Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Election 2018

Judicial Q&A: Beau Miller

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for Democratic judicial candidates. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to my readers. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates. You can see other Q&As and further information about judicial candidates on my 2018 Judicial page.

Beau Miller

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

I’m Beau Miller and I am running for Judge of the 190th (Civil) District Court in Harris County. I’m a trial lawyer in Houston with 17 years’ experience in the courtroom, representing plaintiffs and defendants, individuals and corporations.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

The 190th District Court is a Civil Court, and hears cases involving title to land, election contests, civil matters in which the amount of money damages involved is $500 or more, and other matters in which jurisdiction is not placed in another trial court.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I strongly believe that everyone should have fair access to our courts and a fair shake when they get there. Too often judges’ political or personal beliefs interfere with the rights of individuals to have their day in court. I know that when judges don’t do their jobs effectively every day, the wheels of justice grind to a halt – and grind down hard-working people with limited resources who are just trying to have their case heard.

My experience in advocating for the rights of vulnerable individuals and in handling complex and challenging litigation, together with my track record of promoting diversity in the legal profession, make me a strong candidate for judicial office. If my campaign is successful, I will use my legal expertise, real world experience, and solid values to ensure that justice is done in every case that comes before me.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I am an experienced trial lawyer and I hope to make a significant and positive contribution to access to justice for the residents of Harris County. In my 17 years in the courtroom, I have represented a broad range of clients. As a civil rights lawyer, I understand discrimination and the critical role our judicial system can play in creating a community in which everyone can seek justice. Finally, as a leader in several community organizations, I have learned the importance of ensuring that everyone who participates in the legal system – parties, lawyers, witnesses, jurors, and courtroom staff – is treated with the dignity and respect that should be accorded to all people.

Through my years of courtroom experience I have had the good fortune to observe and learn from many excellent judges. In my own practice I have made every effort to treat my clients, my opponents, and the court fairly and respectfully. As a result, I believe I have a solid reputation in the legal community as a lawyer who knows his way around the courtroom and will work hard to ensure that justice is done.

5. Why is this race important?

The residents of Harris County are entitled to be served by judicial officers who will follow the law, respect the facts as they are presented, and judge each case fairly. Unfortunately, some judges do not always approach their role in a similar fashion. As a result, some litigants find that extraneous factors, including political considerations, can tilt the scale. It is critically important that every judge be impartial and unencumbered by personal, political, or religious bias. I am committed to bringing that kind of judicial integrity to the bench.

6. Why should people vote for you in November?

Because I am committed to fairness. We operate in a world that sometimes falls short of our ideals of justice and equal treatment under the law. It is time to ensure that every member of the Harris County judiciary is impartial, and dedicated to the rule of law.

I intend to exercise exactly that kind of fairness in every case I hear. My experience, strong work ethic, common sense, and understanding of how the law actually affects real world situations will all help me to judge cases fairly. Finally – and importantly – I will bring the highest standards of personal and professional ethics to the role and won’t allow any form of bias to cloud my judgment.

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.

Apparently, that pay parity debate did happen

I missed the last twist in this saga, but in the end it did happen.

Mayor Sylvester Turner

After months of trading barbs from a distance, Mayor Sylvester Turner and the head of Houston’s firefighters’ union met in a vigorous but civil debate Saturday, displaying their fundamental differences over just about everything related to the November ballot referendum that would grant firefighters pay “parity” with police officers of corresponding rank and seniority.

The dispute revolves around a divisive question: If the measure known as Proposition B passes, can the city afford it? If anything, the debate at St. John’s United Methodist Church between Turner and Houston Professional Fire Firefighters Association President Marty Lancton revealed how irreconcilable the opposing views on that question truly are.

From Turner’s perspective, Houston firefighters deserve to receive better pay, but not to the extent that their raises “bankrupt the city,” as he claimed Proposition B would do by mandating 29 percent raises for firefighters, at a cost of than $100 million a year.

What’s more, Turner said Saturday, the measure does not call for true “parity” because it mandates only equal pay, ignoring retirement benefits, training and education requirements — in practice granting firefighters better pay, Turner argued.

To Lancton, the city has balanced its budget on the backs of firefighters to the point that the department’s rank-and-file members are struggling to make ends meet, with salaries far lower than those of firefighters in other Texas cities.

“What Houston firefighters seek is fair, competitive pay. Because of low pay, many Houston-trained firefighters are leaving for other departments,” Lancton said. “Our pay is so low that starting firefighters, supporting families, can even qualify for government assistance. We’ve asked the city for competitive pay for nearly a decade. The city has repeatedly rejected our efforts to reach an acceptable contract agreement.”

It goes from there, and I don’t think there’s much that you haven’t seen if you’ve been following this. At last report, Lancton had pulled out of the debate because the firefighters didn’t want Lisa Falkenberg moderating (because they didn’t like the Chron’s editorial stance against Prop B) and had wanted to address the Democratic precinct chairs in an effort to get Prop B endorsed by the HCDP. Neither of these conditions changed – Falkenberg still moderated, and the HCDP precinct chairs are not getting together for an endorsement vote – so I don’t know what changed from the firefighters’ perspective. Be that as it may, I’m glad this happened – the voters deserved such an event. I wish I could have been there but I was out of town. If you attended or saw a stream of it, please leave a comment with your impressions.

Endorsement watch: Of course it’s Lizzie

The Chron endorses Lizzie Fletcher over Rep. John Culberson, which may be the biggest non-surprise so far of the election season.

Lizzie Fletcher

More than longtime Republican incumbent U.S. Rep. John Culberson, or even her opponents from the heated Democratic primary, Fletcher understands this diverse, changing district and has demonstrated a passion for putting its residents ahead of rank partisanship.

No doubt, Culberson did his job after Hurricane Harvey. He used his position on the House Appropriations Committee to help transform an insultingly sparse White House recovery bill into an adequate funding package. As we said at the time, we don’t want to imagine what would have happened after Harvey without Culberson in Congress. But Culberson’s tenure in Washington didn’t begin when the rain started to fall, nor did his responsibilities end after the floodwaters receded.

Culberson was first elected to public office in 1986 and has rarely faced a serious challenger outside a Republican primary. It shows. His career has been spent promoting his own pet projects rather than serving the local needs of his home district. That’s why it took the greatest natural disaster in Houston history to compel him to act with necessary passion.

[…]

On firearms, Culberson is unwilling to consider reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. During their meeting with the editorial board, Fletcher said she believed that federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs should share information with the gun background check list to ensure that people deemed mentally incapable cannot purchase deadly weapons.

“Two times in the past three years I have woken up to hear there’s a gunman in our congressional district who had mental illness issues randomly shooting people,” Fletcher said.

Culberson grew visibly agitated at the idea and argued that the only circumstance when someone should be prohibited from buying a gun is by a judicial order.

When it comes to health care, only Fletcher has an articulable vision for bringing costs under control. She wants a public option to create a baseline safety net for all Americans and to allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices to bring down the cost of pharmaceuticals.

Culberson, on the other hand, still doesn’t have much beyond repealing Obamacare.

You get the idea. It’s not just that Fletcher is clearly superior to Culberson (four stars to three in the Chron’s new rating system), it’s also that the Chron has literally never endorsed Culberson in a November election, at least not since 2006. I look forward to their biennial not-Culberson editorial like some people look forward to sweater weather.

Also not a surprise, the Chron endorsed Sarah Davis for re-election in HD134. Someone pursuing a master’s in political science needs to write a paper comparing Sarah Davis to Susan Collins, just to see where they land up on it. That’s all I have to say on the topic of Sarah Davis.

Saturday video break: Vote ‘Em Out

Listen to Willie Nelson, y’all.

Link via the Current. The deadline to register to vote is this Tuesday, October 9. Early voting begins on Monday, October 22. You know what to do.

Investigating Schwertner

Another update.

Sen. Charles Schwertner

Lawyers for state Sen. Charles Schwertner, a Georgetown Republican alleged to have sent lewd messages to a graduate student, said Wednesday that the University of Texas at Austin has hired former federal prosecutor Johnny Sutton to help investigate the accusation.

[…]

Schwertner is “devastated that the graduate student involved received any texts of this nature from anyone,” the lawyers, Perry Minton and David Minton, said Wednesday in a press release that also said the senator had taken a polygraph test and that the results backed his denial.

By hiring Sutton “to help resolve this matter, the University has engaged one of the most experienced and fair-minded investigators around,” the lawyers said. Sutton was recently contracted by UT to conduct an internal review, after a former employee of the law school was arrested amid a fraud investigation involving potentially millions of dollars.

See here, here, and here for the background. It would be nice to have some idea how long this investigation may take, but at least everyone agrees that the investigator is aces. One hopes this means he’ll actually talk to the woman who made the complaint.

In the meantime, Schwertner has a complaint of his own.

Schwertner’s attorneys on Wednesday also called on the University of Texas to issue a statement exonerating Schwertner.

“The leak by three senior University officials is in clear violation of state and federal laws,” the Mintons said. “Additionally, these officials deliberately set out to leak these false allegations to the press in order to damage Senator Schwertner in the middle of a political campaign. There is no other plausible explanation.”

The attorneys said the administrators should be fired for compromising the integrity of their investigation.

Actually, another plausible explanation I can think of is that someone with knowledge of the investigation had leaked about its existence because they thought it was a sham that was on its way to becoming a coverup. They got the word out about it while they still could to prevent that outcome. I have no idea if this is remotely true – it is certainly possible that there was a political motive at play here, or maybe there was some other reason for what happened – but I can spin a hypothetical as well as Schwertner’s attorneys.

And so, the final word goes to Meg Walsh, from the inbox:

The investigation of Senator Schwertner’s inappropriate text must be fully investigated without threats or retaliation from the Dan Patrick, State Senators or any other person.

I call upon the State Senate to reverse its decision to take a “sit and wait approach” and also launch a full investigation into this matter.

Women must be believed and heard when these incidents occur, no matter if the offender is a boss, friend, U.S. Supreme Court nominee or Texas State Senator.

From my years of experience helping survivors of sexual assault, law enforcement and the University of Texas are doing the right thing to in keeping the survivor anonymous.

Speaking out about harassment is a courageous and vulnerable act in seeking justice. Women must be believed and supported, plain and simple.

“If these allegations are true, Senator Schwertner is unfit to serve in office.”

We’ve seen everything Meg Walsh is talking about right there in Washington. Let’s not have a repeat of it in Austin.

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.

Interview with Andrea Duhon

Andrea Duhon

We had a couple of contested primaries for HCDE Trustee, which gave me the chance to talk about what HCDE does as I published interviews with those candidates. I figure lots of us don’t know all that much about this entity, which does a lot of work with the ISDs in Harris County to improve and deliver more services. That’s how Andrea Duhon came to be a candidate for Trustee in Precinct 3, which is the precinct of County Commissioner Steve Radack. Seeking answers from her school district about a particular program, she was pointed to HCDE for the answer, and after that encounter she decided she could do a better job. A financial services representative and active duty military spouse, Duhon also serves as a leader for the Lone Star Veterans Association. Here’s what we talked about:

You can see all of my interviews for candidates running for County office as well as finance reports and other information on candidates on my 2018 Harris County Election page.

The pay parity proposal debate that wasn’t

Let’s not get ready to rumble!

Mayor Sylvester Turner

Houston’s firefighters union has withdrawn from a Saturday debate with Mayor Sylvester Turner on their proposal to seek pay “parity” with police officers, saying the event’s host, the Harris County Democratic Party, had given the mayor too much control over the event.

The hour-long event would have marked the first time the mayor and the union addressed the contentious issue on the same stage.

“We looked forward to the debate,” Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association President Marty Lancton said in a Wednesday morning statement, “but we recognize that party insiders failed to stop the manipulation of the ground rules to advantage the mayor. We are disappointed in the HCDP’s acquiescence to the mayor, but are grateful for the support of HCDP precinct chairs and the many Houstonians they represent.”

Among the union’s complaints were that Houston Chronicle opinion editor Lisa Falkenberg was to serve as moderator (the editorial board expressed opposition to the parity proposal in July 2017), and that Democratic Party officials did not agree to let Lancton address precinct chairs or let them vote on whether to endorse the proposition.

Alas. Here’s the earlier story announcing the event that was the original basis of this post. I am not able to be there for this not-a-forum, but perhaps you can be.

County Democratic Party Chair Lillie Schechter said the party engaged in “extensive conversations” with both camps on the format of the discussion but respects the union’s decision to withdraw.

“The event details appeared in a Facebook announcement seen and approved by all parties last week. It is unfortunate the firefighter’s union has determined these details do not meet their needs,” she said. “We regret voters will not hear from the firefighter’s union at this time. Mayor Turner and Lisa are welcome to use the full hour we have allotted for this event.”

The party’s leadership committee, after hearing from the fire union at a recent meeting, Schechter said, voted to schedule the debate to hear from both sides. She said the gathering was never envisioned as ending in a vote, saying such votes only occur at quarterly gatherings of all precinct chairs, the last of which was held Sept. 13.

Yes, speaking as a precinct chair, that’s how our rules work. Precinct chairs vote to endorse or not endorse ballot measures like this at our quarterly meetings. We endorsed the flood bond referendum at the June meeting, for instance. There were members from the firefighters’ union at the September meeting, talking up their proposal, but no motion for an endorsement vote. Which I have to say would have been contentious, and because of that I’m glad it didn’t come up. I don’t know what may or may not have happened behind the scenes, but I do know they could have made a pretty big fuss about this at the meeting if they had wanted to.

Personally, I think an event like this, aimed at the general public, rather than an agenda item for a normally dry meeting of precinct chairs, would be a much better way to allow both sides to air their views (I’m assuming that if Lancton had been given time to address us, then Mayor Turner or a representative from his office would have been given time as well). But hey, whatever. Perhaps the Mayor and Lisa Falkenberg can discuss the cost of this referendum.

The cost of Houston firefighters’ push for pay parity with police of corresponding rank and seniority could be 14 percent cheaper than what Mayor Sylvester Turner’s administration has estimated, city Controller Chris Brown said Tuesday.

Brown’s office estimates that the proposal, which will appear as Proposition B on the Nov. 6 ballot, will cost $85.2 million a year, lower than the $98.6 million figure Turner has used. Neither estimate includes the 7 percent raise police would receive over the next two years if the city council approves a new proposed contract this week. That would increase the cost if voters decide to link fire and police salaries.

Brown acknowledged his analysis required a series of assumptions related to how the parity proposal would be implemented, and said the estimate shows the cost of the proposal would be “unsustainable.”

“The controller’s office believes that a sustainable solution exists but can only be achieved through negotiation in the collective bargaining process,” Brown said while presenting his estimate to the city council’s budget committee. “It’s through that process that the men and women of HFD should be able to negotiate a well-deserved raise, but also a well-deserved raise the city can actually afford over the long term.”

Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association President Marty Lancton viewed Brown’s analysis as vindication of his view that Turner’s estimate is inflated.

“As the city controller proved today, the mayor’s Proposition B claims cannot be trusted. His math, like his judgment, is driven by an obsession with punishing Houston firefighters,” Lancton said.

[…]

Brown and Turner’s estimates are nearly identical on the projected increase to firefighters’ base salaries and the associated increase in retirement benefits: that roughly 20 percent increase would cost about $65 million per year.

The two estimates differ mostly on various incentives and allowances known as “special pays,” some of which firefighters receive now but which parity would increase, and some of which firefighters would receive for the first time if voters approve the measure.

Not sure how a reduction in the cost estimate from $98 million to $85 million is a vindication of the firefighters’ case, especially when $85 million is still a pretty damn big number and Controller Brown calls it “unsustainable”, but maybe that’s just me. I continue to believe this thing is going to pass so I sure hope the cost estimates we are seeing are overblown, but all things being equal I’d rather not have to find out. Be that as it may, if you don’t know what to make of all this, go attend the not-a-forum and see what you think.

Why FiveThirtyEight really believes Beto has a chance

Nate Silver explains the reasoning behind the numbers.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke

When building a statistical model, you ideally want to find yourself surprised by the data some of the time — just not too often. If you never come up with a result that surprises you, it generally means that you didn’t spend a lot of time actually looking at the data; instead, you just imparted your assumptions onto your analysis and engaged in a fancy form of confirmation bias. If you’re constantly surprised, on the other hand, more often than not that means your model is buggy or you don’t know the field well enough; a lot of the “surprises” are really just mistakes.

So when I build election forecasts for FiveThirtyEight, I’m usually not surprised by the outcomes they spit out — unless they’re so surprising (a Republican winning Washington, D.C.?) that they reflect a coding error I need to fix. But there are exceptions, and one of them came in the U.S. Senate race in Texas between Republican incumbent Ted Cruz and Democratic U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke. I was pretty sure that once we introduced non-polling factors into the model — what we call the “fundamentals” — they’d shift our forecast toward Cruz, just as they did for Marsha Blackburn, the Republican candidate in Tennessee. That’s not what happened, however. Instead, although Cruz is narrowly ahead in the polls right now, the fundamentals slightly helped O’Rourke. Our model thinks that Texas “should” be a competitive race and believes the close polling there is no fluke.

[…]

It’s the other factors that push the race toward toss-up status, however. When a challenger has previously held an elected office, they tend to perform better with each level higher that office is. To run for Senate, O’Rourke is giving up his seat in the U.S. House, which is a higher office than had been held by Cruz’s 2012 opponent, Paul Sadler, a former state representative. Strong incumbents tend to deter strong challengers from entering the race, but Cruz wasn’t able to do so this time. Cruz also has a very conservative voting record, one that is perhaps “too conservative” even for Texas. The model actually penalizes O’Rourke slightly for his DUI scandal, but because the scandal has been public knowledge for a long time, the model discounts its importance.

Fundraising is another influential factor hurting Cruz. Ordinarily, you’d expect an incumbent to have a pretty healthy fundraising advantage. Instead, O’Rourke had more than doubled Cruz in dollars raised from individual contributors as of the end of the last filing period on June 30 — an advantage that will probably only increase once the campaigns file their next fundraising reports, which will cover up through Sept. 30. (Our model considers money raised from individual contributors only — not PACs, parties or self-funding.) If fundraising were even, Cruz would still lead in our fundamentals calculation by 4 percentage points, but O’Rourke’s money advantage is enough to bring the overall fundamentals forecast to a dead heat.

All models contain assumptions, and models like the ones 538 create also contain error bars, which is a fancy way of saying that they predict a likely range of outcomes, not just a single outcome. These models are also dynamic, which means they respond in what one hopes is a timely fashion to new information, so what the model says today may not be the same as what it says next week, if it perceives that conditions have changed. You can see with your own eyes the energy and visibility of the Beto campaign, and you can see that it’s different in fundamental ways from campaigns of recent years. You can also see that in the last two non-Presidential years Texas Democrats have been a million votes or more behind Republicans at a statewide level, and that’s a hell of a lot of ground to make up. 538’s model is suggesting that Beto’s campaign has done a good job closing that gap. The rest remains to be seen.

Judicial Q&A: Kelley Andrews

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for Democratic judicial candidates. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to my readers. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates. You can see other Q&As and further information about judicial candidates on my 2018 Judicial page.

Kelley Andrews

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

My name is Kelley Andrews and I am the Democratic Candidate for Judge of Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 6

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

Court 6 is a misdemeanor court. If elected, I will preside over cases in which a person is charged with a criminal offense that carries with it the possibility of being sentenced to up to one year in the Harris County Jail. The types of cases that a misdemeanor court hears include DWI, Possession of Marijuana, Thefts (up to $2500.00), assault, domestic violence, possession of certain controlled substances.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I believe in judicial equality and in treating people as individuals, not running them through the court system as though it were a manufacturing plant. The cookie cutter model isn’t working in the criminal justice system and we need change. I have long believed that there are two areas in the criminal courts where you have a real chance at helping someone to redirect their life and get out of the criminal justice system. Those two areas are juvenile court and misdemeanor court because most often, these are the places a person first makes contact with the criminal courts. Judges must take the time to look at the individual who has been charged with a crime and determine if there are underlying issues, such as mental health diagnoses or addiction that contributed in whole or in part to their arrest. Those underlying issues must be addressed if there is any chance of helping them to redirect their life.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have been a criminal defense attorney for the last 11 years. Since passing the bar, I have worked consistently and continuously in the Harris County Courts. I have handled all levels of cases from Class B misdemeanors up to first degree felonies and have worked closely with my clients and their families while doing so. I have learned so much about mental illness and addiction and have a strong understanding of what people with those issues need. Having spent so much time in our courts, I have had the opportunity to observe what is really going on, to see what we are lacking, where we can do better, and what needs to change.

5. Why is this race important?

The criminal justice system needs to change. It isn’t working. Court 6 is an open bench. When I heard that the Judge currently seated there was going to retired, I had high hopes that someone would come along that believes all of the things that I believe regarding the courts and quickly realized that they only way to ensure that would be to run myself. So, here I am.

6. Why should people vote for you in November?

I am motivated to help change the problems that I see with our court system. As a criminal attorney who practices in Harris County, I am an insider. I believe that if a judge treats the people in her court as individuals, takes the time to understand they underlying issues that got them into court, and then takes an interested in helping them get a handle on those issues, she has not only helped that person long after they have left the court system, she has helped the community as a whole.

What should the Senate do about Schwertner?

There are two basic choices.

Sen. Charles Schwertner

The circumstances surrounding the latest allegation are thorny: They involve a Republican state senator, Charles Schwertner, who is accused of texting a sexually explicit image and message to a graduate student. Reportedly, Schwertner and the student met at an event on the University of Texas at Austin campus — and not around the Capitol, as was the case in previous allegations against other senators — but the lewd messages that Schwertner allegedly sent came after the student indicated she was interested in working at the Capitol.

In the week since the Austin American-Statesman first reported that UT-Austin was investigating the allegation, Senate leaders have indicated they won’t touch the allegation, which Schwertner has firmly denied, until that inquiry wraps up.

“The Texas Senate is awaiting the conclusion of the investigation and expects a full report on this matter,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican who presides over the chamber, said in a statement.

It’s a wait-and-see approach that comes about four months after the Senate took steps to bolster the processes in place for addressing claims of sexual misconduct. Despite those changes and a stated commitment to zero tolerance when it comes to sexual misconduct, the allegation against Schwertner has further highlighted the complexity — and seeming hesitance by lawmakers to act — that still looms over the Capitol when it comes to responding to such wrongdoing by elected officials, who ultimately answer to voters back home.

“Many employers are concerned about their employees’ behavior outside the workplace,” said Malinda Gaul, president of the Texas Employment Lawyers Association. “But he’s not an employee. So basically you wonder why the Legislature wouldn’t feel obligated to look at it since we’re talking about a senator and constituent.”

[…]

The Senate’s anti-sexual harassment policy doesn’t appear to explicitly cover this situation — between a student and a senator at an on-campus event. Though the policy indicates that the Senate’s sexual harassment prohibition may apply outside the workplace, it is largely focused on interactions between senators, staffers and individuals, such as lobbyists and reporters, whose work requires them to regularly visit the Capitol.

And Senate leaders who have said they’ll await the results of the UT-Austin investigation have offered virtually no insight into what the Senate would do with the results of that investigation. Neither Patrick nor state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, the Brenham Republican who oversaw the revisions to the chamber’s policy, responded to questions about what the Senate’s next steps could be or whether the chamber could initiate its own investigation into wrongdoing related to sexual harassment without a formal complaint.

Nothing precludes an investigation or inquiry of a senator without a formal complaint, but there appears to be little policy guidance for lawmakers at the Capitol on the “exact response here,” said state Rep. Donna Howard, an Austin Democrat who co-chairs a House workgroup that is working on recommendations to address sexual harassment at the Capitol beyond the revisions members made to the chamber’s policy in December.

“That being said, we’ve already had three senators now mentioned by the media as having engaged in inappropriate behavior, and as far as I know no kind of inquiry has been done for any of them,” Howard said. “I would suggest it’s time that we start taking action.”

See here and here for the background. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the Senate to await the outcome of the UT investigation. The question is what will they do with it, if it shows clear evidence of wrongdoing on Sen. Schwertner’s part? I doubt they know, either, and that’s the problem. And while there’s nothing wrong with waiting for the UT report and using it as a base for whatever followup action may be needed (if any), there’s also no reason why the Senate couldn’t do its own asking around, as there will likely be questions it will be interested in that may or may not be addressed in the UT report. Basically, is there a plan, other than hope it all turns out to be nothing? It’s not clear to me that there is, and that needs to be fixed, if not for this time then for the inevitable next time. And in the meantime, get to know Meg Walsh.

Interview with Diane Trautman

Diane Trautman

For all the well-deserved focus on Congress and state offices, there are some races of real consequence here in Harris County. Control of Commissioner’s Court, some balance on the HCDE Board of Trustees, and of course the County Clerk, where the rubber meets the road in the conduct and security of our elections. Running for Harris County Clerk is a familiar face, that of Diane Trautman. Trautman is finishing up a six-year term as an At Large HCDE Trustee, where she served in various capacities including as Chair of the Head Start policy council. She has a doctorate in Educational Leadership from Sam Houston State University and has been a teacher and principal in the public schools as well as a professor of education at Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin. She has also worked in the banking industry, and has a long record of involvement in Harris County politics. I’ve known Diane Trautman since she ran for State Rep in HD127 back in 2006, and it’s always a pleasure to talk to her. Here’s our conversation:

You can see all of my interviews for candidates running for County office as well as finance reports and other information on candidates on my 2018 Harris County Election page.

Musicians for Beto

Just another dimension to a really interesting picture.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke

Beto O’Rourke’s time as a musician is one of the more well-trodden parts of his bio. And it makes sense. As O’Rourke worked to introduce himself to 28 million Texans who had scarcely heard of the young congressman from a corner of the state that had never elected anyone to statewide office before, the punk rock was an easy shorthand for “not your daddy’s Senate hopeful.”

That could be why Texas musicians have lined up behind O’Rourke in a way that we’ve rarely seen with previous candidates. During her 2014 gubernatorial campaign, Wendy Davis was also a rising national star, but Willie Nelson never played a major public rally to drive support for her candidacy (but he did perform at a private fundraiser on her behalf). And it’s not just Willie—at events around the state, heavy hitters are performing at rallies in Austin, Houston, and Dallas for (and with!) the candidate.

Willie’s event in Austin this Saturday kicks off the lineup of performances. He’ll be joined by Bridges, his sons in Lukas and Micah, Carrie Rodriguez, Tameca Jones, and Joe Ely—as well as O’Rourke himself, who’ll be speaking in a pre-headliner slot at 10 p.m. From there, O’Rourke will be co-headlining a festival in Dallas on October 7, where he’ll be joined by indie rockers Spoon, the Polyphonic Spree, Sparta, and more. The following day, in Houston, Bun B and former Texans running back Arian Foster are hosting a voter registration drive and concert at which Bun, Shakey Graves, Willie D, the Ton Tons, and others will be performing. (There’s no word yet if O’Rourke will make an appearance at that event.)

The Willie Nelson event was this past Saturday, and as I understand it there were some 25K people in attendance. Here’s a report from Texas Monthly from a reporter who attended. Kinky Friedman had his share of support from the music scene, but this is another yet another example from this year for which the phrase “we’ve never seen anything quite like this” applies. My way of looking at it is this: Musicians have the capability to reach audiences that are harder for political campaigns to communicate with. There’s a lot of young people, and a lot of people who aren’t terribly engaged, at concerts. Maybe these particular events will mostly draw in a crowd that’s already all about Beto, but it seems to me if you wanted to get your less-engaged friend fired up, this would be a great opportunity for you to do that. I think we all learned a lesson a couple of years ago not to underestimate a politician who can draw crowds.

Endorsement watch: Nine from Obama

I don’t know what the practical effect of this is, but I’m happy for the attention.

Former President Barack Obama has backed nine more Democratic candidates in Texas as part of his second round of midterm endorsements.

The nine candidates include challengers in two of Texas’ most competitive congressional races: Lizzie Fletcher, who is running against U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, and Gina Ortiz Jones, who is taking on U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, R-Helotes. The Texans that Obama endorsed also include two who are likely to become the state’s first Latina congresswomen: Veronica Escobar, who is running to replace U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-El Paso, and Houston state Sen. Sylvia Garcia, who is vying for the seat being vacated by retiring U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston.

Rounding out the list of Obama’s latest endorsements in Texas are five state House candidates. One is Dallas state Rep. Eric Johnson, who is running for re-election, and the four others are all in races that Democrats are targeting as pick-up opportunities.

These nine were part of a much bigger group nationwide. All four of those State House endorsed challengers are also from Dallas: Ana-Marie Ramos (HD102), Terry Meza (HD105), Rhetta Bowers (HD113), and Julie Johnson (HD115). As the story notes, Obama had previously endorsed two Congressional candidates, Colin Allred and Adrienne Bell. I’m sure this will help everyone’s fundraising, though by how much is a question I can’t answer, and it’s certainly a lovely feather in one’s cap – I’d be over the moon as a candidate to get this kind of recognition. But at the end of the day, it’s about where and by how much the needle gets moved. These are all top-tier races, and the candidates deserve the support. What I’d really like to see is more attention to and support of the candidates in the second- and third-tier races, both as a means of trying to maximize the effect of the beneficial environment, and to recognize the great work that so many people have been doing without that kind of support. We’re going to need more of these candidate in 2020 and beyond, so let’s make sure no one walks away from this year feeling like it wasn’t worth the effort.

Judicial Q&A: Jason Cox

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for Democratic judicial candidates. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to my readers. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates. You can see other Q&As and further information about judicial candidates on my 2018 Judicial page.

Jason Cox

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

I’m Jason Cox and I’m the Democratic candidate for Harris County Probate Court #3, which is one of the four statutory probate courts in Harris County. I’m a third generation Houstonian and strong believer in public service. I love this community and want to bring my extensive knowledge and experience to bear for the benefit of the citizens of Harris County.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

This is an administrative and trial court that hears matters related to estates, guardianships, trusts, and fiduciary relationships (such as that between a principal and agent under a power of attorney); it also presides over a mental health docket and hears matters involving forced medication, involuntary commitment, and the issuance of mental health warrants.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

This court is blessed with a strong staff, but it appears that the presiding judge – a 20 year incumbent – has lost his enthusiasm for public service. He is consistently criticized by those who appear in his court (as reflected in the Houston Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluations) for an apparent lack of impartiality; a failure to use attorneys’ and witnesses’ time efficiently; a failure to work hard and be prepared; and a failure to treat those who appear before him with courtesy and respect.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have 14 years’ experience in the area of probate and am a frequent writer and speaker on probate issues. I’m also heavily involved in the probate community and participate in a number of formal and informal practitioner groups. I have represented clients ranging from large financial institutions to indigent individuals and have acquired substantial knowledge in this area over my years of practice.

I personally find the area of probate interesting and engaging. In my legal practice, I emphasize the importance of finding solutions over engaging in legal combat for the purpose of combat alone. This approach requires the ability to look at issues from many different angles and positions and to set aside your own bias in order to fully assess the problem or dispute. This ability would an asset on this bench.

I’ve also been a longtime adjunct professor at the University of St. Thomas in Houston where I teach pre-law classes to students who are among the first in their family to attend college and who often did not grow up in a primarily English-speaking home.

My time teaching at St. Thomas has provided me with insight as to how other members of our community feel as if they are on the margins and can be wary and mistrustful of the legal system. It has underscored for me the need to reach out to these communities so that they understand that they do not need to fear coming in to court to take advantage of the services it has to offer.

I also have the unique experience of being a former pediatric and adult cancer survivor who has gone back into this community as a longtime volunteer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. I started off working with cancer patients and their families one-on-one and over the course of ten years have helped create and supervise support programs for cancer patients, caregivers, and their families; sat on scholarship committees; spoken at conventions; and now work with a committee made up of doctors, faculty, staff, and administrators to improve healthcare and patient support at the institution for patients, caregivers, and families.

Having this background would be an asset when dealing with those cases involving people with mental health and substance abuse issues and working with the healthcare professionals that treat them. I have the experience collaborating with health care professionals, patients and families to solve problems – this is something this court needs.

5. Why is this race important?

It is more likely Harris County residents will have a reason to seek assistance from the probate courts than the civil, family or criminal courts. Death and incapacity affect most families in one way or another regardless of where you live, your socio-economic status, or your race. If you find yourself in a probate court, you’re probably going through one of the most challenging times in your life – you might be there dealing with the death of a loved one; trying to get help for an elderly family member or friend; or working to get emergency help for someone suffering from mental health issues or substance abuse problems.

Probate court judges need to have substantial knowledge and experience in this area, and compassion for those that appear before them. They need to be fair and respectful and they need to work hard every day for the people of Harris County.

6. Why should people vote for you in November?

It’s time for a change. My opponent has held this bench for the last 20 years, and the criticisms of how he runs his court and treats those who appear in it have been constant and consistent. I have the deep knowledge and unique experience this job requires, as well as the compassion and enthusiasm for public service that a probate court judge needs.​

Interview with Meg Walsh

Meg Walsh

Every election cycle, I start off with an idea of which candidates I intend to interview. Every election cycle, I wind up interviewing at least one candidate that I hadn’t originally planned to interview. There are a variety of reasons for that, and one of those reasons is that sometimes a candidate grabs my attention in a way that I hadn’t expected. Meg Walsh is such a candidate. She won a three-way primary to be the Democratic nominee in SD05, and like so many people who found themselves called to run for office this year, she brought a lot to her campaign. From her career in procurement, IT, event project management, and finance, to her volunteer work in her schools and community in Round Rock, to her advocacy for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence and for LGBTQIA+ rights, she’s a compelling candidate in a year full of them. She also happens to be running against Sen. Charles Schwertner, whose alleged sexual misconduct has put this race on everyone’s radar. I wanted to get to know more about Meg Walsh so I reached out to her for an interview, and now you can get to know a little more about her as well:

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.

A little effort for redistricting reform

It’s a start.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, the group led by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, is making a quarter-million-dollar investment in Texas to help Democrats here flip a number of state House seats in November.

The money represents one of the largest single contributions that the House Democratic Campaign Committee has ever received, according to its chair, El Paso state Rep. César Blanco, who said the investment “puts us in a stronger position to pick up more seats in the House.”

House Democrats, who currently control 55 out of the 150 seats in the lower chamber, are heading toward November targeting the 11 GOP-held districts — most of them traditionally Republican — that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016, with an emphasis on the Dallas area. They are also looking at several Republican-controlled districts across the state where Clinton came close to winning.

Blanco said the value of growing the Democratic caucus by even just five members could increase its influence in the race to replace outgoing House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio. A larger caucus could also have implications for inter-chamber relations next year.

Here’s what the NRDC has to say about Texas. $250K is not nothing, and it’s always nice to see national Democratic money flow into Texas instead of the other way around, but it’s not that much in the context of a dozen or so races. Honestly, it might be put to better use on the lower-profile and second-tier races, or in districts where there’s also a competitive Senate or Congressional race going on that’s already doing GOTV. Like I said, it’s a start and I’ll gladly take what they have to give, but let’s maintain some perspective. It’s still a drop in the bucket compared to what the Republicans’ moneybag overlords can and will spend.

Sarah Davis’ balancing act

As it will be for many of her Republican colleagues, especially in Harris County, 2018 is a challenging year for Rep. Sarah Davis.

Rep. Sarah Davis

To understand how Republican state Rep. Sarah Davis plans to survive a possible Democratic blue wave in her House district, consider the front lawn of Jeanne and Michael Maher.

Like several others in their neighborhood near West University Place, the Mahers have staked yard signs in front of their house for two political candidates of opposing parties: U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, the El Paso Democrat running for Senate, and Davis, a moderate, pro-choice conservative.

“It is a Republican-dominated Legislature, it will continue to be a Republican-dominated Legislature, and I would like to have someone who would be pulling some of the Republicans in the other direction,” Michael Maher said, explaining his support for Davis.

The 65-year-old Rice University energy researcher described himself as a moderate unmoored by party affiliation.

If the blue wave does wash over Texas, Davis might be the Republican best equipped to withstand it. She represents a swing district in an affluent section of Houston that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and for Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in 2014.

I would bet a considerable sum of money that Sarah Davis will run well ahead of the Republican baseline in HD134. You know who else once ran well ahead of her party’s baseline in HD134? Former Rep. Ellen Cohen, that’s who. She lost to Davis in the tsunami of 2010, as even her ability to get crossovers was not enough. Davis has the advantage of running in a district that leans Republican. She has the disadvantage of being roundly despised by the billionaire-coddlers and raving lunatics in her party, who may for their own perverse reasons want to see a Democrat take the seat.

My guess is that she hangs on, and assuming she does so again in 2020 there will be an interesting dilemma for Republicans when it comes time to redraw the district lines. They could do like they’ve tried to do to Rep. Lloyd Doggett in Congress and simply erase her district altogether, perhaps distributing some of her voters to HDs 135 and 138 to shore them up and adding the rest to Democratic districts. My guess is that if they do that they would then draw a new red district in the western/northwestern part of the county. That would have the dual effect of ridding themselves of someone they find troublesome, and swapping a swing district for a less-swingy one, while helping out some other Republicans. The traditional and collegial thing would be to tinker around the edges of HD134 to make it a little redder, as they did in 2011, and of course they could do that. The fact that this is even a possibility to contemplate is kind of amazing, but these are the things that can happen when your own Governor wants you out.

(Note – if Allison Lami Sawyer defeats her, or if a different Dem knocks off Davis in 2020, it’s a sure thing that Republicans do what they can to make this district redder. It’s the one thing I had to console myself after Cohen’s loss in 2010, that there was no way the Republicans were going to give her a district she could win in 2012. One way or another, I think we are in the waning days of what we now know as HD134.)

SD16 poll: Johnson 45, Huffines 42

From the inbox:

Nathan Johnson

A new poll conducted by Public Policy Polling shows challenger Nathan Johnson leading Don Huffines in the race for Texas Senate District 16, which covers most of northern Dallas County. Johnson has 45 percent of the vote, Huffines 42 percent, with 13 percent undecided. Senate District 16 has been one to watch ever since Hillary Clinton carried the district over Donald Trump in 2016 by 4.7 points. The poll of 525 respondents was conducted Sept. 20-21 and has a margin of error of 4.3 percent.

“My campaign is about priorities – addressing our most important issues and solving problems. I am not interested in partisan extremes. I am interested in finally solving our public school funding crisis, among other things.” said Johnson. “And I think our message is resonating with voters.” Johnson recently received the recommendation of the Dallas Morning News.

Other insights from the poll:

– 53 percent of Senate District 16 voters disapprove of Trump’s job performance, 44 percent approve, and 3 percent have no opinion.

– 39 percent of Senate District 16 voters have an unfavorable opinion of Don Huffines, 32 percent are favorable, and 29 percent are unsure.

– If a presidential election were held today, and Donald Trump and Joe Biden were the nominees, in Senate District 16, Biden would receive 52 percent, and Trump 44 percent, with 3 percent undecided.

All the usual caveats apply here. It’s one poll. We don’t have the full data, though we do have a polling memo here. It’s a poll that was commissioned by a campaign, not an independent poll. Have all the salt you want with this one. We do have the recent poll results for CD32 (which has significant overlap with SD16), which offers some corroborating evidence that this part of Dallas County may be shifting. For now at least we can say this is in line with other known facts. I for one sure hope it’s accurate.

What about Neal?

Ross Ramsey reminds us there is a third person in the Texas Senate race.

Neal Dikeman

Libertarians and other third-party candidates have never won state elections in Texas and rarely make a meaningful difference in election results, with one big exception: As spoilers.

If recent indications of a close U.S. Senate race between U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, and U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat, prove valid, a third candidate’s voters could spell the difference on Election Day.

“It will be the Libertarian voters who win this race,” says a hopeful Neal Dikeman, the Texas Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate.

[…]

Most polls have Cruz ahead of O’Rourke — but only by single digits. The most recent survey, from Quinnipiac University, had Cruz ahead by 9 percentage points among likely voters. Dikeman wasn’t included in that one, and none of the respondents said they would vote for someone other than the two major-party candidates.

For what it’s worth, covering a nine-point spread would be a big reach for a Libertarian candidate. Most of the time, in races with both Democrats and Republicans, third parties do well to get half that amount. Their mileage varies: Mark Miller and Martina Salinas, a Libertarian and a Green, combined for 8.6 percent in the 2016 race for Texas Railroad Commission; that same year, the presidential candidates from those parties, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, combined for 3.9 percent.

But several late summer polls in the Texas race for U.S. Senate are closer than Quinnipiac’s latest, raising at least the possibility that support for Dikeman could amount to more than the final difference between Ted and Beto.

This was written before that Ipsos poll came out, but that doesn’t change the main point. The two points of interest is that there is a Libertarian candidate, which will affect the win number in this race, and that the polling we have seen so far has not really taken this into effect.

On point one, by “win number” I mean the actual minimum amount needed to finish first in the race. It’s not fifty percent because there are more than two candidates. I did a broad look at this before the 2014 elections, so let’s revisit that here. Each Senate race in recent years has had at least three candidates in it. What percentage of the vote was actually needed to win those races? Here’s a look:


Year    Lib  Green   Else  Total     Win
========================================
2014  2.88%  1.18%  0.02%  4.18%  47.91%
2012  2.06%  0.86%         2.92%  48.54%
2008  2.34%                2.34%  48.83%
2006  2.26%                2.26%  48.87%
2002  0.79%  0.55%  0.03%  1.37%  49.32%

“Win” is the minimum amount that would have won that year. There were write-in candidates in 2014 and 2002. The third party vote hasn’t amounted to much in these races, but it’s not nothing. As you can see, in each year after 2002, 49% was enough to win, and in 2014 48% was enough.

What about this year? Obviously, that depends on how much support Neal Dikeman ultimately attracts. History suggests that will be in the two to three percent range, but it’s at least possible it could be more. Given that nobody likes Ted Cruz, it may be that the number of Republicans who refuse to vote for him but won’t vote for a Democrat is higher than usual. If that’s the case, then Dikeman will be the beneficiary of that. It wouldn’t shock me if he got more like three or four percent.

We might get some feel for that if pollsters specifically included Dikeman in their candidate choices, especially now if everyone is switching to a likely voter model. Not because polling for third party candidates is particularly accurate – they almost always overstate third party support – but because it might give a clearer picture of the gap between Cruz and O’Rourke. I have to imagine that the Quinnipiac poll would have Cruz at something lower than 54 had Dikeman been named as a choice. Yes, the polls have included “don’t know” as a choice, but it’s not the same as an actual person. It’s my hope we’ll see polls like that going forward. After all, that 47% support Beto got in the Ipsos poll may be closer to a win than you might think.

Interview with Alex Karjeker

Alex Karjeker

We conclude our tour of Harris County legislative districts with a trip to the southern end of the county into HD129. Alex Karjeker grew up in Clear Lake and attended public schools there before heading to UT for degrees in math and economics. After a stint working in Rep. Lloyd Doggett’s office, he got a masters from Georgetown and has worked since then for Morgan Stanley and Uber. HD129 is another one of those districts that have remained stubbornly Republican, but it is also suburban and has a lot of college graduates, so who knows. Karjeker has been one of the more successful fundraisers among the Democratic legislative candidates in the county, so whatever the past electoral history of this district, keep an eye on HD129. 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.

Lots more voters registered statewide

Always good to hear.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

The Texas voter rolls have grown to 15.6 million people, a new record, Texas Secretary of State Rolando Pablos confirmed.

That is nearly a 400,000-person increase since March and a jump of 1.6 million since the last time Texas held a midterm election in 2014, according to election records.

And there is still time for more voters to join the rolls before Oct. 9, the final day to register in time to vote in the midterm elections.

[…]

Registering to vote and casting a ballot are two different things in Texas. Despite having 14 million registered voters in 2014, just 4.7 million people voted — about 34 percent of voters. In presidential cycles, voter turnout is much higher, hitting almost 60 percent in 2016 and 2012.

Here’s a convenient table that was included in the story to illustrate the progression of the voter rolls:

Voter Registration in Texas For Midterm elections over last 20 years


2018 - 15.6 million

2014 - 14.0 million

2010 - 13.2 million

2006 - 13.1 million

2002 - 12.6 million

1998 - 11.5 million

So there’s been more people registered to vote in the last four years than there were in the twelve years before that combined. There has been a comprehensive effort among various groups to increase Texas’ voter numbers – registering voters was in fact one of the few things that Battleground Texas did well in the 2014 cycle – so it’s good to see that pay off. Harris County by itself can account for nearly 250K of those new registrations since 2014. There’s definitely been a big focus on registering people in this cycle, which should not come as a surprise to anyone who has not been in a cryogenic state.

As noted, registering and voting are two different things. That said, even if the turnout rate remained at 34 percent as it was in 2014, that would translate to 5.3 million ballots cast, modulo however many more people get signed up before the 9th. For what it’s worth, I investigated the question of new voters voting in Harris County in 2014. As I recall (I can’t find the post I wrote about it right now), something like 21% of the brand-new voters turned out in 2014. That’s not great, but it’s not nothing, either. Twenty-one percent turnout of those 1.6 million new voters statewide would still push the 2014 total to just over five million. In 2016, turnout as a percentage of registered voters in Harris County was down compared to 2008 and 2012, but the total number of actual voters was up 130K over 2012, precisely because there were so many (300K in all) more voters. One way or another, expect 2018 turnout to exceed 2014. The real question is who those voters will be.

ACLU reminds counties to provide voting materials in Spanish

From the inbox:

With weeks to go before the November 6 election, the ACLU of Texas has sent advisal letters to 36 counties across Texas that may be in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The letters urge the identified counties to comply with a provision in the law that requires any information about voting or elections to be provided in English and Spanish in counties where more than 10,000 or more than 5% of all voting age citizens are Spanish-speakers with low English proficiency.

“Counties need to ensure that they are providing all citizens with information that will enable them to vote,” said Edgar Saldivar, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. “The obligation to provide information in Spanish is a simple but important requirement which helps to remove barriers to voting in the state with the largest number of counties needing foreign language voting materials.”

ACLU of Texas attorneys reviewed county election websites and looked at whether pertinent information was made available in Spanish, including voter identification information, key voting dates, voter registration information, and applications for ballot by mail and absentee voting. The preliminary research determined that 36 counties had inadequate or inaccessible information in Spanish, had poor or misleading translations, or offered no voting information in Spanish at all. For example, one county’s use of an automated translation service translated the term “runoff election” as “election water leak” or “election drainage.”

Several counties have already responded positively to the letters, agreeing to comply with the Voting Rights Act and include Spanish language voting information on their websites.

Click over to see the list of counties. If one of them is yours, maybe make a call yourself to your local elections administrator. It’s a little hard to believe that any county could still have problems with this after all this time, but here we are.

Judicial Q&A: Richard Hightower

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for Democratic judicial candidates. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to my readers. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates. You can see other Q&As and further information about judicial candidates on my 2018 Judicial page.

Richard Hightower

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

Richard Hightower, Democratic nominee for Justice, 1st Court of Appeals, Place 8.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

The 1st Court of Appeals hears both criminal and civil appeals from trial courts in ten Texas counties, including Harris County.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

Appellate courts in Texas should be balanced with justices elected from both parties. Currently all 36 of the appellate court justices overseeing Harris County (the 1st and 14th Courts of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) were elected as Republicans. This is not a reflective balance of the diverse communities served. I believe that appellate court justices should serve in a fair and impartial manner, follow the law, and avoid political associations and relationships that place in question their ability to do so.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have been a practicing attorney for over 37 years, graduating from Baylor Law School in 1980, and a member of the Baylor Law Review. I am currently the owner of Richard F. Hightower P.C. and serve as of-counsel to the Oaks, Hartline & Daly law firm. I have been a trial attorney for over 20 years, have represented both Plaintiffs and Defendants, and throughout my practice have represented the interests of our public school districts and community colleges in both urban and rural counties. I was co-counsel in one case argued before the United States Supreme Court. In addition, I have served as an outside examiner/officer and as a certified mediator in hundreds of disputes.

5. Why is this race important?

This race is important because voters have an opportunity to provide balance and a diversity of background and experience to the 1st and 14th Courts of Appeals. Fairness and justice for all are on the ballot as ten seats on these two courts are up for reelection this November. I am honored to have the opportunity to provide my broad experience and sound judgment to the 1st Court of Appeals.

6. Why should people vote for you in November?

With over 37 years experience as a practicing attorney, I have been involved in many of the types of cases that might come before the 1st Court of Appeals. I have experience in large firms and small firms, and I have experience in large counties and small counties. I have been involved in complex multi million dollar litigation and have also represented parties in family law, juvenile, probate, criminal, employment, and breach of contract cases. I was honored by my peers by receiving the AV Preeminent rating from Martindale Hubbell, the highest possible rating in both legal ability and ethical standards, and by being listed as a Super Lawyer by Texas Monthly Magazine. I also received more votes than my opponent in the 2018 State Bar preference poll sent to all lawyers in the ten county district served by the 1st Court of Appeals.

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.

Schwertner update

He has amended his statement.

Sen. Charles Schwertner

In the face of a sexual harassment allegation, state Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, has hired two Austin attorneys and denied sending “any inappropriate texts as alleged” — “Period.” — in a new statement Wednesday from the attorneys.

[…]

Schwertner has hired attorneys Perry and David Minton to represent him, the Statesman reported. The attorneys said they have been in touch with UT-Austin to “resolve this matter.” The law firm did not immediately return a request for comment from the Tribune.

“The Senator is devastated over these allegations and is concerned for the unnamed victim,” the lawyers said in a statement to the Statesman. “Our statements regarding the Senator will be proven in the days and weeks to come. Until then, Senator Schwertner deserves the courtesy of holding judgment until he is afforded the opportunity for a fair process to occur.”

See here for the background, and here for that Statesman story, which has a lot more detail. That new statement implicitly acknowledges that Schwertner did text the grad student in question, though he continues to deny that there was anything inappropriate in them. As I said, the existence of texts means the existence of objective evidence. One way or the other, we should be able to know the truth of the matter. For now, Schwertner’s colleagues, as well as Dan Patrick, are mostly taking a wait-and-see attitude. Like I said, one way or the other we should know something real eventually.

In the meantime:

Meg Walsh

Schwertner, who has represented the district since 2013 and is the chairman of the powerful Health and Human Services Committee, is facing two female challengers in the upcoming midterm elections: Democrat Meg Walsh and Libertarian Amy Lyons.

“If these allegations are true, Sen. Schwertner is unfit to serve in office,” Walsh said in a statement released Wednesday. “These serious allegations deserve a full and thorough investigation.”

Walsh also noted in the statement that she has dealt with workplace harassment before and will “never stop fighting so that women and every single person is treated with the respect they deserve.”

In an interview with The Texas Tribune Wednesday afternoon, Walsh reiterated her assertion that Schwertner is unfit to serve and said that if the allegation is true, it is a “serious abuse of power.”

[…]

While Schwertner is unlikely to lose his seat in November, a soft showing for his re-election could potentially endanger other Republicans on the ballot whose districts overlap with Schwertner’s.

Bill Fairbrother, chairman of the Williamson County Republican Party, said state Rep. Tony Dale, R-Cedar Park, is in a “purplish and competitive district” that overlaps with Schwertner’s. Clinton defeated Trump in that district by less than 3 percentage points in 2016, according to data from the Texas Legislative Council.

A the story notes, SD05 is pretty solidly Republican; Trump carried it by 20 points in 2016. The truth would have to be really bad, and probably need to come out quickly, to have a significant effect. There could be a trickle-down effect, however, with the likes of Rep. Dale as casualties. Which would be fine by me, of course. Maybe now would be a good time for Annie’s List to jump in and lend a hand to Walsh. They don’t normally play in a race like this, but if now isn’t time for them to get involved, when would it be?

Interview with Michael Shawn Kelly

Michael Shawn Kelly

We continue with our tour of Harris County legislative districts. It’s already the case that a majority of the Harris County legislative caucus is Democratic; in 2016, 13 of 24 members of the State House from our county were Dems. This year, four more districts are viewed as competitive, with a fifth on the fringes. And then we have the holdouts, six in all, that represent the Republican base here. One of the hallmarks of this election is that even in the deep red districts, many strong candidates have emerged to provide a voice and a choice for the voters there. In HD150, a district where even a zealot like Debbie Riddle can get primaried out, Michael Shawn Kelley has stepped up to take the challenge, one he also undertook in 2016. Kelley owns an award-winning landscape architectural business in Spring, and has has deep roots in the community, a long record of service, and much to say about why he felt called to run for office. Here’s our conversation:

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.

CD32 “live poll”: Sessions 48, Allred 47

Another on of these polls, another close result.

Colin Allred

Incumbent Republican Pete Sessions and Democratic challenger Colin Allred are in a dead heat in the much-anticipated race for Dallas County’s 32nd Congressional District.

According to a New York Times/Siena College poll completed Monday night, Sessions leads Allred 48 to 47 percent, with 5 percent of those surveyed undecided. Pollsters talked to only 500 potential voters, so the margin of error is plus or minus 4.8 percent. The Dallas Morning News is part of the New York Times’ effort to make the political polling process more transparent.

“Our poll result is about what was expected. But remember: It’s just one poll, and we talked to only 500 people,” an introduction to the results state. “Each candidate’s total could easily be five points different if we polled everyone in the district.”

[…]

The poll shows 52 percent disapprove of Trump’s performance, while 44 percent approve and 5 percent don’t know.

Trump endorsed Sessions earlier this month, while former President Barack Obama is backing Allred.

Potential voters overwhelming rejected Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum by a 50 percent to 39 percent margin, with 11 percent undecided, the poll revealed.

[…]

The incumbent has campaigned heavily on the 2017 tax cuts pushed by Trump and approved by Congress. To that point, the polls reveals that 53 percent in the district support the tax cuts, compared to 39 percent that disapproved and 8 percent that didn’t know.

Perhaps even more significant for Sessions, 54 percent agree that Trump’s policies have made their economic situation better. And the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was supported by a 50-41 percent margin.

Sessions is hoping voters feel good about Republican policies and Trump’s judicial appointments.

Those surveyed were nearly equally divided over which party should control the U.S. House, with 48 percent favoring Democrats and 47 percent wanting Republicans to maintain control. Six percent were undecided.

The 32nd Congressional District still leans Republican. The outcome of the race could be decided by a base fight in a county dominated by Democrats. Those Democrats hope Rep. Beto O’Rourke of El Paso, in a close Senate race against incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, will help the entire ticket.

But the poll shows that Cruz and O’Rourke could have similar coattails. O’Rourke was favored by a 48-47 percent margin, reflecting the overall competitiveness in the congressional district.

See here and here for previous “live poll” results, from CDs 07 and 23, and here for the full NYT writeup. An internal poll released in August had it as 47-45 Sessions, while Patrick Svitek tweeted about just-released PPP results that had Allred leading 47-42 and Lizzie Fletcher leading 47-45 in CD07. The disconnect between the disapproval of Trump and the approval of the tax cuts and Brett Kavanaugh could be a sign that people want to exert a counter-force on Trump even if they like some of the things he’s done, a sign that one side or the other is over- or under-performing in the district, or just random noise. Far as I know, these are the only live polls planned for Texas. I wish they’d dip down into some of the second-tier races – I’d kill to see what they might find about CD31, or CD22, or CD21 – but we should be happy we got this much.

The firefighter pay parity proposal sure seems like it’s going to pass

What are ya gonna do?

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner is holding town halls to try to convince voters that the city can’t afford Proposition B, a ballot measure that would tie firefighters’ pay to that of police. It’s turning into an uphill fight.

Mayor Turner argues that full pay parity would cost Houston nearly $300 million, at a time when the city is wrestling with chronic deficits. But Turner is having a hard time getting voters to see this as anything other than attacking the firefighters.

“The default mode is not only to support equity pay but to support it by very big margins,” says Bob Stein, a political science professor at Rice University.

That’s particularly the case if Democrats turn out in larger-than-usual numbers. “You’ll have a lot of voters coming out who are predisposed as Democrats to support equity pay for public employees,” Stein says. “On top of that, the firemen not only have a good campaign message, but they’re going to get national support from national public employee associations and unions to support this equity pay raise.”

I’ve already seen three pro-Prop B signs in my neighborhood. Mayor Turner has been busy holding town halls and writing op-eds, but beyond that I’ve not seen much of a campaign. So yeah, I expect this to pass, quite possibly by a lot. And I’d say Mayor Turner is making the same judgment.

Mayor Sylvester Turner has instituted a hiring freeze across the city government’s roughly 21,400 positions, ordering department directors seeking exceptions to meet with him or his chief of staff in person.

The directive, he wrote in a memo dated Friday, will be reviewed “at a later date this year.” Executive positions are exempt from the freeze, but those already require mayoral approval.

Mayoral spokeswoman Mary Benton said the order was spurred by Proposition B on the Nov. 6 ballot. That measure would give firefighters the same pay as police officers of corresponding rank and seniority, costing the city an estimated $98 million annually.

“The impact would financially cripple the city and force layoffs and cutbacks to services,” Benton said. “The mayor believes it is not prudent at this time to hire additional city of Houston employees, who would lose their jobs as a result of the election.”

I mean, what did you expect? At this point I’d say the city’s best strategy is to find some plaintiffs for the ballot language lawsuit, and hope to get an injunction preventing it from being implemented while it gets hashed out in court. I wouldn’t bet my own money on that outcome either, but the odds have to be better than beating this thing at the ballot box.

UT investigating sexual misconduct case against State Sen. Schwertner

Noted for the record.

Sen. Charles Schwertner

The University of Texas is investigating an allegation that state Sen. Charles Schwertner sent a sexually explicit image and text message to a graduate student he met at an on-campus event this summer, three senior UT officials with knowledge of the investigation told the American-Statesman.
If the allegation is deemed true, the university would consider banning Schwertner from campus, two of the officials said. The third official said the university is also considering hiring outside legal counsel to investigate further.

Through a spokesman, Schwertner on Tuesday said he “categorically denies any knowledge of the accusations” and plans to cooperate with UT’s investigation.

The student met Schwertner, a Georgetown Republican and a UT alumnus, at an on-campus event to which Schwertner was invited and told him she was interested in working at the Legislature, according to two of the officials. After the event, they exchanged messages on the networking site LinkedIn before moving to text messaging, the two officials said.

During an otherwise professional exchange on networking and career advice, Schwertner abruptly wrote, “I just really want to f—- you,” and sent her an image that appeared to be a picture of his genitals that was taken in the shower, according to a UT official who has seen the exchange and the photo. The image does not include his face, the official said. The Statesman has not seen the photo.

The student told Schwertner that she thought he had acted inappropriately, the officials said, and Schwertner did not respond. The student then reported Schwertner’s behavior to the school, prompting the investigation, they said.

All UT officials interviewed by the Statesman declined to reveal the identity of the student out of respect for her privacy and to honor the promise of confidentiality that the university made to her when she reported the incident. Student privacy laws also prohibit the university from disclosing the student’s name.

The officials, who declined to be identified because they are not authorized to speak on the matter, said that the investigation into Schwertner has not found any potentially criminal misconduct.

That’s all we know at this point. I suppose since the crux of this allegation involves text messages, there should be evidence one way or another, to support or refute it. We’ll see what UT finds out, including what if any action the Senate will take in the event the charges are corroborated. I’ll reserve judgment for now, but as someone who called for Sens. Miles and Uresti to step down after the stories about their alleged harassment were published, I’m not likely to be very sympathetic if these charges stick. Oh, and if you’re wondering, Sen. Schwertner is on the ballot in November. His opponent is Meg Walsh. Feel free to get to know her a little better. The Trib has more.

Judicial Q&A: Meg Poissant

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for Democratic judicial candidates. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to my readers. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates. You can see other Q&As and further information about judicial candidates on my 2018 Judicial page.

Meg Poissant

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

My name is Margaret “Meg” Poissant and I am running for the 14th Court of Appeals, Place 8.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

The Court of Appeals decides appeals from civil and criminal cases in ten counties, with the exception of death penalty cases.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

The Court of Appeals should rule fairly with equal justice for all. I seek to bring my thirty-three years of experience and integrity to ensure justice for all Texans. The opinions of the incumbent are not always consistent or based on sound legal reasoning.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have 33 years experience representing clients and trying civil cases, including personal injury, chemical exposure, wrongful death, probate, real estate, and complex business cases, many cases involving expert testimony and complex issues of law, as well as experience representing Defendants in criminal cases. My appellate experience includes appeals involving issues of insurance coverage, property damage, contract, and wrongful death.

I am Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent rated as having the highest ethical standards by both my peers and the judiciary. I am licensed in Texas and New York.

My memberships include the Texas Bar Association; Member of the New York Bar Association; Trial Lawyers of America; American Bar Association; Houston Bar Association; Texas Trial Lawyers Association; Houston Trial Lawyers Association; State Bar Committee; Houston Volunteer Lawyers Association; Harris County Democratic Lawyers Association; International Who's Who of Professionals; Notable Women of Texas; President Westwood Grove Civic Association; Committee Chair SN22 Ordinance Committee; Executive Committee Member- Legal and Communications Director for all of North America for a non-profit group; Special commendation from Humble Police Association for pro bono legal services; Board Member Shine Studios Board of Directors, a non-profit dedicated to issues of education for Latin American girls.

As a member of the Houston Volunteer Lawyers Association, I recently represented a non-status, indigent client in a case for 2 years, and 3 days in trial with a great result for the client; Volunteered for ARC of Greater Houston; Provided pro bono legal services to senior citizens, undocumented workers, neighbors and artists; pro bono legal counsel, as lead for the legal team, for all of North America for a national nonprofit foundation; Proactive member of the Super Neighborhood 22 Committees, ​devoting numerous hours to neighborhood quality of life issues; Volunteered for Avenue CDC (Community Development Corporation) art benefits to help finance the building of affordable homes and strengthening communities; Volunteer jurist for Fort Bend Contemporary Arts Museum; Charity fundraisers for various arts organizations and artists.

5. Why is this race important?

The Court of Appeals is often the last Court to rule on cases because the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals hear very few cases. The Court of Appeals is often the last opportunity for justice in a case. It is important to have a fair justice on the bench with integrity and experience.

6. Why should people vote for you in November?

I am qualified and experienced, and I will bring justice and fairness to the rulings of the Court of Appeals. These rulings affect all Texans.

Three different views of how competitive Texas Congressional districts are

You are by now familiar with The Crosstab and its 2018 Congressional forecast, as I’ve referred to it multiple times in recent months. G. Elliott Morris, the proprietor of The Crosstab, now works at The Economist, and they have their own midterm forecast, based on a different model. And of course you are familiar with FiveThirtyEight, which (guess what) also has a 2018 Congressional forecast. What do we like to do when we have multiple data sources? We compare them, that’s what. Here are the forecasts for the Texas Congressional districts of interest:


Dist   XTab   Econ    538
=========================
CD02   15.1   50.0    9.3
CD03    6.4   29.0    0.9
CD06   16.5   40.0    7.3
CD07   50.3   27.0   46.6
CD10   21.0   13.0    2.6
CD14    6.4    1.0    1.3
CD17    4.4    1.0    0.5
CD21   20.3   50.0   20.3
CD22   20.5    8.0   14.8
CD23   66.3   83.0   49.4
CD24   29.0    9.0    4.5
CD25   11.3    0.0    7.0
CD27    6.5   20.0    0.3
CD31   11.2    4.0   20.1
CD32   47.4    1.0   17.4

Left to right, those are the projected percentage chances of a Democratic win in the given district from the Crosstab, the Economist, and 538. I have a hard time taking the Economist’s model seriously so I’m not going to say anything more about it. The other two provide an additional piece of data that’s worth looking at, which is a projection of the margin between the candidates in each district. Let’s look at that as well:


Dist   XTab    538   2012    2014   2016
========================================
CD02  - 9.1  -10.6  -26.9   -33.7  -20.3
CD03  -12.9  -20.6  -30.8   -37.1  -25.7
CD06  - 7.1  - 9.8  -16.7   -21.3  -15.2
CD07    0.1  - 0.6  -19.9   -31.4  -14.0
CD10  - 6.0  -15.9  -18.7   -22.6  -16.5
CD14  -12.4  -19.0  -15.2   -22.8  -21.3
CD17  -13.2  -22.5  -19.8   -28.9  -22.7
CD21  - 5.6  - 6.3  -22.0   -26.0  -18.7
CD22  - 6.2  - 8.5  -25.1   -33.3  -16.3
CD23    3.2  - 0.2  - 3.1   -15.5  - 1.2
CD24  - 4.0  -13.4  -23.3   -30.9  -15.9
CD25  - 9.0  -11.7  -20.0   -22.5  -21.5
CD27  -13.4  -25.4  -19.1   -30.3  -24.4
CD31  - 9.2  - 5.9  -21.0   -27.7  -19.3
CD32  - 0.4  - 6.6  -15.4   -23.7  -12.2

These numbers are all as of the September 23 update. They may have drifted a bit since then, one way or the other. I can tell you that in the few days that it took me to get my act together and finish writing this post, Democratic odds dropped a bit across the board, with the exception of an uptick in the 538 model in CD32. I have no idea if the loss in SD19 had anything to do with that, or if it was just reflecting whatever ebbs and flows their equations pick up on.

Note that 538 provides a range of possible vote shares for each candidate. In CD07, for example, they forecast a high of 55.1% and a low of 45.5% for John Culberson, with a high of 54.5% and a low of 44.9% for Lizzie Fletcher. The margin is the difference between the average forecast, which as of September 23 was 50.3% for Culberson and 49.7% for Fletcher. They take third party candidates into account as well. The Crosstab isn’t quite that granular, they just provide a forecast for the margin. Again, these numbers will drift around some.

The two points of interest here are where the forecasts differ – 538 is more bearish overall for Dems, though more optimistic in CD31 and considerably more pessimistic in CD32 – and how the current margins compare to previous years, which I show in the last three columns. As is my custom, I’m using judicial numbers for those margins, and for this I used one of the statewide judicial races. I don’t remember which one I picked for each year – did I mention that it took me a few days to write this post? – but it really doesn’t matter that much, they’re all within a point or so of each other. Look at the comparisons in the Harris County CDs – 02 and 07, which are entirely within the county, and 10 and 22, which are partially so. Everywhere you look, the indicators are for a rough year for the Harris County GOP. Never take anything for granted, of course, but dismiss the data at your peril as well. The postmortem here is going to be something.