President: John Kerry
To hear the full story behind this endorsement, you could probably ask the regulars at Little City.
For the past three Sundays, discussion during our board's weekly meetings has focused on who we would endorse for president. We disturbed our neighbors with rather childish names for John Kerry. We fought loudly over the ideals behind voting and the meaning of an endorsement.
And we never reached an easy peace.
We could all agree that President Bush has to go. The Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein was restarting a vast nuclear weapons program ignored the input of many of the most respected nuclear experts in the U.S. government. More than 1,000 American soldiers have died for this oversight, and the United States continues to fight a war that has no definite exit strategy.
Bush's record doesn't look any better on this side of the Atlantic.
A draft report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights written in September 2004 took the administration to task for its domestic policy. "President Bush," the report claims, "has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues nor taken actions to match its rhetoric."
This problem is particularly obvious regarding gay rights. President Bush has opposed laws extending hate crime and employment opportunity laws to protect homosexuals. His endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in his last state of the union address was essentially an open attack on the gay community.
Finally, this administration has displayed a terrifying tendency toward secrecy and surveillance. The Patriot Act, which Bush supports, has allowed the federal government to hold non-citizens for weeks, sometimes without filing charges. Also, Attorney General John Ashcroft, a Bush appointee, instructed federal officials to interpret the federal Freedom of Information Act as narrowly as possible.
The average citizen's relationship with the government is worse than it was four years ago. His or her access to information has been significantly curtailed.
It's easy to talk about ditching Bush. It's much harder to say who should replace him.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., did not vote against the war in Iraq. He did not vote against the Patriot Act. Despite repeating the phrase often in the three presidential debates, Kerry has not told us "exactly how" he's going to do anything.
The Bush-Cheney campaign itself offers the best endorsement for John Kerry: He changes his mind.
When it became increasingly obvious that the war in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence and downright ignorance, Kerry was willing to call out the administration. As law enforcement officers began using anti-terrorism powers to create an unsettling culture of surveillance in America, Kerry attacked the way the Patriot act is used.
Far from being a mindless flip-flopper, Kerry has proven that he is willing to listen to public input. Kerry's brand of flip-flopping would be a welcome change from an administration that simply refuses to admit mistakes or accept any responsibility for the disaster zone it has created in the Middle East.
It's about time that someone in the White House has an open mind.
The Daily Texan endorses John Kerry for president of the United States.
District 25: Lloyd Doggett
Hopefully you live far enough south to vote for Austin's beloved Lloyd Doggett, former UT student government president, 10-year House veteran and nationally renowned progressive. One of redistricting's more blatant targets, his District 10 was stretched all the way to Houston to grab enough republicans to kick him out of office. But Doggett moved to 300-mile-long District 25 and has been campaigning hard to gain support in the two-thirds Latino district.
Republican Rebecca Armendariz Klein is a bit of a Renaissance woman - she served in the Gulf War, and then became President Bush's policy director before her stint as chairwoman of the Texas Public Utility Commission. While she claims her Mexican heritage more accurately reflects the district's diversity, her platform does not. Voters may align with her culturally in opposing abortion and gay marriage, but she also supports many detrimental policies, including the invasion of Iraq, private school vouchers, the underfunded No Child Left Behind, stricter immigration laws and general economic policies that favor the rich.
Democrats outnumber Republicans almost two to one in the district, so Doggett should survive in the House. He is experienced, compassionate and has represented Austin well this past decade. Plus, voting for Doggett sticks it to the man by foiling Tom DeLay's best-laid plans to oust him.
District 10: Lorenzo Sadun
Redistricting stood to make this a boring election season until Lorenzo Sadun came along. Disgusted by the absence of a Democrat running in the newly gerrymandered district now extending to Houston, the UT math professor forfeited his time and resources to give voters an option.
"As a voter, I felt personally hurt that I wasn't going to have a right to vote in November, and I realized there were thousands of people in the same situation," he told the Texan in April.
He captured the deep anger many felt over redistricting and quickly gathered the 500 signatures needed to become a write-in candidate.
Opponent Michael McCaul is just another pretty boy party-liner who will vote however DeLay tells him, giving little thought to important decisions or how they affect our city.
"My two main goals are to help the president win the war on terror abroad and at home and to get the economy moving again," he told the Texan in April.
When President Bush tells McCaul to jump, he'll enthusiastically ask "How high?"
This district was hand-tailored for a Republican - Sadun has no shot. But sometimes voting isn't about picking the winner, it's about picking the person you believe in. And we believe in Sadun because he embodies the idealism and integrity sorely missing in politics.
District 21: No endorsement
If you live in the dorms or near campus, you don't have much of a choice this year. Republican Lamar Smith has represented District 21 since 1987, becoming a leader of the far right along the way. Recently he's made headlines with a string of bad legislation from introducing the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004, which could send Kazaa users to prison for up to five years, to defending a section of the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act that legalizes the deportation of immigrants suspected of terrorism to countries likely to torture them.
This fall, Smith also introduced the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act which threatens trial lawyers with sanctions for filing baseless claims. Completely missing the point, Smith said the law would stop people who "sue a theme park because its haunted houses are too scary" or "sue McDonald's claiming a hot pickle dropped from a hamburger caused a burn and mental injury."
But Democrat Rhett Smith is hardly an exciting challenger. A former state worker who served in the Navy, he just hasn't been giving his campaign much effort because it's an uphill battle in the Republican district, and he relies too heavily on Bush-bashing without providing any solutions.
We recommend voting for Rhett Smith in opposition to Lamar Smith's offensive record or Libertarian James Werner for a jab at the two-party system. We're disappointed at all the choices.
Railroad Commissioner: Victor Carrillo
Although he was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry (admittedly a major turnoff), Republican Victor Carrillo is the only candidate with the experience necessary to serve on the board that oversees the state's oil and gas industry. Before his appointment to Texas Railroad Commission in 2003, he made a career in the industry as he studied law on the side. After getting his law degree, specializing in environmental and oil and gas law, he was an attorney for the General Land Office. Carrillo knows the industry he'll regulating inside and out.
On the other hand, Democrat Bob Scarborough's Web site is a perfect example of his weakness and inexperience as a candidate. Screaming accusations (in this case using gaudy bold fonts) and glossing over complex issues as simply "bad," he hardly describes a clear path to run one of Texas' highest state-wide positions. Add to that virtually no experience in the industry (although, to be fair, he worked during the summers for three whole years at Col-Tex Oil Refinery in his hometown).
Anthony Garcia, the Libertarian candidate, would abolish the TRC. Somehow leaving the task of regulating energy companies to the "free market" doesn't seem like such a great idea (ahem, Enron). Excuse us.
The Texan endorses Victor Carrillo for Railroad Commissioner.
Supreme Court: No Endorsement
Scott Brister, who Gov. Perry appointed last November, is living proof that the right has activist-judges of its own. He even goes so far as to question the separation between church and state. In fact, when asked at his Senate confirmation hearing - which he scraped by with the bare-minimum number of votes - if he believed in the separation between church and state, Brister answered, "It depends on the circumstances."
He has also refused to recuse himself from abortion-rights cases, despite his active opposition to the very concept of abortion rights. A qualified judge would step aside when a conflict of interest arose - not Brister.
Challenging Brister is David Van Os, a UT alum that has championed causes from civil rights to labor rights for more than 20 years. Van Os, however, is a first and foremost a Democrat. We worry Van Os - who once chaired the Travis County Democratic Party and has participated extensively in party activism - would have trouble being a judge first and Democrat second.
This concern is magnified by Van Os' staunch defense of CBS news memos casting doubt on President Bush's Vietnam War service. "What difference would it make" if "someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973?" Overlooking convenient lies is no way for a judge - let alone a Supreme Court Justice - to adjudicate fairly.
The Texan endorses neither candidate.
State Representative District 50: Mark Strama
Jack Stick is just wrapping up his first two-year term, and he's already given students plenty of reason to make it his last. Stick voted for tuition deregulation, which led to (for now) a $720 increase in tuition. In addition to typical partisan good-old-boy-ing, Stick received a $35,000 check from the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC when he ran in 2002. Two leaders of that PAC have since been indicted and accused of taking corporate donations and distributing them to Republican candidates. While Stick has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he also refused to do the stand-up thing and return the money out of principle.
Coincidently, Mark Strama's platform focuses on holding "public officials accountable" - making him a perfect foil to Stick - and he's already begun developing his plan to do so. Strama has provided a detailed proposal ranging from creating an independent redistricting commission to cracking down on political corruption. This is Strama's first stab at public office; maybe he can make a difference before he gets stubborn and jaded. We don't know if his proposals can work, but were willing to let him give it his best shot.
State Representative District 48: Kelly White
Todd Baxter also voted for tuition deregulation, taking money from students' pockets. And, just like Stick, Baxter accepted $35,000 from TRMPAC and - although he wasn't accused of anything - has failed to show his ethical strength by returning the money.
Democratic challenger Kelly White has been leading non profit businesses for 25 years. She's spent the last 10 in Austin helping victims of rape and domestic violence as executive director of SafePlace. Under White's leadership, SafePlace won the 2003 Samaritan Center Ethics in Business Award for nonprofits. She has called for reforms in the way Texas conducts redistricting and has promised to make all of her votes public. White promises to bring the nonpartisan transparency Baxter has failed to provide. Her experience aiding others and championing the underdog will serve her well in the Capitol.
State Representative District 49: Elliott Naishtat
Elliott Naishtat has served the University for 13 years and remains a vital student advocate. Not only was he one of 54 state representatives to vote against tuition deregulation, he also has a history of supporting a voting student on the UT Board of Regents.
Naishtat's Libertarian challenger Robinson "Bo" Howell runs under the party's platform, which opposes tax support for universities. If Howell and the Libertarians succeeded, a $360 per semester increase would look merciful.
Third Court of Appeals, Place 4: Jan Patterson
Jan Patterson, the incumbent Democrat, has held the post for six years, and we see no reason for that to change. She makes it a point to travel around the district to court voters, and her presence on campus for the start of voting shows that she's motivated enough to get out the vote.
Her opponent, Bill Green, has spent 20 years in Texas appellate courts. He touts having written "more than 400 court opinions, including 24 death penalty opinions," but his prior experience is not fully applicable to the new post considering the Third Court of Appeals does not hear capital punishment cases.
Both candidates attended The University of Texas for undergraduate and law degrees, and Patterson has served as an adjunct and assistant professor at the University's School of Law. The incumbent has the experience and fairness necessary to retain her post, and the Texan endorses Jan Patterson for Place 4.
Third Court of Appeals, Place 6: Diane Henson
Gov. Rick Perry appointed Bob Pemberton to the seat in 2003. Pemberton has described his plan for a court system that must be "open, fair and balanced for all" by encouraging judges to "strictly interpret our laws and Constitution, not legislate from the bench." He has extensive experience in the state judiciary, as he was Perry's Deputy General Counsel, but he has little more experience in criminal law or the appellate courts than his time since his appointment last year.
Diane Henson has argued criminal and civil cases for 25 years, including some in the court for which she is running. She led a study on the issue of hiring more minority and women law professors for the State Bar of Texas and has been an adjunct professor at the University. She also has a history of prosecuting political corruption and pushes the "judiciary's role as an independent check and balance."
This election hinges on state experience versus criminal law experience, as well as the promise not to legislate from the bench versus the will to rule against legislative appeals. Although both candidates are qualified and experienced, the above considerations favor the challenger. The Texan endorses Diane Henson for Place 6.
345th District Court: Either candidate
Both candidates vying for a place on the 345th District Court are equally qualified within their own merit, and both would offer fair service for the Travis County court.
Patrick Keel was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to the post in 2003 when Scott McCown resigned and has earned the endorsement of every local law enforcement association for the upcoming race for a full, four-year term. Before Perry appointed Keel, the incumbent worked as a commercial lawyer, representing individual and corporate clients. He also sits on the board of directors of the non profit Dispute Resolution Center in Austin. Keel attended the University for both his undergraduate and law degrees and has the experience of incumbency and 13 years of trial law.
Stephen Yelenosky is the standing legal director for Advocacy Inc., a non profit organization that serves legal and service rights for the disabled, and has held the position for almost 10 years. His background is mostly public interest law, and he is an example of lawyers dedicated to public service rather than wealth acquisition. Yelenosky earned his undergraduate degree from Princeton University and attended Harvard Law School. He supports affirmative action and acknowledges gay rights and a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.
Yelenosky has the right principles for the position, and Keel has the more applicable experience. Either candidate would fairly represent District 345.
353rd District Court: Margaret Cooper
Margaret Cooper and Demetri Anastasiadis faced off in 2000 for the same seat, and Cooper won soundly with 61 percent of the vote. There's no reason why the same should not apply again this year.
Cooper has held the position since 1993 and was a trial lawyer for 14 years before working in the district court. She came under fire earlier this year for dropping the city in a lawsuit over the Austin Police Department's handling of protestors, but Anastasiadis' history of defending law enforcement would have likely yielded similar results.
Anastasiadis is an immigrant from Greece who currently works as an assistant attorney general in the Law Enforcement Defense Division, but he has little experience with the kinds of cases the district court would hear.
Cooper has extensive experience as a judge in the 353rd District Court, and brings a veteran approach to the civil court that hears mostly social and economic cases. The Texan endorses Margaret Cooper for the 353rd District Court bench.
Travis County District Attorney: Ronnie Earle
Ronnie Earle has spent the last 27 years keeping the state's public officials in line, at the helm of the county's Public Integrity Unit.
His most recent effort - investigating the Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee - has earned Earle, a Democrat, flack from Republicans, who try to paint him as an overzealous partisan with a ravenous hunger for GOP blood.
Earle's record paints a different picture.
Since 1977 he's investigated 15 elected officials - 11 Democrats and four Republicans. Even after Republicans solidified their control in Texas politics in 1993, Earle's ratio still lead against the Democrats 3-to-2.
The political animosity toward Earle only shows he's doing his job properly. He has served as a watchdog against corruption for nearly 30 years and deserves yet another term.
Sheriff: Greg Hamilton
The contest for Travis County sheriff is perhaps the most well-balanced race on the ballot. Both Duane McNeill (Republican) and Greg Hamilton (Democrat) are qualified for the position, and both have excellent suggestions on how to improve policing in the county.
The new sheriff will have to deal with a department that is deeply divided. The county correctional and law enforcement officers recently split into separate unions after a conflict over discrepancies in pay. Hamilton has obtained the endorsements of both organizations by significant margins, and it seems he may be able to bridge that gap.
Hamilton is also best suited to combat a negative image of police officers among citizens. This skill is particularly necessary in minority or low-income neighborhoods, which often feel harassed and singled out by officers. Hamilton has gone out of his way to call for improvements in how officers interact with citizens, and plans to assign particular officers to particular communities.
Hamilton also shares many of McNeill's best platform elements. Both have called for more institutional support for the mentally ill, both before and after they enter the justice system. Both also plan to use technology to increase efficiency and deal with overcrowding in county jails.
The Texan has nothing but good things to say about McNeill, but we believe Hamilton to be the stronger candidate. The Texan endorses Greg Hamilton for sheriff.
Constable, Precinct 3: Richard McCain
Richard McCain is the current deputy constable of Precinct 3. He is a certified police officer with nine years of law enforcement experience. This background gives McCain the edge over Thornton Keel. The Texan endorses Richard McCain for Precinct 3.
Constable, Precinct 5: Bruce Elfant
Incumbent Bruce Elfant has served quite well for 12 years. One needs a strong case to challenge that kind of experience, and Greg Papst and Ben Woosley have not succeeded in building one. The Texan endorses Bruce Elfant for constable.
County Court at Law No. 5: Nancy Hohengarten
Both candidates for this position have extensive experience in law. Challenger Angelita Mendoza-Waterhouse has more experience on the bench as an associate district judge. Hohengarten, however, understands all three sides of a criminal court - she has been judge, prosecutor and defense attorney.
Hohengarten has also shown significant interest in protecting the rights of those who cannot afford their own attorney. This attribute is particularly important when overcrowded dockets and jails may put pressure on judges to quickly decide cases.
The Daily Texan does not support elections in judicial races. The practice tends to infuse the supposedly impartial system with campaign finance money that could lead to corruption. Still, the Texan endorses Nancy Hohengarten for County Court at Law No. 5.
Capital Metro Referendum: For
We'll put it simply. If you vote against the Capital Metro Referendum, you hereby forfeit all right to complain about the parking lot that is I-35.
Traffic is a problem in Austin. As the city continues to grow, the freeways have been choked, and constant construction on downtown thoroughfares has made the present situation unbearable. We have to do something to fix things before they spiral even further out of control.
For those students not making their fifth-year victory lap, Capital Metro had a more far reaching referendum on the 2000 ballot that lost by 0.8 percent. While the first plan called for a $1.9 billion, 52-mile light-rail system, this year's plan scales back to a $60 million, 32-mile commuter rail running from Leander to downtown with nine stations along the way. Debuting by 2008, it would run along existing railroad track and would not require any new taxes.
Different from the electric-powered light-rail cars in Houston and Dallas, these trains would use low-emission diesel engines. The single-deck cars with 100 seats running 30 minutes apart would aid rush-hour by going inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. Planners estimate about 2,000 riders a day at first, but hope to have 17,000 a day by 2025.
The long term "All Systems Go Plan" sets up "transit circulation areas" with increased bus service near rail stops around, for instance, the University and the Capital. The plan also invests in new technology that speeds up routes by holding traffic lights green until a bus passes.
If you don't care about the environment or our country's dependence on oil, then at least understand that rail reduces congestion and, in turn, the hours you personally waste stuck in traffic. The Federal Highways Administration estimates building an urban highway costs $44 million a mile - this rail costs a mere $1.9 million a mile.
Even if Capital Metro's plan to foot the bill from an existing 1-cent sales tax surplus and matching federal funds comes up short, it's well worth a little extra dough.
We're disappointed that Capital Metro had to limit the plan's scope to this extent, but it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully, the initial track will succeed in attracting riders and more tracks will be added through another referendum.
Without a vicious campaign to derail the plan like the one that occurred in 2000, the referendum is likely to pass. We just ask one thing: Let's prove our superiority to the stubborn and vehicularlly-challenged Houstonians who just can't stop crashing into the moving cars.
Be the first to comment on this article!