Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

November 9th, 2015:

Precinct analysis: Mayor’s race

I now have draft canvasses. You know what that means. All data is for Harris County only. First up, the Mayor’s race:


Dist  Hall  Turner  Garcia    King Costello    Bell
===================================================
A    1,906   4,587   3,509   6,265    1,522   1,129
B    2,494  15,947   2,159     459      259     277
C    2,575  10,951   6,804  12,121    4,894   7,451
D    4,060  17,033   2,637   1,571      702   1,022
E    3,409   4,258   4,831  15,228    2,122   1,745
F    1,189   3,297   2,561   2,428      820     574
G    3,017   5,036   4,076  20,042    4,040   2,787
H    1,194   4,721   7,145   1,585      810   1,119
I    1,237   3,717   6,114   1,327      650     796
J      902   2,151   1,900   1,810      594     598
K    2,777   9,912   2,922   3,022    1,097   1,806
						
A    9.80%  23.58%  18.04%  32.20%    7.82%   5.80%
B   11.38%  72.75%   9.85%   2.09%    1.18%   1.26%
C    5.64%  24.00%  14.91%  26.56%   10.73%  16.33%
D   14.66%  61.50%   9.52%   5.67%    2.53%   3.69%
E   10.56%  13.19%  14.96%  47.17%    6.57%   5.41%
F    9.79%  27.14%  21.08%  19.99%    6.75%   4.73%
G    7.60%  12.68%  10.27%  50.48%   10.18%   7.02%
H    7.06%  27.93%  42.27%   9.38%    4.79%   6.62%
I    8.65%  25.98%  42.73%   9.28%    4.54%   5.56%
J   10.67%  25.45%  22.48%  21.41%    7.03%   7.07%
K   12.57%  44.87%  13.23%  13.68%    4.97%   8.18%
Sylvester Turner

Sylvester Turner

The seven other candidates combined for 2.57% of the vote, so for the sake of space and my sanity, I’m omitting them from these tables, but I will say a few words about them here. Hoc Thai Nguyen, who had the seventh-highest vote total, scored 6.60% of the vote in District F, and 3.02% in J, the two most Asian-heavy parts of town. As it happens, F (1.93%) and J (1.15%) were Marty McVey’s two best districts, too. Nguyen also broke out of the square root club (*) in A (1.01%) and I (1.08%). No other candidate reached 1% in any district. Demetria Smith, who ran for District D in 2013, came closest with 0.93% of the vote in D. At the bottom of the ladder were Joe Ferreira (240 votes) and Dale Steffes (302), but it was Steffes who had the worst performance in any district. Nearly half of his votes (143 of them) came in District G, and he collected all of 2 votes in J and 3 votes in B. Ferreira got 7 votes in B, but made it to double digits everywhere else. Neither he nor Rafael Munoz made it to triple digits in any district, however. I guarantee, this is the kind of analysis you won’t see anywhere else.

The conventional wisdom on Sylvester Turner is that he needed to broaden his appeal beyond African-American voters, who were expected to strongly support his candidacy. He certainly received their strong support, as the results in B and D attest. Turner also finished first in districts F, J, and K, and finished second in A, C, G, H, and I. That looks pretty reasonably broad to me. If you’re alarmed by him finishing behind King in C, I would simply note that there do exist Republicans in District C, and C was where both Chris Bell and Steve Costello had their strongest showings. I feel confident saying that much of that vote will transfer to Turner. Ben Hall didn’t dent Turner’s support in B and D; given that plenty of anti-HERO voters also supported Turner, it seems likely to me that he will pick up a fair bit of Hall’s support. And perhaps with some help from Adrian Garcia’s endorsement, Turner ought to do well in H and I. None of this is guaranteed, of course. People do actually have to come out and vote, and if there’s any sense of inevitability that might make some people think they needn’t bother to show up. For what it’s worth, I get the sense from too much Facebook reading that plenty of disappointed HERO supporters are not depressed but angry, and that they know their best chance of a second shot at an equal rights ordinance is with Mayor Turner, not Mayor King. I think they’ll show up. Runoff early voting starts December 2, so we’ll know soon enough.

A word about Garcia before I move on: If every single voter in H and I had voted for him, his Harris County total would have been 62,623. If you then subtract the votes Bill King got in H and I from his total, he’d be left with 62,954. Garcia gained a net 267 votes on King in Fort Bend and lost a net 26 votes in Montgomery, so when you add it all up, he’d still have been out of the money. Now I know that H and I aren’t solely made up of Latinos – hell, I live in H, and I’m almost as white as King – and there are plenty of Latino voters in other districts. There could also have been higher turnout in these districts; both were under the overall average. My point in using this bit of shorthand is to say that it was really Garcia who needed to broaden his support, and to that end his biggest problem was other Democrats, not any anti-HERO surge. I think Garcia was handicapped by his late entry into the race, much as Sylvester Turner was by his late entry into the 2003 Mayor’s race. By the time Turner jumped in, after the legislative session, Bill White had locked up a significant amount of support from Democratic voters, including a non-trivial number of black Democrats. By the time Garcia got in, he had to ask a lot of people to reconsider the decision they’d already made about whom to support for Mayor in order to ask them to support him. That’s a much harder thing to do. He had his reasons for getting in so late, and it’s always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. I’m just saying the reasons why Garcia isn’t in the runoff go beyond simply counting the number of Latinos that voted.

And while we’re still talking about broadening appeal, there’s Bill King. Look at those numbers above. King did very well in E and G, fairly well in A, C, F, and J, and not so well anywhere else, including below-the-Hoc-Thai-Nguyen-in-F-line finishes in B and D. Where does King turn to sufficiently improve his performance in the runoff to have a shot at it? I feel like the basic model for this is Jack Christie’s runoff win against Jolanda Jones in 2011, which is to say broaden his appeal outside of his Republican base, maximize those votes, and limit Turner to his own base in B and D. Easier said than done, but it has been done. It’s been suggested to me that a factor that may have driven turnout at least as much as the HERO vote was Republican voters in the city having a real choice for Mayor for the first time since 2003. There may be something to that, but if so I’d note as before that King received just 30,000 more votes than Roy Morales did in 2009, which receiving 33,000 fewer votes than Orlando Sanchez did in 2003. Make of that what you will. King ought to have room to boost Republican turnout in the runoff – Republicans have a few candidates they might like to support elsewhere on the runoff ballot as well – but I don’t think that gets him over the line on its own. I think he can’t win unless he can take some votes away from Turner. How he might do that, I assume we’ll find out.

I’ve got more of these to do over the course of the week. Remember again, these are draft canvasses, so no overseas or provisional ballots, and these numbers are all Harris County only. If you like seeing pretty pictures instead of numbers, these two Chron stories ought to have what you want. Let me know if you have any questions about this. I’ll have the next post up tomorrow.

(*) This is an old Rice joke. The “square root club” referred to anyone for whom the square root of their GPA was higher than their actual GPA. This is a geeky way of saying “less than 1.0”, which for these purposes means “less than 1.00 percent”.

HBU contraception lawsuit goes to SCOTUS

Here we go.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether religious nonprofits should be required to provide birth control benefits to female employees even if the employers object to certain contraceptives on religious grounds.

The court announced Friday that it would consider a case brought by East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University against the federal government over a provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring some employers to provide contraceptive coverage. It is one of seven related cases from around the country that the high court agreed to hear at once.

The religious universities oppose emergency contraceptives, including the so-called morning-after pill, and intrauterine devices, which they liken to “abortifacients” — or drugs that induce an abortion. (Health experts and scientists have disputed that claim.)

[…]

Under federal religious freedom laws, religious nonprofits can seek “accommodations” to be exempted from the contraceptive mandate by submitting a form or notification certifying the organization’s objection to paying for contraception coverage on religious grounds. Doing so transfers the administrative obligations of providing contraception coverage from the employer to the insurance company or a third party, which takes over handling the claims.

But the universities argue that requirement infringes on their religious freedom because female employees may still be able to obtain contraception under that process.

See here, here, here, and here for the background. As the Chron notes, the Supremes actually took appeals from seven related contraception/insurance cases and combined them. They’ll hear oral arguments in March and render their decision in June as usual, just in time to capture people’s attention during the Presidential race. ThinkProgress, RH Reality Check, and SCOTUS Blog, which details all seven cases, have more.

Back to the business angle

I’m sure we’ll hear more of this in the next few weeks.

Business and tourism leaders worried Wednesday that voters’ rejection of a citywide anti-discrimination ordinance has hurt what had been one of their best recruiting tools: Houston’s emerging reputation as a diverse metropolis that supported an openly gay mayor and welcomes young talent looking to launch careers in a progressive environment.

Suddenly at risk, they say, are corporate relocations, nationally prominent sporting events and the lucrative convention business that generate millions of dollars and help the region thrive.

“In recent years, we have done a remarkable job of changing the perception and attracting people to Houston,” said Bob Harvey, president and CEO of the Greater Houston Partnership. ” … We have to quickly re-establish that this is a modern, open city.”

[…]

Mike Waterman, president of the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau, the group that recruits conventions that draw tens of thousands of people here annually, said many of those top organizers hope the new mayoral administration will pass an alternative measure quickly.

“We can’t go on as a city without a non-discrimination ordinance forever,” Waterman said. “It’s a differentiator, and one we do not have today.”

The Greater Houston Hotel & Lodging Association, which like the other booster group was vocal in its support of HERO, echoed that concern.

“I think the issue we face is we want people outside our city to know the true Houston, that we are very open and welcoming to all visitors,” association president Stephanie Haynes said.

[…]

There also was concern Wednesday that the defeat of HERO could make the city unattractive to diverse job candidates, including the increasingly sought-after millennial workers, said Keith Wolf, managing director of Murray Resources, a recruiting and staffing firm in Houston.

“I think the larger concern is that it feeds into the misperception by some that Houston and Texas, in general, is an intolerant, unwelcoming place,” Wolf said.

“If you’ve been on Facebook and Twitter in the last 24 hours, you’ve probably seen millennials expressing their embarrassment that the ordinance did not pass,” he added.

Harvey, of the Greater Houston Partnership, said it will be hard to know how many companies might avoid Houston because of the vote, but he said he agreed that major companies are eager for young professional workers. Those recruits, he said, care about social issues.

I’ve said this a few times before, and I’ll say it again: This is a political opportunity for Democrats to try and drive a wedge between business interests that tend to support Republicans and the Republicans like Dan Patrick and Greg Abbott who oppose them on matters of equality (among other things). All it would really take, at least in the beginning, would be for some Democratic elected officials to point out how Republicans are actively harming businesses in Texas by things like their opposition to LGBT equality. (There are plenty of other issues one could cite, from “sanctuary cities” to schools and pre-kindergarten and infrastructure, but with HERO in the news this is the place to start.) Acknowledge that business interests won’t always agree with Democrats, but they already strongly disagree with Republicans on many things, and they are not being well served by a political party that is taking them for granted. This is obviously a long-term project, but it’s basically free and has plenty of upside. Naturally, the first politician to take this path needs to be Sylvester Turner, since he’s the only candidate in the Mayoral runoff who has any interest in revisiting HERO if elected. I’m just saying.

Another unintended consequence of tort “reform”

From Lisa Falkenberg:

At every turn in her ordeal, Laura has felt irrelevant.

The Houston mother of two says she was raped in her hospital bed by a doctor who she claims checked his phone afterward while she cried. She reported the rape to nurses who responded with cold skepticism. She had to wait nearly two years for police to collect the alleged attacker’s DNA and make an arrest.

And now, there’s this: the physician charged with assaulting her at Ben Taub hospital in November 2013, Dr. Shafeeq Sheikh, may get off scot-free in civil court.

And Texas law may entitle her to only modest compensation from Sheikh’s employer at the time of the rape, the prestigious Baylor College of Medicine.

Sheikh continued at Baylor for seven months following the incident and was then hired by Houston Methodist. A Baylor spokeswoman, citing pending litigation, has refused to allow interviews with Baylor officials or to answer questions.

The Texas Medical Board suspended Sheikh’s license following his arrest, and he has been fired from Methodist. His attorney says Sheikh looks forward to proving his innocence in court.

On Oct. 19, Laura’s attorney sued Sheikh, Baylor, Ben Taub and Harris Health, alleging, among other things, negligence.

Baylor’s lawyers have submitted to the court a proposed order to dismiss Sheikh from the case, as “mandated” by law. Baylor’s attorney, Jeff McClure, declined comment.

The law he cited, in the “tort claims” chapter of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, says that if a governmental unit and its employee are sued, the employee shall “immediately” be dismissed.

How is a doctor at a private medical college considered a government employee?

Baylor doctors staff Ben Taub, which is a public hospital owned by Harris County.

The doctor isn’t the only one who can deploy the “government unit” shield. Baylor lawyers have successfully argued that the college itself can be construed as a government entity and is entitled to the same protections a county institution would enjoy.

In Texas, a limited government liability state, those protections are great. Baylor can argue it is immune to the claim altogether. Even if Laura’s lawyers are successful in challenging that immunity, and she is granted an award, the most a municipality can be forced to pay is $100,000.

“You can get about $300,000 if you spill coffee in your lap at McDonald’s,” says her lawyer, Mark Weycer. “But this poor lady gets raped at Ben Taub Hospital and on her best day at the courthouse, she gets $100,000.”

[…]

How can this be? The 2003 tort reforms were flawed in many ways, but did lawmakers really intend to go so far as to protect doctors who rape patients?

Absolutely not, said former state Rep. Joe Nixon, a Houston Republican who sponsored the legislation in the House. He said he was “flabbergasted” and “stunned” to hear that the Texas Supreme Court would interpret his bill to mean assault is medical malpractice.

“Any criminal activity by any medical personnel is not covered by this bill, under any circumstances,” he said.

Nixon, an attorney, cautioned in an interview Friday that he doesn’t handle medical malpractice cases, he wasn’t familiar with Laura’s case and he doesn’t comment on pending litigation. But he pushed back on the notion that his bill is responsible for the hurdles Laura faces in her civil action.

That includes the provision that allows Sheikh and Baylor to claim government protections. Perdue, the personal injury lawyer not connected to her case, said a slight change in Nixon’s 2003 bill allowed medical providers to be considered public servants.

Nixon denied that change, but when presented with the language, he argued that a doctor who rapes a patient isn’t a public servant because he’s acting outside the “course and scope” of duty.

See here and here for Falkenberg’s prior columns on this topic. It’s far more likely to me that the legislators who crafted our awful tort “reform” law didn’t give the matter much thought. I’m sure whichever lobbyists that discussed the medical-providers-as-public-servants exception with then-Rep. Nixon had perfectly reasonable-sounding justifications for it that a dedicated lackey to corporate interests like Nixon was only too happy to sign off on. And let’s be clear, it would be 100% consistent for the Supreme Court to read the law in this fashion, given how in the pocket of corporate interests they are as well. But look, there’s an easy way to fix this, and that’s for the 2017 Lege to pass a bill (*) clarifying the intent of the 2003 tort “reform” law to explicitly state that doctors like these are not “public servants” and thus are not covered by tort “reform”. Bitter partisan that I am, I think the odds of that happening are slim to none, but I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. And as long as I’m in partisan mode, running on a promise to pass a law to remove this protection from rapists would be an excellent thing for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot to run on. Let’s get Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick on the record on this, shall we?In the meantime, I hope Laura and her attorney can find a way to get justice from this awful situation, whatever the Lege and the Supreme Court do.

(*) Given that the tort “reform” law was enshrined in the Constitution, we may need another amendment to achieve this. I’m unclear on this point, so if any of the legislative experts in my audience care to weigh in, I’d appreciate it. My point about the partisan politics of this remain regardless.