I have written before that having a Republican voting past should not be a disqualifier for anyone who wants to run in a Democratic primary. As I said then, and will say again now, Democrats aren't going to get anywhere in this state without getting some Republicans to change their preference, and it will behoove us to be welcoming to those who do. That said, it's certainly a valid issue to explore in a primary, and it's on the candidate him or herself to convince voters that their change is real and lasting. Anyone can talk the talk - you have to show that you're walking the walk as well.

There's an interesting debate going on at BOR regarding the voting history of a judicial candidate, Karyl Krug. Without drawing any conclusions about the relative merits of her candidacy versus that of her incumbent opponent, Judge Jim Coronado, I think Krug provides an instructive case, and that she acquits herself pretty well in the comments. I suspect we're going to see more examples of people with a GOP primary vote or two in their history, especially during the darker times when a lot of Republicans were running unopposed for judicial seats, and we're going to have to come to terms with that. There have been rumors for some time here in Harris County about judicial wannabees with Republican votes wanting to run as Democrats, as well as a couple of potential party-switchers. If 2008 is as successful as we hope it is, I predict we'll see some of this here in 2010.

Now, if we're talking about a legislative race, the burden of proof is higher, what with Tom Craddick being dependent on Democratic support to maintain his iron grip on the Speakership. Given Craddick's ability and willingness to get involved in Democratic legislative primaries, any evidence of connections to the GOP is cause for concern, especially when the primary involves an anti-Craddick incumbent. And when that evidence is this clear and obvious, well, there's nothing more to be said. Some stains can't be washed out.