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.”
The system works. Strang as it is, and how long it takes, conservatives can blast liberals out of office if we spend the time.
Step by step, we take our country back. The democRATS did not fark all this up in a day, and we will take our country back.
I wonder if the Blue States will become small Atlas Shrugged zones, and the Free States will re-educate the Blue State refugees in the glory that is America.
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. The Court of Criminal Appeals got it right.
For Paxton to go behind the judges backs by playing in their elections is disgraceful and unbecoming an attorney general.
So you don’t think it’s a disgrace for the local DA to ignore election fraud and for citizens to have no recourse... odd thinking for a “conservative”... I hope Paxton continues to sue the Feds and Phizer!.... ymmv
The problem appears to be soros-backed demo-commie DAs could ensure the demo-commies can cheat as much as they want without fear. Maybe Texas needs to change the law?
This is first primary in our new county. we ALMOST went to vote without checking things out - Hubby insisted we do what we could to vote well. I decided to see what I could find on the State courts - typed in names and found Paxton was working to rid us of RINO’s (and folks who weren’t really following the law!).
We voted well - 3 of 3 incumbents wont be incumbent in Jan2025.
When did I say I don’t think it’s a disgrace for DAs to ignore election fraud?
The citizens’ recourse is to elect a different DA if they don’t like the job the DA is doing.
I don’t think following the constitution and preserving separation of powers is “odd thinking” for a conservative at all. On the other hand, ignoring the constitution just because you’re frustrated by the result is what progressives do, not conservatives.
We voted well -
Thank you!
“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.”
ROFLMAO. What nonsense.
How did he go "behind their backs," pray tell?
Bob Wortham, the Jefferson County DA who declined to prosecute Sheriff Stephens, was a old Dem but I very much doubt he had anything to do with Soros. He ran unopposed in 2018 in a county that votes roughly 50-50 in contested elections.
Maybe the Texas Constitution should be amended, but I’d think hard about it. You’re right to be concerned about local DAs ignoring the law, but the opposite is also a concern. What if an activist Letitia James-like activist Democrat AG gets elected and decides to engage in political prosecutions? You might want the protection afforded by your local DA being able to tell her to buzz off.
I referenced the Texas Constitution. You are correct. My respect for Ken Paxton just went down a couple of notches.
However, this shows a serious flaw in the way Texas power is distributed. If a party manages to gain control of the DA and county attorney in a county, there is virtually no check on what they can do, as the DA and county attorney can simply refuse to prosecute party members.
Perhaps federal statutes could be used to prosecute things such as voter fraud.
Other than appealing to voters to "vote the bums out", have you any suggestions?
By sponsoring primary challengers against the judges because he didn’t like their 8-1 ruling restricting him to his constitutional powers.
It’s bad enough when scuzzy trial lawyers do that here in Houston (it just happened in the Democrat primary yesterday, in fact), but it’s worse when the lawyer entrusted with representing the State does it. This is more like FDR or the Biden Administration threatening to pack SCOTUS because they don’t like the rulings.
I know, I know. "We must hold ourselves to a higher standard" than the criminals we are fighting against, who hold themselves to no standards at all.
A little good old frontier justice going on there in Tejas👌😀
That may be, but the converse is true, too: The local DA’s prosecutorial discretion is a check on an overzealous AG or state government. Exactly in the same way we’ve recently relied on elected county sheriffs to resist unconstitutional gun laws.
The suggestion would be to amend the constitution if we want the AG to have that power, but I’m not sure that’s a great idea. So my suggestion is you may need to accept the fact that separation of powers and reliance on elected officials means some crimes go unpunished and you don’t always get what you want. It’s messy, but the alternative is worse.
But we’re only talking about criminal prosecutions here. Candidates still have a civil remedy for contesting election results.
Also, to be clear: The Stephens case that motivated Paxton to challenge the incumbents was a campaign finance case, not an election fraud case.
You mentioned the feds. Certainly, the feds can and do prosecute violation of federal election laws. But the feds generally don’t and shouldn’t control state elections.
“For Paxton to go behind the judges backs by playing in their elections is disgraceful and unbecoming an attorney general.”
I’m sure the Marxist Democrats would agree with you re: that. Not that I give a damn what they think or agree with. Allowing voter and election fraud is disgraceful and unacceptable and .... unconstitutional. Paxton is attempting to ‘fix it’ and I wholeheartedly applaud his attempts.
If Texas falls to the Democrats, the American nation is dead. The Democrats in Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Travis, Tarrant, and El Paso Counties are very willing to do what their counterparts have done on the West Coast, Illinois, Michigan, and the Northeast. Florida cracked down on voter fraud under DeSantis, and a once purple state is now redder than Texas. Attorney General Paxton needs to replicate what Florida has done, and with the defeat of the RINOs on the court, he may be able to do so.
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.