OPINION

Interestingly, Scott Henson at the fine Grits for Breakfast blog chose to comment on our editorial. (While I don't always agree with him, I have to respect that he knows a fair bit more than I do about how Texas' criminal justice system works.) Here's where he wants to go:

I agree with most of what the Dallas News had to say in this editorial yesterday calling for District Attorney Craig Watkins to investigate and prosecute alleged crimes and abuses by Dallas County constables. ... I differ from the News on just two points. First, perhaps they should be urging acting Northern District US Attorney James Jacks, not Craig Watkins, to look into allegations of public corruption. After all, if the DA wanted to pursue these cases, he'd have done so long before now.

Second, the News accurately says Watkins painted himself into a political box, then declares "The way out is to bring a criminal prosecution." But I don't care how much political trouble he's in, the DA shouldn't pursue prosecutions just to get himself out of a political jam, but only if there's a legitimate case to be made (which from the Defenbaugh report, there appears to be). That's another good argument why the US Attorney should step in; the DA has backed himself into a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position that threatens to leave a cloud over the matter regardless of the outcome.

This is a good point, although I think it's based on too narrow a reading of "The way out is to bring a criminal prosecution." Henson's reading implies that the only reason to prosecute is to get out of the box, which obviously isn't true.

Assuming that even a small percentage of the Defenbaugh report is valid -- even one or two things -- the reason Watkins should prosecute is justice. Watkins must determine whether the allegations in the civil report have criminal application. He (or members of his office) have known about some of the allegations for months, since they came to him first. Foster has said he got involved only after the accusers said their accusations had been stalled, delayed, circular-filed or otherwise ignored.

Another irony is that Foster's critics have accused him of rank opportunism in taking the constable issue and attempting to make political hay. Is there some truth in that? Probably.

And so what? If Watkins had done his job from the start and treated allegations of criminal behavior by elected county officials as he should have, he could have kept the spoils for himself. Instead, he moved so slowly -- for whatever reason -- that the accusers shopped their case elsewhere.

Once that happened, Watkins was constantly chasing the story and took on the air of someone trying his best to obscure the allegations, rather than a crusading district attorney trying to breathe transparency into county government.

Watkins, as he has on so many issues, attempted to overwhelm the politics. Instead, the politics again overwhelmed him.

Democratic primary voters in Cortes' precinct would have been far better served to know before March 2 whether their elected constable was a crook -- or not. Watkins' investigation, we must assume, also could have cleared him.

Now, with the Defenbaugh report on the street, voters must decide whether allegations from a civil investigation, achieved without subpoena power, are enough to put Cortes out.