text:
A preview of the joint primary
Diane Trautman
Like Campos and John Coby, I recently had the opportunity to visit the Harris County Clerk and get a preview of the proposed joint primary. Coby describes it in some detail, with pictures, so I won't duplicate his effort. Basically, the process will be very much like what you are used to already. The main difference in terms of the experience is that instead of telling the poll worker what primary you want to vote in, you pick it from a touch-screen tablet. Otherwise, it's exactly what you've done before – you show your ID and sign in, you get a code for one of the eSlate machines, and you go vote. That's all there is to it. The practical effect is that now all of the machines are available to you. There aren't machines designated for one primary or the other, so if you're voting at a location that historically has a long line for one party with idle machines for the other, that will no longer happen. This should help the lines move more efficiently, which in a year where a very high turnout is expected on the Dem side is greatly appreciated.
Primaries are run by the parties, and the initial reaction to this was positive from the HCDP and negative from the Harris County Republican Party. We were told at this visit that both Dem Chair Lillie Schechter and GOP Chair Paul Simpson had been in to see the same setup, and it went well. Simpson is supposedly going to make a decision about this in the next two to three weeks. I asked about the experience other counties have had with joint primaries. Michael Winn, the elections administrator who came from Travis County, said they made the change in 2011 and haven't looked back. We'll see.
We also discussed how election night returns are reported, which was a concern in the May election after the switchover to voting centers. We're used to seeing reports come in by precinct, but with anyone being able to vote anywhere now that's going to be a different experience. They're working on that now so as to provide a better picture of where the vote totals are coming from, and they promised a preview for interested parties (campaigns, media, etc) in October. I'll report back then. In the meantime, I have a good feeling about how this is going. Let me know if you have any questions.
How many contested judicial primaries should we expect?
We already know that we're going to get primary challenges to at least one Democratic countywide officeholder, as County Attorney Vince Ryan has two challengers lining up against him, and DA Kim Ogg has at least one person who has announced interest in challenging her. Most of the county offices available are judicial, though, and now that the local judiciary (other than a few JPs) is entirely Democratic, the path to gaining a bench for yourself is limited if one doesn't want to take on a Democratic incumbent. I had a conversation about this with some folks recently, and we were debating how many such challenges we may see this year. I thought the number would be relatively small, and I based that on the belief that there weren't that many primary challenges to Republican judges in recent years. That was my intuition, but I didn't know the actual numbers at the time. I've now had a chance to look through recent primary history, and this is what I found:
Republican judicial primary challenges
That's less than I had thought. A couple of notes here. I only looked at the years in which all the incumbents were Republican (so no 2012 or 2016), and I limited myself to district and county courts (so no statewide, appeals courts, or JPs). There were some contested races in years where a jurist had been appointed to complete the term of someone who had stepped down or gotten a promotion – in 2008, there were two such races, in in 2012 there were four, for example – but I put those in a separate category. Basically, from what I found, there were actually very few challenges to sitting judges who had served full term. Make of that what you will.
Now, a couple of caveats here. One possible reason for the lack of challenges to four-year incumbents may be because there often were benches vacated in the middle of someone's tenure, which allowed for a challenge of someone who had been appointed. These judges presumably felt comfortable stepping down mid-term because they knew their replacement would also be a Republican, with district court judges being appointed by the Governor and county court judges being appointed by Commissioners Court. With the exception of Al Bennett, who was named to a federal bench, no Democratic district court judge has stepped down since the first set were elected in 2008. Some have declined to run for re-election, but no others have given Rick Perry or Greg Abbott the opportunity to pick their interim replacement. County court judges won't have that concern now, but for the foreseeable future I don't expect any district court judges to abandon their post before it expires if they can at all help it. That points towards more primary challenges than what we had seen in the past.
In addition, while there was no upward trend in primary challenges over time, I think we're in a different era now, and I think people will be less squeamish about taking that plunge. Honestly, if there ever was a year to try it, it would be this year, because the extreme turnout expected due to the Presidential race ought to make most of these races pure tossups, and by "tossup" I mean the most important factor will be your ballot position, which is determined by random draw. We're all going to need to be on guard for low-grade opportunists who hope to luck into a bench. I hope I'm overstating this concern.
Anyway. Unlike for executive offices, I don't expect judicial challengers to announce themselves this early, but it will be filing season before you know it. What do you think will happen?
The Straus PAC
We'll see what this does.
Rep. Joe Straus
Former Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, a San Antonio Republican, announced Wednesday he was launching a new political action committee that he said will aim to help him continue to carry out "a thoughtful, responsible approach to governing."
The group, Texas Forever Forward, will be chaired by Straus, who said in a news release he will contribute $2.5 million from his old campaign account to the new initiative. Former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson will serve as treasurer of the group.
"We are launching this effort because I believe Texas needs leaders who are forward-looking and dedicated to bringing creative, problem-solving ideas to the new challenges our state faces as our population rapidly grows," Straus said in a statement. "It's time to unite Texas in civic participation and ensure our next decades are the very best in our long, proud journey."
Wednesday's announcement keeps Straus' name in the political arena as he leaves the door open to running for higher office in 2022, a person familiar with the former speaker's thinking told The Texas Tribune.
Texas Forever Forward indicated it will support candidates and causes that align with Straus and his leadership style. A news release states that the group believes that "Texas should embrace diversity and promote inclusive, non-discriminatory policies and laws," and that "public education is our greatest economic development tool, and it's critical to make meaningful, sustainable investments in Texas students."
It's unclear whether the group plans to wade into GOP primary races — which have been hotly contested in past elections between the centrist and more right-leaning factions of the party — and whether it will support only Republican candidates running for office in 2020. Straus said in an email to supporters Wednesday that he plans to communicate updates on the political action committee as the election cycle heats up.
I think Straus can either support a bunch of candidates with his PAC, or he can gear up to run statewide in 2022. I don't see a path for him to do both. If he supports any Democrats, even safe-seat Dems that were on his leadership team, he'll be radioactive in a GOP primary. Bear in mind, he will probably have to oust an incumbent in a GOP primary if he wants a statewide seat, and even if there's an open seat that interests him the competition will be fierce. If instead he spends a lot of money trying to beat Democrats he'll lose all of the bipartisan sheen he has, and there will still be Republicans who will hate him as a RINO. The latter path is more viable if he wants to run statewide, but may not be such an asset if current voting trends hold. My guess is that he uses his PAC as an anti-Empower Texans weapon and stays retired from running for office. But the siren song of electoral politics is very alluring, so who knows. Let's see what he does this cycle first.
Scouting the opposition in CD07
Not impressed so far.
Rep. Lizzie Fletcher
Facing a roomful of conservative voters at a meet-and-greet earlier this month, Republican Wesley Hunt laid out the stakes for his party's primary in Texas' 7th Congressional District.
"This is about putting the best candidate forward who can beat Lizzie Fletcher. Period." Hunt said.
Republican voters still are smarting from their 2018 loss in this suburban west Houston district, where Fletcher, a Democratic Houston energy lawyer, toppled nine-term GOP incumbent John Culberson. Her five-point win flipped the seat blue for the first time since the 1960s, prompting Republicans to take aim at the district almost as soon as Fletcher took office.
The GOP primary field already has come into focus, setting up a clash between Hunt, an Army veteran who works for Perry Homes, and Cindy Siegel, a former Bellaire mayor and METRO board member. Battle lines are sharpening, but not around the two candidates' conservative bona fides or the strength of their policy proposals. The early contours of the race instead have centered on the question: Who is best positioned to snatch the seat from Fletcher?
Threatening to upend the primary is the potential candidacy of Pierce Bush, CEO of the nonprofit Big Brothers Big Sisters Houston affiliate and grandson of former president George H.W. Bush, who once represented the district.
Bush in an email earlier this month said he still is mulling a run for the seat and has been "flattered by people who are encouraging me to consider running," though he did not lay out a deadline for a decision.
Meanwhile, both declared Republicans have their electability pitches ready to go. Hunt, 37, contends the party could use a "new generation of leadership," and he peppers his stump speech with references to his time as a helicopter pilot in the Army, including his combat deployment to Iraq. Siegel, meanwhile, pitches her governing experience serving on Bellaire city council and as mayor, along with a number of boards and commissions.
Also, she contends that it will take a Republican woman to beat Fletcher.
"I feel that way strongly," the 64-year-old Siegel said. "It's coming as no surprise to anyone, on a national basis: Women have moved away from the Republican Party."
In 2018, Trump's name did not appear on the ballot, but scores of voters in Texas' 7th said they viewed the election as a referendum on the president nonetheless. Now, the president's down-ballot impact is set to become amplified, for better or worse, with his name likely atop the Republican ticket in 2020.
After the president lost the district to Clinton in 2016, 48 to 47 percent, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took notice and weighed in heavily on Fletcher's behalf, spending north of $3.5 million on the seat in 2018.
This time, House Democrats' campaign arm again figures to play a heavy role, making early attempts to muddy the GOP waters. When Trump visited Houston in April, for instance, the group sent reporters a news release with the subject line: "With Trump in Houston, How Far Will Hunt and Siegel Go to Win Him Over?"
That last bit is more important than who wins this primary, because whoever it is will have Donald Trump as their running mate. Unless the national mood starts souring on Democrats, I think that's going to be too big an obstacle to overcome.
Beyond that, it's just too early to have any opinions about these two, or possibly three, candidates. I fully expect one or two other names to pop up, though whether the field expands like it did on the Democratic side in 2018 I couldn't say. Given the need to raise funds for this race, time is starting to run out for any other wannabes.
Speaking of fundraising, here's a data point to note for when Hunt and Siegel file their Q2 finance reports. The top four Dem contenders in CD07 raised $1.2 million combined as of July 2017. Fletcher had the second most, with $365K. The eye-popping early numbers all around the country were a leading indicator of Democratic enthusiasm for the 2018 election. I'll be very interested to see how things look this time around.
One more thing. What happens to CD07 in the 2021 redistricting cycle. Before the 2018 election, when I figured John Culberson would still be the incumbent, my thinking was that Republicans were going to have to shift some of the district out of Harris County – maybe into Montgomery, maybe into western Fort Bend, maybe northwest into what's now part of CD10 – to keep it red enough for him. At the very least, they'd have to take some of the bluer-and-bluer inner Harris parts out to keep things in their favor. What happens now if Fletcher wins again? Well, they could try this anyway, to take that seat back by other means. Redistricting doesn't happen in a vacuum, though, and with CDs 02, 10, and 22 all getting competitive it might be too much to save everyone, especially in a solidly blue Harris County and a much more balanced state as a whole. It would not shock me if the Republicans basically gave up on CD07 and used parts of it to shore up those other districts, especially CD02. That's more or less what they did with the State House in 2011, making HD133 (which they had lost in 2008) redder while making HDs 137 and 149 bluer. Incumbent protection is still a thing that matters, and in a state with fewer safe Republicans, it may matter more than ever. Just a thought.
Joint primaries
Another potential change to how we vote is in the works.
Harris County primary voters could see a big change at the polls in 2020 if local party leaders agree on a new proposal.
Under the current system, voters go to the polls and they're asked to say which party primary they want to participate in, Republican or Democratic. Voters line up separately. But Harris County Clerk Diane Trautman said Tuesday that combining the lines would be more cost-effective and give voters more privacy.
"You won't see a Republican party here, Democratic party here. You'll see one of each at each table, and you'll have three lines that you could go in," Trautman said.
Voters would check in at joint primary tables and select one party on an iPad.
"The other thing they're going to notice is that there aren't any lines outside the door," Trautman said. "So that will be refreshing."
She said the new plan addresses the biggest complaints she hears from voters.
Harris County officials hope to reach an agreement with party leaders by the end of the month. If approved, the new system would be in place for the next primary in March 2020.
The HCDP has agreed to this. The Republicans, not so much.
Harris County Republican Party Chairman Paul Simpson said Texas law allows parties to run their own primary elections, and he is reluctant to cede that role to the county clerk.
"The Democrat county clerk's proposed joint primary elections would empower the bureaucrats and, worse, let one party's workers run the other party's primary election that selects its candidates, running the risk of disenfranchising, inconveniencing, and confusing voters," Simpson said in a statement.
I actually have some sympathy for Simpson's position. I have no doubt that if Stan Stanart had proposed this, I'd be suspicious, even with the knowledge that Harris is the only major county in the state that doesn't hold joint primaries. I'd need to be convinced as a Democratic primary voter, and I'm sure Paul Simpson believes his voters will need to be convinced, too. (He's on the ballot in 2020 as well, you know.) That said, I hope he goes into the discussion with an open mind. This makes sense on a couple of levels. One, you don't have to announce your preference in front of strangers, which is the privacy appeal. Sure, anyone with VAN access can look up your record, but how many people do that? It's also a more efficient use of resources, which should help shorten lines. Again, if there are questions or concerns, then let's ask the party chairs in the other counties that do it this way, and see what they have to say about it. I'm happy to let Paul Simpson voice his worries, but let's not be ruled by fear.
A strange way to improve ballot access
Hard not to see partisan motives in this.
Rep. Drew Springer
A bill on track to reach Gov. Greg Abbott's desk appears designed to make it easier for Green Party candidates and harder for Libertarian candidates to get on the Texas ballot in 2020. Democrats say House Bill 2504 is a ploy by Republicans to boost their reelection bids while siphoning off votes from Democrats.
The bill from state Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, would make two major changes to how candidates with non-major parties run for office in Texas. The bill would require those candidates to either pay filing fees or secure a certain number of signatures to get on a November ballot. It also changes the threshold for guaranteeing a party a place on the ballot. The former provision could lead to fewer Libertarians running in 2020. The latter would mean the Green Party would likely earn a spot on the November ballot that year.
The bill tentatively passed the Senate on Sunday on a party-line 19-12 vote. If the chamber gives it final approval, it will head to the governor's desk.
Currently in Texas, Democrats and Republicans have to either pay a filing fee or secure a certain number of signatures to get on their party's primary ballot. Texas filing fees for a candidate range from $75 for county surveyor to $5,000 for U.S. senator.
The Libertarian Party, meanwhile, has avoided those requirements while routinely gaining a spot on the general election ballot by meeting a different threshold: at least one of its candidates has managed to win more than 5% of the vote in a statewide race during the previous election cycle.
Springer's bill would lower that ballot-access threshold for third parties to 2% of the vote in one of the last five general elections — a bar that the Green Party could also clear. In 2010, the Green Party candidate for comptroller drew 6% of the vote.
An earlier version of the bill only had the filing fee provision. When the bill reached the House floor earlier this month, Springer proposed an amendment that added the new ballot threshold language. The amendment passed after less than a minute of discussion, catching some House Democrats off guard amid an intense evening session of the House in which dozens of bills were heard.
Springer told The Texas Tribune that he added the floor amendment because the current threshold for parties to gain ballot access "protects the two-party system too much." It isn't specifically targeting the Green Party, he said.
"Republicans are not afraid to give Texans more choice," he added.
Pat Dixon, former state chair of the Texas Libertarian Party, testified against the bill last week at a Senate State Affairs Committee hearing. Dixon said the bill would unfairly force Libertarians to pay filing fees in addition to the cost of their nominating convention.
When Democratic and Republican candidates pay filing fees to run for an office, the money helps pay for the election. Under HB 2504, third-party candidates would pay the same filing fees, but the money would go toward state or local funds, but not funds specifically devoted to running elections.
The obvious partisan motive here is that Green candidates are widely believed to siphon votes away from Democrats, while Libertarians are believed to do the same to Republicans. I have little use for third parties, but the basic principle that ballot access should not be needlessly burdensome is one I support. That said, if the actual Libertarian Party says that this bill will hurt them rather than help them, I think it's a little difficult to say that the bill is a principled effort to be more inclusive to third parties. I mean, the Libertarians were doing just fine getting their candidates on the ballot under the existing system. Just leave them alone and do no harm, you know?
By the way, when I say that Ls and Gs are "widely believed" to take away votes from Rs and Ds, I mean that's the accepted wisdom but I'm not aware of any hard research that puts a formula to it. I have my own theories about third party voters, which you can agree with or argue with as you see fit. I do think there's room for Democrats to minimize the vote share they lose to third parties in statewide races – not just Greens – and it will take one part better candidates, one part better party branding, and one part better outreach, which is another way of saying that they'll need to have enough resources to ensure that their intended voters have sufficient information about all the candidates on their statewide ballot. It's possible that in the long run this could lead to fewer votes for Greens statewide, as Dems will be better positioned in the coming years to compete in the downballot races as well as at the top of the ticket. For sure, this bill should be at least as much of an incentive to work harder for the Dems as it is for any other party. And you can be sure that when the votes are all counted in 2020, I'll look to see what if any effects of this bill I can find.
Dallas lawsuit over candidate eligibility officially mooted
From the inbox:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018, the Fifth Court of Appeals issued an Order in Dallas County GOP v. Dallas County Democratic Party, stating that any relief related to the November election is moot, and that the appeal, therefore, is limited to the propriety of dismissal under Rule 91a and attorney's fees. Chad Baruch of Johnston, Tobey Baruch Law Firm, one of the attorneys for the Dallas County Democratic Party (the "Democrats"), explained: "This means, effectively, that only the attorney's fees issue will be considered by the Appellate Court. The case is over as to the November ballot and the eligibility of the candidates."
During the 2018 Primary, the Dallas County Republican Party (the "Republicans") filed suit against the Democrats, asking the trial court to remove over 100 Democratic candidates from the ballot. The Republicans claimed that the candidates' applications were not valid because they had not been personally signed by the Dallas County Democratic Party Chair. Upon review of the pleadings, and after a hearing on the merits, the trial court found that "the Texas Election Code does not impose a manual signature requirement" as alleged by the Republicans. The Court held that the Republicans claims are "moot," that their party "lacks standing," and that such claims should be dismissed as "lacking a basis of law." The trial court also held that the Democrats were entitled to recover, from the Republicans, attorney's fees in the amount of $41,275.
Carol Donovan, Chair of Dallas County Democratic Party stated, "During this election season, the Republican Party has been filing frivolous lawsuits against Democrats to try to remove candidates from the ballot. It appears that the Republicans are afraid to let the voters decide what persons they want to represent them. Thankfully, the rulings of the courts support democracy."
See here, here, and here for the background. I didn't find any news coverage of this, but the case is No. 05-18-00916-CV at the Fifth Court of Appeals, and a link to the court's order is here. The relevant bits:
Appellants and appellees filed letter briefs as directed. The parties agree that any relief sought regarding the November 6, 2018 general election, including preparation of the ballot and what candidates may or may not appear on the ballot, will be mooted by the election schedule.
Appellants affirmatively state that they "do not request relief related to the general election" and "only seek to appeal relief related to the lower Court's decision on subject matter jurisdiction; 91(a), and the mandatory attorney's fees." Appellants further state that their appeal seeks this Court's ruling on five issues that are not mooted by the election schedule and relate to the propriety of the lower court's dismissal under Rule 91a and the award of attorney's fees.
Appellees concede that appellants may appeal the fees award and that the fees issue is not moot. Appellees did not address, however, whether they dispute appellants' ability to appeal the propriety of dismissal under Rule 91a.
So, even though the late-in-the-day appeal still sought to argue that DCDP Chair Carol Donovan needed to sign the candidate petitions, in the end all that was argued was whether the case was properly dismissed, and how much is owed to the DCDP in attorneys' fees. This is what you call ending with a whimper. At least it's one less thing to worry about before voting begins.
Henry Cuellar does his thing
And it's annoying as usual.
Rep. Henry Cuellar
A new report has left many Democratic House insiders perplexed and frustrated with one of the most powerful Texas Democrats in Congress: U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.
Politico reported Tuesday that Cuellar had"invited supporters to a breakfast fundraiser" Tuesday morning for U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock. The invitation was "sent from a Cuellar political staffer," according to the report.
"Although I was not a host of the event, I was honored to attend as I typically do for colleagues who visit my district," Cuellar said in a statement. "Judge Carter is a dear friend and trusted colleague with whom I work on Appropriations. He is knowledgeable and supportive of issues important to South Texas. In today's climate, more than ever, friendship is more powerful than partisanship."
Cuellar, who has served in the U.S. House since 2005, has long had a reputation as one of the chamber's most conservative Democrats. But in both party's caucuses, actively helping a member of the other party is a highly frowned upon practice.
Like all other U.S. House members, Cuellar's party leadership assigns him a set amount of money to raise for their campaign arm each cycle. The House GOP campaign arm has a similar practice. The committees then direct the money for various purposes, but the main one is television advertising in competitive House races around the country.
In 2017, the the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee assigned Cuellar dues that amounted to $200,000. According to records obtained by the Tribune, Cuellar had paid $400,000 to the committee this cycle as of July. Those dues will go to a massive pot of DCCC money that will, in part, fund ads to support Democratic House candidates – including possibly Hegar if she gains traction in the run up to Election Day.
Cuellar's gonna Cuellar, he's been that way since he ousted Ciro Rodriguez in a contentious primary back in 2008. And while Beto O'Rourke has faced some criticism for his ties to Rep. Will Hurd, there's a world of difference between not lining up behind a fellow member of your party, and actively supporting the election efforts of a member of the other team.
Hegar's thoughts on this are here. Like I said, Cuellar's going to do his thing, and to be fair he does deserve credit for ponying up to the DCCC as he has done. Not all members of the caucus do that, including some who can easily afford it. That said, given the energy this year for taking on incumbents who have fallen short in one way or another, one can imagine a more spirited primary challenge for Cuellar in 2020. He's not going to change who and what he is until he's given a good reason to believe he needs to change.
#TrumpTruckTweet
Deep in the heart of Texas, a billboard truck will soon hit the road with a curated list of President Donald Trump's tweets — attacks on Sen. Ted Cruz, a former political foe.
Trump popularized the term "Lyin' Ted" in 2016. But it's 2018 now, and Democratic voter mobilization and an unlikely challenger have mounted an improbable campaign for a reliably Republican seat.
Trump said an October rally is in the works to lend Cruz support. "I'm picking the biggest stadium in Texas we can find," Trump said Friday on Twitter.
"Help from the president was long unthinkable in a race that for months looked like a Cruz cakewalk," the Associated Press reported.
Antonio Arellano, a Houston-based activist and Latino community organizer, thought fellow Texans may need a reminder of how Trump has suggested they vote when Cruz is on the ballot.
He was already in the market for a billboard when he tweeted a doctored image carrying a real Trump tweet from 2016.
Arellano said the actual billboard will be a mobile truck with two sides, and could carry two different tweets at once, one on each side. The route has not yet been planned, but Arellano said he is exploring where in the state he should dispatch it with the hashtag #TrumpTweetTruck.
The GoFundMe page for this, which is where the embedded image originates, raised more than it asked for and is no longer accepting donations. (Do feel free to give any money you had in mind for this to some candidates.) My guess is that they'll pick a route once Trump picks a stadium for his pro-Cruz rally, but I'm sure wherever this goes, plenty of people will enjoy seeing it. I look forward to about a million pictures of it on Facebook and Twitter. ThinkProgress and Mother Jones have more.
The rising cost of losing
Womp womp.
The price of losing keeps going up for Republican Kathaleen Wall.
Four months after losing her campaign for Congress, the Houston Republican had to put yet another $150,000 of her own money into her campaign to pay for final expenses related to the race, newly released Federal Election Commission records show.
That pushed the total she spent on her failed campaign for the 2nd Congressional District to just under $6.2 million — the most self-funding any candidate in Texas has put into a campaign for a U.S. House seat since at least the year 2000 and the second highest amount any candidate for the House has spent nationwide this year.
Only Maryland Democrat David Trone has spent more of his own money to campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives this year. Trone, the co-founder of Total Wine & More, has so far spent just over $10.2 million on his campaign. He won his primary last month and faces Republican Amie Hoeber in November.
Wall's final report to the FEC showed she needed the extra money for a variety expenses after losing her race, including for online advertising bills that were paid in April.
I know, it's in poor taste to kick someone when they're down. But good Lord, those Wall ads on TV were horrible, and you COULD NOT ESCAPE THEM. I'm getting twitchy just thinking about it. She deserves one last raspberry from those of us who had to survive them.
2018 primary runoff results: Congress and Legislature
All results are here. I began drafting this around 9:30 when there were still a bunch of precincts out, but with the exception of the tossup in CD25, all of the Congressional races were pretty clear by then:
CD03: Lorie Burch
CD06: Jana Sanchez
CD07: Lizzie Fletcher
CD10: Mike Siegel
CD21: Joseph Kopser
CD22: Sri Kulkarni
CD23: Gina Ortiz Jones
CD27: Eric Holguin
CD31: MJ Hegar
CD32: Colin Allred
At the time I started writing this, Julie Oliver led in CD25 by 70 votes out of almost 18,000 cast and about three quarters of precincts reporting. Later on, she had pulled out to a five point lead, so add her to the winners' list as well.
On the legislative side, Rita Lucido was leading in SD17, Sheryl Cole had a modest lead in HD46 with most precincts reporting, Carl Sherman had a much bigger lead in HD109, and longtime Rep. Rene Oliveira had been shown the door.
As for the Republicans, Dan Crenshaw won big in CD02, Lance Gooden won in CD05, so no more Republican women in Congress, Chip Roy and Michael Cloud led in CDs 21 and 27, respectively. The wingnuts in HDs 08 and 121 lost, and incumbent Rep. Scott Cosper lost.
Congratulations to all the winners. I'll have some more coherent thoughts on all these races in the next day or so.
2018 primary runoff results: Harris County
Here are the election night results, with a handful of precincts still not in as of 11 PM. Most of these races were basically decided once the early voting numbers were in, but one was neck and neck all night. The winners:
District Clerk: Marilyn Burgess
County Clerk: Diane Trautman
County Treasurer: Dylan Osborne
HCDE Position 3 At Large: Richard Cantu (probably)
HCDE Position 6 Precinct 1: Danny Norris
JP Precinct 7: Sharon Burney
Cantu was leading by a score of 25,427 to 25,026 for Josh Wallenstein, with 965 of 1012 precincts reporting. This one swung back and forth – Wallenstein was leading by a few votes as of the 10 PM update – and could still swing again.
Turnout was a smidge over 55K, which is higher than I expected, as about 36% of votes were cast on Tuesday. On the Republican side, turnout was at 50K with 981 of 1012 precincts reporting. One race, for 295th Civil District Court, was too close to call as Michelle Fraga led Richard Risinger 23,477 to 23,419. One bit of good news is that actual public servant Jeff Williams will retain his JP bench in Precinct 5, defeating the troglodyte Michael Wolfe. The downside to that is that Wolfe will remain on the HCDE Board of Trustees, but at least we can fix that in 2020. Congratulations to all the winners. Onward to November.
UPDATE: Got up this morning and Richard Cantu was still the winner in the at large HCDE race, 26,041 to 25,780. That's a lead that will almost certainly hold up after overseas and provisional ballots are counted. Oh, and final Dem turnout was 57,237, compared to 50,716 on the R side.
Today is Runoff Day
As the chief election officer of the County, Stan Stanart reminds voters that Tuesday, May 22, is Primary Runoff Election Day.
"Due to consolidation of precincts, many voters will be voting at a new location and are strongly encouraged to visit www.HarrisVotes.com to find their polling location," Stanart advised. Polls will be open from 7 am to 7 pm. Voters must vote at the designated Election Day poll for the precinct in which they are registered.
According to Stanart, finding your polling location before heading to vote on Election Day is more important than ever due to a decrease in polling locations. "Voter participation on Election Day in Primary Runoff Elections is much lower. As a result, the political parties significantly consolidate many voting precincts into one poll," informed Stanart.
"The Primary Runoff Elections are a party function. For Election Day, the political parties determine the number of voting locations, where the polls are located, and who runs the polls," clarified Stanart. For these Primary Runoff Elections, there will be a total of 202 Election Day polling locations: The Democratic Party will have 112 Election Day Polling locations and the Republican Party 89. In contrast, for elections directly administered by the Harris County Clerk's Office, on Election Day, there are usually over 750 polling locations.
There are a total of thirteen (13) races in the Democratic Party Primary and four (4) in the Republican Party Primary to be decided by the Runoff Election. "Every voter in Harris County is eligible to vote in either the Democratic Party or Republican Party Runoff Election. Still, a voter who participated in the March Primary Election may ONLY vote in the Primary Runoff Election of the same political party," concluded Stanart.
It is not necessary to have voted in the March Primary Election to vote in one of the Primary Runoff Elections.
For more information about the May 22 Primary Runoff Elections, view a personal sample ballot, or review a list of acceptable forms of identification to vote at the polls, voters may visit www.HarrisVotes.com or call the Harris County Clerk's office at 713.755.6965.
As I said before, check to see what your precinct location is before you head out. The odds are good you're not voting at your usual place. I don't expect it to be terribly crowded wherever you go. I'll have results tomorrow, and we'll analyze the data and review where we are going forward.
2018 Runoff EV report: Final totals
Here are your final early voting totals for the 2018 primary runoffs, and here is a handy table with comparisons to previous years.
Year      March   Runoff    Pct
2018 R  156,387   33,768  21.6%
2018 D  167,982   33,706  20.1%
2014 D   53,788   18,828  35.0%
2012 R  163,980  136,040  83.0%
2008 D  410,908    9,670   2.4%
2006 R   82,989   10,528  12.7%
Democrats had more mail ballots – 18,106 to 15,837 – while more Rs showed up in person, 17,931 to 15,600. Based on recent primary runoffs, I'd say somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the vote has already happened, so figure the final turnout numbers to be in the 45,000 to 50,000 range. Democrats did surpass their high-water mark for primary runoff turnout during the EV period as expected, while this looks like a more or less normal year for Republicans. If you are voting on Tuesday, check to see where your polling place is before you head out. I'll have results from the final vote on Wednesday.
2018 Runoff EV report: Primary runoff turnout totals don't much matter
Hey, have you been wondering how early voting has gone in the primary runoffs so far? Well, wonder no more, for here is the daily report through Wednesday. You have today and tomorrow to vote early, and then you'll need to find a precinct location on Tuesday the 22nd. In the meantime, here's a look at how this year so far compares to past runoffs:
2018 R  156,387   24,172* 15.5%*
2018 D  167,982   24,567* 14.6%*
The starred 2018 values are incomplete, obviously. So what have we learned? One, there's basically zero correlation between primary turnout and primary runoff turnout. This shouldn't be a surprise, since in theory there need not be any runoffs in a given year. When there's a Dewhurst-Cruz or a Dewhurst-Patrick, you may have good runoff turnout. When there isn't – in 2008, the Dems had runoffs for Railroad Commissioner, a district court judge, and a Justice of the Peace; in 2010, they had three district court judges plus a JP – turnout falls off accordingly. Nor does turnout in either the primary or the runoffs predict November outcomes. Maybe that will begin to change, if Democrats have more contested primaries and put more emphasis on them. Maybe it will continue to be random. Ask me again in eight or ten years.
As far as 2018 goes, the Democratic edge comes from a nearly 2,000 vote advantage in absentee ballots. Republicans have had more in person voters each day, but not enough to close that gap. As is usually the case, I expect today and Friday to be heavier on the in person votes – I myself will be voting Friday – so we'll see if that pattern holds. Note that after three days of early voting, the Dem turnout level is already above the final totals except 2016 and 2012, and I think it's safe to say those will be topped when all is said and done. Again, there's no evidence to suggest this has mattered historically, but you can at least have all this in your back pocket for when you see the inevitable carping about runoff turnout. This is where we are now. I'll report back after the final EV totals are in.
Runoff races, part 4: Republicans
Again, not going to spend too much time on this, but here are the US House and State House races for which there are Republican primary runoffs:
Dist  Candidate    March%
CD02  Roberts      33.03%
CD02  Crenshaw     27.42%
CD05  Gooden       29.97%
CD05  Pounds       21.95%
CD06  Wright       45.15%
CD06  Ellzey       21.76%
CD21  Roy          27.06%
CD21  McCall       16.93%
CD27  Bruun        36.09%
CD27  Cloud        33.83%
CD29  Aronoff      38.60%
CD29  Montiel      23.58%
HD04  Spitzer      45.78%
HD04  Bell         26.21%
HD08  Harris       44.99%
HD08  McNutt       39.39%
HD13  Wolfskill    38.47%
HD13  Leman        36.28%
HD54  Cosper       44.60%
HD54  Buckley      41.55%
HD62  Smith        45.84%
HD62  Lawson       34.35%
HD107 Metzger      45.32%
HD107 Ruzicka      27.34%
HD121 Beebe        29.56%
HD121 Allison      26.34%
We've discussed CD02 and CD21 in recent days. Bunni Pounds in CD05 is the Republicans' best hope to bolster the ranks of female members of Congress from Texas. I mean sure, Carmen Montiel is still in the running in CD29, but I think we can all agree that winning the runoff would be her last hurrah. In any event, Pounds is outgoing Rep. Jeb Hensarling's preferred successor, and she has the support of Mike Pence. Which, it turns out, has caused some drama in the White House, because everything these days causes drama in the White House. The two contenders in CD27 are also running in the special election. It would be funny if the runoff loser wound up winning that race, but my guess would be that the runoff loser withdraws from the special election.
In the State House races, HD121 is Joe Straus' seat, while HD08 belonged to his deputy Byron Cook. Thomas McNutt and Matt Beebe are the wingnuts backed by Tim Dunn and Empower Texans who have run against Straus and Cook in the past, so if you hope to retain a touch of sanity in the lower chamber, root for their opponents. Scott Cosper is the lone incumbent in a runoff. Stuart Spitzer is a return customer in HD04 best known for his extreme love of virginity. HD107 is held by freshman Dem Victoria Neave, who like Rep. Oliveira had a recent brush with the law, and in part due to that may be the one truly vulnerable Dem in any legislative chamber this cycle. HD107 is also the latest example of Why Every Vote Matters, as primary runnerup Joe Ruzicka collected 2,070 votes in March, exactly one more than third place finisher Brad Perry's 2,069 votes.
Finally, there's the runoff for Justice of the Peace in Precinct 5 in Harris County, a race that will be decided by the Republican runoff as no Democrat filed for it. (There actually was a Dem who filed but he either withdrew or was disqualified late in the game, I don't know which, and there wasn't the time to collect enough petition signatures for a backup candidate.) The race is between normal incumbent Republican Jeff Williams and village idiot Michael Wolfe, backed by the likes of Steven Hotze and Eric Dick, the Tweedledum to Wolfe's Tweedledumber. Go read Erica Greider if you want to know more about it.
Primary runoff early voting begins today
Early voting for the May 22 Primary Runoff Elections will take place from Monday, May 14 to Friday, May 18. During that period, Harris County voters may vote at any of the 46 polling locations throughout the county. Polls will be open from 7 am to 7 pm.
"Every voter in Harris County is eligible to vote in either the Democratic Party or Republican Party Runoff Election. However, a voter who participated in the March Primary Election may ONLY vote in the Primary Runoff Election of the same political party," said Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart, the chief election officer of the County.
It is not necessary to have voted in the March Primary Election to vote in one of the Primary Runoff Elections. There are a total of thirteen (13) races in the Democratic Party Primary and four (4) in the Republican Party Primary.
"Voting early is the best option because in Primary Runoff Elections, the political parties significantly consolidate many voting precincts into one poll due to low voter turnout. As a result, a voter's usual polling location likely has changed for Election Day," concluded Stanart, urging voters to take advantage of the early voting period.
Primary Runoff Elections are a party function. The political parties determine the number of voting locations and where the polls are located on Election Day.
For more information about the May 22 Primary Elections, view a personal sample ballot, or review a list of acceptable forms of identification to vote at the polls, voters may visit www.HarrisVotes.com or call the Harris County Clerk's office at 713.755.6965.
The list of early voting locations is below. As usual, you are best off voting early – there's going to be a limited number of Election Day precincts open, so vote early and avoid confusion. My look at the Congressional runoffs is here and the legislative runoffs is here. Of course there's the Governor's race, so wherever you are there's a race to vote in, and here in Harris County we have runoffs for District Clerk, County Clerk, County Treasurer, HCDE Position 3 At Large, HCDE Position 6 Precinct 1, and Justice of the Peace in Precinct 7. Get out there and vote.
Early Voting Locations for the May 22, 2018 Primary Runoff Elections in Harris County, TX
Location Address City Zip
County Attorney Conference Center 1019 Congress Avenue Houston 77002
Champion Forest Baptist Church 4840 Strack Road Houston 77069
Prairie View A&M University Northwest 9449 Grant Road Houston 77070
Lake Houston Church of Christ 8003 Farmingham Road Humble 77346
Kingwood United Methodist Church 1799 Woodland Hills Drive Kingwood 77339
Crosby Branch Library 135 Hare Road Crosby 77532
East Harris County Activity Center 7340 Spencer Highway Pasadena 77505
Freeman Branch Library 16616 Diana Lane Houston 77062
Harris County Scarsdale Annex 10851 Scarsdale Boulevard Houston 77089
Juergen's Hall Community Center 26026 Hempstead Highway Cypress 77429
Tomball Public Works Building 501B James Street Tomball 77375
Hiram Clarke Multi Service Center 3810 West Fuqua Street Houston 77045
Katy Branch Library 5414 Franz Road Katy 77493
Lone Star College Cypress Center 19710 Clay Road Katy 77449
Harris County MUD 81 805 Hidden Canyon Road Katy 77450
Nottingham Park 926 Country Place Drive Houston 77079
Harris County Public Health Environmental Services 2223 West Loop South Freeway, 1st Floor Houston 77027
Metropolitan Multi Service Center 1475 West Gray Street Houston 77019
City of Jersey Village City Hall 16327 Lakeview Drive Jersey Village 77040
Richard & Meg Weekley Community Center 8440 Greenhouse Road Cypress 77433
Bayland Park Community Center 6400 Bissonnet Street Houston 77074
Tracy Gee Community Center 3599 Westcenter Drive Houston 77042
Living Word Church the Nazarene 16607 Clay Road Houston 77084
Trini Mendenhall Community Center 1414 Wirt Road Houston 77055
Acres Homes Multi Service Center 6719 West Montgomery Road Houston 77091
Fallbrook Church 12512 Walters Road Houston 77014
Lone Star College Victory Center 4141 Victory Drive Houston 77088
Hardy Senior Center 11901 West Hardy Road Houston 77076
Northeast Multi Service Center 9720 Spaulding Street, Building 4 Houston 77016
Octavia Fields Branch Library 1503 South Houston Avenue Humble 77338
Kashmere Multi Service Center 4802 Lockwood Drive Houston 77026
North Channel Library 15741 Wallisville Road Houston 77049
Galena Park Library 1500 Keene Street Galena Park 77547
Ripley House Neighborhood Center 4410 Navigation Boulevard Houston 77011
Baytown Community Center 2407 Market Street Baytown 77520
John Phelps Courthouse 101 South Richey Street Pasadena 77506
HCCS Southeast College 6960 Rustic Street, Parking Garage Houston 77087
Fiesta Mart 8130 Kirby Drive Houston 77054
Sunnyside Multi Service Center 9314 Cullen Boulevard Houston 77051
Young Neighborhood Library 5107 Griggs Road Houston 77021
Moody Park Community Center 3725 Fulton Street Houston 77009
SPJST Lodge 88 1435 Beall Street Houston 77008
Alief ISD Administration Building 4250 Cook Road Houston 77072
Big Stone Lodge 709 Riley Fuzzel Road Spring 77373
Lone Star College Creekside 8747 West New Harmony Trail Tomball 77375
Spring First Church 1851 Spring Cypress Road Spring 77388
A primary runoff threefer
It's getting chippy in CD02.
What started off as a relatively cordial campaign between two Republicans who want to represent parts of Houston in Congress has gotten downright testy as early voting looms.
Eight weeks ago, Dan Crenshaw and Kevin Roberts were publicly declaring their respect for one another and making plans to visit a gun range together. Now the men are accusing each other of twisting words to score political points ahead of early voting, which begins May 14. Election Day is May 22, two weeks from Tuesday.
Over the last several days Crenshaw and his supporters have accused Roberts of disrespecting the his experience and that of all U.S. military veterans — something Roberts called "an absolute lie."
That came just days after Roberts said Crenshaw demeaned Christianity in a Facebook post years ago, a claim Crenshaw called false and a "new low even for a politician like Kevin."
The heightened intensity between the two shows how in a tight Republican primary in which candidates hold many of the same core philosophies, personalities inevitably become a key part of the race.
You can read the details as you see fit. It's petty and personal, which as noted in that last paragraph is usually how things go. Lord knows, there are plenty of people on my side who are MORE THAN READY for the primary season to be over about now. One thing the story doesn't note is the TV ads that are once again sullying my live-sports-watching experience, as some shadowy deep-pockets group accused Crenshaw of being insufficiently toadying to Donald Trump. They're not as bad as the Kathaleen Wall ads, because nothing will ever be as bad as the Kathaleen Wall ads, but they're bad.
Meanwhile, in CD21 there are two sets of runoffs keeping everyone busy.
With just a week remaining before the start of early runoff voting, the two Republicans and two Democrats vying to succeed longtime U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio) pressed the flesh at a candidate forum Monday in San Marcos.
More than 50 people attended the "meet and greet" event organized by the League of Women Voters of Hays County at the San Marcos Activity Center, taking the opportunity to hear from the congressional candidates in advance of the May 22 runoff. Each candidate had five minutes to give an introductory speech to the audience and provide his or her qualifications for public office.
The GOP ballot has Boerne business owner Matt McCall squaring off with Chip Roy, a former chief of staff for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who lives in Dripping Springs. The Democratic runoff is a contest between two Austinites – businessman and U.S. Army veteran Joseph Kopser and Mary Street Wilson, an educator-turned-minister.
McCall and Roy have cast themselves as conservative Republicans who advocate limited government, a free market economy, a strong military, better border security, and a pro-life approach to reproductive rights.
In his remarks to the audience, Roy made an appeal to Democratic, GOP, and independent voters in the crowd.
"Fundamentally, I believe we have an opportunity right now to reunite this country around our shared values," said Roy, who also has worked Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and former Gov. Rick Perry. "I think we've got an opportunity to get back to the things we all care about on a non-partisan basis."
Roy said that all people should care about the ever-growing national debt, rising health insurance premiums, a flawed immigration system, and ill-equipped military personnel.
"We have disagreements on how we get to the solutions, and that's fine," he said.
Roy, who most recently worked for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an Austin-based conservative think tank, said he agrees with the federal government handling fewer national issues, and letting states address most other issues, such as health care.
"Let California be California and let Texas be Texas," he said. "Let us be able to figure out these things at the local and state level."
Roy almost sounds reasonable there, doesn't he? I don't buy it, but compared to what he could be saying, it's not terrible.
And finally, look at the underdog in CD23.
On the last Wednesday in April, things are not going as planned for Rick Treviño. He has just driven two-and-a-half hours from San Antonio, where he lives, for a local Democratic event, only to find that it's been rescheduled for later in the week. So, he decamps to a McDonald's inside a Walmart here in Eagle Pass, a border town that's in the far southeastern corner of Congressional District 23, the sprawling West Texas district that Treviño is gunning for as a Democrat. Frustrated and with five hours to kill until a meet-and-greet event in the evening, Treviño called an audible. He was going to knock on some doors.
Using the McDonald's Wi-Fi, he logged onto his account with the Texas Democratic Party's voter database to, as he puts it, "cut turf" on the fly. With the help of a campaign volunteer over the phone, he quickly pulled together a list of a few dozen homes in Eagle Pass.
"This is a grassroots campaign, man," he tells me. And this, Treviño says, is how — with next to no money — he squeaked into the Democratic runoff, beating three other candidates, including Jay Hulings, the Castro brothers' favorite who raised more than $600,000. "I win when I'm at the doors. I win when I'm talking to people."
It's also how he plans to win his runoff against Gina Ortiz Jones, a former Air Force intelligence officer who won the crowded five-person primary with a commanding 40 percent of the vote. Treviño trailed Ortiz Jones by more than 10,000 votes.
But Treviño doesn't see Ortiz Jones as his only opponent in the May 22 runoff. He says he's running against the entire Democratic Party establishment and its hackneyed approach to politics. After the March 6 primary, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) placed Ortiz Jones on its Red to Blue list of top-priority candidates, citing her long list of both local and national endorsements.
His bid has support from the phalanx of new groups like Our Revolution, the Sanders' campaign offshoot, Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress that are promoting anti-establishment candidates in congressional races around the country.
"He's the new populist candidate in the old populist state of Texas," says Jim Hightower, who heads Our Revolution Texas. "Candidates like Rick have a genuine message not developed in a think tank or by political consultants but out of his heart and his gut. And he conveys that with great conviction to voters and potential new voters."
These groups have helped bring in small donors and door-knocking volunteers. But for the most part, Treviño's campaign is a one-man show.
Emphasis mine. I bolded that section because a peek at Treviño's campaign finance report shows what this means in practice. Click on the Browse Receipts button, and you will see that Treviño has taken in a total of ten donations for the runoff. One is from Justice Democrats and one (a max $2,700 contribution) is from someone in Colorado, so in all eight individuals have donated to him since he placed second in the primary. A tsunami that ain't.
As for Ortiz Jones, who gets her own fawning profile from the Current, had 42 contributions from ActBlue among the first 100 in her report. A lot of PAC money in there too, to be sure, but many many times as many individual donations. I've got nothing against Rick Treviño, who seems like a good guy who's working hard in this race. I just wonder about the definition of "grassroots" sometimes, and who gets to define what it means.
On Latino primary participation
Time for some numbers.
The predictions about Harris County Latinos becoming more engaged in the recent mid-term primary were right: The number of Latino voters who cast their ballot more than doubled compared to the previous primary of the same kind, in 2014, with an overwhelming majority voting in the Democratic election. Experts attribute the increase to factors such as the national political climate polarized by the immigration discussion and a high number of Latino candidates, among others.
According to the office of Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart, 36,184 Spanish-surnamed voters voted in the 2018 primary election compared to 13,721 in 2014.
The increase in turnout –which is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in a particular election– also doubled: 491,912 Spanish-surnamed voters were registered in the county as of February, which means the turnout was close to 7.4 percent, compared to the 370,293 Spanish-surnamed voters who were registered in the county in 2014, which means the turnout that year was 3.7 percent.
The break down by party was also significant.
In 2014, 53 percent of Latino voters participated in the Republican primary and 47 percent voted in the Democratic election, while this year 70 percent of that segment of the electorate took part in the Democratic primary and 30 percent voted in the GOP election.
Let's break this down a little more, since this jumble of totals and percentages and whatnot muddles what it is we're actually comparing.
Year  LatinoR  LatinoD    All R    All D  LatinoR%  LatinoD%
2014    7,272    6,449  139,703   53,788     5.21%    11.90%
2018   10,855   25,329  156,387  167,982     6.94%    15.08%
"LatinoR" and "LatinoD" represents the number of voters with Latino surnames who voted in the respective primaries for the given year, with those numbers derived from the percentages given. The percentages are the share of Latino voters in that primary.
LatinoR   49.3%
NonLatR    9.9%
All R     11.9%
LatinoD  292.8%
NonLatD  200.7%
All D    211.2%
"Growth" is the percentage increase of the group in question for the R or D primary from 2014 to 2018. The number of Latino Republicans increased by 49.3% from 2014 to 2018, the number of all other Republicans increased by 9.9%, and so on.
I'm presenting this all just for the sake of clarity. I don't care to draw any conclusions because I don't think we have enough data. Especially on the Democratic side, there was so much growth from 2014 to 2018 that it's basically a waste of time to look at subgroups, because there's growth everywhere. (OK, "waste of time" is an overstatement. If Latino participation had grown at a smaller rate than non-Latino participation, that would have been genuinely interesting.) A big part of the reason for this is that the turnout in the 2014 primary was so low. We won't know for years if this is a new baseline or just a blip. As I've said before, I wouldn't make any guesses about November based on what happened in March. There's value in knowing the numbers. Beyond that, be very careful about making broad statements.
The CD02 primary runoff
Oh, yeah, that's happening.
Rep. Ted Poe
Kevin Roberts already overcame a $6 million onslaught from self-funding multimillionaire Kathaleen Wall to keep his hopes of winning a seat in Congress alive.
Now the Republican's challenge is beating retired Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw, a dark horse candidate who emerged from the primary election with surprising momentum.
Roberts, 51, said he's not intimidated as the May 22 runoff approaches in the GOP primary battle to replace U.S. Rep. Ted Poe in Congress and will stick to his strategy.
"We will continue to run our race," said Roberts, a businessman who was elected to the state Legislature in 2016. "All I can do is focus on our campaign and work to get our core message out … Experience matters."
But Crenshaw isn't about to give an inch on that front either.
Crenshaw, 33, has never held office but said he's more than ready to put his nearly 10 years in the Navy up against Roberts' political experience. Crenshaw said his time in the military taught him leadership skills, which he said are at the core of being a good public servant.
Crenshaw said that experience gives him an edge over Roberts on foreign policy and national security issues. Crenshaw served in South Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2012, while on his third tour of duty in Afghanistan, a roadside bomb nearly killed him. He lost his right eye and medically retired from the Navy in 2016.
On the one hand, I'm sure I speak for millions of Houstonians when I say I'm so relieved I'll never have to see another Kathaleen Wall advertisement again. On the other hand, this runoff without Wall's cartoon villainy is pretty much dullsville. I mean, these guys are about as compelling as unbuttered toast. Them's the breaks, I guess. Anyway, eventually one of these guys will win the right to go up against Todd Litton, who I hope is busy raising more money right now. In the meantime, I'll try to remember that this race exists.
Precinct analysis: One of these things is not like the others
Let's finish up our look at the primary precinct data with a peek at the Republican side of things. As a reminder, my analysis of the Democratic Senate primary is here, my analysis of the Governor and Lt. Governor races is here, and my analysis of the countywide races is here. We start here with the Senate race, where Ted Cruz had four opponents:
Dist    Sam    Cruz  Stef  Miller Jacobson   Cruz %
HD126   217   9,385   222     429      295   88.97%
HD127   263  12,657   301     598      354   89.30%
HD131    50   1,280    44      83       41   85.45%
HD134   492  10,749   824   1,283      720   76.41%
HD137    56   1,903    59     134       70   85.64%
HD141    13     882    15      32       18   91.88%
HD146    79   2,174   125     189       82   82.07%
HD149   101   3,046    75     194      117   86.22%
Cruz got just over 87% in Harris County. If he did any campaigning here, I didn't see it – the one sign I did see of any activity was one sign for Stefano de Stefano a few blocks from my house. In most districts, Cruz is right around his countywide total, but there are two that really stand out. I doubt anyone is surprised to see that HD134 was a low-performing district for Cruz, but I didn't see HD147 coming. It's an inner-Loop district, and I'd bet the Republican voters there skew a little younger than average, so it's not like it's a shock, just unexpected. Now let's move to the Governor's race:
Dist  Kilgore Krueger  Abbott  Abbott%
HD126     115     759   9,623   91.67%
HD127     192     970  12,921   91.75%
HD128      97     497   8,720   93.62%
HD133     153   1,335  13,024   89.75%
HD140      28      57   1,056   92.55%
HD141       4      59     897   93.44%
If you look the term "token opposition" up in the dictionary, you'll see the two non-Greg Abbott candidates in the definition. Abbott got 90.09% in Harris County against a fringe candidate's fringe candidate and a first-time no-name. Like Ted Cruz, Abbott performed mostly to spec around the county, once again with the notable exception of HD134. Nearly three thousand Republican primary voters, more than 20% of the total in HD134, basically said "anyone bu Greg Abbott". There were a few people during the primary who thought Sarah Davis was being a bit nonchalant about the campaign against her, being spearheaded as forcefully as it was by Abbott. Maybe she knew something, you know?
Last but not least, Lite Guv:
Dest   Milder Patrick Patrick%
HD126   1,826   8,802   82.82%
HD127   2,289  11,890   83.86%
HD131     257   1,242   82.86%
HD141      92     863   90.37%
On the one hand, the protest candidacy by Scott Milder didn't amount to that much, as Dan Patrick got 81.45% of the vote in Harris County and over 76% statewide. On the other hand, there were still a lot of people who did vote for Milder, including one out of three participants in HD134. To the extent that there's hope for some anti-Trump crossover backlash this November, the Republicans who refused to vote for their top three name brands would be the starting point.
One other point to address with the Lite Guv race is the question of turnout in that race compared to other Republican primaries. We know there was an effort by education and business groups to encourage people to vote in the Republican primary to support more moderate candidates, with Scott Milder being the poster boy for that. If people who were not normally Republican primary voters were coming to vote against Dan Patrick, it stands to reason that they may not have bothered voting in the other races, since they presumably held less interest for them. The evidence for that is mixed. In Harris, Travis, and Tarrant counties, it was indeed the case that more people voted in the Lt. Governor race than in the Senate and Governor races; the other statewide races had far lower totals than those three. Indeed, the undervote in Harris County in the Lite Guv race (2.38%) was lower than it was in the hotly contested open-seat CD02 race (2.48%). However, in Bexar and Dallas counties, the Lite Guv vote total was third, behind Senate and Governor, which is what you'd normally expect given ballot order and profile of the offices in question. I wouldn't draw too broad a conclusion about any of this – some of those drawn-in voters may well cast ballots in other races, especially visible ones like Senate and Governor, and in all of these cases the differences are small. I just like looking for this sort of thing and felt it was worth pointing out even if it's ambiguous.
So that's what I have for the precinct data. As always, I hope this was useful to you. Let me know if you have any questions.
It's about more than the statewide races
Two articles coming to basically the same conclusion. First, from the Observer:
People watching Texas from afar are naturally not very interested in the balance of power in the Legislature, or county government. They're interested first in whether Texas could flip in a presidential race and, secondly, whether they can be rid of Ted Cruz. So when more Democratic ballots were cast than Republican ones in the largest counties, many read that as evidence that a Democrat could win a statewide race in November, even though the link between the two is pretty specious and at any rate Texas has open primaries. (I mostly vote in the Republican primary, and a lot of people switch at will between the two depending on what's going on in their district.)
But on election night, the statewide results, from across all 254 counties, were quite different — because of course they were. In the end, there were still more Republican ballots, 1.54 million, than Democratic ballots, 1.04 million. Some observers, hyped on the foggy narrative that lauded the early voting turnout, decided that the results were a dud and lost interest, because the numbers no longer indicated that a statewide election could be won. One national forecaster, Harry Enten, wrote that the primary results were a disappointment because they were comparable to 2006, when the party didn't win any statewide elections. But Texas Democrats don't remember that year as a disappointment — they made extraordinary headway in the state House, part of an effort that almost won a majority in 2008.
The Blue Wave was real, and then it wasn't, in the course of about a week. Stranger still, the made-up national story arc seemed to influence in-state coverage as well. Even though Democratic turnout was better than in any midterm primary since 2002, and more than than double 2014, commentators have consistently described the night as at least a mild disappointment, where the Democrats "fell short" of a goal that had been imagined for them.
The thing is, the way the state goes on the electoral college map doesn't mean very much at all for the way Texas is governed. And while it's possible that the party jumps back to life with the shock of winning one or two statewide elections — that there will be a proof of concept, and then everyone suddenly gets serious — it's more likely that things change slowly, over an extended period of time, and that small gains and positive signs feed bigger gambits. What's most important in the long run is the overall composition and strength of the Texas Democratic Party at the local and state level.
In that light, the fact that Democratic turnout doubled in urban counties while Republican turnout stayed essentially flat is significant. There are quite a few winnable legislative districts around those cities. The whole ballgame for the party is getting people to vote and to make a habit of voting. Trump is helping them do that — the trick now is to get it to stick, which it most certainly did not after the elections of 2006 and 2008.
And from the Trib:
Texas didn't see a blue wave in its March primaries. Measured by the number of voters they attracted to their primaries earlier this month, Republicans outnumber Democrats in Texas by a 3-to-2 margin.
Dallas County did see a wave, though, and that could be important in November. The same is true, to some extent, in Harris and Bexar counties. Democrats, judged by turnout in the major party primaries, have a numerical advantage in three of the state's biggest counties.
Another way to put this: In the three biggest counties in Texas, Democratic primary voters outnumbered Republicans in 2018 — after trailing them in 2014.
It's not the blue wave Texas Democrats were hoping for. Texas Republican primary turnout was 1.54 million, while the Democrats attracted 1.02 million voters. But you'll have to forgive Republicans in Dallas, Bexar and Harris counties if they start hollering for life preservers. Democrats improved their turnout numbers, in comparison with Republicans, in 18 of the state's top 25 counties (measured by the number of registered voters) — an urban trend that's been previously noted here and elsewhere.
What's notable now is the electoral danger posed to incumbent Republicans. They are numerous in the three big counties, providing the Democrats with ample opportunities. They're nervous because their party's president is facing his first mid-term election, often a perilous time for that party's candidates. Meanwhile, the Democrats have candidates in place to pounce as opportunities arise.
That article goes on to list the targets from Dallas County, a list with which we are familiar. The full list goes well beyond these three counties – again, we know what that's about – but the point is simply that Democrats have a lot of ways to win this year. Obviously, becoming credibly competitive at a statewide level is the overarching goal, but as we get there a lot can happen to make the government we have better. Winning even two Senate seats would be a big step forward, not to mention a key point of leverage, thanks to the "three-fifths rule" (formerly the two-thirds rule) in the Senate, which would allow Dems to block bills they can't abide.
There are many more lower-level targets to aim for – breaking through in Harris County, including Commissioners Court in Precinct 2, lots of State House seats, and so on – and who knows, Ken Paxton may get convicted, or Sid Miller may finally say something that alienates people who aren't dead-enders. We've been over this before, you know the drill. Winning a statewide race would be huge, but it's not the sole criteria for success in 2018. Let's not lose sight of that.
The Stockman trial gets weird
I mean, with Steve Stockman you have to expect some weird crap, but I didn't see this coming.
Best newspaper graphic ever
The American Phoenix Foundation — a now-defunct conservative activist groupknown for attempting undercover stings of lawmakers and lobbyists — planted an intern in a Texas state lawmaker's office during the 2013 legislative session in an effort to expose misdeeds, testimony in federal court revealed Thursday.
Shaughn Adeleye, testifying in Houston in the federal fraud case against former U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, said in court Thursday that he was planted in the office of state Rep. James White to obtain footage of the Hillister Republican engaged in "fraud and abuse" and also in more mundane activities like cursing or failing to tidy his messy car, according to Quorum Report.
Stockman funded that effort in an attempt to uncover "salacious" gossip about a perceived political rival, according to testimony Thursday, the Houston Chronicle reported. The former congressman stands accused of illegally using charitable donations to cover political and personal expenses, among a total of 28 criminal charges.
Stockman was concerned that White would give up his state House seat to challenge him for Congress. "Republicans love black conservatives. I'm worried," Stockman fretted in a text to a political ally, according to testimony Thursday.
Adeleye told prosecutors Thursday that he accepted the undercover job because he was told he'd be ferreting out corruption, but it ultimately became clear his supervisors were hoping for embarrassing material about White, who is the only black Republican in the Legislature. He was told "a good video of [White] saying anything crazy would be ideal," according to an email shown in court.
"These were just such odd requests," Adeleye said Thursday.
The American Phoenix Foundation filmed Texas lobbyists and lawmakers back in 2015, and the group's membership has ties to James O'Keefe, a conservative political activist infamous for his shady tactics.
See here for yesterday's update. I recall State Rep. White's name being bounced around as a possible CD36 candidate for a hot second or two, but it never gained any traction, in part because he wasn't interested and in part because Stockman went off on his quest to unseat Sen. John Cornyn in that primary. Given that Stockman basically cruised to a win in the crowded 2012 race for CD36 on the strength of his residual name ID and that James White was a two-term State Rep who I'd venture to guess was widely unknown, this hair-brained scheme to discredit him – which among other things would surely have done wonders for Rep. White's name ID – shows an impressive level of paranoia, even for the likes of Stockman. The scheme itself makes Jerry Lundegaard and Carl Showalter look like super geniuses, and I am here for it. This trial has more than lived up to my expectations, and the defense hasn't even begun to present its case. The Chron – check the URL for that story, it's pure gold – has more.
More primary stuff
I don't have a canvass of the primary vote from the County Clerk yet – sometimes they send out a draft canvass on their own, or they send one to someone I know who shares it with me, and sometimes I have to ask. I'll probably ask later this week if I don't have one soon. Primary canvasses are less interesting than November canvasses for obvious reasons, but there are a few questions I have that the data may help me with.
State data is still being compiled as well, but if you want an interesting look at the data we have from early voting – which remember is only for the top fifteen counties by voter registration, then Austin political consultant Derek Ryan has you covered. See here and here for the breakdowns. If you saw any references to who was voting during the EV period, including here, it came from his work.
What I have done as we await more data is put together this spreadsheet that compares turnout in the 2014 and 2018 gubernatorial primaries, on a county by county basis, for both parties. I've sat on it for a couple of days because I couldn't think of anything to say about it that was both sufficiently interesting and not obviously BS in terms of analysis. In the end, I figured I'd just share the spreadsheet and let people do what they want with it. There are tabs for the 2014 and 2018 results by county for Dem and GOP primaries, then there are summary tabs (Dem Sum, GOP Sum) that show the change in turnout from 2014 to 2018 – positive means 2018 was higher than 2014. The Overall Sum tab shows the Democratic share of the primary vote in each county per year. What that means is that in 2014, 40.03% of the votes cast in the gubernatorial primaries in Bexar County were in the Democratic primary, while in 2018 that figure was 54.69%. This is a way of showing how the turnout changed from county to county.
Another way of doing that is on the last tab, the Per County tab, where I sorted everything by voter registration population, so those top 15 counties are at the top. The numbers in the unlabeled columns are the sums of the Growth columns to that point. What that means is this: Turnout in the gubernatorial primaries increased by 406,335 for Democrats in the top 15 counties, and by 104,357 for Republicans in those counties. It increased by 33,472 for Dems in the next fifteen counties, and by 26,759 for Republicans. Finally, it increased by 23,868 for Democrats in all other counties, and by 98,131 for Republicans in all other counties. You can see why this contributed to the surprise many people had when the results for the full state came in and they seemed to differ from the top-15-centric early vote results.
Anyway, there's that data. I may return to this kind of analysis for other things if I can think of an angle. If you have any questions, let me know.
Does primary turnout in a district predict the November result?
Karl Rove would like you to think so.
At the House level, Democrats hope to win three districts won by Hillary Clinton and now held by Republican incumbents, as well as some of the six seats opened up by GOP retirements. Here again, the primary results are not heartening for Democrats.
In two Clinton-GOP congressional districts—the Seventh, in Houston, represented by Rep. John Culberson, and the 32nd, in Dallas, held by Rep. Pete Sessions—more Republicans voted than Democrats: 38,032 Republicans to 33,176 Democrats in the Seventh and 41,359 Republicans to 40,084 Democrats in the 32nd. Mrs. Clinton carried both districts by less than 2 percentage points in 2016.
Moreover, no Democrat won a majority in either district's primary, forcing runoffs in May. In the Seventh, journalist Laura Moser —endorsed by the Bernie Sanders-connected "Our Revolution"—is pitted against Clinton loyalist and attorney Lizzie Pannill Fletcher. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee targeted Ms. Moser with an opposition-research dump arguing she was too liberal to win in the fall. The attack backfired: Ms. Moser was trailing Ms. Fletcher in early voting before the DCCC assault but won more votes among those who turned out on election day.
Democrats outvoted Republicans in a GOP-held seat that Mrs. Clinton carried by 3.4 percentage points—the massive 23rd Congressional District, which sweeps across West Texas. This year, after Democratic candidates spent a combined $1.1 million, 44,320 voted in their primary to 30,951 Republicans. Still, that is 5,000 more Republicans than voted in the 2014 primary, which launched Will Hurd into Congress. A former undercover CIA officer, Rep. Hurd is one of the GOP's most effective campaigners. His "DQ Townhalls" at Dairy Queens across his largely Hispanic district helped him hold the district by 1.3 points in 2016 even as Mr. Trump lost by more than 3 points.
Democratic aspirations to take some of the six open Republican congressional districts also appear slim: Republicans turned out more voters in all six, with the GOP's margins ranging from roughly 16,000 to 22,000 votes.
If we're talking about CD23, I can tell you that the Democratic candidates have received more votes than the Republican candidates in each primary since 2012, which includes one year that Pete Gallego won and two years that Will Hurd won. As such, I'm not sure how predictive that is.
More to the point, I am always suspicious when a data point is presented in a vacuum as being indicative of something. We've had primary elections before. How often is it the case that the party who collects the most primry votes in a given race goes on to win that race in November? Putting it another way, if one party draws fewer votes in the primary, does that mean they can't win in November? Let's step into the wayback machine and visit some primaries to the past to see.
CD17 - GOP            CD17 - Dem
McIntyre     10,681   Edwards      17,754
Snyder       11,568
Wohlgemuth   15,627
Total        37,876   Total        17,754
November result - Edwards 125,309  Wohlgemuth 116,049
HD134 - GOP           HD134 - Dem
Wong          4,927   Barclay         771
Daugherty     4,193
Total         4,927   Total         4,964
November result - Wong 36,021  Daugherty 29,806
Witt          1,291   Amadi           376
Zieben          970   Hochberg      1,012
November result - Hochberg 10,565  Witt 8,095
Heflin        2,526   Vo            1,800
November result - Vo 20,695  Heflin 20,662
HD47 - GOP            HD47 - Dem
Welch         2,349   Bolton        1,569
Four others   3,743   Three others  2,071
November result - Bolton 26,975  Welch 24,447
Fleece        1,441   Strama        2,466
Wheeler         294
Zimmerman     1,344
November result - Strama 25,098  Fleece 13,681
Keffer        3,054   Smith           724
Vaught        1,169
November result - Vaught 16,254  Keffer 15,145
Wong          3,725   Cohen         2,196
November result - Cohen 25,219  Wong 20,005
Neil          9,136   Howard        6,239
November result - Howard 25,023  Neil 25,011
SD10 - GOP            SD10 - GOP
Cooper        6,709   Davis        17,230
Shelton      28,249
November result - Davis 147,103  Shelton 140,656
Pena          1,030   Perez         1,149
Pineda        1,437   Risner          462
Ybarra          591
November result - Perez 12,446  Pineda 10,885
SD15 - GOP            SD15 - Dem
Hale         13,563   LaCroix       3,239
Whitmire      9,766
November result - Whitmire 74,192  Hale 48,249
HD107 GOP             HD107 - Dem
Sheets       10,371   Neave         6,317
November result - Neave 27,922  Sheets 27,086
Some points to note here. One, I'm cherry-picking just as Rove had done. There were plenty of examples of one party outvoting the other in a given primary race, then winning that race in November. That's why I don't have an example to cite from 2008, for instance. It's also why I concentrated on the legislative races, since outside of CD23 there haven't been many competitive Congressional races. Two, as you can see most of the examples are from last decade. That's largely a function of how brutally efficient the 2011 gerrymander was. Three, these are actual votes cast, not turnout, as that data doesn't exist on the SOS page and I was not going to trawl through multiple county election sites for this. It could be in some of the closer examples that adding in the undervotes would have flipped which party led the way.
All that out of the way, as you can see there are plenty of examples of parties trailing the primary votes but winning when it mattered. In some cases, the March tallies weren't close, like with SD10 in 2012. In some other cases, it was the November races that weren't close, like HD50 in 2006 and SD15 in 2014. The point I would make here is simply that this doesn't look like a reliable metric to me. If you want to make the case that these Congressional races will be tough for Democrats to win regardless of the atmosphere and the demographic trends and the relative level of enthusiasm in the two parties, I'd agree. The weight of the evidence says that despite the positive indicators for 2018, we're still underdogs in these districts. Our odds are better than they've been, but that doesn't mean they're great. I don't think you need to use questionable statistics to make that case.
One more thing to consider: There was an effort, mostly driven by educators, to show up in the Republican primary and vote against Dan Patrick. It didn't work in the sense that he won easily, but some 367K people did vote against him. I'm sure some number of those people are reliable Republicans, but some of them were likely new to the primary process. This probably had an effect on overall Republican turnout. A small effect, to be sure, but if it's a little more than half of the anti-Patrick vote then we're talking about 200K people. Take them out of the pool and the Republicans are back down at 2014 turnout levels.
I have no idea how much this effect might be. It's certainly small, and I doubt you could measure it without some polling. But we know it's there, and so it's worth keeping in mind.
Today is the last day to cure a provisional ballot
If you voted provisionally during the primary because you did not have an accepted form of ID in your possession when you voted, you need to "cure" your provisional ballot in order for it to be counted. From the inbox:
If a voter possesses an acceptable form of photo ID but does not have it at the polling place, the voter will still be permitted to vote provisionally. The voter will have six (6) days to present an acceptable form of photo identification to the county voter registrar, or fill out the natural disaster affidavit referenced in the Exemption/Exceptions section below, or the voter's ballot will be rejected.
Alternatively, a voter who possesses an acceptable form of photo ID but does not have it at the polling place may choose to leave the polling place and return before the close of the polls on election day with said acceptable form of photo ID to, if the voter would otherwise qualify, vote a regular ballot at that time.
If you need more information on the cure process
or contact the Harris County Tax Office Voter Registrar Division at 713-274-VOTE (8683) for assistance.
Simply put, if you cast a provisional ballot, you need to get yourself to one of the Harris County Tax Assessor offices and show an accepted form of ID there for your ballot to count. Today is the deadline for that. To find a location, go to the Tax Assessor webpage and scroll down to the map of branch office locations. If you're in a county other than Harris, do the same thing at your county's elections office –
find your county's elections page for that information. Today is the deadline for this, so act now if you voted provisionally. This only applies if you did not have an accepted form of ID when you voted. If you have any questions, call the Harris County Tax Office Voter Registrar Division at 713-274-VOTE (8683) for assistance.
Meanwhile, in Montgomery County
There they go again.
The Republican primary defeat of embattled Montgomery County Judge Craig Doyal — and close contests in two county commissioner races headed for runoffs — could signal major leadership changes and a shift further to the right in the fast-growing Houston suburb.
State Rep. Mark Keough, who defeated Doyal, was among several candidates favored by the county's influential tea party movement — and like-minded statewide groups — who fared well Tuesday. Others in this cohort include Steve Toth, who overwhelmingly won the Republican nomination for the legislative seat that Keough is vacating, and Greg Parker, who got 43 percent of the vote in a three-person race and forced County Commissioner Charlie Riley, with 43.5 percent, into a primary runoff.
Toth and Parker have staked out positions aligned with the most far-right elements of their party. Parker's campaign website says he wrote a book described as "a critical look at the myth and liberal hysteria surrounding climate change." Toth, who was instrumental in the formation of the county's tea party movement, has advocated eliminating property appraisal districts and freezing appraisals at the purchase price of a home.
Political observers agreed that toll roads emerged as a dominant issue in the county, where tea party groups carry a lot of clout, particularly in The Woodlands. Texas lawmakers have gone from championing to criticizing toll roads, a shift that some Houston-area leaders worry has gone too far and could limit coming projects.
"Without toll roads and that funding, I don't know what we are going to do," Doyal said late last year, citing the need for new roadways in rapidly growing parts of the Houston area.
Keough took a hard stance against toll roads.
"I think toll roads are another form of taxation," Keough said last December. "I'm out on toll roads. Toll roads are about a bigger issue; it's about big government."
Doyal was embattled for a reason, and I'm sure that had something to do with it. I figure as long as the developers are able to keep building things life will go on more or less as normal up there. I mean, at some point they're going to need to come up with a politically acceptable way to pay for the roads they want to build, but that's their problem.
I confess, I don't quite get the diatribe against toll roads. The whole idea with toll roads is that you only pay for them if you use them. Everyone pays gas taxes, whether they use the roads that get built with them or not. Which is fine by me, of course, but I'm one of those big-gubmint-loving-liberal types. If gas taxes, floating bonds, and toll roads are all off the table, what's left? Perhaps Montgomery County will show us.
(Just a reminder, there is a choice if you think all of this is messed up.)
Please come back again
The Chron asks a few of the candidates who didn't make it out of the primaries to give it another try some day.
Let us now offer an encouraging observation to good candidates who fell short in this month's primary elections: Even Rocky Balboa lost his first fight.
Remember that George W. Bush lost his first election and ended up living in the White House. Sylvester Turner lost his first two races for mayor, but he's now sitting in the big office at Houston City Hall.
The lesson for aspiring elected officials is simple. Even successful politicians sometimes lose elections.
The editorial board has spent the past few months interviewing scores of candidates who took the initiative to run for public office. Even if they had no hope of winning, even if their qualifications have been questionable, their commitment has been inspiring.
A cancer researcher decided to run this year because he thinks America needs more scientists in public office. An ethics expert put his name on the ballot because he's bothered by cronyism in our state capital. A retired rock-n-roll disc jockey went to a women's march and came to the conclusion she needed to campaign for Congress. A woman who lived in an RV in Austin so she could lobby state lawmakers decided to run for the Texas Legislature.
We met some mighty impressive citizens who put their reputations on the line and their names on the ballot but ended up losing their primaries. Indeed, many of them faced such stiff competition they didn't even win our endorsement. But some of them have been so compelling we want to encourage them to stay in politics. They deserve a second mention, because we hope we see their names on the ballot again in the future.
I made the same observation at the start of primary season, along with the hope that some of those folks would take another shot. City Councils and school boards always need good people, and those opportunities will be there next year. Among those the Chron singled out for praise were Jason Westin, Silky Malik, and Armen Merjanian. I hope they take the Chron's words to heart.
Endorsement watch: Not Dan Patrick
Scott Milder, who was defeated by Dan Patrick in the Republican primary, endorses Mike Collier for the general election.
Scott Milder
Scott Milder, who lost his Republican primary challenge to incumbent Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick two days ago, says he will vote for the Democrat running against Patrick in November to curb "irrational, out-of-touch politics."
In a Facebook post that he characterized not as a concession, "but rather an absolute victory speech,", Milder — a longtime Republican and and well-known public education advocate — said he plans to vote "for Republican candidates in every race with one exception.
"I cannot on good conscience vote for a man who I know to be a liar, nor can I vote for a man who willfully ignores and disrespects his legislative colleagues and his constituents," Milder said in the post. "I will be casting my vote for Mike Collier, the rational Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, and will strongly encourage all Texans who voted for me in this race to cast their votes for Mr. Collier as well."
Coillier told the Houston Chronicle on Thursday that he appreciates Milder's support, after a campaign in which they agreed on many of the issues including opposition to school vouchers. He said Milder may even campaign with him in coming weeks.
"It doesn't happen very often that a Republican endorses a Democrat, but public education groups recruited (Milder) to run against Patrick and he and I viewed proper funding of public education as very important," said Collier, a retired Kingwood CPA and business executive.
"I've already had a fair number of moderate Republican donors (to Milder's campaign) who have called and said they want to join me."
You can read Milder's statement here. Patrick beat him pretty handily, but Milder still got 367K votes. If his words carry weight with his supporters, that could move things a bit. I mean, I don't expect too much from this, even if Milder does help Collier campaign. I doubt that many people will even hear about this, but to the extent that they do, this can't hurt.
Post-Primary Day thoughts
Various thoughts and observations that are better aggregated into one post…
– I believe this is the first time that all of the statewide candidates I voted for either won or advanced to the runoff in the primary. Statewide primaries are tricky, and one should never overestimate one's name ID. Thankfully, there were no zeroes in the downballot races, and the ones that were in the top level races lost.
– As primary season began, I had expressed hope for a high level of primary turnout, to provide further evidence of our level of engagement in this election. We topped one million votes cast, and the total number of votes in the Governor's primary (1,017,150) bested the total number from 2002 (1,003,388). There are more voters now, of course, and Republicans topped 1.5 million total, but still. It's nearly double what we had in 2014 and it's the second best total basically ever, after 2008. I'm happy with that.
– Of course, the fact that Republicans did cast more primary votes than Democrats is being cited as evidence that there's no "blue wave" coming. I thought the fact that Democrats vastly outvoted Republicans in the 2008 primary was supposed to be evidence that primary turnout doesn't really tell you anything? I'm confused. Be that as it may, Democrats had a bit less than double the turnout from 2014, while Republicans were up about fifteen percent. You can feel however you want to about that, I feel good about it.
– Looking at election night returns, a bit more than half of the Democratic primary vote was cast early, and the same was true for the Republican primary vote. It was basically the same in Harris County, where about 55% of the vote in each party was cast early. Final Harris County turnout for Dems was 167,396, and for Republicans it was 155,798.
– Which means, if primary turnout is indeed destiny, that Republicans are doomed in Harris County, right? You tell me when this matters and when it doesn't.
– Democratic runoffs include Governor, eleven Congressional races, SBOE12, SD17, seven State Rep races, and all of the countywides plus one more HCDE and one JP races in Harris County. There are surely other county race runoffs elsewhere, but I'm not going to go looking for them at this time. Republicans have six Congressional runoffs, seven State Rep runoffs, two district Courts of Appeals, and in Harris County one District Court race and one JP race. That suggests to me there will be more media attention being paid to the Democratic runoffs, especially given the lack of a Republican statewide race for May. Of course, that may not all be good attention, but it's another difference from 2014, and 2012 for that matter.
– I'm still digesting all the numbers, and will have more thoughts and tidbits as we go. I expect to get a canvass report from the County Clerk in the next couple of days and will of course play with that. For the most part, I'm happy with how the primaries went. People were engaged, turnout was good, no obvious clunkers got elected or into runoffs. You always want more, but overall I have no complaints. May I say the same about the runoffs in May. How do you feel about how the primaries went?
2018 primary results: Statewide
Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Statewide Dem totals
Statewide GOP totals
Harris County Dem totals
Harris County GOP totals
(Please note that all results were coming in very slowly. I expect there will still be some precincts not yet reported by the time this publishes. So, I'm going to be less specific than usual, and may have to make a correction or two by Thursday.)
No real surprises here. Lupe Valdez and Andrew White will fight it out in the runoff. They combined for about 70% of the vote. Beto O'Rourke was a bit over 60% on his way to the Senate nomination. To be honest, I thought he'd score higher than that, but whatever. Statewide primaries are hard.
Miguel Suazo was near 70% for Land Commissioner, and Roman McAllen was near 60% for Railroad Commissioner. Mike Collier was leading by about seven points for Lt. Governor. The closest race was for Comptroller, where Joi Chevalier had a tiny lead over Tim Mahoney.
On the Republican side, Greg Abbott (90%), Ted Cruz (85%), Dan Patrick (75%), and Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick (75%), who I didn't even realize had an opponent, all cruised. Baby Bush and Sid Miller were in the high 50's and so also on their way to renomination. That means the only statewide runoff will be for the Democratic gubernatorial race.
One note on turnout: In 2014, there were 554,014 total votes cast in the Democratic primary for Governor. The early vote tally for the Dem gubernatorial primary was 555,002. So yeah, turnout was up. Republicans will probably have 30-40% more total turnout statewide, but I fully expect Dems to top one million at this point.
2018 primary results: Congress
Sen. Sylvia Garcia
Barring anything strange, Texas will have its first two Latina members of Congress, as Sylvia Garcia (CD29) and Veronica Escobar (CD16) were both over 60%. I for one approve of both of these results. Now we can have that important debate about whether one of them is officially the "first" Latina or if they both get to share that designation; I lean towards the latter, as you know, and it appears that the Trib is with me as well. Maybe this will be a short debate. In any event, my congratulations to both women.
Todd Litton was over 50% in CD02 with about a third of the precincts in. Lizzie Fletcher and Laura Moser were headed towards the runoff in CD07 with just under half of the precincts reporting; Jason Westin was within about 850 votes of Moser, but he was losing ground. I will note that Fletcher, who led Moser by about seven points overall, led her in absentee ballots by 36-18, in early in person votes by 30-23 (nearly identical to the overall tally), and on E-Day 28-27. Maybe that's the DCCC effect, maybe Fletcher has earlier-by-nature voters, and maybe it's just one of those random and meaningless things.
Other Dem Congressional results of interest:
– Gina Ortiz Jones was at 40% in CD23, so she will face someone in the runoff. Judy Canales and Rick Trevino was neck and neck for second, with Jay Hulings trailing them both by about two points.
– Colin Allred was also around 40%, in the CD32 race. Lillian Salerno, Brett Shipp, and Ed Meier were competing for runnerup, in that order.
– Joseph Kopser and Mary Wilson were right around 30% for CD21, with Derrick Crowe just under 23%.
– Jana Sanchez and Ruby Faye Woolridge were both around 37% in CD06.
– MJ Hegar and Christine Eady Mann were well ahead in CD31.
– Jan Powell (53% in CD24) avoided a runoff. Lorie Burch (49% plus in CD03) just missed avoiding one.
– Sri Kulkarni was at 32% in CD22, with Letitia Plummer and Steve Brown both around 22%. In CD10, Mike Siegel was up around 43%, while Tawana Cadien, Tami Walker, and Madeline Eden were in the running for the second slot.
– Dayna Steele was winning in CD36 handily. This is one of those results that makes me happy.
– On the Republican side, Lance Gooden and Bunni Pounds led in CD05, Ron Wright and Jake Ellzey led in CD06, Michael Cloud and Bech Bruun were the top two in CD27. I have only a vague idea who some of these people are. Ted Cruz minion Chip Roy led in the CD21 clusterbubble, with Matt McCall and William Negley both having a shot at second place. Finally, Kevin Roberts was leading in CD02, and while Kathaleen Wall had the early advantage for runnerup, Dan Crenshaw was making a late push, leading the field on E-Day. Dear sweet baby Jesus, please spare us from two more months of Kathaleen Wall's soul-sucking TV ads. Thank you.
– I would be remiss if I did not note that Pounds has a decent shot at being the third woman elected to Congress from Texas this year; if she prevails in the CD05 runoff, she'll be as in as Garcia and Escobar are. Wall's path to that destination is a bit cloudier now, but unless Crenshaw catches her she still has a shot at it.
– Some of these results were changing as I was drafting this. Like I said, I'll likely have some cleanup to do for tomorrow. Check those links at the top of the post.
2018 primary results: Legislative
Rep. Sarah Davis
I'm gonna lead with the Republicans this time. Sarah Davis and Lyle Larson, both viciously targeted by Greg Abbott, won their races easily. Sarah, here's that picture I mentioned before. Also, too, the anti-vaxxers can suck it (in this race; they unfortunately appear to have claimed a scalp elsewhere). Abbott did manage to unseat the mediocre Wayne Faircloth, who was the most conservative of his three targets. Party on, Greg!
Back to the good side: Rita Lucido was leading Fran Watson in SD17, but was short of a majority. Beverly Powell won in SD10, Wendy Davis' old district. Mark Phariss was leading in SD08, but it was too close to call. On the Republican side, Rep. Pat Fallon destroyed Sen. Craig Estes in SD30, but Sen. Kel Seliger beat back the wingnuts again in SD31. Sen. John Whitmire won easily. Joan Huffman easily held off Kristin Tassin on her side of SD17. And Angela Paxton won in SD08 over the lesser Huffines brother. Apparently, two Paxtons are better than one, and also better than two Huffineses.
Other incumbents in both parties had more trouble. On the D side, longtime Rep. Robert Alonzo lost to Jessica Gonzalez in HD104; her election increases the number of LGBT members of the Lege by one. First term Rep. Diana Arevalo lost to former Rep. Trey Martinez-Fischer in HD116, and first-term Rep. Tomas Uresti, no doubt damaged by his brother's legal problems, lost to Leo Pacheco. And Dawnna Dukes' odyssey came to an end as challengers Sheryl Cole and Chito Vela both ran way ahead of her. Other Dems, including (sigh) Ron Reynolds hung on, though Rep. Rene Oliveira was headed to a runoff with Alex Dominguez in HD37. For the Rs, Rep. Jason Villalba was going down in HD114 – he was an anti-vaxxer target, though there were other factors in that race, so it sure would be nice for Dems to pick that one off in November. Rep. Scott Cosper was headed to a runoff in HD54. Other incumbents, including those targeted by the extreme wingnut coalition, made it through.
For Harris County, the following challengers won: Natali Hurtado (HD126; she celebrated by going into labor, so double congratulations to her), Gina Calanni (HD132), Adam Milasincic (HD138). Sandra Moore was briefly above 50% in HD133, but ultimately fell back below it to wind up in a runoff with Marty Schexnayder. Allison Lami Sawyer had a slightly easier time of it, collecting over 90% of the vote against the idiot Lloyd Oliver. Maybe, just maybe, this will be enough to convince Oliver that his run-for-office marketing strategy has come to the end of its usefulness. Sam Harless was on the knife's edge of a majority in HD126 on the R side; if he falls short, Kevin Fulton was in second place.
There will be a few runoffs in other races around the state. I'll get back to that another day.
2018 primary results: Harris County
Short and sweet, because it's late and I'm tired:
– Marilyn Burgess fell just short of 50% for District Clerk. She will face Rozzy Shorter in May.
– Diane Trautman and Gayle Mitchell will run off for County Clerk.
– Dylan Osborne and Cosme Garcia were the top two finishers for County Treasurer.
– Richard Cantu led for HCDE Position 3 At Large, with Josh Wallenstein just ahead of Elvonte Patton. In a very tight race, Danny Norris was ahead of Prince Bryant by a nose for HCDE Position 6, Precinct 1, with John Miller farther back. There were only a few precincts out as I wrote this, but things were close enough that the standings could change.
– Adrian Garcia and Penny Shaw will be the nominees for County Commissioner in Precincts 2 and 4, respectively.
– Lucia Bates toppled Don Coffey for JP in Precinct 3. Sharon Burney and Cheryl Elliott Thornton will compete for JP in Precinct 7.
– There were only a couple of races of interest on the R side. Josh Flynn won the nomination for HCDE Trustee in Place 4, Precinct 3. Current HCDE Trustee and total chucklehead Michael Wolfe will face Jeff Williams for JP in Precinct 5. Paul Simpson held on as party chair.
– Dem turnout was 160,085 with about fifty precincts left to report. Republican turnout was 148,857 with 85 precincts still out.