Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

November 25th, 2019:

Precinct analysis: 2019 At Large #4

We move now to the first of two open seat At Large races, where the candidates were many and the clarity was lacking. Here’s an abridged look at At Large #4:


Dist  Ericka Hillyer Baldwin   Dolce  Javier Plummer
====================================================
A      1,584   1,454   1,475   3,951   1,335   1,400
B      2,994     272   1,022     829   1,124   4,428
C      2,759   8,458   5,248   7,150   1,768   3,517
D      3,250   1,142   1,634   1,663   1,328   8,015
E      2,108   2,666   2,539   7,956   1,443   1,408
F      1,142     711     820   1,804     907   1,217
G      2,525   4,902   3,190   9,212   1,023   1,932
H      1,231   1,329   1,703   1,845   2,601   1,542
I        868     858     784   1,571   2,593   1,411
J        683     566     594   1,319     720     911
K      2,135   1,722   1,297   2,470   1,169   4,470
					
A     11.00%  10.10%  10.24%  27.44%   9.27%   9.72%
B     20.74%   1.88%   7.08%   5.74%   7.79%  30.67%
C      7.87%  24.12%  14.96%  20.39%   5.04%  10.03%
D     15.22%   5.35%   7.65%   7.79%   6.22%  37.55%
E      9.31%  11.78%  11.22%  35.15%   6.38%   6.22%
F     13.11%   8.16%   9.42%  20.72%  10.42%  13.98%
G      9.15%  17.76%  11.56%  33.37%   3.71%   7.00%
H      9.48%  10.23%  13.11%  14.20%  20.02%  11.87%
I      8.53%   8.43%   7.71%  15.44%  25.49%  13.87%
J     11.08%   9.18%   9.64%  21.39%  11.68%  14.78%
K     12.87%  10.38%   7.82%  14.89%   7.05%  26.95%

There were eleven candidates in the open seat At Large #4 race. Amanda Edwards’ decision to run for the US Senate changed this from a race between an incumbent and two or three challengers you’ve never heard of to a wide open race of 11 contenders you’ve mostly not heard of. Seriously, how many of the six names here do you recognize? How many of the five names I didn’t list can you think of? Most of these candidates raised little to no money and had campaign presences to match. How are people to decide for whom to vote?

Well, one way is by picking a name they recognize. In this race, that name was Anthony Dolcefino. How many votes do you think a first-time candidate who had raised about $12K as of the thirty-day report and whose name was Anthony Smith would have received? He did well in the Republican districts and he’s got Republican endorsements plus the firefighters. Basically, he’s Tony Buzbee at this point, minus ten million dollars.

Along those same lines, Letitia Plummer did well in the African-American districts, and has the Democrats behind her bid. She’ll be riding on Sylvester Turner’s coattails, and the better he does the better off she’ll be. This race is the closest proxy to the Mayor’s race, and the main challenge Plummer will face is ensuring that Turner voters go down the ballot. She can’t afford a 22% undervote rate in the runoff.

I don’t know how many more times we will have to learn the lesson that while there is room in a citywide race for a Nick Hellyar OR a Bill Baldwin to be viable, there is not room in citywide elections for a Nick Hellyar AND a Bill Baldwin to be viable. Hellyar was in the race first, having moved over from District C (along with Dolcefino) following Edwards’ announcement, while Baldwin entered later and raised more money in a short period of time than any of the other candidates. It wasn’t enough to matter.

There’s been some discussion in the comments of previous posts about ranked-choice elections and how they might work in municipal races. I’d like to point out that there would be 39,916,800 possible rankings of these candidates (that’s eleven factorial, for my fellow math nerds), which, you know, is a lot. I might consider ranked-choice voting as an option if it were done like Cy Young voting in MLB, where you pick your top five only. Honestly, even that may be too much – in this race, I can think of at most four candidates that would have been worth a spot on such a ballot of mine. Ranked-choice voting would enable us to get a winner on Election Day. It’s not at all clear to me we’d get results that are more representative or less goofy than what we get now.

Chron overview of the District H runoff

This one’s in my back yard.

CM Karla Cisneros

Strolling through Independence Heights one recent cloudy afternoon, Councilwoman Karla Cisneros encountered reminders of the issues facing her district: a stray dog roaming from home to home, illegally dumped trash blocking a drainage ditch, a constituent still patching up damage from Tropical Storm Imelda.

Flooding and the stray animal population are among several issues Cisneros wants to continue tackling on city council if voters award her another term. Standing in her way is Isabel Longoria, a 31-year-old former legislative aide and city planning commissioner who has mounted a spirited campaign against the first-term incumbent.

In the first round, Cisneros secured 38 percent of the vote — enough to lead the four-candidate field, but short of the majority needed for an outright win. Longoria finished second, with 27 percent, and faces Cisneros in a December runoff.

While in office, Cisneros, who chairs city council’s economic development subcommittee on education, has focused much of her attention on education and workforce development.

“We need to be growing our own, because we have a huge population of young people who could be doing these jobs,” Cisneros said on the recent block walking session. “And if we don’t, then they’re not going to be contributing. They’re going to be a burden. And there’s no reason that they shouldn’t be what our city is built on.”

Longoria, meanwhile, has cast herself as the more progressive candidate and claims to be more in touch with district activists. She does not hide her wonkish approach to politics, running in the vein of presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren as the one with the plans to turn her ideas into policy.

At the core of Longoria’s pitch for change is her argument that Cisneros has not been adequately proactive about key issues in District H, an L-shaped area that takes in Independence Heights, Near Northside, East End and Woodland Heights. Longoria contends that Cisneros, a former school teacher and HISD board trustee, has focused her attention too squarely on education and workforce development to the detriment of other topics.

“I’m not one who backs down from confrontation,” Longoria said. “I think confrontation is a warrior fighting for their community. And I don’t think Karla has that same warrior spirit. I think she’s a teacher, and that’s great. But we can’t teach our way out of this problem.”

Cisneros, 65, sees things differently, arguing that she deserves another term based on her record over four years.

Here’s the thing: They’re both good. There are current members of Council that I will be happy to see the end of, but CM Cisneros is not on that list. You can read the story for the arguments for and against her, but she’s a perfectly decent Council member. Longoria is a wonk after my own heart, and there’s no question in my mind she’ll be terrific. I said in an earlier post that I hadn’t noticed a lot of Cisneros yard signs in the blocks around where I live – my dog likes going on long walks, so I see all the houses sooner or later – but that is no longer the case. She’s winning the yard sign race at this point. Looking at the official canvass, Cisneros got 52% in Precinct 0003, and 46% in Precinct 0004. In 2015 she got 53% in 0003, and 62% in 0004, so about the same in one part of the neighborhood and some slippage in the other. I don’t know what if anything that may mean for this year, but there you have it.

Another District B update

This whole situation is so unfortunate, and more than a little infuriating.

Cynthia Bailey

The two candidates who qualified for a stalled runoff in Houston City Council’s District B joined hands in unity on the steps of City Hall Friday, condemning the lawsuit filed by the third-place finisher that led officials to remove the race from the Dec. 14 ballot.

“We want to vote! We want to vote!” Tarsha Jackson and Cynthia Bailey chanted with about 40 others from the Texas Organizing Project, which has endorsed Jackson in the race and advocated for Bailey to remain on the ballot.

The candidates at the center of the contested election have taken the dispute from the courtroom to the community as they wait for legal proceedings to resume.

“I’m not going to throw a rock and hide,” Renee Jefferson-Smith, who narrowly missed the runoff and filed the lawsuit, said Thursday night at a meeting of the Acres Homes Super Neighborhood Council.

“It makes no sense to have a candidate on the ballot (if) her votes do not count,” Jefferson-Smith said. “If (Bailey) were to win in the runoff, she would not be able to take the seat. That’s what the law says. I didn’t write it, but that’s unfair.”

[…]

Jefferson-Smith initially asked a state district court judge to declare Bailey ineligible. When Judge Dedra Davis denied that request last Friday, Jefferson-Smith’s attorney filed three additional motions: an appeal of the ruling, a “mandamus” appeal seeking to replace Bailey with Jefferson-Smith on the runoff ballot, and a separate lawsuit contesting the election results.

The First Court of Appeals denied the mandamus appeal early Friday, but the ruling did not affect Jefferson-Smith’s motion contesting the election. That lawsuit triggered a portion of state law that county officials said forced them to put off the race until the suit is resolved.

Bailey’s attorney hailed the denial of the appeal as a second court victory in the saga, while Jefferson-Smith’s lawyers said it was expected after the county postponed the runoff.

See here, here, and here for the background. I have no idea what the courts will do, and I have no idea how long it may take them to do it. If we’re very lucky, we may get this race on the ballot in January, at the same time as the HD148 runoff. If not, well, who knows how long this may take.

Jefferson-Smith has said she didn’t pursue the lawsuits out of any animus toward Bailey, but the law wouldn’t allow her to take the seat, which she thinks is a disservice to voters. Her lawyers have cited a case in Galveston from 2006, in which a candidate was elected to city council despite a well-known felony conviction and then was removed from office.

“It makes no sense to have a candidate on the ballot (if) her votes do not count,” Jefferson-Smith said at a neighborhood meeting earlier this week. “If (Bailey) were to win in the runoff, she would not be able to take the seat. That’s what the law says. I didn’t write it, but that’s unfair.”

[…]

[State Rep. Jarvis] Johnson, a former District B councilman himself, said he would file a bill in the next legislative session to clarify the state law at the center of the litigation.

“The fact is if you have the right to vote, then that means you should have the right to run for office,” Johnson said.

The simplest scenario is we get the runoff, maybe on January 28 and maybe later, we get a winner and that person takes office and we’re done. We could get a runoff at some point, and after a Bailey victory another lawsuit is filed that removes her from office, in which case a whole new election has to be held. We could get what amounts to a do-over in B, in which Bailey is declared ineligible to be on the ballot but the judge refuses to declare that this means Jefferson-Smith gets to replace her so we start over. I have a hard time imagining a judge booting Bailey and putting Jefferson-Smith on the ballot in her place, but this whole thing is so crazy I hesitate to insist that anything is impossible. I applaud Rep. Johnson for pursuing a legislative fix for this mess, but since we all know the right answer is to allow full rights to felons who complete their sentences and we also know that Republicans will not support that bill, I don’t expect anything to get fixed. I don’t know what else to say.