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.”
It’s an analogy... People should act civilly in their everyday life. That is what I’m talking about. If you don’t, there are usually bad consequences.
This incident is an example of that. Clear?
Texas AG Ken Paxton Celebrates Historic Wins In Courts And Elections In Texas Primary
Bannons War Room
Trump Endorsed Brandon Gill Sweeps Texas Congressional Primary With 58% Of Vote
Bannons War Room
Whoa there, don't go injecting facts into a thread.
BS- Vote fraud affects everyone in the state and sometime the entire country. You can’t leave that up to a bunch of county hacks who are in on the steal.
What is your suggestion? We let public officials who do not have the power to bring criminal prosecutions, bring criminal prosecutions?
Do you see possible complications with that? Is the AG the the only public official who can bring criminal prosecutions they don't have the power to bring? Can a Soros DA decide my local DA isn't doing it right, and bring criminal prosecutions in my county?
OK, where in the Texas Constitution do you find that the AG has such a power? Or do you read the constitution like a progressive and just find government power wherever you think there’s a need?
No, not clear at all. No one has talked about any deals on this thread. None of the incumbent judges had any deals with anyone. You aren’t making any sense at all.
I still don’t understand. Who was being uncivil? Certainly not the judges who did their job and enforced the state constitution.
Yes. The people should probably elect DAs who don’t do that. Judges dont get to rewrite the constitution just because they don’t like the outcome.
Conservatives know that the constitution means what it says. Progressives believe it means whatever they think it needs or ought to say. Don’t be a progressive.
Where do find that he doesn’t. Is the AG just there for show.
If you don’t see why the majority was right, then read the various opinions and learn. The CCA majority reached the correct conclusion as originalists. The court of appeals’ 2-1 opinion was written by Peter Kelly, a smart lawyer but a liberal Democrat and no originalist.
Texas needs conservatives who follow the constitution and the respect the rule of law, not progressives who ignore the law when inconvenient. Paxton is behaving like a progressive here.
And again: The Stephens case had nothing to do with “leftist tactics” or voter fraud. It was a Alvin Bragg-like campaign finance prosecution over $6,000 where the only supposed felony charge—that the sheriff reported the contributions on the wrong part of the form—was promptly dismissed by the Republican judge.
Do they not have any oversight in Texas. Or can the country officials do whatever they want. What Paxton was doing had been done that way for ages until these judges came along. I always look to the past and first assume that is when they did things right. Unless proven otherwise. Because as things go forward the world is become far more corrupt. Not less.
LOL!! You think a government official has any power he wants unless the Constitution says he doesn’t? You really are a progressive. Even Woodrow Wilson or Barack Obama would blush at such an expansive reading of executive power.
Just read the CCA’s opinion and learn.
You didn’t answer my question on oversight. What I think is that you love vote fraud.
Of course they have oversight. In addition to being accountable to the voters when they seek re-election, district and county attorneys can be removed after petition and trial by a district judge for incompetence or official misconduct.
The claim that what Paxton was doing “had been done for ages” is simply untrue, as Judge Slaughter explained in her dissent from
The denial of the states motion for rehearing.
That is 100% out in the open not in any way “behind their backs.”
Bump!
Just so you know, I stand with Paxton and happily cheer him on re: his stance. The nation needs more patriots like him.
“To those who would seek to obstruct justice or undermine our laws, know this: The people of Texas will not tolerate it,” Paxton said in his statement. “Your days of judicial activism are numbered, and Texans are ready to hold you accountable.”
“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.”
The office of the “Attorney General” is mentioned 44 times in the Texas Constitution. Most pertain to bonds. Here is a description of duties:
Art IV. Sec. 22. ATTORNEY GENERAL. “The Attorney General shall represent the State in all suits and pleas in the Supreme Court of the State in which the State may be a party, and shall especially inquire into the charter rights of all private corporations, and from time to time, in the name of the State, take such action in the courts as may be proper and necessary to prevent any private corporation from exercising any power or demanding or collecting any species of taxes, tolls, freight or wharfage not authorized by law. He shall, whenever sufficient cause exists, seek a judicial forfeiture of such charters, unless otherwise expressly directed by law, and give legal advice in writing to the Governor and other executive officers, when requested by them, and perform such other duties as may be required by law. (Feb. 15, 1876. Amended Nov. 3, 1936, Nov. 2, 1954, Nov. 7, 1972, and Nov. 2, 1999.) (Temporary transition provisions for Sec. 22: see Appendix, Note 1.)”
“Consent” is mentioned 41 times and none of them pertain to county of district attorneys giving consent.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled against Paxton, citing the Separation of Powers clause:
ARTICLE II THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT Sec. 1. SEPARATION OF POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AMONG THREE DEPARTMENTS.
“The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: those which are Legislative to one,* those which are Executive to another, and those which are Judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted. (Feb. 15, 1876.)”
The office of the attorney general represents the state. It defends the state constitution. The state constitution provides many specifics on voting and voter rights. If these rights are violated by voter fraud, it seems to me the attorney general is obligated to act.
However, the Texas Supreme Court claims that the law (and possibly the state constitution) does not give the attorney general authority to prosecute crimes unless requested to do so by local authorities.
The problem is that even in Texas the lawless left is using the selective enforcement of the law to essentially override the legislature. Illegal abortion, theft, voter fraud, etc. may be permitted by the defacto non-enforcement by local DAs and CAs.
I have not been able to find a copy of the Texas Supreme Court ruling to read their opinions, but I question this outcome. How can there be laws that don’t get enforced and there is no remedy?
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.