Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Attorney General

Paxton gives the middle finger to House Oversight Committee

I’m sure you’re as shocked as I am.

Best mugshot ever

Facing an investigation over the state’s botched efforts to screen its voter rolls for noncitizens, the Texas Attorney General’s Office is declining congressional leaders’ request for information about the review.

In a Thursday letter to top officials with the House’s main investigative committee, Jeffrey Mateer, the state’s first assistant attorney general, indicated the state was brushing off a request for documents and communications from the Texas secretary of state and attorney general because the committee lacks “oversight jurisdiction.”

Instead, Mateer wrote, the state will treat the congressional inquiry as a public information request under state law, which grants the Texas attorney general’s office broad control over what information can be withheld from the public.

“We do not interpret your letter to be a subpoena issued under applicable House Rules. Nor do we consider it a request for information under any applicable federal law,” Mateer said. “For the foregoing reasons, and because the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and its subcomittees lack oversight jurisdiction over constitutional officers of the State of Texas, we must interpret your request under Texas state law.”

[…]

A spokesperson for the committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the AG’s letter. But in announcing the Texas investigation — part of a broader probe of voting irregularities in multiple states — Cummings and Raskin cited their authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives. The committee has the authority to issue subpoenas. Raskin chairs a subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties.

See here and here for the background. I wish I could say I was surprised by this, but it’s about as surprising as a humid morning in July. What happens next is probably a subpoena, but after that it’s anyone’s guess.

The committee said in response to Paxton’s letter that it still expects to receive the documents.

“The right to vote is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and Congress is charged with protecting and defending the Constitution,” the committee said in a statement.

“Congress has an independent responsibility to investigate violations even when there may be separate litigation involving the same or similar matters. We expect full compliance with the Committee’s request.”

A committee spokesperson would not address a question about the use of a subpoena to obtain the emails and other documents.

[…]

Joe Larsen, a Houston lawyer and board member of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said even if the House does file a subpoena, the Attorney General could decline to cooperate.

The larger legal question of whether the committee has jurisdiction in a state matter may ultimately have to be solved by a court, Larsen said.

Normally, congressional oversight is for the executive branch, which does not include states, he said.

“It’s the idea that the federal government cannot be micromanaging what’s going on in the states unless that power is directly given to them by the Congress,” Larsen said.

But the committee could make the argument that it has the right under the “necessary and proper clause” of the Constitution to ensure that federal laws such as the Voting Rights Act aren’t being violated.

“That’s going to be a fight,” Larsen said. “It’s a fair argument on both sides.”

Better hope the courts are sympathetic to that line of reasoning. Our next chance to hold these amoral assholes accountable isn’t until 2022, and we can’t afford to wait that long.

Using floodplain rules to force environmental safety compliance

A county’s gotta do what a county’s gotta do.

Harris County officials are using flood control regulations passed after Hurricane Harvey to delay the reopening of two chemical companies where fires erupted in recent weeks, killing one worker and sending large plumes of black smoke into the Houston area.

The Harris County Attorney’s office cited the post-Harvey rules on floodplain construction and stormwater drainage in its civil lawsuits against KMCO and Intercontinental Terminals Co., where cleanup is still ongoing after the fires.

“We don’t shy away from going after the biggest, baddest companies out there,” said Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan. “It sends a message to everyone.”

The county is digging through maps and available data to determine if both companies are in a floodplain. The new regulations put chemical facilities that are in a 500-year floodplain under tighter scrutiny.

The drainage rules restrict discharges of hazardous materials into the county’s stormwater system. If a company is found to have discharged hazardous materials, it can be cited by the county. Larger releases could lead to additional legal action.

The floodplain rules apply to more than facilities with fires and toxic releases and can force companies to meet new requirements when seeking to expand or change an existing facility, said Rock Owens, managing attorney for the Harris County Attorney’s environmental section.

The story doesn’t go into detail about what compliance issues there are and how long they may take to resolve. You may be thinking “why doesn’t the county file a lawsuit against these companies to force them to fix their problems?” The answer is that this used to be how things went, but your Texas legislature has taken steps to shackle counties and their enforcement efforts.

But in 2015, the state Legislature started taking away authority from the local governments. Lawmakers approved a bill capping the amount of money a local government could receive from civil penalties sought in environmental cases.

In 2017, another bill passed forcing local authorities to ask permission from the Texas attorney general before seeking penalties. If the attorney general’s office does not file its own suit in 90 days, the local government can go forward with a civil suit.

Lawmakers are currently considering two bills that would restrict local governments even more.

House Bill 3981, filed by state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, would give the attorney general the authority to settle lawsuits started by the county, without the approval of the county.

House bill 2826, filed by state Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood and three others, would let the attorney general prohibit the county from hiring outside attorneys on cases.

“The concern isn’t that the local governments are intentionally causing any problems with these suits, just that a more efficient state-led effort may at times be more desirable,” said Justin Till, Bonnen’s chief of staff.

More desirable for the polluters, that’s for sure. Let’s be very clear, the main reason why bills like these get passed are specifically to muzzle Harris County’s enforcement efforts. (The city of Houston’s efforts were killed by the Supreme Court.) It’s a pollution-friendly Republican Legislature taking care of bad actors, aided and abetted by the business lobby. You know what I’m going to say next: Nothing will change until we change who we elect.

State sues over Deer Park fire

Too big to ignore.

Late Friday, the state of Texas sued Intercontinental Terminals — the Houston-based company whose petrochemical storage facility in the suburb of Deer Park caught fire last weekend and burned for days, sending a dramatic plume of black smoke over the nation’s fourth-largest city.

The lawsuit, filed in state district court on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, alleges that air pollution released during the fire is a violation of the Texas Clean Air Act.

It seeks a permanent injunction and civil penalties that “could exceed $100,000.”

“The state of Texas works hard to maintain good air quality and will hold ITC accountable for the damage it has done to our environment,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “ITC has a history of environmental violations, and this latest incident is especially disturbing and frightening. No company can be allowed to disrupt lives and put public health and safety at risk.”

Were you able to read that statement with a straight face? Then read this.

The TCEQ, the agency responsible for protecting the state’s environment and public health, has been criticized for letting large corporate polluters off with a slap on the wrist. An analysis of its enforcement record by an environmental nonprofit found that the agency imposed penalties on violators in just 3 percent of cases. ITC appears to have benefitted from the lax enforcement. In 2016, for instance, the company released more than 1,500 pounds of benzene — a carcinogenic chemical — for over five days and failed to notify the state agency within the mandated 24-hour deadline. The fine: roughly $4,000.

I’m just saying. Maybe some day when there aren’t new fires breaking out every time an old fire gets put out, we can get to the bottom of what happened here. And then sue these assholes out of existence. More broadly, maybe we can demand that our state take enforcement of environmental regulations seriously. If they had done so before, maybe we wouldn’t be in this position now. The Chron has more.

Of course there are bills to do something with that bogus SOS advisory

What else did you expect?

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

Among other things,  Senate Bill 960 and Senate Bill 953, filed late last week, would require voter registrars across the state to kick every person off the voter rolls who at one point said they were not a citizen to any government agency.

Beth Stevens, voting rights program director with the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the bills could potentially reduce “protections that a voter has to address a claim that they are a noncitizen.” The nonprofit is one of many groups challenging the state’s effort in court.

“It further adds an element of intimidation of voter registrars,” she said.

[…]

If enacted, SB 960 and SB 953 would require registrars to immediately remove flagged voters from voter rolls. The bills wouldn’t require registrars to notify individuals their citizenship was being questioned. SB 960 would also subject any registrar who does not immediately remove those voters to a civil penalty and a possible Class A misdemeanor charge.

SB 960 would also give the Attorney General’s office the power to petition a court to remove a registrar from office if he or she does not kick those voters off the rolls.

“These two bills – and particularly SB 960 – are very much voter suppression on their face,” Stevens said.

SB 960 was filed by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Republican from Houston. Bettencourt did not respond to a request for comment. He did, however, weigh in on the issue last year and admonished local officials for not pursuing and removing alleged noncitizens from voter rolls.

“This really strikes at the fabric of the integrity of the whole election process,” Bettencourt said in a written statement last June. “The fact is that non-citizens simply cannot vote in our elections.”

SB953 was authored by Sen. Pat Fallon. Of course Bettencourt would have a hand in this. He made his bones as Harris County Tax Assessor finding many creative and legally questionable ways to purge voters he didn’t like. There’s a reason why voter registration numbers in the county were flat for so long. Whether this particular ploy will work or not remains to be seen. These bills can probably pass if the leadership wants them to, but in the absence of a push they may die the usual death by natural causes. I’ll try to keep an eye on them.

Is the Lege going to try to “fix” HD90?

Here’s a legislative to do list item that has been completely off the radar.

Rep. Ramon Romero

Federal courts last year gave Texas lawmakers 45 days from the beginning of this year’s legislative session to start redrawing boundary lines for Fort Worth’s House District 90 because of gerrymandering.

The 45-day mark [was] Thursday.

If a proposal isn’t introduced within the first month and a half of the session — or if it doesn’t appear likely that a new plan will come up during the session that wraps up May 27 — then the three-judge panel in a U.S. District Court in San Antonio will undertake the “unwelcome obligation” of fixing the district.

So far, no bill to redraw the district represented by Democrat Ramon Romero has been filed.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that we must have a narrow tailored correction to District 90,” Romero said. “The most narrow tailored line is that those precincts split by amendments in 2013 must be brought back to the way they were before.

“Will the district be fixed by the Legislature or will the Legislature pass on filing a bill … to let the courts do it?”

He said the next step is to see what fixes are proposed by the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

See here and here for the background. This was brought to my attention by regular commenter blank, who also noted it at Daily Kos. This story was published on Tuesday, and as far as I can tell, no bills relevant to this issue have been filed. That doesn’t mean that the courts will absolutely jump in with their own fix – the AG will propose something, the deadline for all bill filing hasn’t passed yet, and I’m sure the court won’t consider taking action until after the session if nothing passes and someone files a motion. Whatever the case, this is out there. What makes it more complicated, as blank noted in his Kos comment, is that if such a bill gets filed and heard in committee, it could be amended in all kinds of ways as it works through the system. You could in effect redistrict the entire Lege using this bill as a vehicle if you have the votes for it. Or you may just decide nothing is worth the bother and leave it to the court to clean up. I have no idea which way this will go, but we’ll keep an eye on it.

First day in court for SOS advisory lawsuits

First day for the first lawsuit, one of three filed against that bogus SOS advisory.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

A federal judge in San Antonio will hear arguments Tuesday in one of three legal challenges to the state’s initiative to purge tens of thousands of Texans from voter rolls who officials claim are not U.S. citizens.

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery will hear a request by a group headed by the League of United Latin American Citizens seeking a court order to block the plan. LULAC and others say many of the people targeted by the rollout were wrongly placed on the purge lists.

The state, in court records, defends the initiative as necessary. The hearing could last much of Tuesday, and possibly into Wednesday, but the judge is not expected to issue an immediate ruling.

[…]

LULAC’s suit said the initiative amounts to a discriminatory “witch hunt” targeting mostly Hispanic voters, in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. The Campaign Legal Center joined the suit, adding constitutional concerns. The groups also filed a request to turn it into a class-action lawsuit for others who might be wronged.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund later filed a separate suit in Corpus Christi, which contends that state officials singled out naturalized citizens because they were born outside the country. A coalition of other groups — MOVE Texas Civic Fund, Jolt Initiative, League of Women Voters of Texas and the NAACP of Texas — filed a third lawsuit in Galveston to prevent the purge, saying Texas officials are treating those who have been naturalized as second-class citizens. Both lawsuits are pending.

See here for more on the LULAC lawsuit, and here and here for the other lawsuits. The Trib filed a story later in the day with more details about what happened so far.

Facing three federal lawsuits challenging the legality of Texas’ efforts to review the citizenship of 98,000 registered voters, a top lawyer for the state opened up his defense in one of the cases by claiming the state had not made any mistakes or imposed unconstitutional burdens on certain voters in rolling out the review. Actually, he argued, it was certain county election officials who had acted “contrary to state law.”

In a federal courthouse Tuesday, Assistant Attorney General Chris Hilton repeatedly questioned why two local election officials — Kerr County Tax Assessor Bob Reeves and Blanco County Tax Assessor Kristen Spies — immediately sent voters who were flagged by the state letters demanding that they prove their citizenship in order to remain on the voter rolls. Hilton said counties should have first reviewed their lists to determine whether they had reason to believe a voter was ineligible.

The two voter registrars told the court their staff was simply following the state’s instructions — laid out in an official election advisory — on how to determine if those individuals were in fact U.S. citizens and therefore eligible to vote. In her reading of the state’s advisory, in which state election officials repeatedly noted they had worked to provide counties with “actionable information,” Spies said she believed that meant “that we should work the list.” She was echoed by Reeves, who indicated the state’s decision to flag those voters gave them enough reason to move forward with those notices.

[…]

Hilton contended the secretary of state had merely told counties they had the choice to investigate the voters or take no action — not immediately send out notices.

“Unfortunately, Mr. Reeves, I think your staff has acted contrary to state law,” Hilton told Reeves, who oversees the county’s voter rolls and whose staff sent out 68 proof-of-citizenship letters the day the county received its list of voters from the state.

[…]

Chad Dunn, one of Hilberg’s attorneys, followed Hilton’s questioning by projecting a copy of the secretary of state’s advisory onto a large screen in the courtroom and reading from the part of the document that indicated that state officials “believe” the data they provided “can be acted on in nearly all circumstances.”

“Is a reasonable reading of that sentence that this list of voters is ready to be sent notices without any further steps?” Dunn asked.

“Based on this, yes,” Reeves responded.

Dunn then asked what effect a combination of that advisory and the statements made by top Republican officials about supposed voter fraud had on Reeves’ understanding of whether he needed to send those notices.

“To the best of my knowledge, that’s why my office sent that out,” Reeves said.

Classy move by the state, blaming the local officials for the SOS’s actions. The case continues today, and we probably won’t get an immediate ruling. And whatever happens here, those other lawsuits are out there as well.

Paxton double-talks on that SOS advisory

Ken Paxton really can’t be trusted. Not exactly earth-shattering, I know, but always good to remember.

Best mugshot ever

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton assured lawmakers on Friday that his office hadn’t launched criminal investigations into nearly 100,000 voters flagged by the secretary of state’s office for citizenship review.

But email correspondence obtained by The Texas Tribune between an assistant county attorney and a Paxton deputy who cites “pending criminal investigations related to these issues” appears to contradict the attorney general’s claim.

The two opposing statements were put into writing within a week. Paxton made his assurance in a letter received by the Senate Nominations Committee, which had grilled Secretary of State David Whitley a day earlier over his decision to hand over to the attorney general’s office the list of voters whose citizenship he was questioning. Whitley’s confirmation is in doubt, in part because of questions from Democrats about whether he knew there were naturalized citizens on the list but referred the names to the state’s top prosecutor anyway.

Paxton wrote that it would “not be possible to investigate tens of thousands of [secretary of state] matters” before local voter registrars had reviewed the lists they received from the state.

“We plan to begin our investigations only once some counties have completed their list maintenance,” Paxton said.

But the Friday before, Assistant Attorney General Lauren Downey wrote the opposite in an email to Guadalupe County’s assistant county attorney: “The Office of the Attorney General has pending criminal investigations related to these issues.”

See here for the background. Never trust a word Ken Paxton says. I don’t have anything to add to this, so let me turn the microphone over to Julieta Garibay:

Finally, 26 years after I had migrated to the United States and made Austin my home. After all the trials and tribulations as an undocumented immigrant. After being a survivor of domestic violence and getting my green card because of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Justice had prevailed — I would be a U.S. citizen.

In April 2018, my family and friends joined me as I took my citizenship oath. I couldn’t help but cry in joy and excitement as I waved my American flag. A month later, I proudly cast my first vote in the United States — one of the new rights I was most excited about. At the polls, I thought of all the people in the immigrant community who were counting on my vote to ensure we are treated with dignity and respect.

But a couple weeks ago, when I saw Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton proclaim “VOTER FRAUD ALERT,” my heart sank. It was clear to me that the Secretary of State’s office hadn’t thoroughly investigated the data it had released on 95,000 potential non-citizen voters. Frightened, I emailed the Travis County Voter Registrar to ask if I was on the list. A couple of days later, I received a call that confirmed my fear — my right to vote was being questioned.

She goes on to call for Secretary of State David Whitley to resign. Failing that, not confirming him would be adequate. I’m with her on this.

Paxton manages to restrain himself from prosecuting anyone on the SOS list – yet

Mighty decent of you there, Kenny boy.

Best mugshot ever

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told lawmakers Friday that his office has yet to take action on a deeply flawed list of nearly 100,000 Texas voters flagged last month for citizenship review.

Paxton wrote a letter to the Senate Nominations Committee the day after a hearing in which David Whitley, the governor’s nominee to be the state’s top election official, conceded that he was aware of potential problems with the list before he referred it to the state’s top prosecutors.

[…]

Paxton assured senators in the Friday letter that his agency would undertake such probes “only once some counties have completed their list maintenance.”

“To us, justice means charging and prosecuting only if the facts show the person committed the offense and had the required criminal state of mind,” Paxton wrote in the letter, which was first reported by the Austin American-Statesman and obtained by The Texas Tribune. “Charging a defendant without that evidence is injustice.”

But Paxton’s letter also made clear that the delay in initiating prosecutions is largely due to a lack of resources.

“Our undersized Election Fraud Unit was experiencing a backlog of over 80 complex cases even before the SOS notification,” Paxton wrote. “Simply put, even utilizing every resource we have, it would not be possible to investigate tens of thousands of SOS matters before the voter registrars should be able to complete their list maintenance activity.”

Paxton’s agency has asked the Legislature for $2 million and 10 full-time staff members to investigate and prosecute election fraud cases, saying it has too many investigations and too few resources already.

See here for more on Whitley’s super fun day of admitting to the committee that he doesn’t know his rear end from his elbow. I’m sure this all must be grinding Paxton’s gears, poor baby. It has to be just a wee bit harder to justify all that money for his political vendettas when the numbers are so obviously wrong even he can’t act on them. As the story notes, he may never get any actual names from county election administrators, at least not any time soon. The lesson here is that it’s so much better to be right slowly than to be wrong quickly. And like many important lessons in life, it needed to be learned the hard way.

Paxton asks for summary judgement to end DACA

Not much coverage of this, and I’m not sure what that means.

Best mugshot ever

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Monday asked a federal judge to strike down Obama-era deportation protections for immigrants whose parents brought them to the United States illegally as children.

In a motion filed in Brownsville federal court, Paxton asked U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen to follow through on his ruling in August, when Hanen determined that the Obama administration did not have the authority to implement the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

At the time, however, Hanen declined to issue an injunction blocking enforcement of DACA.

In Monday’s motion for summary judgment joined by seven other states, Paxton asked the judge to end the program and block the federal government from issuing or renewing any more DACA permits to young immigrants.

Congress, not the president, has the authority to determine federal immigration law, he said.

“Whatever its policy merits, DACA is clearly unlawful, as this court has already held,” Paxton’s motion said. “Underlying the program is a limitless notion of executive power which, if left unchecked, could allow future presidents to dismantle other duly enacted laws. The court must not allow that to occur.”

[…]

If Hanen agrees to issue an order ending DACA, he would be in conflict with federal judges in California and New York who have blocked the Trump administration’s effort to end the program in 2017. DACA remains in force while appeals in both cases proceed.

See here and here for the background. The Statesman was the only news outlet with a story on this, which may mean there’s little chance it will go anywhere or it may mean we’re all so distracted by the eleventy jillion other news stories out there that no one is paying much attention to Paxton’s latest stunt. SCOTUS just declined to take up the Trump administration’s appeal of lower court rulings keeping DACA in place, which you’d think might give pause to even a Paxton-friendly judge. I’m never quite that optimistic. Anyway, I’m noting this for the record so when something happens I’ll be able to refer to this at that time.

(And a day later, he’s petitioning to have abortion and transgender health protections “wiped permanently” from Obamacare. I think he feels emboldened after having survived re-election. But don’t worry, I’m sure he’d use those new powers he wants responsibly.)

Paxton wants power to pursue political prosecutions

That’s the only rational interpretation of this.

Best mugshot ever

As he begins his second term, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is looking to expand the prosecutorial power of his office, asking the Legislature for more resources and expanded jurisdiction to go after crimes related to abortion and voter fraud.

The Republican attorney general’s office has asked lawmakers for millions more in funding to prosecute election fraud and human trafficking crimes. The agency has also requested expanded jurisdiction over abortion-related crimes, which are currently the purview of local officials.

Paxton’s office, which didn’t return multiple requests for comment for this story, says additional resources — and the additional grants of authority — are necessary to ensure laws are uniformly, and firmly, enforced across the state. But in Texas, most criminal enforcement falls to local prosecutors unless they seek the state’s help. And many of those prosecutors say there’s no need for the state to take over work they’re already handling.

Critics also point to the contested areas where two of Paxton’s major requests focus — abortion and election fraud — as evidence that he’s motivated by politics, not law.

There’s a lot more in the story, and you should read it all, but what you need to know is right there. It all started with Paxton’s minions making false statements to a Senate committee about local prosecutors. Never mind that there’s essentially no such thing as “abortion-related crime” – the story never even defined what that might be, and the anti-abortion advocate quoted in the story couldn’t supply an example of it. If Ken Paxton has the power to prosecute it, whatever it is, you can bet your bottom dollar he’ll find some to prosecute. Same for “election fraud” – I guarantee you, you give him millions of dollars to spend on it, he’ll spend them all. You’ll almost forget that the original role of the Attorney General is for civil cases.

SOS walks its advisory back even more

Just rescind the whole damn list and let’s pretend this never happened.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

A week after it flagged tens of thousands of voters for citizenship checks, the Texas secretary of state’s office is now advising counties on how to check their lists for naturalized citizens — an indirect acknowledgment that legitimate voters could have been on the list from the beginning.

Those voters are in addition to the more than 20,000 others who should have been removed from the list earlier this week after state officials found they had been mistakenly included.

In a mass email sent to local election officials on Friday, the secretary of state’s director of elections, Keith Ingram, offered up additional guidance to counties looking to clear voters from their lists without sending notices demanding proof of citizenship. Among the advice he offered to those election officials “after speaking to a number of counties” was to review registration application files collected at ceremonies in which immigrants become citizens.

“Some county voter registrars or [volunteer deputy registrars] participate in naturalization ceremonies and maintain lists of naturalized citizens or can identify which applications were completed at a naturalization ceremony,” Ingram wrote in the email, which was obtained by The Texas Tribune.

[…]

“Like many other election and voter registration activities, we are working together on this,” Ingram wrote in the email. “We thank you for your feedback and continue to welcome any further feedback so that we can work together to ensure an effective and efficient process of maintaining an accurate list of registered voters going forward.”

The additional guidance to counties comes as civil rights groups and Democratic lawmakers continue to call on the state to rescind its original advisory to local election officials regarding the voters flagged for citizenship checks, pointing to the errors that have already been discovered in the state’s data.

“We told the SOS what was going to happen, and this week we all saw that what we cautioned against has become true,” Andre Segura, legal director of the ACLU of Texas, said on a press call on Friday. “The list is entirely flawed.”

See here, here, and here for the background. Seems like the SOS is doing everything it can to disavow its original advisory without publicly admitting their initial advisory was trash. They also haven’t said whether they’ve given a less-bogus list of names to the AG’s office. They couldn’t have been more incompetent and buffoonish if they’d tried.

And it’s quite clear, they tried.

State Rep. Rafael Anchia had been alarmed by the actions of the Texas secretary of state’s office for days by the time the agency’s chief, David Whitley, walked into the Dallas Democrat’s Capitol office on Monday.

The Friday before, Whitley’s staff had issued a press release calling into question the citizenship of 95,000 registered voters in Texas. In the days since, advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers were raising serious questions about whether the majority of people on that list would soon be proven to be eligible voters.

But before those doubts emerged, Whitley, the top election officer in the state, had handed over information about those registered voters to the Texas attorney general, which has the jurisdiction to prosecute them for felony crimes.

So as he sat at the end of his green, glass-topped conference table, Anchia — the chair of the Texas House’s Mexican American Legislative Caucus — wanted to know: Did Whitley know for sure that any of the names on his list had committed crimes by voting as noncitizens?

“No,” Whitley answered, according to Anchia.

“And I said, ‘Well, isn’t it the protocol that you investigate and, if you find facts, you turn it over to the AG?”

“I do not have an answer for that,” Whitley responded, according to Anchia’s recollection of the Monday meeting.

[…]

The citizenship check effort went public this week, but the seeds for it were planted in 2013. That year, Texas lawmakers quietly passed a law granting the secretary of state’s office access to personal information maintained by the Department of Public Safety.

During legislative hearings at the time, Keith Ingram, director of elections for the secretary of state’s office, told lawmakers that the information would help his office verify the voter rolls. The state had had a recent misstep when it tried remove dead people from the rolls and ended up sending “potential deceased” notices to Texans who were still alive.

One of the DPS records that the 2013 law granted the secretary of state’s office access to was a list of people who had turned in documentation indicating they weren’t citizens — such as a green card or a work visa — when they obtained a driver’s license or an ID in Texas.

But it appears that the secretary of state’s office held off for years before comparing that list with its list of registered voters. Former Secretary of State Carlos Cascos, a self-proclaimed skeptic of Republican claims of rampant voter fraud, said he had no memory of even considering using the DPS data when he served from 2015 to 2017.

“I don’t recall it ever coming to my desk,” Cascos said. “I don’t even recall having any informal discussions of that.”

And there was reason to be careful with the “lawful presence list.” Driver’s licenses don’t have to be renewed for several years. In between renewals, Texans aren’t required to notify DPS about a change in citizenship status. That means many of the people on the list could have become citizens and registered to vote without DPS knowing.

Other states learned the hard way that basing similar checks on driver’s license data was risky.

In Florida, officials in 2012 first drew up a list of about 180,000 possible noncitizens. It was later culled to about 2,600 names, but even then that data was found to include errors. Ultimately, only about 85 voters were nixed from the rolls.

Around the same time, officials in Colorado started with a list of 11,805 individuals on the voter rolls who they said were noncitizens when they got their driver’s licenses. In the end, state officials said they had found about 141 noncitizens on the rolls — 35 of whom had a voting history — but those still needed to be verified by local election officials.

But it was under the helm of former Secretary of State Rolando Pablos, who took over in 2017, that the state began processing the DPS list. That happened even though at least some people in the office knew the risk. Officials in the secretary of state’s office early last year acknowledged to reporters for The Texas Tribune that similar checks in other states using driver’s license data had run into issues with naturalized citizens. Pablos didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Still, on Dec. 5, Betsy Schonhoff, voter registration manager for the secretary of state’s office, told local officials that her office had been working with DPS “this past year” to “evaluate information regarding individuals identified by DPS to not be citizens.” In a mass email sent to Texas counties — and obtained by the Tribune — Schonhoff informed them that the secretary of state’s office would be obtaining additional information from DPS in monthly files and sending out lists of matches starting in mid-January.

The next day, Pablos announced he would resign after two years in office. In his place, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott appointed Whitley, a longtime Abbott aide who at the time served as the governor’s deputy chief of staff.

Makes you wonder if he saw this coming and hopped off the train while he still could. Texas is in the process of learning the same lesson that Florida and Colorado did. I just have no faith that it will stick, at least as long as the current crew is in charge.

Precinct analysis: Fort Bend

Did you know that Fort Bend County went blue in 2018 as well? Of course you did. Let’s take a closer look at how that happened.


Dist     Cruz   Beto Dikeman    Cruz%   Beto%    Dike%
======================================================
HD26   32,451  33,532    406   48.88%   50.51%   0.61%
HD27   17,563  47,484    348   26.86%   72.61%   0.53%
HD28   42,974  40,330    581   51.23%   48.08%   0.69%
HD85   18,435  21,053    281   46.36%   52.94%   0.71%

CC1    27,497  28,827    359   48.51%   50.86%   0.63%
CC2    11,238  40,905    263   21.44%   78.05%   0.50%
CC3    42,882  33,373    544   55.84%   43.45%   0.71%
CC4    29,806  39,294    450   42.86%   56.50%   0.65%

As a reminder, HD85 is only partially in Fort Bend. It also covers Wharton and Jackson counties, which are both red and which are the reason this district is not as competitive as it might look. The other three State Rep districts are fully within Fort Bend. The bottom four entries are for the four County Commissioner precincts.

For comparison, here are the 2016 data for the County Commissioner precincts and for the State Rep districts. Beto, as is the case pretty much everywhere we look, outperformed the 2016 baseline everywhere. In 2016, HD26 was won by Donald Trump by five points and by downballot Republicans by 15 points. In 2016, County Commissioner Precinct 1 was won by Trump by three points and downballot Republicans by ten or so, while Precinct 4 was won by Hillary Clinton by six points but by downballot Republicans also by six points. Trump won CC3 by 19 points and HD28 by ten points. All this happened while Clinton carried Fort Bend. Anyone still surprised that Dems swept FBC this year?


Dist   Abbott  Valdez Tippts  Abbott%  Valdez%   Tipp%
======================================================
HD26   36,516  28,762    898   55.18%   43.46%   1.36%
HD27   21,429  42,795    975   32.87%   65.64%   1.50%
HD28   47,549  35,016  1,213   56.76%   41.80%   1.45%
HD85   20,373  18,801    527   51.32%   47.36%   1.33%

CC1    30,249  25,584    779   53.43%   45.19%   1.38%
CC2    14,099  37,443    728   26.97%   71.63%   1.39%
CC3    47,081  28,501  1,129   61.37%   37.15%   1.47%
CC4    34,438  33,846    977   49.72%   48.87%   1.41%


Dist  Patrick Collier  McKen Patrick% Collier%  McKen%
======================================================
HD26   33,307  31,571  1,091   50.49%   47.86%   1.65%
HD27   18,455  45,617  1,018   28.35%   70.08%   1.56%
HD28   43,848  38,174  1,496   52.50%   45.71%   1.79%
HD85   18,824  20,025    685   47.61%   50.65%   1.73%

CC1    27,935  27,510    968   49.52%   48.77%   1.72%
CC2    11,979  39,438    796   22.94%   75.53%   1.52%
CC3    43,517  31,523  1,419   56.92%   41.23%   1.86%
CC4    31,003  36,916  1,107   44.91%   53.48%   1.60%


Dist   Paxton  Nelson Harris  Paxton%  Nelson% Harris%
======================================================
HD26   32,377  32,192  1,246   49.19%   48.91%   1.89%
HD27   17,454  46,307  1,249   26.85%   71.23%   1.92%
HD28   42,892  38,800  1,700   51.43%   46.53%   2.04%
HD85   18,234  20,455    775   46.20%   51.83%   1.96%
						
CC1    27,165  28,003  1,142   48.24%   49.73%   2.03%
CC2    11,271  39,983    915   21.60%   76.64%   1.75%
CC3    42,689  32,005  1,620   55.94%   41.94%   2.12%
CC4    29,832  37,763  1,293   43.31%   54.82%   1.88%


Dist    Hegar    Chev   Sand   Hegar%    Chev%   Sand%
======================================================
HD26   34,744  29,182  1,566   53.05%   44.56%   2.39%
HD27   18,579  44,486  1,690   28.69%   68.70%   2.61%
HD28   45,403  35,587  2,176   54.59%   42.79%   2.62%
HD85   19,151  19,106  1,107   48.65%   48.54%   2.81%

CC1    28,590  26,036  1,501   50.94%   46.39%   2.67%
CC2    11,842  38,830  1,361   22.76%   74.63%   2.62%
CC3    45,266  28,887  1,942   59.49%   37.96%   2.55%
CC4    32,179  34,608  1,735   46.96%   50.51%   2.53%


Dist     Bush   Suazo   Pina    Bush%   Suazo%   Pina%
======================================================
HD26   34,619  29,520  1,518   52.73%   44.96%   2.31%
HD27   19,148  44,329  1,352   29.54%   68.38%   2.09%
HD28   45,308  35,889  2,099   54.39%   43.09%   2.52%
HD85   19,175  19,251  1,001   48.63%   48.83%   2.54%

CC1    28,572  26,224  1,430   50.82%   46.64%   2.54%
CC2    12,382  38,693    995   23.78%   74.31%   1.91%
CC3    44,897  29,245  2,060   58.92%   38.38%   2.70%
CC4    32,399  34,827  1,485   47.15%   50.69%   2.16%


Dist   Miller   Olson   Carp  Miller%   Olson%   Carp%
======================================================
HD26   32,617  31,836  1,092   49.76%   48.57%   1.67%
HD27   17,346  46,414    982   26.79%   71.69%   1.52%
HD28   43,153  38,535  1,436   51.91%   46.36%   1.73%
HD85   18,190  20,465    699   46.22%   52.00%   1.78%

CC1    27,153  27,991    984   48.38%   49.87%   1.75%
CC2    11,087  40,180    739   21.32%   77.26%   1.42%
CC3    43,016  31,680  1,367   56.55%   41.65%   1.80%
CC4    30,050  37,399  1,119   43.83%   54.54%   1.63%


Dist Craddick McAllen Wright   Cradd% McAllen% Wright%
======================================================
HD26   34,651  29,418  1,446   52.89%   44.90%   2.21%
HD27   18,632  44,694  1,400   28.79%   69.05%   2.16%
HD28   45,440  35,871  1,842   54.65%   43.14%   2.22%
HD85   19,057  19,321    950   48.46%   49.13%   2.42%
						
CC1    28,489  26,271  1,321   50.80%   46.84%   2.36%
CC2    11,864  39,056  1,092   22.81%   75.09%   2.10%
CC3    45,237  29,103  1,746   59.46%   38.25%   2.29%
CC4    32,190  34,874  1,479   46.96%   50.88%   2.16%

Everyone met or exceeded the downballot baseline in the State Rep districts, while the top three Dems (Collier, Nelson, Olson) exceeded the Hillary mark in each. Dems should find a strong candidate to try to win back the County Commissioner seat in Precinct 1 in 2020, it sure looks like they’d have a decent shot at it.

Here are the countywide candidates for Fort Bend:


Dist    Vacek    Midd   Vacek%   Midd%
======================================
HD26   33,939   30,925  52.32%  47.68%
HD27   17,978   46,218  28.00%  72.00%
HD28   44,422   37,771  54.05%  45.95%
HD85   19,031   20,001  48.76%  51.24%
				
CC1    28,339   27,352  50.89%  49.11%
CC2    11,489   40,138  22.25%  77.75%
CC3    44,369   30,842  58.99%  41.01%
CC4    31,173   36,583  46.01%  53.99%


Dist   Hebert   George Hebert% George%
======================================
HD26   35,058   30,030  53.86%  46.14%
HD27   18,504   45,803  28.77%  71.23%
HD28   45,183   37,094  54.92%  45.08%
HD85   19,256   19,856  49.23%  50.77%
				
CC1    29,061   26,671  52.14%  47.86%
CC2    11,779   39,896  22.79%  77.21%
CC3    45,061   30,192  59.88%  40.12%
CC4    32,100   36,024  47.12%  52.88%

Brian Middleton met or exceeded the Hillary standard everywhere, while KP George was a point or so behind him. Both were still enough to win. Note that for whatever the reason, there were no Democratic candidates running for County Clerk or County Treasurer. One presumes that will not be the case in 2022, and one presumes there will be a full slate for the county offices next year, with Sheriff being the big prize.

We should have 2018 election data on the elected officials’ profiles and the Legislative Council’s FTP site in a couple of weeks. When that happens, I’ll be back to focus on other districts of interest. In the meantime, I hope you found this useful.

Fifth Circuit does it again

Another terrible ruling by a terrible judge on a terrible court.

Right there with them

A federal appeals court has lifted a lower court order that blocked Texas from booting Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid, potentially imperiling the health care provider’s participation in the federal-state health insurance program.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Sam Sparks, the federal district judge who preserved Planned Parenthood’s status in the program in February 2017, had used the wrong standard in his ruling. The appeals court sent the case back to him for further consideration.

The case stems from a long-running flap over a misleading video released in late 2015 by the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress, which suggested that abortion providers at Planned Parenthood sold fetal tissue for profit. The sting video included edited clips of Planned Parenthood officials discussing the use of fetal tissue for research. A string of investigations that followed the video’s release were unable to confirm its claims, but it energized a crusade against the health care provider and sparked outrage from the state’s Republican leadership.

[…]

In February 2017, a federal judge in Austin ruled that Texas clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood could continue to care for patients under the state’s Medicaid program. The state’s arguments, Sparks wrote in a 42-page ruling, were “the building blocks of a best-selling novel rather than a case concerning the interplay of federal and state authority through the Medicaid program.”

But a panel on the conservative-leaning appeals court said Thursday that Sparks had used the wrong standard in his ruling, taking the arguments as a novel, or “de novo,” review and by “giving no deference” to the findings of the state agency that opted to expel Planned Parenthood in the first place. The Office of Inspector General, an arm of the state’s health and human services agency charged with rooting out fraud and abuse, claimed the videos “showed “that Planned Parenthood violated state and federal law.”

“OIG is the agency that the state of Texas has empowered to investigate and penalize Medicaid program violations. The agency is in the business of saying when providers are qualified and when they are not,” Judge Edith Jones wrote. “It is [odd] to claim that federal judges, who have no experience in the regulations and ethics applicable to Medicaid or medical practice, much less in regard to harvesting fetal organs for research, should claim superior expertise.”

See here for the background. Of course Edith Jones would insist that we have to take seriously the lying video of lying liars when it suits her agenda. She’s as predictable as the sunrise. Now we go back to district court and try again to knock down the bullshit. What an utter disgrace.

Precinct analysis: The two types of statewide candidates

When we look at the precinct data in Harris County, we can separate the statewide candidates into two groups. Here’s the first group:


Dist   Abbott   Valdez   Tipp  Abbott% Valdez%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  146,399  112,272  4,345   55.66%  43.40%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  127,414  111,248  4,285   52.45%  46.61%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   18,751    9,906    390   64.55%  34.57%		
CD09   27,929   90,968  1,450   23.21%  76.51%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   75,353   37,952  1,530   65.62%  33.50%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   46,703  135,085  2,924   25.28%  74.31%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   16,713   14,587    450   52.64%  46.60%		
CD29   35,234   81,191  1,209   29.95%  69.74%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   64,462   34,237  1,486   64.34%  34.69%		
							
SBOE6 311,568  259,847  9,961   53.59%  45.47%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  31,307   23,705    756   56.14%  43.09%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  44,013   23,782    918   64.05%  35.08%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  36,496   15,196    657   69.72%  29.40%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  38,653   25,449  1,079   59.30%  39.70%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  53,877   21,741  1,037   70.29%  28.75%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   7,736   33,845    479   18.39%  81.39%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  35,033   30,977    924   52.34%  46.93%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  44,317   26,343  1,278   61.60%  37.28%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  42,650   45,268  1,967   47.45%  51.49%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  28,819   26,636    853   51.18%  48.03%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   8,239   15,723    398   33.82%  65.62%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  25,204   22,706    839   51.70%  47.39%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  12,409   34,289    665   26.20%  73.43%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   6,188   17,271    207   26.15%  73.62%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   5,126   26,059    327   16.27%  83.56%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142  10,236   29,142    476   25.68%  74.01%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   8,772   19,764    263   30.46%  69.26%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,806   13,427    255   41.75%  57.79%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145  10,959   21,631    495   33.12%  66.37%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   9,927   33,073    645   22.74%  76.91%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  12,239   42,282  1,017   22.04%  77.55%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  17,912   29,255  1,070   37.13%  62.02%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  15,348   23,283    513   39.21%  60.27%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  43,692   26,599    951   61.33%  37.84%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    73,833  212,930  4,401   25.36%  74.25%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   115,327  111,134  3,044   50.25%  49.07%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   178,630  151,009  5,301   53.33%  45.81%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   191,168  152,373  5,323   54.80%  44.35%  51.22%   44.42%


Dist    Hegar   Cheval Sander   Hegar% Cheval%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  141,744  111,763  7,347   54.34%  42.85%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  124,558  109,747  6,674   51.69%  45.54%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   18,139    9,973    744   62.86%  34.56%	
CD09   24,211   92,612  3,102   20.19%  77.22%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   73,125   38,247  2,784   64.06%  33.50%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   41,793  136,421  5,291   22.77%  74.34%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   15,699   14,868    917   49.86%  47.22%		
CD29   31,025   82,379  3,547   26.53%  70.44%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   61,944   34,609  2,847   62.32%  34.82%		
							
SBOE6 303,287  257,168 16,226   52.59%  44.59%  48.92%   46.59%
		
HD126  30,142   23,892  1,398   54.38%  43.10%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  42,379   24,118  1,729   62.12%  35.35%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  35,212   15,517  1,260   67.73%  29.85%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  36,953   25,598  2,034   57.22%  39.63%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  52,413   21,902  1,867   68.80%  28.75%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   6,299   34,617  1,050   15.01%  82.49%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  33,520   31,387  1,765   50.28%  47.08%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  43,710   25,739  1,843   61.31%  36.10%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  43,113   43,043  2,548   48.60%  48.52%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  27,400   26,976  1,576   48.97%  48.21%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,616   15,855    774   31.41%  65.39%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  24,206   22,771  1,438   50.00%  47.03%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  11,085   34,800  1,223   23.53%  73.87%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,335   17,585    638   22.65%  74.65%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   4,010   26,763    682   12.75%  85.08%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,720   30,011    976   21.96%  75.58%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,578   20,159    879   26.48%  70.45%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,069   13,595    738   38.75%  58.09%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145  10,071   21,588  1,157   30.69%  65.78%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   8,749   33,458  1,166   20.17%  77.14%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  11,030   42,308  1,741   20.03%  76.81%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  17,117   28,580  1,885   35.97%  60.06%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  14,471   23,550	1,002   37.08%  60.35%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  42,040   26,807	1,884	59.44%  37.90%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    66,298  215,259  7,805   22.91%  74.39%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   108,715  112,237  6,847   47.72%  49.27%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   173,303  150,515  8,863   52.09%  45.24%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   183,922  152,608  9,738   53.12%  44.07%  51.22%   44.42%

Dist     Bush    Suazo   Pina    Bush%  Suazo%  Trump% Clinton%
==============================================================
CD02  139,352  114,931  7,003   53.33%  43.99%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  121,500  114,267  5,747   50.31%  47.31%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   17,965   10,096    794   62.26%  34.99%		
CD09   24,634   93,291  1,961   20.55%  77.82%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   72,059   39,108  3,029   63.10%  34.25%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   42,340  137,629  3,572   23.07%  74.99%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   15,614   15,120    804   49.51%  47.94%		
CD29   32,067   83,045  1,983   27.39%  70.92%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   61,471   35,448  2,621   61.76%  35.61%		
							
SBOE6 297,321  265,718 14,551   51.48%  46.00%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  29,781   24,312  1,386   53.68%  43.82%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  41,767   24,635  1,922   61.13%  36.06%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  35,019   15,710  1,327   67.27%  30.18%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  36,480   26,417  1,800   56.39%  40.83%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  51,579   22,543  2,081   67.69%  29.58%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   6,567   34,764    600   15.66%  82.91%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  33,218   31,761  1,697   49.82%  47.63%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  42,447   27,278  1,761   59.38%  38.16%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  41,172   45,935  1,991   46.21%  51.56%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  27,294   27,394  1,327   48.73%  48.90%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,570   16,080    586   31.23%  66.35%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  23,878   23,298  1,236   49.32%  48.12%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  11,284   35,000    805   23.96%  74.33%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,582   17,665    333   23.67%  74.92%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   4,200   26,800    425   13.37%  85.28%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   9,075   29,961    663   22.86%  75.47%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,907   20,265    472   27.60%  70.75%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,202   13,759    454   39.30%  58.76%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145  10,172   21,989    737   30.92%  66.84%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   8,700   33,902    789   20.05%  78.13%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  11,071   42,903  1,162   20.08%  77.81%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  16,967   29,451  1,362   35.51%  61.64%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  14,405   23,854    753   36.92%  61.15%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  41,665   27,259  1,845   58.87%  38.52%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    66,399  217,832  5,280   22.93%  75.24%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   108,715  114,022  5,408   47.65%  49.98%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   170,023  155,106  7,985   51.04%  46.56%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   181,865  155,975  8,841   52.46%  44.99%  51.22%   44.42%

Dist    Cradd  McAllen Wright   Cradd% McAlln%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  142,254  112,407  5,821   54.61%	43.15%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  124,873  110,377  5,224   51.93%	45.90%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   18,184   10,028    604   63.10%	34.80%		
CD09   24,262   93,623  1,880   20.26%	78.17%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   72,996   38,698  2,336   64.01%	33.94%	63.61%   32.36%
CD18   42,236  137,094  3,852   23.06%	74.84%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   15,798   14,978    685   50.21%	47.61%		
CD29   31,169   83,638  2,009   26.68%	71.60%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   62,167   35,017  2,135   62.59%	35.26%		
							
SBOE6 304,098  258,654 12,833   52.83%  44.94%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  30,251   24,086  1,030   54.64%  43.50%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  42,508   24,260  1,399   62.36%  35.59%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  35,341   15,690    935   68.01%  30.19%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  37,121   25,810  1,593   57.53%  40.00%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  52,323   22,196  1,573   68.76%  29.17%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   6,309   34,963    620   15.06%  83.46%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  33,485   31,713  1,390   50.29%  47.63%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  43,854   25,773  1,499   61.66%  36.24%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  43,326   42,975  2,125   49.00%  48.60%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  27,450   27,296  1,167   49.09%  48.82%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,649   16,001    542   31.62%  66.14%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  24,239   22,956  1,126   50.16%  47.51%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  11,169   35,002    865   23.75%  74.42%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,367   17,822    347   22.80%  75.72%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   4,009   27,021    417   12.75%  85.93%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,785   30,256    626   22.15%  76.27%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,582   20,499    483   26.54%  71.77%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,100   13,835    444   38.92%  59.18%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145  10,152   21,880    733   30.98%  66.78%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   8,760   33,730    801   20.24%  77.91%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  11,235   42,469  1,283   20.43%  77.23%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  17,266   28,762  1,437   36.38%  60.60%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  14,470   23,827    675   37.13%  61.14%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  42,188   27,038  1,436   59.70%  38.26%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    66,771  216,622  5,478   23.11%  74.99%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   109,186  113,684  4,717   47.98%  49.95%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   173,478  151,759  6,871   52.24%  45.70%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   184,504  153,795  7,480   53.36%  44.48%  51.22%   44.42%

These candidates, all of whom won by at least ten points statewide, carried CD07 and SBOE6, carried or narrowly lost HDs 132, 135, and 138, and did as well as Trump or better pretty much everywhere. Unlike Ted Cruz, these candidates held the base Republican vote and won back the Gary Johnson and Evan McMullen Republicans. These were the Republicans who had the least amount of controversy dogging them, the ones who for the most part could claim to be about doing their jobs and not licking Donald Trump’s boots. Yes, George P. Bush had Alamo issues, and Harvey recovery money issues (as did Greg Abbott to a lesser extent), but they weren’t enough to dent him. The most notable result in here is Abbott losing HD134. I’m guessing Sarah Davis will not be fearing another primary challenge in 2020.

And then there’s the other group:


Dist  Patrick  Collier McKenn Patrick%   Coll%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  134,530  123,364  4,744   51.22%  47.84%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  113,520  124,555  4,659   46.77%  52.32%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   17,737   10,768    482   61.19%  37.78%		
CD09   24,176   94,548  1,535   20.10%  79.64%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   70,715   42,023  1,959   61.65%  37.27%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   39,805  141,631  3,053   21.58%  78.06%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   15,438   15,694    554   48.72%  50.41%		
CD29   31,998   83,846  1,559   27.25%  72.38%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   60,359   37,854  1,812   60.34%  38.54%		
							
SBOE6 282,567  287,230 10,933   48.66%  50.41%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  29,104   25,673    917   52.26%  46.87%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  41,357   26,160  1,106   60.27%  38.75%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  34,655   16,787    832   66.29%  32.63%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  35,547   28,216  1,308   54.63%  44.25%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  50,658   24,612  1,309   66.15%  32.70%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   6,413   35,123    485   15.26%  84.56%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  32,599   33,062  1,174   48.78%  50.35%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  39,252   31,191  1,400   54.64%  44.28%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  36,006   52,016  1,881   40.05%  59.09%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  26,706   28,541    976   47.50%  51.66%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,279   16,593    460   29.92%  69.51%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  23,146   24,601    914   47.57%  51.52%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  10,774   35,909    643   22.77%  76.92%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,635   17,734    267   23.84%  75.89%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   4,259   26,894    339   13.52%  86.33%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,914   30,427    475   22.39%  77.34%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,979   20,410    356   27.76%  71.89%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,204   13,892    340   39.27%  60.15%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145   9,874   22,500    624   29.92%  69.50%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   8,240   34,720    661   18.89%  80.82%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  10,055   44,357  1,005   18.14%  81.52%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  15,427   31,591  1,139   32.03%  67.19%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  14,187   24,362    560   36.28%  63.20%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  41,008   28,912  1,186   57.67%  41.35%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    62,356  224,149  4,325   21.44%  78.24%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   107,321  117,954  3,820   46.85%  52.36%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   162,085  166,470  6,044   48.44%  50.67%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   176,516  165,710  6,168   50.67%  48.42%  51.22%   44.42%


Dist   Paxton   Nelson Harris  Paxton% Nelson%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  131,374  125,193  5,584   50.11%  47.76%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  110,526  126,567  5,145   45.63%  52.25%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   17,461   10,905    580   60.32%  37.67%		
CD09   22,756   95,621  1,776   18.94%  79.58%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   69,879   42,292  2,315   61.04%  36.94%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   37,644  143,124  3,522   20.43%  77.66%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   14,945   16,014    661   47.26%  50.65%		
CD29   30,107   85,124  2,006   25.68%  72.61%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   59,422   38,390  2,064   59.50%  38.44%		
							
SBOE6 276,028  291,144 12,389   47.63%  50.24%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  28,595   25,962  1,059   51.42%  46.68%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  40,368   26,724  1,388   58.95%  39.02%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  34,331   16,926    953   65.76%  32.42%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  34,659   28,775  1,503   53.37%  44.31%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  50,144   24,667  1,597   65.63%  32.28%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   5,962   35,453    594   14.19%  84.39%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  31,919   33,536  1,333   47.79%  50.21%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  38,500   31,627  1,519   53.74%  44.14%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  34,670   53,010  1,988   38.66%  59.12%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  26,040   28,961  1,137   46.39%  51.59%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   6,947   16,823    508   28.61%  69.29%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  22,512   24,996  1,056   46.36%  51.47%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  10,181   36,255    806   21.55%  76.74%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,278   17,999    326   22.36%  76.26%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   3,945   27,091    461   12.53%  86.01%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,433   30,706    636   21.20%  77.20%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,497   20,734    470   26.12%  72.24%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   8,863   14,133    440   37.82%  60.30%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145   9,363   22,898    704   28.40%  69.46%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   7,745   35,131    702   17.77%  80.62%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147   9,489   44,762  1,125   17.14%  80.83%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  14,665   32,054  1,298   30.54%  66.76%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  13,639   24,788    628   34.92%  63.47%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  40,369   29,219  1,422   56.85%  41.15%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    59,111  226,367  5,082   20.34%  77.91%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   104,324  119,859  4,573   45.60%  52.40%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   158,349  168,865  6,731   47.42%  50.57%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   172,330  168,139  7,267   49.56%  48.35%  51.22%   44.42%


Dist   Miller    Olson   Carp  Miller%  Olson%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  133,022  122,897  4,709   51.04%  47.15%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  112,853  123,473  4,148   46.93%  51.35%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   17,596   10,756    460   61.07%  37.33%		
CD09   22,400   95,979  1,478   18.69%  80.08%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   70,489   41,589  1,954   61.82%  36.47%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   37,934  142,586  2,937   20.68%  77.72%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   14,922   16,056    539   47.35%  50.94%		
CD29   29,391   85,809  1,720   25.14%  73.39%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   59,684   38,022  1,678   60.05%  38.26%		
							
SBOE6 280,395  285,147 10,318   48.69%  49.52%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  28,820   25,649    901   52.05%  46.32%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  40,782   26,205  1,164   59.84%  38.45%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  34,432   16,815    751   66.22%  32.34%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  34,853   28,512  1,234   53.95%  44.14%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  50,592   24,186  1,322   66.48%  31.78%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   5,817   35,639    466   13.88%  85.01%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  32,187   33,275  1,119   48.34%  49.98%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  39,476   30,381  1,235   55.53%  42.73%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  36,062   50,855  1,612   40.73%  57.44%  39.58%	 55.12%
HD135  26,173   28,770    954   46.82%  51.47%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,027   16,723    444   29.04%  69.12%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  22,745   24,700    896   47.05%  51.10%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  10,210   36,245    632   21.68%  76.97%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,137   18,147    295   21.79%  76.96%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   3,844   27,252    347   12.23%  86.67%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,357   30,855    466   21.06%  77.76%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,196   20,967    432   25.17%  73.32%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   8,757   14,258    391   37.41%  60.92%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145   9,296   22,924    597   28.33%  69.85%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   7,705   35,073    583   17.77%  80.89%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147   9,614   44,494    987   17.45%  80.76%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  14,974   31,507  1,108   31.47%  66.21%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  13,659   24,763    558   35.04%  63.53%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  40,576   28,972  1,129   57.41%  40.99%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    59,268  225,889  4,130   20.49%  78.08%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   104,218  119,731  3,843   45.75%  52.56%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   160,755  165,766  5,607   48.40%  49.91%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   174,050  165,781  6,043   50.32%  47.93%  51.22%   44.42%

Basically, these three are the exact opposite of the first group: Controversy, Trump-humping, ineffectiveness at what they’re supposed to be doing for the state, and underperformance relative to 2016. Not only did they all lose CD07, they lost SBOE6 and all three competitive State Rep districts. I mean, Justin Nelson won HD134 by over 20 points; Mike Collier just missed that mark. Except in the strongest Democratic districts, they all failed to achieve Trump’s numbers. (This suggests the possibility that Dem performance in 2018, as good as it was, could have been even better, and that there remains room to grow in 2020.) This is the degradation of the Republican brand in a nutshell. This isn’t just strong Democratic performance. It’s people who used to vote Republican not voting for these Republicans. Seems to me there’s a lesson to be learned here. What do you think are the odds it will be heeded?

Bonnen supports removing Confederate plaque

Good.

Rep. Eric Johnson

After a yearlong push to remove a controversial “Children of the Confederacy Creed” plaque from inside the Texas Capitol, momentum appears to be picking up steam.

On Monday Gov. Greg Abbott announced a Jan. 11 meeting of the State Preservation Board that oversees the Capitol grounds and the likely next Texas House Speaker said he supports removing the plaque, The Dallas Morning News first reported. The plaque, which was erected in 1959, asserts that the Civil War was “not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery.”

Republican state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, who is expected to lead the lower chamber next year, applauded Abbott’s efforts and voiced his support for removing the plaque.

“I commend the Governor for calling this meeting to begin the process of removing the confederate plaque from the halls of the State Capitol,” the Angleton lawmaker said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “It is historically inaccurate, and I stand by those who have called for its removal.”

Abbott called the meeting in a letter, which did not specify an agenda, to preservation board executive director Rod Welsh. But a spokesperson for the board told the Tribune this afternoon that this will be the Abbott-led board’s first meeting since March 2017, and word of it comes nearly two weeks after Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion saying the Legislature or the panel is among those who have the power to unilaterally remove the plaque.

Additionally, the meeting will fall three days after the start of next year’s legislative session, when Bonnen is expected to take over the speakership. Both the Texas House speaker and the lieutenant governor serve as co-vice chairs on the preservation board under Abbott.

See here, here, and here for the background. It should be noted that outgoing Speaker Joe Straus also supported the removal of this mendacious plaque, so Bonnen’s support is maintenance of the status quo and not a shift in the politics. It’s still the right thing to do and he deserves credit for it. The key is whether Greg Abbott will join in and do what needs to be done to finish the job. We’ll find out on January 11.

Paxton sues San Antonio over “sanctuary cities” law

This is gonna be ugly.

Best mugshot ever

Texas is suing the city of San Antonio for an alleged violation of the state’s new anti-“sanctuary cities” law, in the state’s first enforcement action against a city under the controversial statue.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in Travis County District Court, centers on a December 2017 incident when San Antonio police discovered a trailer carrying 12 individuals from Guatemala who were suspected of being undocumented. The city’s police department charged the driver with smuggling of persons, but released the migrants without involving federal immigration authorities, as the new law requires, according to the state’s lawsuit.

The 2017 “sanctuary cities” law, known as Senate Bill 4, says police departments can’t bar their officers from questioning the immigration status of people they detain or arrest. It also punishes local government department heads and elected officials who don’t cooperate with federal immigration “detainers” — requests by agents to turn over immigrants subject to possible deportation

San Antonio’s police department policy states that officers will not refer individuals to Immigration and Customs and Enforcement unless they have a federal deportation warrant. That policy, the Texas lawsuit claims, “prohibits and materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws.”

The lawsuit seeks hefty civil fees from the city, including a $25,500 penalty for nearly every day that the city’s immigration procedures violated state law. The law went into effect Sept. 1, 2017 — meaning those fees could amount to some $11.6 million.

[…]

Paxton’s office has asked the court to issue an injunction requiring the city to comply with the new law, as well as assess major civil penalties against the city, police department and McManus.

Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, slammed the lawsuit, claiming it had “three obvious purposes: to intimidate and frighten immigrants in the state of Texas, to pressure Texas localities to violate constitutional rights, and to attract public attention for Paxton from the nativist fringe.”

I don’t know why Paxton is filing a suit now over something that happened nearly a year ago. I mean, Republicans have been braying about this particular incident all along. Maybe he didn’t want to take action before the election, but you’d think this is the sort of thing the likes of Paxton would see as an asset. Bear in mind, there is also the lawsuit against the “sanctuary cities” law, which is still to be heard in court. There’s a lot of ways this could wind up going.

AG rules Confederate plaque can be removed

Let’s get a move on then.

Rep. Eric Johnson

The Texas Legislature or a state board chaired by Gov. Greg Abbott can remove a plaque in the Capitol honoring Confederates, Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a published opinion Wednesday, providing clarity to a longstanding question over who has the power to do so — and how it can be done.

The “Children of the Confederacy Creed” plaque, which asserts that that the Civil War was “not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery,” had been the cause of controversy for lawmakers for months. Several have called it offensive and historically inaccurate.

Last October, state Rep. Eric Johnson, D-Dallas, called for the plaque’s removal and submitted a formal request to do so to the Texas State Preservation Board, which is chaired by Abbott and includes four other Republican elected officials and one citizen representative. Johnson, whose office is near the plaque, renewed those calls on Wednesday, noting that his request was never approved.

“They could take it down before the end of business today,” he said in an interview. “There shouldn’t be any confusion that the method I’ve chosen to go about this is the right one.”

Abbott said following a meeting with Johnson last year that he would have the preservation board “look into” how to remove the plaque. Paxton’s opinion made clear that three groups could make that decision: the Legislature, the Texas Historical Commission or the preservation board.

And any legislator can submit a form to request the removal of a “monument or memorial” — as Johnson did — and submit it to the preservation board, Paxton said. The curator of the Capitol, who works for the board, can approve the change — or the board has the discretion to do it itself.

See here and here for the background. Rep. Johnson is correct that he has done all the right things, and he has every reason to expect that the Preservation Board, under Greg Abbott’s direction, will follow through. And when they don’t – because honestly, no one should expect Greg Abbott to show leadership or do the right thing when it doesn’t advantage him – he will surely file a lawsuit. That can all be easily avoided, if Greg Abbott does his job. We’re all waiting.

Initial reactions: Statewide

I’m going to do a few of these “Initial reaction” posts about Tuesday’s elections as I try to make sense of all that happened. Here we go.

Let me start with a number. Two numbers, actually: 4,017,851 and 48.26%. The former is how many votes Beto O’Rourke has right now, and what his percentage of the vote was. That first number, which may still creep up a bit as there are a tiny number of precincts unreported as I write this, is the largest vote total any Texas Democrat has ever received. It’s more than 500K greater than Barack Obama in 2008, and it’s about 130K greater than Hillary Clinton in 2016. I had thought Clinton’s 3,877,868 votes were the absolute ceiling for any Dem this cycle, but I was wrong. Somehow, Beto O’Rourke built on what Hillary Clinton did in 2016. That is truly amazing.

Oh, and do note that Beto’s losing margin was 2.68 points, which was closer than all but four of the polls taken in this race – the one poll where he was tied, the one poll where he was leading, the one poll where he was trailing by one, and the one poll where he was trailing by two. It couldn’t have been easy for the pollsters to model this year’s electorate, but when they did they were generally more pessimistic about this race – though not necessarily about the state as a whole – than they should have been.

Now here are two other numbers to consider: 4,685,047 and 4,884,441. The former is what Donald Trump got in 2016, and the latter is what Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman got that same year. Those are our targets for 2020, to truly make Texas a competitive electoral battleground. We know a lot of people with no previous electoral history voted this year, and I think it’s safe to say most of them voted for Beto. We need to figure out who the people are that did vote in 2016 but not in 2018, and make sure they vote in 2020. We also need to keep registering voters like crazy, and keep engaging the voters we got to come out this year. I know everyone is sad about Beto falling short – at this writing, he trails by 2.57 percentage points, which among other things means that the polls generally did underestimate him – but we need to stay focused and work to ensuring the level he achieved is a stepping stone and not a peak.

By how much did Beto outperform the Democratic baseline? First we have to decide what the baseline was. For the executive offices, the totals are bifurcated:


Valdez     3,520,868   Collier   3,833,069
Chevalier  3,545,626   Nelson    3,870,345
Suazo      3,540,153   Olson     3,794,683
McAllen    3,586,198

One might argue that Collier and Nelson and Olson might have done better if they’d had more money. Maybe, but there was a ton of money spent in the Senate race, and it’s not clear to me what the marginal effect of another million or two might have been. It’s hard for me to imagine any of them making it over the top if Beto wasn’t at least within automatic-recount distance of Cruz. The point here is that there was significant variation in these contests. That’s one reason why I usually default to the judicial races as my benchmark for partisan strength:


Kirkland   3,820,059
Sandill    3,765,102
Cheng      3,769,290
Jackson    3,707,483
Franklin   3,723,541

Much closer, as you can see. They lost by a range of 6.55 points (Kirkland) to 8.39 points (Franklin). In 2016, the closest any statewide Democratic judicial candidate got was Dori Garza’s 13.22 point loss. Based on the 2018 vote totals, I’d say the Democratic baseline is around 3.7 to 3.8 million. Compare the judicial race vote totals from this year to 2016:


Kirkland   3,820,059   Westergren  3,378,163
Sandill    3,765,102   Garza       3,608,634
Cheng      3,769,290   Robinson    3,445,959
Jackson    3,707,483   Meyers      3,496,205
Franklin   3,723,541   Johnson     3,511,950
                       Burns       3,558,844

That’s a nice step up, though do note that in 2016 all of the statewide judicial races also had a Libertarian candidate, and all but one also had a Green, while this year only Terri Jackson had company from a third party. Still and all, I think this shows that Beto wasn’t the only Dem to build on 2016. It also suggests that Beto got on the order of 300K crossover votes, while Collier and Nelson and Olson got 100K to 150K.

I don’t have any broad conclusions to draw just yet. We built on 2016. We still have room to grow – remember, as high as the turnout was this year, beating all off years as well as 2008 and 2012, turnout as a percentage of registered voters was still less than 53% – and with the right candidates we can attract some Republican voters. We should and we must make our goal be a competitive state for the Presidential race in 2020. I’ll look at the county by county canvass later, then of course do some precinct level reporting when the dust clears a bit. In the meantime, read Chris Hooks’ analysis for more.

Second trimester lawsuit appeal heard at the Fifth Circuit

Elections or no elections, the world keeps spinning.

The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Monday morning about whether Texas should be able to ban doctors from performing the most common second-trimester abortion procedure, called dilation and evacuation.

In a nearly hourlong hearing, attorneys for Texas and lawyers for the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood argued in front of a panel of three judges.

At issue was Senate Bill 8, a law signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in 2017 but blocked by a federal judge that would ban abortions in which a doctor uses surgical instruments to grasp and remove pieces of fetal tissue. The law would only allow the procedure to be done if the fetus is deceased.

[…]

Janet Crepps, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, argued that the state’s proposed law was “invasive, medically unnecessary and poses a dangerous risk” to women. She said injections with potassium chloride using a three-to-four-inch spinal needle puts women at risks for infection and hospitalization.

“Just the idea the state thinks that’s what’s within its power is contrary to the whole idea that women have a right to autonomy, dignity,” Crepps said after the hearing.

The appeals case comes nearly a year after Judge Lee Yeakel said the provision imposed an “undue burden” on women seeking second-trimester abortions in Texas. The Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood filed suit last summer on behalf of several women’s health providers in the state. Yeakel issued a temporary restraining order on enforcing the measure in August, a day before the ban’s effective date.

Throughout the hearing the three judges asked questions around how to best interpret a Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that blocked Alabama’s dilation and evacuation ban from going into effect; how the injections work; and who are the women likely to need these services.

Medical professionals deem the dilation and evacuation method the safest way to perform an abortion, and reproductive rights groups have said this ban would subject women to an unnecessary medical procedure.

See here for the previous update. I don’t have any faith in the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court interpreting “undue burden” in a meaningful fashion, but I’ll be happy to be surprised. Whatever the outcome of this case, if we don’t have a federal law protecting access to abortion on our near-term goals, we’re doing it wrong.

Two possible straws in the wind

Ken Paxton seems a little nervous.

Best mugshot ever

Less than 36 hours before Election Day, the race for attorney general is showing signs of competition that have been absent in just about every other statewide contest.

Republican incumbent Ken Paxton, who was indicted more than three years ago on felony securities fraud charges, has been running a relatively quiet campaign with the comfortable advantage of a GOP incumbent in a state that has not elected a Democrat statewide in more than two decades.

But now he is firing back at his Democratic challenger, Justin Nelson, with a new attack ad — the first one from Paxton that addresses the indictment — and getting a fresh influx of high-dollar campaign donations, signals that Republicans are not taking anything for granted in the race for Texas’ top lawyer.

Nelson, a prominent Austin attorney, has made Paxton’s legal troubles the basis of his campaign and the main focus of much of his advertising — posting billboards around the state featuring Paxton’s mugshot, commissioning a rolling billboard he calls the “Mugshot Mobile” and even sending campaign staffers dressed as Paxton in prisoner garb to frolic on the Capitol grounds in a Halloween stunt. Yet most consequentially, Nelson has spent significantly to air TV ads informing voters all over the state that their attorney general is under indictment.

The anti-Nelson push from Paxton’s campaign suggests that the Democrat’s jabs have been successful in getting something most other Democratic statewide candidates have been aching for: the GOP’s attention. Except for the blockbuster U.S. Senate battle between incumbent Ted Cruz and Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke, Republican statewide officials have largely ignored their Democratic challengers, let alone gone negative on TV against them.

“Nelson has successfully raised the profile of the race to a level where Republicans began to be nervous that people who vote straight-ticket Republican may cross over in this race as they learn more about Ken Paxton,” said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University. “While they’re still counting on it, they don’t have 100 percent confidence.”

Paxton also got a cash injection from Greg Abbott. As I said before, this may just be an abundance of caution on Paxton’s part. The official reason, asserted by the political scientists, is that Paxton doesn’t want to win by a wimpy single-digit score. And maybe that is all it is. But I feel pretty confident saying he wouldn’t be asking for handouts from Greg Abbott if he didn’t think he needed the help.

Meanwhile, there’s Democratic money coming in, too.

A Democratic super PAC focused on state legislative races has injected $2.2 million into a slew of Texas House contests in their closing days.

The group, Forward Majority, is using the money to help 32 Democratic candidates, many of them challengers in GOP-held districts who have not been able to match the financial backing of the incumbents. A large majority of the funds are going toward digital ads targeting the Republicans as beholden to big donors and corporate interests, with a couple of spots tailored to specific lawmakers.

“We are staging this late intervention because we believe there is a unique window of opportunity for first time candidates to take down several entrenched Republican incumbents on Tuesday,” said Ben Wexler-Waite, a spokesman for Forward Majority.

[…]

Forward Majority was launched last year by alumni of Barack Obama’s campaigns with the goal of retaking state legislatures across the country before the next round of redistricting in 2021. Texas is one of six states the group is targeting this cycle as part of a nearly $9 million push.

In Texas, Forward Majority began seriously spending in its targeted races just a couple weeks ago. Its latest filing with the Texas Ethics Commission, which covered Sept. 28 through Oct. 27, shows the group spent $1.1 million. The rest of the $2.2 million has come since then, Wexler-Waite said.

Forward Majority is not the only seven-figure force for Democrats in Texas House races this cycle. The House Democratic Campaign Committee has raised $1.1 million this cycle, fueled by six-figure donations from the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, the group led by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. The HDCC is currently waging an $800,000 digital ad campaign in the most competitive seats.

The list of races in which this PAC is spending money follows. It ranges from the ones that have been the focus of attention all along, to those that should have had more attention all along, to the stretch goals and the more speculative investments. I couldn’t tell you the last time we did something like this – pretty sure it wasn’t this redistricting cycle – so I’m just happy to see it happen. We’ll see how sound an investment this turns out to be.

“The least-discussed vulnerable Republican on the ballot”

From Grits:

Grits does not expect Beto O’Rourke to win. But if he were to pull off the upset, many other dominos could fall in succession as a result, with at least three Republican senators, Texas’ Attorney General, and potentially even the Lt. Governor at risk. Another race likely to flip if Dem turnout goes that high is Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Incumbent Sharon Keller won her primary with only 52% of the vote, and CCA races have consistently been among the lowest vote-getters over the years among Republican statewide officials. There is no Libertarian in the race, so the Democrat, Maria Jackson, should get all the anti-incumbent vote. If, on election night, the US Senate race at the top of the ticket is competitive, or heaven forbid, Beto pulls an upset, check down the ballot for this race; it may flip, too.

It’s a little more complicated than that. The basis of this idea, which Grits has advanced before, is that in past elections Republicans have tended to drop off and not vote in downballot races more than Democrats have. If that is the case, and if the top of the ticket features a close race, then it stands to reason that other statewide races would be closer, and might even flip. I made the same observation early in the 2016 cycle when the polls were more favorable to Hillary Clinton in Texas. We seem to be headed for a close race at the top of the ticket this year, so could this scenario happen?

Well, lots of things can happen, but let’s run through the caveats first. First and foremost, Republicans don’t undervote in downballot races at the same pace in off years as they do in Presidential years. Here’s how the judicial vote totals from 2014 compared to the top of the ticket:


2014

Abbott - 2,796,547
Davis - 1,835,596

Candidate         Votes   Dropoff   Drop %
==========================================
Hecht         2,757,218    39,329     1.4%
Brown         2,772,824    23,723     0.8%
Boyd          2,711,363    85,184     3.0%
Richardson    2,738,412    58,135     2.1%

Moody         1,720,343   115,253     6.3%
Meyers        1,677,478   158,118     8.6%
Benavides     1,731,031   104,565     5.7%
Granberg      1,671,921   163,375     8.9%

Maybe if the hot race that year had been more closely contested we’d see something more like what we’ve seen in Presidential years, but so far this isn’t encouraging for that hypothesis.

The other issue is that it’s clear from polling that Beto is getting some number of Republican votes. That’s great for him and it’s a part of why that race is winnable for him, but the Republicans who vote for Beto are probably going to vote for mostly Republicans downballot. The end result of that is judicial candidates who outperform the guy at the top. Like what happened in 2016:


Trump    = 4,685,047
Lehrmann = 4,807,986
Green    = 4,758,334
Guzman   = 4,884,441
Keel     = 4,790,800
Walker   = 4,782,144
Keasler  = 4,785,012

So while Trump carried Texas by nine points, these judicial candidates were winning by about 15 points. Once more, not great for this theory.

Now again, nine points isn’t that close, or at least not close enough for this scenario to be likely. (I had suggested a maximum six-point spread in 2016.) Nine points in this context is probably a half million votes, and undervoting isn’t going to cut it for making up that much ground. But if Beto is, say, within four points (or, praise Jeebus, he wins), and if the reason he’s that close is primarily due to base Democratic turnout being sky high and not anti-Cruz Republicans, then the rest of the statewide ballot becomes very interesting. I personally would bet on Ken Paxton or Sid Miller going down before one of the Supreme Court or CCA justices, but the closer we are to 50-50, the more likely that anything really can happen. You know what you need to do to make that possible.

Omnibus polling update

One last Trib poll:

Rep. Beto O’Rourke

Republican Ted Cruz leads Democrat Beto O’Rourke 51 percent to 45 percent in the Texas race for the U.S. Senate, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll. Libertarian Neal Dikeman was the choice of 2 percent of likely voters and another 2 percent said they would vote for someone else.

Democratic and Republican voters, as might be expected, lined up strongly behind their respective party’s candidates. But independent voters, a group that often leans to the Republicans in statewide elections, broke for O’Rourke, 51 percent to Cruz’s 39 percent.

“The major Senate candidates were trying to mobilize their partisans, without a lot of attempt to get voters to cross over. And it looks like they’ve done that,” said Jim Henson, co-director of the poll and head of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. “If you look for Republican defections to Beto O’Rourke, they’re not there. But the independents break to the Democrat instead of the Republican in that race.”

The poll of likely Texas voters was conducted before early voting in the general election began this week.

In several other races for statewide office, Republicans hold double-digit leads over their Democratic opponents.

They have Abbott up 56-37, Patrik up 53-35, and Paxton up 48-36. In these races, the Dems don’t get the independent vote like O’Rourke did, and their level of support among Dems is lower, which I will attribute to the usual cause of lower name recognition. As pollster Joshua Blank says later in the piece, the Dems voting for O’Rourke are very likely also going to vote for Lupe Valdez, Mike Collier, and Justin Nelson. A companion piece is about who is saying they will vote this year.

This post was begun before that poll was published, with the intent of capturing the other Senate race results that we’ve had in the past two to three weeks. Here they all are, from FiveThirtyEight, many of which have not been in the news.

Oct 21 – End Citizens United – Cruz 50, O’Rourke 46

Oct 18 – Ipsos – Cruz 49, O’Rourke 44

Oct 14 – Tulchin – Cruz 49, O’Rourke 45

Oct 13 – CNN/SSRS – Cruz 52, O’Rourke 45

Oct 13 – WPA – Cruz 52, O’Rourke 43

Oct 11 – Siena/NYT – Cruz 51, O’Rourke 43

Oct 5 – Emerson College – Cruz 47, O’Rourke 42

There are also the Quinnipiac poll that had Cruz up 54-45, and the CBS/YouGov poll that had Cruz up 50-44. All of these are Likely Voter polls. FiveThirtyEight ran everything through their algorithms and came up with an aggregate 5.8 point lead for Cruz, though their forecast for the actual vote share is 51.8 to 46.6, or a 5.2 point margin. They project turnout of just under 7 million, which needless to say would shatter records for a midterm election in Texas and which our first week of early voting turnout suggests is very much in play. They give O’Rourke a 21% chance of winning. We’ll see if any of that changes as the actual voting continues.

When Ken Paxton attacks

He’s gotta be a little scared.

Best mugshot ever

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has started airing a statewide TV ad against his Democratic challenger, Justin Nelson, as Nelson presses to close the race with an emphasis on the indictment that has dogged the Republican incumbent for most of his first term.

Since last week, Nelson, an Austin lawyer, has been airing a TV commercial highlighting Paxton’s 2015 indictment on securities fraud charges, asking, “If Ken Paxton can’t follow the law, how can he enforce it?” Nelson has also put up billboards across the state plastered with Paxton’s mugshot.

In the new spot from Paxton, a narrator asserts Nelson is “running a negative campaign to hide his extreme liberal agenda,” portraying the Democrat as soft on illegal immigration. The half-minute commercial then contrasts Nelson with Paxton, who the narrator says “shut down the world’s largest human trafficking marketplace” — a reference to the attorney general’s role in shuttering the Dallas-based sex ads website Backpage.com.

The ad was seen airing this morning in major markets throughout the state, including Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

The anti-Nelson ad is notable for a number of reasons. Beyond U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in his blockbuster battle with Democrat Beto O’Rourke, most of Texas’ statewide officials have hardly acknowledged their Democratic opponents, let alone run TV ads against them. And Paxton has until now appeared to have kept his TV advertising positive, airing a spot touting his role in the Backpage.com investigation.

It could be an abundance of caution. Paxton believes he’s ahead, but not insurmountably so, and there’s no reason to take chances. It could be a belief that attacks must be answered, lest one look weak or lose initiative. And it could be that he’s genuinely worried. Paxton has refused to engage in any kind of political activity that isn’t all about himself or comfortably in the embrace of the Fox News wingnut universe. If he changes his tactics now, at this late date, there’s a reason for it.

On the air

You might be seeing some TV ads from Texas Democrats who aren’t Beto O’Rourke or Lizzie Fletcher. There’s Justin Nelson:

Justin Nelson

Attorney Justin Nelson, a candidate for attorney general, on Tuesday became the first — and likely only — Democrat running for state office to go on TV with a Texas-wide campaign ad.

Nelson’s 30-second spot now on air across Texas hammers incumbent Attorney General Ken Paxton for his 2015 criminal indictment for securities fraud and a subsequent 2017 investigation into bribery and corruption that was closed after prosecutors decided not to pursue any charges against him. Paxton has yet to go to trial on three felony charges from the 2015 indictment.

Paxton, a Republican finishing his first term, released his own ad Monday. Paxton’s campaign spot features his office cracking down on human trafficking to make Texas safer. That includes helping shut down Backpage.com, a website that hosted prostitution-related ads. Paxton’s spokesman said the ad is on air, including in the Houston market.

I saw one of the Nelson ads during the last Astros’ game (sigh).

There’s Todd Litton.

Todd Litton

Democrat Todd Litton on Monday began airing the first TV ad of his campaign for Texas’ 2nd Congressional District, with a 30-second spot that seeks to draw a contrast between himself and Republican opponent Dan Crenshaw.

The ad, titled “No Joke,” begins with a scene in Litton’s kitchen, where he tells a “dad joke” to his kids.

“They sure keep me in check,” Litton says about his children. “But no one is keeping Congress in check. That’s no joke.”

He goes on to mention “my far right opponent, Dan Crenshaw,” whom Litton says “only makes matters worse.” He contends Crenshaw would “do away with Social Security, health care and a woman’s right to choose.”

“I’ll protect them,” Litton concludes. “And I’ll stand up to anyone and work with anyone to get things done.”

The ad represents a six-figure buy and will air on broadcast networks through Election Day, according to Litton’s campaign.

If you had told me a couple of months ago that one of the Congressional candidates would tell a dad joke in a TV ad, I’d have guessed it would be Todd Litton. And now there’s Sri Kulkarni.

Sri Kulkarni

Democrat Sri Preston Kulkarni is continuing to put pressure on U.S. Rep. Pete Olson in what has fast become one of the most competitive races for Congress in Texas.

Kulkarni has launched a new television ad blasting Olson, a 5-term incumbent, as a “do-nothing Congressman.”

“What happened to Pete Olson?” a narrator says, noting that Olson had sponsored just three bills that passed in 10 years in office.

According to records with the Library of Congress, Olson two of those bills renamed post offices in Pearland and Sugar Land. Another bill awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II pilots who made raids on Tokyo.

[…]

The ad comes at a time that new campaign finance reports show Kulkarni raised more money in the last three months for his campaign than Olson, and Kulkarni has more money going into the final weeks of the campaign.

In addition, national Democrats are promising more help for Kulkarni after his surprise showing. This week the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee added Kulkarni to their “Red to Blue” program, which provides organizational and fundraising support for campaigns.

“Sri has put together a strong people-powered campaign that makes this race competitive,” said DCCC chairman Ben Ray Lujan.

It’s almost like we live in a competitive political environment. Such exciting times. You can see Justin Nelson’s ad here, Todd Litton’s ad here, and Sri Kulkarni’s ad here.

Endorsement watch: Another easy decision

Remember how I said the Chron’s endorsement of Kim Olson over Sid Miller was the easiest call they’d have to make this cycle? The one true competitor for that title is the AG race, where Justin Nelson is a LeBron-level slam dunk.

Justin Nelson

This is it. This is the race.

The election for attorney general offers the single best reason for a Texas Republican to cross over and vote for a Democratic candidate. You don’t even have to scroll down the burdensome ballot. Right on the front screen in the voting booth you’ll be able to vote the straight ticket for other Republicans and then vote for Justin Nelson. Hit the cast ballot button and you’re done.

Why you’d vote for Nelson is similarly straightforward. He’s an astoundingly qualified attorney who has a nonpartisan focus on ethics, ending gerrymandering and fulfilling the basic duties of the office. Plus, Republican incumbent Ken Paxton is facing felony indictments for fraud, which should automatically disqualify him in the minds of voters.

[…]

Paxton has been a model of the worst possible attorney general.

He’s the sort of politician who makes you wish Texas had a Lone Star version of “Saturday Night Live” to mock the fact that our state’s top lawman is facing two charges for felony investment fraud and another count of failing to register as an investment adviser. Paxton allegedly didn’t reveal he was being paid to solicit clients for a North Texas investment firm, which the law requires to help prevent fraud.

The former state representative and state senator successfully postponed his trial until after the election. It is worth noting, however, that Paxton has already admitted to soliciting investors without registering and paid a $1,000 fine to the state securities board. Or, to put it bluntly, he effectively confessed to a third-degree felony. No one should be above the law, but Paxton seems determined to try.

His ethical lapses don’t end there. Paxton once accepted a $1 million loanfrom the right-wing Empower Texans advocacy group — his largest political donor — and now refuses to defend the Texas Ethics Commission from the group’s attacks. It’s hard not to see a quid pro quo that puts campaign donors ahead of the public good.

He also was once caught stealing another lawyer’s $1,000 pen.

Paxton has been using his office to pursue a quixotic political agenda that even members of his own party question. For example, he’s leading a lawsuit that would eliminate the preexisting conditions protections of the Affordable Care Act. If Paxton succeeds, more than 4 million Texans could be denied coverage.

Beyond his own legal problems, Paxton is simply doing a bad job as attorney general. He doesn’t aggressively go after crooked payday lenders or exploitive nursing homes. His campaign website still touts how he’s going to sue the Obama administration — a policy agenda two years out of date.

You know the drill here. It’s the “should” in the third paragraph above that’s the sticking point. In a better world, or a less hegemonic state, everyone would consider Paxton to be a dead man walking. With the modern Republican Party that Paxton embodies, there is no such thing as accountability. Maybe we’ll get to see how big that party really is. Or maybe we’ll get to see what kind of Attorney General the governor will appoint when Paxton finally gets convicted. You tell me what the better outcome is. My interview with Justin Nelson is here if you haven’t listened to it yet.

They had a closer choice in CD02, but they made the right call.

Todd Litton

Voters have two thoroughly impressive major party candidates on the ballot, but Todd Litton would best serve Houston in Congress.

Litton, a Democrat, is a sixth-generation Texan with a law degree from the University of Texas and an MBA from Rice University. Deeply engaged in the world of nonprofits — with a specific focus on early childhood education and after-school programs — Litton, 48, has a career and service record that cuts across the major institutions of our city, including the the Center for Houston’s Future, the Houston Endowment and the Episcopal Health Foundation. His campaign slogan, “Common Sense and Common Decency,” embodies the business-minded sense of duty and obligation that historically defines our city’s leadership.

He references local experts Stan Marek and Charles Foster, both Republicans, when discussing immigration issues and vehemently opposes the idea of a border wall with Mexico. For Litton, immigration is a matter of heart — welcoming refugees expands the promise of liberty — and also a matter of economics. He notes that a global business hub like Houston needs national immigration policies that don’t scare away the best and brightest. He also recognizes that our city must address the long-term trends in oil and gas — especially in the context of climate change — if we don’t want to go the way of Detroit.

On health care, Litton wants to close gaps in the Affordable Care Act instead of beginning a single-payer program. In a position particularly appropriate for this meandering district, Litton calls for independent redistricting commissions to prevent gerrymandering.

I interviewed Litton for the primary. I like him a lot and think he’d do a great job. I’ve talked about how a couple of Democrats, most notably Gina Ortiz Jones and MJ Hegar, have star potential if they can get elected. Dan Crenshaw is by far the Republican with the highest ceiling. In a less Democratic year, I feel like he’d be getting a fair amount of national attention. He’ll probably get it later on if he wins.

Lastly, from a few days ago, a nod for Lorena Perez McGill in Montgomery County.

Lorena Perez McGill

Even if she doesn’t come close to winning, Lorena Perez McGill’s campaign will still make headlines. She’s the first Democrat to run for this seat in 12 years.

It’s not hard to understand the dearth of Democratic candidates. Not a single precinct in this Montgomery County district, which covers Shenandoah, Woodloch, Oak Ridge North and most of the Woodlands, went for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Why run for the state House against insurmountable odds?

But for McGill, 48, watching the Texas Legislature hold a special session over bathroom bills, but refuse to hold one for Hurricane Harvey recovery, was just too much to bear. So the attorney and local volunteer decided to run a self-proclaimed “bipartisan campaign” that focuses on listening, conversation and compromise.

She’s a first-time candidate, but boasts an impressive resume that includes time at the Baker Botts law firm and as in-house counsel for the Organization of American States.

[…]

But for the self-proclaimed fiscally conservative, moderate Democrat, this campaign isn’t about any one specific policy. It is about bringing a sense of practicality and compromise to a legislative body overrun by ideology and cliques.

In that sense, she couldn’t be further from her Republican opponent, former state Rep. Steve Toth.

Yeah, Toth is a whackjob who knocked out former State Rep. Rob Eissler in a primary in 2012, then gave the seat up to run for State Senate. He’ll win because it’s The Woodlands, but at least Lorena Perez McGill will give the voters there a clear alternative.

Interview with Justin Nelson

Justin Nelson

So yeah, the Attorney General’s race. You know about Ken Paxton, I know about Ken Paxton, the real question is how many people who are going to vote know about Ken Paxton. Justin Nelson is doing what he can to make sure that the voters know about Ken Paxton, as well as the much better choice for Attorney General that he himself represents. Nelson is of course an attorney, who grew up in Houston and lives in Austin. He clerked for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court in his earlier days, and is now a partner at Susman Godfrey. He is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and teaches Constitutional Law at UT. Do I also need to mention that he is not currently under felony indictment, and is not actively trying to deprive millions of people of health insurance while also putting every DREAMer in the country at risk of deportation? Well, he’s those things, too. Here’s what we talked about:

You can see all of my interviews for state offices so far as well as other information about the candidates on my 2018 Legislative Election page.

The updated scenarios for a SD06 special election

It’s complicated.

Sen. Sylvia Garcia

The resolution to the special election stalemate between state Sen. Sylvia Garcia and Gov. Greg Abbott likely will come after the November general election and could yield a special election after the Legislature convenes in January.

The likely solution — an “expedited election,” triggered by a vacancy within 60 days of the legislative session — comes out of a combination of codes and statutes that leave open a relatively wide election date window.

If Abbott follows timing laid out in the Texas Constitution and Election Code, the special election is likely to fall between early December and mid January, depending on when Garcia resigns.

[…]

The Legislature convenes Jan. 8, 2019, meaning the expedited period begins Nov. 9.

Once Garcia resigns, her resignation could take up to eight days to become effective. From there, the Texas Constitution gives Abbott 20 days to call an election before the “returning officer” in the district with the vacancy gains that authority.

Abbott has not indicated he would hold off on calling the election once Garcia resigns, but if it comes to that, the Constitution does not define the term “returning officer.” However, it has been generally interpreted to be the county clerk.

[…]

Garcia has not said when she would resign within the expedited period, but in an emailed statement to the Chronicle, she said she will do “whatever I can to make sure the 850,000 Texans in SD 6 are represented by the beginning of the next legislative session.”

If Garcia resigns Nov. 9 — the first day of the “expedited election” period — and her resignation quickly becomes effective, Abbott could schedule the special election in early December. If he wanted to delay the election until the session starts, he could order it in mid-January.

The governor has not stated that he would schedule the election in May or seek to delay it into session at all. But he has stopped short of promising a date before Garcia resigns. Abbott’s office sent the Chronicle the same statement it has stuck with for weeks, saying “the ball is in (Garcia’s) court.”

Basically, at this point’ we’re more or less back at the Letitia Van de Putte situation, in which I remind you that the special election to succeed her took place on January 6 and Sen. Jose Menendez was sworn in in early March. We could get the special election sooner than that, and maybe there won’t be a runoff, but that’s the best case. In the worst case, Abbott plays semantic games with what the various legal terms mean and we have to resolve this in court. All I can say I wish Sen. Garcia had resigned back in May, like I originally thought she might.

Endorsement watch: Star system

The Chron has made a change in how it presents its endorsements.

The quality of candidates on the ballot varies widely from race to race. At times, both candidates are good choices. At times, there are no good choices to be had. Still, the Houston Chronicle editorial board’s policy is to avoid co-endorsements or non-endorsements. Why? Because in the end voters have to vote. They have to make the hard decision. So should we.

As such, we may end up endorsing a mediocre candidate. We may end up not endorsing an excellent candidate. Not all endorsements are equal. That’s one reason why we’re adding an extra dimension to our endorsements this year by ranking candidates on a five-star system. Star rankings can help voters easily compare candidates across different races.

These ratings are specific to each individual race — a five-star judge might make for a two-star representative. A candidate who impresses one year might fumble in the next election.

They then go on to illustrate what each of the ratings – one star through five stars – means. I always appreciate transparency in process, but I’ll be honest, I never had a hard time telling in the past how the Chron felt about a candidate or a choice in a race. To their credit, they did a good job of making it clear when they really liked a candidate or were just settling on the lesser of two evils. You knew when it was a tough choice or an obvious call. I didn’t always understand why they liked or didn’t like someone, but that’s a much more subjective question. The star system puts a quantitative value on this, but I at least don’t feel like it shone much more light on the system. Your mileage may vary, and again I do applaud the effort even if it feels marginal to me.

One other point – In the endorsements they have done so far, all in judicial races, they have a couple of races where both candidates get the same star rating. They broke the ties in favor of the (Republican) incumbents in these cases, but it’s not totally clear why the scales tipped in that direction. Given that the stated intent was to help make the tough choices, why not make the measurement system more precise? Give everyone a numeric value, say on a one to five scale (Candidate A gets a 4.6, Candidate B a 4.5) or even 1 to 100. Go nuts with it. If the idea is that there are no ties, then calibrate the metric to reflect that.

Anyway. Of the races so far, Jason Cox is the only endorsed Democrat. The races are in the 1st and 14th Courts of Appeals plus the County Probate Court races. I strongly suspect we’ll see more Dems getting the nod when we get to the County Criminal Court races.

In other endorsement news, the Texas ParentPAC gets involved in some, but not all, statewide races.

A group of pro-public school parents is doling out political endorsements to dozens of candidates this year but is refusing to back Democrat Lupe Valdez because her campaign for governor is lacking, the group’s co-founder said Thursday.

“She doesn’t meet our criteria for endorsement,” said Dinah Miller, a Texas mom who helped form Texas Parent PAC. “You’ve got to have a really good campaign put together and she just doesn’t have the campaign infrastructure.”

The group won’t endorse Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, either.

[…]

Texas Parent PAC endorsed Democrats Mike Collier for lieutenant governor and Justin Nelson for attorney general, saying those candidates are the most critical to improving public education. The group wants to defeat Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton, two conservative Republicans who support school vouchers, which allow parents to send their students to private school with public education funds. Abbott also supports school vouchers.

Here’s their press release. I wish they had made a call in the Governor’s race, but I understand where they’re coming from. It is what it is.

Last but not least, from the inbox and the campaign of Nathan Johnson for SD16:

Fellow Texans,

With the critical issues of education, health, transportation and other infrastructure so important to the state of Texas, it is important that all thirty-one Texas state senators be focused on solutions and not lobbyists and special interest large donors. It is important that a state senator be focused on the senate district and Texas and not a rating on fabricated conservative scorecards produced to promote a selfish agenda and not the overall well-being of the people of Texas. Don Huffines does not meet any of these criteria.

Huffines is one of the most ineffective members of the Texas Senate. He has passed virtually no bills and nothing of consequence. His demagoguery has prevented him from effectively representing his constituents and the people of Texas. On his first day as a state senator, Huffines was on the front steps of the Capitol supporting a challenger to the speaker of the House of Representatives who already had more than the required number of votes for reelection.

Apparently, Mr. Huffines did not know senate bills have to go through the house. He compromised his office and district by getting involved in something a senator had no business in.

Fortunately, the voters of Senate District 16 have a viable choice in Nathan Johnson. While as a conservative Republican I would rather be supporting a Republican for this election,Mr. Huffines’ lack of leadership and accomplishment leave little choice. Senate District 16 deserves better. Mr. Johnson and I do disagree on ProLife issues as well as some second amendment issues, but he is clearly the better candidate.

I served Dallas and Dallas County for twelve years in the Texas Senate. By listening to my constituents, including their other elected officials, and with their help we accomplished much. Mr. Huffines seems to be tone deaf to all as he pursues an agenda for himself and supporters from Austin, west Texas and Houston. What kind of elected official yells at visiting children when they ask him questions about an issue? The answer is: Don Huffines.

It is sad that low voter turnout in Republican primaries has allowed a small number of voters to give us the likes of Bob Hall, Don Huffines, and Koni Burton to represent the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and surrounding rural areas. This is a viable and growing area. We need more.

I moved to Dallas as a child in 1960. I love this area. Dallas and Senate District 16 need strong and effective leadership in the state senate and not rote scorecard voting. We need an informed and independent senator that will put the district and Texas first. We have that in Nathan Johnson.

Regardless of party affiliation or political philosophy, if you care about the important issues facing our community and state you will vote for Nathan Johnson.

Bob Deuell, M.D.
Former Member, Texas Senate
Greenville, Texas

Dang. Deuell was definitely a conservative, at least in the sense of that word ten years or so ago, but he was about as collegial as they came in the Senate. I happened to be in Austin in 2013 for a tenth anniversary celebration of the Aardmore Exodus, which was a very partisan event. The celebration attendees were overwhelmingly Democratic, as one might imagine, with one prominent exception: Bob Deuell, then still in the Senate, sitting in at the drums (he’s quite talented) with the Bad Precedents. You can view this however you like, but based on what I know of Bob Deuell, I take him at his word in this letter.

The AG race and the lawsuit to kill Obamacare

I feel like this is a better issue for Justin Nelson than it is for Ken Paxton. Of course, on the down side, for it to really be salient millions of people will have lost health insurance. Not that Ken Paxton cares, of course.

Justin Nelson

Can a Texas-led lawsuit to kill Obamacare boost Democrats even in deep-red Texas?

Justin Nelson sure hopes so. The well-credentialed Austin lawyer is challenging the architect of that case, incumbent Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in this fall’s general election, betting that the controversial case can help him overcome the partisan disadvantage that’s proved insurmountable for statewide Democratic candidates for the past two decades.

In February, Paxton — who was indicted in 2015 for securities fraud and has not yet gone to trial — launched a 20-state challenge to the landmark health care law, arguing that after Congress gutted the individual mandate, the rest of the law is unconstitutional and must fall. Critics have cast doubt on the case, from its motivations — many argue it’s rooted partisan politics, not genuine constitutional concerns — to its legal arguments.

As the lawsuit comes into play in races across the country, Nelson’s campaign has seized on it as perhaps its best bet at victory. Focusing on protections for pre-existing conditions — one of the most popular provisions of Obama’s landmark health law — Nelson has framed the lawsuit as his opponent’s attempt to wrench health care away from Texas’ most vulnerable residents. The Democrat brings the issue up almost as often as he cites the criminal charges against his opponent.

Republicans have been running against Obamacare practically since before it passed. But now, as they butt up against a midterm election season widely considered friendly to the Democrats, the issue may be becoming an advantage on the other side. Polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that 75 percent of Americans consider protections for pre-existing conditions “very important.”

[…]

Brendan Steinhauser, a Republican strategist, said the Texas-led lawsuit is “creating a microscope” on a statewide race that tends to fly under the radar.

“To some extent, sure, yes, it keeps the name in the news in a positive way among [Paxton’s] base,” Steinhauser said. But it’s also “giving the Democrats something to use,” he added.

Nelson has pledged to withdraw from the lawsuit on his first day in office. Earlier this month, his camp hosted a protest in a park across the street from the Fort Worth courtroom where Paxton’s staff was asking a federal judge to block Obamacare nationwide. Dozens of protesters wielded signs with messages like “Why Oh Why Are You Killing Me?” and one protester dressed as the grim reaper.

The issue is clearly speaking to voters, Nelson said.

“People come up to me at events and hug me for what I’m doing, speaking out on protections for pre-existing conditions,” Nelson said.

His campaign claims the numbers bear that out. In internal polls, just over half of likely voters had either “serious doubts” or “very serious doubts” about Paxton’s efforts to roll back Obamacare’s protections, a spokeswoman said. Once voters are briefed on Paxton’s background, including on the indictment, she added, Nelson pulls ahead by a small margin.

A Paxton campaign spokesman said the incumbent carries a consistent 10-point lead in his campaign’s polling.

See here, here, and here for the background. I can believe that both candidates’ polling is accurate, or at least plausible. Nelson’s depends on people being aware of the Paxton-led lawsuit and its effect. An injunction from the judge would accomplish that, though I think the judge will heed the request to hold off till after the election. Wouldn’t want to get the rabble all roused up, after all. As the story notes, this lawsuit has been an issue in elections in other states. Breaking through here is harder – dozens of media markets, lots of oxygen being consumed by other races, not that much money in this race, etc – but a little media coverage can’t hurt. The more, the better.

Distributing the VW settlement money

Good for some, less good for others.

Texas cities will soon get millions of dollars to help clean up air quality, but Houston officials say the plan for distributing all that money isn’t fair.

The money is coming from a settlement in the Volkswagen (VW) emissions cheating scandal. Local governments will be able to use the money to reduce emissions from their vehicles and other equipment.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) plans to give the biggest chunk of the money – more than $73 million – to the San Antonio area, mainly because that city is closer than others to getting in line with federal pollution rules it’s currently violating.

Under the state’s plan, the Houston area, which has worse air quality, would get about $27 million.

The City of Houston says about a quarter of the cheating VW cars that were in Texas were driving in the Houston region.

“So we deserve at least a quarter of those funds, because we’re the ones that were harmed,” said Kris Banks, a government relations assistant with Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner’s office.

See here, here, and here for some background. Mayor Turner expressed his disenchantment with the amount allocated to Houston in a press release; you can see all of the city’s documentation on the matter here. The full TCEQ plan for the VW Environmental Mitigation Trust is here, or you can save yourself some time and read the Texas Vox summary of it. The TCEQ is still accepting feedback on the draft plan through October 8, so send them an email at VWsettle@tceq.texas.gov if you have comments. The Rivard Report has more.

Voter ID lawsuit officially ends

That’s all there is, at least until the next atrocity.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

A federal judge formally dismissed the lawsuit challenging the Texas voter ID law Monday, the final step in a yearslong fight that will allow the state to enforce a weakened version of the 2011 statute.

At the urging of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi issued a two-sentence order dismissing the case in light of April’s decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the law.

Lawyers for the minority voters, Democratic politicians and civil rights groups that challenged the law had argued that Paxton’s request for a dismissal was an unnecessary step because there was nothing left to decide — except for assessing legal fees and costs — after the 5th Circuit Court’s decision.

See here for the background. Like I said, we’re going to need a political solution to this problem. Maybe with a different Supreme Court we could keep pushing this via litigation, but I expect we all understand that’s not the world we currently inhabit. First we have to create that world, and that gets us back to my initial point. There is still an effort to put Texas back under preclearance, but even if that happens (spoiler alert: it almost certainly won’t) it won’t change what has already occurred. It can only affect what may be yet to come. The road forward starts with winning some elections. This November would be an excellent time for that.

The hearing for the lawsuit to kill Obamacare

Here we go again.

It’s constitutional – deal with it

At the hearing Wednesday, Texas aimed to convince U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to block the law across the country as it continues to fight a months- or years-long legal case that could land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Citing rising health care premiums, Texas says such an injunction is necessary to preserve state sovereignty and to relieve the burden on residents forced to purchase expensive insurance coverage. California counters that temporarily blocking or ending the law would cause more harm to the millions of people insured under it, particularly the 133 million people the state says enjoy the law’s protections for pre-existing conditions. The U.S. Department of Justice, which has taken up many of Texas’ positions in the case, nonetheless sided with California, arguing that an immediate injunction would throw the health care system into chaos.

[…]

Inside the courtroom, where protesters’ shouts were inaudible, Darren McCarty, an assistant attorney general for Texas, argued that “the policies, the merits of the ACA are not on trial here” — just the legality. In that legal argument, McCarty leaned heavily on a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, which upheld the law by construing the “individual mandate,” a penalty for not purchasing insurance, as a tax that Congress has the power to levy. Texas argues that after Congress lowered that fee to $0 in a slate of December 2017 tax cuts, the fee is no longer a tax and thus no longer constitutional. With it must go the rest of the law, the state claims.

“There is no more tax to provide constitutional cover to the individual mandate,” McCarty said. “Once the individual mandate falls, the entire ACA falls.”

California countered that a tax can be a tax even if it doesn’t collect revenue at all times. And, attorneys for the state claim, even if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the court should let lie “hundreds of perfectly lawful sections,” argued Nimrod Elias, deputy attorney general for California.

The case will likely turn on that question of “severability”— whether one slice of a law, if ruled unconstitutional, must necessarily doom the rest. O’Connor, who nodded along carefully throughout the hearing, lobbed most of his questions at the California attorneys, and many of them focused on whether the various pieces of Obamacare can be unentangled.

Elias said that in the vast majority of cases, the Supreme Court acts with “a scalpel, not a sledgehammer,” leaving in place most of a law even if one provision must be struck. The Texas coalition pointed to a more recent case in which the high court struck an entire law based on a narrow challenge.

O’Connor — a George W. Bush-appointee who has ruled against Obamacare several times, albeit on narrower grounds — also honed in on the question of legislative intent. Texas argued that the individual mandate was a critical piece of the law’s original version. But California argued that in 2017, in gutting the individual mandate without touching the rest of the law, lawmakers made it clear they wanted the law to persist without that provision.

“Would the legislature prefer what is left in statute to no statute at all?” Elias questioned. “We know what Congress intended based on what Congress actually did.”

See here and here for some background. Justin Nelson was at the hearing as well, pressing his attack on Paxton for his ideological assault on so many people’s health care. That really deserves more coverage, but the fact that most everyone outside of Paxton’s bubble thinks his legal argument is ridiculous is probably helping to keep the story on a lower priority. (Well, that and the unending Wurlitzer shitshow that is the Trump administration.) I mean, I may not be a fancypants lawyer, but it sure seems to me that eight years of Republicans vowing to repeal Obamacare plus the entire summer of 2017 trying to repeal Obamacare plus the abject failure to repeal Obamacare would suggest that the Republicans did not intend to repeal Obamacare with the bill that they finally did pass. If they could have they would have, but they couldn’t so they didn’t. I don’t know what else there is to say, but we’re going to have to wait till after the November elections – wouldn’t be prudent to do that before people voted, you know – to find out what this hand-picked judge thinks. Ken Janda, the Dallas Observer, and ThinkProgress have more.

“Fetal remains” law tossed

Very good.

U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra struck down a Texas law on Wednesday that would have required hospitals and clinics to bury cremate fetal remains, causing another courtroom setback for state leaders and anti-abortion groups.

Under Senate Bill 8, passed in 2017, health care facilities including hospitals and abortion clinics would be required to bury or cremate any fetal remains — whether from abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, or treatments for ectopic pregnancy regardless of patients’ personal wishes or beliefs. Legislators passed the bill following a ruling that year by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks that struck down a similar rule implemented by the Texas Department of State Health Services. At the time Sparks said it was vague, caused undue burden on women and had high potential for irreparable harm.

Over the course of a nearly 30-minute hearing at a federal court in Austin on Wednesday, Ezra gave a synopsis of the ruling, calling the case “a very emotional topic.” The requirement would have been challenging for health providers, in part because it would be difficult to find medical waste vendors willing to participate. In addition, Ezra expressed wariness about the state having to reach out to private cemeteries to help with fetal remain disposals.

“The implementation of this law, as I have pointed out, would cause and, if allowed to go into effect, would be a violation of a woman’s right to obtain a legal abortion under the law as it stands today,” Ezra said.

[…]

Multiple doctors and health advocates who testified said women often don’t ask what happens to their fetal tissue, since they assume it’ll be treated like medical waste. Providers also said they have experienced challenges trying to find medical waste vendors willing to work with their clinics. A top reason, they said, is that vendors are unwilling to endure backlash and harassment from anti-abortion advocates.

See here, here, and here for the background. I’m terribly amused by the fact that the zealotry of the anti-abortion movement was cited as a reason that this law they supported is illegal. If there’s a Greek goddess of irony, she’s pouring herself a glass of wine right now. Of course the state will appeal, and we know that the Fifth Circuit and soon SCOTUS are places where hope goes to be strangled in a back alley. But until then we have this, so let’s celebrate while we still can. The Observer has more.

Nelson attacks Paxton over Obamacare lawsuit

Good.

Justin Nelson

The Democrat challenging Ken Paxton is denouncing the attorney general for suing to wipe out the Affordable Care Act‘s health care protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions.

Justin Nelson, a Houston attorney, plans to hold a rally outside the federal courthouse in Ft. Worth where Paxton’s team will argue its case next week. He’s also launched a webpage urging Texans to share how axing the ACA, also known as Obamacare, will affect their access to health care.

“Paxton is leading the charge to take away pre-existing condition protections not just from all Texans but from all Americans and that is so wrong,” Nelson said in a video message Monday. “We’ve started the hashtag, #MyPreExisting, and on this website you can click on the button below and record your video. Tell us how you are affected in this life and death issue.”

Nelson’s campaign website also includes a list of common pre-existing conditions, like arthritis, sleep apnea and pregnancy. Texans with these conditions and many others could see higher health care costs if the Obamacare protections are rescinded.

[…]

About 27 percent of non-elderly Texans — or around 4.5 million people — have pre-existing conditions that could result in them facing difficulty obtaining insurance if Obamacare is overturned, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. More than 52 million Americans fall into this category, 20.7 million of whom live in the 20 states suing to end the pre-existing condition protections.

In addition to Texas, officials from Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin are parties to the Obamacare lawsuit.

See here and here for the background. You can feel however you want to feel about Obamacare and Ken Paxton and whatever else, but something that would affect this many people in such a direct fashion ought to be part of the discussion in an election year. Good for Justin Nelson for doing that.