Introduction
Congressional districts
State Rep districts
Commissioners Court/JP precincts
Comparing 2012 and 2016
Statewide judicial
Other jurisdictions
Appellate courts, Part 1
Appellate courts, Part 2
Judicial averages
Other cities
District Attorney
County Attorney
Sheriff
Tax Assessor
County Clerk
There are three HCDE At Large positions, which are elected countywide. Two were on the ballot this year, to run against Republicans who had won those seats in 2014. (The other At Large position was elected in 2018.) These are the last countywide elections on the ballot, so they’re way at the bottom – other county positions, like Commissioner and JP and Constable come next, then municipal/school board/MUD, if any. There are no money in these races. People don’t know much about them, and tend to vote on party lines. I say all this to say that there ought not to be that much variance in these races. And yet, as you will see from the two HCDE At Large races we had, there was some.
Dist Wolfe Davis Wolfe% Davis%
======================================
CD02 175,106 157,537 52.64% 47.36%
CD07 146,573 152,854 48.95% 51.05%
CD08 25,370 15,298 62.38% 37.62%
CD09 36,041 121,236 22.92% 77.08%
CD10 100,960 60,861 62.39% 37.61%
CD18 56,070 182,708 23.48% 76.52%
CD22 21,105 20,600 50.61% 49.39%
CD29 46,743 104,044 31.00% 69.00%
CD36 81,230 49,211 62.27% 37.73%
SBOE4 100,609 341,191 22.77% 77.23%
SBOE6 374,142 356,723 51.19% 48.81%
SBOE8 214,447 166,436 56.30% 43.70%
SD04 54,897 23,241 70.26% 29.74%
SD06 54,521 120,734 31.11% 68.89%
SD07 231,012 175,107 56.88% 43.12%
SD11 75,587 47,839 61.24% 38.76%
SD13 35,736 161,092 18.16% 81.84%
SD15 109,068 197,941 35.53% 64.47%
SD17 113,430 126,454 47.29% 52.71%
SD18 14,947 11,944 55.58% 44.42%
HD126 38,074 34,059 52.78% 47.22%
HD127 53,126 35,952 59.64% 40.36%
HD128 47,466 22,448 67.89% 32.11%
HD129 46,738 35,812 56.62% 43.38%
HD130 69,090 32,953 67.71% 32.29%
HD131 9,532 45,049 17.46% 82.54%
HD132 49,533 49,013 50.26% 49.74%
HD133 48,999 36,952 57.01% 42.99%
HD134 46,177 58,556 44.09% 55.91%
HD135 35,508 37,663 48.53% 51.47%
HD137 9,978 21,062 32.15% 67.85%
HD138 30,859 31,585 49.42% 50.58%
HD139 14,830 45,543 24.56% 75.44%
HD140 8,732 22,411 28.04% 71.96%
HD141 6,588 36,582 15.26% 84.74%
HD142 13,241 42,323 23.83% 76.17%
HD143 11,319 24,910 31.24% 68.76%
HD144 13,293 17,049 43.81% 56.19%
HD145 14,250 27,573 34.07% 65.93%
HD146 10,685 43,855 19.59% 80.41%
HD147 14,345 53,881 21.03% 78.97%
HD148 21,042 37,730 35.80% 64.20%
HD149 20,950 31,202 40.17% 59.83%
HD150 54,842 40,186 57.71% 42.29%
CC1 87,740 284,053 23.60% 76.40%
CC2 146,425 148,116 49.71% 50.29%
CC3 220,829 213,731 50.82% 49.18%
CC4 234,204 218,452 51.74% 48.26%
JP1 87,700 167,753 34.33% 65.67%
JP2 32,838 50,056 39.61% 60.39%
JP3 50,303 69,274 42.07% 57.93%
JP4 229,535 188,368 54.93% 45.07%
JP5 197,764 218,253 47.54% 52.46%
JP6 7,567 27,643 21.49% 78.51%
JP7 17,310 101,368 14.59% 85.41%
JP8 66,181 41,637 61.38% 38.62%
Dist Sumners BrownSumners% Brown%
======================================
CD02 178,239 153,781 53.68% 46.32%
CD07 149,276 149,677 49.93% 50.07%
CD08 25,684 14,930 63.24% 36.76%
CD09 37,140 119,868 23.65% 76.35%
CD10 102,002 59,509 63.15% 36.85%
CD18 58,363 179,885 24.50% 75.50%
CD22 21,470 20,157 51.58% 48.42%
CD29 48,719 101,542 32.42% 67.58%
CD36 82,330 47,970 63.18% 36.82%
SBOE4 104,920 335,772 23.81% 76.19%
SBOE6 380,664 348,912 52.18% 47.82%
SBOE8 217,639 162,636 57.23% 42.77%
SD04 55,470 22,553 71.09% 28.91%
SD06 56,723 117,949 32.47% 67.53%
SD07 234,209 171,238 57.77% 42.23%
SD11 76,651 46,635 62.17% 37.83%
SD13 36,983 159,472 18.83% 81.17%
SD15 112,316 193,986 36.67% 63.33%
SD17 115,691 123,829 48.30% 51.70%
SD18 15,180 11,660 56.56% 43.44%
HD126 38,802 33,248 53.85% 46.15%
HD127 53,889 35,026 60.61% 39.39%
HD128 47,977 21,854 68.70% 31.30%
HD129 47,448 34,995 57.55% 42.45%
HD130 69,768 32,168 68.44% 31.56%
HD131 9,953 44,558 18.26% 81.74%
HD132 50,241 48,064 51.11% 48.89%
HD133 49,739 36,091 57.95% 42.05%
HD134 47,419 57,143 45.35% 54.65%
HD135 36,083 36,890 49.45% 50.55%
HD137 10,151 20,831 32.76% 67.24%
HD138 31,484 30,891 50.48% 49.52%
HD139 15,396 44,842 25.56% 74.44%
HD140 9,181 21,845 29.59% 70.41%
HD141 7,029 36,060 16.31% 83.69%
HD142 13,760 41,694 24.81% 75.19%
HD143 11,837 24,277 32.78% 67.22%
HD144 13,736 16,529 45.39% 54.61%
HD145 14,723 26,947 35.33% 64.67%
HD146 11,056 43,390 20.31% 79.69%
HD147 14,922 53,129 21.93% 78.07%
HD148 21,679 36,894 37.01% 62.99%
HD149 21,361 30,695 41.03% 58.97%
HD150 55,588 39,258 58.61% 41.39%
CC1 91,042 279,998 24.54% 75.46%
CC2 149,445 144,410 50.86% 49.14%
CC3 224,188 209,572 51.68% 48.32%
CC4 238,548 213,342 52.79% 47.21%
JP1 90,547 164,215 35.54% 64.46%
JP2 33,772 48,840 40.88% 59.12%
JP3 51,467 67,910 43.11% 56.89%
JP4 233,006 184,205 55.85% 44.15%
JP5 201,206 214,079 48.45% 51.55%
JP6 7,975 27,140 22.71% 77.29%
JP7 18,116 100,374 15.29% 84.71%
JP8 67,134 40,559 62.34% 37.66%
As noted above, there are no 2016 races to compare to, so this is what we have. And what we have is Erica Davis doing a bit better against Bob Wolfe (no, not Michael Wolfe, he ran for a JP slot and lost in the primary) than David Brown did against Don Sumners. Davis got 864K votes, putting her in the upper echelon of Dems, while Brown got 847K, more in the middle. (Sumners got 14K more votes than Wolfe; there were 3K more undervotes in that race.) That translated to two points in the percentages – Davis won 55.6 to 44.4, while Brown won 54.6 to 45.4. Davis’ performance is reflected in the districts – she carried HD138 and CC2, and came close in HD132. Brown was fine, it’s just that Davis did better.
So the question is why? There are two obvious possibilities. One is that Sumners was a more familiar name – he had won the seat in 2014, and was elected Tax Assessor in 2010, so this was the third time in recent years he had been on a countywide ballot. (Sumners had also been Treasurer in the 90s, but no one is going to remember that.) Maybe that familiarity got him a few votes. The other possibility is that Davis was the only female candidate among the four, and she drew some extra votes because of that. There’s no way to know, and a sample size of one is far too small to draw any conclusions scientifically. The point here is just what I said up front – even in these similar races, there can be and will be some variance in the voting. Stuff like this is why I find these trips through the numbers so fascinating. You just never know what you’ll find.
That’s it for my tour of Harris County in the 2020 elections. I have the Fort Bend County data from their election results page, and while they are kind enough to provide a full Excel canvass, they do it in a weird way that forces me to do these calculations all over again. I’m working on it and will have a report or two from Fort Bend shortly. I hope you enjoyed this series.