Precinct analysis: Fort Bend County, part 2

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
HCDE
Fort Bend, part 1

This post is going to focus on the judicial races in Fort Bend County. There are a lot of them – seven statewide, four appellate, five district and county – and I don’t want to split them into multiple posts because there’s not enough to say about them, nor do I want to present you with a wall of numbers that will make your eyes glaze over. So, I’m going to do a bit of analysis up top, then put all the number beneath the fold for those who want a closer look or to fact-check me. I’ll have one more post about the Fort Bend county races, and then maybe I’ll take a crack at Brazoria County, which will be even more manual labor than these posts were.

The point of interest at the statewide level is in the vote differentials between the three races that included a Libertarian candidate and the four races that did not. Just eyeballing the totals and bearing in mind that there’s some variance in each group, the Republican candidate got an increase of a bit more than half of the Libertarian vote total in each district, while the Democrats were more or less around the same level. That comports with the general thesis that Libertarians tend to take votes away from Republicans more than Democrats, though the effect here was pretty small. It’s also a small sample, and every county has its own characteristics, so don’t go drawing broad conclusions. For what it’s worth, there wasn’t anything here to contradict that piece of conventional wisdom.

For the appellate court races, the thing I have obsessed over is the incredibly small margin in the election for Chief Justice of the 14th Court of Appeals, which Jane Robinson lost by 1500 votes, or 0.06 percentage points. We saw in Harris County that she trailed the two victorious Democrats, Veronica Rivas-Molloy and Amparo Guerra, who were part of a trend in Harris County where Latino candidates generally out-performed the rest of the ticket. That wasn’t quite the case in Fort Bend. Robinson again trailed Rivas-Molloy by a little – in overall vote total, Robinson trailed Rivas-Molloy by about two thousand votes, while Republican Tracy Christopher did an equivalent amount better than Russell Lloyd. But unlike in Harris, Robinson outperformed Guerra, by about a thousand votes, and Guerra barely beat out Tamika Craft, who was farther behind the pack in Harris County. I don’t have a good explanation for that, it looks to me just like a weird result that has no obvious cause or correlation to what we saw elsewhere. It’s also the case, as we discussed in part one of the Fort Bend results, that if Dems had done a better job retaining voters downballot, none of this would matter all that much.

Finally, in the district court races (there were four of them, plus one county court), the results that grabbed my attention were in a couple of contests that appeared one after the other. Republican Maggie Jaramillo, running for the 400th District Court, was the closest member of Team GOP to win, as she lost to Tameika Carter by ten thousand votes. In the next race, for the 434th District Court, Republican Jim Shoemake lost to Christian Becerra by twenty-two thousand votes. This was the difference between a three-point loss for Jaramillo, and a six-and-a-half point loss for Shoemake. Jaramillo was the top performing Republican candidate in any race in Fort Bend, while Becerra was sixth best among Dems, trailing Joe Biden, three statewide judicial candidates, and Sheriff Eric Fagan. You may have noticed that they’re both Latinos, though the effect appears to have been a bit greater for the Republican Jaramillo. Becerra was the only Dem besides Biden to carry Commissioners Court Precinct 1, though that may not have been strictly a Latino candidate phenomenon – Elizabeth Frizell had the next highest percentage, with Veronica Rivas-Molloy and Tina Clinton close behind. (Amy Clark Meachum and Staci Williams, both in three-candidate races, came closer to carrying CC1 than any other candidates, but their percentage of the vote was lower.) Again, no broad conclusions here, just an observation.

Click on for the race data, and remember I had to piece this together by hand, so my numbers may be a little off from the official state totals when those come out. County races are next. Let me know what you think.


Dist    Hecht  Meachum    Lib  Hecht%Meachum%    Lib%
=====================================================
CD09   14,697   50,479  1,187  22.15%  76.06%   1.79%
CD22  142,605  128,672  5,166  51.59%  46.55%   1.87%
						
HD26   42,827   40,027  1,542  50.75%  47.43%   1.83%
HD27   23,894   56,460  1,487  29.20%  68.99%   1.82%
HD28   65,069   55,509  2,258  52.97%  45.19%   1.84%
HD85   26,107   26,827  1,069  48.34%  49.68%   1.98%
						
CC1    37,341   37,311  1,467  49.06%  49.02%   1.93%
CC2    17,204   49,789  1,279  25.20%  72.93%   1.87%
CC3    61,756   44,897  1,996  56.84%  41.32%   1.84%
CC4    40,998   47,154  1,611  45.67%  52.53%   1.79%


Dist     Boyd Williams    Lib   Boyd%   Will%    Lib%
=====================================================
CD09   14,602   50,593  1,004  22.06%  76.43%   1.52%
CD22  142,053  128,125  4,807  51.66%  46.59%   1.75%
						
HD26   42,493   39,965  1,444  50.65%  47.63%   1.72%
HD27   23,766   56,616  1,231  29.12%  69.37%   1.51%
HD28   64,950   55,132  2,172  53.13%  45.10%   1.78%
HD85   26,064   26,663    970  48.54%  49.65%   1.81%
						
CC1    37,233   37,194  1,349  49.14%  49.08%   1.78%
CC2    17,167   49,865  1,046  25.22%  73.25%   1.54%
CC3    61,551   44,602  1,959  56.93%  41.26%   1.81%
CC4    40,701   47,057  1,457  45.62%  52.75%   1.63%


Dist    Busby   Triana    Lib  Busby% Triana%    Lib%
=====================================================
CD09   14,676   50,199  1,199  22.21%  75.97%   1.81%
CD22  143,140  126,151  5,466  52.10%  45.91%   1.99%
						
HD26   43,015   39,142  1,676  51.31%  46.69%   2.00%
HD27   23,908   55,964  1,568  29.36%  68.72%   1.93%
HD28   65,300   54,523  2,359  53.44%  44.62%   1.93%
HD85   26,158   26,421  1,070  48.76%  49.25%   1.99%
						
CC1    37,463   36,735  1,490  49.50%  48.53%   1.97%
CC2    17,218   49,423  1,279  25.35%  72.77%   1.88%
CC3    62,005   43,967  2,094  57.38%  40.69%   1.94%
CC4    41,127   46,225  1,802  46.13%  51.85%   2.02%


Dist    Bland    Cheng  Bland%  Cheng%
======================================
CD09   15,278   50,618  23.19%  76.81%
CD22  145,870  128,714  53.12%  46.88%
				
HD26   43,530   40,338  51.90%  48.10%
HD27   24,711   56,617  30.38%  69.62%
HD28   66,824   55,181  54.77%  45.23%
HD85   26,694   26,848  49.86%  50.14%
				
CC1    38,374   37,146  50.81%  49.19%
CC2    17,879   49,936  26.36%  73.64%
CC3    63,317   44,630  58.66%  41.34%
CC4    41,575   47,620  46.61%  53.39%


Dist   Richsn     Friz Richsn%   Friz%
======================================
CD09   14,981   51,028  22.70%  77.30%
CD22  144,856  129,145  52.87%  47.13%
				
HD26   43,448   40,121  51.99%  48.01%
HD27   24,307   57,009  29.89%  70.11%
HD28   66,235   55,655  54.34%  45.66%
HD85   26,461   27,050  49.45%  50.55%
				
CC1    37,921   37,628  50.19%  49.81%
CC2    17,544   50,342  25.84%  74.16%
CC3    62,815   44,924  58.30%  41.70%
CC4    41,555   47,278  46.78%  53.22%


Dist    Yeary  Clinton  Yeary%Clinton%
======================================
CD09   15,064   51,057  22.78%  77.22%
CD22  144,823  128,962  52.90%  47.10%
				
HD26	43,220	40,301	51.75%	48.25%
HD27	24,298	57,042	29.87%	70.13%
HD28	66,416	55,416	54.51%	45.49%
HD85	26,589	26,918	49.69%	50.31%
				
CC1	37,970	37,500	50.31%	49.69%
CC2	17,607	50,352	25.91%	74.09%
CC3	62,900	44,775	58.42%	41.58%
CC4	41,407	47,392	46.63%	53.37%


Dist   Newell     Birm Newell%   Birm%
======================================
CD09   15,258   50,497  23.20%  76.80%
CD22  146,056  126,722  53.54%  46.46%
				
HD26   43,690   39,489  52.53%  47.47%
HD27   24,643   56,339  30.43%  69.57%
HD28   66,864   54,571  55.06%  44.94%
HD85   26,731   26,500  50.22%  49.78%
				
CC1    38,280   36,886  50.93%  49.07%
CC2    17,863   49,737  26.42%  73.58%
CC3    63,305   44,061  58.96%  41.04%
CC4    41,863   46,535  47.36%  52.64%


Dist    Chris    Robsn  Chris%  Robsn%
======================================
CD09   15,300   50,400  23.29%  76.71%
CD22  146,232  126,262  53.66%  46.34%
				
HD26   43,744   39,368  52.63%  47.37%
HD27   24,745   56,185  30.58%  69.42%
HD28   66,856   54,387  55.14%  44.86%
HD85   26,767   26,438  50.31%  49.69%
				
CC1    38,243   36,848  50.93%  49.07%
CC2    17,930   49,619  26.54%  73.46%
CC3    63,334   43,851  59.09%  40.91%
CC4    42,022   46,344  47.55%  52.45%


Dist    Lloyd    Rivas  Lloyd%  Rivas%
======================================
CD09   14,962   50,863  22.73%  77.27%
CD22  144,486  128,052  53.01%  46.99%
				
HD26   43,339   39,709  52.19%  47.81%
HD27   24,321   56,680  30.03%  69.97%
HD28   66,010   55,337  54.40%  45.60%
HD85   26,380   26,884  49.53%  50.47%
				
CC1    37,749   37,415  50.22%  49.78%
CC2    17,555   50,125  25.94%  74.06%
CC3    62,580   44,651  58.36%  41.64%
CC4    41,561   46,724  47.08%  52.92%


Dist    Adams   Guerra  Adams% Guerra%
======================================
CD09   15,497   50,207  23.59%  76.41%
CD22  146,841  125,457  53.93%  46.07%
				
HD26   44,026   38,982  53.04%  46.96%
HD27   25,014   55,834  30.94%  69.06%
HD28   67,031   54,113  55.33%  44.67%
HD85   26,833   26,450  50.36%  49.64%
				
CC1    38,323   36,827  51.00%  49.00%
CC2    18,159   49,393  26.88%  73.12%
CC3    63,444   43,614  59.26%  40.74%
CC4    42,409   45,830  48.06%  51.94%


Dist     Wise    Craft   Wise%  Craft%
======================================
CD09   15,227   50,489  23.17%  76.83%
CD22  146,890  124,889  54.05%  45.95%
				
HD26   44,201   38,646  53.35%  46.65%
HD27   24,748   56,150  30.59%  69.41%
HD28   66,955   53,960  55.37%  44.63%
HD85   26,800   26,321  50.45%  49.55%
				
CC1    38,259   36,766  51.00%  49.00%
CC2    17,894   49,650  26.49%  73.51%
CC3    63,503   43,405  59.40%  40.60%
CC4    42,458   45,557  48.24%  51.76%

Dist   Mullnx  Heppard Mullnx%   Hepp%
======================================
CD09   15,237   50,005  23.35%  76.65%
CD22  146,071  124,462  53.99%  46.01%
				
HD26   43,799   38,734  53.07%  46.93%
HD27   24,586   55,767  30.60%  69.40%
HD28   66,727   53,650  55.43%  44.57%
HD85   26,819   26,017  50.76%  49.24%
				
CC1    38,368   36,262  51.41%  48.59%
CC2    17,819   49,242  26.57%  73.43%
CC3    63,186   43,266  59.36%  40.64%
CC4    41,933   45,696  47.85%  52.15%


Dist  Jaramlo   Carter   Jara% Carter%
======================================
CD09   15,523   50,186  23.62%  76.38%
CD22  147,945  123,372  54.53%  45.47%
				
HD26   44,412   38,364  53.65%  46.35%
HD27   24,934   55,863  30.86%  69.14%
HD28   67,231   53,409  55.73%  44.27%
HD85   27,497   25,622  51.76%  48.24%
				
CC1    39,129   35,878  52.17%  47.83%
CC2    18,147   49,326  26.90%  73.10%
CC3    63,690   42,958  59.72%  40.28%
CC4    42,499   45,396  48.35%  51.65%


Dist Shoemake  Becerra   Shoe%Becerra%
======================================
CD09   14,731   50,682  22.52%  77.48%
CD22  142,523  128,569  52.57%  47.43%
				
HD26   42,830   39,891  51.78%  48.22%
HD27   24,084   56,408  29.92%  70.08%
HD28   65,283   55,188  54.19%  45.81%
HD85   25,679   27,457  48.33%  51.67%
				
CC1    36,907   38,059  49.23%  50.77%
CC2    17,285   49,912  25.72%  74.28%
CC3    61,967   44,528  58.19%  41.81%
CC4    41,092   46,752  46.78%  53.22%


Dist  Perwin    Morgan Perwin% Morgan%
======================================
CD09   14,896   50,501  22.78%  77.22%
CD22  144,402  126,028  53.40%  46.60%
				
HD26   43,361	39,127	52.57%	47.43%
HD27   24,133	56,334	29.99%	70.01%
HD28   65,927	54,428	54.78%	45.22%
HD85   26,522	26,313	50.20%	49.80%
				
CC1    37,899	36,739	50.78%	49.22%
CC2    17,489	49,716	26.02%	73.98%
CC3    62,490	43,898	58.74%	41.26%
CC4    41,417	46,176	47.28%	52.72%


Dist  Hrbacek   WatsonHrbacek% Watson%
======================================
CD09   14,722   50,901  22.43%  77.57%
CD22  143,769  127,390  53.02%  46.98%
				
HD26   43,230   39,618  52.18%  47.82%
HD27   23,941   56,789  29.66%  70.34%
HD28   65,641   54,845  54.48%  45.52%
HD85   26,298   26,706  49.62%  50.38%
				
CC1    37,577   37,234  50.23%  49.77%
CC2    17,293   50,132  25.65%  74.35%
CC3    62,248   44,226  58.46%  41.54%
CC4    41,370   46,699  46.97%  53.03%

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Election 2020 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.