Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Rick Miller

July 2019 campaign finance reports: State Reps

State legislative races tend to get less attention than Congressional races. Fewer candidates, less money, very little news coverage. That’s probably going to be less true this year, as both parties are going to expend a lot of effort and resources to gain or maintain control of the State House, but for now at least these races are mostly beneath the radar. Here’s a look at what’s happening in districts in and around Houston.

Rep. Rick Miller – HD26
Sarah DeMerchant – HD26

Rep. John Zerwas (PAC) – HD28
Elizabeth Markowitz – HD28

Rep. Ed Thompson (PAC) – HD29

Rep. Phil Stephenson – HD85

Rep. Sam Harless – HD126
Natali Hurtado – HD126

Rep. Gina Calanni – HD132

Rep. Sarah Davis – HD134
Ann Johnson – HD134
Ruby Powers – HD134

Rep. Jon Rosenthal – HD135

Rep. Dwayne Bohac – HD138
Akilah Bacy – HD138
Josh Wallenstein – HD138


Dist  Name             Raised      Spent    Loans    On Hand
============================================================
026   Miller           19,890     27,815        0      7,076
026   DeMerchant       10,760      5,509        0      5,294

028   Zerwas           20,168    192,575        0     17,480
028   Markowitz        18,118      5,406        0      6,457

029   Thompson          2,000     27,236        0    396,460

085   Stephenson        6,177     11,535   24,997      7,077

126   Harless           5,000     12,540   20,000     40,952
126   Hurtado             350        477        0        318

132   Calanni           8,791     17,470        0     15,328

134   Davis            24,821     36,796        0    202,672
134   Johnson         130,645      3,658      500    119,422
134   Powers           22,044      1,625        0     19,282

135   Rosenthal         9,568     37,169    1,075     13,111

138   Bohac            27,390     58,724        0     28,261
138   Bacy             21,492      2,628        0     20,683
138   Wallenstein      54,164      7,445   10,000     53,141

As you may surmise, I started writing this before Rep. John Zerwas announced his retirement. He’s actually leaving on September 30, meaning there will be a special election to fill out the remainder of his term. Things will change for that district as people line up for the special, which will have to be after November since there won’t be time for it by then, and as Republicans jump in for next year. I had looked at Zerwas’ report before his announcement and was curious about his spending during this period. Now it all makes sense.

Legislators cannot raise money during the session, and as such there’s usually a spike of activity right after it. Not much evidence for it in these totals, though. Ed Thompson and Sarah Davis have healthy totals, as did Zerwas before his clearance spending, but I’m a little surprised that the likes of Rick Miller and Dwayne Bohac don’t have more in the kitty. Of course, Thompson was unopposed in 2018, and Davis may as well have been, so they didn’t need to spend much going into this year, unlike Miller and Bohac. I feel pretty confident saying that all of them, as well as freshmen Gina Calanni and Jon Rosenthal, will sport much bigger totals in the January reports.

Beyond that, the big numbers belong to Ann Johnson, taking a second crack at HD134, and Josh Wallenstein in HD138. Johnson was the last Dem to make a serious run against Davis in 2012, and while HD134 has always looked purple, the underlying numbers plus Davis’ moderate reputation always made it look more like a mirage to me. But there was a shift in 2016, and even more so in 2018, so that plus the overall closeness of the Lege catapulted this one back up the target list. I expect Ruby Powers to post some good numbers as well going forward. Same for HD138, which came agonizingly close to flipping last year. Wallenstein got off to a strong start, but I expect Akilah Bacy to be in there as well.

Finally, the incumbents who don’t have opponents as of this report should not rest easy, as these are all competitive districts. Please note, it’s entirely possible I’ve missed someone, as there’s not a way that I could find to search by office on the TEC reporting page. With all of the other entities – city of Houston, HISD, HCC, Harris County, the FEC for federal races – you can easily see everyone who’s filed, and I’ve used that to discover candidates I’d not known about before. Not so much with the TEC. So if you know more than I do about who’s running in these districts, please leave a comment and enlighten me.

We could have had an excise tax on e-cigarettes

But then Greg Abbott got involved.

At the urging of the nation’s biggest tobacco company, Gov. Greg Abbott launched a late-hour push to change Texas legislation creating a 10% state retail excise tax on e-cigarette and vapor smoking products.

That bill died in House action Thursday night due to a legislative maneuver, known as a point of order, offered by Republican Rep. Jonathan Stickland of Bedford. It has no realistic chance of revival because of legislative deadlines and the mandate that tax measures originate in the House, not the Senate.

Stickland said Friday his aides spotted the technical error and he pointed it out in the House out of concern about ladling taxes on e-cigarettes and vape products.

“A lot of people have used e-cigarettes to quit other bad habits,” Stickland said Friday. “It’s just a freedom issue for me. I think that taxes are theft.”

After the bill’s death, Dallas Democrat Nathan Johnson, the author of the Senate version of the bill, said in a text message: “I’m disappointed, to say the least. This bill would protect kids and save public costs. It had overwhelming support in the House.”

Critics said earlier that Abbott’s late move — targeting a bill touted as deterring youths from buying addictive e-cigs — would effectively ease taxation of products such as Juul pods that concentrate nicotine in not much liquid.

[…]

Abbott’s suggested changes would have scrapped a proposed first-in-the-nation retail tax predicted to generate about $20 million a year for public education. Instead, Texas would tax vape products at the wholesale level at five cents per milliliter of “consumable liquid solution.”

Four states — Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana and North Carolina — tax vape products at five cents per milliliter, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, with New Jersey and West Virginia levying higher rates.

The Abbott-backed changes also would have put a $1 per ounce tax on every initial sale of heated tobacco products, which produce an inhalable aerosol primarily by heating, not burning, tobacco. The FDA authorized U.S. sales of the products, made by Philip Morris International, late last month. Corey Henry of Philip Morris International said in an email that the product will be commercialized by Altria in the U.S. through a licensing agreement.

Proceeds from the double-barreled tax were to help fund public schools.

Rob Crane, an Ohio State University physician who heads the Preventing Tobacco Addiction Foundation, said in an email that the resulting e-cig tax would have been so light, it would make “no difference” to children or adults considering purchases of such nicotine delivery products.

The first link in the story gives some background on the bill, as it was and what it was intended for. I confess, I wasn’t aware of any of this before I read the story, so I don’t have much to add beyond what you can read at the two links. Mostly, this is a reminder of why it’s hard to pass bills in the Lege. Time is against you, there are many veto points, and the closer you get to the end of the session the easier it is kill things. All you can do is note how far you got this time, and vow to try again in two years.

Precinct analysis: Fort Bend State Rep districts

Following on from yesterday’s post, here’s a look at the vote in Fort Bend from the perspective of the State Rep districts.


Office	            Rep    Dem    Rep %   Dem %
===============================================
President        35,005  31,558  52.59%  47.41%
CJ, 1st CofA     40,047  28,336  58.56%  41.44%
1st CofA #4      39,311  28,940  57.60%  42.40%
14th CofA #2     39,351  28,873  57.68%  42.32%
14th CofA #9     40,008  28,185  58.67%  41.33%
240th JD         39,743  28,291  58.42%  41.58%
400th JD         39,954  28,130  58.68%  41.32%
County Court #5  39,194  28,774  57.67%  42.33%
Sheriff          41,342  27,454  60.09%  39.91%
HD26             39,672  28,876  57.87%  42.13%
President 08     39,210  24,076  61.96%  38.04%
President 12     39,595  22,554  63.71%  36.29%


Office	            Rep    Dem    Rep %   Dem %
===============================================
President        18,471  47,471  28.01%  71.99%
CJ, 1st CofA     21,234  46,194  31.49%  68.51%
1st CofA #4      20,732  46,629  30.78%  69.22%
14th CofA #2     20,635  46,766  30.62%  69.38%
14th CofA #9     21,235  46,072  31.55%  68.45%
240th JD         20,912  46,159  31.18%  68.82%
400th JD         20,999  46,161  31.27%  68.73%
County Court #5  20,590  46,422  30.73%  69.27%
Sheriff          21,147  46,215  31.39%  68.61%
HD27             21,531  45,648  32.05%  67.95%
President 08     18,186  42,374  30.03%  69.97%
President 12     18,939  42,811  30.67%  69.33%


Office	            Rep    Dem    Rep %   Dem %
===============================================
President        44,604  36,032  55.32%  44.68%
CJ, 1st CofA     50,370  33,133  60.32%  39.68%
1st CofA #4      49,824  33,595  59.73%  40.27%
14th CofA #2     49,791  33,655  59.67%  40.33%
14th CofA #9     50,503  32,857  60.58%  39.42%
240th JD         50,064  32,972  60.29%  39.71%
400th JD         50,238  32,827  60.48%  39.52%
County Court #5  49,563  33,405  59.74%  40.26%
Sheriff          51,110  32,457  61.16%  38.84%
HD28             56,777       0 100.00%   0.00%
President 08     30,636  21,813  58.41%  41.59%
President 12     40,593  22,001  64.85%  35.15%


Office	            Rep    Dem    Rep %   Dem %
===============================================
President        19,132  19,414  49.63%  50.37%
CJ, 1st CofA     20,705  18,695  52.55%  47.45%
1st CofA #4      20,563  18,773  52.28%  47.72%
14th CofA #2     20,484  18,845  52.08%  47.92%
14th CofA #9     20,795  18,524  52.89%  47.11%
240th JD         20,864  18,405  53.13%  46.87%
400th JD         21,064  18,238  53.60%  46.40%
County Court #5  20,502  18,726  52.26%  47.74%
Sheriff          21,365  18,214  53.98%  46.02%
HD85             20,876  18,539  52.96%  47.04%
President 08     28,328  19,638  59.06%  40.94%
President 12     30,652  19,087  61.63%  38.37%

I want to begin by noting that HD85 is only partly in Fort Bend; it also encompasses Jackson and Wharton counties. I have no explanation for why the Republican vote dropped off by 10K from 2012 while the Democratic vote has held more or less steady over the past three elections. I didn’t include the 2012 and 2008 Presidential numbers when I first drafted this post, so I wouldn’t have even noticed that had I not added them in later. Maybe there are fewer people in the district? I have no idea. Feel free to enlighten me in the comments.

HD26 is the revelation here. It’s never been on anyone’s radar as being potentially competitive, having been drawn as a 62% or so Republican district in 2011. What appears to be happening is that much like Commissioner’s Precinct 4, HD26 gained Democratic voters, about 6,000 of them over 2012, without gaining any Republican voters. This is not a coincidence, as 26 of the 41 voting precincts in HD26 are in CC4, so the fortunes of the two are clearly correlated. The non-Presidential numbers don’t really qualify HD26 as a swing district, but the trend is in the right direction, and if 2018 winds up a lower turnout year for Republicans, this could interesting. And while I’ve consistently downplayed the Presidential numbers in various contexts, one does have to wonder if a Republican who was persuaded to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 might be open to the possibility of voting for a good Democratic candidate against a Trump-supporting Republican officeholder in 2018. The more we can test messages that might move the needle a point or two, the better. Whatever the case, even if 2018 is too soon for demographic change to make HD26 competitive, 2020 may not be. And remember that overlap between Commissioner’s Precinct 4 and HD26. A good candidate in one race can help the other, and vice versa.

Neither HDs 27 nor 28 are competitive, and neither are all that interesting to look at from this view. HD28 is clearly the fast-growing part of Fort Bend – it mostly overlaps with Commissioner’s Precinct 3, in case you were wondering. Turnout has increased by over 60% in HD28 since 2008. Democrats have kept up since 2012, but are behind overall from 2008. My guess is that if redistricting were to be done today, HD28 would be used to shore up HD26, while perhaps also dumping some Democrats into HD27, which hasn’t grown much. I don’t see HD28 becoming competitive based on what we observe here, but as a population center it’s imperative for Dems to engage here, because this area will have an outsized impact on countywide races. You have to keep the margin here manageable, and make sure that new residents who lean Democratic are aware that their votes are needed even if their local races aren’t really winnable.

Chron overview of HD26

Back to Fort Bend for a look at another legislative race.

Rep. Rick Miller

Rep. Rick Miller

Incumbent state Rep. Rick Miller can describe his political perspective in five words: “I’m a Christian, conservative Republican.”

His opponent in November, political newcomer and Democrat L. Sarah DeMerchant, takes a different stance: “It’s not about my personal beliefs, wants and desires.” She aims, she said, to be a candidate of the people.

Still, Miller believes he has served the community in a way it likes. Residents first elected Miller to the state House District 26 seat in 2012, when he won with 63 percent of the vote. In 2014, the candidate triumphed again, with 70 percent. Though he does not take re-election for granted, he said he is optimistic he will prevail.

Sarah DeMerchant

Sarah DeMerchant

The Fort Bend County district that Miller and DeMerchant are vying to represent encompasses most of Sugar Land, plus all or part of several unincorporated communities, including Cumings, Pecan Grove and New Territory.

It is an area Miller, a leadership consultant and former Navy officer, says he dedicates about 90% of his time to serving. “My job is being a state representative,” he said, “and I take it very, very seriously.”

DeMerchant, however, wants residents “to take a stand,” and said she has an advantage over her opponent — who drew attention last year when his openly gay son challenged his stance against Houston’s anti-discrimination ordinance — because of what she said was her ability to listen to a diverse group of people.

As is usually the case, HD26 is not a swing district. John McCain carried it 61.5% to 37.8% in 2008, Mitt Romney followed with a 62.9% to 35.9% win in 2012. Between potential shifts in Presidential preferences in Fort Bend and the pro-Democratic trend of Asian voters, there’s definitely room for this gap to close.

On a side note, there’s a world in which this district really is a swing district. There were a couple of proposals during redistricting in 2011 that drew HD26 as basically 50-50, at least under the pre-2010 election results. Maybe we’ll see something like that in 2021.

Endorsement watch: Back to the State House, part 1

The Chron ventures outside Houston to make some Legislative endorsements.

Cecil Webster

Cecil Webster

State Representative, District 13: Cecil R. Webster

As an engineer who worked in weapons testing and procurement, retired Col. Cecil R. Webster knows his way around a firearm. But decades of experience couldn’t prepare him for the challenge of open-carry in Texas – specifically, procuring the exact state-mandated signs necessary to keep his church gun-free.

“I spent the last days of 2015 going around trying to find some cheap signs to put on my church that met the specifications so that we could tell folks: ‘Guns are not welcome inside my Rose Missionary Baptist Church,'” Webster said in his meeting with the Houston Chronicle editorial board. “I find it ludicrous that we have to do that.”

State Representative, District 26: D.F. “Rick” Miller

After two terms in Austin, retired military veteran D.F. “Rick” Miller has tried to strike a balance between his Republican conservatism and the limited time available in session to address our state’s immediate needs. During the last session, Miller, 71, promoted bills to expand higher education in Fort Bend County and to empower county officials in going after game rooms. He said he relies on local committees to keep him informed about local issues, and plans to push during the next session on improving public education funding, mental health services for veterans, health care and transportation – a key challenge in this growing Fort Bend County district, which covers most of Sugar Land and part of Richmond.

But Miller’s record isn’t sterling. He made news for pushing a bill that would rescind local anti-discrimination ordinances, earning condemnations from his own son, an HIV-positive gay activist.

State Representative, District 27: No endorsement

Ron Reynolds certainly has found a way to turn lemons into lemonade. After being found guilty of barratry – a charge that he is currently appealing – this Democratic three-term state representative had to declare bankruptcy and is now prohibited from working as a lawyer. So how has this affected Reynolds’ ability to represent his Fort Bend County district, which covers most of Missouri City and Stafford? If anything, he told the editorial board, he now has an excess of free time to focus on his constituents.

“Honestly, I’ve been a full-time legislator,” he said.

State Representative, District 85: Phil Stephenson

Beyond the bathroom debates and firearm fiascos, the next legislative session in Austin will have to tackle dry, numbers-heavy topics like fixing education funding and Houston’s public pensions. State Rep. Phil Stephenson is well-equipped to tackle these important issues, and voters should send him back to Austin for his third term representing District 85, which stretches from Rosenberg and parts of Missouri City in Fort Bend County south through Wharton and Jackson counties.

Stephenson, 71, is a longtime certified public accountant and member of the Wharton County Junior College Board of Trustees. He told the editorial board that he wants to address unfunded liabilities – specifically pensions ­- and the property tax burden on homeowners.

However, he did seem a bit out of touch on other issues, such as when he referred to the “Spanish community” in his district – we presume he meant Hispanic. Stephenson also said that he supported the campus carry bill last session because it maintained prohibitions on guns in classrooms – it doesn’t.

State Representative, District 126: Kevin Roberts

In this race for a Spring-area seat being vacated by five-term state Rep. Patricia Harless, we endorse Kevin Roberts. A Chamber of Commerce Republican, Roberts, 50, is charismatic and loquacious – perhaps to a fault. He’s already well-practiced at a politician’s ability to speak at length without saying much, but he demonstrated a passionate knowledge about the issues facing his largely unincorporated district, which is centered around the intersection of FM 1960 and the Tomball Parkway. Throughout his meeting with the editorial board, Roberts dropped a few key shibboleths that revealed a deep understanding of the challenges facing our state, such as confronting “intergenerational poverty” and extending the expiring 1115 waiver that allows Texas to access Medicaid funds. He also recognized that state recapture of Houston Independent School District tax revenue is, in his words, “crazy.”

An experienced businessman and deacon at Champion Forest Baptist Church, Roberts told the editorial board that he wanted to focus on the state budget, economic development in his district, the systemic problems in Child Protective Services and public education funding.

Neither incumbent Rep. Leighton Schubert in HD13 nor Rep. Reynolds’ Republican opponent visited with the Chron editorial board, which eliminated them from consideration. I don’t recall the Chron endorsing in some of these races before, perhaps because there hadn’t been a contested campaign in them, but it’s a trend I support. They had some nice things to say about challengers Sarah DeMerchant in HD26 and John Davis in HD85 – the latter has an outside shot at winning if the Trump effect in Texas is sufficiently devastating to Republicans – but deferred to the incumbents. Cecil Webster ran in the special election for HD13 that was necessitated by Lois Kolkhorst getting a promotion to the Senate; he finished third in a district that’s probably never going to elect a Democrat. He’s doing something right, however, and I’ll be interested to see if he can move the needle a bit, no doubt with help from The Donald.

Bill to outlaw non-discrimination ordinances filed

From The Observer:

RedEquality

A Fort Bend County Republican has introduced a bill that would bar cities from adopting or enforcing non-discrimination ordinances that include protected classes not contained in state law. Texas law doesn’t include sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.

As a result, state Rep. Rick Miller’s House Bill 1556 would undo LGBT protections passed by numerous cities, including Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston and Plano. Altogether more than 7.5 million Texas are covered by such ordinances.

“HB 1556 will prevent local governments from expanding business regulations beyond limitations established in state law,” Miller told the Observer. “Competing and inconsistent local ordinances interfere with economic liberty and discourage business expansion. By promoting instead of restricting business growth, this bill is about job creation and an improved state economy, both of which have a direct, positive impact on Texas citizens.

“Because every private business is different, nothing in the bill prevents local businesses from voluntarily adopting their own discrimination policy not currently included in state law,” he added.

Rep. Miller’s son, Beau Miller, an openly gay 41-year-old Houston attorney, is an HIV and LGBT activist. Miller said he was “extremely disappointed” to learn about his father’s bill.

“If the bill progresses through the Legislature, I’m sure there will be a robust conversation about the impact not only on minority communities, such as the LGBT community, but also on local rule in Texas,” Beau Miller said. He also posted a response to the bill on Facebook.

Miller’s bill is the counterpoint to Sen. Jose Rodriguez’s statewide non-discrimination bill that was also filed last week. It’s a more limited approach than Sen. Don Huffines’ bill to outlaw cities, which makes it more dangerous. I imagine family gatherings at the Miller house will be a bit more awkward now, and that’s a good thing. Rep. Miller should feel bad about this. It’s an appropriate response for when one does something offensive and wrong and gets called out on it.

As we know, strangling local control has been a running theme this session, with Greg Abbott and the Republican legislature deciding that they are the only valid authority in Texas. Thankfully, there is finally starting to be some organized pushback on this.

Local Control Texas — composed of Central Texas environmentalists, workers’ rights groups and Republicans from rural areas and small cities — might be the one thing stopping a governor-inspired effort at the Capitol to target some local ordinances.

Already, Local Control Texas has had some success, getting out-of-the-way towns like Montgomery — 50 miles north of Houston — to pass or consider resolutions that call some of the proposed legislation an overreach. The effort seeks to broaden opposition beyond major cities like Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, which have passed some of the local ordinances Abbott wants to pull back.

“What looks weird to some looks like home to others who create software and startups and street art,” Austin Mayor Steve Adler told the American-Statesman in January as he sought to defend the local rules following Abbott’s swipe.

“We ask that you refrain from hindering local governments’ abilities to serve the interests of their residents,” the group’s founders have written in an open letter to state leaders and lawmakers that is posted on the group’s website, localcontroltexas.org.

The signees of that letter include Darren Hodges, Fort Stockton’s Mayor Pro Tem who also identifies himself as a tea partier; Lanham Lyne, a former Republican state representative and mayor from Wichita Falls who runs an oil and gas exploration business; the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance; the Workers Defense Project; and the Texas Campaign for the Environment.

“Austin is a bit hypocritical, complaining to Washington, D.C., and then going around and telling local communities what to do,” Hodges, who has championed a plastic-bag ban in Fort Stockton, told the American-Statesman.

Karen Darcy, a member of the North Shore Republican Women, which meets by Lake Conroe, north of Houston, says she’s called her state representative and state senator — both Republicans — to ask them to fight proposals that threaten local control.

“If the majority at a local level have a problem with something, it’s up to that jurisdiction to decide what’s best for its citizens,” she said.

The Local Control Texas website is here if you want to check it out. Their efforts are badly needed, and I definitely appreciate the Republican participation on it, since this message needs to be bipartisan. What also needs to happen is for these same Republicans to be prepared to vote against at least some of the politicians that are doing this to their cities and counties. They can pick their spots as needed, but as with many other things, until someone actually loses an election as a result of being on the wrong side of an issue like this, there won’t be any incentive to be on the right side. Consequences can be quite motivating, if they exist.

In case you didn’t have enough Supreme Court business to worry about

Here’s Texas Redistricting to give you more to worry about, in the form of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona.

Although the case has gotten far less attention than challenges to the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, it could profoundly reshape the power of the federal government to regulate elections by narrowing what traditionally has been a broad interpretation of the scope of the Constitution’s Elections Clause (Article I, sec. 4, clause 1).

That clause provides that:

The TImes, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

In 1993, Congress used the clause to enact the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which set nationwide standards for voter registration.

In 2004, however, the state of Arizona passed legislation to require that new voters in Arizona provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and instructing election to reject all applications, even those approved under the NVRA, that were not accompanied by that proof.

In subsequent litigation, Arizona argued that the NVRA could not be read in a way to limit a state’s right to set voter qualifications under different clauses of the Constitution.

[…]

Indeed, the Supreme Court’s interpretation could well affect litigation in Texas currently at the Fifth Circuit over application of the NVRA to Texas’ voter registration regime.

Back in August 2012, U.S. District Judge Gregg Costa cited conflicts with the NVRA when he entered an order enjoining enforcement of Texas laws that prohibit deputy voter registrars from photocopying completed applications and that require that completed applications be delivered to county elections officials in person. The Fifth Circuit heard an expedited appeal in the case back in December, and a decision is expected any day now.

The act also served as one of the bases used in 2012 to challenge what LULAC contended were unacceptable voter purges being conducted by Harris County.

Meanwhile, in Austin, State Rep. Rick Miller (R-Sugar Land) has filed a bill, HB 3074, that would require proof of citizenship before new registrants are added to the voter rolls.

As set out in a detailed amicus brief at the Fifth Circuit in the Texas NVRA case, Texas has a long and complicated voter registration history. And voter registration remains a highly charged issue in the state. Just look at the back and forth 2008 allegations about the processing and rejection of applications in Harris County or allegations that Waller County improperly rejected applications of African-American students.

This may be a sleeper case, but, given the numerous and continuing voting-related battles in Texas, it’s one to watch.

See here, here, and here for background on the Texas litigation. Oral arguments were heard on Monday. SCOTUSBlog, TPM, and Rick Hasen have previews. In the end, based on the reports from SCOTUSBlog and TPM, it’s not clear how this might shake out. The hearing wound up being less than an hour in total, and as the SCOTUSBlog report noted, it seemed to hang on a pretty narrow legal distinction, which may mean that the decision will be narrowly tailored. It’s even possible, I suppose, that this could strengthen the case against restrictive voter registration procedures like the ones Texas passed in 2011. That’s not going to stop me from sweating it out until the ruling. See the transcript, via Texas Redistricting, for more.

July finance reports for area State House candidates

Here’s a brief look at the July campaign finance reports for candidates in area State House races of interest.

HD23 Raised Spent Cash Loan Wayne Faircloth 8,320 31,139 36,655 30,000 Bill Wallace 0 0 507 20,500 Craig Eiland 0 0 30,160 0 Craig Eiland 57,770 80,685 74,922 0

Faircloth and Wallace are in a runoff to take on Rep. Craig Eiland, whose red-leaning district is a rare pickup opportunity for the GOP. Bear in mind that candidates who had a competitive primary had to make an 8 day report for it, so their reporting period began May 21. Candidates like Eiland that had no primary opponents last reported in January, so they had much more time to raise funds for this report. If you’re wondering why Eiland is listed twice, it’s because he has both a regular candidate/officeholder report and a specific purpose committee report.

HD26 Jacquie Chaumette 16,461 35,730 39,079 0 Rick Miller 19,312 10,281 12,262 1,000 Vy Nguyen 6,150 1,008 7,650 0

HD26 was not drawn to be a competitive district, but it could become one after the DC court issues its long-awaited redistricting opinion. Vy Nguyen has been in this race from the beginning, however many maps ago that was, and I believe will do better than the district’s numbers predict. She’s smart and energetic and has a good future.

HD85 Phil Stephenson 3,925 21,965 3,127 20,000 Dora Olivo 4,312 2,349 3,991 2,150

The new Fort Bend district that spreads southwest into Wharton and Jackson Counties doesn’t seem to have drawn much financial interest so far. Olivo is a former State Rep who was defeated in the 2010 primary by Rep. Ron Reynolds and should have some fundraising capability, but a brief look through some previous report suggests this was not a strong suit of hers.

HD134 Sarah Davis 75,593 75,836 99,603 0 Ann Johnson 161,389 15,985 138,837 0

Once again a marquee race for Harris County. I have to say, Davis’ totals are distinctly unimpressive, and her burn rate is potentially troublesome for her. Lot of money spent on consultants and printing. Mostly, I’m stunned by her relatively meager haul, less than half of what challenger Ann Johnson took in. Maybe I’m just used to the prodigious totals that her predecessors, Ellen Cohen and Martha Wong, used to rack up. Both of them eventually lost, so consider this Exhibit A for “Money Isn’t Everything”, but it’s still strange to see a targeted incumbent get doubled up by a challenger. I can’t wait to see what the 30 Day reports will look like in this one.

HD137 MJ Khan 9,700 649 15,689 10,000 Gene Wu 40,157 39,895 40,310 50,000 Jamaal Smith 23,545 12,546 13,705 0

Like I said before, I don’t quite get what MJ Khan is doing. Maybe he’s just keeping his powder dry, I don’t know. I still don’t think state issues are a driving passion for him. We’ll see.

HD144 David Pineda 38,500 21,593 27,802 0 Mary Ann Perez 47,803 20,283 57,254 0

This may be the most competitive races in the state, with both parties getting their strongest candidate for November. One thing I’ve been meaning to comment on but haven’t gotten around to yet is Mary Ann Perez‘s amazing showing on Election Day in May. She collected 67% of the vote on E-Day, more than half of her final total, to vault past the 50% mark in her three-candidate race and avoid a runoff. Whatever she had going for a ground game, it worked. I suspect a good ground operation will be key in November as well.

That’s all I’ve got. Texas on the Potomac has the local Congressional roundup, Kos has a national view, and I’ll take a look at county reports in a separate post.