Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

November 4th, 2021:

More on the November 2021 election results

Here’s the Chron story on the Tuesday election results. It is mostly a straight recording of the individual races, including those I covered yesterday and others that I didn’t. Of the most interest to me is this:

Results were delayed until late Tuesday, in part because of a reported power outage at Harris County Elections’ counting center. Early and absentee totals were not available until after 10 p.m.,

“The machines are sensitive to any interference, so to ensure the integrity of the computers we conducted a full logic and accuracy test, which takes about two hours,” according to a Facebook post by the county’s elections administration office. “Though we want to get the results out quickly, we prioritize processing everything accurately even if it takes some extra time.”

The post said judges were dropping off equipment at the central counting location at that time.

People still were voting at 8 p.m., about an hour after polls closed, at one poll location, Harris County Elections Administrator Isabel Longoria tweeted.

“Standby, watch the Astros, and we’ll catch you soon,” Longoria said in the Tweet.

The Astros advice probably didn’t help anyone’s mood, but that’s hindsight. The Facebook post in question, which contains video of Longoria explaining what is happening, is here – there are more vids further up the page as well. Campos was furious, called it a “botched” night and an “epic failure”, and expects “outrage” from Commissioners Court. Stace was more measured, saying “these glitches give the County a chance to fix things so we can avoid them when everyone shows up next November”. I lean more in that direction, but I get the frustration – I wore myself out hitting Refresh on Tuesday – and there are a lot of questions to be asked and answered. I will be interested to see how the Court reacts.

Longoria also had this to say, on Twitter:

The line about jail voting refers to this. Not sure where she’s getting the 12% turnout figure from – going by the Election Day totals posted, there were 227,789 votes cast out of 2,482,914 registered voters, for 9.17% turnout. Still, that’s a significant increase from 2017, which had 150,174 ballots cast out of 2,233,533 voters, for 6.72% turnout. That’s a 52% increase in voters, or a 36% increase in turnout as a percentage of registered voters, in a year where there was nothing sexy on the ballot. What gives?

It could be an effect of a more energized Republican base, going to the polls to express their feelings about President Biden. I don’t know that the Constitutional amendments were a great vehicle for that, but maybe the school board races were. Conservative challengers are in runoffs in three races, so maybe that had something to do with it. Here’s a comparison of turnout from 2017 to 2021:


Year  Dist   Votes  Voters  Turnout
===================================
2017     I   9,784  78,479   12.47%
2021     I  10,108  87,671   11.53%

2017     V  12,431  85,309   14.57%
2021     V  17,153  89,123   19.25%

2017    VI   7,399  73,575   10.06%
2021    VI   8,972  77,508   11.58%

2017   VII  12,219  89,177   13.70%
2021   VII  15,596  99,824   15.62%

2017    IX   8,622  84,185   10.24%
2021    IX   8,935  90,067    9.32%

On the one hand, the two races that didn’t prominently feature conservative candidates actually had less turnout (at least percentage-wise) than they did in 2017. On the other hand, outside of the District V race, the increase wasn’t that much. In District VI, it was a jump of 21% in total voters, and 15% in turnout of RVs, and in District VII, it was 27% for voters and 14% for turnout of RVs. Not nothing, but much less than Harris County as a whole. Even District V, at a 38% increase in voters and 32% increase in turnout of RVs, was below the county level.

So who knows? Final turnout was definitely higher than I thought it would be, and in the end it was still the case that almost exactly half of the vote came in on Election Day. Again, more than I thought it would be but still a big step down from 2017, when 59% of the vote was on E-Day. Given the huge turnout in 2020, it may be the case that there are just now more habitual voters. If that’s so, we’ll see some of that effect in 2022 and especially 2023, when the open Mayoral race will also drive people to the polls. I don’t think there are any big conclusions to draw here, but let’s put a pin in this and see what we think a couple of years down the line.

A redistricting lawsuit twofer from MALC

One federal, one state.

The Mexican American Legislative Caucus in the Texas House has opened a second front in the legal war over the state’s new political maps.

The caucus on Wednesday turned to the state courts to challenge the constitutionality of the new state House map, arguing it violates state requirements for breaking county lines in drawing up the chamber’s 150 districts. The move comes on the heels of two lawsuits filed against the newly approved maps in federal court. The caucus on Wednesday simultaneously filed another federal lawsuit alleging the state’s new maps were drawn with discriminatory intent and violate the federal Voting Rights Act.

Texas redistricting fights have typically played out in federal courts, which decade after decade have found that lawmakers, often intentionally, flouted federal protections for voters of color in redistricting. Filed in Austin, MALC framed its federal lawsuit as an effort to “redress once again Texas’s sordid pattern of racial discrimination.”

However, the lawsuit filed in state district court in Travis County is tied to language in the state Constitution, which states that legislators drawing 150 districts for the Texas House are supposed to keep whole counties that have sufficient population to make up one House district.

MALC’s challenge centers on the reconfiguration of Cameron County in the Rio Grande Valley, which breaks the county line twice to create three different districts — only one of which is wholly contained within the county. The state’s “county line rule,” MALC argues, would require two districts to be drawn within Cameron with the remaining population connected to a single neighboring district, as was the case under the map the state used for the last decade.

The new lines in Cameron, drawn over the objections of lawmakers who represent the affected areas, would afford Republicans a newly competitive state House seat in an area currently dominated by Democrats. In its federal lawsuit, MALC alleges the lines would also “severely dilute” the ability of Latinos and the Spanish-speaking community in the area to elect their preferred candidates.

The swap and the objections to it are noted in this post. This is the first state court lawsuit against the redistricting effort, though the Gutierrez/Eckhardt suit will find its way there as well. The claim seems pretty straightforward. According to the population report for the State House map, HD37 has 164K voters in Cameron County and 20K in Willacy, while HD35 has 70K in Cameron and 123K in Hidalgo. All 186K voters in HD35 are in Cameron. The suit claims that according to the county rule in the state constitution, HD37 should be entirely within Cameron County, and those Willacy County voters would need to be swapped out, presumably to HD35 where about 20K of its voters would have to be in HD37. Here’s a quote from the lawsuit:

A key principle in both the plain language of the Texas Constitution itself and the Texas Supreme Court’s interpretation of the county line rule in light of Reynolds, is that for any county which has enough population for one or more representatives and also has a left-over surplus that cannot be wholly contained in the county, that surplus may only be joined in one single representative district with area from another contiguous county or counties.

Emphasis mine. I will note that HDs 35 (57-42 for Biden in 2020 and 38 (62-37 Biden) are reasonably Dem-friendly, while HD37 (51-48 Biden) is less so. Now, Willacy County was roughly 56-44 for Biden, so how Dem-friendly the HD35 portion of Cameron County is makes a difference here. I have to assume it’s better for Dems than the Willacy portion is, because otherwise the Republicans wouldn’t have bothered. Maybe they could still squeeze HD37 in a favorable way for themselves if it had to be entirely within Cameron, but in the end they didn’t. So this could be a difference maker, if the plaintiffs win.

On the federal side:

In its federal lawsuit, MALC challenges the new maps for Congress, the Texas House and the State Board of Education, saying they are intentionally discriminatory and mired in illegal racial gerrymanders. The caucus also raises specific claims on a litany of districts where they allege the Legislature packed and cracked communities of color to limit their electoral impact.

“The plans adopted by the State not only failed to increase Latino and minority opportunities for representation, they actually decreased them while increasing the number of districts in which Anglos form a majority of the eligible voter population,” the MALC complaint reads. “This turns the concept of representative democracy on its head.”

Echoing the two federal lawsuits already in the pipeline, MALC is also challenging the Legislature’s refusal to create additional districts in which Hispanic voters would control elections. Republicans, who had complete control over the redistricting process this year, declined to create those districts even as they reconfigured the congressional map to include the two additional U.S. House seats the state gained, the most of any state in this year’s reapportionment, because of its explosive growth.

See here and here for the other federal lawsuits. I don’t know what new MALC is bringing to the table, and as discussed I don’t have much faith in the federal courts on this matter, but I welcome all comers. The Statesman has more.

More kids are getting their COVID shots

So good to see.

The possibility of the parties, vacations and family gatherings energized six families who attended the COVID-19 vaccination event on Wednesday inside Memorial Hermann, the morning after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially expanded eligibility to kids from 5- to 11-years-old. Eager parents are clamoring for an opportunity to vaccinate their children after an especially challenging wave of infections, which hit a peak in late August just as kids returned to school.

Texas Children’s Hospital administered its first dose of the vaccine at 6:15 a.m., and is expected to administer thousands more throughout the week to children with an appointment, which are now only available as soon as Nov. 18. Memorial Hermann is making the vaccine available to walk-ins at its hospital campuses, beginning Thursday morning.

Parents, many of whom were affiliated with the Memorial Hermann system, shared their own harrowing experiences with the virus at Thursday’s vaccine event. Chris Lange, the father of 8-year-old and 5-year-old girls, said he is still dealing with brain fog after an aggressive bout with COVID during the February winter freeze.

The kids caught a less severe infection, but the experience raised the urgency of vaccination, he said.

“This whole (pandemic) is just such a drain on everyone,” he said. “Knowing that now maybe we don’t have to worry about schools closing. We don’t have to worry about kids staying home. I mean, that’s a big win.”

I’ve seen plenty of celebrating, on Facebook and Twitter, by friends who have kids in the 5-11 age range, much as I did when the shots were cleared for ages 12 and up. I figure we’ll see a big spike in vax rates in the first couple of weeks, then it will settle at a much lower level as the eager folks all get it done and what’s left are the more hesitant and resistant. Every little bit helps, that much is for sure.

Texas blog roundup for the week of November 1

The Texas Progressive Alliance is now looking ahead to candidate filing season as it brings you this week’s roundup.

(more…)

Hotze’s first attempt at defending himself in the Lopez/Aguirre lawsuit fails

There’s a long way to go on this, but at least for now the courts aren’t having any of Steven Hotze’s bullshit.

A petition for mandamus was denied by the 14th Court of Appeals today – an appeal brought by Dr. Steven Hotze, who claims a lawsuit against him is nothing but a “political sword” aimed at assisting the Democrats going into the 2022 election.

The appeal, which sought to set aside an order compelling requests for production, stems from a lawsuit brought by David Lopez earlier this year.

Lopez sued Hotze and his nonprofit entity, Liberty Center for God and Country, alleging they wrongly targeted him as a key figure in their “bizarre and unfounded claims of massive voter fraud.”

[…]

In his petition for writ of mandamus, Hotze questioned whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to produce documents controlled by Liberty Center.

Hotze, a Republican activist, asserts Lopez is represented by two highly partisan Democratic election lawyers, Scott Brazil and Dickey Grigg, and that it “is clear that Lopez and his counsel are using this lawsuit as a political sword, and through irrelevant and harassing discovery request are attempting to acquire documents intended to promote and assist their political agenda going into the 2022 election in an effort to assist Democratic candidates.”

The 14th Court found that Hotze has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief, denying his petition for writ of mandamus.

See here for the last entry I have in this saga; the lawsuit in question was filed in March. You can see the writ, which had been filed on October 15, here, and the brief denial by a panel that included one Republican and two Democrats here; it was filed on October 28. The gist of the writ is that Hotze “in his individual capacity” says he shouldn’t have to produce documents from the company that he founded and is president of, and that the plaintiffs’ lawyers are a couple of meanies and Democrats and this whole thing is just not fair. I will just note that Hotze’s attorney is of course the highly partisan former Chair of the Harris County Republican Party, and that the Court’s response to his writ was basically “um, no”. I wish they had written something longer and more detailed, but honestly the brevity of it makes it all the more fun. Enjoy this little tasty tidbit of schadenfreude, you’ve earned it.