Introduction
Congressional districts
State Rep districts
Commissioners Court/JP precincts
Comparing 2012 and 2016
Statewide judicial
Other jurisdictions
Appellate courts, Part 1
Appellate courts, Part 2
Judicial averages
Other cities
District Attorney
County Attorney
Sheriff
Tax Assessor
County Clerk
HCDE
Fort Bend, part 1
This post is going to focus on the judicial races in Fort Bend County. There are a lot of them – seven statewide, four appellate, five district and county – and I don’t want to split them into multiple posts because there’s not enough to say about them, nor do I want to present you with a wall of numbers that will make your eyes glaze over. So, I’m going to do a bit of analysis up top, then put all the number beneath the fold for those who want a closer look or to fact-check me. I’ll have one more post about the Fort Bend county races, and then maybe I’ll take a crack at Brazoria County, which will be even more manual labor than these posts were.
The point of interest at the statewide level is in the vote differentials between the three races that included a Libertarian candidate and the four races that did not. Just eyeballing the totals and bearing in mind that there’s some variance in each group, the Republican candidate got an increase of a bit more than half of the Libertarian vote total in each district, while the Democrats were more or less around the same level. That comports with the general thesis that Libertarians tend to take votes away from Republicans more than Democrats, though the effect here was pretty small. It’s also a small sample, and every county has its own characteristics, so don’t go drawing broad conclusions. For what it’s worth, there wasn’t anything here to contradict that piece of conventional wisdom.
For the appellate court races, the thing I have obsessed over is the incredibly small margin in the election for Chief Justice of the 14th Court of Appeals, which Jane Robinson lost by 1500 votes, or 0.06 percentage points. We saw in Harris County that she trailed the two victorious Democrats, Veronica Rivas-Molloy and Amparo Guerra, who were part of a trend in Harris County where Latino candidates generally out-performed the rest of the ticket. That wasn’t quite the case in Fort Bend. Robinson again trailed Rivas-Molloy by a little – in overall vote total, Robinson trailed Rivas-Molloy by about two thousand votes, while Republican Tracy Christopher did an equivalent amount better than Russell Lloyd. But unlike in Harris, Robinson outperformed Guerra, by about a thousand votes, and Guerra barely beat out Tamika Craft, who was farther behind the pack in Harris County. I don’t have a good explanation for that, it looks to me just like a weird result that has no obvious cause or correlation to what we saw elsewhere. It’s also the case, as we discussed in part one of the Fort Bend results, that if Dems had done a better job retaining voters downballot, none of this would matter all that much.
Finally, in the district court races (there were four of them, plus one county court), the results that grabbed my attention were in a couple of contests that appeared one after the other. Republican Maggie Jaramillo, running for the 400th District Court, was the closest member of Team GOP to win, as she lost to Tameika Carter by ten thousand votes. In the next race, for the 434th District Court, Republican Jim Shoemake lost to Christian Becerra by twenty-two thousand votes. This was the difference between a three-point loss for Jaramillo, and a six-and-a-half point loss for Shoemake. Jaramillo was the top performing Republican candidate in any race in Fort Bend, while Becerra was sixth best among Dems, trailing Joe Biden, three statewide judicial candidates, and Sheriff Eric Fagan. You may have noticed that they’re both Latinos, though the effect appears to have been a bit greater for the Republican Jaramillo. Becerra was the only Dem besides Biden to carry Commissioners Court Precinct 1, though that may not have been strictly a Latino candidate phenomenon – Elizabeth Frizell had the next highest percentage, with Veronica Rivas-Molloy and Tina Clinton close behind. (Amy Clark Meachum and Staci Williams, both in three-candidate races, came closer to carrying CC1 than any other candidates, but their percentage of the vote was lower.) Again, no broad conclusions here, just an observation.
Click on for the race data, and remember I had to piece this together by hand, so my numbers may be a little off from the official state totals when those come out. County races are next. Let me know what you think.
Dist Hecht Meachum Lib Hecht%Meachum% Lib%
=====================================================
CD09 14,697 50,479 1,187 22.15% 76.06% 1.79%
CD22 142,605 128,672 5,166 51.59% 46.55% 1.87%
HD26 42,827 40,027 1,542 50.75% 47.43% 1.83%
HD27 23,894 56,460 1,487 29.20% 68.99% 1.82%
HD28 65,069 55,509 2,258 52.97% 45.19% 1.84%
HD85 26,107 26,827 1,069 48.34% 49.68% 1.98%
CC1 37,341 37,311 1,467 49.06% 49.02% 1.93%
CC2 17,204 49,789 1,279 25.20% 72.93% 1.87%
CC3 61,756 44,897 1,996 56.84% 41.32% 1.84%
CC4 40,998 47,154 1,611 45.67% 52.53% 1.79%
Dist Boyd Williams Lib Boyd% Will% Lib%
=====================================================
CD09 14,602 50,593 1,004 22.06% 76.43% 1.52%
CD22 142,053 128,125 4,807 51.66% 46.59% 1.75%
HD26 42,493 39,965 1,444 50.65% 47.63% 1.72%
HD27 23,766 56,616 1,231 29.12% 69.37% 1.51%
HD28 64,950 55,132 2,172 53.13% 45.10% 1.78%
HD85 26,064 26,663 970 48.54% 49.65% 1.81%
CC1 37,233 37,194 1,349 49.14% 49.08% 1.78%
CC2 17,167 49,865 1,046 25.22% 73.25% 1.54%
CC3 61,551 44,602 1,959 56.93% 41.26% 1.81%
CC4 40,701 47,057 1,457 45.62% 52.75% 1.63%
Dist Busby Triana Lib Busby% Triana% Lib%
=====================================================
CD09 14,676 50,199 1,199 22.21% 75.97% 1.81%
CD22 143,140 126,151 5,466 52.10% 45.91% 1.99%
HD26 43,015 39,142 1,676 51.31% 46.69% 2.00%
HD27 23,908 55,964 1,568 29.36% 68.72% 1.93%
HD28 65,300 54,523 2,359 53.44% 44.62% 1.93%
HD85 26,158 26,421 1,070 48.76% 49.25% 1.99%
CC1 37,463 36,735 1,490 49.50% 48.53% 1.97%
CC2 17,218 49,423 1,279 25.35% 72.77% 1.88%
CC3 62,005 43,967 2,094 57.38% 40.69% 1.94%
CC4 41,127 46,225 1,802 46.13% 51.85% 2.02%
Dist Bland Cheng Bland% Cheng%
======================================
CD09 15,278 50,618 23.19% 76.81%
CD22 145,870 128,714 53.12% 46.88%
HD26 43,530 40,338 51.90% 48.10%
HD27 24,711 56,617 30.38% 69.62%
HD28 66,824 55,181 54.77% 45.23%
HD85 26,694 26,848 49.86% 50.14%
CC1 38,374 37,146 50.81% 49.19%
CC2 17,879 49,936 26.36% 73.64%
CC3 63,317 44,630 58.66% 41.34%
CC4 41,575 47,620 46.61% 53.39%
Dist Richsn Friz Richsn% Friz%
======================================
CD09 14,981 51,028 22.70% 77.30%
CD22 144,856 129,145 52.87% 47.13%
HD26 43,448 40,121 51.99% 48.01%
HD27 24,307 57,009 29.89% 70.11%
HD28 66,235 55,655 54.34% 45.66%
HD85 26,461 27,050 49.45% 50.55%
CC1 37,921 37,628 50.19% 49.81%
CC2 17,544 50,342 25.84% 74.16%
CC3 62,815 44,924 58.30% 41.70%
CC4 41,555 47,278 46.78% 53.22%
Dist Yeary Clinton Yeary%Clinton%
======================================
CD09 15,064 51,057 22.78% 77.22%
CD22 144,823 128,962 52.90% 47.10%
HD26 43,220 40,301 51.75% 48.25%
HD27 24,298 57,042 29.87% 70.13%
HD28 66,416 55,416 54.51% 45.49%
HD85 26,589 26,918 49.69% 50.31%
CC1 37,970 37,500 50.31% 49.69%
CC2 17,607 50,352 25.91% 74.09%
CC3 62,900 44,775 58.42% 41.58%
CC4 41,407 47,392 46.63% 53.37%
Dist Newell Birm Newell% Birm%
======================================
CD09 15,258 50,497 23.20% 76.80%
CD22 146,056 126,722 53.54% 46.46%
HD26 43,690 39,489 52.53% 47.47%
HD27 24,643 56,339 30.43% 69.57%
HD28 66,864 54,571 55.06% 44.94%
HD85 26,731 26,500 50.22% 49.78%
CC1 38,280 36,886 50.93% 49.07%
CC2 17,863 49,737 26.42% 73.58%
CC3 63,305 44,061 58.96% 41.04%
CC4 41,863 46,535 47.36% 52.64%
Dist Chris Robsn Chris% Robsn%
======================================
CD09 15,300 50,400 23.29% 76.71%
CD22 146,232 126,262 53.66% 46.34%
HD26 43,744 39,368 52.63% 47.37%
HD27 24,745 56,185 30.58% 69.42%
HD28 66,856 54,387 55.14% 44.86%
HD85 26,767 26,438 50.31% 49.69%
CC1 38,243 36,848 50.93% 49.07%
CC2 17,930 49,619 26.54% 73.46%
CC3 63,334 43,851 59.09% 40.91%
CC4 42,022 46,344 47.55% 52.45%
Dist Lloyd Rivas Lloyd% Rivas%
======================================
CD09 14,962 50,863 22.73% 77.27%
CD22 144,486 128,052 53.01% 46.99%
HD26 43,339 39,709 52.19% 47.81%
HD27 24,321 56,680 30.03% 69.97%
HD28 66,010 55,337 54.40% 45.60%
HD85 26,380 26,884 49.53% 50.47%
CC1 37,749 37,415 50.22% 49.78%
CC2 17,555 50,125 25.94% 74.06%
CC3 62,580 44,651 58.36% 41.64%
CC4 41,561 46,724 47.08% 52.92%
Dist Adams Guerra Adams% Guerra%
======================================
CD09 15,497 50,207 23.59% 76.41%
CD22 146,841 125,457 53.93% 46.07%
HD26 44,026 38,982 53.04% 46.96%
HD27 25,014 55,834 30.94% 69.06%
HD28 67,031 54,113 55.33% 44.67%
HD85 26,833 26,450 50.36% 49.64%
CC1 38,323 36,827 51.00% 49.00%
CC2 18,159 49,393 26.88% 73.12%
CC3 63,444 43,614 59.26% 40.74%
CC4 42,409 45,830 48.06% 51.94%
Dist Wise Craft Wise% Craft%
======================================
CD09 15,227 50,489 23.17% 76.83%
CD22 146,890 124,889 54.05% 45.95%
HD26 44,201 38,646 53.35% 46.65%
HD27 24,748 56,150 30.59% 69.41%
HD28 66,955 53,960 55.37% 44.63%
HD85 26,800 26,321 50.45% 49.55%
CC1 38,259 36,766 51.00% 49.00%
CC2 17,894 49,650 26.49% 73.51%
CC3 63,503 43,405 59.40% 40.60%
CC4 42,458 45,557 48.24% 51.76%
Dist Mullnx Heppard Mullnx% Hepp%
======================================
CD09 15,237 50,005 23.35% 76.65%
CD22 146,071 124,462 53.99% 46.01%
HD26 43,799 38,734 53.07% 46.93%
HD27 24,586 55,767 30.60% 69.40%
HD28 66,727 53,650 55.43% 44.57%
HD85 26,819 26,017 50.76% 49.24%
CC1 38,368 36,262 51.41% 48.59%
CC2 17,819 49,242 26.57% 73.43%
CC3 63,186 43,266 59.36% 40.64%
CC4 41,933 45,696 47.85% 52.15%
Dist Jaramlo Carter Jara% Carter%
======================================
CD09 15,523 50,186 23.62% 76.38%
CD22 147,945 123,372 54.53% 45.47%
HD26 44,412 38,364 53.65% 46.35%
HD27 24,934 55,863 30.86% 69.14%
HD28 67,231 53,409 55.73% 44.27%
HD85 27,497 25,622 51.76% 48.24%
CC1 39,129 35,878 52.17% 47.83%
CC2 18,147 49,326 26.90% 73.10%
CC3 63,690 42,958 59.72% 40.28%
CC4 42,499 45,396 48.35% 51.65%
Dist Shoemake Becerra Shoe%Becerra%
======================================
CD09 14,731 50,682 22.52% 77.48%
CD22 142,523 128,569 52.57% 47.43%
HD26 42,830 39,891 51.78% 48.22%
HD27 24,084 56,408 29.92% 70.08%
HD28 65,283 55,188 54.19% 45.81%
HD85 25,679 27,457 48.33% 51.67%
CC1 36,907 38,059 49.23% 50.77%
CC2 17,285 49,912 25.72% 74.28%
CC3 61,967 44,528 58.19% 41.81%
CC4 41,092 46,752 46.78% 53.22%
Dist Perwin Morgan Perwin% Morgan%
======================================
CD09 14,896 50,501 22.78% 77.22%
CD22 144,402 126,028 53.40% 46.60%
HD26 43,361 39,127 52.57% 47.43%
HD27 24,133 56,334 29.99% 70.01%
HD28 65,927 54,428 54.78% 45.22%
HD85 26,522 26,313 50.20% 49.80%
CC1 37,899 36,739 50.78% 49.22%
CC2 17,489 49,716 26.02% 73.98%
CC3 62,490 43,898 58.74% 41.26%
CC4 41,417 46,176 47.28% 52.72%
Dist Hrbacek WatsonHrbacek% Watson%
======================================
CD09 14,722 50,901 22.43% 77.57%
CD22 143,769 127,390 53.02% 46.98%
HD26 43,230 39,618 52.18% 47.82%
HD27 23,941 56,789 29.66% 70.34%
HD28 65,641 54,845 54.48% 45.52%
HD85 26,298 26,706 49.62% 50.38%
CC1 37,577 37,234 50.23% 49.77%
CC2 17,293 50,132 25.65% 74.35%
CC3 62,248 44,226 58.46% 41.54%
CC4 41,370 46,699 46.97% 53.03%