We are often asked why newspapers endorse candidates for political office. After all, the argument goes, most voters have made up their minds about who gets their votes in the presidential race as well as the high-profile contests long before we publish our recommendations.
That's true enough, but the newspaper's endorsement process, which we begin today for the Nov. 4 election, gives us a chance to focus on the qualities of the candidate and the challenges that they face. What we look for is the best match.
We know these choices won't be popular with everyone. We also understand that some of our choices are not necessarily going to win. If they do win, we don't expect to embrace everything they do in office.
We have had just as many causes to regret our choices as to celebrate them.
These endorsements do not come with a money-back guarantee. They are snapshots in time, and our judgment comes from research, interviews of the candidates and people who know them, as well as often spirited discussions about what all those records and interviews mean.
The fact that we represent several hundred thousand readers gives us thorough access to the candidates and information about them. Our editorialists have a combined experience of more than 100 years covering all aspects of Austin and Central Texas politics — from City Hall to the schoolhouse to the courthouse to the statehouse.
Though you might have made up your mind in the races getting the most attention, the down-ballot contests are often a mystery, and that is where a newspaper's recommendation can be a helpful guide. We get to know the candidates and the issues, and the endorsement is our way of sharing that knowledge with you.
We don't expect everybody to embrace or agree with our choices, and we know we'll hear back from you. Good, we say; an engaged electorate is the cornerstone of a vibrant democracy.
We write these series of endorsements with the idea that they will engage you, encourage you to think about the choices and help you make your own decisions.
Texas Railroad Commission: Energy experience gives Michael Williams an edge
Even some native Texans are surprised to learn that the Texas Railroad Commission has little regulatory authority over railroads. The agency's misleading 19th century name masks an essential 21 century function: the regulation of the state's energy industry.
Selection of the three-member commission is usually a low-profile affair, funded largely by industry interests. But with growing concern over the national and state energy future, voters should pay attention to the race between Republican incumbent Michael Williams, 55, Democrat Mark Thompson, 49, and Cedar Park Libertarian David Floyd, 33.
We recommend Williams for another six-year term on the commission. The early voting period in the 2008 general election begins Oct. 20. Election day is Nov. 4.
Besides regulation of the oil and gas industry, the commission is the chief overseer of the state's pipeline transporters and coal and uranium surface mines, and it regulates the environmental impact of closing old wells once they are out of production.
Williams and Thompson want to change the name of the commission to reflect its duties. The Legislature should approve a bill in the 2009 session. Thompson has called for reforming the way commissioners finance their campaigns, largely through donations from those they regulate. But he has offered no practical solutions for financing a statewide campaign for a largely unknown office.
Williams is the better choice because of his superior knowledge of energy issues, years of experience and balanced approach to the state's energy needs.
Williams has served on the commission since 1999 and is serving a second term as chairman. During that time, he has pushed with success to get Texas involved with developing new engines for school buses and other vehicles that run on propane instead of diesel or gasoline. He has traveled the state to promote propane buses and helped school districts purchase them with state and federal grants available from his agency.
The benefits are both financial and environmental, because "propane is cheaper than diesel and gasoline, much cheaper and domestically produced," Williams said. He has a point.
Williams believes that Texas will be better off if it diversifies its energy sources to make power, using all varieties of fuels, such as natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, wind, solar and biomass.
He offers two ways Texas can lead on that front. The state can pass legislation to encourage and accommodate the development of facilities that burn clean coal. And it can find a way to store power from wind that is plentiful in West Texas in the morning and evening but scarce during afternoons.
Those measures make sense because they would use power sources abundant in Texas, would be less polluting to the environment and would create jobs.
We would urge Williams to strengthen the commission's watchdog role to ensure the safety of gas pipelines. During his tenure, Williams has demonstrated a deep knowledge of complex regulatory issues and a vision for Texas' energy future. Voters would be wise to return him to office
Texas Supreme Court: Chief Justice Jefferson, Houston and Yañez get nods
It's time for change on all-Republican court
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Three of the nine seats on the Texas Supreme Court are up for election this year, and all three have Republican incumbents facing competent Democratic challengers. Most voters probably have little idea about just who the court's justices are, and that's not only because of the usual obscurity of the court. It's also because these nine, all Republicans, think pretty much alike. It's time for a change.
The principal criticism of the court, which handles only civil cases, has been its uniformity in ruling for business in cases where it is pitted against consumers or workers.
By one measure, a study by University of Texas law professor David Anderson of the court's 2004 and 2005 tort cases in which the court issued an opinion, the defendant — usually a business — won 87 percent of the time. While the court should not be expected to rule 50-50 in such cases, 87 percent suggests that justice isn't blind at the Texas Supreme Court.
A good example of the court's tilt toward business was its 9-0 ruling in the Entergy case, which for the first time protected plant owners from negligence lawsuits when contracts workers were injured on the job. To reach that ruling the court had to ignore years of settled practice on that very point in Texas, as well as legislative intent. Facing a storm of criticism, the court has agreed to reconsider the ruling.
In another case, the court ruled 6-3 in a case that a Colleyville church could not be held liable for harm to a young woman held down for two hours against her will to free her of a demon. Constitutional protection for religious liberty, the majority said, protected the church.
There have been other embarrassments as well, with questions raised about some justices using their political accounts for personal travel expenses, one justice and his wife caught up in a suspicious fire that destroyed their home and yet another who tried to get the Legislature to pay his legal bills for defending himself in an ethics case.
However, the justices up for election this year, while criticized for some of their rulings, have not been caught up in out-of-court problems.
Chief justice — The incumbent, Wallace Jefferson, 45, was appointed to the court by Gov. Rick Perry in 2001, won election on his own in 2002 and then was promoted to chief justice after Tom Phillips retired.
Challenging Jefferson is a capable Democrat, former state district judge Jim Jordan, 56, of Dallas County. Jordan faults Jefferson for a failure of leadership, both of the Supreme Court and the Texas judiciary generally.
But we think Jefferson on the whole has done a good job as chief justice. We've disagreed with him on some cases and agreed on others. He has supported efforts to help people with low incomes get legal representation, allow cameras in the courtroom and broaden the posting of briefs on the Internet.
A Libertarian Party candidate, Tom Oxford, 52, of Beaumont, also is running.
Place 7 – Texans are so used to candidates of dubious qualification but well-known name running for public office that they might automatically dismiss someone named Sam Houston, 45, a Democrat who is challenging the Republican incumbent for this seat, Dale Wainwright, 47.
But voters should take this Houston — no relation to the original — seriously enough to vote for him. From Houston, Houston is a trial lawyer with broad litigation experience and a critic of the Supreme Court, which he says needs more balance.
Wainwright has a terrific résumé and is personally impressive, but his output has been light compared to the other justices.
A Libertarian, David G. Smith, 42, of Henderson, also is running.
Place 8 — Linda Yañez, 60, a Democrat on the state's 13th Court of Appeals, based in Corpus Christi, is challenging the incumbent, Phil Johnson, 63, a former chief justice of the 7th Court of Appeals at Amarillo.
Yañez, too, says the court needs to go more to the middle, and her up-from-the-bootstraps personal story would bring a useful perspective to a court dominated by the products of big law firms.
Drew Shirley, 39, of Round Rock, is the Libertarian candidate.
3rd Court of Appeals: Woodie Jones' extensive record stands out
EDITORIAL BOARD
Monday, October 13, 2008
In 2002, Kenneth Law, an associate district judge specializing in family law cases, decided at the last minute to file as a candidate in the Republican primary race for chief justice of the 3rd Court of Appeals. He won the primary and went on to win the election. Now he's up for re-election on Nov. 4 — but voters should replace him with his challenger, Woodie Jones, an experienced appeals court judge and appellate lawyer.
The 2002 victory was something of a fluke for Law. His only primary opponent was Justice Lee Yeakel, who was so highly thought of in the legal community that no one filed in the Democratic primary.
While Law was not well known in the 3rd Court's 24-county district, which stretches from Austin to San Angelo, he had a good ballot name and defeated Yeakel — and ran unopposed in the general election.
Law, 60, is not a bad man. But he's proven ineffective and he has presided over a court that has become all too politicized as Republicans have won a 4 to 2 majority on the six-member court.
Case in point: Law was one of three justices, all Republicans, who recently volunteered, in a case involving Republican defendants, that a money-laundering law did not apply to checks, only cash — a conclusion that defies common sense but appears to open a huge loophole for the defendants to leap through. The ruling came only after the court had studied the case for two years.
Jones, 59, Law's Democratic challenger, served on the 3rd Court for about 12 years. He lost in the 2000 tide of Republican voting to David Puryear.
Citing figures from the state's Office of Court Administration, Jones lays out a compelling case that Law has not provided leadership or productivity to a court that has developed a serious backlog.
"The chief justice is supposed to crack the whip, to some extent," Jones said. While Law cannot be blamed for all of the court's backlog, Jones said, "He himself is the slowest producer."
In its poll of lawyers in the district, the State Bar of Texas reports, 1,427 voted for Jones while 249 backed Law. Asked about the poll, Law dismissed it — but acknowledged that he would be touting it if it had gone his way.
Jones' extensive court and appellate experience and his record of fairness, regardless of party, stand out. We strongly recommend that voters elect Jones as chief justice of the 3rd Court of Appeals.
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals: Ballot offers little hope for troubled court
Three seats on the court are up for election, and major change is needed. Unfortunately, most of the choices are poor.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Court of Criminal Appeals should be a showcase of Texas justice. Instead, it has become a national embarrassment. It's time for a change but, unfortunately, voters have a good choice in only one of the court's three seats being contested in the Nov. 4 election.
The nine-member court is the state's highest appeals panel for criminal cases, and it automatically reviews all death penalty convictions.
Not surprisingly in a state as conservative as Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals is stocked heavily with judges with prosecutorial backgrounds and attitudes. Defendants who challenge their convictions face a skeptical group of judges.
But too often too many of the judges on this court are not just skeptical, but indifferent, even hostile, to the appeals they are charged to hear. At times, they appear to go out of their way to uphold a conviction and avoid a new trial.
The most recent example was the scheduled execution of Charles Dean Hood that the court stopped only at the last minute. Hood had been convicted of murder in 1990, and the evidence against him was strong.
The Court of Criminal Appeals in June rejected an appeal from Hood's lawyers for time to explore unconfirmed reports of a relationship between Hood's prosecutor and the trial judge. But a lower court order finally forced the judge and prosecutor to testify under oath.
Having seen the relationship apparently confirmed, the Court of Criminal Appeals in September then halted the execution — but found other grounds for granting the appeal that it had previously rejected.
By the way, the trial judge in question, Verla Sue Holland, served on the Court of Criminal Appeals from 1997 to 2001.
And then there was last year's Michael Richard case, in which a death row inmate was executed shortly after Presiding Judge Sharon Keller refused to accept a last-minute appeal because it came in shortly after closing time, 5 p.m. This was not a frivolous appeal; it was based on a ruling that morning by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The three seats up for election are:
Place 3. Republican incumbent Tom Price, 63, of Richardson is one of the more moderate members of this court.
But the need for bracing change is so strong that voters would do well to support the Democratic candidate, Susan Strawn, 46, of Houston, a former federal prosecutor.
The court, Strawn says, doesn't do its job of critically reviewing death penalty appeals but leaves that to the federal court system. And, she says, at times the judges on the state court "appear to be at war with the (U.S.) Supreme Court."
Place 4. Paul Womack, 61, of Georgetown was fined $20,500 by the Texas Ethics Commission after his 2002 election for failing to file seven campaign finance reports. His initial reason for this failure was that he might have attention deficit disorder and a problem with procrastination.
Unfortunately, his Democratic challenger is J.R. Molina, 63, a Fort Worth lawyer who has run before but is never seen on the campaign trail.
Neither is fit to hold the office, so we're not going to recommend the least lousy choice. Neither agreed to sit down with American-Statesman editorialists.
Dave Howard, 57, of Round Rock is the Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot.
Place 9. The Republican incumbent is Cathy Cochran, 63, of Austin, who faces no Democratic challenger. The Libertarian Party candidate in this race is William Strange, 60, of Dallas.
