The Dallas Morning News may have endorsed only Republicans in its first go-round of state races, but they’ve managed to find a suitable Democrat in their State Supreme Court picks.
SUPREME COURT, PLACE 2
William Moody
Unlike most of Mr. Perry’s other Supreme Court appointments, Republican Don Willett had no judicial background before joining the high court just over a year ago. The 40-year-old served three years as a corporate lawyer, then worked on faith-based initiatives and domestic policies for George W. Bush as governor and president. The Duke Law graduate later had stints in the Justice Department and the Texas attorney general’s office.
Sum it up, and he has but single-digit years of real legal experience – none of it judicial.
We recommended the Austin resident in the GOP primary because he was a better alternative to his opponent, but we can’t reach that conclusion for the general election.
We instead recommend El Paso Judge William Moody. The 56-year-old has served 19 years on a district court. During that time, Judge Moody has tried more than 400 cases and served as a presiding judge.
Before going on the bench, the Texas Tech Law grad spent 11 years as an El Paso prosecutor. In the district attorney’s office, he worked on more than 100 felony trials.
Both Democrats and Republicans in El Paso praise Democrat Moody for being hard-working, honest and well reasoned.
Even corporate lawyers there recommend him as giving all sides a chance to make their case and for “being a brain working all the time,” as one told us about Judge Moody, an amateur historian who writes about the presidency.
Justice Willett may be a good man, but Judge Moody has experience – an appropriate background for the state’s highest court.
Moody was one of the high scorers among Democratic statewide candidates in 2002, getting 43.23 percent against now-Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson. Only Margaret Mirabal (45.90%), running against GOP pariah Steven Wayne Smith, did better in judicial races.
The DMN also made recommendations in the Court of Criminal Appeals races, and very much sounds like it would’ve picked another Dem or two if there had been any of substance.
To be honest, we were looking for some new blood in Judge [Sharon] Keller’s race for presiding judge. We’ve believed for a long time that the court needs to adopt a more cautious posture with regard to the death penalty, and it’s only recently that it seems to be inching that way. That’s progress, and we’re pleased to see it, however incremental.
We urge Judge Keller, a 53-year-old Dallas native, to help move the court in this direction. She should listen more to the centrists on the court.
Frankly, Democratic challenger J.R. Molina, a Fort Worth attorney, didn’t give us much of an alternative. In lieu of learning about him from him (Molina did not appear for an interview or complete a questionnaire), we contacted a raft of other folks for information, trusted legal experts whose judgments seem sound, many of them Democrats. None professed to know much about Mr. Molina, 59, though he’s run for various offices several times before, and nobody went strongly to bat for him.
[…]
Perhaps the biggest disappointment is the Place 8 race, which features Judge Holcomb, 72, of Wimberley and Libertarian Dave Howard, 55, of Round Rock. We declined to recommend Judge Holcomb in the March primaries, in part because we view it as unwise for voters to invest in a candidate who will have to resign during his term, as Judge Holcomb will when he hits the mandatory retirement age of 75. Challenger Mr. Howard, however, presented little choice.
Chalk up this set of contests as demonstrating a troubling lack of resolve from Democrats. On many important judicial issues, including the death penalty, the minority party in Texas says it merits a greater role. Fine. It could start earning that role by fielding real challengers for the Court of Criminal Appeals.
I can’t argue with any of that. Scott has argued that the Dems’ best short-term chances for statewide victory are in judicial races like these. I don’t agree with that – I think the farther you get away from the top of the ticket, the more likely that people will vote for a party instead of a candidate, at least for races where personal contact can’t have much effect – but for sure there’s no percentage in ceding these races, especially given how egregious Keller is and how weakened Holcomb should be. As Ryan says, these were missed opportunities and shining examples of why a Run Everywhere strategy needs to be taken seriously.
Finally, inspired by a comment that Sedosi left in that earlier Endorsement Watch post, I’m working on a Guess The Chron Endorsements contest. Look for an announcement shortly.
Outstanding!
The reason I argued that was, e.g., in 2006, I think Perry is probably unbeatable (especially in a 4-way), but a concerted effort by Ds to take out Keller could, IMO, have knocked her off much more easily. We’ll never know.
Hmm…
I must disagree with the Dallas Morning News on their take of JR Molina. I am rather unbiased in this as I consider myself a conservative libertarian, and I am not a huge fan of the Austin Chronicle, but I think the Austin Chronicle has a better take on Molina and Keller than the Dallas Morning News.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A412274
I lean strongly towards Molina since there is no Libertarian or independant candidate in this race. Keller has a history that is deplorable, whilst Molina’s background is forthright and admirable. Check out the article in the Texas Monthly on Sharon Keller entitled “And Justice for Some” or the Frontline documentary entitled “The Case for Innocence” where you can clearly see what kind of judge Ms. Keller is. Keller seems to actively try to nullify the place and purpose that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is supposed to serve. That’s just downright unnacceptable. I’ll definitely choose JR Molina when I vote.