Under a great deal of stress and duress, may I present, for your entertainment and enjoyment, Ol Jock's 2024 ELECTION GUIDE!!!
Friends, this was really hard. I've honestly been stressing about it. Which is dumb. This is strictly for entertainment purposes. But it is where I'm at. This will be long. There is a lot on the ballot generally, and then we have 17 City of Dallas charter revisions, many of which are BAD!!! And we have judges. So many judges. Have I mentioned that I hate voting for judges? Critical positions, so little info, and a high level of expertise to accurately evaluate. I won't belabor the point. So, here we go!
TOP OF BALLOT
President: Sigh. Here we are, again. Sure, it is a little different this time. We had a historic move on the democrat side, with the incumbent basically forced off the ticket (correctly), and being replaced by his VP who would likely have had little chance in a primary. Meanwhile on the republican side, we get to welcome back Donald J Trump, who, at 78, is sounding older and less-hinged than ever.
When you look at the republican primary, there were only two candidates that I would not back against basically any democrat. Vivek and Trump. In 2016, I said that Trump was unfit and that I wouldn't vote for him. My view of him, despite some of legitimate good things he did in office, has only grown dimmer. I know a lot of folks have memory holed January 6th. I haven't. And his conduct since then as, in my opinion, only gotten worse. And folks also forget that the inflation spiral we are still fighting was started by Trump…and of course made worse by Biden.
So, Trump is a nonstarter. Ok, then what? I voted libertarian in 16 and 20, throwing my vote away. The libertarian choice this time around is way too isolationist for me. So, do I, for the first time in my life, since I cast my first vote in 1996, vote for the democrat for president? Or do I just leave it blank?
I don't want to vote for Kamala. I really don't. I don't think Kamala will a good president. I'm not sure she'd even be average. But Trump would be worse.
My vote on the next two items will likely be to counteract my vote here. I'm still undecided. There is a lot more I can say. More indictment of Trump as unfit. And fully agreement with any charge of Kamala's flaws. But I'm not here to change your mind on president. Our nation will survive either one. I'm just not sure that the true "classically liberal" conservative movement will be able to recover for a long long time.
Senate: Ted Cruz should know better. I think that would be a catchy slogan for someone running against him. Ted Cruz should know better! He is, by all accounts, crazy smart. And is, or at least was, principled, even when those principles could be damaging. So how could Cruz become a toadie for Trump, the man who insulted his father? How could he be an election denier? How on earth could he catch a plane to Cancun during the ice storm?
Ted Cruz should know better. Unfortunately, if not predictably, Cruz's opponent, Colin Allred, leaves MUCH to be desired in my opinion. Allred's 4 years in the house has featured him marching in lock-step with the House Dem Leadership's every direction, which doesn't exactly match his district. And, while petty, my numerous calls for him to come speak with a certain prominent local civic went unanswered (like at all, no return call/email).
Ted Cruz should know better. But is a national democrat robot (even if he has an NFL body) the answer?
No recommendation.
US House 24: Unless you are super online, Beth Van Duyne seems like a normal, boring Member of the House. Her constituent emails focus on jobs and her committee work in Washington. Online however, she continues her near breathless support of Trump, and repeats many of his worst claims. Her opponent is fresh faced 28 year old. Ugh.
Recommendation: Beth Van Duyne (R) I suppose
Rail Road Commission: Ok, so this is confusion on 2 fronts. 1) The Texas Rail Road Commission regulations……OIL & GAS!! Not rail roads. I know, right? And 2) This is for a place on the 3 member commission, not that chair. Commissioner implies chair in my view, but hey. This isn't to vote for the chief of the 3 person panel, but rather one of the other 2 panelists. With that said…
Christi Craddick (R) has served on the commission for 12 years, and is seeking another term. She is an attorney, and her family's investments in the oil and gas space might even make our insider-trader in chief Nancy Pelosi blush. For this election, she's raised over $5MM and spent over $8MM (!!!!), with most of her biggest contributors being energy related. Again, she's the regulator for them, her top donors. Katherine Culbert, the (D) challenger, is also an attorney and a safety process engineer. She has basically no money, and thus no chance. Craddick will win, but I'm voting Culbert just to try get a little balance on the commission.
Recommendation: Culbert (D)
STATE WIDE JUDGES: for judges, unless noted, I'm just talking about my recommendation.
Supreme Court Place 2: Jimmy Blacklock (R), the incumbent, is a conservative jurist who prefers plain language laws, and is an originalist. And he isn't afraid to buck the partisan system when needed, much to the chagrin of one Mr Paxton. Easy call.
Supreme Court Place 4: Christine Vigh Weems (D). I opposed Devine in the primary, and my position hasn't changed. He frequently skips oral arguments and has lovely quotes like "the separation of church and state is a myth". Hard pass.
Supreme Court Place 6: Jane Bland (R), hey a race where both primary contestants are qualified and respectable! Breath of fresh air. Bland well regarded by fellow attorneys, is a workhorse (unlike Devine above), and has shown the willingness to be independent while remaining a conservative jurist.
Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge: David Schenck (R), Schenck was my choice in the primary, and unseated a judge that needed to go. His opponent doesn't look half bad, but Schenck is a seasoned jurist and should do a good job shoring up this court that has been racked by Paxton meddling.
Court of Criminal Appeals Place 7: Nancy Mulder (D). Mulder is an experienced judge in Dallas County, has good marks from the bar, and earned the recommendation of both the DMN and Houston Chronical. Her opponent has no judicial experience, no real law career to speak of, and defeated a good incumbent who crossed Paxton. Say no to Paxton cronies!!
Court of Criminal Appeals Place 8: Chika Anyiam (D). Anyiam is an experienced judge in Dallas County, has good marks from the bar, and earned the recommendation of both the DMN and Houston Chronical. Her opponent has no judicial experience, has a spicy "extremely right" political views (his words), and defeated a good incumbent who crossed Paxton. Say no to Paxton cronies!! (hey, there's that echo again)
LET'S GET LOCAL
State Senator, District 16: Ok, this one surprises me. While incumbent democrat Nathan Johnson has proven himself as an extremely smart and capable State Senator, he is also quite partisan. I'm shocked the republicans are just ceding the place. But they are.
Recommendation: Johnson (D)
State Rep, District 108: This rematch of 2022 features republican Morgan Meyer against democrat Elizabeth Ginsberg, and it shouldn't be overly surprising that I'm going with Meyer. Meyer is an interesting politician. He's been wobbly on some topics, like vouchers, but was rock sold on others, like impeaching Paxton. And he nearly paid for that one; his was one of only a handful of Paxton opponents who didn't get primaried, winning by a mere 537 votes out of 24k cast. Meyer isn't perfect, but he's solid. And we meet republicans who will stand up to our most corrupt public official.
Recommendation: Meyer (R)
DALLAS JUDGES: limited info galore!
5th Court of Appeals Chief Justice: JJ Koch (R), while the former county commissioner has only been a judge for a short time (appointed in 2023), he's more qualified than Williams, who is one of the lowest ranked judges according to the Dallas Bar survey. The 5th is the busiest court of appeals in Texas and needs a good chief.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 2: Robbie Partida-Kipness (D) appears to be a good and fair-mind jurist. Her opponent looks decent, but RPK (I'm trade marking that just in case) has earned her spot.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 5: Erin Nowell (D), good marks from the Bar survey, good interview with the DMN, and her opponent didn't answer questions from either DMN or the League of Women Voters.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 9: Matthew Kolodoski (R), a rare open seat race. The (D), Tina Clinton, looks extremely solid too, but if these courts have to be partisan, let's have some diversity.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 10: Amanda Reichek (D), the incumbent, appears competent (bar survey) and thoughtful (answers to DMN and League of Women Voters); her opponent was far more closed lip. I see no need to flip the seat.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 11: Gino Rossini (R) is a partner with a big law firm running for judge for the first time. His opponent was a former judge who received AWFUL marks from the Bar poll in 2021 (before she left office).
5th Court of Appeals, Place 12: interesting race. Molberg (D), is an experienced workhorse with good reviews from the Dallas Bar. Lee (R) is a former judge, and described by the DMN as skilled and qualified. The different to me: Molberg is 72 and can't finish his term if elected. So, as for me, I promote Mike Lee (apologies to Lin-Manuel).
5th Court of Appeals, Place 13: Tonya Parker (D) has the highest marks I've seen in the Bar survey. Polled as "excellent" in all categories by 80%+ of the 330 respondents. Her opponent picked the wrong judge to challenge.
14th District Judge: incumbent Eric Moy (D), who has generally high marks from the Bar EXCEPT in temperament, vs Leah Feldhendler (R), about whom I can find nada. Might be a realtor too, might not, no one knows. Sigh.
162nd District Judge: Ashley Wysocki (R) was appointed to this position in 2023 by Abbott after running for it multiple times. Wysocki didn't respond to the League of Women Voters, and there isn't much on the DMN about the race. She did get good marks from the Bar in the 2021 survey, so sure, why not.
County Commissioner, Precinct 1: Jason Metcalf (R), based solely on the fact that we need new blood on the court, he appears sane and fiscally conservative, and his opponent is well past retirement age.
DALLAS CHARTER ELECTIONS: Folks, I know we've been going for a long while, but these are SUPER important, and many are, shall we say, poppycock.
Prop A: YES. Shoring up the pension fund for non-first responders (that pension is separate)
Prop B: NO. Add a preamble to the charter about being an "equitable democracy". Ummm, why? Negative ghost rider.
Prop C: Undecided. Significant pay raises for the City Council and Mayor. Right now, CC members get $60k and the mayor gets $80k. This would raise them to $90k and $110k respectively. I get the intent; we want good people…and you need to pay them. But given the lack of productive work downtown…I'm not sure (DMN says "NO" btw).
Prop D: YES. Remove the May election for city positions. My reasoning is simple…this is our 4th election of 2024. Primary, runoff, city, general. All those cost money. Streamlining is in order. Will it make future election guides longer? Also yes.
Prop E: YES. Term limits. Term limits aren't perfect, but I'm opposed to "professional" council members. 4 terms is enough. Next up, Congress!
Prop F: YES. Allows hiring flexibility for the City Auditor and Secretary.
Prop G: YES. Beefs up qualifications on who can serve on the redistricting commission.
Prop H: NO. Members of Dallas boards and commissions need to be citizens of Dallas. Duh.
Prop I: NO. Loosen requirements for law changes via public petitions. See the bottom three on here why that is a bad idea.
Prop J: YES. Allows council members to quickly replace board and commission members. Makes sense, and as a board member, I see how slowly the process can work now.
Prop L: YES. Add an independent inspector general. Dallas has issues. Let's add some independent accountability that makes sense.
Prop O: YES. Strengthen requirements on judges.
Prop P: NO. Removes the requirement of a city employee appealing their firing to pay part of the legal costs.
Prop Q: YES. Technical language cleanup. DMN says NO because there is too much in there…and because it allows notifications by methods other than the paper. My friend Adam McGough and D Mag say yes. I wish there was a bit more clarity, but it is still ok.
Prop R: NO. This petition based item is to reduce or eliminate enforcement of marijuana laws. I'm happy to have a state-wide convo about pot, but our city ignoring the law is NOT a good idea.
AND HERE BE THE DRAGONS! These three petition based items were spearheaded by far right wing activist Monty Bennett, who happens to live in Highland Park. Folks, these MAY SOUND good, but they aren't. They would be HORRIBLE for our city. I'll try to explain.
Prop S: NO. Allow residents to sue the city, and city employees, for basically anything. Garbage truck hits your fence? Sue the city, mayor, city-manager, director of sanitation, etc. City can't hire enough cops (see below)? Sue the city, mayor, manager, chief, etc. Folks, this would create law-suit mania which would cost you and me, the taxpayers! And really bad cases can still have lawsuits (see Botham Jean).
Prop T: NO. Use a public survey to reward or fire the city manager. Look guys, I get that we have, and have had, some major city manager issues. But a "public survey"? Come on now.
Prop U: NO. The city MUST hire a lot more cops and ties major portions of future revenue to police. Look, I agree we need more cops. The CITY and POLICE agree that we need more cops. We are actively trying to hire more cops. It is HARD. Our nation as a whole has a police shortage, and Dallas is no exception. We do NOT need a charter item about this, especially not one that ties up future revenue in this manner. This is a major poison pill wrapped in candy; do not fall for it.
Friends, this was really hard. I've honestly been stressing about it. Which is dumb. This is strictly for entertainment purposes. But it is where I'm at. This will be long. There is a lot on the ballot generally, and then we have 17 City of Dallas charter revisions, many of which are BAD!!! And we have judges. So many judges. Have I mentioned that I hate voting for judges? Critical positions, so little info, and a high level of expertise to accurately evaluate. I won't belabor the point. So, here we go!
TOP OF BALLOT
President: Sigh. Here we are, again. Sure, it is a little different this time. We had a historic move on the democrat side, with the incumbent basically forced off the ticket (correctly), and being replaced by his VP who would likely have had little chance in a primary. Meanwhile on the republican side, we get to welcome back Donald J Trump, who, at 78, is sounding older and less-hinged than ever.
When you look at the republican primary, there were only two candidates that I would not back against basically any democrat. Vivek and Trump. In 2016, I said that Trump was unfit and that I wouldn't vote for him. My view of him, despite some of legitimate good things he did in office, has only grown dimmer. I know a lot of folks have memory holed January 6th. I haven't. And his conduct since then as, in my opinion, only gotten worse. And folks also forget that the inflation spiral we are still fighting was started by Trump…and of course made worse by Biden.
So, Trump is a nonstarter. Ok, then what? I voted libertarian in 16 and 20, throwing my vote away. The libertarian choice this time around is way too isolationist for me. So, do I, for the first time in my life, since I cast my first vote in 1996, vote for the democrat for president? Or do I just leave it blank?
I don't want to vote for Kamala. I really don't. I don't think Kamala will a good president. I'm not sure she'd even be average. But Trump would be worse.
My vote on the next two items will likely be to counteract my vote here. I'm still undecided. There is a lot more I can say. More indictment of Trump as unfit. And fully agreement with any charge of Kamala's flaws. But I'm not here to change your mind on president. Our nation will survive either one. I'm just not sure that the true "classically liberal" conservative movement will be able to recover for a long long time.
Senate: Ted Cruz should know better. I think that would be a catchy slogan for someone running against him. Ted Cruz should know better! He is, by all accounts, crazy smart. And is, or at least was, principled, even when those principles could be damaging. So how could Cruz become a toadie for Trump, the man who insulted his father? How could he be an election denier? How on earth could he catch a plane to Cancun during the ice storm?
Ted Cruz should know better. Unfortunately, if not predictably, Cruz's opponent, Colin Allred, leaves MUCH to be desired in my opinion. Allred's 4 years in the house has featured him marching in lock-step with the House Dem Leadership's every direction, which doesn't exactly match his district. And, while petty, my numerous calls for him to come speak with a certain prominent local civic went unanswered (like at all, no return call/email).
Ted Cruz should know better. But is a national democrat robot (even if he has an NFL body) the answer?
No recommendation.
US House 24: Unless you are super online, Beth Van Duyne seems like a normal, boring Member of the House. Her constituent emails focus on jobs and her committee work in Washington. Online however, she continues her near breathless support of Trump, and repeats many of his worst claims. Her opponent is fresh faced 28 year old. Ugh.
Recommendation: Beth Van Duyne (R) I suppose
Rail Road Commission: Ok, so this is confusion on 2 fronts. 1) The Texas Rail Road Commission regulations……OIL & GAS!! Not rail roads. I know, right? And 2) This is for a place on the 3 member commission, not that chair. Commissioner implies chair in my view, but hey. This isn't to vote for the chief of the 3 person panel, but rather one of the other 2 panelists. With that said…
Christi Craddick (R) has served on the commission for 12 years, and is seeking another term. She is an attorney, and her family's investments in the oil and gas space might even make our insider-trader in chief Nancy Pelosi blush. For this election, she's raised over $5MM and spent over $8MM (!!!!), with most of her biggest contributors being energy related. Again, she's the regulator for them, her top donors. Katherine Culbert, the (D) challenger, is also an attorney and a safety process engineer. She has basically no money, and thus no chance. Craddick will win, but I'm voting Culbert just to try get a little balance on the commission.
Recommendation: Culbert (D)
STATE WIDE JUDGES: for judges, unless noted, I'm just talking about my recommendation.
Supreme Court Place 2: Jimmy Blacklock (R), the incumbent, is a conservative jurist who prefers plain language laws, and is an originalist. And he isn't afraid to buck the partisan system when needed, much to the chagrin of one Mr Paxton. Easy call.
Supreme Court Place 4: Christine Vigh Weems (D). I opposed Devine in the primary, and my position hasn't changed. He frequently skips oral arguments and has lovely quotes like "the separation of church and state is a myth". Hard pass.
Supreme Court Place 6: Jane Bland (R), hey a race where both primary contestants are qualified and respectable! Breath of fresh air. Bland well regarded by fellow attorneys, is a workhorse (unlike Devine above), and has shown the willingness to be independent while remaining a conservative jurist.
Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge: David Schenck (R), Schenck was my choice in the primary, and unseated a judge that needed to go. His opponent doesn't look half bad, but Schenck is a seasoned jurist and should do a good job shoring up this court that has been racked by Paxton meddling.
Court of Criminal Appeals Place 7: Nancy Mulder (D). Mulder is an experienced judge in Dallas County, has good marks from the bar, and earned the recommendation of both the DMN and Houston Chronical. Her opponent has no judicial experience, no real law career to speak of, and defeated a good incumbent who crossed Paxton. Say no to Paxton cronies!!
Court of Criminal Appeals Place 8: Chika Anyiam (D). Anyiam is an experienced judge in Dallas County, has good marks from the bar, and earned the recommendation of both the DMN and Houston Chronical. Her opponent has no judicial experience, has a spicy "extremely right" political views (his words), and defeated a good incumbent who crossed Paxton. Say no to Paxton cronies!! (hey, there's that echo again)
LET'S GET LOCAL
State Senator, District 16: Ok, this one surprises me. While incumbent democrat Nathan Johnson has proven himself as an extremely smart and capable State Senator, he is also quite partisan. I'm shocked the republicans are just ceding the place. But they are.
Recommendation: Johnson (D)
State Rep, District 108: This rematch of 2022 features republican Morgan Meyer against democrat Elizabeth Ginsberg, and it shouldn't be overly surprising that I'm going with Meyer. Meyer is an interesting politician. He's been wobbly on some topics, like vouchers, but was rock sold on others, like impeaching Paxton. And he nearly paid for that one; his was one of only a handful of Paxton opponents who didn't get primaried, winning by a mere 537 votes out of 24k cast. Meyer isn't perfect, but he's solid. And we meet republicans who will stand up to our most corrupt public official.
Recommendation: Meyer (R)
DALLAS JUDGES: limited info galore!
5th Court of Appeals Chief Justice: JJ Koch (R), while the former county commissioner has only been a judge for a short time (appointed in 2023), he's more qualified than Williams, who is one of the lowest ranked judges according to the Dallas Bar survey. The 5th is the busiest court of appeals in Texas and needs a good chief.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 2: Robbie Partida-Kipness (D) appears to be a good and fair-mind jurist. Her opponent looks decent, but RPK (I'm trade marking that just in case) has earned her spot.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 5: Erin Nowell (D), good marks from the Bar survey, good interview with the DMN, and her opponent didn't answer questions from either DMN or the League of Women Voters.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 9: Matthew Kolodoski (R), a rare open seat race. The (D), Tina Clinton, looks extremely solid too, but if these courts have to be partisan, let's have some diversity.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 10: Amanda Reichek (D), the incumbent, appears competent (bar survey) and thoughtful (answers to DMN and League of Women Voters); her opponent was far more closed lip. I see no need to flip the seat.
5th Court of Appeals, Place 11: Gino Rossini (R) is a partner with a big law firm running for judge for the first time. His opponent was a former judge who received AWFUL marks from the Bar poll in 2021 (before she left office).
5th Court of Appeals, Place 12: interesting race. Molberg (D), is an experienced workhorse with good reviews from the Dallas Bar. Lee (R) is a former judge, and described by the DMN as skilled and qualified. The different to me: Molberg is 72 and can't finish his term if elected. So, as for me, I promote Mike Lee (apologies to Lin-Manuel).
5th Court of Appeals, Place 13: Tonya Parker (D) has the highest marks I've seen in the Bar survey. Polled as "excellent" in all categories by 80%+ of the 330 respondents. Her opponent picked the wrong judge to challenge.
14th District Judge: incumbent Eric Moy (D), who has generally high marks from the Bar EXCEPT in temperament, vs Leah Feldhendler (R), about whom I can find nada. Might be a realtor too, might not, no one knows. Sigh.
162nd District Judge: Ashley Wysocki (R) was appointed to this position in 2023 by Abbott after running for it multiple times. Wysocki didn't respond to the League of Women Voters, and there isn't much on the DMN about the race. She did get good marks from the Bar in the 2021 survey, so sure, why not.
County Commissioner, Precinct 1: Jason Metcalf (R), based solely on the fact that we need new blood on the court, he appears sane and fiscally conservative, and his opponent is well past retirement age.
DALLAS CHARTER ELECTIONS: Folks, I know we've been going for a long while, but these are SUPER important, and many are, shall we say, poppycock.
Prop A: YES. Shoring up the pension fund for non-first responders (that pension is separate)
Prop B: NO. Add a preamble to the charter about being an "equitable democracy". Ummm, why? Negative ghost rider.
Prop C: Undecided. Significant pay raises for the City Council and Mayor. Right now, CC members get $60k and the mayor gets $80k. This would raise them to $90k and $110k respectively. I get the intent; we want good people…and you need to pay them. But given the lack of productive work downtown…I'm not sure (DMN says "NO" btw).
Prop D: YES. Remove the May election for city positions. My reasoning is simple…this is our 4th election of 2024. Primary, runoff, city, general. All those cost money. Streamlining is in order. Will it make future election guides longer? Also yes.
Prop E: YES. Term limits. Term limits aren't perfect, but I'm opposed to "professional" council members. 4 terms is enough. Next up, Congress!
Prop F: YES. Allows hiring flexibility for the City Auditor and Secretary.
Prop G: YES. Beefs up qualifications on who can serve on the redistricting commission.
Prop H: NO. Members of Dallas boards and commissions need to be citizens of Dallas. Duh.
Prop I: NO. Loosen requirements for law changes via public petitions. See the bottom three on here why that is a bad idea.
Prop J: YES. Allows council members to quickly replace board and commission members. Makes sense, and as a board member, I see how slowly the process can work now.
Prop L: YES. Add an independent inspector general. Dallas has issues. Let's add some independent accountability that makes sense.
Prop O: YES. Strengthen requirements on judges.
Prop P: NO. Removes the requirement of a city employee appealing their firing to pay part of the legal costs.
Prop Q: YES. Technical language cleanup. DMN says NO because there is too much in there…and because it allows notifications by methods other than the paper. My friend Adam McGough and D Mag say yes. I wish there was a bit more clarity, but it is still ok.
Prop R: NO. This petition based item is to reduce or eliminate enforcement of marijuana laws. I'm happy to have a state-wide convo about pot, but our city ignoring the law is NOT a good idea.
AND HERE BE THE DRAGONS! These three petition based items were spearheaded by far right wing activist Monty Bennett, who happens to live in Highland Park. Folks, these MAY SOUND good, but they aren't. They would be HORRIBLE for our city. I'll try to explain.
Prop S: NO. Allow residents to sue the city, and city employees, for basically anything. Garbage truck hits your fence? Sue the city, mayor, city-manager, director of sanitation, etc. City can't hire enough cops (see below)? Sue the city, mayor, manager, chief, etc. Folks, this would create law-suit mania which would cost you and me, the taxpayers! And really bad cases can still have lawsuits (see Botham Jean).
Prop T: NO. Use a public survey to reward or fire the city manager. Look guys, I get that we have, and have had, some major city manager issues. But a "public survey"? Come on now.
Prop U: NO. The city MUST hire a lot more cops and ties major portions of future revenue to police. Look, I agree we need more cops. The CITY and POLICE agree that we need more cops. We are actively trying to hire more cops. It is HARD. Our nation as a whole has a police shortage, and Dallas is no exception. We do NOT need a charter item about this, especially not one that ties up future revenue in this manner. This is a major poison pill wrapped in candy; do not fall for it.
