There’s an older gentleman who rides his bike around the neighborhood. I see him pretty regularly when I’m out walking the dog. We always wave hello as we pass by. On Sunday he pulled his bike over to the curb as I was out with Dexter, to talk to me about the election. We’d never engaged beyond a smile and wave before then, but I presume he’d heard from other neighbors that I was a Politics Guy and he was feeling understandably anxious and wanted to know what I thought. I told him I was feeling optimistic because I was, and I think he felt some reassurance after we were done.
And so now I feel guilty about that. He wasn’t the only person who had expressed similar feelings to me in recent weeks – I mean, we all felt that way to varying degrees – and I would respond with my generally positive vibe because that’s who I am and that’s how I felt. To say the least, I don’t feel that way right now.
There are lots of obvious reasons to feel upset and more right now, but one of them for me is that I didn’t see what happened in Texas coming. For all the discourse about polling, the national polls were reasonably accurate. It was a close race that ultimately tipped one way. But the polls here were way off. We had every reason to expect something in the range of the 2020 election, with Trump carrying the state by five or six points. Maybe at one end it’s like the Hillary result in 2016, down nine, and maybe at the other it’s like Beto in 2018, down two or three. There was nothing in the polls, statewide or the polls we got of Harris and Bexar Counties, to suggest a 14-point margin. Or that any Democratic countywide candidate here had anything to worry about.
The shock of that, on top of everything else, has me reeling. I thought I knew some things, I thought I understood some things, but I was a fool. At some point I’ll be able to study the numbers, but I don’t know how much that will help. Everything I thought I knew was wrong.
I don’t know where we go from here, and I don’t know how much I can offer on that. Maybe I’ll feel differently when the shock wears off, or when we’re forced into defensive mode. For now I’m just trying to find my footing.
I will make two observations for now. One is that the Republicans did what they did this year by more or less hitting their vote marks from 2020. Jane Bland was the high scorer in 2020 for the GOP with 740K votes. Four statewide judicial candidates plus one appellate court candidate got between 744K and 752K this year, with David Schenck getting the top tally. The downballot Republican judicial candidates did a little better overall than in 2020 but with numbers that wouldn’t have come close to winning that year. The Dems on the other hand lost around 100K votes from 2020, which unsurprisingly roughly matches the drop in overall turnout from 2020 – 1,656,686 four years ago, 1,558,304 this year (that figure is likely to increase as provisional ballots get cured). Whatever there is to understand about what happened this year, that’s where to begin. Colin Allred was the top votegetter with 835,445, which would have been on the lower end of the 2020 scale. Kamala Harris just nosed above 800K – she’s now at 803K – but no one else got there. The low score in 2020 was 814K. There’s your problem.
And on the subject of judicial races, remember the celebration of “Black Girl Magic” in 2018, as a historic number of Black women were elected to the bench in Harris County? Whatever the opposite of that is, it’s what we got: Of the ten Democratic district or county court judges who lost on Tuesday, seven of them were Black women; the others were Nicole Perdue, Allison Mathis, and Robert Johnson. Make of that what you will. (The incumbents who lost were previously elected in 2020 and possibly 2016, so they’re not the same as the class of 2018.)
(Note: As of the 8 PM update last night, Nicole Perdue trails by 1,261 and Elaine Palmer trails by 2,342. It’s at least possible that provisional ballots could have an effect on their races.)
I’m going to be posting at a slower rate for the next few days at least. I’ve got a few drafts from before Tuesday that I’ll get to, and I’ll get back into the news-watching stuff eventually. Thank you for sticking around as we get through this.
Well, when a horrible, incorrigible, incompetent, convicted felon like Trump defeats you (again), the first step in corrective action is to look in the mirror and figure out why. Beyond Trump, why the red wave across the nation?
To start, Democrats need to find out why we are losing so much of the Hispanic vote. If we don’t address that problem, Texas will never turn Blue. Anyway, to fix a problem, you first have to acknowledge that you have a problem. I hope the Democratic Party is willing to make the changes necessary to appeal to more voters and win future elections.
This is a good read:
https://www.popehat.com/p/and-yet-it-moves?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
You’ve earned a break and you’re nobody’s fool. Grateful to read your analysis anytime you’re ready to share it. It sucks so bad right now, but we will have a chance to reflect later.
The Court Jester had two roles: to entertain and to tell the king he was wrong.
Many of the Democratic Party elites, particularly here in Harris County, sit in their ivory towers and make decisions with no one allowed to contradict the group mentality. Unfortunately, they don’t have a court jester among themselves.
They should go outside their ivory castles and mingle among the common folk.
Bernie Sanders stated it differently:
“Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday accused the Democratic Party of largely ignoring the priorities of the working class and pointed to that as the biggest reason for why they lost control of the White House and Senate.
“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them,” Sanders said in a statement about the results of Tuesday’s election.”
I don’t care for Trump, but he keeps his promises more than most politicians do.
Fagan, you are correct. Trump won the popular vote or probably will have to wait for all of California to count all the votes.
TEXAS HIGH COURT RACES
Looking at the unofficial election results for Harris County as of Nov 7, we can see the following:
A majority of Harris County voters favored the Republican candidates for the Court of Criminal Appeals in all three (3) contested races.
As for the Texas Supreme Court races, the Democratic challengers received majority support in two races, and plurality support in one in which a third-party candidate was also running.
Tentative conclusion: Dems need to listen to dissenters such as Greg Summerlin and think about their stance on crime.
Jane Bland wasn’t a top scorer even among Republicans (Jimmy Blacklock did better), but that is probably due to the presence of a Libertarian candidate in her race, who garnered 3.29%. This is also why Bonnie Lee Goldstein (DEM) only received a plurality rather than a majority of votes in Harris County (48.59% vs. 48.12% for Bland). Note that, ignoring the third-party candidate, this was an extremely close race between two female candidates in Harris County. Justice Bland wrote the SCOTX opinion in Lilith Fund for Reprod. Equity v. Dickson, 662 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2023), resolving it against the abortion Fund.
Tentative conclusion: Dems might do well to rethink their strategy of campaigning on the feticide issue. It does not seem have worked. Perhaps it even backfired.
Note also that notwithstanding his ample vilifiction by varies outlets, John Devine did as well as Jane Bland, even a little better. Make of that what you will. It’s just a fact, no doubt unpleasant to acknowledge for the bulk of the readership here. Keep in mind that these are the numbers for Harris County only. So this has nothing to do with voter sentiments in the heavily red “provinces.”
SCOTX-4 D CHRISTINE VINH WEEMS (DEM) 775,037 51.77%
SCOTX-2 D DASEAN JONES (DEM) 754,368 50.22%
CCA-0-Presiding R DAVID J. SCHENCK (REP) 752,297 50.30%
CCA-8 R LEE FINLEY (REP) 749,001 50.45%
SCOTX-2 R JIMMY BLACKLOCK (REP) 747,759 49.78%
CCA-7 R GINA PARKER (REP) 745,367 50.02%
CCA-7 D NANCY MULDER (DEM) 744,824 49.98%
CCA-0-Presiding D HOLLY TAYLOR (DEM) 743,301 49.70%
CCA-8 D CHIKA ANYIAM (DEM) 735,721 49.55%
SCOTX-6 D BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN (DEM) 727,419 48.59%
SCOTX-4 R JOHN DEVINE (REP) 722,052 48.23%
SCOTX-6 R JANE BLAND (REP) 720,395 48.12%
SCOTX-6 O J. DAVID ROBERSON (LIB) 49,204 3.29%
Note: Different races are ranked in descending order by raw vote count, not percentage/win margin. Unit of analyis = candidate).
The prez race? Jeff St. Clair at Counterpunch has the best wrap on the many ways Harris blew it. And, yea, a Josh Shapiro in 2028 would be some mix of scary and disgusting. https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/11/06/chronicle-of-a-defeat-foretold/
State races? Maybe official Dem-dom will finally admit that demographics aren’t destiny and other things. Maybe, just as Genocide Joe was shoved out, Skipper Gilberto Hinojosa of the SS Texas Minnow will get the boot.
“Of the ten Democratic district or county court judges who lost on Tuesday, seven of them were Black women; the others were Nicole Perdue, Allison Mathis, and Robert Johnson. Make of that what you will. ”
No one should mourn the defeat of judges who are ethically challenged or by consensus viewed as incompetent. Even the left-leaning Houston Chronicle endorsed against the black female Democrat incumbents in 61 and 165 and 215. [The vote of lawyers regarding Judge Ursula Hall was 604 to 194 in favor of her opponent.]
By contrast, the white female Democrat incumbent in the 11th court won, got the Chronicle endorsement and won the Houston Bar Association poll. The Hispanic male Democrat incumbent in 129 also won Chronicle support and the HBA poll. The white male Republican winner in 133 won Chronicle support and the HBA poll. The black female Democrat winner in 164 won Chronicle support and the HBA poll.
I believe this is an accurate chart for the civil courts results. I have not yet checked on all the criminal court district judge results but expect the pattern would be similar.
Court Winner Loser Chronicle HBA
11 WFD WMR Y y
61 WFR BFD Y Y
80 WFR BFD N Y
129 HMD WMR Y Y
133 WMR WFD Y Y
164 BFD BMR Y N
165 WMR BFD Y Y
215 WMR BFD Y N
333 BMD WMR N Y
The story seems to be Hispanics in Harris County are making the county redder plus younger voters. Republicans should oust their chair for not contesting every single judicial race.
Democratic base here is educated liberal whites and old blacks. Every year more old blacks will die, depleting the base.
There is a lesson to be learned. Look at how well Ed Gonzalez did relative to the other candidates on the ballot.
Nominate candidates with a Hispanic surnames who have crossover appeal and can transcend party.
The ad blitzes against democratic judges seemed to work and people imply someone with a black sounding name will be soft on crime because out of their conscious or unconscious bias they think black people are the majority of those doing the crimes. And folks do not know the difference between criminal, civil and probate courts.
We are unfortunately at a point that outside of a rage blue wave midterm election, someone with a name like Darqueesha Jackson is simply not going to win on a ballot for judge in Harris County.
It’s not hard to understand the countywide results. Trump got his garbage to turn out because he was on the ballot. Republicans won’t be that lucky in ‘26. But Dems need to fight back. Campaigning against the GOP’s corruption and dirty money from perverted billionaires trying to buy county government and judges is the attack we need.
Mainstream, I wonder how many people voted for a judge because of the HBA poll.
I’m trying to figure out how Dem judges got more votes than either Harris or Allred.
KYLE CARTER (DEM) 936,951
DENISE BROWN (DEM) 917,991
Could it be that people have no idea about the judges?
___________
One Spanish surnamed JP lost, and the Chronicle endorsed him.
JAMES LOMBARDINO (REP) 202,446 51.55%
ISRAEL GARCIA (DEM) 190,303 48.45%
_____________
All other Spanish-surnamed persons seeking to be judges won.
WILL ARCHER (REP) 707,483 48.53%
MICHAEL GOMEZ (DEM) 750,290 51.47%
EMILY MUNOZ DETOTO (REP) 726,762 50.20%
ROBERT JOHNSON (DEM) 720,898 49.80%
LINDA GARCIA (REP) 740,375 50.92%
ASHLEY MAYES GUICE (DEM) 713,531 49.08%
I imagine they did what I used to do if I didn’t know that they would vote for someone with a Spanish surname. My last name is Barrera. I don’t vote for Republicans anymore.
At one time, I was a Republican precinct chair.
D.R.’s analysis seems smart.
In 2026, two incumbents on the First Court of Appeals are up for reelection: Justice Veronica Rivas-Molloy and Justice Amparo Monique Guerra. Both are good judges who deserve to be reelected. They are also “candidates with Hispanic surnames who have crossover appeal and can transcend party.” Hope D.R.’s analysis proves true.
meme, the two Democrat judges who got more votes that Kamala Harris or Colin Allred were unopposed, so some numbers of independents may have gone ahead and voted for them even if they voted for Trump.
I would suggest that female gender (against a male candidate) and Hispanic ethnicity each are probably advantages worth a percentage point or two in the usual contest where voters really do not know the candidates well, if at all.
CIVIL DIVISION DISTRICT COURT BENCHES – 2024 RESULTS
WINNERS IN CONTESTED RACES
(I = Incumbent; NI=No incumbent in race, i.e. open seat race)
DC-11 D I KRISTEN HAWKINS (DEM) 754,589 51.60%
DC-129 D I MICHAEL GOMEZ (DEM) 750,290 51.47%
DC-165 R BRUCE BAIN (REP) 736,592 50.85%
DC-61 R LEE KATHRYN SHUCHART (REP) 737,877 50.61%
DC-164 D I CHERYL ELLIOTT THORNTON (DEM) 732,632 50.52%
DC-333 D NI TRACY D. GOOD (DEM) 723,890 50.19%
DC-80 R SONYA L. ASTON (REP) 729,336 50.10%
DC-215 R NATHAN J. MILLIRON (REP) 723,801 50.08%
DC-133 R NI MICHAEL LANDRUM (REP) 726,689 50.04%
LOSERS ( I = Incumbent; NI = No Incumbent in race)
DC-080 D I JERALYNN MANOR (DEM) 726,499 49.90%
DC-133 D NI NICOLE PERDUE (DEM) 725,438 49.96%
DC-215 D I ELAINE PALMER (DEM) 721,459 49.92%
DC-061 D I FREDERICKA PHILLIPS (DEM) 719,973 49.39%
DC-333 R NI BRIAN STALEY (REP) 718,310 49.81%
DC-164 R AARON GABRIEL ADAMS (REP) 717,419 49.48%
DC-165 D I URSULA A. HALL (DEM) 712,084 49.15%
DC-011 R NILE BAILEY COPELAND (REP) 707,911 48.40%
DC-129 R WILL ARCHER (REP) 707,483 48.53%
Data-informed Conclusion: Harris County Civil District Court races are competitive and outcomes are NOT merely driven by party-line voting or coattails. There are candidate-specific differences in vote-garnering performance, and when the margin is narrow, voting by informed attornes can make a difference too, though that group is numerically small.
In 2024, candidates of both parities demonstrated their ability to win such races, and this is not the first time either that the outcome is not a complete sweep in favor of one party or the other.
As commentator “Mainstream” points out, Republicans might have won more benches had they contested all races.
UNOPPOSED (I = Incumbent; UO = Unopposed)
DC-125 D I-UO KYLE CARTER (DEM) 936,951 100.00%
DC-127 D UO DENISE BROWN (DEM) 917,991 100.00%
DC-151 D UO ERICA HUGHES (DEM) 912,601 100.00%
DC-152 D UO TAKASHA FRANCIS (DEM) 899,546 100.00%
DC-334 D I-UO DAWN ROGERS (DEM) 886,943 100.00%
Additional conclusion:
Democrats have shown themselves incapable of weeding out “bad apple” Ursula Hall through the primary process. Judge Hall couldn’t be bothered to do her job diligently. Dems might have retained the 165th DC with a competent candidate, someone who takes their inspiration from Judge Hawkins or Mike Engelhart.
Over the years, numerous attorneys saw themselves compelled to file petitions for writ of manamus against Judge Hall because she wouldn’t do her job, i.e., rule on pending motions. No doubt numerous others didn’t have the money to bring such special appellate proceedings against a trail judge who is routinely delinquent in the performance of routine adjudicative duties. And others had to settle when they weren’t ready to do so because their case would go into Judge Hall “limbo”.
Under pressure from abovce, Judge Hall would then sometimes rule just in time to avoid issuance of the writ against her, mooting the appellate case.
All that effort and additional cost just to get the judge to rule!
“A petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to rule is dismissed as moot when the trial court rules after the petition for writ of mandamus is filed. See In re 4KBC Trucking, LLC, No. 14-23-00675-CV, 2023 WL 7141209, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 31, 2023, orig. proceeding); In re Mem’l Hermann Health Sys., No. 14-24-00138-CV, 2024 WL 859381, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 29, 2024, orig. proceeding). Because respondent [Judge Ursula Hall] ruled on the relator’s motion after relator [complaining party] filed its petition for writ of mandamus, relator received the relief requested. Thus, this mandamus is now moot. As such, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot.”
Wolfgang, as to coattails, how many Democratic judges lost when Beto ran against Cruz?
I am almost sure that Beto is why Lina Hidalgo beat Emmett. We also had a straight-party voting button.
I don’t see why anyone would vote for someone who is unopposed. The candidate’s vote is probably sufficient to win.
A female may get one or two points unless they run for president.
I guess Republicans do a great job of weeding out bad apples.?
VOTE TOTAL DIFFERENCES AMONG JUDICIAL CANDIDATES
Hypothesis 1: Hispanic surname has (positive) effect on ability to garner votes
Hypothesis 2: Female status provides advantage
So, in Bexar County, the Republicans didn’t contest any of the district court elections in 2024. Further, all candidates were Dems and all have Spanish surnames (Scharf and Stahl are German, but these two are part of compound surnames, likely due to marriage). Point being, ceteris paribus conditions exist. Any difference in received votes (dependent variable) cannot be due to any characteristics of opponents because there was no opponent in any of these judicial elections. How much difference is there among the candidates? Look at the last column that shows the drop-off relative to the top scorer (Nicole Garza).
SEQ CT-ID SEX PTY NAME VOTES (n) SHARE DIFF.
1 DC-37 D Nicole Garza ……………………………. 442,639 100% 0
3 DC-73 D Elizabeth Martinez …………………….. 434,315 100% -8,324
2 DC-57 D Antonia “Toni” Arteaga ………………. 433,373 100% -9,266
7 DC-379 M D Ron Rangel ………………………………. 427,018 100% -15,621
4 DC-131 D Norma Gonzales ………………………. 426,774 100% -15,865
5 DC-166 D Laura Salinas …………………………… 426,356 100% -16,283
9 DC-399 M D Frank J. Castro ………………………….. 426,239 100% -16,400
8 DC-386 D Jacqueline “Jackie” Valdes …………. 424,031 100% -18,608
14 Prob#3 D Barbie Scharf-Zeldes …………………. 423,943 100% -18,696
6 DC-175 D Catherine Torres-Stahl ……………….. 423,673 100% -18,966
12 DC-408 D Angelica Jimenez ………………………. 423,671 100% -18,968
13 DC-438 D Rosie Alvarado …………………………. 422,680 100% -19,959
11 DC-407 D Tina Torres ……………………………… 422,325 100% -20,314
Findings and conclusion: Even in a situation where all uncontested “races” in the same county involving the same local electorate are Hispanic and the presence of an opponent does not complicate the analysis in any of the instances under analysis, the sure-winner candidates’ success in garnering votes still varies among them, but not by much. Tina Torres’s total is 20,314 less than that of top vote-getter Nicole Garza, or about 4.6%.
The amount of the drop-off appears to be correlated with the sequence numbers of the respective courts to which they seek election/reelection (SEQ reflects the sequence on the County Court’s unofficial election report). I do not know if that’s the same sequence on all ballots or whether the order is randomized.
There is some research on ballot position making a difference. See, e.g., Darren Grant. “The ballot order effect is huge: evidence from Texas.” Public Choice 172 (2017): 421-442.
Any remaining unexplained variance in vote performance would have to be attributed to candidate characteristics. Only two in this dataset are males, so no reasonably firm conclusion can be based on the relevance (if any) of candidate sex on ability to attract votes. And since they are ostensibly all Hispanics, it must be something else. But what?
Meme: No, Republicans are not always successful in policing and removing bad judges. But I can think of some bad judges who did lose in the Republican primary.
I do know a fair number of voters who check the Houston Bar Association poll results, but many voters ask an attorney friend for advice, and likely those attorneys hold similar views about the honesty and competency of local judges to those who respond to the bar poll.
Wolfgang: I think the decline in total vote over the course of a long ballot is basically linear. Not sure if voters get fatigued with the long ballot, or realize after a while that they do not recognize any names and are voting blindly, or are just in a rush to get to work or some other event.
Mainstream: I was thinking Devine.
I know several attorneys, and they don’t know all the judges as they have not had a case before them. I am sure that there are some, but the number of voters who ask lawyers or use the bar poll would be interesting.
More importantly, I know many lawyers who are not members of the HBA. So they don’t get a vote, and large law firms tend to participate in that poll.
I’m a criminal defense attorney. I practice in every court in Harris county.
The perception is completely wrong that Democrat judges give low bonds is a false. Robert Johnson who lost the 177 put every person back into custody who had a pr bond. Romona Franklin who lost the 338 reassessed everyone’s bond on their first appearance and about half of those people had their bond revoked and raised for no reason. She drew the ire of the defense community because she started to do it without anyone even present. No Republican judge does that. The problem is the media started to create this bs perception and everyone believed it without hearing from the people who are there everyday.
The law requires everyone with a small exception to receive a bond. Violent offenders are NOT given a pr bond. Also money doesn’t make someone less likely to be rearrested. The misdemeanor bail reform has proven that. And something we have all forgotten is that you are innocent unless proven guilty. So just being arrested should not mean a 2 year stint in the Harris county jail.
We need to go better to fight that perception if we want democratic judges.
Mainstream is probably right on why unopposed candidates often tally more votes. I think some voters just click on the candidate’s name as they scroll down the ballot. Some folks treat filling out their ballot like taking a test – they don’t leave blanks.
Greg, you made me laugh. Miles is building a legacy by showing students not to leave any blank answers. I have taken a lot of exams, and only one test was a person penalized for answering wrong, resulting in some points being deducted.
Meme – as they say, laughter is the best medicine. If there are 10 questions on a test and you answer 5 correctly and leave 5 blank, you will only get a 50% grade on that test (you fail). No answer = wrong answer. Otherwise, how would a teacher know the student has learned the material? A student can’t just leave questions blank on a test and expect not to be penalized. I believe some folks carry that test-taking habit (not leaving blanks) when completing their ballot.
Anyway, I know some people vote for candidates at the top of the ballot but have no interest in the local races and stop clicking (thus the undervote in the down ballot races). Still, of those that scroll thru the entire ballot, unopposed candidates will usually pick up votes just by people clicking on every race – leaving nothing blank.
When I took the SAT 59 years ago, wrong answers incurred a penalty to discourage guessing.
Ross, I remember differently for when I took the SAT 50 years ago, and currently SAT does not penalize wrong answers.
I took the ACT 57 years ago and don’t recall if they penalized for wrong answers. I never took the SAT but did take the LSAT in 77.
The SAT test doesn’t currently penalize wrong answers – another reason to not leave anything blank. I believe that change to SAT scoring was made about ten years ago. Anyway, most tests are graded based on the total number of correct answers provided compared to the total number of correct answers possible (e.g. 8 out of 10 = 80%). If you answer wrong, or leave it blank, you still don’t get credit (you didn’t provide the right answer).
Now this topic is making me laugh. A little bit of humor is good after an election day disaster.