Incumbency & Judges

I think I figured out why Aguilar doesn't want to be on the court anymore.

Shocker, its about money.

I'll get to that in a minute, but walk with me while we talk a little about the power of incumbency as a judge.

It is hard running against an incumbent judge because for the most part, lawyers use the fact that they practice in a judge's court as an excuse not to donate to opposition. Frankly, the implication never speaks well of the opponent because it implies that they fear retribution if they contribute to an opponent.

Some are actually genuinely afraid of retribution.

Which makes things interesting for 3 courts on the ballot right now - the 243rd, 210th, and County Court at Law number whatever.

I forget the number and honestly it doesn't matter anyway. Its the race that has a sitting District Court judge running for the seat.

Aguilar is getting all the attention, and rightfully so, for having a pretty hard reprimand from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Well now that he is on the ballot, but not really running, the money should start to open up. Problem is, no one can afford to be the lawyer tied to Aguilar at this point because it would work against them.

Oh yeah, the reason I think Aguilar isn't running anymore has to do with being a visiting judge. Folks in the courthouse tell me that if he loses, he can't be called back as a visiting judge. But if he were to retire from the bench instead of lose, he'd be able to be called back as a visiting judge.

But what no one has talked about is the fact that he's not the only judge in an election year dealing with the same issue. Judge Mike Herrera, a sitting district court judge, has a reprimand as well. It was issued as a result of complaint lodged against Herrera for having his own divorce case in his court.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we regular voters simply aren't qualified to make a good decision about who should be on the bench. We lack the education and frame of reference to make a truly informed decision about who should be running the courts. But its the system we have and so we are stuck with it.

As a result, the only thing we have to go on as voters is some gut feeling about who we think would be the most fair on the bench. Which is why these 3 judicial seats in particular are so interesting.

For Herrera, the fact that his own wife, in my opinion, couldn't get a fair shot in his court, makes me question his impartiality and basic sense of fairness and justice. Seriously, a judge that hold his own divorce in his own court is something you don't even see as a plot line in a bad episode of Law & Order.

Yeah, I know you just heard that sound effect in your heard.

Its egregious.

But here's the really infuriating part of that dirty secret. NONE of his opponents are holding him accountable for it. I have yet to hear a single one of his opponents raise the issue. Seriously, c'mon man that has to be one of the most egregious acts I can recall from a judge and all of you are too damn scared to to even bring it up?

You wanna beat this guy?, you have to raise the issue. Why? Because voters deserve to know about it and the only way they will know is if you all make the decision to educate the voters on Herrera. And while you three are at it Jesus Rodriguez, Danny Razo, and Kirsten Romero, talk to voters about why a sitting district court judge would feel the need to go from one court to another.

You think they are just going to magically know that Herrera's movida is to double dip on retirement and have tax payer's foot the bill for his lifestyle? Seriously, who the hell do any of you drop the ball like this, much less all of you?

All we voters have to go on, is our sense of how fair someone will be on the bench.

That will be my next post...