Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

December 6th, 2018:

Precinct analysis: One final look at judicial races and undervoting

This one is short and sweet, and really could have been the entry level way of looking at the question “who is more likely to lose voters down the ballot when straight ticket voting is gone, Dems or Republicans?” We agree that there are a ton of judicial elections on the Harris County ballot. It’s more in the off years than the Presidential years, and this year there were 67 such races, including the 1st and 14th Courts of Appeals, but not including the statewide positions and the JP races. These are the races where we’d expect those fabled “fatigued” voters to give up and skip to the “cast ballot” button, thus leaving some candidates out in the cold. What actually happened this year, with this ridiculously long ballot?

Well, the way I look at it here is to look at the vote totals for each party’s candidates as we get further and further down the ballot. To smooth out the variances a bit, I grouped the judicial races into fives, and averaged the vote totals for each party. Here’s how that looked for 2018:


 R avg    D avg
===============
525,105  659,269
532,722  649,946
534,714  647,210
531,416  649,545
529,551  651,147
526,579  653,219
522,370  657,782
522,130  657,317
521,753  656,926
527,228  650,895
524,574  653,409
520,817  656,424

The last group has seven races in it, as there were 67 in total. The first five appellate races are for whatever the reason different than everything that comes after them, but as you can see the total range of votes is fairly limited. Once again, we see that – again, with an odd blip three from the end – Dems do a better job of hanging onto their voters than the Republicans do. Here’s how this looks as a chart:

Again, I think the data is a bit mixed, and we don’t really know how the people who have been voting straight tickets will behave once that’s not an option. My point continues to be that it’s ridiculous and unsupported by the data to make assertions about what will happen once this change is implemented. Among other things, voters (and parties and candidates) have two years to absorb the idea of the change and to make adjustments for it. Here in Harris County, as in some other bigger counties, we can now take steps to ensure that the longer time it takes to complete a ballot will not lead to longer lines and voter frustration, so that may help mitigate the more unsavory parts of this change. It may well be when all is said and done and we have some more elections under our belt that Dems do see more dropoff in their races. I don’t think that will happen, or if it does that it will be a significant effect, but it could. Whatever does happen, let’s remember what was said before anyone could know for sure.

SD06 finance reports

As expected, there are two candidates who are running a real campaign, and two other candidates.

Rep. Carol Alvarado

State Reps. Carol Alvarado and Ana Hernandez have raised and spent far more money than the two other candidates seeking to replace Rep.-elect Sylvia Garcia in the Texas Senate, according to filings posted Tuesday by the Texas Ethics Commission.

Between the two Houston Democrats, Alvarado has proven the more prolific fundraiser, taking in about $115,000 and spending about $391,000 from Oct. 28 through Dec. 1, the period covered by her latest campaign finance report. During the same period, Hernandez raised about $66,000 and spent about $162,000.

The totals place Alvarado and Hernandez well ahead of Republican Martha Fierro, who has raised about $4,000 since Nov. 15, and Mia Mundy, a Democrat who did not report raising or spending any money.

[…]

Alvarado, who entered the race with a sizable war chest, has been running an ad on cable television, and she says the spot will begin running on network stations in the lead-up to Election Day on Dec. 11. Alvarado’s spending on those ads does not appear to be included in her campaign finance report.

Here are the 8 day reports for Alvarado and Hernandez. Note that the latter covers a longer period of time, from July 1 through December 1, while Alvarado had filed more recent reports. The reason for this is that Hernandez was unopposed for re-election, and thus not required to file 30-day or 8-day reports for the November election, while Alvarado had a Libertarian opponent and thus did file those reports. I don’t care for that quirk of Texas finance law, but it is what it is. (Note that in a year without this special election, Hernandez would still be filing a January report, as will all November candidates, so it’s not like her latter half of 2018 would have been a mystery to us for much longer.)

For those who missed it, there was a candidate forum for SD06 on Tuesday. As Alvarado and Hernandez have very similar voting records and public positions, the debate included the topic of Alvarado serving in a leadership position under Speaker Joe Straus while Hernandez did not; this was a point of distinction in the Chron’s endorsement of Alvarado.

Rep. Ana Hernandez

The back-and-forth dialogue kicked off about 40 minutes into the event, when Hernandez was asked about the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board’s statement that she “hasn’t gained the sort of leadership positions that Alvarado boasts.”

Hernandez, first elected to the House in 2005, noted that she has served in the lower chamber under Republican leadership. With the GOP in control, she said she has not received chairmanships like Alvarado has because doing so “compromises the values that you’ve been elected to represent.”

“To have to compromise and negotiate to be in a leadership position, I will not do that,” she said. “I will represent the best interests of my constituents.”

Alvarado, given time to respond, said she and Hernandez have “pretty much the same” voting records, but indicated she believes it’s possible to be progressive while working with Republicans.

“When you have to get 76 votes to pass something, you have to work across the aisle,” said Alvarado, who chairs the Urban Affairs Committee and was first elected to the House in 2008. “And I’m proud of the trust and the confidence that a moderate Republican like (Speaker) Joe Straus placed in me not to chair one committee, but two committees.”

She went on to invoke the chairmanships of Democratic state Reps. Senfronia Thompson and Garnet Coleman.

“So I would say by mentioning the words ‘compromise your values,’ I’ve never done that,” she said. “I don’t forget where I come from. I live in my community, I actually live in this district.”

Hernandez, who said after the debate that she does in fact live in Senate District 6, shot back, saying, “This moderate Republican speaker that has appointed her (as) chair, it’s the same one that pushed SB 4” — a reference to the law that requires local law enforcement to abide by federal officials’ requests to detain people believed to have entered the country illegally.

“You tell me if that’s moderate,” Hernandez said, adding, “and I’m glad that you mentioned Senfronia Thompson and Garnet Coleman, because I am proud to have their endorsement for my candidacy for Senate District 6.”

Here’s the EV daily report through Wednesday. There have been 8,350 total ballots cast so far. You still have two days to vote early if you live in the district, so get out there and make your voice heard.

Paxton prosecutors want another shot

Good luck.

Best mugshot ever

The attorneys appointed to prosecute Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton indicated in a court filing this week that they aren’t giving up a long-running fight to take the state’s top lawyer to court — at least not yet.

The filing follows a Nov. 21 ruling from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that six-figure payments to the special prosecutors were outside legal limits. The prosecutors, who have not been paid since 2016, had in the past suggested that if they did not get paid, they might leave the case, which has dragged on for more than three years.

Brian Wice, one of those prosecutors, on Monday filed a document with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking more time to ask the court to rehear the case. If the court grants his request, prosecutors would have until Dec. 21 to try and convince the high court to reconsider their case. Wice declined to comment on Tuesday.

On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, the fractured court handed down a total of six opinions, including three dissents. The all-Republican court will welcome one new member, Michelle Slaughter, in the new year.

See here for the background. I know asking for a re-hearing is a normal thing, though I have no idea how often it works. Maybe with a new judge coming on board there’s a chance of a different outcome, I don’t know. Maybe because the opinions were all over the place the justices themselves might be open to reconsidering. It can’t hurt. I just don’t expect much to change. The DMN has more.

Texas blog roundup for the week of December 3

You – yes, you – are Individual One in the hearts of the Texas Progressive Alliance and this week’s roundup.

(more…)