Election Day in Texas

I voted this morning in the Texas primary. For the first time in my adult life I voted for self-interest rather than perceived national interest. I know that does not sound very noble and maybe it is not. However, I have been voting Republican most of my life thinking I was helping my country. What has it accomplished? Well, limits on jury verdicts to protect doctors regardless of the harm or lifetime costs to the victim. Not to mention accelerated statutes of limitation in medical cases. I can see why a doctor would support the Republicans. It is in their interests. The same is true for insurance companies.

Well what about the area of law that I practice -- criminal law? What have Republicans worked for in this area? Greater governmental powers against individuals at the federal and state level. Search warrants for general exploratory searches. The very thing the 4th Amendment to the Constitution was designed to prohibit. Apparently we will be safer if we just trust the government without that pesky requirement of probable cause presented to a judge or magistrate. That was the same argument made by the Crown to the American colonies when soldiers would search homes and persons without warrant or probable cause. To hear the President, the world will end if huge telecoms don't get immunity from wronged citizens filing suit. Not only does he not want to get warrants from federal courts to search electronic data, he does not even want to get the permission of a secret court set up just for that purpose. Too much trouble I guess. The government's need of this information is necessary for security. To which I reply with one of my favorite quotes, "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt

Well at least at the state level Republicans have supported individual freedom. Right? Well yes unless you have been accused by the government of something. Then good luck. If you do not have a jury standing between you and the government there is little hope for you. If the government does something wrong or illegal during the trial, you can always appeal to a higher court. Right? Well -- unless you did not preserve the issue for trial by waiving any error for lack of a specific enough objection. Form over substance. Or you did object and the error was preserved just right but the appeals court determines that the error was harmless. But at least you still have access to the courts. Unless you are a capital defendant and your brief comes in ten minutes late. Sorry you die. (For Texas readers you know what I am talking about)

So I ask myself, do we really need more Republicans writing the rules and is it best for me and my clients? I don't think insurance company execs. have to explain why they vote their interest. So why should I have to explain voting my interest? Because it is a change from what I have always done. I am voting my best interests for a change.