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
We weren’t supposed to have a County Clerk race on the ballot in 2020, but we did following the health-related resignation of Diane Trautman in May. That gave us a battle of Stan Stanart, former County Clerk whom Trautman had deposed in 2018, and Teneshia Hudspeth, former chief elections person under Stanart. Hudspeth won easily, and though her 835K total votes were on the lower end for Democratic countywide candidates, her 53.76% of the vote was pretty close to Trautman’s 54.60% from two years before. The 2018 election was a non-Presidential year, with record turnout for such a contest, and the 2018 Clerk race also featured a Libertarian candidate, so comparisons are a bit tricky. My advice is to look at Hudspeth’s percentages compared to Trautman’s. Here’s the 2020 race:
Dist Stanart Hudspeth Stanart% Hudspeth%
=========================================
CD02 181,707 151,509 54.53% 45.47%
CD07 153,335 147,437 50.98% 49.02%
CD08 26,037 14,710 63.90% 36.10%
CD09 37,941 119,087 24.16% 75.84%
CD10 103,442 58,506 63.87% 36.13%
CD18 60,497 178,172 25.35% 74.65%
CD22 22,018 19,747 52.72% 47.28%
CD29 50,483 99,634 33.63% 66.37%
CD36 83,484 47,160 63.90% 36.10%
SBOE4 108,536 332,265 24.62% 75.38%
SBOE6 389,609 343,285 53.16% 46.84%
SBOE8 220,799 160,413 57.92% 42.08%
SD04 56,013 22,252 71.57% 28.43%
SD06 58,816 115,690 33.70% 66.30%
SD07 237,989 168,687 58.52% 41.48%
SD11 77,992 45,722 63.04% 36.96%
SD13 38,148 158,482 19.40% 80.60%
SD15 115,748 191,422 37.68% 62.32%
SD17 118,870 122,163 49.32% 50.68%
SD18 15,368 11,547 57.10% 42.90%
HD126 39,346 32,856 54.49% 45.51%
HD127 54,464 34,684 61.09% 38.91%
HD128 48,497 21,457 69.33% 30.67%
HD129 48,407 34,399 58.46% 41.54%
HD130 70,686 31,495 69.18% 30.82%
HD131 10,184 44,299 18.69% 81.31%
HD132 51,079 47,460 51.84% 48.16%
HD133 51,079 35,518 58.98% 41.02%
HD134 49,424 56,156 46.81% 53.19%
HD135 36,914 36,293 50.42% 49.58%
HD137 10,430 20,635 33.57% 66.43%
HD138 32,119 30,383 51.39% 48.61%
HD139 15,914 44,364 26.40% 73.60%
HD140 9,567 21,385 30.91% 69.09%
HD141 7,122 35,961 16.53% 83.47%
HD142 14,114 41,357 25.44% 74.56%
HD143 12,295 23,775 34.09% 65.91%
HD144 13,990 16,257 46.25% 53.75%
HD145 15,404 26,341 36.90% 63.10%
HD146 11,411 43,173 20.91% 79.09%
HD147 15,494 52,686 22.73% 77.27%
HD148 22,919 35,897 38.97% 61.03%
HD149 21,718 30,328 41.73% 58.27%
HD150 56,366 38,803 59.23% 40.77%
CC1 94,155 277,561 25.33% 74.67%
CC2 152,576 141,645 51.86% 48.14%
CC3 229,070 206,538 52.59% 47.41%
CC4 243,143 210,221 53.63% 46.37%
JP1 94,708 161,313 36.99% 63.01%
JP2 34,728 47,948 42.00% 58.00%
JP3 52,202 67,235 43.71% 56.29%
JP4 236,302 181,977 56.49% 43.51%
JP5 205,591 211,174 49.33% 50.67%
JP6 8,522 26,546 24.30% 75.70%
JP7 18,695 99,939 15.76% 84.24%
JP8 68,196 39,833 63.13% 36.87%
Nothing we haven’t seen before by this point. It’s possible Stanart did a little better than expected because of name recognition, but who can tell. The 2018 analysis was part of a package deal. Here’s the County Clerk’s race on its own:
Dist Stanart Trautman Gomez Under Stanart% Traut% Gomez%
==============================================================
CD02 135,427 116,744 6,717 6,221 52.31% 45.09% 2.59%
CD07 116,383 116,488 5,648 6,706 48.79% 48.84% 2.37%
CD08 17,784 10,221 679 520 62.00% 35.63% 2.37%
CD09 23,329 93,625 2,504 2,376 19.53% 78.37% 2.10%
CD10 71,172 39,707 2,623 1,970 62.71% 34.98% 2.31%
CD18 39,159 138,311 4,892 4,087 21.47% 75.84% 2.68%
CD22 15,265 15,184 857 711 48.76% 48.50% 2.74%
CD29 30,313 82,449 3,916 2,627 25.98% 70.66% 3.36%
CD36 60,467 35,918 2,452 2,036 61.18% 36.34% 2.48%
SBOE6 287,300 269,837 14,477 15,045 50.26% 47.21% 2.53%
HD126 29,277 24,586 1,293 1,074 53.08% 44.58% 2.34%
HD127 41,017 25,198 1,634 1,260 60.45% 37.14% 2.41%
HD128 34,735 15,876 1,142 915 67.12% 30.68% 2.21%
HD129 35,567 26,799 1,739 1,582 55.48% 41.80% 2.71%
HD130 51,064 22,942 1,722 1,365 67.43% 30.30% 2.27%
HD131 6,110 34,855 864 717 14.61% 83.33% 2.07%
HD132 32,579 32,090 1,680 1,023 49.10% 48.37% 2.53%
HD133 40,721 28,089 1,552 2,192 57.87% 39.92% 2.21%
HD134 37,977 47,211 2,090 3,692 43.51% 54.09% 2.39%
HD135 26,584 27,712 1,379 1,033 47.75% 49.77% 2.48%
HD137 7,257 16,167 678 552 30.11% 67.08% 2.81%
HD138 23,336 23,515 1,257 1,100 48.51% 48.88% 2.61%
HD139 10,545 35,238 1,128 961 22.48% 75.12% 2.40%
HD140 5,269 17,569 722 490 22.36% 74.57% 3.06%
HD141 3,921 26,852 622 438 12.49% 85.53% 1.98%
HD142 8,579 30,125 850 662 21.69% 76.16% 2.15%
HD143 7,405 20,178 952 699 25.95% 70.71% 3.34%
HD144 8,949 13,629 786 450 38.30% 58.33% 3.36%
HD145 9,596 21,809 1,226 834 29.41% 66.84% 3.76%
HD146 8,082 34,044 931 1,065 18.77% 79.07% 2.16%
HD147 10,013 42,972 1,576 1,316 18.35% 78.76% 2.89%
HD148 15,587 29,671 1,907 1,695 33.05% 62.91% 4.04%
HD149 14,042 23,985 859 785 36.11% 61.68% 2.21%
HD150 41,087 27,535 1,699 1,354 58.43% 39.16% 2.42%
CC1 61,603 218,965 6,875 6,563 21.43% 76.18% 2.39%
CC2 105,901 114,124 6,772 5,028 46.69% 50.32% 2.99%
CC3 164,601 157,515 7,843 8,035 49.89% 47.74% 2.38%
CC4 177,194 158,043 8,798 7,628 51.50% 45.94% 2.56%
I included undervotes in the county candidates’ analyses in 2018 because I was trying to analyze the effects of straight ticket voting as well. As I said, if you compare just the Democratic candidates’ percentages, you see that Hudspeth and Trautman had fairly similar performances, with the drops we have noted before in some of the Latino districts. Trautman knocked it out of the park in HD134, which was more Republican in 2018. Hudspeth had among the higher scores this year in HDs 131 and 141. I fully expect she’ll build on her performance in 2022, when she will be the incumbent running for re-election, though as always the first question is what will the national atmosphere look like.