Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

August 14th, 2017:

July 2017 campaign finance reports – HCC

Welcome to the last and least interesting of these campaign finance report posts. This one is about the HCC Trustees, and there’s not much to see. Take a look at what there is – you can find all available reports here – and we’ll discuss it below.

Carolyn Evans-Shabazz
Robert Glaser

Adriana Tamez
Dave Wilson
Eva Loredo
John Hansen
Neeta Sane
Zeph Capo


Name            Raised    Spent     Loans     On Hand
=====================================================
Evans-Shabazz    3,125    1,027         0       2,812
Glaser               0        0     5,000       8,439

Tamez                0    3,533         0       6,247
Wilson               0        0    12,782           0
Loredo               0      881         0       1,109
Hansen               0        0     5,000       8,925
Sane                 0    6,043         0      20,803
Capo                 0    1,100         0       2,064

First, let me just say how far the HCC webpage has come from the days when I had to file an open records request to get my hands on these things. They’re easy to find now, and all reports are available for everyone who has a report. The only downside is that you can’t tell at a glance who is and isn’t a candidate – you have to look at everyone to see who has a current report – but I can live with that. Kudos for getting this right, y’all.

And so, what you see above, is everyone who has filed a July 2017 report, which is to say the eight non-felonious incumbents, and no one else. Neither Carolyn Evans-Shabazz nor Robert Glaser has an opponent as yet, and there’s a giant void in District 9, where there is neither an incumbent nor a candidate for the position. Someone will be appointed to fill the seat soon enough, and from there we’ll get some idea as to who may be in the running for November, but for now this is all we have.

As you can also see, no one is exactly burning up the phone lines hitting up donors. Again, this may change when and if someone gets opposed, but until then there appears to be no rush.

Fran Watson for SD17

Awesome news.

Fran Watson

It’s OFFICIAL!

I have launched my campaign for TX State Senate District 17. The campaign slogan is People First.

“When the people are part of the legislative process instead of a few leaders in Austin, our laws are more expansive, which in turn provide families access to healthcare, jobs, stronger public schools, and equitable opportunities to succeed. This leads to a better quality of life and a stronger Texas.”

You can visit franwatsonfortexas.com to donate, sign up to volunteer or learn more about me. Like the campaign Fran Watson for Texas on Facebook. You can also follow the campaign on Twitter using the handle, @franfortexas
Let’s do this y’all! #FranforTexas #PeopleFirst

The webpage is here and the Facebook page is here. As you know, I’ve been awaiting this announcement for awhile, and I’m delighted to see it happen. Watson is an attorney, community organizer, past president of the Houston GLBT Political Caucus, and an all-around super person. SD17 is an uphill battle, like all of the Senate districts, but if anyone can do it, Fran can. Get to know her, and give her your support.

Paxton joins defense of Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering

Of course he does.

Best mugshot ever

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is backing Wisconsin in a high-profile case asking the U.S. Supreme Court whether lawmakers can go too far when drawing political maps to advantage one party.

Paxton, a Republican, filed an amicus brief seeking to protect the status quo in political gerrymandering — redistricting maneuvers that allow controlling parties to bolster their majorities in state Legislatures and Congress even when statewide demographics shift against them.

“Never has the U.S. Supreme Court disallowed a legislative map because of partisan gerrymandering, and it surely can’t find fault with Wisconsin’s, which is lawful, constitutional and follows traditional redistricting principles,” Paxton said in a statement Tuesday.

[…]

It’s unclear how the Wisconsin case could directly affect the pending case in Texas, because of the different timelines and arguments being made. And the Supreme Court must also decide whether it has the jurisdiction to rule in the Wisconsin case, a question it left open in accepting the challenge.

But if the high court ultimately establishes a new limit on the role politics can play in redistricting, it would almost certainly affect map-drawing in Texas going forward and give opponents of Texas’ current maps a new avenue to challenge them.

See here for some background, and here for the Paxton brief. It’s unlikely this case will affect the current one, at least at this time, but it could make a difference of some kind down the line. At this point, anything that legally restricts gerrymandering will hinder the Republicans, though of course some day the shoe may be on the other foot. But for now, the reason why Paxton would want to pitch in is obvious.