Hold on to your hats. The race for Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Place 2, has been taken to a whole new level. Despite losing the Republican primary by more than 6,000 votes, the defeated candidate, Steve Smith, opted to file an election contest in Travis County last week.

This perpetual candidate just can’t believe that he’s lost an election—again! Only this time, his disbelief could hit you right where it hurts: In your wallet.

For those who haven’t been following the race, the Republican primary occurred between two candidates: The incumbent, Don Willett, and Smith. Willett has been a Texas Supreme Court Justice since last August, when Rick Perry appointed him to fill the spot vacated by Priscilla Owen. Justice Willett is now seeking election for a full, six-year term.

Including this election year, Smith has been a candidate for the Texas Supreme Court four times. He won once, during a 2002 election, but he was promptly defeated by Justice Paul Green two years later. He also lost a race for Travis County Treasurer in 1994. Smith seems obsessed with obtaining public office, despite the fact that voters repeatedly refuse to elect him.

Last month’s primary result was just another in a long string of defeats for Smith. The final canvass, completed last week, gave Justice Willett a lead of more than 6,000 votes over his challenger. Importantly, Willett has held a significant lead throughout the contest, even when programming glitches in voting software caused the need for corrections to vote totals in a few Texas counties.

But Smith refuses to take "no" for an answer. He seems unable to believe that Texas voters still refuse to give him the nod. Now, he is throwing a temper tantrum via lawsuit. If Smith gets his way, it is a temper tantrum that could cost you, a Texas taxpayer, quite a bit of money.

Last week, Smith filed an election contest against Willett. This contest differs from a recount request. Instead, it is essentially a lawsuit, Smith v. Willett, in which Smith argues that the election result is invalid and the result of fraud, illegality, or mistake. Smith’s legal challenge asks the judge to ignore the voice of Texas voters, as expressed at the polls, and to declare Smith the winner by judicial decree. Alternatively, he requests a new election. Either outcome is a long shot, but if Smith were to obtain a new election, then all 254 Texas counties would be required to bear the expense of hosting a new election, and the county GOPs would have to find poll workers to volunteer for a new election.

Importantly, Smith could have saved the time, labor, and money of Texas taxpayers by requesting a recount, rather than filing an election contest. The recount would have been granted to him, as a matter of right, due to the close election totals. Smith saw this as a poor option, presumably because his campaign would have borne much of the costs of a recount.

Smith certainly couldn’t have that. He knows that he has only a one-in-five shot of reversing the outcome of the election (or so his campaign manager says). What a waste of money that would have been—for him. It would seem that Smith prefers to stick taxpayers with the bill for his own egotistical and perpetual attempts to obtain a seat on the Texas Supreme Court.

For a man who claims to care so much about his potential constituents in Texas, this election contest strikes me as remarkably selfish.

As a matter of full disclosure, I should note at this point that Justice Willett and his wife, Tiffany, are good friends of mine. Some might argue that I am biased in favor of my friend. Fair enough. Yet there are important reasons why the Governor appointed Justice Willett instead of Smith, and I would argue that, even from the most objective of viewpoints, Willett’s resume is far more impressive than Smith’s. Moreover, I know that my friend would not drag taxpayers and the Texas Republican Party through the time and expense of court proceedings, discovery requests, and potentially a new election—all because of a selfish, egotistical desire to win.

Justice Willett has served as Deputy Texas Attorney General for Legal Counsel and Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice. Importantly, while at the DOJ, he played a vital role in helping the President to select many of his excellent judicial nominees. Before his time at DOJ, he served in multiple legal advisory roles for George Bush. Best of all, Justice Willett has demonstrated in each of these roles his commitment to restrained, conservative jurisprudence. Every living former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice publicly endorsed his appointment to the Court last year.

Remember that this will include former Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips, who served as Chief Justice during Smith’s brief tenure.

In contrast to Justice Willett, Smith’s resume is remarkably bare. Besides the one election-year fluke that enabled him to serve as a Justice for two years, he has been a private attorney, a staff attorney for a few Texas offices and a briefing clerk for a judge. Yahoo.

Justice Willett is a fair, conservative jurist. He is committed to a judicial philosophy of restraint; he will not create law from the bench. I have every confidence that he will overcome this month’s hurdles and win election to a new six-year term. Texans will be lucky to have him on the Court.

Smith, on the other hand, is on an egotistical, taxpayer-financed kick. Don’t forget this year’s events when he finds a new incumbent to pick on in 2008.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment