I promised the other day that I would give my judicial picks and since probably a dozen people have contacted me about how they had wish I had posted Elisa Morales' voting record before they went to the polls, I thought I had better get to posting my judicial picks. Also, I was checking my traffic this morning and you guys apparently took a real interest in that particular post for some reason.
This isn't an endorsement. My endorsement means nothing. This is just who I am voting for and why.
Now before I go on, I need to explain something to all you lawyer types. What you don't understand is that we elect judges. Are the public the most qualified to make an informed decision based on the legal acumen of a given an attorney or judge as to who is best suited for the position?
No - we aren't. But lets be real, most of you aren't either unless you have practiced in front of, or with, all the attorneys vying for the position. One lawyer social media friend basically implied I wasn't qualified to say who I was voting for and why because I'm not an attorney. Then proceeded to post a link to some website that attorneys pay to be on - so you could probably actually hear my eyes rolling when I read that update.
Anywho, for better or worse, judges are elected by the masses in Texas. Unless and until that changes counselor, my opinion counts as much as yours.
So here goes...
When I listen to the judicial candidates, I have heard them all several times, I try to imagine what they would be like if I was standing in front of them for a traffic ticket. I ask myself who seems the reasonable and fair of the candidates, or someone I feel would be most likely to give the average person a fair shot in front of them.
For me, that would be Michelle Morales. I've carefully listened to all the candidates and she seems like she would have the most open mind and most likely to actually listen to the City and the person who got a ticket and come to a fair decision. I have nothing to base this on other than a feeling.
And neither do you.
So that is my feeling.
The older guy seems to be more qualified in terms of knowledge of the law, based entirely on what I have heard them say and my very limited knowledge of the law, but he has one big flaw. He doesn't seem approachable, and someone who doesn't appear approachable to the average person, isn't someone I want to argue my case in front of as to why I was going 56 in a 45.
The other guy seems too much like a politician with a cheesy campaign slogan and he sent me mail this weekend (they all did) that said to vote for a change and vote for him. But his dad has run the local Democratic Party for years. Not exactly a change.
Mom's have to referee a lot of disputes. I know my mom did. Morales seems like she has more experience hearing out two sides and coming to a fair decision. So thats why I'm voting for her.
The appeals court...I'm voting for the challenger, Omar Carmona. Remember earlier when I said there is a bunch of crap going on at municipal courts and how we run a debtor's prison? That is why I don't want to vote for the incumbent, who's name escapes me at the moment.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly think he's a scholarly and learned practitioner of the law, and he played basketball at UTEP, which is where he got his experience on the bench (he tells that joke at every single event), but if he's been there and hasn't done anything about the problem, then in my mind, he's part of the problem.
So there you go, I'm voting for Morales and Carmona.