Mayor Annise Parker
What if they held a mayoral race and nobody came? That’s the question plaguing many people currently involved in Houston politics—even if no one else in town is asking it. This phenomenon isn’t entirely new: in 2009,* a measly 19 percent of Houston voters turned out for the general election to make a winner out of Annise Parker. That number could wind up looking downright spectacular, however, after the results of the 2015 mayoral race are tabulated on November 3. At this point—about a month out—no one can even use the traditional, if lame, “just-wait–til-Labor-Day” excuse; that holiday has come and gone, and if you ask the average person on the street who he is supporting, the answer is likely to be one big shrug followed by a puzzled squint, accompanied by “Who’s running again?”
One could say that the issues—at least the ones being discussed—aren’t all that compelling. Few people understand, or even want to understand, the pension crisis that is bleeding the city dry while keeping the bank accounts of retired firefighters and policemen safe and secure. Houstonians do know that traffic back-ups and potholes as dangerous as starving raptors now make it impossible to get from point A to point B (or C or D), but residents—especially the long-timers—also comfort themselves knowing that congestion equals growth equals prosperity. A future of potentially uneducated masses in a high-tech world? Isn’t that the school district’s cross to bear? Increased segregation between the haves and the have-nots in this oh-so-hospitable town? Come on! Once oil prices go back up, anyone will be able to buy a mansion in River Oaks.
I’ve covered this before, but what did the 2009 Mayoral election not have that the three preceding high-turnout Mayoral elections (2003, 2001, and 1997*) did? A high profile referendum that helped drive that turnout. In 2003, it was the Metro referendum; in 2001, it was on a charter amendment to ban domestic partner benefits for city employees; and in 1997 it was a charter amendment to ban affirmative action. Past performance does not guarantee future results, but I’d bet the over on 2009 turnout this year. If that doesn’t happen, then we’ll need to have a heart-to-heart talk about how disengaged our local voters are.
As or the rest, like most rants it’s more descriptive than prescriptive, so there’s no argument for me to evaluate. I don’t disagree with the description, but that doesn’t get us very far. Swartz correctly notes that our city voters are old, but gives no suggestion as to what if anything could be done to change that. I figure sooner or later a candidate will invest in that kind of work, and if it pays off then others will follow. Until then, what you see is what you get.
By the way, here’s another story about that 1997 affirmative action referendum, from just before the election. See if any of this sounds familiar to you.
There has never been any dispute about what Proposition A would do if it is approved by voters here on Tuesday: It would abolish affirmative action in Houston’s contracting and hiring.
Nonetheless, there has been a tumultuous fight over just how Proposition A should be worded, one that may well head for the courts even after all the votes are in. And at the core of this battle is a question that is reverberating in other cities and states where anti-affirmative-action measures are gathering steam: should opponents of affirmative action be able to define these measures by using the language of the civil rights movement?
That is exactly what happened in California last year with the passage of Proposition 209, the measure that dismantled state-sponsored affirmative action. Similarly, the conservative group promoting the measure in Houston drew up a proposition with words taken almost directly from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It said voters should decide whether the city “shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment” to anyone “on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.”
But by the time Mayor Bob Lanier, a staunch proponent of affirmative action, and the City Council were through, the wording on the proposition was totally revised.
So now, when voters in the nation’s fourth-largest city go to the polls on Tuesday, they will be asked whether the city charter should be amended “to end the use of affirmative action for women and minorities” in employment and contracting, “including ending the current program and any similar programs in the future.”
The measure’s proponents say the rewording by the Mayor and the Council is outrageous and heavy-handed, while those who favor the change say it is a more honest and straightforward way of describing what the proposition would do. Behind this fight over words are some striking polling statistics, which help to explain just why the fight has been so pitched and which offer a look at the voters’ complicated feelings about affirmative action.
Phrased as a nondiscrimination measure, Proposition A would likely pass with as much as 70 percent of the vote, according to joint polls conducted in recent weeks by the University of Houston and Rice University. But phrased as a measure to wipe out affirmative action, the results are starkly different: In separate polls conducted last month and earlier this week, 47.5 percent of voters described themselves as favoring that concept.
“Basically, what we found here is that the wording is incredibly important on this issue,” said Bob Stein, a political scientist and dean of the School of Social Sciences at Rice University. Like many pollsters here, he describes Tuesday’s vote as too close to call.
“The wording here defines the issue,” Professor Stein added, “and in defining the issue, you manipulate the symbols.”
In the poll this week of 831 registered voters, 47.5 percent said they would vote for Proposition A and 39.8 percent said they would vote against, with the rest undecided or of no stated opinion. The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 3.6 percent.
Boy, the more things change, am I right? I wonder how many of the pro-Prop A people in 1997 are now anti-Prop 1 people this year. For the record, Prop A was defeated by a 55-45 margin, so consider that another example of how hard it is to get an accurate poll response in a city of Houston election. I’m trying to keep that in mind with polls about HERO, whatever they say.
(*) To be fair, the 1991 election, in which Bob Lanier defeated Sylvester Turner and ousted then-Mayor Kathy Whitmire, had turnout in excess of 300,000 as well, and there’s no report of a referendum on the results page. Maybe that year was different, or maybe there was something else going on that I don’t know about.
It does not appear as if Mimi has gotten over her bad experience during the Memorial Day flood.
And I’m guessing ZZ Top might not be one of her favorite bands.
I don’t know. I thought she had some insightful observations. Essentially, I think her point was that the electorate is old and the non-voters are disengaged from the process. One wonders what would motivate more Hispanics to vote, which tend to be younger than people that long for a past that never was and never will be again.
I’m one of the “old voters” and I certainly don’t “…long for a past that never was and never will be again.” as you put it Bayard Rustin. The turnout problem seems to be not just a Houston phenomenon. Maybe the younger demographic here would get excited by Stuart Schuffman’s approach in San Francisco, taking on the powerful incumbent Mayor Ed Lee and the overwhelming negatives for “regular folk” in the city by the bay. He has a campaign video out that probably violates every rule in the book. Warning, expletives not deleted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvca1z9pSzE
Personally I thought Mimi’s article had lot’s of good info and opinion. Turnout was driven in 91 because of widespread disenchantment with crime/police, METRO and a general tiredness of ten years of the same old same old. People were loking for something different and were tired of the sacrifices that were made to balance the budge after the oil bust. Amazing how people can get worked up over esplanades not being mowed and ditches not cleaned when someone is offering them miles of sidewalk.
Maybe a little off center here because I was never a fan of the way Bob Lanier was elected – warmed to him as a person after some of the good things he did to include all the citizens of Houston – but I can guarantee you when he favored something, he expended every bit of his capital to do what he felt was right….Enron Field/Minute Maid Park would never have been authorized without his push…..what I am trying to point out is that he was a Mayor who didn’t take guff, did his job because he loved this city and he wanted only good for it and were he alive today, we would not have all this divisive crap regarding HERO and the backbiting and finger pointing – Bob Lanier would have been for HERO, he would have called folks together and told them just that and why they would be for it and then everyone would go out and pass the damn thing – and there would not be lingering bitterness regardless of the outcome or where people stood. I think his election came about because people just wanted to see things move again and to feel good……something sorely lacking in Mayoral candidates in 2015. – it moved people much like empowerment and there is no personality or issue like that driving things today
Bob Lanier would have not passed such a divisive (men in women’s bathrooms) issue in the first place. He would have brought folks together before that.
The language in the ordinance would not be so sloppy that it could mean the end of affirmative action, something Bob Lanier championed.
Pingback: Endorsement watch: Going for Turner – Off the Kuff