District Attorney Kim Ogg was reprimanded on Tuesday night by the Harris County Democratic Party, which passed a resolution calling for her admonishment.
By a vote of 129 to 61, precinct chairs approved the resolution accusing Ogg of not adequately representing the values of the Democratic Party.
While the resolution does not limit her legal powers, it does put Ogg at odds with her own party as she heads into next year’s March primary. She is facing a challenge from Sean Teare, a former prosecutor who raised almost $750,000 in the first six months of the year – more than 10 times what Ogg raised during the same period.
Ogg, who attended the vote in person, downplayed its significance minutes after the resolution passed.
“It’s political drama within a party,” she said. “It’s the in-fighting that our American public has grown tired of. I would tell the public that this is damaging to the political process, and it hurts public trust. Anybody who pushed this is wrong.”
Daniel Cohen, a precinct chair and one of the organizers of the resolution, said its passage was the result of a grassroots movement of people who were tired of Ogg’s tussles with major figures in the party, as well as “every day working folks trying to make things work.”
“This is the future of the Harris county Democratic Party if we want to see success in elections,” Cohen said.
The resolution, first introduced in October, was signed by over 110 of the party’s 549 precinct chairs. It contained more than a dozen accusations, among them that Ogg “abused the power of her office to pursue personal vendettas against her political opponents, sided with Republicans to advance their extremist agenda, and stood in the way of fixing the broken criminal justice system.”
[…]
The resolution was narrowly approved by two party committees – the first in late November and the second in early December – before heading to the county executive committee, which is comprised of the party’s elected precinct chairs.
[…]
Once the debate concluded, precinct chairs cast their ballots. After about half an hour of counting ballots, Mike Doyle, the party chairman, announced the results, and the crowd quickly erupted into cheers.
“We’ve acted in accordance with the rules,” Doyle said above the din. “I very much appreciate that, and I very much welcome this as a show of Democrats having an important discussion, following the rules and doing it the right way. I know not everybody’s happy, but we’ve followed the rules. We’ve done what’s required.”
I’m a precinct chair and I was there last night. I did not vote on the resolution. I believe the people who put it together and advocated for it did a lot of hard work and made a strong case for themselves, and in the end expressed the will of a majority of the precinct chairs. Ogg’s supporters made some good points in her defense, and there was a great deal of passion on both sides. The meeting was well run, the rules were followed, and the people were heard. I don’t see why anyone should have a problem with that.
I did not vote on this resolution, after a lot of thought and consideration. While there are legitimate concerns about how Ogg has aimed her power at local officials, I am by nature squeamish about engaging in what might be perceived as political influence on the criminal justice process. I also have this pseudo-journalistic role in which I’m about to do a bunch of interviews with candidates running in the Democratic primary, and I want and need them to view me as a fair broker. I do these interviews and judicial Q&As to help my fellow Dems learn more about the candidates on their primary ballot, and I take that seriously. I had the experience a few years ago of a candidate refusing to talk to me because I had written something in support of his opponent in their race. I’m obviously happy to sling my opinion around, but after all these years I’m aware of some boundaries. It can be a little weird sometimes, and I don’t claim to always be consistent about it, but there it is.
Anyway. The Democratic precinct chairs followed a well-defined small-d democratic process to express their will. Whether you like the result or not, that’s the system working as designed.
Two more things: One, in case anyone who was not there is wondering, Sean Teare was not present at this meeting. While these meetings are an excellent opportunity for candidates to meet and mingle with party stalwarts, I think it was wise of him to steer clear, as the resolution was not about him. And two, for a hot minute this morning, around 5 AM, the front page of the Chronicle’s website had a photo of Ogg accompanying this story in which she was standing right next to where I was sitting. (Honestly, I’m glad I wasn’t fiddling with my phone in the picture.) I was up front with the other SD15 precinct chairs, and Ogg, who is also an SD15 resident, was there along with some of her supporters as the resolution was taken up. As it happens, when Chair Mike Doyle divided the room, the pro-resolution ballot box was on the opposite side of the room, and the anti-resolution ballot box was right where we were. I haven’t seen that picture since they changed it to a different one, but I’m sure it’s somewhere in their directory. I mention this in case anyone else was up at 5 AM refreshing the Chron homepage to see if they had a story up.















