Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

SD10

How about Wendy for Lite Guv?

Robert Miller makes a pretty good case.

Sen. Wendy Davis

Sen. Wendy Davis

Governor General Abbott appears unbeatable by Democrat or Republican. Sen. Davis, as a Harvard-trained lawyer, could run for the open office of Texas Attorney General. However, that does not appear to be a particularly exciting, nor necessarily winnable, down ballot matchup.

The marquee matchup would be to run for Lieutenant Governor, who serves as Presiding Officer of the Texas Senate. A fierce contest has commenced for the Republican nomination, with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst being challenged by Sen. Dan Patrick, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples. Polling shows that today Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is headed towards a Republican primary runoff.

Harris County is the largest bloc of Republican voters in the state, and Sen. Patrick is well-known and very popular with these voters. The margins Sen. Patrick will roll up in Harris County arguably could give him a spot in the runoff. The purest of the pure partisans show up for primary runoffs, and those are more likely to be Sen. Patrick radio listeners (in Harris County) and voters.

This would bring us a Davis vs. Patrick contest for Lt. Governor in November 2014, a stark contrast indeed. One of the most liberal senators vs. one of the most conservative; pro-choice vs. pro-life; woman vs. man; and, at this point, woman vs. a possibly all male Republican statewide slate. One mistake by Sen. Patrick and Sen. Davis has a shot.

The irony is she would then preside over a Senate probably comprised of 20 Republicans and 11 Democrats – the Republicans would have an excellent opportunity to pick up Davis’ senate seat. All of the Lt. Governor’s powers are derived from the rules of the Senate, which are adopted by a simple majority vote (16 out of 31). Wouldn’t the Republicans simply strip her of these powers?

My crystal ball gets cloudy that far out. But it wouldn’t matter from Davis’ perspective. If they stripped her of the traditional powers of the office, it would simply magnify her prominence and amplify her voice.

My thinking has evolved. I now believe it makes political sense for Sen. Davis to run statewide for Lt. Governor in 2014. As she hits the newsstands in August, look for #Wendymania to continue trending.

It should be noted that there’s probably as great a chance that the Senate would strip the Lite Guv of its traditional powers if Dan Patrick wins as there is if Davis wins. As we know, Patrick has made his share of enemies among his Republican colleagues. It wouldn’t take too many more to dislike or distrust him to make that a real possibility.

Another thing to consider is that Davis would be much closer to parity with the Republican Lite Guv hopefuls on the fundraising end. She has over $1 million in the bank after her latest haul, all of which came in the last two weeks of June. Patrick has $2.1 million on hand, Jerry Patterson has $1.3 million, Todd Staples claims $3 million, and Dewhurst has $1.7 million, though of course he can write his own check. All of them will have to spend a chunk of their money in a sure-to-be-nasty-and-substance-free primary.

It’s an interesting possibility to consider. This would still leave the question of who runs for Governor unsettled. Robert’s observation about the potentially all-male Republican slate – Debra Medina is one of the candidates for Comptroller, and Stefani Carter is a candidate for Railroad Commissioner, but beyond that it’s a big sausage-fest – is further evidence to me that Cecile Richards ought to jump in. I hope Davis and Richards have at least had a conversation or two about who might want to do what. EoW makes an eloquent case for Davis as gubernatorial candidate that you should read as well, but as things stand right now I’m leaning in Miller’s direction. (William McKinzie also thinks Sen. Davis should run for Governor, though he comes at it from a different angle.)

One last thing: If Sen. Davis does run statewide, whether for Governor or Lt. Governor, the person I want to see run to succeed her in the Senate is the same person that succeeded her on Fort Worth City Council, and that’s Joel Burns. Holding her seat would indeed be very difficult, but Burns would be the kind of candidate that would inspire enthusiasm and generate fundraising. Who’s with me on this?

What the future may hold for Wendy Davis

Patricia Kilday Hart has her take on the Wendy Davis phenomenon, including the reaction of some Republicans to it.

Sen. Wendy Davis

Sen. Wendy Davis

For both proponents and opponents of SB 5, the legislation that would have banned abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy and required costly upgrades to abortion facilities, one point was irrefutable: The filibuster created a new star for Texas Democrats.

“She’s the real deal. Humble beginnings … and she’s wickedly smart. The fact is, she does her best against the greatest odds,” said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio. “Her future is whatever she wants it to be.” Agreed Sen. Rodney Ellis: “The sky is the limit.”

Republican campaign consultant Matt Mackowiak said Republican strategic errors carried a real cost for his party. “We now have a Wendy Davis problem,” he acknowledged. “We created an unbelievable opportunity to launch a first-tier Democrat.”

Still, given Davis’ liberal record and the state’s solid Republican bent, he said those who think a Democratic candidate can defeat Gov. Rick Perry or Attorney General Greg Abbott in 2014 are delusional. “I don’t think that person exists,” he said.

Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, a physician who challenged Davis’ position during Tuesday’s filibuster, agreed that better Republican planning could have prevented Davis’ moment in the limelight. He had advocated passing two other pieces of legislation, and adjourning, leaving the abortion bill for a second special session.

He also does not believe that Davis “will ever be governor of Texas.” In fact, she may have difficulty hanging onto her Texas Senate seat, when she runs in 2014 in a non-presidential year,” he said.

“Obama is not on the ticket,” he noted, and her last race was a tough, expensive ordeal.

Glad to know I’m not the only one who thought the Republicans’ strategy on Tuesday was nuts. But let’s knock down this idea that Davis necessarily has a harder time holding onto her State Senate seat next year because it’s not a Presidential year. You can find all the electoral reports for the State Senate map here – look for the RED206 Statewide files. Here are the best Democratic results in SD10 for each election going back to 2002:

Year Race R Vote D Vote R Pct D Pct ================================================ 2002 Lt Gov 92,324 81,771 53.0 47.0 2004 CCA 6 151,278 111,000 57.7 42.3 2006 Sup Ct 2 79,897 71,640 52.7 47.3 2008 Sup Ct 7 146,726 138,650 50.2 47.4 2010 Gov 90,897 76,920 52.7 44.6 2012 Sup Ct 6 143,816 128,484 50.8 45.4

2008 was less hostile to Dems than other years, but 2012 is basically on par with 2006 and 2002, in terms of margin of victory. 2012 was also a lot more challenging for Davis than 2008 was. John McCain won SD10 in 2008 by 15,000 votes and a 52.1 – 47.1 margin. Mitt Romney won SD10 by 23,000 votes and a 53.3 – 45.4 margin. Despite that, Davis won by 6,500 votes in 2012, which is almost as wide as the 7,000 vote margin she had in 2008, in a friendlier atmosphere. Turnout helped her in 2008, but it’s hard to argue it was much help 2012, as President Obama received 11,000 fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 in SD10. Davis’ vote total, on the other hand, was nearly identical – 147,832 in 2008, 147,103 in 2012. She was one of only three candidates to win in a district that was not carried by her party’s Presidential candidate – Craig Eiland and Pete Gallego were the other two. She got 4,000 more votes than President Obama did in 2008, and a whopping 15,000 more votes than he did in 2012. That’s pretty strong evidence of her ability to attract crossover votes. Dismiss her if you want, but this is exactly the profile of someone who could be competitive statewide. Plus, as a plaintiff in the redistricting litigation, she offered to settle by accepting the 2012 interim map for the Senate. Maybe there’s some hubris in there, but if she thought she was doomed in 2014, I daresay she’d have continued to fight for more changes to the map. We already know she doesn’t back down from a fight, no matter how long and drawn-out it may be.

Now, this doesn’t mean that she couldn’t lose in 2014. SD10 is still a red-leaning district. If 2014 is a sufficiently GOP year, the hill could become too steep for her. Her elevated profile could work against her as well in that it might make her look more like a partisan Democrat to her Republican supporters, thus making her less attractive to them. It’s usually not that hard to convince people to vote for the home team. I suspect her profile is already pretty high in her district and the voters there already know what team she plays for, after two high-profile Presidential year elections, but crossover appeal can be a fickle thing. On the other hand, if she thinks there may be reason to be concerned about her prospects in SD10, that would serve as incentive to roll the dice on a statewide run. Be careful what you wish for, Sen. Deuell.

I suspect the bravado about her never being Governor masks a certain nervousness, too. Republicans must know that what happened on Tuesday is something they can’t control. Forget the political junkies and their yapping about parliamentary procedures, and forget the Internet junkies and their incessant memes. Focus on the fact that Wendy Davis is getting positive attention from lifestyle columnists and Amazon shoe reviewers, all of which will contribute to making Davis a known and likable figure among the lower-information folks. Don’t underestimate the power of the shoes here to help get the word out. If I hear my mother-in-law mention the name Wendy Davis, I’ll know for sure this is working.

On a more basic level, the fact that Rick Perry felt the need to take a cheap shot at her is mighty telling. As Wayne Slater notes, Perry has just elevated Davis to his political level, implying that she is this fearsome adversary he must fight. Not to mention the fact that he sounded like an arrogant, patronizing jerk – exactly the sort of behavior Kyrie O’Connor was talking about in her column. Maybe no one has ever told Rick Perry this, but the vast majority of women really really don’t like that kind of crap. Remember Sandra Fluke? Or Clayton Williams? During the marathon #StandWithWendy filibuster on Tuesday, I saw a tweet from someone who wondered how long it would be before Rush Limbaugh called Sen. Davis a slut. That hasn’t happened yet, but there are a lot of Rush acolytes out there, and I find it impossible to believe that one of them won’t follow Perry’s insult with something really nasty sooner or later. That sort of thing didn’t work out very well for the GOP in 2012. Davis herself was a beneficiary of that in her 2012 race. It’s fine by me if the GOP wants to go there. I just don’t think they’ve thought it through if they do.

Anyway. Sen. Davis has responded to Perry, and I’m quite certain this is not the end of it. Sen. Davis is leaving the door open to running for Governor in 2014. There’s certainly a lot of interest in her walking through that door. She’d need some stars to align for her to take that risk, but right now at least it looks to me like they just might be moving in that direction.

UPDATE: And when someone says something vile about Sen. Davis, Roy will be there to document it.

UPDATE: Fantasy casting the Wendy Davis biopic. Yeah, this is bigger than you think.

Taking back the Texas Senate

Colin Strother says the Democrats should not overlook opportunities to make gains in the upper chamber of the Legislature.

The conventional wisdom is that Democrats need a miracle to pick up any single seat, much less turn the chamber Blue. The numbers show this reaction is based more on assumptions rather than any empirical evidence.

Here are some districts that should be immediate targets:

Low-Hanging Fruit

SD9 Kelly Hancock (R) Non-White VAP*= 47% (272,400) 2012 Total Vote=233,577

SD16 John Carona (R) Non-White VAP= 47% (288,695) 2012 Total Vote=181,746

SD17 Joan Huffman (R) Non-White VAP=47.5% (287,575) 2012 Total Vote=238,707

*voting age population

First of all, I am well aware that a sole reliance on non-White voters would mean we need astronomical turnout (except in SD 16 where a mere 35% turnout of non-white voters bests Carona). Non-White voters are a piece of the puzzle–not the panacea some think it is. I am also aware that Romney rolled in these districts, as he did in 20 of the 31 districts.

It is also important to note that the 3 districts hold meaningful populations in counties that are nearly 100% Blue from top to bottom (Dallas & Harris), so we are not exactly talking about a handful of voters scattered across a 37-county district like District 31. We are talking about large concentrations of non-white voters in large, urban counties where active GOTV programs are already in place.

For the sake of comparison, SD 10′s non-white VAP is 47.3%, the 2012 total vote was 287,759, Romney won it in the mid-50s, it has numerous down ballot Democratic officeholders, and it holds a meaningful population in an urban county where active an active GOTV program is already in place. Basically, it looks identical to 9, 16, & 17 on paper. The only difference? We made SD 10 a priority, got a good candidate, dedicated the resources, and made it happen.

These 3 districts have good bones, a good bench, and access to existing infrastructure. For a party that desperately needs to grow its market share, these look like a good place to start. (I can assure you that when the Republicans swiped SD 3 in 1994 and SD 5 in a 1997 special, their numbers didn’t look this good.) With a dash of candidate recruitment, a splash of smart staffers, and a chunk of cash, Texas Democrats can be knocking on the door of a 16-15 minority status…not in 10 cycles, but in 2-3.

I looked at the Senate district numbers back in February, and while I agree with Colin about which ones are the most targetable, I’m less sanguine about our chances in the near term. As a reminder, you can find the 2008 results by district here, and the 2012 results here. The basics are as follows:

Dist McCain Obama McCain% Obama% ====================================== 09 145,020 103,614 57.8% 41.3% 10 158,677 143,651 52.1% 47.1% 16 161,779 129,105 55.0% 43.9% 17 174,371 124,939 57.8% 41.4% Dist Romney Obama Romney% Obama% ====================================== 09 142,499 94,117 59.3% 39.2% 10 155,936 132,707 53.3% 45.4% 16 159,759 116,603 57.0% 41.6% 17 178,241 117,562 59.4% 39.2%

I think you can only call SDs 9 and 17 “low hanging fruit” in the sense that there is no fruit besides those districts and SD16. Romney not only did better than McCain in all three districts – and in SD10, home of Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis, whom I include for perspective – he also had a wider margin in SDs 9 and 17 than he did statewide. Other than the fact that every other district is worse, one normally wouldn’t look at these and see much in the way of opportunity.

That said, Colin is right that we’re not going to get anywhere if we sit around waiting for easy races, and whether we run a decent statewide slate this year or not, we need to aim at some targets bigger than State Reps. If nothing else, the VAP numbers suggest there’s material here for Battleground Texas to work with. There is a huge benefit for each additional Senator – among other things, without Sen. Davis, we wouldn’t have been able to block all those awful abortion bills this session – and the Senate is a great proving ground for future statewide campaigns. Even as longshots, there’s enough value in a Senate seat to support any good candidate.

It may be instructive to review Sen. Davis’ two wins to see what we can learn from them for future campaigns. A lot of stars came into alignment in 2008. It all began with Wendy Davis, who was an excellent candidate and who has proven to be an outstanding Senator, but equally important is the fact that she was available and ready to take on the race in the first place. She was a term-limited Forth Worth City Council member, so had no incumbency to lose by filing for another office. That’s an important consideration when you remember that the bulk of our up and coming stars are State Reps, who would be giving up their seats to challenge a Senator in a regular election. She went up against an ethically-challenged incumbent, which is always a bonus. The seat was clearly winnable and was seen as such, which surely helped Davis with fundraising and campaign energy. And of course, 2008 was a pretty good year for Democrats – no doubt, Davis was helped by the Obama surge.

As an incumbent herself in 2012, Sen. Davis needed less help, but she still got a gift in the form of her opponent, then-Rep. Mark Shelton, who was one of only a handful of House members to vote against a bill by Davis to provide state grant money to local law enforcement agencies to help clear rape kit backlogs. It was such a bad vote that even Sen. John Cornyn, who was sponsoring similar legislation in Washington, couldn’t defend it. Votes like that are an oppo researcher’s dream, and making it in the same cycle that gave us the likes of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock was icing on the cake. We know Sen. Davis drew crossover support in her successful re-election bid. I don’t have polling data handy, but I’d bet good money a significant chunk of that crossover support came from female voters.

So what lessons can we take from this? Well, first and foremost, the best candidate is no help if he or she is unavailable or unwilling to make the race. We all agree that the future of the Texas Democratic Party is largely in the House, but we can’t expect tomorrow’s stars to risk that status on races where they’d be big underdogs. That means we need to be thinking outside the box for potential Senate candidates, and as a corollary to that it means getting involved in city, county, and school board races, where new talent can be incubated and other offices can at least some of the time be explored because there’s no filing conflict.

Two, it means seek out candidates that can best exploit the weaknesses of the incumbents. In the case of SD09, Sen. Kelly Hancock is a slash-and-burn teabagger, and I’m sure his House record will show plenty of anti-education votes, and surely more than a few anti-women votes. A female candidate with an education background, perhaps a school board member, would be high on my list. Sen. Joan Huffman is coming off a session where she carried a lot of water for the prosecution lobby, and got was responsible for an emotional outburst by the brother of Tim Cole, the man who died in prison after being convicted of a crime for which he was later exonerated. Here, a person of color with a background in criminal justice reform and/or innocence advocacy would be ideal. Do such people exist? Very likely. Is anyone talking to them about their future in politics? Very likely not.

And three, keep focus on the stuff we’re already working on, or at least that we say we’re working on. Register those unregistered folks, and engage them in a manner that will get them to the polls. Remind our Presidential year voters that we need them in other years, too. Figure out why Texas Democrats aren’t doing as well with female voters – specifically, Anglo female voters – as Democrats elsewhere. I’m thinking Wendy Davis and her campaign team might have some insights of value there. As Colin says, this isn’t rocket science. I’ve given Battleground Texas plenty of goals already, but taking back at least one Senate seat this decade needs to be on that list. The targets may not be easy, but they are there. We just have to make sure we take our best shots at them.

Davis says she’s not running for Governor next year

So much for that.

Sen. Wendy Davis

State Sen. Wendy Davis, who has emerged as one of the most visible Democrats in the Capitol this session, says she has no plans to run for governor in 2014, but will seek another term representing Fort Worth next year.

“I’m running for my Senate district in 2014, and hopefully earning the confidence of my community once again,” Davis said on Sunday’s edition of KXAN’s In Session, In-Depth.

Since capping the 2011 legislative session with a filibuster over an education bill, Davis has emerged as a rising star among Texas Democrats who’ve been shut out in statewide election for coming up on two decades. Since narrowly winning re-election in 2012, Davis has been front and center on several issues close to her party’s heart — including better funding for education and increased attention to social services needs.

This month, she was among only two senators to vote against the budget bill because she said it would do too little to reverse the deep cuts in school funding enacted two years ago when much of the state was still mired in the recession.

In her KXAN interview, conducted last week in the back lobby of the Senate chamber, Davis acknowledged that her profile has risen during her third legislative session.

“If I’m in the spotlight for supporting public education, I’m very proud to be there,” she said.

But she added that she does not intend to parlay that higher profile into a bid for higher office — even though there is no obvious Democrat in the wings to take on the entrenched GOP machine.

Davis also said it’s “too soon to tell” whether Democrats can mount a serious statewide challenge, even as several Republicans are jockeying for position in several races — from governor to lieutenant governor to land commissioner.

Click over for video of the interview with Sen. Davis plus several other interviews with legislators. It goes without saying that you can’t mount a serious challenge without a serious challenger. Of the people I’ve speculated about, some have already stated their intention to do something other than run for Governor next year. Those that have not yet taken themselves out of the running, at least as far as I know, include Sen. Rodney Ellis, Cecile Richards, and – I’m going to keep including him in my speculations until he specifically says he’s out – Henry Cisneros. I’m sure there are other people I could be speculating about as well. As for Sen. Davis, I can’t say I’m surprised by this. She will have a tough fight on her hands to win re-election next year, but it’s not as if running for Governor would have been a cakewalk. The status of her district is no longer in contention – both she and the state have taken the position that the interim map from 2012 is what they want going forward – so at least she knows what she’s getting into. She has my full support, and I continue to hope there will be someone at the top of the ticket to abet her efforts. Texpatriate has more.

Precinct analysis: Comparing 2012 and 2008, Senate and SBOE edition

To follow up on my previous examination of how the 2012 election returns looked in State House districts compared to the 2008 returns, I now have the data to look at other types of districts as well. You can find it as well on the Texas Legislative Council’s webpage – here are the reports for the State Senate and the SBOE. Those are the Excel report directories, but if you want something else – CSV or PDF – just click the Parent Directory link and find the report you want. Let’s first look at the Senate:

Dist McCain Pct Obama08 Pct Romney Pct Obama12 Pct RIdx DIdx ============================================================================== 01 214,365 69.50% 91,835 29.77% 220,140 72.14% 81,936 26.85% 1.04 0.90 02 159,810 60.79% 100,445 38.21% 161,348 63.22% 90,500 35.46% 1.04 0.93 03 213,045 71.13% 83,554 27.90% 225,526 75.47% 69,915 23.40% 1.06 0.84 04 195,512 67.01% 93,968 32.21% 216,087 70.03% 88,832 28.79% 1.05 0.89 05 170,905 59.67% 111,063 38.78% 181,385 63.06% 99,176 34.48% 1.06 0.89 06 48,222 35.81% 85,445 63.45% 43,931 32.46% 89,849 66.39% 0.91 1.05 07 184,620 66.24% 92,106 33.04% 196,383 66.76% 94,057 31.97% 1.01 0.97 08 180,746 59.48% 119,559 39.34% 186,753 61.67% 110,824 36.60% 1.04 0.93 09 145,020 57.76% 103,614 41.27% 142,499 59.28% 94,117 39.15% 1.03 0.95 10 158,677 52.13% 143,351 47.10% 155,936 53.31% 132,707 45.37% 1.02 0.96 11 173,843 62.64% 101,218 36.47% 184,101 65.06% 94,893 33.53% 1.04 0.92 12 186,268 63.00% 106,834 36.14% 197,333 66.23% 95,905 32.19% 1.05 0.89 13 35,820 16.44% 181,104 83.13% 32,917 15.44% 178,404 83.70% 0.94 1.01 14 114,865 34.49% 212,317 63.76% 116,001 36.14% 193,112 60.16% 1.05 0.94 15 85,552 39.37% 130,042 59.85% 89,030 39.68% 132,125 58.89% 1.01 0.98 16 161,779 54.99% 129,105 43.89% 159,759 56.96% 116,603 41.58% 1.04 0.95 17 174,371 57.76% 124,939 41.38% 178,241 59.36% 117,562 39.15% 1.03 0.95 18 181,472 64.51% 97,598 34.69% 198,175 67.34% 92,809 31.54% 1.04 0.91 19 92,299 43.57% 117,658 55.54% 94,159 44.11% 116,477 54.56% 1.01 0.98 20 81,772 43.32% 105,412 55.84% 78,474 41.65% 107,629 57.12% 0.96 1.02 21 81,054 40.85% 115,445 58.18% 79,167 39.83% 116,117 58.42% 0.98 1.00 22 184,967 65.29% 96,063 33.91% 186,950 67.97% 84,413 30.69% 1.04 0.91 23 46,236 19.46% 189,896 79.91% 42,408 18.09% 190,103 81.10% 0.93 1.01 24 190,823 66.60% 92,555 32.30% 195,593 70.71% 76,766 27.75% 1.06 0.86 25 218,093 61.41% 132,809 37.39% 233,884 64.15% 123,739 33.94% 1.04 0.91 26 84,889 38.24% 134,470 60.58% 74,472 36.30% 127,237 62.01% 0.95 1.02 27 47,197 32.24% 97,746 66.77% 45,768 30.58% 102,319 68.37% 0.95 1.02 28 189,851 71.07% 75,007 28.08% 182,982 73.59% 62,163 25.00% 1.04 0.89 29 63,736 33.50% 124,663 65.52% 59,137 33.33% 115,612 65.16% 0.99 0.99 30 216,383 71.14% 84,565 27.80% 223,487 75.74% 66,674 22.60% 1.06 0.81 31 196,846 77.75% 54,132 21.38% 186,762 79.51% 45,034 19.17% 1.02 0.90

As you can see, Sen. Wendy Davis not only won a district that was carried by Mitt Romney, she won a district that was more Republican in 2012 than it was in 2008. As far as I know, her district is no longer being contested in the redistricting lawsuit, so barring anything strange what we see is what we’ll get going forward. It’s not clear to me that she would have more to fear in 2014 than she did last year or would in 2016, but I presume someone is calculating her odds of re-election versus the odds of being elected statewide, and advising her accordingly. I’m glad that’s not my job. Three other Democratic Senators saw a drop in Democratic performance in their districts – Sens. Kirk Watson, John Whitmire, and Carlos Uresti. Watson’s SD14 was affected by the overall decline in Travis County turnout, which I suspect is a blip and not a trend; Whitmire saw modest increases in both D and R turnout; and Uresti had a small bump in R turnout and a tiny decline in D turnout. I don’t think any of it matters, but Uresti has the smallest margin of error after Davis. Pre-redistricting, SD09 was almost as purple a district as SD10 was in 2008, but that ain’t the case now. Democrats really don’t have any obvious targets to expand their delegation, though SDs 16, 17, and maybe 09 will trend their way somewhat over the decade. But don’t expect much turnover in the Senate that isn’t caused by primaries or voluntary departures.

Here’s the SBOE:

Dist McCain Pct Obama08 Pct Romney Pct Obama12 Pct RIdx DIdx ============================================================================== 01 168,833 42.84% 221,865 56.30% 161,807 42.58% 213,132 56.08% 0.99 1.00 02 191,754 47.11% 211,625 52.00% 187,147 46.69% 209,020 52.15% 0.99 1.00 03 157,233 38.29% 249,268 60.70% 149,659 37.20% 247,020 61.40% 0.97 1.01 04 89,884 22.61% 305,638 76.89% 84,036 21.07% 311,236 78.04% 0.93 1.01 05 358,691 52.16% 319,808 46.50% 375,942 54.67% 294,887 42.89% 1.05 0.92 06 320,914 58.39% 224,088 40.77% 332,415 59.70% 215,839 38.76% 1.02 0.95 07 358,380 61.22% 221,939 37.91% 390,808 63.64% 215,952 35.16% 1.04 0.93 08 370,712 67.66% 172,373 31.46% 398,664 70.32% 160,372 28.29% 1.04 0.90 09 436,392 69.69% 184,583 29.48% 449,301 73.29% 156,833 25.58% 1.05 0.87 10 313,379 53.54% 263,033 44.94% 331,022 56.97% 235,591 40.55% 1.06 0.90 11 391,597 61.92% 234,922 37.14% 396,329 64.27% 210,974 34.21% 1.04 0.92 12 365,314 57.49% 262,939 41.38% 373,920 59.71% 242,306 38.69% 1.04 0.94 13 123,380 27.66% 319,557 71.63% 110,615 25.75% 314,630 73.26% 0.93 1.02 14 401,810 66.98% 192,696 32.12% 413,181 70.62% 163,020 27.86% 1.05 0.87 15 430,765 74.27% 144,184 24.86% 413,942 76.91% 116,797 21.70% 1.04 0.87

No surprises here. Democratic districts were slightly more Democratic, Republican districts were more Republican. Sure is a good thing Martha Dominguez didn’t withdraw, because District 1 was way too easy a pickup to throw away. Keep an eye on freshman Democrat Ruben Cortez in District 2, who will be on the ballot in 2014, as that could go Republican in a bad year. The Dems’ best shot at pickups are in districts 5 and 10. Both will next be on the ballot in 2016.

I have one more post in this series to come, a look at the Congressional districts. Hope you find this useful.

Plaintiffs want to proceed with new redistricting maps

Texas Redistricting:

Plaintiff groups in the Texas redistricting litigation in San Antonio told the court that it should go ahead and start the process of drawing remedial state house and congressional maps for use in 2014, but disagreed slightly about the timing of the process.

Under proposals from two plaintiff groups, the state would have until March 1, 2013 to submit new proposed remedial maps, with plaintiff groups then being given until April 1 to submit any alternative maps or object to the state’s maps. The court then would hold a map hearing in late April and rule on new maps by July 1.

The groups told the court that this schedule would allow counties time to redraw precinct lines in time for the start of precinct chair candidate filings on September 10 and minimize impact on the Texas election schedule. At the same time, they told the court the schedule would give the Supreme Court time to rule on both the constitutionality of section 5 in Shelby County v. Holder and on Texas’ appeal of the D.C. court’s redistricting ruling (both rulings expected by late June) before issuing final maps.

The Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force filed a separate advisory proposing a more drawn out schedule which would allow the Texas Legislature an opportunity to consider and adopt new redistricting plans.

Under the Task Force’s schedule, the state would file proposed maps by March 8 but objections to plans would not be due and the plaintiffs’ remedial plans would not be due until June 1 (after the end of the Legislature’s regular session) and a hearing on proposed remedial plans would not take place until June 21. The advisory proposes August 15 as a target date for a ruling on new maps.

All of the groups told the court it should not wait for a ruling on in Shelby County v. Holder on the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Here are the briefs in question:

Joint advisory of MALC, NAACP, LULAC, Quesada plaintiffs, Perez plaintiffs, Congressman Cuellar, Congresspersons Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Al Green

Travis County plaintiffs

Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force

LULAC and Wendy Davis (state senate case)

Not surprisingly, the State of Texas has proposed deferring any action until July to allow the Supreme Court to rule both on Shelby County and on the state’s appeal of the D.C. court’s redistricting ruling. You can see their brief here. I of course think that the court should get on with it, and I’m glad to see that I called this one correctly after whiffing on the voter ID briefs.

On a side note, the LULAC/Wendy Davis brief urges the court the keep the interim State Senate map as the remedial map. In an email sent out by the Lone Star Project, they suggest this would be in the best interest of the entire Senate:

In the brief, Davis, LULAC and other plaintiffs make an important legal point that Texas leaders should consider before taking action to alter SD10 or any other Senate district boundary – any change made by the Legislature or the courts to the Senate map will result in ALL 31 incumbent Senators standing for re-election in 2014. The key paragraph reads:

“There is also legal authority suggesting that if the State of Texas attempts to dismantle SD10 in 2013 and impose new districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth region or otherwise attempts to replace the interim plan with a new plan, then all 31 Texas senators must stand for re-election in 2014. See Armbrister v. Morales, 943 S.W. 2d 202 (1997).”

If the current map used in the 2012 elections remains unchanged as the Davis Plaintiffs argue, only 15 or 16 Senators would stand for re-election in 2014, and those would be determined randomly by a drawing. The others would have four year terms and an extra cycle to consolidate their support and head-off strong potential challengers. Any change, however, even if it is only to Senate District 10 and adjacent Senate districts, means all Senators would be forced to gear up for potential challenges.

They note that a brand new map might make SD10 more Democratic, and they note several “safe” incumbents who were defeated in primaries this year as a reason why Senators would prefer not to create more elections for themselves than necessary. I’m not sure I buy the legal argument, because in 2006 when SCOTUS declared the Tom DeLay-drawn CD23 map to be illegal, only the Congressional districts that were redrawn as a result of fixing CD23 had special elections that November. None of the others were affected. I don’t know why that logic wouldn’t apply here, but I’m not a lawyer, so make of that what you will. If we’re going to get into gamesmanship, I can think of two reasons why the GOP would prefer to ensure that Davis would have to run again in SD10, even at the risk of the courts drawing her a safer district. One, off year elections tend to have more Republican electorates, which would make it easier for them to knock off Davis even in a friendlier district; and two, if Davis really is a legitimate threat as a statewide candidate, ensuring her seat is up for election in 2014 forces her to make a choice. That may still happen when the Senate does their drawing to see who’s up in 2014 and who gets to wait till 2016, but if Davis gets lucky there she could run for something else in 2014 without abandoning her seat. We’ll see what the court makes of all this. Postcards has more.

2012 election results

As I type this there are still a number of unsettled races in Texas, so things may change between now and tomorrow morning after we’ve all had an insufficient night’s sleep. But here’s how they stand at this time, and I will use my what I’ll be looking for post as a jumping off point.

Sen. Wendy Davis

First and foremost, State Sen. Wendy Davis was re-elected in SD10. I can’t begin to tell you how big that is. She was by far the Republicans’ biggest target this year, and she was again running in a district draw to favor a Republican candidate, this time without a Libertarian in the race to potentially draw votes away from her opponent. Yet she prevailed, riding an Election Day majority to a come-from-behind win, and thrusting herself squarely into the conversation for a statewide run at some point. Now the Democrats are assured of at least 11 Senate seats no matter how long it takes Rick Perry to call the special election to succeed the late Sen. Mario Gallegos, who also won, albeit much more easily. Again, this is huge.

As of this writing, Nick Lampson is trailing in CD14 by about 19,000 votes, with most of Galveston County still to report. I don’t know if he can win based on that. He fell short of the 60% he needed in Jefferson County that he supposedly needed, pulling 58.3% there. However, the Texas Tribune has called CD23 for Pete Gallego, who is leading by 6000 votes with only a handful of what are likely to be mostly friendly precincts still outstanding. Congrats to Rep.-Elect Pete Gallego!

It looks like Dems will exactly hit the target of +7 seats in the House for a total of 55. In addition to the three they won by default, they are leading in or have won HDs 34 (Abel Herrero), 78 (Joe Moody), 117 (Phillip Cortez), and 144 (Mary Ann Perez), while Rep. Craig Eiland has 53% with most of Galveston still out. Basically, Dems won four of the five districts in which they were the majority votegetters in most races in 2008, the exception being HD43, where turncoat Rep. JM Lozano appears to have held on. Sadly, Ann Johnson lost, but Gene Wu and Hubert Vo won easily.

Dems have picked up a seat on the SBOE as well, as Martha Dominguez has ousted Charlie Garza in SBOE1, while Marisa Perez won easily in SBOE3 and Ruben Cortez has held Mary Helen Berlanga’s seat in SBOE2. Considering what a massive clusterfsck this looked like after the Democratic primary, it’s a damn miracle.

With all but nine precincts reporting in Harris County, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. First, here’s the Presidential vote for Harris County as of this time:

Romney – 579,068
Obama – 579,070

Yes, Obama is leading Romney in Harris County by TWO VOTES. Good thing no one will call for a recount of that. The good news is that downballot Vince Ryan, Adrian Garcia, and Diane Trautman are all winning, while Mike Anderson has bested Lloyd Oliver. Sadly, Ann Harris Bennett appears to have fallen short by about 2400 votes. Fourteen of 20 Democratic judges won, while all five sitting Republican judges won, making the score 14-11 Dems overall.

Fort Bend County remained Republican. Obama will lose by a larger margin this time than in 2008 – he’s below 41% as I write this, but there are still 2000 precincts statewide to report. Given that, Keith Hampton never had a chance against Sharon Keller, but what is really disappointing is that he didn’t finish any closer to her than Obama did to Romney. However much newspaper endorsements meant in 2006, they meant squat to Keith Hampton. All of the Harris County-based appeals court candidates lost by about 10 points each. Incumbent Dem Diane Hanson lost on the Third Court, thanks in part to a peculiarly miniscule turnout in Travis County, but Dems knocked off three incumbent judges on the Fourth Court of Appeals.

Finally, all of the bond measures passed easily, as did the two Houston charter amendments and the Metro referendum. Dave Martin was elected to replace Mike Sullivan in Council District E with no runoff needed. Julian Castro’s pre-k referendum won. Marriage equality was victorious in Maine and Maryland, with Washington still out, and an anti-marriage equality referendum was narrowly losing in Minnesota. And Colorado legalized pot. Smoke ’em if you got ’em.

That’s all I’ve got for now. I’ll have more later, including a bonanza of precinct analyses once I get the data. Thank you and good night.

UPDATE: Rep. Eiland did win, as did the other Democratic legislative candidates I mentioned, so it’s +7 in the House. Nick Lampson did lose, so it’s +1 for the Dems in Congress.

What I’ll be looking for tonight

Just a reminder that I’ll be on KPFT tonight starting at 7 PM to talk about the elections. Here’s a preview of the things I’ll be looking for:

1. SD10 – Sen. Wendy Davis vs Mark Shelton: Easily the most important race on the ballot in Texas. Davis has been a progressive champion and a pain in Dan Patrick’s rear end, and will make for a strong statewide candidate when she’s ready. She also ensures that the Dems maintain enough votes in the Senate to invoke the two-thirds rule until whenever Rick Perry calls the special election to succeed the late Sen. Mario Gallegos. I am heartened that Robert Miller thinks Davis is leading, though he subsequently amended that, but I won’t rest easy until I see that lead on the Secretary of State’s election results webpage.

2. Legislative races – While Dems start out with only 48 seats in the Lege, they will automatically pick up three today – HDs 35, 40, and 101 – because there are no Republicans running in them. Beyond that, the over/under line for Dems is 55 seats total. Three in particular to watch: HD23, in which Rep. Craig Eiland is one of the only, if not the only, threatened Democratic incumbents; HD134, in which Ann Johnson’s challenge to freshman Rep. Sarah Davis will be a good test of how well a message attacking the Rs for cutting $5.4 billion from public education will work; and HD136, the open seat in Williamson County, which will be a test of whether 2008 was a fluke or a trend for Democrats in places like that.

3. Adrian Garcia and Mike Anderson – Everyone expects both candidates to win, as both have become poster children for not voting a straight ticket this year. As such, they will both likely represent the high-water mark for each party this year, as Garcia and Ed Emmett were in 2008. I’ll be paying particular attention to how they did in various legislative and other districts once the precinct data is out, because that may provide an early roadmap for future electoral targets.

4. Fort Bend County – Fort Bend came very close to going Democratic in 2008. President Obama received 48.49% of the vote there, and no Republican won the county by as much as 10,000 votes out of 200,000 cast. Is this the year Democrats break through? Also worth keeping an eye on is freshman County Commissioner Richard Morrison in his race against double voter Bruce Fleming.

5. CCA – Hampton vs Keller – I think we’re all familiar with this one by now. Whether Hampton has a chance to win depends largely, though not entirely, on how well Obama does in Texas. The presence of a Libertarian candidate in this race means that Hampton can win with less than 50% of the vote. Most of the statewide judicial races in 2008 had Libertarians in them, and they got about 3% of the vote on average. I suspect the ceiling for that may be higher in this case, as some Republicans may prefer to not vote for Keller but not vote for a Dem, either. I will not be surprised if 48% is enough to win. If Obama can improve on 2008, even a little, it makes it that much easier for Hampton to get over the hump. If not, we may be stuck with Keller for another six years or until she finally has the grace to resign.

6. 1st and 14th Courts of Appeals – Jim Sharp broke through for Democrats in 2008, and there’s a nearly full slate of them running for seats on these courts, whose jurisdictions cover multiple counties, this year. As was the case in 2008, a sufficiently strong showing in Harris County may be enough to make it across the finish line, though if Fort Bend is blue as well, that would be a big help. This is where future Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals candidates can emerge.

7. Bonds, Metro, and SA Pre-K – I expect the Houston bonds to pass. Keep an eye on the charter amendments, since if they pass as well there can be no further charter amendments on the ballot till May of 2015. I think the Metro referendum will pass, but I would not bet my own money on it. The San Antonio Pre-K initiative is expected to be close. Given the recent love affair in the national media and from the national party for Mayor Julian Castro, a loss here will undoubtedly be portrayed as a setback for him.

I think that’s plenty to think about. What races are you watching?

Endorsement watch: Various miscellaneous

Just a brief roundup of various endorsements that have come to my attention lately. No particular theme to them, just what I’ve seen in the past few days.

– The Environmental Defense Fund has endorsed the HISD bond referendum.

The $1.89 billion proposition will be use to build, replace and renovate schools in adherence to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards, created by the USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council) to establish a common standard of measurement for green buildings. These facilities will be energy efficient and environmentally responsible, resulting in lower operating costs for the district. The bond proposition has also been endorsed by the USGBC Texas Chapter.

“EDF applauds the Houston Independent School District’s proposal to build all new schools under the HISD Bond Proposal 2012 according to the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED standards for schools,” said Kate Zerrenner, energy efficiency specialist at the EDF Austin office. “In addition to creating a healthier environment for children, LEED-certified buildings increase overall energy efficiency and cut electricity bills for school districts. We hope other school districts in the Greater Houston region will follow HISD’s leadership.”

I don’t recall the EDF getting involved in an election like this before. I don’t think this is the sort of endorsement that’s likely to change anyone’s mind, but it ought to serve as a reminder to people who would probably be inclined to support this but may not have been paying attention to it.

– Two Democratic candidates announced Republican endorsements: State Sen. Wendy Davis touted the support of former State Sen. and Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff.

“In my fifteen years in the Texas Senate and two years as Lieutenant Governor, I have witnessed many political candidates talk about their support for public education,” Governor Ratliff said. “ Far too many of those same people, once elected, turn out to be too timid in their advocacy for our schools and for adequate public education funding. I believe all partisanship should be left at the schoolhouse door.”

“Although we belong to different political parties, I support Senator Wendy Davis because she has been unwavering in her advocacy for our public schools,” Ratliff said in endorsing Davis for re-election.

Ratliff was a moderate and remains a strong advocate for public education. Given the differences between Sen. Davis and her opponent, this had to be a pretty easy call for Ratliff.

– Along similar lines, Mary Ann Perez received the support of Gilbert Pena, who lost to her opponent David Pineda in the GOP primary for HD144:

“I am a Republican who will not vote for David Pineda. I have spoken to David and asked him about his views on protecting our borders and runaway testing in our schools. David doesn’t have an answer, he has special interests handlers calling the shots from some fancy office in Austin.

Our representative shouldn’t be the lap dog of lobbyists whether they’re a Democrat or Republican!

Mary Ann is a small business owner we can be proud of. She has a track record of bringing local industry and educators together to create jobs right here in Southeast Harris County.”

That’s from a campaign email Perez sent. Unlike Davis, she can win on Democratic votes alone, assuming sufficient turnout of course, but a little crossover support never hurt.

– Finally, some endorsements are exactly what you’d expect them to be:

Seriously, what else did you expect?

Endorsement watch: The Parent PAC November slate

For your approval.

Texas Parent PAC is delighted to endorse the following candidates in the general election.  They are men and women of integrity, open and responsive to parents, actively involved in their communities, and committed to investing in public education to achieve economic prosperity in Texas.

Please vote for these endorsed candidates and encourage your friends and family to vote as well!  Early Voting is October 22 – November 2 and Election Day is Tuesday, November 6.

Read about the endorsement process here.  To find out your district number for State Senator and State Representative, look on your voter registration card or enter your address on the “Who Represents Me?” section at the Capitol web site.

Texas Parent PAC is a bipartisan political action committee.  In the 2012 Texas primary and general elections, the PAC has endorsed 28 Republicans and 25 Democrats.

Texas Senate
S.D. 10: Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth  www.wendydavisforsenate.com
S.D. 25: John Courage, D-San Antonio www.couragefortexassenate.org
S.D. 29: Sen. José Rodríguez, D-El Paso www.senatorjoserodriguez.com

Texas House of Representatives
H.D. 23: Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston  www.craigeiland.net
H.D. 24: Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood  www.drgregbonnen.com
H.D. 29: Ed Thompson, R-Pearland  www.electedthompson.com
H.D. 34: Abel Herrero, D-Robstown  www.abelherrero.com
H.D. 41: Bobby Guerra, D-McAllen  www.voteguerra.com
H.D. 43: Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles, D-Alice  www.voteyvonne.com
H.D. 45: John Adams, D-Dripping Springs  www.votedonna.com
H.D. 54: Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen   www.jdaycock.com
H.D. 59: J. D. Sheffield, R-Gatesville  www.jdfortexas.com
H.D. 74: Poncho  Nevárez, D-Eagle Pass  www.ponchonevarez.com
H.D. 78: Joe Moody, D-El Paso  www.moodyforelpaso.com
H.D. 85: Dora Olivo, D-Richmond  www.doraolivo.com
H.D. 94: Rep. Diane Patrick, R-Arlington  www.dianepatrick.org
H.D. 95: Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth  www.votenicolecollier.com
H.D. 101: Chris Turner, D-Arlington  www.votechristurner.com
H.D. 102: Rich Hancock, D-Richardson   www.hancockfortexas.com
H.D. 105: Dr. Rosemary Robbins, D-Irving   www.voterosemaryrobbins.com
H.D. 107: Robert Miklos, D-Dallas  www.robertmiklos.com
H.D. 115: Bennett Ratliff, R-Coppell  www.bennettratliff.com
H.D. 117: Philip Cortez, D-San Antonio   www.philipcortez.com
H.D. 118: Rep. Joe Farias, D-San Antonio  www.joefarias.com
H.D. 125: Justin Rodriguez, D-San Antonio  www.justin125.com
H.D. 134: Ann Johnson, D-Houston  www.voteannjohnson.com, TV spot
H.D. 136: Matt Stillwell, D-Cedar Park  www.mattstillwell.com
H.D. 137: Gene Wu, D-Houston  www.genefortexas.com
H.D. 144: Mary Ann Perez, D-Pasadena   www.votemaryannperez.com
H.D. 149: Rep. Hubert Vo, D-Houston   www.hubertvo.com

Here was their slate from the primaries, and an accounting of who won among those candidates. You may notice that there are four candidates that were endorsed in the GOP primary that are not on this list – Cecil Bell (HD02), Chris Peddie (HD09), Trent Ashby (HD57), and Jason Villalba (HD114). The first three have no Democratic opponents and are therefore for all intents and purposes already elected. As for Villalba, I asked Carolyn Boyle about that race, and received this response:

From the beginning, Jason was a “primary only endorsement” because Texas Parent PAC had endorsed Carol Kent in the past and she is great. Jason agreed that once the primary was over he would delete any reference to the Parent PAC endorsement for the primary, and the PAC did as well. It was important to defeat Bill Keffer in the primary, and Jason is a supporter of public education. We are staying out of the general election with Jason vs. Carol…let the voters decide, as both will advocate for public education.

So there you have it. As I did with the primary, I’ll check the scoreboard for Parent PAC after the election is over.

30 Day campaign finance reports, selected legislative races

Here’s a sampling of 30 day finance reports from state legislative campaigns. I used the Back to Blue list as a starting point and added a few races of interest to me from there.

Dist Candidate Raised Spent Loan Cash ========================================================== SD10 Davis 843,878 346,466 0 1,537,783 SD10 Shelton 606,586 153,204 0 566,825 SD25 Courage 27,603 14,791 0 14,546 SD25 Campbell 566,920 592,332 90,000 7,407 HD12 Stem 29,228 23,325 0 24,566 HD12 Kacal 58,460 33,438 0 30,196 HD23 Eiland 134,051 80,923 0 101,419 HD23 Faircloth 92,890 46,816 30,000 43,089 HD26 Nguyen 12,051 22,808 0 10,840 HD26 Miller 45,765 27,995 1,000 9,496 HD34 Herrero 69,722 49,667 0 25,655 HD34 Scott 125,430 68,349 0 255,629 HD43 Toureilles 46,170 23,973 0 11,585 HD43 Lozano 260,590 185,421 0 89,770 HD45 Adams 48,020 25,800 36,000 32,241 HD45 Isaac 128,502 44,595 140,250 69,918 HD78 Moody 73,754 48,371 0 21,858 HD78 Margo 306,071 82,170 0 202,898 HD85 Olivo 9,738 3,490 2,150 10,143 HD85 Stephenson 34,696 16,146 0 21,677 HD102 Hancock 27,245 4,924 0 7,380 HD102 Carter 112,821 109,543 0 66,776 HD105 Robbins 24,687 36,999 1,505 30,583 HD105 H-Brown 123,449 68,244 52,615 87,997 HD107 Miklos 74,020 56,401 0 24,707 HD107 Sheets 280,354 96,777 0 146,778 HD114 Kent 121,236 89,824 0 132,748 HD114 Villalba 172,885 147,326 0 42,612 HD117 Cortez 48,015 44,610 1,844 18,620 HD117 Garza 52,559 72,669 0 62,371 HD118 Farias 51,015 34,925 0 25,482 HD118 Casias 23,730 21,714 0 852 HD134 Johnson 217,346 103,699 0 263,301 HD134 Davis 332,120 99,582 0 232,383 HD136 Stillwell 61,060 20,842 2,000 8,632 HD136 Dale 112,273 22,798 35,000 82,853 HD137 Wu 58,221 55,152 50,000 32,263 HD137 Khan 55,351 40,877 10,000 23,894 HD144 Perez 104,939 30,082 0 107,729 HD144 Pineda 77,357 49,460 0 33,428 HD149 Vo 38,665 27,632 45,119 48,768 HD149 Williams 134,990 56,342 1,500 74,222

Here’s a sampling of July reports for comparison. A few thoughts:

– I don’t think I’ve ever seen a greater disparity in amount raised and cash on hand as we see here with Donna Campbell. Campbell, of course, had a runoff to win on July 31, which covers the first month of this filing period, and a cursory perusal of her detailed report shows the vast majority of the action was in July, as you’d expect. I’d still have thought she’d collect more cash after the runoff, since she’s a heavy favorite to win in November. Assuming she does win, we’ll need to check out her January report from 2013.

– Overall, the Republicans have done a very good job of raising money to protect their vulnerable incumbents. The main exception to this is John Garza in HD117, though he still leads his opponent, Phillip Cortez. The difference between Rs and Ds on amount spent is a lot smaller, which may indicate that their strategy is to do a late blitz, or it may mean they’re just sitting on a lot of cash.

– Turncoat Rep. JM Lozano initially filed a report with almost no cash raised and no expenses listed. Apparently, he “forgot” over $250K in contributions. That total includes $100K from Associated Republicans of Texas, almost $68K from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, $25K from Texas Republican Representatives Campaign Fund, $6K from the Texas House Leadership Fund, $15K from Bob Perry, and just for good measure, $2K from Koch Industries. Hey, I’d want to forget about all that, too. Here’s his current corrected report; there may be another to come.

– After a somewhat anemic July report, Rep. Sarah Davis kicked into overdrive for this period. Ann Johnson, who has an ad I’ve seen a few times on the Headline News Network, did a pretty good job keeping pace, and still has a cash on hand advantage. I presume Davis has some ads running as well, since she got a $100K in kind contributions from Texans for Lawsuit Reform for TV advertising, but I have not seen any such ads myself. She also collected $100K total from Associated Republicans of Texas ($65K) and Texas Republican Representatives Campaign Fund ($35K), plus $20K from Bob Perry.

– Mary Ann Perez had the next most impressive haul after Ann Johnson, showing some very strong numbers for that open swing seat. I presume her strategy is the do a late push as well, given the cash she has on hand. And given the money they’ve sloshed around to so many other candidates, I’m surprised David Pineda hasn’t been the beneficiary of a few wads of dough from the usual suspects. We’ll see what his 8 day report looks like.

– If your eyes bugged out at Dianne Williams’ totals in HD149, I assure you that mine did as well. A closer look at her detailed report shows that nearly $115K of her total came from one person, a Mrs. Kathaleen Wall. Another $5K or so was in kind from various Republican PACs. Take all that out and her haul is much less impressive. The money is hers to spend, of course, it’s just not indicative of some broad-based support.

That’s all I’ve got. Anything interesting you’ve seen in the reports?

All the interviews for 2012

As we begin early voting for the November election, here are all the interviews I conducted for candidates who are on the ballot as well as for the referenda. These include interviews that were done for the primary as well as the ones done after the primary. I hope you found them useful.

Senate: Paul SadlerWebMP3

CD02: Jim DoughertyWebMP3

CD07: James CargasWebMP3

CD10 – Tawana CadienWebMP3

CD14: Nick LampsonWebMP3

CD20: Joaquin CastroWebMP3

CD21: Candace DuvalWebMP3

CD23: Pete GallegoWebMP3

CD27: Rose Meza HarrisonWebMP3

CD29: Rep. Gene GreenWebMP3

CD33: Marc VeaseyWebMP3

CD36: Max MartinWebMP3

SBOE6: Traci JensenWebMP3

SD10: Sen. Wendy DavisWebMP3

SD25: John CourageWebMP3

HD23: Rep. Craig EilandWebMP3

HD26: Vy NguyenWebMP3

HD127: Cody PogueWebMP3

HD131: Rep. Alma AllenWebMP3

HD134: Ann JohnsonWebMP3

HD137: Gene WuWebMP3

HD144: Mary Ann PerezWebMP3

HD146: Rep. Borris MilesWebMP3

HD147: Rep. Garnet ColemanWebMP3

HD150: Brad NealWebMP3

Harris County Sheriff: Sheriff Adrian GarciaWebMP3

Harris County District Attorney: Mike AndersonWebMP3

Harris County Attorney: Vince RyanWebMP3

Harris County Tax Assessor: Ann Harris BennettWebMP3

HCDE Position 3, At Large: Diane TrautmanWebMP3

HCDE Position 6, Precinct 1: Erica LeeWebMP3

Harris County Commissioner, Precinct 4: Sean HammerleWebMP3

Constable, Precinct 1: Alan RosenWebMP3

HISD Bond Referendum: Interview with Terry GrierMP3

City of Houston Bond and Charter Referenda: Interview with Mayor Annise ParkerMP3

HCC Bond Referendum: Interview with Richard SchechterMP3

Metro Referendum: Interviews with David Crossley, Gilbert Garcia and Christof Spieler, Sue Lovell, and County Commissioner Steve Radack

Endorsement watch: For Wendy Davis

Very nice.

Sen. Wendy Davis

Two state legislators are running to represent a demographically changing senatorial District 10: the incumbent, Democrat Sen. Wendy Davis, and Republican state Rep. Mark Shelton.

Davis, who defeated an entrenched incumbent four years ago, did not take long to make her mark on the Senate, enhancing the populist image she honed as a forceful but consensus-building member of the Fort Worth City Council.

During her first term in Austin, she emerged as one of the best-known and most respected Democrats in the Legislature and, as a result, the most targeted by the political opposition.

Davis is a successful attorney with a powerful personal narrative, the story of a woman who overcame obstacles to achieve at the highest level. At 19, she was a single mother who began to work her way through school beginning at what is now Tarrant County College, eventually earning a law degree from Harvard with honors.

Because she understands the value of education, she fought hard in the last legislative session against large funding cuts for public schools and universities, filibustering a bill that ultimately resulted in the state losing more than 28,000 education jobs.

Davis has also been a champion of women’s health issues, consumer protection and a bill to replenish funds for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, legislation her opponent — a physician — voted against.

I’d quote the whole thing if I could. It’s as strong an endorsement as you could want, in the most important single race in the state. Go read it, and show your support for Sen. Wendy Davis.

You may also have noticed the Chron’s embarrassing endorsement of Mitt Romney on Sunday. I say “embarrassing” because I have to wonder if the Chron’s editorial writers have been reading their own editorials, never mind following the Presidential campaign. They criticize cuts to Planned Parenthood, but endorse the candidate who would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood. They advocate for expanding Medicaid in order to reduce the number of uninsured people in Texas, yet they endorse the candidate whose promised budget would devastate Medicaid and whose promised repeal of Obamacare would leave millions more uninsured and without access to health care. One wonders if they’re too dumb to understand the issues they claim to support, too easily bamboozled by Romney’s ever-shifting positions, or just too hidebound to overcome their historic preferences. Whatever the case, it’s not one of their prouder moments.

One last thing: The Chron’s page that lists all their endorsements includes a few races for which they have not written an endorsement editorial yet. Those races are CD14, in which they endorse Nick Lampson; HD134, in which they recommend Ann Johnson; and Harris County Tax Assessor, in which they go with Mike Sullivan. I presume we will see the editorials for these this week. Whether they will endorse in other legislative and/or Congressional races, I couldn’t say.

Federal court denies preclearance on all redistricting maps

The long-awaited ruling in the preclearance lawsuit by the DC Court has been handed down, and it’s a clean sweep for those who claimed that the new maps violated the law.

Texas lawmakers didn’t comply with the Voting Rights Act when they drew new maps for congressional, state Senate and state House districts, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday.

“Texas … seeks from this court a declaratory judgement that its redistricting plans will neither have ‘the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or [language minority group]”, the judges wrote. “We conclude that Texas has failed to show that any of the redistricting plans merits preclearance.”

[…]

The court wasn’t ruling on interim maps drawn by federal judges — the maps in use for the current election — but on those drawn by state lawmakers last year. Lawyers are still looking through the opinions for anything that might disrupt the current elections.

Nina Perales, litigation director for MALDEF — the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund — said there might not be time to draw new maps before the November elections even if they’re warranted. One question is whether problems exposed in the plans drawn by legislators “infected” the plans drawn by the federal judges in San Antonio. “I don’t think it’s feasible to change the lines for November,” she said. Perales called the federal court ruling “the final nail in the coffin” for the plans drawn by state lawmakers, especially since the San Antonio judges outlined several other legal problems with those same maps earlier this year.

The outcome of Abbott’s appeal and the analyses being done by the various parties in the redistricting legislation will determine which lines, if any, get redrawn before the 2014 elections.

Some have made up their minds. “The question of whether we’ll go back to the district court and ask for additional relief, the answer is yes,” said Jose Garza, attorney for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. “Will we ask if this will be implemented for the November elections? We’re still analyzing that.”

[…]

“We conclude that Texas has not met its burden to show that the U.S. Congressional and State House Plans will not have a retrogressive effect, and that the U.S. Congressional and State Senate Plans were not enacted with discriminatory purpose,” the judges said in their opinion. “Accordingly, we deny Texas declaratory relief. Texas has failed to carry its burden that Plans C185, S148, and H283 do not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”

You can read the full opinion here, and I encourage you to do so, at least through the conclusion on page 72. There’s a lot of other analysis out there, and I’ll link to it later in this post, but these are the highlights as I see them:

– The opinion was unanimous on all points except for whether the original CD25 (the districts that were in place for elections through 2010 are referred to as “benchmark” districts, while the ones in the state redistricting plans are “enacted”) qualified as a coalition district, i.e., one in which minorities had the ability to elect a candidate of their choice, and on whether the overall Congressional map was retrogressive. The San Antonio court, by contrast, ruled 2-1 in the suit that led to the creation of the interim districts that were later tossed out.

– The court found evidence of discriminatory intent in the Congressional and Senate maps. The latter is significant because they did not find that SD10, the only district at issue in that map, met the criteria for being a coalition district. Further, note that the Justice Department did not specifically contest the Senate map – the other intervenors did – meaning that in this case the state got a harsher result than the would have by going to the Justice Department for preclearance instead of filing the lawsuit with the DC Court as they chose to do.

– The court did not specifically rule on the issue of discriminatory intent in the House map because they ruled it to be retrogressive. However, they did make the following remarkable comment about the House map and how it was drawn:

First, the process for drawing the House Plan showed little attention to, training on, or concern for the VRA. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 61:1-66:23, Jan. 20, 2012 PM. And despite the dramatic population growth in the State’s Hispanic population that was concentrated primarily in three geographic areas, Texas failed to create any new minority ability districts among 150 relatively small House districts.

These concerns are exacerbated by the evidence we received about the process that led to enacted HD 117. As detailed above, the mapdrawers modified HD 117 so that it would elect the Anglo-preferred candidate yet would look like a Hispanic ability district on paper. They accomplished this by switching high-turnout for low-turnout Hispanic voters, hoping to keep the SSVR level just high enough to pass muster under the VRA while changing the district into one that performed for Anglo voters. This testimony is concerning because it shows a deliberate, race-conscious method to manipulate not simply the Democratic vote but, more specifically, the Hispanic vote.

Finally, the incredible testimony of the lead House mapdrawer reinforces evidence suggesting mapdrawers cracked VTDs along racial lines to dilute minority voting power. Texas made Interiano’s testimony the cornerstone of its case on purpose in the House Plan. Trial Tr. 45:22-25, Jan. 17, 2012 AM (“[O]ur [discriminatory purpose] case rests largely on the credibility of one person. His name is Gerardo Interiano.”). Interiano spent close to a thousand hours — the equivalent of six months of full-time work — training on the computer program Texas used for redistricting, id. at 131:3-5, yet testified that he did not know about the program’s help function, id. at 85:18-25, Jan. 25, 2012 PM, or of its capability to display racial data at the census block level, id. at 93:13-19, Jan. 17, 2012 PM. As unequivocally demonstrated at trial, this information was readily apparent to even a casual user, let alone one as experienced as Interiano. See id. at 93:1-15; id. at 88:5-89:17, Jan. 25, 2012 PM. The implausibility of Interiano’s professed ignorance of these functions suggests that Texas had something to hide in the way it used racial data to draw district lines. The data about which Interiano claimed ignorance could have allowed him to split voting precincts along racial (but not political) lines in precisely the manner the United States and the Intervenors allege occurred.

This and other record evidence may support a finding of discriminatory purpose in enacting the State House Plan. Although we need not reach this issue, at minimum, the full record strongly suggests that the retrogressive effect we have found may not have been accidental.

Ouch. That starts on page 70, if you’re curious. The reason why the rulings on discriminatory intent are important is explained by Rick Hasen:

The evidence of discriminatory intent is important not just for the likelihood that the Supreme Court will affirm this decision even if it disagrees on some aspects of the retrogression standard. It also serves as some evidence which could be used to argue, in the Shelby County case or elsewhere, that covered jurisdictions still discriminate on the basis of race in making voting-related decisions. (If this was not done to Anglo Democrats, the evidence is even stronger than if it could be explained on the basis of pure partisanship.) The Court was careful to note that Texas did not challenge the constitutionality of section 5 in this case. And the Court rejected a number of Texas’s arguments that it should read section 5 narrowly to avoid a constitutional question. Whether the Supreme Court will agree with the district court on this point is anyone’s guess. Indeed, this case could be mooted if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 (in the Shelby County case or another) before the Court decides this case on the merits.

No question that the Republicans treated Sen. Wendy Davis shabbily, but they really stuck it to the three African-American members of Congress. Read the excerpt Hasen highlights to see what I mean. Indeed, read the whole opinion, it’s worth your time. The justices really slap around the state’s main expert, Professor John Alford, and they note repeatedly that the state often simply refused to respond to various arguments made by the intervenors and the Justice Department. It’s quite the bravura performance.

So will any of this affect the 2012 election? Michael Li, who has some brief analysis of the opinion, suggests that it could be done.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has taken the position that the opinion will not affect the November election, which he says will proceed on the interim maps put into place back in February.

On the other hand, it is certainly possible to see a move to adjust those interim maps in the San Antonio court. For example, CD-23 arguably could be restored to its full benchmark configuration fairly easily. Similar arguments might also be made with respect to HD 117 and 149, which are wholly contained in their respective counties (to the extent redistricting plaintiffs think that not enough changes were made to those districts in the interim maps).

Other changes would seem harder. But with control of Congress potentially on the line, lots of people are going to be looking at the opinion closely over the next few days.

Changes for this year – at least conceptually – are not out of the question. In 1996, for example, the three-judge panel ordered jungle primaries in a number of congressional districts which were held on the date of the November election, with a runoff a month later.

Some of the intervenors are leaning in that direction, as you saw in the Trib story. AG Abbott will appeal to the Supreme Court, which may or may not have an effect on that. He’s also seeking to gut the Voting Rights Act in the process, as Hasen alluded to above. On a side note, we may also get a ruling in the Voter ID preclearance case, since it would need to be precleared by August 31 to be able to be implemented this year.

So that’s where we stand for now. The Trib story has a bunch of reactions, as does Texas Redistricting. Hair Balls, BOR, Stace, PDiddie, DBN, and Socratic Gadfly have more.

UPDATE: Here’s more from SCOTUS Blog, which reminds me that the opinion also repeatedly hammered on Texas’ long history of losing redistricting lawsuits. Texas Redistricting has a roundup of other links.

Fall interview season begins tomorrow

I know that we just finished the primary runoffs, but we’re also now more than halfway through August, so it’s time to start doing interviews with candidates for the fall. I’ll be up candid, I don’t know exactly how many interviews I plan to do. For the most part, I don’t anticipate re-interviewing candidates that I spoke to for the May election – I’m already too far behind even if I did want to do that. I’m mostly going to concentrate on area races, but as always things can and do change, so don’t hold me to that. In the meantime, here’s a list of the interviews I did earlier with candidates who will be on the ballot in November:

Senate: Paul SadlerWebMP3

CD07: James CargasWebMP3

CD14: Nick LampsonWebMP3

CD20: Joaquin CastroWebMP3

CD23: Pete GallegoWebMP3

CD27: Rose Meza HarrisonWebMP3

CD33: Marc VeaseyWebMP3

SBOE6: Traci JensenWebMP3

SD10: Sen. Wendy DavisWebMP3

HD131: Rep. Alma AllenWebMP3

HD137: Gene WuWebMP3

HD144: Mary Ann PerezWebMP3

HD146: Rep. Borris MilesWebMP3

HD147: Rep. Garnet ColemanWebMP3

Harris County Sheriff: Sheriff Adrian GarciaWebMP3

HCDE Position 3, At Large: Diane TrautmanWebMP3

HCDE Position 6, Precinct 1: Erica LeeWebMP3

Harris County Commissioner, Precinct 4: Sean HammerleWebMP3

Constable, Precinct 1: Alan RosenWebMP3

You may notice if you click on the Web links above that the embedded audio player no longer works. The code comes from Google, and they unfortunately appear to have disabled it. I should have an alternate solution in place going forward, but just clicking on the MP3 file ought to work for you as well. And of course you can always download it for your iPod or whatever.

I am going to try again to reach Beto O’Rourke and Filemon Vela, but you know how that goes. I’ve given up on Rep. Lloyd Doggett; though I did finally make contact with a staffer before the primary, at this point I doubt there’s any interest on his end. There was a contested primary in CD10, but both candidates were late filers. I am trying to reach Tawana Cadien, who won the nomination, but she has no phone number that I can find and she has not as yet responded to an email I sent. If anyone knows how to reach her, please ask her to drop me a note: kuff – at – offthekuff – dot – com.

On hedging one’s bets

Writing in the Trib, Mustafa Tameez tells Republicans that there such a thing as too much of a good thing for them.

Sen. Wendy Davis

If Republicans win in SD-10, there will only be 11 Democrats in the Texas Senate. That means that in order for the majority to pass anything it wants, all they need to do is peel off one member of the opposition (or just wait for a day when one of them is running late, or steps out to use the bathroom) and they can pass anything they like. Think about that for a moment: All that’s standing between Texas and an absolute one-party rule is a traffic jam or a sick day. I don’t care what your politics are — that’s not good.

Suppose you are a large homebuilder with strong ties to the Republican Party establishment. Suppose you embrace many of the same principles as the new Tea Party members of the Legislature. But what happens when say, a sanctuary cities bill gets introduced? Will your opposition even be heard? Or will you simply be denounced as a conservative apostate or worse yet, a RINO, and dismissed from the conversation?

Let’s say you’re a member of a well-moneyed group of business people who firmly believe that dismantling the trial bar in Texas is the only way to secure economic growth. What will you do if the female, minority, or gay members of your group are threatened from separate corners of the political spheres in, for instance, the realm of marriage, voting rights, or reproductive medicine? It wouldn’t take too many dust-ups like these before the vaunted “Three-Legged-Stool” is over turned completely. This is not a hypothetical struggle. This is truly about how big a tent the Republican Party is able to hold up while it is being driven further and further to the right.

Essentially, with the Senate held by a virtual supermajority, the same folks who so ardently supported Ted Cruz would be running the show in Austin this coming January. Like I said: terror or delight.

The Wendy Davis race in SD-10 should be a rallying point for Democrats and for Republicans. It should be a moment to reflect on the larger picture, and not on any one individual issue. After all, this is a fight for their survival and, strangely enough, it depends on a Democrat winning.

If you think Tameez is overstating the case about the two thirds rule being circumvented by circumstance, remember that it’s happened before. I see no reason to believe that David Dewhurst wouldn’t try it again if the opportunity presented itself. Philosophical issues about the two thirds rule aside, a lot of people involved in the process like it as it is. If it’s going to be changed, we should be honest about it and not subvert it with sneak attacks.

The point is this. Dan Patrick has made perfectly clear what his priorities are for this legislative session, and “sanctuary cities” is one of the things on his wish list. Establishment Republican types like Bob Perry and Bill Hammond have been all talk and no action when it has come to pushing back on anti-immigration hysteria in the Republican Party. The SD10 race is a perfect opportunity for these business types to do something about an issue they claim is important to them. If they can’t bring themselves to actually support Sen. Davis – and by the way, a Republican win here would likely make it that much easier to do away with the two thirds rule entirely, this making it that much easier for Dan Patrick to impose his will – then they can at least not actively oppose her. The more Dan Patrick gets what he wants, the less he’s going to feel he owes to anyone who isn’t with him on each and every one of his issues. Like “sanctuary cities”, for starters. What kind of Senate do you want, establishment Republican businesspeople? You have the power to help decide.

July finance reports, other legislative races of interest

Here’s a roundup of campaign finance reports for other legislative races of interest from around the state.

Dist Candidate Raised Spent Cash Loans =============================================================== SD10 W Davis (D,I) 824,871 405,628 1,097,238 0 SD10 Shelton (R) 53,293 35,916 301,146 0 SD25 Wentworth (R,I) 316,888 299,629 256,123 0 SD25 Campbell (R) 65,791 12,398 115,551 107,597 SD25 Courage (D) 7,975 5,604 2,377 1,250 HD11 Hopson (R,I) 233,589 68,130 310,413 0 HD11 Clardy (R) 13,960 54,528 21,558 65,000 HD12 T Anderson (R) 16,782 16,455 326 0 HD12 Kacal (R) 35,300 33,487 29,633 0 HD12 Stem (D) 15,272 840 22,150 0 HD14 Raney (R) 20,545 33,229 26,461 0 HD14 LeUnes (D) 1,268 242 817 0 HD24 Bonnen (R) 66,600 72,988 38,102 425,000 HD24 Sitton (R) 4,969 46,799 216 149,686 HD24 Cates (D) 6,545 6,441 104 0 HD29 E Thompson (R) 3,725 21,059 27,205 97,941 HD29 Blatt (D) 778 259 768 0 HD34 C Scott (R,I) 205,528 56,629 199,528 0 HD34 Herrera (D) HD40 Canales (D) HD40 Hernandez (D) HD41 Martinez (R) 0 700 0 0 HD41 Guerra (D) 46,992 144,088 8,576 3,501 HD43 Lozano (R,I) HD43 Wilson (R) HD43 Toureilles (D) HD45 Isaac (R,I) 139,015 45,192 30,175 140,250 HD45 J Adams (D) 8,011 13,135 0 36,000 HD47 Workman (R,I) 47,943 67,010 44,386 12,000 HD47 Frandsen (D) 15,664 14,863 2,193 0 HD54 Aycock (R,I) 77,308 19,685 118,005 0 HD54 C Brown (D) 6,830 5,200 1,640 0 HD59 Miller (R) 155,691 185,723 76,197 0 HD59 Sheffield (R) 16,000 28,021 4,117 50,000 HD59 Norris (D) 1,271 5,022 4,110 7,861 HD67 J Cole (R) 31,365 52,053 91,314 113,000 HD67 Leach (R) 68,525 37,539 51,619 0 HD68 McKnight (R) 20,972 64,764 154,316 345,000 HD68 Springer (R) 8,390 5,882 16,991 25,000 HD68 Odom (D) 0 0 0 0 HD74 Kincaid (R) 100 1,897 2,486 9,400 HD74 Nevarez (D) HD78 Margo (R,I) 71,246 97,616 41,714 126,000 HD78 Margo (R,I) 57,595 12 55,584 0 HD78 Moody (D) 26,671 10,091 27,310 0 HD88 Landtroop (R,I) 105,759 59,129 116,127 0 HD88 K King (R) 44,429 51,839 35,720 300,000 HD91 Sapp (R) 45,000 20,369 38,790 15,000 HD91 Klick (R) 41,104 21,022 32,881 27,000 HD95 Collier (D) 39,746 23,542 9,895 242 HD95 Gaines (D) 7,885 7,642 242 0 HD102 Carter (R,I) 124,040 79,024 28,196 0 HD102 Hancock (D) 18,638 12,713 3,400 0 HD105 HarperBrown (R,I) 86,918 138,981 11,872 56,060 HD105 Robbins (D) 50,446 8,199 51,014 20,505 HD107 Sheets (R,I) 94,869 59,881 59,892 489 HD107 Miklos (D) 32,019 8,700 21,238 0 HD114 Keffer (R) 41,655 39,046 0 0 HD114 Villalba (R) 112,399 68,601 48,903 0 HD114 Kent (D) 142,409 55,755 127,156 0 HD115 Nguyen (R) 196,502 113,049 111,164 0 HD115 Ratliff (R) 57,680 82,321 58,251 45,000 HD115 Fabishak (D) 3,590 3,738 1,599 0 HD117 Garza (R,I) 59,630 57,958 88,949 0 HD117 Cortez (D) 18,950 41,567 2,111 0 HD117 Torres (D) 47,988 29,194 28,858 0

My comments:

“Races of interest” are loosely defined as “runoffs, open seats, takeover possibilities, and anything else I felt like including”.

As before, remember that candidates who had been in a contested primary last filed a report in May, while those who were uncontested last filed in January. This is why there is sometimes a large discrepancy between the amount raised, such as in the SD10 showdown between Sen. Wendy Davis and Rep. Mark Shelton. However, as a press release and comparison sheet released by the Davis campaign noted, if you total up all of Shelton’s reports since January, Davis still outraised him by a three to one margin. Given that she’s easily the highest value target for Republicans this cycle, that’s mighty impressive.

The sheer amount of loan money surprised me. I know there have always been self-funding candidates. I can’t even say that this is a disproportionate share of them in this collection. I was just taken aback a bit by the size of it all.

If I understand this correctly, the “total amount of outstanding loans” figure is cumulative, meaning that unlike the amount raised it represent money that may have been provided well before this reporting period. That can make some of the other figures look a bit weird, but remember that we’re just out of a competitive primary for many people. For instance, Greg Bonnen’s eight day report from May shows him spending $283K in that short period, which helps explain how you can have $425K in loans but less than $40K on hand.

Dee Margo has both a COH report and a SPAC report, which is why he is listed twice. The latter was apparently created this year, as the July report is its first. Where most Texas Republicans have a “Friends Of” SPAC, Margo’s is called “Amigos of Dee Margo”. Pardon me while I gag.

As of this publication, some reports are listed as “Filed but not viewable”; this is because if one person in a competitive race has not submitted a report, the other candidates’ reports are not published. In addition, for some odd reason Abel Herrera does not appear to be in the reporting database. I’m sure this will be corrected sometime soon.

As much money as there is in these races, I feel like there’s still a lot more to come. The 30 day reports will tell us a lot.

That’s what I’ve got for now. Still working on those county race reports. What do you think about this?

Interview with State Sen. Wendy Davis

Sen. Wendy Davis

I didn’t have the room in my schedule during the TDP convention to contemplate trying to arrange a bunch of interviews, but if there was one person I hadn’t spoken to this cycle that I really wanted to it was State Sen. Wendy Davis. Elected in 2008 in a red-leaning district, Sen. Davis quickly established herself as a force to be reckoned with in the upper chamber. She has been a tireless advocate on behalf of people and issues that don’t get much attention in Austin, working this past session to pass bills to facilitate clearing the backlog of untested rape kits and to rein in payday lenders, and has also been a powerful voice for women’s issues. It’s fair to say she’s the Republicans’ #1 target in the state for this fall – they tried to tilt the field in their favor during redistricting but retreated in the interim map, in which SD10 closely resembles her current district. It will be another tough battle, but Sen. Davis is up to the task. Here’s the interview:

Download the MP3 file

The interview I did with her in 2008 is here, in case you want to compare Candidate Davis to Senator Davis. Both were done in public locations during the convention, this one in the George R. Brown Convention Center atrium, that one in a restaurant somewhere in Austin (I don’t remember which), so each has some background noise, though this one was quieter. I count myself as a big fan of Sen. Davis and I see her re-election as vital. I support her and I hope you will as well.

State agrees to leave SD10 unchanged

This is big.

Negotiators in San Antonio — trying to find common ground on state legislative and congressional districts so a primary date in Texas that can stick may finally be set — agreed to leave unchanged state Senate District 10, now represented by state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth.

This district has been the subject of lawsuits and is seen as a big win for Davis.

Sen. Wendy Davis

This is just for interim map purposes, obviously. The state will still try to get the legislatively drawn map approved via the preclearance lawsuit in DC and the subsequent appeal, whatever the ruling is. But beyond being a victory for Davis, whose re-election prospects just got a fair bit brighter, this is big for two reasons:

1. As SD10 was the only disputed Senate district, this is equivalent to saying that the state and the plaintiffs have agreed on an interim Senate map. Indeed, according to the Trib, we have a Senate map for November, pending approval from the judges which I presume will be a formality at this point. One down, two to go.

2. SD10 is a coalition district. The Justice Department did not object to the legislatively drawn Senate map in their initial response to the preclearance lawsuit. It was other intervenors, namely Sen. Davis herself along with State Rep. Marc Veasey and some other Fort Worth/Tarrant County officials, who were litigating this issue. If the state is willing to allow SD10, which like CD33 in the Abbott map is a coalition district, then I don’t see what the objection is to allowing CD25 to remain as a coalition district for the interim. (Ditto HDs 26, 137, and 149.) If the state is punting on SD10, that sounds to me like they may be ready to punt on the whole coalition district question for now and hope to win it later. Or maybe not. Here’s that Trib story:

That was a bright spot in a day when the lawyers and judges trudged through the lists of differences over political districts for legislative and congressional seats. The judges put the lawyers through their paces, asking them to make their arguments on congressional maps district by district.

With the incumbent in the middle of the gallery, the lawyers argued over Congressional District 25, a district that is either safe for or hostile to U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin. It depends on the map.

In the proposal offered by the state and accepted by some of the plaintiffs — notably, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force — Doggett would find himself in a Republican district that stretches from Hays County, south of Austin, north to Tarrant County. He would probably run in a newly created Congressional District 35, which includes eastern Travis County and runs south to San Antonio. It’s Democratic, but designed to give Latino voters a bigger say in who goes to Congress.

Attorneys for Doggett and for several of the minority plaintiffs argued that his district gives minority voters a choice and as a result is protected by the federal Voting Rights Act. Attorneys for the state, and for the Latino Task Force, argued that it’s not a protected district and that the changes make it easier to draw a new minority seat.

In Congressional District 27, the plaintiffs argue that the state stranded more than 200,000 Latino voters, again in violation of the voting laws. But the state said that the adjacent congressional district is a new minority seat and that there aren’t enough people in that area to draw two such seats.

In Congressional District 33, an inkblot of a district that straddles the Tarrant-Dallas county line, the plaintiffs said the state packed black voters into another district and denied them more say in the new seat. The state said that district was drawn to accommodate growing populations and not to create a new minority district, and said the plaintiffs were trying — there and in Congressional District 23 in south and west Texas — to draw new seats for Democrats and not for minorities.

The arguments were tailored to each district but had a similar underpinning. The state said it drew minority opportunity districts where it had to, either because they already existed or because population growth required it. The plaintiffs said the state ignored opportunities to draw more minority districts.

No clue about the State House map, though I’ve seen claims that the sides are not that far off. We should know by the end of the day today if that is the case. We may also be inching closer to a settled primary date. May 29 is now the favorite, but as with everything else, that could change. Michael Li has Davis’ reaction on Twitter, and a press release from the Lone Star Project about this is beneath the fold. Burka and Stace have more.

UPDATE: More details on the now apparently settled May 29 primary date and the effect on precinct conventions.

(more…)

The numbers in the “deal”

As I start to type this I have no idea if the “deal” that was announced earlier today will be in effect or on the trash heap. I think it’s instructive to look at the numbers in the proposed maps anyway, since they give a good idea of how much the state was willing to concede. Let’s start with Congress. From a strictly Democratic perspective, here’s how I see it:

Dist Incumbent McCain Obama Wainwright Houston =================================================== 09 A. Green 23.42 76.12 22.06 76.33 15 Hinojosa 41.84 57.30 37.30 60.00 16 Reyes 34.59 64.39 30.15 66.55 18 Jackson Lee 22.89 76.57 21.61 76.71 20 Gonzalez+ 40.64 58.23 37.70 58.60 23 Canseco* 49.27 49.88 44.99 51.68 28 Cuellar 40.97 58.28 35.27 61.28 29 G. Green 37.04 62.22 30.34 67.66 30 Johnson 21.07 78.33 19.74 78.58 33 Open 30.64 68.57 27.18 70.54 34 Open 39.06 60.00 32.84 63.62 35 Open 35.47 63.18 32.55 63.10 06 Barton* 57.03 42.19 53.58 43.75 10 McCaul* 56.17 42.59 53.10 43.23 14 Paul*+ 57.03 42.12 49.70 47.52 25 Doggett 56.05 42.73 52.14 43.54 27 Farenthold* 58.95 40.12 50.85 45.75 31 Carter* 55.80 42.54 53.26 42.40 32 Sessions* 55.05 43.83 53.36 43.82

* = Republican incumbent
+ = Not running for re-election

For comparison sake, here’s my analysis of the original interim map and of the Lege-drawn map. What was originally 26-10 in favor of the GOP, then briefly became 23-13, is now either likely somewhere between 25-11 and 23-13, depending on if Rep. Quico Canseco can hold on and if Nick Lampson can win CD14. Note that this is more or less the screw-Doggett map with new Dem districts in the D/FW area and in South Texas, which if it stands might put the kibosh on Joaquin Castro’s assignment for the DCCC and would leave Roger Williams in the cold while bringing Michael Williams back into the game. Smokey Joe Barton gets a little help, Blake Farenthold no longer has to worry about a Harris County challenger, and the heir apparent to Charlie Gonzalez is up in the air.

And here’s the State House:

Dist Incumbent McCain Obama Wainwright Houston =================================================== 22 Deshotel 34.77 64.73 30.66 67.92 23 Eiland 51.35 47.77 42.99 54.22 27 Reynolds 29.88 69.63 28.96 69.55 30 Morrison*+ 50.26 48.99 42.24 54.74 31 Guillen 22.12 77.42 15.75 81.00 34 Scott* 46.93 52.17 38.90 57.76 35 Aliseda*+ 35.74 63.30 31.87 64.99 36 Munoz 26.39 72.85 23.01 75.08 37 Oliveira 31.33 67.52 25.82 69.67 38 Lucio 34.01 64.67 28.74 67.02 39 M.Martinez 26.86 72.35 23.17 74.63 40 Pena*+ 24.43 74.81 20.13 77.42 41 Gonzales 42.16 57.05 37.83 59.68 42 Raymond 28.91 70.56 20.00 76.31 43 Lozano 48.82 50.51 40.00 56.79 46 Dukes 21.51 77.04 20.50 74.99 48 Howard 37.53 60.77 37.52 56.86 49 Naishtat 24.26 73.67 24.04 69.21 50 Strama 38.01 60.27 36.95 57.51 51 E.Rodriguez 17.84 80.40 16.47 77.69 54 Aycock* 51.20 47.93 47.97 49.01 74 Gallego+ 41.15 57.91 34.93 61.32 75 Q'tanilla+ 25.14 74.13 21.64 75.42 76 N.Gonzalez 23.86 75.15 19.18 78.00 77 Marquez 34.56 64.25 30.18 66.08 78 Margo* 43.64 55.31 39.57 56.84 79 Pickett 34.62 64.52 29.83 67.13 80 T.King 48.65 50.76 41.30 55.87 90 Burnam 29.89 69.40 25.82 72.00 95 Veasey+ 23.57 75.90 22.30 76.09 100 E.Johnson 22.13 77.18 20.29 77.50 101 Open 37.82 61.59 35.63 62.19 103 Anchia 31.44 67.47 28.78 68.04 104 Alonzo 30.25 68.76 25.88 71.39 109 Giddings 19.84 79.62 18.78 79.79 110 M-Caraway+ 12.02 87.55 10.55 88.19 111 Y.Davis 24.18 75.24 22.81 75.60 116 M-Fischer 38.80 59.89 36.27 59.67 117 Garza* 47.71 51.33 44.69 51.76 118 Farias 42.57 56.36 37.44 58.81 119 Gutierrez 40.30 58.59 35.77 60.38 120 McClendon 36.12 62.95 34.14 62.49 123 Villarreal 39.13 59.58 36.30 59.35 124 Menendez 39.17 59.79 36.40 60.05 125 Castro+ 40.69 58.14 37.58 58.56 131 Allen 17.92 81.66 16.59 81.92 136 Vo 34.89 64.47 32.15 65.73 137 Open 43.64 55.47 42.22 55.26 139 Turner 23.99 75.55 22.65 75.85 140 Walle 33.16 66.24 27.42 71.02 141 Thompson 14.35 85.29 13.25 85.61 142 Dutton 21.32 78.28 19.31 79.43 143 Luna 35.22 64.14 27.89 70.22 144 Legler* 51.04 47.95 43.02 54.53 145 Alvarado 41.99 57.13 35.76 61.73 146 Miles 21.32 78.15 20.74 77.63 147 Coleman 18.94 80.34 18.16 79.68 148 Farrar 41.43 57.49 37.68 59.18 12 Open 59.77 39.38 50.77 46.67 17 K'schmidt 58.23 40.31 49.95 45.43 52 L.Gonzales* 51.93 46.18 50.33 45.01 85 Open 58.68 40.68 52.81 45.22 102 Carter* 52.18 46.64 50.17 46.75 105 H-Brown* 52.69 46.14 48.72 48.18 107 Sheets* 52.25 46.71 48.72 48.46 113 Driver*+ 53.00 46.05 49.53 47.87 114 Hartnett*+ 52.36 46.57 51.71 45.66 134 S.Davis* 54.39 44.59 56.95 40.36 149 Open 51.81 45.92 51.20 42.93

* = Republican incumbent
+ = Not running for re-election, at least as of last report

Here’s my analysis of the interim map, in which I didn’t specify a likely number of Dem seats but estimated it to be about 60, assuming nothing horrible happened, and here’s my series of posts analyzing the Lege-drawn map: non-urban 1; non-urban 2; Travis, Bexar, El Paso; Metroplex; and Harris County. In this map, Harris County remains with 24 seats, with Hubert Vo’s district being drawn as HD136, so the so-far four-way primary in HD137 remains on. Sarah Davis and Ken Legler get some help, though the latter remains an underdog as I see it. Jimmie Don Aycock in HD54 also gets some help, while Geanie Morrison and Aaron Pena likely stay retired. As Greg noted, the more compact HD26 is gone, replaced by the snowflake-like red-hued earlier version. By my count, this map probably delivers 55 to 60 Dem seats, about what the original interim map was likely to provide; the Lege-drawn map was probably good for 55 at most. Again, while this does represent an improvement, it’s still a long way back to parity for Dems, meaning that even in conceding all this ground, the Republicans would still come out well-placed, at least to begin with.

As for the State Senate map, there’s not much to say. SD10 remains a lean-R district, SD09 is slightly redder, and three other districts were tweaked as well. The main news here is the request by State Sen. Craig Estes, whose SD30 was one of those tweaked districts, to intervene. Sen. Wendy Davis, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, did not sign on to the deal.

So looking at it strictly politically, Dems would do a little better than they were slated to do under the original legislatively-drawn maps, though not quite as well as they would have under the original court-drawn ones. These maps do fix some of the egregious problems and increase Latino opportunities a little, but potentially at the cost of Lloyd Doggett, and without addressing the question of coalition districts. That’s a big deal, and it’s likely the reason why the rest of the plaintiffs refused to sign off on Abbott’s proposal, and why the ultimate resolution of the litigation has the potential to produce maps more like the original interim ones, at least if the plaintiffs prevail. Michael Li, the man behind the great Texas Redistricting blog, wrote a sharp op-ed last week that laid the reasoning out. He focused on the claims for Davis’ SD10, for which the trial on her claims begins tomorrow, as the crux of the issue:

As urban Texas becomes more diverse — and compartmentalized neighborhoods that are the exclusive preserve of one ethnic group disappear — more and more districts like Davis’ will emerge naturally. The competitive state House seats that have arisen in recent years in places like Irving and Grand Prairie are a product of the same phenomena.

That may be why Texas Republicans have fought so hard to take apart Senate District 10 and shove its minority population into far-flung districts where forming winning coalitions is much harder if not impossible.

The crux of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s court argument has been that the only districts protected under the Voting Rights Act are districts where, unlike Senate District 10, a single minority group, by itself, controls outcomes in elections. In other words, in his view, Hispanic and African-American voters only get protected by the Voting Rights Act if they live in neatly defined ethnic barrios of the type that are becoming more and more rare in a multi-ethnic Texas.

Abbott’s argument is a one-two power grab. On the one hand, the state argues it can’t draw more African-American or Hispanic seats because the populations are too spread out across the region. Then it argues that it can fracture the coalitions that minority groups manage to forge because “coalitions” aren’t protected by voting rights laws.

Accept his argument, and Texas would be free to do what it did to Senate District 10 when it put a strip of the district where the population is more than 78 percent African-American and Latino into an Anglo-dominated district stretching past Waco.

As Li notes, the DC panel rejected the state’s claims that coalition districts were not protected, though that doesn’t mean these particular coalition districts will get redress. This is why the majority of the plaintiffs were not interested in Abbott’s “deal”: It didn’t address their issues, and they have a reasonable hope that the DC court will. If that means the primary can’t be held in April, well, they weren’t the ones that asked for a stay from SCOTUS. Unless something happens to change this calculus, I think we’re back to waiting for the DC court to rule.

UPDATE: I should note that I’m only paying attention to the 2008 numbers in these maps because any interim maps are only going to be in effect for this year. We are certain to have a new set of maps for 2014, after all of the current litigation has concluded in the federal courts, and may well have yet another set for 2016 depending on when SCOTUS does its thing. As such, I consider looking at the 2010 numbers for these maps to be even more of an academic exercise than looking at the 2008 numbers is.

Alford strikes again

Wow.

Dr. John Alford

A key witness before a federal three-judge panel considering the Texas redistricting challenge appeared to make a major concession Wednesday to the case made last week by state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth.

The state’s expert witness, John Alford of Rice University, was on the stand to defend the districts drawn by the Texas Legislature for the Texas House, Texas Senate and U.S. House under the Voting Rights Act.

Alford surprised Davis’ attorney during questioning by agreeing that the reconfiguration of Davis’ District 10 into four parts hurt minority voters and turned back the clock on the ability of blacks and Hispanics to vote for a candidate they prefer.

Davis’ attorney, Gerry Hebert, asked Alford, “In 2008, black and Latino voters in District 10 demonstrated the ability to elect the candidate of their choice?”

Alford replied “yes” and that the candidate was Davis.

“Would you agree,” Hebert continued, “that under the state’s proposed plan that the ability of minority voters in District 10 to elect the preferred candidate was retrogressed?”

“Gerry,” Alford said, “I couldn’t agree with you more.”

“Retrogression” is at the heart of the case that Davis and others are making: that the Republican-dominated Legislature drew the lines of some districts in such a discriminatory way as to reduce the voting strength of minority communities.

Remember, Alford is a witness for the state, not for the defense. If this sounds familiar to you, it’s because Alford made a similarly damaging statement about the state’s case in the San Antonio trial. All I can say is that as far as I’m concerned, Prof. Alford can testify for the state any time he wants.

First impressions of the new maps

Before I get too into this, the invaluable Texas Redistricting reminds us that the parties in the lawsuit will be able to make objections and comments to the proposed maps today at noon. Meaning, there may yet be some tweaks to come.

Until then, this is what we have. I have 2008 electoral data for the House here and for the Senate here. The Trib has some nice pictures of the maps here, Greg has a Harris County view here, Stace has a look at his neck of the woods here, and Texas Redistricting notes all of the pairings here. My opening thoughts:

– The Senate map is not very different from the one we had coming into 2011. Sen. Wendy Davis, whose statement about the proposed maps can be seen here, gets a district she can win but will have to work hard to do it. Note that SD09 is also somewhat purple in hue, though redder than SD10. It’s certainly worthy of a challenge. I don’t have much to add to this, just to note that Dems would have a puncher’s chance of maintaining 12 seats. No guarantees, but they’re in much better shape for it than they were when they started.

– By my count in the House there are 60 seats that Democrats should have some reasonable expectation of winning:

Dist County Incumbent Obama Houston ========================================= 22 Jefferson Deshotel 68.8 72.6 23 Galveston Eiland 47.8 54.3 27 Fort Bend Reynolds 68.8 68.6 31 Webb Guillen 77.1 80.7 33 Nueces Torres(R) 49.8 55.4 34 Nueces Scott(R) 49.8 55.3 35 Hidalgo Aliseda(R) 63.3 65.0 36 Hidalgo Munoz 72.8 75.1 37 Cameron Oliveira 67.5 69.7 38 Cameron Lucio 64.7 67.0 39 Hidalgo Martinez 72.3 74.6 40 Hidalgo Pena(R) 74.8 77.4 41 Hidalgo Gonzales 57.0 59.7 42 Webb Raymond 70.8 76.5 43 S Texas Lozano 51.6 57.9 46 Travis Dukes 76.6 74.6 48 Travis Howard 60.7 56.7 49 Travis Naishtat 73.9 69.5 50 Travis Strama 59.6 56.6 51 Travis Rodriguez 80.6 77.9 54 Bell Aycock(R) 60.6 60.4 74 Maverick Gallego 57.9 61.3 75 El Paso Quintanilla 74.1 75.4 76 El Paso Gonzalez 74.7 77.5 77 El Paso Marquez 60.8 62.6 78 El Paso Margo(R) 58.3 60.0 79 El Paso Pickett 64.8 67.4 80 Uvalde T. King 51.9 56.8 90 Tarrant Burnam 66.8 68.7 93 Tarrant Nash(R) 62.1 62.4 95 Tarrant Veasey 79.2 79.3 100 Dallas E. Johnson 87.6 87.7 103 Dallas Anchia 60.5 61.9 104 Dallas Alonzo 68.2 70.8 105 Dallas H-Brown(R) 49.7 51.6 107 Dallas Sheets(R) 65.6 66.9 109 Dallas Giddings 74.2 74.7 110 Dallas Caraway 80.8 81.7 111 Dallas Y.Davis 73.8 74.3 116 Bexar M-Fischer 59.6 59.4 117 Bexar Garza(R) 53.7 54.2 118 Bexar Farias 53.7 56.3 119 Bexar Gutierrez 58.2 59.7 120 Bexar McClendon 64.9 64.5 123 Bexar Villarreal 59.2 58.9 124 Bexar Menendez 59.4 59.6 125 Bexar Castro 57.7 58.5 131 Harris Allen 80.7 81.1 137 Harris Hochberg 60.3 60.7 139 Harris Turner 75.9 76.1 140 Harris Walle 70.0 73.8 141 Harris Thompson 72.7 73.4 142 Harris Dutton 77.3 78.9 143 Harris Luna 60.2 66.9 144 Harris Legler(R) 53.2 59.0 145 Harris Alvarado 61.6 65.7 146 Harris Miles 81.2 80.8 147 Harris Coleman 81.0 79.2 148 Harris Farrar 59.0 62.4 149 Harris Vo 55.2 55.5

Note the post above about pairings, and note also that Reps. Gallego and Castro are planning to run for Congress as things stand right now. Harris County remains with 24 seats, but instead of Reps. Hochberg and Vo being paired, Rep. Beverley Woolley was “paired” with Rep. Jim Murphy. I put “paired” in quotes because of course Woolley is retiring, and what they really did was eliminate HD136 – it’s now in Waller and Montgomery Counties – and give Murphy a stronger red district. The Harris split as I see it is now 13D – the twelve existing incumbents plus the redrawn HD144 – to 11R, with Woolley and Rep. Ken Legler going away. Quite remarkable.

In addition to these, the following seats could be competitive for Dems and certainly should be contested:

Dist County Incumbent Obama Houston ========================================== 17 Bastrop K'schmidt 40.9 46.2 26 Fort Bend Open 48.4 48.3 45 Hays Isaac 46.7 45.8 47 Travis Workman 44.6 41.2 64 Denton Crownover 42.0 41.8 65 Denton Solomons 43.0 42.4 94 Tarrant Patrick 41.5 42.0 97 Tarrant Shelton 43.0 43.0 102 Dallas Carter 43.4 43.8 106 Williamson Open 46.0 43.1 108 Dallas Branch 48.7 46.0 112 Dallas Chen Button 42.1 44.0 113 Dallas Driver 46.0 48.2 114 Dallas Hartnett 42.4 41.3 115 Dallas Jackson 44.0 42.9 134 Harris S. Davis 50.1 46.2 135 Harris Elkins 42.8 43.8 138 Harris Bohac 42.2 42.9

Obviously, some of these are more potentially competitive than others, but there are a couple that could reasonably go the Dems’ way. Note that Reps. Driver, Hartnett, and Jackson are all stepping down, and that Rep. Burkett was paired with Driver and Rep. Sheets was paired with Hartnett. HD26 was Rep. Charlie Howard’s (HD30 is the new Fort Bend-centered district), and HD106 had been called HD149 before.

Bottom line: Assuming this map with no unfavorable changes made to Dems, I’d consider a 10-seat pickup to be acceptable, and a 15-seat pickup to be a hell of a day. I have no idea why the Chron says that Dems “could gain a half-dozen seats” when a cursory glance shows eight Republicans now in districts that were majority Dem all the way in 2008. If six was all we got under this map, I’d call for beheadings. Note that Robert Miller predicts a more or less 90R 60D House, which is right in line with my view, so it’s not just my optimism talking here.

– Bear in mind that if the Dems pick up 13 seats, which I would consider a very good result, that leaves the partisan balance at 88-62 in favor of the Republicans, or exactly where we were after the 2002 elections. The loss of all those rural Democrats really hurts. The path forward from here is urban and suburban, and it won’t be easy.

But at least there is a path forward now. We’ll see if the court makes any further adjustments to the maps after today’s hearing. BOR, Juanita, EoW, and PDidde have more.

Interim State House and State Senate maps are out

And I don’t have any time right now to analyze them, but believe you me, I will. Go here and look at Plans H298 and S163, the latter of which appears to mostly restore Sen. Wendy Davis’ district. Also take a look at C218, which could be next. I’ll have much more soon.

DC court denies summary judgment on preclearance

It’s official, the maps the Lege drew for itself and for Congress will not be used in the 2012 election.

A Washington-based federal court on Tuesday rejected Texas’ request to approve new political districts without a trial.

In a brief ruling, the court agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice that the GOP-led Legislature used an improper standard for determining whether the new districts discriminate against minorities. The order clears the way for a trial.

[…]

The ruling means temporary maps, being crafted by a San Antonio court, will likely be implemented in the interim to allow election workers and candidates to make necessary arrangements for next year’s primary elections.

You can see the short and sweet order here. As noted by Texas Redistricting, the court ruled as follows:

Having carefully considered the entire record and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes that the State of Texas used an improper standard or methodology to determine which districts afford minority voters the ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and that there are material issues of fact in dispute that prevent this Court from entering declaratory judgment that the three redistricting plans meet the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Remember, the state sued in the DC court because they’d get a better deal than the Justice Department. They also thought, or at least they believed AG Greg Abbott when he claimed they’d get a quicker resolution than the traditional route. Oops.

The order applies to the Congressional, State Senate, and State House maps that were drawn by the Lege. The SBOE map did receive preclearance and is good to go. Expect to see an awful lot of campaign activity in the coming weeks, once people realize where they are and what the new districts really will look like. Among other things, the Senate map may well look a lot brighter for Sen. Wendy Davis, but it wouldn’t stop there. If you look at the population analysis, the Davis/LULAC map creates 13 Democratic Senate districts – the 12 existing ones plus a new one in Dallas County (SD09) that it achieves by pairing John Carona and Florence Shapiro, the latter of whom is retiring anyway. To say the least, if the San Antonio court adopts that plan, it’s quite a game changer. Postcards, PoliTex, the Trib, BOR, and Texas Redistricting have more.

New filing dates announced

The federal court in San Antonio has taken the first steps towards defining what the 2012 election will look like in Texas.

A panel of three federal judges in San Antonio on Friday changed key rules for some candidates for public office, including delaying and shortening the filing period for the 2012 congressional and legislative elections.

The panel’s moves were expected. The court is working on drawing new district boundaries for the upcoming elections but has not yet finished, and candidate filing was to have begun next week.

The judges also changed residency requirements for candidates; under current law, candidates for state House and Senate seats must have lived in their districts for a year prior to their election. The judges ordered that candidates in the 2012 election must live in their district from Dec. 15 until the general election, according to court documents. (Members of Congress are not required to live in their districts, but practically speaking, it can be important.)

Originally, the filing period was to run from Nov. 12 to Dec. 12. Now, candidates in the 2012 elections will need to file between Nov. 28 and Dec. 15, the court said.

Michael Li has the updated calendar and a copy of the court’s order. Next stop, interim maps. Also in the pipeline is the state’s motion for summary judgment in the matter of the lawsuits filed over the State Senate map, for which the DOJ raised no objections but for which preclearance still hasn’t been granted. If the state gets its request, that will be one less interim map to draw.

Sen. Chris Harris and Rep. Will Hartnett to retire

One more out the door of the upper chamber.

State Sen. Chris Harris, R-Arlington, announced [Monday] afternoon that he will not seek reelection — the fourth veteran lawmaker to announce their retirement from the Upper Chamber.

He is the longest serving Republican in the Senate and chairs the Senate Jurisprudence Committee.

“I want to express my deepest gratitude to the people of North Texas and to my family for allowing me to serve,” Harris said in a statement. “It has been the greatest honor of my life that my friends and neighbors have asked me to represent them alongside so many amazing men and women for almost three decades.”

Harris has served in the Senate since 1991 and served before that in the Texas House.

State Rep. Rodney Anderson, R-Grand Prairie, announced last month that he planned to challenge Harris in next year’s primary, insisting that the district needed a more conservative voice. Harris said at the time that he planned to run again.

In his announcement, Harris encouraged Victor Vandergriff, son of late former Tarrant County Commissioner and Arlington Mayor Tom Vandergriff, to replace him in the Senate.

Sen. Harris is joined at the exit by State Rep. Will Hartnett in HD114.

Eleven-term Dallas state Rep. Will Hartnett has decided not to seek re-election, creating an opening for other Republicans to move up the ladder — or in one case, return to the House.

As expected, Hartnett said in a statement on his future plans Thursday that he would retire.

“My wife and three sons have stood by me during my years of public service, and now I look forward to having more time to stand by them in our family life and events that, in the end, are vastly more important than political life,” he said.

First elected in 1990, Hartnett is the longest-serving House member from North Texas and has sponsored scores of new laws — many of them refining the state’s legal system, though he also did some heavy lifting in 2005 to help secure water supplies for the region. In July, Hartnett was selected by Texas Monthly as one of the Ten Best lawmakers, largely for his handling of a House election contest. The magazine also applauded him for winning passage, in “a session in which any issue having to do with immigration or citizenship was potentially explosive,” of a resolution urging the federal government to grant a conditional green card to noncitizens who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and who graduate from high school, and then allow them to enlist in the armed services and be granted citizenship after four years of service. In his retirement statement, though, Hartnett took pains to point out that in 2001, he “was the only House member who voted against passage of the now controversial HB 1403, which provides in-state college tuition for undocumented immigrants.”

A mixed record, to say the least, but I will definitely give him his props for running a fair election contest process. I hope whoever succeeds him at that does half as good a job at it.

From an electoral standpoint, Hartnett’s HD114 is more purple now that it was before. To sum it up in two numbers:

Dist McCain % Obama % Wainwright % Houston % ================================================ Old 54.5% 44.6% 54.2% 43.4% New 52.4% 46.6% 51.7% 45.7%

There was only so much the Republicans could do to hold onto what they won in 2010 in Dallas County. With HD114 being open, this ought to be a top tier race.

As for SD09, as redrawn by the Lege it’s almost identical to SD10 in terms of partisan performance. Assuming SD10 doesn’t get altered by the courts, it deserves a respectable challenge from a Democratic contender. For what it’s worth, SD09 could have been a pickup for the Dems in 2008 – as it is now in the new map, SD09 was nearly identical to SD10 in partisan performance, when Sen. Wendy Davis knocked off Kim Brimer. Sen. Harris was fortunate to draw an underfunded no-name, and still barely beat him by ten points.

All ancient history now. I wish Sen. Harris and Rep. Hartnett well in their retirement, and I hope someone on the Democratic side is sizing both of these races up.

Davis files anoter redistricting lawsuit

After the Justice Department declined to object to the new State Senate map under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Sen. Wendy Davis filed a lawsuit in the federal court in San Antonio challenging it on other grounds.

State Rep. Marc Veasey of Fort Worth and Tarrant County Commissioner Roy Brooks, both Democrats, joined Davis as plaintiffs in the suit.

“The State’s proposed state senate plan was drawn with the purpose, and has the effect, of minimizing and reducing the voting strength of minority populations in the Tarrant and Dallas counties area of North Texas,” the lawsuit reads.

Earlier this year, state Republicans redrew the state’s political boundaries to reflect population growth. The maps are now subject to lawsuits in San Antonio and Washington, D.C.

Regarding the map of the state’s 31 senate districts, Fort Worth-based District 10 has drawn the most attention as urban minority communities that strongly backed Davis in 2008 were put into suburban districts.

The new map puts African-American communities in Southeast Fort Worth, Everman and Forest Hill in a district which stretches to Waco. The heavily-Hispanic northside of Fort Worth was moved to district that includes much of Denton County.

You cam see the complaint here, and Davis’ press release here. There’s nothing factually wrong with anything being alleged about the division of Tarrant County – there’s no question that minority communities were sliced up and dealt like cards to different Republican districts anchored in suburban and rural areas – the question is whether or not any of it is actually illegal. Simply being wrong isn’t sufficient, unfortunately.

Though Justice didn’t formally object to the Senate map, it still has to be precleared. Preclearance has been granted to the SBOE map, which as noted there was not a big surprise. In the meantime, there likely won’t be a trial to determine the status of the disputed Congressional and State House maps until November.

[T]he panel in the state’s section pre-clearance suit entered a scheduling order this afternoon.

The order directs the parties to submit a list of disputed state house and congressional districts by 5:00 p.m. Friday, September 23, with statements, to the extent possible, of the nature of the defendants’ objections.

The panel also directed that the defendants file responses to the state’s motion for summary judgment by October 25 and gave the state until October 31 to reply.

The panel also allowed a period of discovery to conclude on October 25.

I’ll be very eager to see the list of disputed districts. We know which districts came under scrutiny in San Antonio, but Justice may have its own objections. We should know more on this tomorrow.

Jackson to run for Congress, Anderson to primary Harris

State Sen. Mike Jackson makes official what had been speculated.

As expected, state Sen. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, will run for Congress next year instead of for re-election to the Texas Senate.

He’ll be running in the newly created CD-36. Jackson, the Senate’s president pro tempore, has been in that body since 1999, and served in the Texas House for ten years before that. He’ll turn 58 this weekend.

Jackson’s main claim to fame is his valiant attempt to protect the right of manufacturing plants to pollute the city of Houston. Other than that, to the best of my recollection, he hasn’t done much; certainly, he’s done very little that was constructive. He’ll fit right in with the other Republicans in Washington. State Rep. Larry Taylor has announced his interest in Jackson’s seat. The names may change but that’s about it – there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two. The new Senate map doesn’t make SD11 any more competitive than it was, so I would not expect much of a fight for this open seat next November.

Moving up north, there’s a primary battle brewing for a different Senate seat.

Freshman state Rep. Rodney Anderson, R-Grand Prairie, plans to challenge state Sen. Chris Harris, R-Arlington, in the March Republican primary, according to a source familiar with Anderson’s plans.

In this year’s state House redistricting, Anderson was drawn into a district that would have had him running in 2012 against fellow GOP Rep. Linda Harper Brown of Irving.

Anderson lives in Harris’ Senate district, and much of his current House district is within that seat.

I guess he figured Harris was the easier target. SD09 was drawn to be about eight points more competitive than SD11, but that means Sam Houston lost it by ten in 2008 instead of 18. Still, the Democrats might have won that seat in 2008 had they run a real candidate, and if there are any changes made to Sen. Wendy Davis’ SD10 as a result of current litigation, there will be an effect in SD09 as well. Whether that would make it any more or less competitive, I couldn’t say. Nonetheless, this is a seat that really ought to be fought for, just as Davis fights to retain hers.

More redistricting plaintiffs

Here’s an update to the scorecard, for those of you hoping to keep track of the players.

The Texas Democratic Party officially entered the court fight over Republican-dominated redistricting maps Wednesday.

The new claims by the state Democratic Party came a day after the NAACP and other leading African American groups joined three redistricting lawsuits that already have been filed in San Antonio federal court.

“Allowing these partisan redistricting plans to take effect would violate the voting rights of every Texas voter who is not a partisan Republican,” said Chad Dunn, general counsel of the Texas Democratic Party.

I can’t tell if that is related to this action by State Rep. Marc Veasey and State Sen. Wendy Davis or if they are separate.

Davis and Veasey filed a motion in federal court [Friday] morning aiming to intervene in the state’s effort to get four redistricting maps approved in time for the 2012 elections.

Texas is among the states that must still get pre-clearance of redistricting plans under the federal Voting Rights Act. Earlier this week, the Texas Attorney General’s office filed a “pre-clearance submission” in federal court requesting that a three-judge panel approve the state’s new redistricting maps.

Traditionally, state officials seek out the U.S. Justice Department for that clearance. Texas decided to officially file the request in federal court and “informally” submit the information to the Department of Justice, according to legal filings. Democrats have charged that the state’s Republican leadership is pursuing the court case because they know a Justice Department under the Obama administration would determine the maps are in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Davis and Veasey are hoping their legal action will allow them to argue against the Republican-approved maps in the federal case.

Their motion focuses largely on the congressional plan and specifically the way Senate District 10, currently represented by Davis, was redrawn in the new state senate map. In both cases, the Fort Worth Democrats argue that large minority communities are purposely drawn into districts where their voting strength would be effectively drowned out.

You can see their motion here, and some background information relating to SD10 that was provided by Sen. Davis’ staff is here. As we progress down the line and get updates on this lawsuit or that it will be increasingly difficult to remember which suit is which, and on what arguments and/or alternate maps they’re based. May as well just accept that now and get used to it. (According to this story, “Another redistricting lawsuit was transferred from federal court in Houston to San Antonio on Thursday.” Which lawsuit and which court are left as an exercise for the reader.)

Anyway. The full TDP statement on which the first story is based, plus a press release by Sen. Davis, are beneath the fold.

(more…)

Senate map is out, controversy precedes it

Before we had a State Senate map, we had a brawl brewing over one proposed district on it.

Accusing the state Senate’s Republican leaders of a “shameful partisan attack,” Sen. Wendy Davis said Tuesday that a new redistricting map for her Tarrant County senatorial district violates the federal Voting Rights Act by ripping apart a powerful minority coalition that was crucial to her election over a Republican incumbent in 2008.

After reviewing the map for the first time Tuesday, the Fort Worth Democrat fired off an angry letter to the head of the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting and said she plans legal action to challenge the plan, which revamps her 10th senatorial district.

“I’m very sure we will be in a court battle,” Davis told the Star-Telegram.

Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, chairman of the redistricting committee, is expected to release the proposed map for the state’s 31 Senate districts today. The committee plans a hearing Thursday to take public testimony.

Davis said she was not given an opportunity to provide input for the plan or review preliminary maps, despite repeated requests. She vowed to fight the proposal “with every resource I can muster.”

“I will not allow the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of constituents in Tarrant County to be trampled to satisfy the partisan greed of the Senate leadership,” Davis said.

[…]

Davis said Seliger’s plan would shift African-American voters in southeast Fort Worth, Everman and Forest Hill into redrawn District 22, represented by Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury. Hispanic neighborhoods in north Fort Worth would become part of District 12, represented by Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound.

Putting aside the minority voting strength issue, it’s hard to see how folks in an urban area like that can be served by a Senator from another county in a district that’s mostly rural. What communities of interest do Granbury and Flower Mound share with Fort Worth? Regardless, minority voting strength will certainly be the focus of any legal action that may be taken against the upcoming map. A press release from Sen. Davis that talks about the cracking of these communities is here, a letter from Davis to Sen. Seliger over the latter not meeting with her before the map was created is here, and a letter from four current Fort Worth City Council members to the Justice Department is here.

In the meantime, the Seliger Senate map has now been released into the wild. I know what you want, so here it comes. First, some pictures. Here’s the Metroplex, source of Sen. Davis’ consternation:

Metroplex Senate districts

SD22, Sen. Birdwell’s district, stretches all the way down to Falls County, south of McClennan. It’s closer to Austin than Fort Worth at that end. Speaking of Austin:

Travis County Senate districts

Sens. Troy Fraser and Judith Zaffirini each wind up with a piece of the Capitol county. Neither Zaffirini nor Sen. Kirk Watson are particularly happy about it. I think if the GOP could draw a map that put a piece of Travis County into every single district, they would. Finally, here’s Harris:

Harris County Senate districts

Sen. Joan Huffman’s SD17 goes south but loses the tail that had snaked east across the coast through Galveston into Jefferson County. Sen. Mike Jackson gets all of Galveston, while Sen. Tommy Williams gets all of Chambers and Jefferson. And I am once again moved into a new district, as nearly all of my part of the Heights gets separated from Sen. Mario Gallegos’ SD06 in favor of Sen. John Whitmire’s SD15.

As for electoral data, see here for 2010 and here for 2008. As the map is drawn, it’s hard to see how Sen. Davis can hold on in a district that topped out at 43.50% for Sam Houston (43.12% for Obama), though I suppose it’s not totally out of the question. Interestingly, the Democrats could have some other opportunities over the long term:

Dist Incumbent Molina Houston old Houston new =================================================== 09 Harris 39.4 47.6 43.4 10 Davis 42.3 47.4 43.5 16 Carona 41.0 46.9 43.4 17 Huffman 43.6 47.6 40.8 19 Uresti 55.1 57.0 57.2 20 Hinojosa 55.7 59.7 59.7

I threw in Sens. Carlos Uresti and Chuy Hinojosa as points of comparison, as they were the least Democratic non-Davis districts, with Obama numbers around 55%. Sam Houston wasn’t the high scorer in their districts, either – Linda Yanez got 60.5% in SD20, and both Yanez (59.0) and Susan Strawn (58.4) did better in SD19. I’m not too worried about either of these guys. I wish I had Molina numbers from 2004 for the new districts to compare, but I don’t. I still suspect these districts are bluer now than they would have been then, and will be more so in 2012, but I can’t quantify that. I also suspect there’s only so much that can be done to protect Sens. Carona and Harris, though it may be enough to get them through most if not all of the decade. As with the SBOE, the draw to determine whether they run again in 2014 or 2016 could make a difference. I am sure that there will be alternate maps filed, starting with one from Sen. Davis, so we’ll see how it goes from here.

UPDATE: Something I had not noticed before: Sen. Zaffirini, whose district stretches from Laredo to Austin, would no longer have a piece of Bexar County.

Under the proposed changes, the number of senators representing San Antonio would slip from four to three because state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, would have a district that completely avoids Bexar County.

Zaffirini was upset she wouldn’t represent San Antonio if the proposal were to pass. It has her district running all the way from Laredo to East Austin’s historically black neighborhoods.

“I’ve worked hard for Bexar County,” she said. “I especially carry their higher education agenda passionately; I’ve made a difference for Bexar County over the years.”

There’s a good side-by-side comparison at the story.

UPDATE: Greg has more.

Population growth by legislative district

Some nice work by the Trib here.

Our new interactive map visualizes population changes by district for the total population and residents who are of Hispanic origin. These totals are especially important now given that lawmakers are preparing to redraw these districts based on their growth, demographics and election histories.

The data behind the map reveal some interesting trends. As we’ve seen, suburban areas around Texas’ largest cities saw the robust growth in the Hispanic population — both in raw totals and rate. That means suburban representatives — most of whom are Republicans — are seeing an influx of potential voters from a group that has traditionally favored Democrats.

You can see the map here. As a companion to that, bookmark the Texas Legislative Council’s redistricting page, in particular the ones that show election returns by Senate and House districts.

That serves nicely as a lead in to this Trib story about the challenges the mapmakers will face, and who’s in for a rough couple of months while they’re working it all out.

In any conversation about who is vulnerable in the redistricting process, the four freshmen from West Texas always rise to the top of the list. Sure enough, when the census numbers came out, that part of Texas lagged behind the state’s overall growth; there aren’t enough people there to justify the number of state representatives in the Legislature. Two will have to go. It’s not at all clear this early who’ll be on the list, but two things stand out. State Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, is interested in running for the Texas Railroad Commission and won’t be back, so that seat will be easy to delete. And of the four Republican freshmen, Rep. Jim Landtroop of Plainview is the least well-anchored. Rep. Walter “Four” Price is based in Amarillo, and John Frullo and Charles Perry call Lubbock home. Only 22,194 people live in Plainview, and the 16-county district is spread out like a crucifix that reaches from north of Lubbock to south of Midland.

Parties and friendships aside, it’s an easy district to cut up.

Or look at Tarrant County, where Sen. Wendy Davis, a Fort Worth Democrat, is completely surrounded by Republicans, two of whom need to add people to their districts. Her seat isn’t a district protected by the federal Voting Rights Act — it voted for Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential election — and she’s a Democrat in a legislative body in which Republicans would gain solid control by flipping a couple of seats to their side. Like Landtroop, she’s got time to negotiate, and a district that will require her to be good at it.

Or look at U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, a freshman who surprised Democrats and Republicans alike when he beat U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, in the November elections. Texas gets four new U.S. congressional seats in 2012, and Latinos are pushing for at least one in South Texas. Farenthold’s district isn’t stable ground for a Republican and could easily be affected by changes in the lines nearby. And he’s a freshman at a time when it would be more useful to be an incumbent.

I think it’s a little early to state unequivocally that Chisum won’t be back, since we don’t know for sure that there will be an elected Railroad Commission for him to try to join. As for Davis, I’ll just note that you can say basically the same thing about one of her neighbors, State Sen. Chris Harris, whose district in 2008 was actually a tiny bit more Democratic than Davis’ was:

SD Senator McCain Cornyn Williams Wainwright ================================================== 09 Harris 51.9 52.6 50.7 49.6 10 Davis 52.1 52.1 50.4 50.2 16 Carona 51.7 54.6 53.1 50.2

Harris is between Davis and Democratic Sen. Royce West in SD23, with Sen. John Carona’s SD16 just touching his district to the northeast. Davis’ district actually has the most people in it of those four – she has 834,265, which by my count is the 12th-most populous Senate district overall; Harris has 807,907; West 749,622; Carona 641,007; his is the least populated Senate district, and was the only one to decrease in number. I’m not saying she has nothing to fear, just that as always with redistricting, you can’t look at any one district in isolation. What happens to her will affect everyone around her, and just as Travis County could not sustain three Republican House districts after 2002, it’s not at all clear to me that Dallas and Tarrant Counties can sustain having only one Democratic Senate district.

Anyway. Maps! They’ve got ’em, we like ’em, go look at ’em and see what you think. Robert Miller has more.