Posted on 03/06/2024 3:03:51 PM PST by marktwain
Three judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals were ousted by candidates endorsed by Attorney General Ken Paxton, who targeted the court after it ruled against him in a 2021 case.
Former Dallas appeals court justice David Schenck, Waco attorney Gina Parker and Richardson attorney Lee Finley were projected to defeat incumbents for the Presiding Judge, Place 7 and Place 8 seats on the state’s highest criminal court, according to the Associated Press.
This year’s primary presented the first opportunity for Paxton to attempt to oust some of the eight judges who ruled in 2021 the attorney general cannot unilaterally prosecute election law violation cases without district attorney permission.
Paxton has decried the ruling for years, arguing the court stripped him of his right to prosecute what he says is rampant voter fraud in the state.
Schenck, now an attorney with Dykema Gossett, ran against Presiding Judge Sharon Keller. Schenck was ahead of Keller with about 62% of votes, according to unofficial results from the Texas Secretary of State’s website early Wednesday morning.
Parker challenged Place 7 Judge Barbara Hervey. Parker was ahead of Hervey with about 66% of votes early Wednesday.
In the race for Place 8, Finley led with about 53% of votes over incumbent Judge Michelle Slaughter Wednesday morning.
While Schenck declined to comment on the merits of the Texas v. Stephens case in a KERA News interview, he said the attention Paxton has generated around the race helps bring awareness to Schenck’s other problems with the court, like how slowly he says the court issues its opinions.
“I just think the big picture is it’s healthy in a system where we have elections for judges for people to be able to say what they think about what the judges are doing and what their work product — whether it’s correct or incorrect, and that’s fine,” Schenck said.
Keller, who has been in office since 1994, told KERA News she wasn’t as confident in her chances of reelection leading up to the primary because of misinformation around the Stephens ruling.
“If our challengers win, that will encourage more people to try to affect or have an influence on our opinions and to challenge judges on the basis of one opinion they don’t like,” she said. “So, I think it’s an important election, not just for our court and how it proceeds, but for the judiciary in general.”
Neither the candidates nor the incumbent judges immediately responded to KERA News requests for comment Tuesday night.
Texans for Responsible Judges, a PAC with ties to the attorney general, endorsed all three challengers, while Texans for Lawsuit Reform and other PACs backed the incumbents.
The Court of Criminal Appeals races are not the only case of Paxton or his supporters retaliating against what he sees as his political opponents — the attorney general backed the primary challenger in races against House members who voted for his impeachment last year.
The races have put a spotlight on the role of partisan politics in normally quiet races. Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said judges’ low political profiles can make it easier to pit candidates against them — especially in a field where appearing impartial is key.
“By their nature, the people who sit on these benches are unable to say and do certain things politically because there’s a code of ethics that prohibits them from doing that,” he said. “So, in effect, they can’t be as strong in their own defense as a candidate who is running for a state House seat.”
What criminals are you fighting against here? A local county sheriff who accepted a couple campaign contributions in cash rather than a check? Because that’s what the Stephens case was about.
No, I think Marxist Democrats would agree with you, just as FDR and today’s Democrats do when they threaten to pack SCOTUS.
Texas has a constitution that creates Paxton’s office and defines its powers. It does not grant him the power to conduct criminal prosecutions without the DA’s consent.
The case that motivated Paxton to fund the primary challengers had nothing to do with anything you wrote here.
As I recall, the process to amend the Texas Constitution is not as difficult as it is in many states.
Separation of powers has worked fairly well, in general. The balancing act to prevent accumulation of overwhelming power by one entity is a work in progress.
Texas has thrived with its system, rather unique in the USA.
Thank you for your erudite post and response.
“No, I think Marxist Democrats would agree with you, just as FDR and today’s Democrats do when they threaten to pack SCOTUS.”
Well then... you think wrong.
Correcting the Soros-packing of the courts of rabid leftists that has already taken place by Marxist Democrats, and taking steps to recover from the Obama era deliberate devastation that has been inflicted upon the country is not only constitutional, it is a dire necessity if we are to save this nation as a free nation and as founded. We have a duty to at least try and Paxton is on the side of honor here. Your objections to that are duly noted.
Two-thirds majority vote by each house of the Legislature, then approval by the voters in an election (which typically occurs in an off year with low turnout).
Unlikely to see two-thirds of the current House--which impeached Paxton last year--approve an amendment expanding the AG's powers, but that may change depending on the result of the primary runoffs.
Forgot to mention: Yesterday’s GOP primary ballot contained a (non-binding) proposition calling for just such an amendment. It garnered 89% of the vote. So there’s certainly an appetite for it.
None of that has anything to do with the Court of Criminal Appeals primary. Paxton wasn’t prosecuting voter fraud in the Stephens case. He was prosecuting a local sheriff for reporting $6,000 in cash campaign contributions in the wrong box on her campaign finance report. The local DA—previously a Reagan-appointed US Attorney—was well within his discretion in declining to prosecute.
Thanks for an honest post. I spend days looking at candidates, who is funding them…. The first time I went to vote there were 8 offices I didn’t know were on my ballot. I am a sample ballot nut. Hubby n I discuss them and take a copy of our final debate winners to the ballot box.
It’s a fun couples thing too.
I am up to here with rationality and reasons... What is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
In the large Texas cities the “machine” has controlled the voting for many years. They ran out of ballots at all the Republican precincts in Houston, and no one answered the phones when people tried to request more ballots.
Paxton should be able to investigate when the entire county is corrupted by the “machine”.
The Texas House just got the message.
They will do what’s right. I talked to my rep and he will do what’s right.
What sauce for what goose?
While I think Shenck deserved to beat Keller, Republican voters threw out two conservative, experienced CCA judges in Hervey and Slaughter and replaced them with two unqualified nobodies with no criminal appellate experience. All because Paxton wasn’t allowed to overstep his constitutional authority in order to prosecute a $6,000 campaign finance case against a sheriff.
The only goose that got sauced here was the people of Texas. Great job, guys.
Texas has to be protected from the leftist tactics that have succeeded to flip formerly moderate states like California into the Venezuela of North America. Equally as dangerous as the Democrats are the moderate Republicans, whether on the bench or the Legislature, who are in effect assistant Democrats on numerous social issues.
“Great job guys” indeed. If two guys make a deal and shake hands, than it’s a done deal and you move on. When one guy renegs on the deal, then you use another set of principles. you’re supposed to have comity, If you don’t have that, then this is what you get and this is what you deserve.
What on earth are you talking about? What deal?
“Three judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals were ousted by candidates endorsed by Attorney General Ken Paxton, who targeted the court after it ruled against him in a 2021 case.”
Payback is a...new job!
“The AG has no power under the Texas Constitution to represent the state in criminal prosecutions without the consent of the DA or county attorney.”
And what happens when it’s murder and the DA takes a pass on the case because he’s best buddies with the accused? The guy gets away with it?
Well......bye !
Wish I had done that. New to TX so I skipped judges. Won’t happen again.
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.