JP Election Brief: Texas primary recap, election funding and participation

The JP Election Brief
Pulling back the curtain on the drama of judicial elections
In this issue...
Election news from: Texas, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina

March 6, 2014

by: State Courts Staff

The first primary of the year has concluded. Texas voters picked their Republican and Democratic candidates for hundreds of races on March 4. In this edition of the Election Brief, we'll take a closer look at some of those races, while branching out to examine North Carolina's public campaign fund and an upcoming election in Missouri. Also, don't forget that the next judicial primary is right around the corner! Illinois will narrow down its candidates on March 18.

Important dates: Elections: 3/18: Illinois primary Filing deadlines: 3/7: California, Georgia 3/10: Montana 3/11: New Mexico, Oregon 3/14: Idaho 3/17: Maine probate courts 3/20: Utah

Texas Supreme Court incumbents sweep primaries

Texas:

In Texas, the statewide seats of power are generally Republican-dominated, meaning the Republican primary is the race that often determines who will actually hold the position come election day. The judicial seats on the state supreme court and court of criminal appeals are partisan positions, with nominees chosen through the primary method of selection. This year, 4 seats were up for re-election on the Supreme Court of Texas.

The four Republican incumbents held on to their party's nominations--and likely their positions--against challengers.

• Nathan Hecht, currently the Chief Justice, won his party's renomination against challenger Robert Talton (60.4% to 39.6%)
• Joe Pool, Jr., who ran for an open seat nomination in 2012 but was defeated in a three-way split, was again beaten by Jeff Brown. Brown earned 71% of the vote compared to Pool's 29%.
• Phil Johnson defeated challenger Sharon McCally 64% to 36%.
• Only incumbent Republican Jeff Boyd went unchallenged in the primary.

Overall, the primary participation in Supreme Court elections was only 7-9% of registered Republican voters.

Currently, the supreme court is all-Republican, but Democratic challengers have been selected for three of the four races, and they will square off against Republican nominees in November. Democratic elections were non-competitive for this primary, as all three candidates who filed did not have challengers for their party's nomination. Bill Moody, Larry Meyers (currently a judge of the court of criminal appeals), and Gina Benavides will move smoothly into the general to face the Republican incumbents.

Continued Republican dominance seems likely for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Texas:

The primary election was pivotal in all three races for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Since they all lacked an incumbent, the highly-coveted Republican nomination was seemingly up for grabs. The three Republican winners now have a considerable leg up on the competition and are expected to win the general election.

• For Place 3, Bert Richardson beat out Barbara Walther with approximately 60% of the vote.
• The race for Place 4 was a bit more crowded, with Richard Dean Davis, Jani Jo Wood and Kevin Patrick Yeary all vying for their party's nomination. Yeary came out on top with approximately 55% of the vote, avoiding a run-off, which could have easily been required if no candidate received a majority of the votes.
• For Place 9, the race was much closer. David Newell defeated William "Bud" Kirkendall, but only with about 52% of the vote.

Currently, all seats on the Court of Criminal Appeals are held by Republicans, except that of Lawrence Meyers, who recently switched to the Democratic party in order to run for election to the supreme court this year.

The only race with a Democratic candidate is for Place 3. Bert Richardson will face the Democrat, John Granberg, in the general election, along with Libertarian Mark Bennett. With no Democratic opposition, David Newell (Place 9) and Kevin Patrick Yeary (Place 4) are almost certain to have a smooth ride into office. The Green and Libertarian parties have each put up a candidate for those seats, but it will be considered an upset if any of the Republican candidates are defeated in the general election.

Runoffs in Jefferson County

Texas:

Every Thursday, Judgepedia's State Courts Staff highlights interesting events in the world of judicial elections across the nation. Make sure to use Judgepedia's Election Central the rest of the week as a hub for all your judicial election needs.

The judicial primaries in Jefferson County, Texas have produced the need for three different runoff races.

There were four candidates running in the primary for the Jefferson County Court at Law No. 3. The lone Republican, Clint M. Woods, will advance to the general election. The runoff will decide the Democratic candidate that will face Woods in November. Audwin Samuel, Jimmy D. Hamm, and Terrence L. Holmes all ran in the Democratic primary on March 3rd. Hamm got the least votes with 20.4%, and has been eliminated from the running. Samuel and Holmes received 42.7% and 36.9%, respectively, and will face each other in the runoff election on May 27th.

Similarly, a runoff will determine the Democratic candidate for the 252nd District Court. Raquel West, Stella Batiste Morrison, and Nathan Reynolds Jr. competed in the Democratic primary, but none received over 50% of the vote. West (38.6%) and Morrison (31.5%) will go to a runoff, while Reynolds is out with only 29.9%. The winner of the runoff will go to the general election against Republican Carolyn Drawhorn Wiedenfeld.

Finally, there will be a runoff for Precinct 8 of the Jefferson County Justice Court. Five different Democratic candidates hoped to win the spot, and incumbent Tom Gillam III and Kenneth W. Marks had the most votes. With 45.6%, Gillam received almost twice as many as Marks, who got 23.2%. But because it wasn't over the 50% mark, Marks has a second chance. No Republicans filed in this race.

Potter County Court race was "kind of a squeaker," winner says

Texas:

Nancy Tanner emerged from the March 4 primary election as the Republican nominee for Texas’s Potter County Court judgeship, avoiding a runoff by less than one percent of the vote.

Tanner, one of five candidates competing for the seat, garnered 50.49% of the popular vote—a mere half percent more than Texas law required of her to win the election. If that final half percent had not come through, the top two candidates (Tanner and fellow Republican Bill Bandy) would have defaulted to an additional runoff election to be held in May.

Commented Tanner,

“

It was kind of a squeaker; I was a little nervous at first.

”

Tanner was opposed in the election by Bandy, Debra McCartt, Jeff Poindexter and William Sumerford. The candidates, none of whom have previous experience as a lawyer, all sought to replace retiring Judge Arthur Ware, who opted for retirement after a 2010 stroke left him in poor health.

Though Tanner is not officially guaranteed the court seat until after the November 4 general election, no Democratic opponent has registered to oppose her—meaning that she is a shoo-in unless Bandy requests a recount of the primary votes. The runner-up hasn’t said whether he plans to do so. State law requires the requester of a recount to deposit $100 per precinct in the race ($1600 in the case of Potter County), to be refunded in the event that the recount changes the race’s outcome.

Tanner will soon begin planning for her term in office. She said of her next move,

“

I’ll go visit with all the elected officials and department heads to get a feel for what they think needs to be done and let them know what I’m thinking.

”

Voter participation in Illinois primaries

Illinois:

With the Texas primary complete, the next state scheduled to hold a primary election is Illinois. On Monday, voters began early voting for the primary that will occur on March 18. The turnout was slow at first, attributed to a mix of wintery weather and some municipal office holiday closures. This year’s primary is unique due to the fact that it marks the first time 17-year-old Illinois residents can vote, providing they will turn 18 by the time of the November election.

While officials hope to increase voter participation in primary elections, they are aware that primaries traditionally have low levels of voter turnout. According to elections officials quoted in the Northwest Herald, around 12 percent of Chicago voters chose to cast early ballots in the 2010 and 2012 primaries.

Carrie Downey, clerk and recorder for Clark County, anticipates a 14 percent voter turnout for her county’s primary elections, even with an extra month of early grace period voting. On February 18, only 11 Clark County voters cast ballots in Downey’s office. One of those voters, Judith McFadden, commented to WTHI-TV News, "I think it's important for everybody to come out and vote, because if you don’t vote, you shouldn't be able to complain."

Axed clean elections law actually worked, study says

North Carolina: A recent study has concluded that North Carolina’s eight-year-old clean elections law had done exactly what it was designed to do: reduce the influence of private money in statewide judicial elections. It did, that is, until the state assembly and governor terminated the program.

The study, released last month by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, found that the North Carolina Public Campaign Fund had reduced the amount of private money in judicial elections from 77% of all campaign contributions to 40%. Further, before the program was implemented, only 25% of statewide judicial elections were monetarily competitive. After the program was established, this number rose to 78%. Additionally, from the time the program was active until its end, political party and candidate committee contributions decreased as an overall percentage from 9% to less than 1%.

The “Voter-Owned Elections” system had been in place since 2004. The program had established a method of publicly funding candidates in statewide judicial elections by assessing an annual $50 fee on attorneys and allowing state residents to voluntarily contribute $3 on their tax returns. Though the system still required candidates to raise a certain amount of money on their own in order to demonstrate “broad support” for their campaign, the Fund was intended to curb the practice of soliciting contributions from attorneys and business interests that were likely to appear before the court.

The program had been popular among candidates in contested elections, 77% of whom had opted into the system. Fourteen of the fifteen members of the North Carolina Court of Appeals had encouraged lawmakers to maintain the program prior to its elimination. Nonetheless, the General Assembly of North Carolina terminated the program as part of a larger voter identification bill in August of 2013.

According to a paper published by the University of North Carolina School of Government, opponents have argued that such public campaign funding:

• may upset taxpayers who don't want their money indirectly funding a candidate whom they oppose;
• encourages candidates to file for election who have little chance of winning simply as a platform to espouse their opinions;
• gives incumbents a greater advantage by leveling the financial playing field and making name recognition a greater factor;
• puts too much control in the hands of the government;
• can be compared to welfare for politicians

The study by the National Institute On Money in State Politics concluded that “future campaigns—without public funds—will reveal whether candidates for the Tar Heel State’s highest court will revert to relying heavily on private contributions and/or their own pocketbooks.”

State legislator, three others vie for associate circuit bench

Missouri: A state representative is seeking to take off his legislative hat and don a robe instead. Missouri Representative Kevin Elmer (R) is running for associate circuit judge in Christian County.

The Republican legislator of the City of Nixa serves District 139 and was elected to the House in 2010. He will not seek re-election to that seat. If he gets the job, Elmer will be replacing John S. Waters, who is retiring at the end of his term in December of 2014. Waters has served on the bench since 1999.

Elmer said, “With my boys still being the age they are and an opportunity to go back home and enter a public service role such as judge and be at home year round, I think that serves both my family and the community.”

Laura Johnson, of Ozark, Michael Hope, of Nixa, and Clayton Jones, who challenged Elmer for his House seat in 2012, will also be running in the Republican primary, which takes place August 5. The general election will take place November 4.

Hope described himself as a “common worker,” while Jones, also from Nixa, is a retired businessman and former commander of the National Military Order of the Purple Heart. Johnson is an attorney who practices with Ellis, Ellis, Hammons and Johnson, P.C.

Elmer has sparked controversy for public statements and bills he has supported. He sponsored a bill tripling the wait time for an abortion to 72 hours, and he took to Twitter to call out Nixa’s schools after high school students wore Gay-Straight Alliance t-shirts. He caused a storm by referring to them as “gay t-shirts.”

“Obviously, when you’re running for judge it’s a lot different than running for rep. You don’t have to run on issues,” Elmer said.

Elmer issued a press release in which he noted he is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Kansas City and has been a member of the Missouri Bar Association since 2000.

See also

• Judgepedia's Election Central
• 2014 judicial election dates