a three-to-one margin. Garcia outspent Bill Green more than thirty-to-one. Pemberton out-spent his opponent by a similar margin.
Yet the results were strikingly different.
Not surprisingly, Paul Green won the majority of the counties - 14 of the 24 -- in the Third Court district. Bill Green won 22 of 24 counties. Pemberton won only 8 counties, but won populous Bell and Travis by large enough margins to carry the day.
Paul Green won his race in the Third by 3,352 votes. December 2003 Perry appointee Bob Pemberton, also endorsed by Perry also won his race by a similar margin (3,344). Despite vastly dissimilar inputs, Ernest Garcia lost to Bill Green by 4,923.
The Green Machine v. The Perry Machine
Did the name matter? Unquestionably. Was the outcome a result of anti-Hispanic bias? Probably not.
In the neighboring, and demographically similar, (Waco-based) 10th Court of Appeals, Felipe Reyna defeated challenger Lynnan Kendrick by 1,347 votes.
The name that mattered was Green.
Gov. Perry's Green, Paul Green, had lots of green ($) to spread around. He sent three mailers into all contested congressional districts, and some targeted counties, including Travis. In addition, Paul Green (HE) spent over $120,000 on radio ADS, and did direct automated phone calls on the first day of early voting and again on the Monday before election day.
And the phone calls that final Monday carried Rick Perry's voice, and emphasized his strong endorsement of Green.
This benefited Paul Green as it was meant to, but also benefited the other Green just below him on the ballot.
There was no rational reason why voters would choose Bill Green, and, as Reyna demonstrates, irrational reasons cannot explain the result. But the endorsement of Paul Green by a sitting governor, reinforced by a phone call the day before, does explain the otherwise inexplicable.
Bill Green made no public appearances whatsoever. Paul Green, like Smith, Garcia, and Pemberton, campaigned energetically.
Garcia was endorsed by Gov. Perry, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs, Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, and 23 of the 24 Republican county chairs in the Third Court. No other candidate came close to such a sweep of elected officials and activists (Smith swept the activists and lower officials) against Paul Green, while Paul Green picked up Sen. John Cornyn and the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas.)
Garcia sent out three mailers to most Republican voters, and a phone call to 31,000 active Republican households (the total vote was 77,659 in the Garcia/Green race, 74,658 in the Pemberton race, and 77,884 in the Smith/Green race. The Paul Green advertising apparently created an impression of familiarity in the minds of Bill Green voters, bringing at least an additional 4,001 to cast ballots where they had skipped the less publicized Pemberton race.
Smith v. Garcia
But what accounts for the fact that Bill Green won more counties than Paul Green?
Both Smith and Garcia sent mailers into the area, though Garcia sent more. Smith also advertised on the radio, while Garcia did direct automated phone calls. But Smith was a known elected official and public figure in much of the district while Garcia was not. Not only was Smith known statewide for his work for the plaintiffs in the Hopwood anti-race-preferences case, but he also had run just two years ago in the Republican primary, and fifteen months ago in the general election. Garcia's previous electoral experience was limited to Travis County IN 2000, so he was unknown to many voters across the 24-county area.
Garcia and Bill Green are both Travis County residents, and Garcia cleaned Green's clock in Travis County (1,715 vote advantage).
Perry v. Perry
It seems clear, then, that the Rick Perry recruitment and endorsement of Paul Green led directly to the Bill Green victory.
The irony here is enormous. Perry recruited Paul Green to avenge the loss of Perry appointee Xavier Rodriguez, a self-described moderate with no prior judicial experience appointed solely to allow Perry to claim the mantle of "Hispanic outreach" in his contest against the first ever Hispanic Democratic candidate for Governor. The result was the defeat of Ernest Garcia, an experienced judge whose conservatism has never been questioned - a judge, who, had Perry appointed him in Rodriguez's place in 2002, Smith would not have challenged.
Smith's campaign manager, in fact, appeared as a surrogate for Garcia, and actively worked to promote Garcia's candidacy across the 24-county region.
I know. I managed the Smith campaign. And Ernest Garcia is still the best man for the Republican nomination in the Third Court, place four.
Who is Bill Green?
I know that because I know Bill Green. I met with Bill Green and tried to talk him out of the race, and Green lied to me and said he would withdraw.
And now Rick Perry's machinations have led to a hard-core environmentalist, who voted in Democrat primaries until 1998, and who worked for left-liberal Democrat state representative Steve Wolens (D-Dallas), being selected as the Republican nominee.
He will lose. He will lose to a Democrat who is more conservative than he is.
The result will be that the Third Court of Appeals, the most powerful intermediate appellate court in Texas, stays divided 3-3. Had Garcia been elected (and Pemberton retained), the Third Court, which hears all appeals from lawsuits involving any state agency, would have been in Republican hands for the first time ever.
This court is a critical chokepoint for Democrats who want to stop or delay Republican legislative, administrative and executive reforms.
Now, thanks to Rick Perry, that chokepoint will stay in Democratic hands.
Yes and no. If, for example, Perry had a good reason to take out Smith as Smith did to take out X-Rod, then he would have been justified. Perry had absolutely no good reason beyond his own petty vindictiveness.
It's not his fault that Bill had the same last name as Paul.
The problem is that the governor should have known that would be a likely unintended consequence. If he did not anticipate it then he is politically stupid, which gives all the more reason to question the petty vindictiveness of his crusade against Smith.
The Smith-Green race is more proof, in my opinion, that Anglos do better than Hispanics in GOP primaries.
I don't believe that to be the case at all. If, for example, Green had not recieved the support of several statewide mailouts by Perry himself and an entire weekend of Perry autodialing I believe it is doubtful that he would have won and doubtful that the homosexual democrat Green would have won as well. You also have the case of the 14th Court of Appeals where hispanic Eva Guzman clobbered anglo challenger Lloyd Oliver in a landslide.
Anyone know what happened in the Rondon-McCally race, the other Hispanic incumbent that was primaried?
Well, for starters the name Reece Rondon isn't exactly the same as, say, Juan-Carlos Hernandez. The name Reece Rondon gives virtually no hint of his ethnicity either way and, except for those who had seen him in person or had seen a picture of him, I sincerely doubt that most primary voters had any clue as to whether he was anglo or hispanic. His narrow loss is probably best attributed to the fact that, of all the challengers to Perry's appointments in Harris County, McCally was the best funded.
Exactly. Things like signing the hate crimes law and appointing LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Henry Cuellar as secretary of state come to mind.
Well, in Harris County we have an incompetent and corrupt party chairman who tows the line for Perry and, more importantly, a sleazy local political consultant. The only autodialer he made was to accuse a challenger to a Perry appointee of falsely claiming she had an endorsement from George W. Bush. In reality she never made that claim - she only described herself as a "George W. Bush Republican," albeit excessively for my tastes (I still voted for her just to stick it to Perry). Needless to say, she wasn't guilty of the charge he made against her. And other than that he sat the entire thing out when it was revealed that Paul Green was the Planned Parenthood and Chicken D's candidate for Supreme Court.
That area actually does have a long history. There were several pre-Brown civil rights cases including some in Texas where state law in the primaries was overturned by the US Supreme Court on the grounds that it intentionally violated certain civil rights. I just emailed a friend to look for that arkansas case for me.
Up until a few months ago I would have agreed, but as of late Williams has been allowing his desire for increased outreach to black voters to outweigh his common sense in policy decisions. For example, Williams recently denounced Jerry Patterson, the Land Commissioner, for simply asking the state to restore a wholly non-offensive Robert E. Lee memorial plaque that it had removed after a bunch of PC nazis at the NAACP complained. His entire grounds for doing so was that it would make more blacks vote Democrat. He seemed unaware that 95% of them already do just that.
Unfortunately trying to get the current RPT leadership to do this is a lost cause. They are still loyal to the spineless pharisee who was our last chairman, Susan Weddington, and she is in the pocket of Rick Perry.
The only chance we have is to push something from the floor of the convention in San Antonio. We should also SERIOUSLY consider a movement to oust and replace the current leadership of the RPT including several SREC members for the simple reason that they have become to the state party what Robert Byrd is to the US Senate: old, washed up politicians who have no real interest in changing the status quo.
Guess we are STUCK and conservatives are just going to have to learn how to play HARDBALL!
Yes. And that is a big IF. I believe that there are some members of the party leadership who could be induced to support such a move. Tim Lambert may be one, and Denise McNamara would probably follow him simply because they tried a similar move of using the party rules to prevent non-republican voters from participating in our primaries last time. The real problem is the Susan Weddington crowd that still occupies many leadership roles at the RPT. Weddington is in bed with Perry, yet also maintains an unusually strong sway over the "religious right" by pretending to be one of them. She has used it in the past to defeat attempts that would make the party stronger and will use it again so that is what we're up against.
"The reason I heard from him was that under Arkansas state law he earned enough votes in the 2000 Democratic primary election to qualify for 7 delegates to the national convention (out of several thousand). The Chairman of the DNC, however, used an obscure party rule to decide that LaRouche wasn't "in sympathy with the ideals of the Democratic Party," thus depriving him of his delegates. After the Supreme Court ruled that political parties are private clubs that can exclude anyone they want to, LaRouche decided to send printed materials and videotapes to all Democratic delegates, alternates and pages in an attempt to get them to support the seating of his delegates. Needless to say, he failed." http://www.harvardindependent.com/news/2002/12/05/Forum/Lunatics.In.The.Pit-337266.shtml
It also looks like the Arkansas case went through the state level first as "LaRouche v Democratic Party of Arkansas" in 2000 under Pulaski County Circuit Court, Judge John Ward. Ward ruled against LaRouche even though Arkansas state law specifies "The Delegates to the national party convention shall be apportioned to the presidential candidates whose names were on the ballot at the primary, in the proportion that the votes cast for each candidate bear to the total votes cast." It appears that this is the case that was appealed to the federal level, which also ruled against LaRouche. I haven't found that case's name yet though.
On a person-to-person basis most of them are decent (though there are a few who are just plain terrible - approx. 2/5ths to 1/3rd of the SREC IMO). For some reason however even some of the most conservative SREC people get intoxicated with the aura of government power when a high level official such as Perry or Cornyn comes along to twist their arms. Some of the SREC's in Houston made endorsements in the local judicial races solely because of what Perry wanted. I know of otherwise sound, conservative Right to Life, Eagle Forum, Republican Assembly type SREC members who endorsed and voted for completely UNQUALIFIED Perry appointees to the local courts. Some of these guys were even ex-democrats and all came from politically connected law firms. NONE had any substantial background whatsoever in the Republican party. Yet the governor called and asked for an endorsement for his people and very few of them were willing to say no.
I also know several conservative SREC members who I personally agree with on most political issues yet they are, for inexplicable reasons, beholden to Weddington and think the world of her. She was an outright terrible chairman and towed the line for the establishment wing of the GOP at every opportunity yet she had the loyalty and devotion of conservative SREC's - enough, in fact, to ensure that her staff and her cronies were kept on board at the RPT after she left to take a job under Perry.
Well...you can probably expect something on gay marriages and something on immigration simply because people submitted those on their own out of anger with the dems and, on immigration, with Bush. I'm also pushing a resolution to restore the Robert E. Lee plaque that was removed in 2000 but it is also something we drafted on our own and recruited people around the state to propose (if you are willing to support this freepmail me for a copy to propose from your convention floor).
My suggestion is to simply draft your own resolutions or find ones that others have drafted that you agree on. Bring handouts with about 25 copies of each to the convention on the 27th and propose them from the floor itself. To do this you simply need to raise your hand with a proposal at the time when they are taking them. You will then have to submit copies to the convention leadership for the record and they'll probably ask you to read it into the record, or have the convention secretary or somebody like that read it. It then opens for debate where you will normally have the first opportunity to speak in favor. If your convention is conservative there won't be any opposition and it can pass with ease.
" I am happy with the campaign we ran. But, in the end - the voters decided they wanted someone else to represent the Republican Party in November. I will remain the Judge of the 334th until 12/31/04 unless something unexpected comes up before then.
One of my fellow judges sent me an email on Tue/election day. She said that she hoped things would go well for me on election day. I wrote her back today and told her that I have always said this election was in God's hands. With that in mind, even though I lost, I have to believe that things did go well.
Thanks for all the support and thoughts. But, I don't think the voting public has heard the last of me yet."
...which means RINO Rick will be appointing him to the next vacancy that comes up.
I know what you mean, and I'd love to see Newt back in it as the Polemicist-in-Chief of the GOP (they need someone like that to articulate the positions people like Dennis Hastert and Jennifer Dunn are always putting together), a role which has fallen by default to Tom DeLay (I love to watch the Chron poofitorialists foam at the mouth over him: it's like watching cats trying to sharpen their claws on marble). But DeLay is in a leadership role that crimps his polemic and vice versa, so they need a duty back-bencher to throw grenades at the swollen heads and ideologues on the Left.
As for Texas politics, I suggest X41 mainly because of the dearth of name-recognition among Texas Pubbies: Gov. Rick, DeLay, KBH, and Carole K-R-S are about the only widely-recognized Pubbies. X41 would probably vote about the same way KBH does now, and would prevent the 'Rats from sneaking someone in there, and he'd be tough for the Senatorial 'Rats to take on. How do you argue policy and beef about intelligence-gathering with a former President and DCI? How do you cover up Clinton's Chinese shenanigans when the guy on point for the Pubbies is a former POTUS and ambassador to China? If he'd go along, and if the Pubbie leadership could figure out how to employ him properly, X41 could screw Dasschole and der U-Boot Kapitaen pretty badly when they try on X41's favorite president in foreign and defense policy.
And as I said before, I still like the idea of John Cornyn remaining in the shade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.