A Tale of Two Canales: Race for the 73rd District Court

73rd District Court

Primary Outlook: Positively Canales

General Election Outlook: Tossup - Lean Republican

Unlike some of the other courts races, there's not a lot of history to with this particular seat.  Why? From 1989-2009 this seat was held by one person...the late Judge Andy Mireles.

This being a district court seat, a vacancy is filled by the governor.  Governor Oops appointed a Republican (duh) who won election to this seat in 2010.  Since the 73rd is elected in presidential years, the seat is up again this year and offers Democrats the chance to reclaim the seat.

Who's running?

As the title implied, it's two candidates with the same last name.

David Canales. Of the two Canaleses he is the younger.  That's about the easiest way to distinguish the two.  So far Canales the Younger has gotten endorsements from the AFL-CIO, Bexar County Young Democrats, Stonewall Democrats, and the North East Democrats.  So far it looks like most of the Democratic groups are opting for a change.  Back to the age issue, it seems this race is going to be one of New Blood vs. Old Blood.

Paul Canales.  Canales the Elder used to be the County Court-at-Law #2 Judge.  He was first elected to that bench in 1988.  He was ousted in 2010, along with numerous other Democratic judges.  One issue that got Canales the Elder "in trouble" was the number of marriages he was performing at the courthouse.  (I say "in trouble" because the only person who seemed to care was Express-News columnist Gloria Padilla, who did an "expose" in 2006 on the same issue.  And she neglected to note that in some cases the judge's chambers was in close proximity to where marriage licenses were obtained.)

Overall this race has been very quiet.

Financial:
D. Canales: Contributions: $375; Expenditures: $2,573.45; CoH: $301.55
P. Canales: Contributions: $0; Expenditures: $250; CoH: $1,142.87

Online:
D. Canales: Facebook, Twitter
P. Canales: website, Facebook

Overall, we give this race 1 pepper (this is almost too generous):

Like with other judicial races, the reasons are very much the same:

1) Race.  This is a judicial race.  This type of race is on very few radars.  Those most interested are of course attorneys and law firms.  Next are probably those in the business community.  About the third most interested would be the political parties.  After that, most voters aren't going to have these types of races on the their front burner.

2) Money.  So far neither candidate seems very interested in raising money.

This race, like most judicial races, is flying below most radars, yet in this case nothing is happening.  No candidate has the advantage right now.  Neither seem to be raising money or taking this race seriously.  No money means no direct mail, no radio, TV, etc.  No money also means no campaign structure which is the reason for the rating.  If these candidates are not raising any money to take on the Republican incumbent they're ceding the race as of now.  Just because this will be a presidential year with increased turnout doesn't guarantee a win.  Just ask Amber Liddell Alwais.  She lost her judicial race in 2008 by 730 votes.  Democrats should be asking why are these two candidates sitting on their laurels when there is work to be done?