Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Christi Craddick

Former Railroad Commissioner Ryan Sitton sues a blogger

Obviously, a story like this is going to attract my attention.

Ryan Sitton

A former Texas oil and gas regulator has accused a blogger of helping derail his 2020 reelection campaign by falsely claiming he had an extramarital affair.

In a lawsuit filed last month in Galveston, Ryan Sitton said the blogger, Joshua Matthew Pierce, had claimed in two online posts that Sitton sought to engage in “racial fantasies” with an unnamed Jamaican woman. The piece also included a supposed picture of them together, though the photo was later shown to be a generic, unrelated image used on several websites, according to the suit.

The second post alleged that Sitton had referred to fellow Texas Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick with an ethnic slur. Both were published during early voting in the 2020 primary, which Sitton lost in a huge upset to fellow Republican Jim Wright.

“He published a hit piece, containing salacious lies about an upstanding businessman and public official,” the lawsuit says. “Unfortunately, his silly and false story gained some traction, and influenced an election.”

The complaint also suggests Pierce may have been working for Wright’s campaign at the time, though it does not present any clear evidence.

Pierce responded to the lawsuit over the weekend in a series of tweets, saying, “And to think that little old blogger down here in #CorpusChristi, #Texas could influence an election.”

“Lets get this right out of the way—you can deny, deny but the proof of the “infactual basis” is on plaintiff,” he wrote.

Sitton is seeking $10 million in damages. I went looking on Twitter to see if there was any commentary on this. Didn’t find anything, but I did come across this Yahoo News story that added a couple of details as well as a link to the lawsuit. The main thing I learned there is that Sitton is represented by Tony Buzbee, because of course he is.

My very basic take on all this is as follows: I have no trouble believing that this “blogger” printed false information. I have no idea whether someone who was a public figure has a chance at collecting from a person who while probably not a “journalist” from a legal perspective was nonetheless engaging in political speech, however crappy it was. I also have some real doubts about how much this “blogger” might have affected the election. How big an audience did that guy have? How much were his claims being amplified and repeated, in a way that Texas GOP primary voters might have seen or heard it? I’m not exactly plugged into that world, but if it had gotten real traction there might have been some reporting or even gossip about it in places I could have seen. Maybe it was there for me to see and I just missed it. All I’m saying is, you’re going to need to show me some data to convince me that this effort moved votes, especially enough votes to knock Sitton out. Not saying that can’t be done, just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If that exists, I can’t wait to see it. I just won’t be expecting to see it.

Precinct analysis: Congress, 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
Fort Bend, part 2
Fort Bend, part 3
Brazoria County
Harris County State Senate comparisons
State Senate districts 2020
State Senate district comparisons
State House districts 2020, part 1
State House districts 2020, part 2
Median districts
State House district changes by demography
State House district changes by county
SBOE
Congress, part 1

I didn’t want to leave the Congressional district analysis without looking at some downballot races, since I mentioned them in the first part. To keep this simple, I’m just going to compare 2020 to 2012, to give a bookends look at things. I’ve got the Senate race (there was no Senate race in 2016, another reason to skip that year), the Railroad Commissioner race, and the Supreme Court race with Nathan Hecht.


Dist   Hegar   Cornyn  Hegar% Cornyn%
=====================================
01    79,626  217,942  26.30%  71.90%
02   157,925  180,504  45.50%  52.00%
03   188,092  224,921  44.50%  53.20%
04    79,672  256,262  23.20%  74.70%
05   101,483  173,929  36.00%  61.70%
06   155,022  178,305  45.30%  52.10%
07   154,670  152,741  49.20%  48.60%
08   100,868  275,150  26.20%  71.50%
09   168,796   54,801  73.50%  23.90%
10   191,097  215,665  45.90%  51.80%
11    54,619  232,946  18.60%  79.20%
12   129,679  228,676  35.20%  62.00%
13    50,271  217,949  18.30%  79.40%
14   117,954  185,119  38.00%  59.60%
15   110,141  111,211  48.10%  48.60%
16   148,484   73,923  63.10%  31.40%
17   127,560  174,677  41.00%  56.20%
18   178,680   60,111  72.60%  24.40%
19    65,163  194,783  24.40%  73.00%
20   163,219   99,791  60.10%  36.80%
21   203,090  242,567  44.50%  53.10%
22   188,906  214,386  45.80%  52.00%
23   135,518  150,254  46.10%  51.10%
24   165,218  171,828  47.80%  49.70%
25   165,657  222,422  41.70%  56.00%
26   168,527  256,618  38.60%  58.70%
27    98,760  169,539  35.90%  61.70%
28   118,063  107,547  50.60%  46.10%
29    99,415   51,044  64.00%  32.80%
30   203,821   53,551  77.00%  20.20%
31   178,949  206,577  45.20%  52.20%
32   170,654  165,157  49.60%  48.00%
33   111,620   41,936  70.40%  26.50%
34   101,691   93,313  50.60%  46.50%
35   175,861   87,121  64.50%  32.00%
36    78,544  218,377  25.90%  71.90%


Dist   Casta   Wright  Casta% Wright%
=====================================
01    75,893  217,287  25.20%  72.20%
02   153,630  176,484  44.90%  51.60%
03   181,303  220,004  43.70%  53.00%
04    76,281  254,688  22.50%  75.00%
05   100,275  171,307  35.80%  61.20%
06   151,372  176,517  44.60%  52.00%
07   149,853  149,114  48.50%  48.20%
08    97,062  271,212  25.60%  71.40%
09   168,747   51,862  74.10%  22.80%
10   184,189  211,020  44.90%  51.40%
11    53,303  230,719  18.30%  79.10%
12   123,767  227,786  33.90%  62.50%
13    47,748  215,948  17.60%  79.50%
14   114,873  182,101  37.40%  59.40%
15   113,540  103,715  50.50%  46.10%
16   144,436   75,345  62.30%  32.50%
17   121,338  171,677  39.70%  56.20%
18   177,020   57,783  72.60%  23.70%
19    62,123  192,844  23.60%  73.20%
20   165,617   93,296  61.40%  34.60%
21   197,266  234,785  43.90%  52.30%
22   184,521  209,495  45.50%  51.60%
23   136,789  144,156  47.10%  49.60%
24   160,511  167,885  47.10%  49.20%
25   157,323  218,711  40.30%  56.00%
26   160,007  251,763  37.30%  58.70%
27    97,797  165,135  36.00%  60.80%
28   121,898  100,306  52.90%  43.60%
29   102,354   46,954  66.30%  30.40%
30   204,615   50,268  77.60%  19.10%
31   169,256  203,981  43.40%  52.30%
32   168,807  160,201  49.60%  47.10%
33   111,727   40,264  71.10%  25.60%
34   105,427   86,391  53.30%  43.70%
35   173,994   82,414  64.70%  30.60%
36    76,511  216,585  25.40%  72.00%


Dist Meachum    HechtMeachum%  Hecht%
=====================================
01    79,995  215,240  26.60%  71.50%
02   154,787  179,887  45.20%  52.50%
03   185,076  220,662  44.60%  53.10%
04    79,667  253,119  23.50%  74.50%
05   101,813  172,186  36.40%  61.50%
06   155,372  175,793  45.80%  51.80%
07   149,348  154,058  48.20%  49.70%
08    99,434  272,277  26.20%  71.60%
09   170,611   52,213  75.00%  22.90%
10   188,253  212,284  45.80%  51.60%
11    56,146  228,708  19.30%  78.50%
12   129,478  225,206  35.50%  61.80%
13    51,303  214,434  18.90%  78.90%
14   118,324  181,521  38.50%  59.10%
15   115,046  103,787  51.20%  46.20%
16   149,828   73,267  64.20%  31.40%
17   126,952  170,378  41.50%  55.70%
18   179,178   58,684  73.50%  24.10%
19    66,333  190,784  25.20%  72.30%
20   166,733   93,546  62.00%  34.80%
21   200,216  237,189  44.50%  52.80%
22   188,187  210,138  46.30%  51.70%
23   138,391  143,522  47.70%  49.50%
24   164,386  168,747  48.10%  49.40%
25   162,591  218,370  41.60%  55.80%
26   168,621  251,426  39.10%  58.30%
27   100,675  164,273  37.10%  60.50%
28   122,263   99,666  53.50%  43.60%
29   101,662   48,349  66.00%  31.40%
30   207,327   50,760  78.50%  19.20%
31   172,531  198,717  45.00%  51.80%
32   169,325  163,993  49.60%  48.10%
33   112,876   40,077  71.80%  25.50%
34   104,142   84,361  53.80%  43.50%
35   177,097   82,098  66.00%  30.60%
36    78,170  216,153  26.00%  71.90%

	
Dist  Sadler     Cruz Sadler%   Cruz%
=====================================
01    76,441  169,490  30.55%  67.74%
02    84,949  155,605  34.35%  62.92%
03    88,929  168,511  33.52%  63.52%
04    69,154  174,833  27.60%  69.79%
05    73,712  130,916  35.14%  62.41%
06   100,573  143,297  40.12%  57.16%
07    89,471  141,393  37.73%  59.63%
08    55,146  190,627  21.88%  75.64%
09   140,231   40,235  76.35%  21.91%
10   103,526  154,293  38.76%  57.76%
11    45,258  175,607  19.93%  77.32%
12    77,255  162,670  31.22%  65.74%
13    43,022  175,896  19.12%  78.17%
14    97,493  142,172  39.77%  58.00%
15    79,486   62,277  54.55%  42.74%
16    91,289   56,636  59.66%  37.02%
17    82,118  130,507  37.31%  59.30%
18   145,099   45,871  74.37%  23.51%
19    52,070  155,195  24.37%  72.65%
20   106,970   73,209  57.47%  39.33%
21   115,768  181,094  37.32%  58.38%
22    90,475  157,006  35.74%  62.02%
23    86,229   98,379  45.28%  51.66%
24    90,672  147,419  36.88%  59.97%
25   101,059  155,304  37.79%  58.07%
26    77,304  173,933  29.66%  66.74%
27    81,169  125,913  38.11%  59.12%
28    90,481   68,096  55.14%  41.50%
29    71,504   38,959  63.27%  34.47%
30   168,805   44,782  77.58%  20.58%
31    89,486  138,886  37.46%  58.13%
32   103,610  141,469  41.03%  56.03%
33    81,568   33,956  68.96%  28.71%
34    79,622   60,126  55.23%  41.71%
35   101,470   56,450  61.37%  34.14%
36    63,070  168,072  26.66%  71.04%


Dist   Henry    Cradd  Henry%  Cradd%
=====================================
01    67,992  170,189  27.73%  69.41%	
02    78,359  155,155  32.30%  63.95%	
03    80,078  167,247  31.02%  64.80%	
04    64,908  170,969  26.53%  69.87%	
05    69,401  129,245  33.75%  62.86%	
06    96,386  141,220  39.03%  57.18%	
07    80,266  143,409  34.60%  61.81%	
08    51,716  188,005  20.83%  75.74%	
09   138,893   39,120  76.19%  21.46%	
10    94,282  153,321  36.00%  58.54%	
11    44,310  171,250  19.77%  76.42%	
12    72,582  160,255  29.85%  65.90%	
13    42,402  171,310  19.15%  77.36%	
14    96,221  137,169  39.91%  56.89%	
15    81,120   56,697  56.51%  39.50%	
16    90,256   49,563  60.67%  33.31%	
17    77,899  126,329  36.20%  58.70%	
18   142,749   44,416  73.97%  23.01%	
19    50,735  150,643  24.17%  71.76%	
20   102,998   72,019  56.19%  39.29%	
21   103,442  181,345  34.03%  59.66%	
22    85,869  155,271  34.42%  62.24%	
23    85,204   92,976  45.63%  49.79%	
24    83,119  146,534  34.52%  60.85%	
25    92,074  153,051  35.16%  58.44%	
26    71,177  172,026  27.82%  67.24%	
27    79,313  120,235  38.16%  57.84%	
28    94,545   59,311  58.53%  36.72%	
29    72,681   35,059  65.14%  31.42%	
30   166,852   43,206  77.43%  20.05%	
31    82,045  136,810  35.10%  58.52%	
32    92,896  143,313  37.69%  58.15%	
33    81,885   30,941  69.96%  26.43%	
34    82,924   50,769  58.78%  35.99%	
35    97,431   55,398  59.79%  34.00%	
36    62,309  161,751  26.88%  69.79%


Dist   Petty    Hecht  Petty%  Hecht%
=====================================
01    71,467  163,306  29.37%  67.11%
02    84,472  147,576  35.05%  61.23%
03    85,368  161,072  33.16%  62.56%
04    68,551  163,313  28.26%  67.31%
05    72,559  123,012  35.59%  60.34%
06   101,437  133,905  41.29%  54.51%
07    86,596  135,562  37.63%  58.90%
08    55,495  181,582  22.47%  73.53%
09   141,509   36,555  77.91%  20.13%
10   100,998  146,370  38.76%  56.17%
11    47,657  163,669  21.49%  73.81%
12    76,959  153,820  31.79%  63.53%
13    46,099  162,448  21.01%  74.02%
14   100,566  131,348  41.86%  54.67%
15    83,009   53,962  58.27%  37.88%
16    93,997   46,517  63.26%  31.31%
17    82,692  120,206  38.64%  56.16%
18   145,329   41,564  75.56%  21.61%
19    54,458  143,426  26.12%  68.80%
20   109,712   66,441  59.93%  36.29%
21   112,633  172,657  37.12%  56.90%
22    91,252  149,320  36.71%  60.06%
23    90,554   87,003  48.74%  46.83%
24    89,019  139,910  37.09%  58.29%
25    98,663  145,549  37.88%  55.87%
26    76,953  165,377  30.12%  64.73%
27    83,222  114,299  40.30%  55.36%
28    97,850   55,633  60.91%  34.63%
29    74,382   33,124  66.97%  29.82%
30   169,799   39,877  78.96%  18.54%
31    89,084  128,420  38.24%  55.13%
32    97,997  137,060  39.92%  55.84%
33    84,095   28,859  72.01%  24.71%
34    85,950   47,645  61.27%  33.96%
35   102,646   51,225  63.03%  31.46%
36    66,497  154,956  28.85%  67.24%

There are two things that jump out at me when I look over these numbers. The first actually has to do with the statewide totals. Joe Biden cut the deficit at the Presidential level nearly in half from 2012 – where Barack Obama trailed Mitt Romney by 1.26 million votes, Biden trailed Trump by 631K. The gains were not as dramatic in the Senate and RRC races, but there was progress. Ted Cruz beat Paul Sadler by 1.246 million votes, while John Cornyn beat MJ Hegar by 1.074 million; for RRC, Christi Craddock topped Dale Henry by 1.279 million and Jim Wright bested Chrysta Castaneda by 1.039 million. Not nearly as much progress, but we’re going in the right direction. At the judicial level, however, that progress wasn’t there. Nathan Hecht, then running for Supreme Court Place 6, won in 2012 by 908K votes, and he won in 2020 by 934K. That’s a little misleading, because in the only other contested statewide judicial race in 2012, Sharon Keller beat Keith Hampton for CCA by 1.094 million votes, and five out of the seven Dems running in 2020 did better than that. Still, the point remains, the judicial races were our weakest spot. If we really want to turn Texas blue, we will need more of an investment in these races as well.

One explanation for this is that Dem statewide judicial candidates didn’t do as well in at least some of the trending-blue places. Hegar and Castaneda both carried CD07, but only two of the Dem judicial candidates did, Staci Williams and Tina Clinton. All of them carried CD32, but none of them by more than two points, while Biden took it by ten; to be fair, Hegar won it by less than two, and Castaneda had the best performance with a 2.6 point margin. Maybe these folks were motivated by Trump more than anything else, and they didn’t see the judicial races in those terms. I have noted before that Dem judicial candidates did better in CD07 in 2018 than in 2020, so maybe the higher turnout included more less-likely Republicans than one might have expected. Or maybe these folks are in the process of becoming Democratic, but aren’t all the way there yet. Just something to think about.

On the flip side of that, while Hegar underperformed in the three closer-than-expected Latino Democratic districts CD15, CD28, and CD34 – Cornyn actually carried CD15 by a smidge – everyone else did better, and indeed outperformed Biden in those districts. The judicial candidates all carried CDs 28 and 34 by at least six points, with most in the 8-9 range and a couple topping ten, and all but two carried CD15 by a wider margin that Biden’s 1.9 points, with them in the three-to-five range. Still a disconcerting step back from 2012 and 2016, but at least for CDs 28 and 34 it’s still a reasonably comfortable margin. Maye this is the mirror image of the results in CDs 07 and 32, where the Presidential race was the main motivator and people were more likely to fall back on old patterns elsewhere. As with CDs 07 and 32, we’ll have to see where those trends go from here.

After however many entries in this series, I don’t have a whole lot more to say. We’ll be getting new maps soon, and we’ll have a better idea of what the immediate future looks like. I think the last two decades has shown us that there’s only so far out in the future that redistricting will be predictive in such a dynamic and growing state as Texas, but we have seen the winds shift more than once, so let’s not get too comfortable with any one idea. Whatever we get in this session is not etched in stone, and we still have some hope for federal legislation. For now, this is what we’re up against.

The opening bid on power outage response

Not bad, but there’s a long way to go and not a lot of detail just yet.

Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan on Monday announced seven priority bills responding to the winter weather crisis last month that left millions of Texans without power.

The proposals include overhauling the governance of the state’s electric grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas; mandating “weatherization” of power facilities and establishing a statewide disaster alert system. There is also legislation to ban variable-rate electricity pricing plans such as were offered by the company Griddy, which was recently effectively shut down in the state after customers were hit with bills in the thousands of dollars.

Phelan’s office called the proposals the “first phase” of the House’s proposed reforms in the wake of the winter storm. Not all the bills have been filed yet, so the specifics of some proposals have not yet been made public.

“We must take accountability, close critical gaps in our system, and prevent these breakdowns from ever happening again,” Phelan, a Republican, said in a statement.

[…]

House Bill 10, for instance, aims to reform ERCOT by restructuring its board. The legislation would replace the board’s “unaffiliated” members with members appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker. The bill would also mandate that all board members live in Texas. And it would add a new board member to “represent consumer interests,” according to Phelan’s office.

Some other ideas could prove challenging. House Bill 11, for instance, would order the Public Utilities Commission to require power generators to implement measures to avoid service outages during extreme weather events, including winter storms and heat waves. But retroactively equipping power plants and the state’s energy system to withstand cold temperatures is likely to be difficult and costly, energy experts have said. Building energy infrastructure that from the start is designed to perform in winter conditions is easier and cheaper, they have said.

Phelan’s office described another bill, House Bill 14, which hasn’t yet been filed, that would require the Railroad Commission of Texas to require pipeline operators to update their equipment to ensure reliability during extreme weather. It’s unclear how much either bill would cost the state or the power generators. Abbott has indicated in the past that he is interested in funding at least some of the weatherization.

These fall under the emergency items declared by Abbott, so they can be taken up ahead of other legislation. Once they’re written and filed, of course. I don’t have any immediate complaints – the general direction is good, and they seem to have hit the high points – but it’s very early in the process, and there will be plenty of opportunity for shenanigans and just plan resistance, so as always we will have to keep an eye on it. The pushback from the energy industry seems to be that the power outages themselves were the main driver of the natural gas shortage, not the wells and pipes freezing up. There’s probably something to that, but I’m sure you’ll understand if I decline to take their word for it. At least three of the bills will be carried by Democrats – Reps. Richard Raymond, Ana Hernandez, and Joe Deshotel. We’ll see what we get, and we should very much remember that a lot of this is about undoing or at least mitigating the effects of Republican deregulation, but this is a decent start.

Precinct analysis: Comparing to 2012 and 2016

Introduction
Congressional districts
State Rep districts
Commissioners Court/JP precincts

I had meant to get to this last week, but SeditionPalooza took up too much of my time, so here we are. The intent of this post is to compare vote totals in each of the State Rep districts from 2012 to 2016, from 2016 to 2020, and from 2012 to 2020. The vote totals compared are from the Presidential and Railroad Commissioner races for each of these years, and for the Senate races from 2012 and 2020, as there was no Senate race in 2016.

President

								
Dist   12-16 R   12-16D   16-20R   16-20D   12-20R   12-20D
===========================================================
HD126   -3,207    5,285    6,100    9,611    2,893   14,896
HD127     -931    6,042    8,547   12,707    7,616   18,749
HD128      124    2,272    8,728    6,208    8,852    8,480
HD129   -3,226    5,992    8,844   11,033    5,618   17,025
HD130    2,216    6,749   14,229   13,325   16,445   20,074
HD131     -649    2,707    4,306    6,683    3,657    9,390
HD132    3,065   10,267   15,786   20,304   18,851   30,571
HD133   -7,791    8,688    5,592   12,018   -2,199   20,706
HD134  -10,938   15,346    6,692   17,904   -4,246   33,250
HD135   -2,571    6,505    6,664   11,473    4,093   17,978
HD137     -537    2,443    2,451    4,167    1,914    6,610
HD138   -2,804    6,451    6,537    9,433    3,733   15,884
HD139   -1,294    1,187    4,847    6,854    3,553    8,041
HD140     -733    4,416    4,146    1,855    3,413    6,271
HD141      222     -681    2,604    4,453    2,826    3,772
HD142      290    2,084    4,703    8,880    4,993   10,964
HD143   -1,042    3,226    4,500    1,495    3,458    4,721
HD144   -1,039    3,561    4,057    1,523    3,018    5,084
HD145   -1,291    5,594    5,310    5,088    4,019   10,682
HD146   -1,633     -884    2,459    6,864      826    5,980
HD147   -1,272    3,583    4,602    9,933    3,330   13,516
HD148   -1,489    8,544    5,634   10,180    4,145   18,724
HD149   -3,879    3,420    8,154    4,696    4,275    8,116
HD150      503    8,228   10,180   15,037   10,683   23,265
							
Total  -39,906  121,025  155,672  211,724  115,766  332,749

Senate

	
Dist    12-20R   12-20D
=======================
HD126    3,705   13,479
HD127    8,876   16,687
HD128    8,999    7,330
HD129    7,238   14,684
HD130   18,113   17,564
HD131    3,413    8,389
HD132   19,527   28,278
HD133    2,610   16,268
HD134    3,330   27,237
HD135    4,898   16,279
HD137    2,129    6,023
HD138    4,594   14,227
HD139    3,602    6,608
HD140    2,611    5,499
HD141    2,460    2,779
HD142    4,903    9,702
HD143    2,619    4,082
HD144    2,577    4,485
HD145    3,562   10,103
HD146    1,337    4,811
HD147    4,019   12,164
HD148    5,762   16,497
HD149    4,282    7,157
HD150   11,865   20,878
		
Total  137,031  291,210

RRC

								
Dist   12-16 R   12-16D   16-20R   16-20D   12-20R   12-20D
===========================================================
HD126   -1,676    3,559    4,735   10,131    3,059   13,690
HD127    1,006    4,180    6,933   13,217    7,939   17,397
HD128      989    1,200    7,749    6,681    8,738    7,881
HD129   -1,550    3,595    7,325   12,422    5,775   16,017
HD130    4,403    4,540   13,107   12,954   17,510   17,494
HD131     -465    1,814    3,419    6,824    2,954    8,638
HD132    4,638    8,171   14,267   19,768   18,905   27,939
HD133   -4,382    3,417    5,039   14,285      657   17,702
HD134   -5,177    6,106    5,497   23,976      320   30,082
HD135   -1,163    4,634    5,398   11,950    4,235   16,584
HD137     -132    1,538    1,929    4,571    1,797    6,109
HD138   -1,483    4,248    5,378   10,328    3,895   14,576
HD139     -551      -83    3,837    7,033    3,286    6,950
HD140     -321    2,969    2,874    2,855    2,553    5,824
HD141      181     -896    2,165    3,773    2,346    2,877
HD142      844    1,204    3,814    8,568    4,658    9,772
HD143     -550    1,586    3,148    2,910    2,598    4,496
HD144     -530    2,677    2,993    2,255    2,463    4,932
HD145     -531    3,369    3,983    7,142    3,452   10,511
HD146   -1,047   -2,256    1,853    7,402      806    5,146
HD147      104      536    3,510   11,837    3,614   12,373
HD148      665    4,416    4,945   12,352    5,610   16,768
HD149   -3,089    2,133    6,698    5,331    3,609    7,464
HD150    2,552    6,010    8,826   14,942   11,378   20,952
								
Total   -7,265   68,667  129,422  233,507  122,157  302,174

The columns represent the difference in vote total for the given period and party, so “12-16” means 2012 to 2016, “16-20” means 2016 to 2020, and “12-20” means 2012 to 2020. Each column has a D or an R in it, so “12-16R” means the difference between 2016 Donald Trump and 2012 Mitt Romney for the Presidential table, and so forth. In each case, I subtract the earlier year’s total from the later year’s total, so the “-3,207” for HD126 in the “12-16R” column for President means that Donald Trump got 3,207 fewer votes in HD126 than Mitt Romney got, and the “5,285” for HD126 in the “12-16D” column for President means that Hillary Clinton got 5,285 more votes than Barack Obama got. Clear? I hope so.

Note that there were 130K more votes cast in Harris County as a whole in 2016 than there were in 2012, and 320K more votes cast in the county in 2020 over 2016, which makes a grand total of 450K more votes in 2020 than 2012. Some districts grow faster than others, but as a general rule given the overall totals you should expect increases in each district to some extent.

I have left percentages and third party totals out of this discussion. As I have shown before, tracking changes in vote percentages can give a misleading view of whether the actual gap is growing or narrowing, and by how much. I also want to emphasize that in 2012, Harris County was very much a 50-50 proposition, and now it is very much not. Doing it this way help illustrate how and where that has happened, and by how much.

And yet, with all that said, I’m going to start with an observation about percentages. In 2012, Mitt Romney got 60% or more of the vote in eight State Rep districts – HDs 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 138, and 150. Ted Cruz, running for Senate against Paul Sadler, got 60% or more of the vote in ten State Rep districts, the same eight as Romney plus HDs 132 and 135 – yes, the same 132 and 135 that Dems won in 2018. I didn’t publish an analysis of the RRC race from that year, but a review of the spreadsheet that I created at the time confirmed that Christi Craddick, running against Dale Henry, got 60% or more of the vote in eleven State Rep districts, the same ten as Cruz plus HD134. In other words, every single Republican-held State Rep district in Harris County in 2012 was at least a 60% Republican district in the Railroad Commissioner race. Mitt Romney, it should be noted, just missed getting to 60% in HDs 132 and 135, and was over 57% in HD134, as was Cruz. (Let’s just say Cruz fell way short of that mark in 2018.)

You can see how much the vote totals shifted at the Presidential level from 2012 to 2016. Trump got nearly 40K fewer votes than Romney, a combination of crossovers, third-party and write-in voting, and just the gentle degradation of the Republican brand, as you can see by Wayne Christian’s reduced vote totals from Christie Craddick. Still, in 2016, Donald Trump scored 60% or more of the vote in three State Rep districts: HDs 127, 128, and 130. In 2016, Wayne Christian, running for RRC against Grady Yarbrough, scored 60% or more of the vote in four State Rep districts: the three that Trump got plus HD150. And finally, in 2016, Eva Guzman, running for State Supreme Court, scored 60% or more of the vote in six State Rep districts: the four Christian got plus HDs 129 and 133. HDs 132 and 135 were clearly competitive at the Presidential level – Trump won 132 by four points and 135 by two points; he also lost HD138 by a hair. He lost votes compared to Romney in 18 of 24 districts.

It is certainly true that Republicans in general and Donald Trump in particular did better in 2020 than most people expected them to do – surely, they did better than I expected them to do. Trump gained 155K votes over his 2016 total, which put 2020 Trump more than 100K votes ahead of Mitt Romney. Even though Joe Biden gained 211K votes over Hillary Clinton, for a net gain of 56K, Trump had net gains on Biden in seven districts – HDs 128, 130, 140, 143, 144, 145, and 149, with the latter five being Democratic districts and four of the five being Latino. Still, Dems had a net gain from 2012 to 2020 in every district except HD128, and some of those gains were truly huge – just look at 133 and 134, for starters. And Trump’s gains in the Dem districts largely melted away by the time you got to the RRC race, with Chrysta Castaneda coming close to matching Jim Wright’s increases in 140, 143, and 144, and far exceeding him in 145. It’s hard to say from this what if any staying power the Trump gains may have, though Dems should be paying close attention to what happened there regardless.

Anyway, back to the percentages: In 2020, Donald Trump, John Cornyn, and Jim Wright scored 60% or more of the vote in two State Rep districts: HDs 128 and 130. The only statewide Republicans to score 60% or more in a third State Rep district were the statewide judicial candidates who did not have a Libertarian opponent – Jane Bland, Bert Richardson, Kevin Patrick, and David Newell – who also reached that level in HD127. I haven’t published the statewide judicial race analysis yet so you’ll have to take my word for it for now, but in any event I trust you see the pattern. This is what I mean when I say that Republicans just don’t have any spare capacity in Harris County, and that will present problems for them in redistricting. Look at the numbers in districts like 126 and 129 and 133 and 150 in 2020, and compare them to the numbers in 132 and 135 and 138 in 2012. Where do you think things are going to be in another couple of cycles?

I’ve thrown a lot of words and numbers at you, so I’ll wrap it up here. I hope this helps illustrate what I’ve been saying, about how Dem gains have largely come from huge steps forward in formerly Republican turf, and how there’s still very much room for Dems to improve in their strongholds. We need to keep building on our gains from this past decade as we proceed into the 20s. I’ll have a look at the statewide judicial races next. Let me know what you think.

Chron overview of HD134

Is this the year Sarah Davis loses? That’s the question.

Rep. Sarah Davis

The March primaries are weeks away, but the first question at a recent forum for the three Democrats running to unseat state Rep. Sarah Davis centered on November: “How do you plan to win this race if you are the nominee?”

The answer has evaded Democrats since the 2010 tea party wave, when Davis flipped the highly affluent and educated House District 134. Widely viewed as the most moderate Republican in the Texas House, she comfortably has retained the seat in four subsequent elections, despite strong headwinds atop the ballot the last two cycles.

Those electoral results are on the minds of voters, and the candidates themselves, in the sleepy Democratic primary between educator Lanny Bose and attorneys Ann Johnson and Ruby Powers. With little evidence of public rancor between them, they instead are directing their attacks toward Davis’ record, each trying to convince voters of their ability to beat her in November.

“My attitude is, we’ve got three folks who are applying to be team captain. I’m going to be a part of this race in the general whether or not my name is on the ballot,” Bose said. “This primary is about talking about our shared vision for what this seat and what Houston should look like.”

[…]

Republicans are skeptical Democrats will be able to wield the Abbott endorsement against Davis, or that she will lose under even the most unfavorable conditions.

“I don’t think the voters really — other than the inside baseball participants — care about political endorsements,” said Chris Beavers, a Republican strategist who is not involved in the race. “They care about service, and there is nobody who serves their district more passionately and fully than Sarah Davis does.”

Last cycle, Davis accurately predicted that some statewide Republicans could lose her district — which encompasses the Texas Medical Center, Southside Place, Bellaire, Rice University and West University Place, where she lives — amid a “blue wave” of Democratic voters. The results varied wildly: Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke won 60 percent of the House District 134 vote, while Republican Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick narrowly beat her Democratic opponent there.

Davis captured 53 percent, winning by about 5,600 votes out of nearly 89,000.

That, Davis said, shows the district’s voters “cross the ballot to vote for people, not for parties.”

“My opponents who refer to the district as ‘flippable’ just don’t get it,” Davis said. “It isn’t about the party label, it’s about representing the priorities of this unique district regardless of party.”

Here’s the sum total of Republicans who carried HD134 in 2018:
Ed Emmett (56.31%) beat Lina Hidalgo (41.46%).
Glenn Hegar (48.60%) beat Joi Chavalier (48.52%).
Christi Craddick (49.00%) beat Roman McAllen (48.60%).
Seven Republican judicial candidates out of 74 total judicial races.

That’s it. Every other Republican, running for every other office, lost in HD134. Some by a hair, others by a landslide, they all lost. You can hang your hat on Christi Craddick and Glenn Hegar if you want, those are some strong headwinds.

It’s also the key reason why HD134 looks so much more winnable than in the past. Far fewer Democrats won HD134 in 2016, including judicial candidates. The district wasn’t just blue at the tippy top in 2018, it was blue pretty much all the way through.

There are plenty of antecedents for this race. Former Congressman Chet Edwards won three races in a very Republican, DeLay-redrawn district, until 2010 when a bunch of people who used to vote for him decided they were better represented by a Republican. Former State Rep. Ellen Cohen won two terms in this same HD134, which was about as Republican downballot then as it is Democratic now, until 2010 when a bunch of voters who had once supported her decided they were better represented by someone like Sarah Davis. I’m not saying that’s how this election, under very similar circumstances, will go. I’m just saying we’ve seen elections like it before. The voters there may still decide that she represents them well, regardless of her party. Or they may decide that even if she is the best that the Republican Party has to offer these days, the fact that it’s the Republican Party that’s making the offering is enough for them to change their minds.

That’s the point that the three Dems running for the nomination, all of whom are running actual, active, engaged campaigns unlike Davis’ opponent in 2018, would like to make with the voters. You may say that boiling this down to red versus blue is a disservice to the voters, and that making up their own independent non-partisan minds is more valuable. I say the difference between re-electing Sarah Davis and ousting her in favor of one of those three fine Dems is at least possibly the difference between a State House that spends 2021 passing a bunch of anti-trans bills and anti-abortion bills and anti-immigrant bills (Sarah Davis co-sponsored SB4, the “show me your papers” bill, and voted for the sonogram bill in 2011, in case you’ve forgotten) and new maps that heavily favor Republicans, and a State House that doesn’t do those things. The voters can decide for themselves which of those outcomes they prefer.

In case you need a reminder, my interviews with the HD134 candidates are here:

Ann Johnson
Ruby Powers
Lanny Bose

Precinct analysis: The two types of statewide candidates

When we look at the precinct data in Harris County, we can separate the statewide candidates into two groups. Here’s the first group:


Dist   Abbott   Valdez   Tipp  Abbott% Valdez%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  146,399  112,272  4,345   55.66%  43.40%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  127,414  111,248  4,285   52.45%  46.61%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   18,751    9,906    390   64.55%  34.57%		
CD09   27,929   90,968  1,450   23.21%  76.51%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   75,353   37,952  1,530   65.62%  33.50%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   46,703  135,085  2,924   25.28%  74.31%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   16,713   14,587    450   52.64%  46.60%		
CD29   35,234   81,191  1,209   29.95%  69.74%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   64,462   34,237  1,486   64.34%  34.69%		
							
SBOE6 311,568  259,847  9,961   53.59%  45.47%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  31,307   23,705    756   56.14%  43.09%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  44,013   23,782    918   64.05%  35.08%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  36,496   15,196    657   69.72%  29.40%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  38,653   25,449  1,079   59.30%  39.70%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  53,877   21,741  1,037   70.29%  28.75%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   7,736   33,845    479   18.39%  81.39%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  35,033   30,977    924   52.34%  46.93%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  44,317   26,343  1,278   61.60%  37.28%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  42,650   45,268  1,967   47.45%  51.49%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  28,819   26,636    853   51.18%  48.03%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   8,239   15,723    398   33.82%  65.62%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  25,204   22,706    839   51.70%  47.39%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  12,409   34,289    665   26.20%  73.43%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   6,188   17,271    207   26.15%  73.62%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   5,126   26,059    327   16.27%  83.56%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142  10,236   29,142    476   25.68%  74.01%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   8,772   19,764    263   30.46%  69.26%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,806   13,427    255   41.75%  57.79%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145  10,959   21,631    495   33.12%  66.37%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   9,927   33,073    645   22.74%  76.91%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  12,239   42,282  1,017   22.04%  77.55%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  17,912   29,255  1,070   37.13%  62.02%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  15,348   23,283    513   39.21%  60.27%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  43,692   26,599    951   61.33%  37.84%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    73,833  212,930  4,401   25.36%  74.25%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   115,327  111,134  3,044   50.25%  49.07%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   178,630  151,009  5,301   53.33%  45.81%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   191,168  152,373  5,323   54.80%  44.35%  51.22%   44.42%


Dist    Hegar   Cheval Sander   Hegar% Cheval%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  141,744  111,763  7,347   54.34%  42.85%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  124,558  109,747  6,674   51.69%  45.54%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   18,139    9,973    744   62.86%  34.56%	
CD09   24,211   92,612  3,102   20.19%  77.22%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   73,125   38,247  2,784   64.06%  33.50%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   41,793  136,421  5,291   22.77%  74.34%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   15,699   14,868    917   49.86%  47.22%		
CD29   31,025   82,379  3,547   26.53%  70.44%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   61,944   34,609  2,847   62.32%  34.82%		
							
SBOE6 303,287  257,168 16,226   52.59%  44.59%  48.92%   46.59%
		
HD126  30,142   23,892  1,398   54.38%  43.10%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  42,379   24,118  1,729   62.12%  35.35%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  35,212   15,517  1,260   67.73%  29.85%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  36,953   25,598  2,034   57.22%  39.63%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  52,413   21,902  1,867   68.80%  28.75%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   6,299   34,617  1,050   15.01%  82.49%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  33,520   31,387  1,765   50.28%  47.08%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  43,710   25,739  1,843   61.31%  36.10%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  43,113   43,043  2,548   48.60%  48.52%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  27,400   26,976  1,576   48.97%  48.21%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,616   15,855    774   31.41%  65.39%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  24,206   22,771  1,438   50.00%  47.03%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  11,085   34,800  1,223   23.53%  73.87%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,335   17,585    638   22.65%  74.65%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   4,010   26,763    682   12.75%  85.08%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,720   30,011    976   21.96%  75.58%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,578   20,159    879   26.48%  70.45%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,069   13,595    738   38.75%  58.09%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145  10,071   21,588  1,157   30.69%  65.78%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   8,749   33,458  1,166   20.17%  77.14%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  11,030   42,308  1,741   20.03%  76.81%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  17,117   28,580  1,885   35.97%  60.06%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  14,471   23,550	1,002   37.08%  60.35%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  42,040   26,807	1,884	59.44%  37.90%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    66,298  215,259  7,805   22.91%  74.39%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   108,715  112,237  6,847   47.72%  49.27%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   173,303  150,515  8,863   52.09%  45.24%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   183,922  152,608  9,738   53.12%  44.07%  51.22%   44.42%

Dist     Bush    Suazo   Pina    Bush%  Suazo%  Trump% Clinton%
==============================================================
CD02  139,352  114,931  7,003   53.33%  43.99%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  121,500  114,267  5,747   50.31%  47.31%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   17,965   10,096    794   62.26%  34.99%		
CD09   24,634   93,291  1,961   20.55%  77.82%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   72,059   39,108  3,029   63.10%  34.25%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   42,340  137,629  3,572   23.07%  74.99%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   15,614   15,120    804   49.51%  47.94%		
CD29   32,067   83,045  1,983   27.39%  70.92%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   61,471   35,448  2,621   61.76%  35.61%		
							
SBOE6 297,321  265,718 14,551   51.48%  46.00%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  29,781   24,312  1,386   53.68%  43.82%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  41,767   24,635  1,922   61.13%  36.06%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  35,019   15,710  1,327   67.27%  30.18%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  36,480   26,417  1,800   56.39%  40.83%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  51,579   22,543  2,081   67.69%  29.58%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   6,567   34,764    600   15.66%  82.91%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  33,218   31,761  1,697   49.82%  47.63%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  42,447   27,278  1,761   59.38%  38.16%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  41,172   45,935  1,991   46.21%  51.56%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  27,294   27,394  1,327   48.73%  48.90%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,570   16,080    586   31.23%  66.35%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  23,878   23,298  1,236   49.32%  48.12%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  11,284   35,000    805   23.96%  74.33%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,582   17,665    333   23.67%  74.92%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   4,200   26,800    425   13.37%  85.28%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   9,075   29,961    663   22.86%  75.47%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,907   20,265    472   27.60%  70.75%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,202   13,759    454   39.30%  58.76%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145  10,172   21,989    737   30.92%  66.84%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   8,700   33,902    789   20.05%  78.13%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  11,071   42,903  1,162   20.08%  77.81%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  16,967   29,451  1,362   35.51%  61.64%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  14,405   23,854    753   36.92%  61.15%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  41,665   27,259  1,845   58.87%  38.52%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    66,399  217,832  5,280   22.93%  75.24%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   108,715  114,022  5,408   47.65%  49.98%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   170,023  155,106  7,985   51.04%  46.56%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   181,865  155,975  8,841   52.46%  44.99%  51.22%   44.42%

Dist    Cradd  McAllen Wright   Cradd% McAlln%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  142,254  112,407  5,821   54.61%	43.15%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  124,873  110,377  5,224   51.93%	45.90%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   18,184   10,028    604   63.10%	34.80%		
CD09   24,262   93,623  1,880   20.26%	78.17%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   72,996   38,698  2,336   64.01%	33.94%	63.61%   32.36%
CD18   42,236  137,094  3,852   23.06%	74.84%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   15,798   14,978    685   50.21%	47.61%		
CD29   31,169   83,638  2,009   26.68%	71.60%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   62,167   35,017  2,135   62.59%	35.26%		
							
SBOE6 304,098  258,654 12,833   52.83%  44.94%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  30,251   24,086  1,030   54.64%  43.50%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  42,508   24,260  1,399   62.36%  35.59%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  35,341   15,690    935   68.01%  30.19%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  37,121   25,810  1,593   57.53%  40.00%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  52,323   22,196  1,573   68.76%  29.17%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   6,309   34,963    620   15.06%  83.46%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  33,485   31,713  1,390   50.29%  47.63%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  43,854   25,773  1,499   61.66%  36.24%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  43,326   42,975  2,125   49.00%  48.60%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  27,450   27,296  1,167   49.09%  48.82%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,649   16,001    542   31.62%  66.14%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  24,239   22,956  1,126   50.16%  47.51%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  11,169   35,002    865   23.75%  74.42%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,367   17,822    347   22.80%  75.72%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   4,009   27,021    417   12.75%  85.93%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,785   30,256    626   22.15%  76.27%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,582   20,499    483   26.54%  71.77%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,100   13,835    444   38.92%  59.18%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145  10,152   21,880    733   30.98%  66.78%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   8,760   33,730    801   20.24%  77.91%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  11,235   42,469  1,283   20.43%  77.23%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  17,266   28,762  1,437   36.38%  60.60%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  14,470   23,827    675   37.13%  61.14%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  42,188   27,038  1,436   59.70%  38.26%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    66,771  216,622  5,478   23.11%  74.99%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   109,186  113,684  4,717   47.98%  49.95%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   173,478  151,759  6,871   52.24%  45.70%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   184,504  153,795  7,480   53.36%  44.48%  51.22%   44.42%

These candidates, all of whom won by at least ten points statewide, carried CD07 and SBOE6, carried or narrowly lost HDs 132, 135, and 138, and did as well as Trump or better pretty much everywhere. Unlike Ted Cruz, these candidates held the base Republican vote and won back the Gary Johnson and Evan McMullen Republicans. These were the Republicans who had the least amount of controversy dogging them, the ones who for the most part could claim to be about doing their jobs and not licking Donald Trump’s boots. Yes, George P. Bush had Alamo issues, and Harvey recovery money issues (as did Greg Abbott to a lesser extent), but they weren’t enough to dent him. The most notable result in here is Abbott losing HD134. I’m guessing Sarah Davis will not be fearing another primary challenge in 2020.

And then there’s the other group:


Dist  Patrick  Collier McKenn Patrick%   Coll%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  134,530  123,364  4,744   51.22%  47.84%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  113,520  124,555  4,659   46.77%  52.32%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   17,737   10,768    482   61.19%  37.78%		
CD09   24,176   94,548  1,535   20.10%  79.64%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   70,715   42,023  1,959   61.65%  37.27%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   39,805  141,631  3,053   21.58%  78.06%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   15,438   15,694    554   48.72%  50.41%		
CD29   31,998   83,846  1,559   27.25%  72.38%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   60,359   37,854  1,812   60.34%  38.54%		
							
SBOE6 282,567  287,230 10,933   48.66%  50.41%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  29,104   25,673    917   52.26%  46.87%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  41,357   26,160  1,106   60.27%  38.75%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  34,655   16,787    832   66.29%  32.63%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  35,547   28,216  1,308   54.63%  44.25%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  50,658   24,612  1,309   66.15%  32.70%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   6,413   35,123    485   15.26%  84.56%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  32,599   33,062  1,174   48.78%  50.35%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  39,252   31,191  1,400   54.64%  44.28%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  36,006   52,016  1,881   40.05%  59.09%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  26,706   28,541    976   47.50%  51.66%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,279   16,593    460   29.92%  69.51%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  23,146   24,601    914   47.57%  51.52%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  10,774   35,909    643   22.77%  76.92%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,635   17,734    267   23.84%  75.89%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   4,259   26,894    339   13.52%  86.33%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,914   30,427    475   22.39%  77.34%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,979   20,410    356   27.76%  71.89%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   9,204   13,892    340   39.27%  60.15%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145   9,874   22,500    624   29.92%  69.50%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   8,240   34,720    661   18.89%  80.82%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147  10,055   44,357  1,005   18.14%  81.52%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  15,427   31,591  1,139   32.03%  67.19%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  14,187   24,362    560   36.28%  63.20%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  41,008   28,912  1,186   57.67%  41.35%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    62,356  224,149  4,325   21.44%  78.24%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   107,321  117,954  3,820   46.85%  52.36%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   162,085  166,470  6,044   48.44%  50.67%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   176,516  165,710  6,168   50.67%  48.42%  51.22%   44.42%


Dist   Paxton   Nelson Harris  Paxton% Nelson%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  131,374  125,193  5,584   50.11%  47.76%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  110,526  126,567  5,145   45.63%  52.25%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   17,461   10,905    580   60.32%  37.67%		
CD09   22,756   95,621  1,776   18.94%  79.58%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   69,879   42,292  2,315   61.04%  36.94%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   37,644  143,124  3,522   20.43%  77.66%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   14,945   16,014    661   47.26%  50.65%		
CD29   30,107   85,124  2,006   25.68%  72.61%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   59,422   38,390  2,064   59.50%  38.44%		
							
SBOE6 276,028  291,144 12,389   47.63%  50.24%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  28,595   25,962  1,059   51.42%  46.68%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  40,368   26,724  1,388   58.95%  39.02%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  34,331   16,926    953   65.76%  32.42%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  34,659   28,775  1,503   53.37%  44.31%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  50,144   24,667  1,597   65.63%  32.28%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   5,962   35,453    594   14.19%  84.39%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  31,919   33,536  1,333   47.79%  50.21%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  38,500   31,627  1,519   53.74%  44.14%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  34,670   53,010  1,988   38.66%  59.12%  39.58%   55.12%
HD135  26,040   28,961  1,137   46.39%  51.59%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   6,947   16,823    508   28.61%  69.29%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  22,512   24,996  1,056   46.36%  51.47%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  10,181   36,255    806   21.55%  76.74%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,278   17,999    326   22.36%  76.26%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   3,945   27,091    461   12.53%  86.01%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,433   30,706    636   21.20%  77.20%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,497   20,734    470   26.12%  72.24%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   8,863   14,133    440   37.82%  60.30%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145   9,363   22,898    704   28.40%  69.46%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   7,745   35,131    702   17.77%  80.62%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147   9,489   44,762  1,125   17.14%  80.83%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  14,665   32,054  1,298   30.54%  66.76%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  13,639   24,788    628   34.92%  63.47%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  40,369   29,219  1,422   56.85%  41.15%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    59,111  226,367  5,082   20.34%  77.91%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   104,324  119,859  4,573   45.60%  52.40%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   158,349  168,865  6,731   47.42%  50.57%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   172,330  168,139  7,267   49.56%  48.35%  51.22%   44.42%


Dist   Miller    Olson   Carp  Miller%  Olson%  Trump% Clinton%
===============================================================
CD02  133,022  122,897  4,709   51.04%  47.15%  52.38%   43.05%
CD07  112,853  123,473  4,148   46.93%  51.35%  47.11%   48.47%
CD08   17,596   10,756    460   61.07%  37.33%		
CD09   22,400   95,979  1,478   18.69%  80.08%  17.56%   79.70%
CD10   70,489   41,589  1,954   61.82%  36.47%  63.61%   32.36%
CD18   37,934  142,586  2,937   20.68%  77.72%  19.95%   76.46%
CD22   14,922   16,056    539   47.35%  50.94%		
CD29   29,391   85,809  1,720   25.14%  73.39%  25.46%   71.09%
CD36   59,684   38,022  1,678   60.05%  38.26%		
							
SBOE6 280,395  285,147 10,318   48.69%  49.52%  48.92%   46.59%
							
HD126  28,820   25,649    901   52.05%  46.32%  52.96%   42.99%
HD127  40,782   26,205  1,164   59.84%  38.45%  61.23%   34.90%
HD128  34,432   16,815    751   66.22%  32.34%  68.17%   28.75%
HD129  34,853   28,512  1,234   53.95%  44.14%  55.33%   40.06%
HD130  50,592   24,186  1,322   66.48%  31.78%  68.08%   27.94%
HD131   5,817   35,639    466   13.88%  85.01%  13.33%   84.31%
HD132  32,187   33,275  1,119   48.34%  49.98%  50.04%   45.68%
HD133  39,476   30,381  1,235   55.53%  42.73%  54.54%   41.11%
HD134  36,062   50,855  1,612   40.73%  57.44%  39.58%	 55.12%
HD135  26,173   28,770    954   46.82%  51.47%  48.91%   46.80%
HD137   7,027   16,723    444   29.04%  69.12%  28.95%   66.96%
HD138  22,745   24,700    896   47.05%  51.10%  47.80%   47.83%
HD139  10,210   36,245    632   21.68%  76.97%  20.60%   76.12%
HD140   5,137   18,147    295   21.79%  76.96%  21.89%   75.07%
HD141   3,844   27,252    347   12.23%  86.67%  12.58%   85.20%
HD142   8,357   30,855    466   21.06%  77.76%  20.97%   76.20%
HD143   7,196   20,967    432   25.17%  73.32%  26.02%   71.03%
HD144   8,757   14,258    391   37.41%  60.92%  38.41%   57.72%
HD145   9,296   22,924    597   28.33%  69.85%  28.73%   66.91%
HD146   7,705   35,073    583   17.77%  80.89%  17.31%   79.44%
HD147   9,614   44,494    987   17.45%  80.76%  16.76%   79.00%
HD148  14,974   31,507  1,108   31.47%  66.21%  30.49%   63.83%
HD149  13,659   24,763    558   35.04%  63.53%  32.51%   64.25%
HD150  40,576   28,972  1,129   57.41%  40.99%  59.18%   36.62%
							
CC1    59,268  225,889  4,130   20.49%  78.08%  19.74%   76.83%
CC2   104,218  119,731  3,843   45.75%  52.56%  46.79%   49.48%
CC3   160,755  165,766  5,607   48.40%  49.91%  48.22%   47.63%
CC4   174,050  165,781  6,043   50.32%  47.93%  51.22%   44.42%

Basically, these three are the exact opposite of the first group: Controversy, Trump-humping, ineffectiveness at what they’re supposed to be doing for the state, and underperformance relative to 2016. Not only did they all lose CD07, they lost SBOE6 and all three competitive State Rep districts. I mean, Justin Nelson won HD134 by over 20 points; Mike Collier just missed that mark. Except in the strongest Democratic districts, they all failed to achieve Trump’s numbers. (This suggests the possibility that Dem performance in 2018, as good as it was, could have been even better, and that there remains room to grow in 2020.) This is the degradation of the Republican brand in a nutshell. This isn’t just strong Democratic performance. It’s people who used to vote Republican not voting for these Republicans. Seems to me there’s a lesson to be learned here. What do you think are the odds it will be heeded?

2018 primary results: Statewide

Rep. Beto O’Rourke

Statewide Dem totals
Statewide GOP totals

Harris County Dem totals
Harris County GOP totals

(Please note that all results were coming in very slowly. I expect there will still be some precincts not yet reported by the time this publishes. So, I’m going to be less specific than usual, and may have to make a correction or two by Thursday.)

No real surprises here. Lupe Valdez and Andrew White will fight it out in the runoff. They combined for about 70% of the vote. Beto O’Rourke was a bit over 60% on his way to the Senate nomination. To be honest, I thought he’d score higher than that, but whatever. Statewide primaries are hard.

Miguel Suazo was near 70% for Land Commissioner, and Roman McAllen was near 60% for Railroad Commissioner. Mike Collier was leading by about seven points for Lt. Governor. The closest race was for Comptroller, where Joi Chevalier had a tiny lead over Tim Mahoney.

On the Republican side, Greg Abbott (90%), Ted Cruz (85%), Dan Patrick (75%), and Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick (75%), who I didn’t even realize had an opponent, all cruised. Baby Bush and Sid Miller were in the high 50’s and so also on their way to renomination. That means the only statewide runoff will be for the Democratic gubernatorial race.

One note on turnout: In 2014, there were 554,014 total votes cast in the Democratic primary for Governor. The early vote tally for the Dem gubernatorial primary was 555,002. So yeah, turnout was up. Republicans will probably have 30-40% more total turnout statewide, but I fully expect Dems to top one million at this point.

Legislative quick hits

This is the time of the session where there’s lots happening, and there isn’t always the time or space to stay on top of it all. So here are a few quick updates on things that are happening in an attempt to at least not be too far behind.

A bill to give Tesla Motors an opportunity to operate in Texas moves out of committee in the House.

The House Business and Industry Committee advanced a bill on Tuesday that would allow Tesla Motors to circumvent the state’s franchise dealer system and sell cars directly to Texans, giving a shot in the arm to the company’s efforts to operate in the state.

Tesla says an exemption from the franchise dealer system is the only way the company can operate successfully in Texas, but the owners of state auto dealer franchises have objected, saying the effort weakens a business model that has been key to their success.

House Bill 3351, by state Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, was replaced by a committee substitute that offered auto dealers another layer of protection: If Tesla ever sells more than 5,000 cars a year in the state, it will become subject to existing regulation and must start to franchise its operations.

With Tesla projecting sales of only a few hundred cars a year in the state, the bill’s supporters, including Diarmuid O’Connell, the vice president of business development for Tesla motors, called this a workable approach.

“This would give us the space we need to introduce our technology in the state,” he said.

See here for the background. I’m rooting for this one.

A bill to allow online voter registration has passed the Senate.

[Tuesday] afternoon, the Texas senate approved SB 315, a bill proposed by State Sen. Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio) to allow holders of unexpired Texas driver’s licenses or state-issued IDs to register to vote online.

Currently, registered voters in Texas may change their addresses online if they move within the same county but must complete a paper application if they are registering to vote for the first time or have moved to a different county.

In testimony on the proposed bill, election administrators said the legislation would both save significant money by reducing the need to manually enter information and eliminate transcription mistakes that happen with the current process.

The version of the bill approved by the Texas senate differs slightly from the original filed version in that the passed bill no longer requires voters to use the address listed on their license or ID as their voter registration address.

A similar bill – HB 313 – by State Rep. Mark Strama (D-Austin) is currently pending in the state house.

See here for the background. Another bill I’m rooting for. BOR has more.

Sen. Dan Patrick’s charter school expansion bill had its hearing in the House

Lawmakers didn’t let on too much of their feelings about the bill—but Killeen Republican Jimmy Don Aycock, chair of the House Public Education Committee, said he didn’t consider the bill watered-down, because it allows the state’s charter network to grow. Charter school officials seemed to agree.

The bill still gives charter schools priority access to unused public school facilities, which Kathleen Zimmerman, executive director of NYOS Charter School, said is the bill’s most important improvement. Zimmerman said she has to give up her office for tutoring sessions because unlike public schools, charters don’t get facilities funding.

Under the Senate version, the education commissioner would revoke charters of schools that performed poorly in three out of five years.

Zimmerman said she didn’t focus on those higher standards because she wanted to highlight the positives. But, she said, “as a charter operator, I don’t want poor performing charters either.”

Rep. Alma Allen (D-Houston) said she’s concerned that charters may have a hard time getting loans because some banks want them to plan to be open for more than five years.

Charles Pulliam, chief development officer of Life School charter in Dallas, said that prospect would undermine the flexibility charters need to test out innovative education strategies.

“It scares me a little,” Pulliam said. “To have one blanket way of determining if they are successful is a mistake.”

The bill is SB 2, and it easily passed the Senate after adding a bunch of mostly Democratic amendments. It is pending in the House Public Ed committee.

Speaking of charter schools, a bill to limit the role ex-SBOE members can play at one has advanced.

A measure to bar former State Board of Education members from taking a job at a charter school or related foundation within two years of serving on the board is headed to the full Senate.

Senate Bill 1725 by state Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, is intended to close the revolving door between the SBOE and charter schools.

An amendment by Sen. Leticia Van De Putte, D-San Antonio, would allow former board members to take a job at a charter school within the two-year period so long as that member did not vote to create that particular school.

The Senate Education Committee passed the bill 6-3 late Tuesday.

The three nays all came from Republicans, which suggests this bill could have problems getting any farther.

The Lege has been trying to change the name of the Railroad Commission to something more reflective of reality for as long as I can remember. They’re still trying, and working on some other reforms as well.

The bill, SB 212 by State Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, embodies a previous Sunset review of the Railroad Commission that didn’t pass in the last legislative session that would forbid certain campaign contributions. For instance, commissioners could not accept donations from a party involved in a contested case hearing. It would also limit campaign contributions to the 17 months before an election and 30 days after. Commissioners are elected to six-year terms.

A contested case hearing is the way citizens protest against an oil and gas company permit or action.

Barry Smitherman, Chairman of the Railroad Commission, said during testimony that the campaign restrictions were “tricky” because the commissioner position is elected statewide, the state is big, travel is necessary and commissioners must raise money.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who sits on the committee, said the Sunset Commission had thought hard about how to put reasonable limits on the campaign financing.

“Sitting there for a six-year term, being able to raise unlimited amounts of money from the industry that they regulate, there clearly is a perception problem,” said Ellis.

The Railroad Commission should be subject to restrictions that differ from other statewide elected officials, like senators and representatives, because the nature of the commission is unique, Nichols said, because the commissioners have six-year terms, they regulate a specific industry and they set rates.

Similar Sunset legislation for the commission originating in the House, HB 2166 by State Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, recently passed out of committee, but largely stripped of the campaign and ethics reform, according to Texas Energy Report. That bill could end up competing with the Senate bill discussed Tuesday.

[…]

No one testified specifically against the name-change provision. [Commissioner Christi] Craddick suggested the more succinct Texas Energy Commission. State Sen. Glen Hegar, R-Katy, who worked on the Sunset review that failed to pass in the last legislative session, also suggested a new name.

“I’d like to change it to Texas Department on Oil and Gas because it sounds cool … TDOG,” Hegar said.

The official name in the bill is Texas Energy Resources Commission. But I like Sen. Hegar’s suggestion.

We close with two from the inbox. First, from Equality Texas:

Moments ago, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence advanced House Bill 2403 by Rep. Mary González of El Paso on a committee vote of 5-3.

HB 2403 would remove existing inequity in Texas’ “Romeo & Juliet” Affirmative Defense law. The “Romeo & Juliet” Affirmative Defense is a logical approach to the reality that adolescents sometimes make sexual decisions that adults wish they had not made, but that adolescents have been making since the beginning of time.

Under current law, if teen sweethearts are of opposite sexes, consensual intimate contact remains a matter between parents and their children. However, the “Romeo & Juliet” Affirmative Defense is not currently available to dating teens of the same gender. The state should not intrude on the right of parents to instill their values about sex into their children. Nor should the state interfere if teenage sweethearts make decisions that their parents believe are not what is best for them.

This needs to be a conversation between parents and their children. Not between parents, their children, an arresting officer, a prosecuting attorney, and a trial judge. That is why the “Romeo & Juliet” Affirmative Defense exists.

HB 2301 will ensure that it applies equally to straight & gay teens.

Today’s House committee action follows advancement of identical legislation by the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice. On April 9th, Senate Bill 1316 by Senator John Whitmire of Houston was advanced by the committee on a 4-1 vote. SB 1316 is on the Senate Intent Calendar for Tuesday, April 23, 2013.

See here for more. As far as I can tell, the full Senate has not taken up SB1316 as yet.

Last but not least, a non-good bill from Empower the Vote Texas:

HB 148 by Rep. Burkett is scheduled to be voted on by the full House tomorrow, April 25th. Please contact your State Representative and tell them to vote NO on this bill. If you are not sure who is your State Rep, you can use the “Who Represents Me” lookup tool. Emails addresses for all House members are firstname.lastname @ house.state.tx.us, however phone calls are much more effective.

Attached are the letter ETVT sent to all Representatives opposing this bill along with supporting documents. The original text of the bill as introduced, the new text of the committee substitute, witness list, and bill analysis can be found here.

A copy of the letter is here. The hearing is today, so we’ll see how it goes.

Precinct analysis: City and county

If you know a little something about Excel (or in my case, OpenOffice Calc, which has the same basic functionality), it’s fairly straightforward to calculate the vote totals and percentages for various candidates in various county, state, or federal districts. These districts are well-defined, and by that I mean they contain a certain number of precincts in their entirity, and two districts of the same classification (i.e., two State Rep districts) have no overlap between them. (That actually isn’t exactly right, but it’s close enough to not worry about.) It’s not the same for determining the vote in the city of Houston versus the rest of Harris County. City boundaries do not conform to precinct boundaries. There are numerous precincts that are part Houston and part not-Houston. When I first tried to do this, after the 2008 election, I wound up counting a number of non-Houston votes as being from the city, which had the effect of underestimating the Democratic percentage by two or three points. After getting some feedback on this, I refined my methodology and got a result that I thought was more accurate. It’s definitely an estimate, but I’m confident it’s in the ballpark.

This year, I have the benefit of the city of Houston bonds and charter amendments on the ballot, which identify all of the precincts that contain city of Houston voters. Obviously, I don’t want to count all of the votes in each of those precincts as being city of Houston, for the reasons given above. You can look at the individual precincts and see a handful of bond votes but hundreds or thousands of Presidential votes, so you know you can’t count the whole precincts. What I wound up doing was counting the votes in any precinct that had at least ten Yes votes for Proposition B, the parks bond that was the biggest winner among the bonds, as Houston precincts. It’s not exact, but it’s close enough. Here’s what I got from doing that:

Candidate Votes R Votes Pct ===================================== Garcia 381,103 211,886 64.3% Obama 371,755 242,953 60.7% Ryan 370,181 225,952 62.1% Trautman 367,587 226,185 61.9% Hampton 359,110 227,134 61.2% Sadler 356,630 242,658 59.5% Petty 356,110 225,061 61.3% Bennett 353,317 234,256 60.5% Henry 342,986 240,103 58.8% Oliver 342,701 252,168 57.6%

By this calculation, which remember is as much approximation as anything else, Obama lost 0.3 percentage points from 2008, while Adrian Garcia lost about a point and a half. This is consistent with the amount they lost overall from 2008, so again I feel pretty confident. You can see that Garcia, Vince Ryan, and Diane Trautman all attracted some Republican support, while Mike Anderson, Christi Craddick, and Mike Sullivan all drew Democratic support.

Here’s the flipside, non-Houston Harris County, which is simply the totals above subtracted from the overalls:

Candidate Votes R Votes Pct ===================================== Garcia 230,860 310,551 42.6% Ryan 215,781 326,609 39.8% Trautman 214,896 326,012 39.7% Obama 213,696 341,913 38.5% Petty 208,702 321,146 39.4% Hampton 207,229 326,415 38.1% Bennett 206,689 328,248 38.6% Sadler 206,325 338,539 37.9% Oliver 199,443 343,351 36.7% Henry 198,206 334,588 37.2%

Pretty much what you’d expect based on the first set of results, with the exception of Paul Sadler sliding down a few spots, for which I’d blame – again – his lack of resources. I read these amazing stories about the turnout effort in Ohio, and I ask myself again what that might look like if it were ever tried here. I don’t really have anything more to add to this, so I’ll leave it here and we’ll continue with more analysis later.

Ethics and finance bills to get their turn

One never really expects bills relating to ethics and campaign finance reform to make it through the process, but it’s still a good idea to keep an eye on them.

In the last session, for example, at least 105 bills related to general ethics, lobbying or campaign-finance were filed. Only nineteen became law.

This session, members of the House and Senate again are considering more than 100 bills.

Among them are bills that would places caps on individual campaign donations to candidates, prohibit former lawmakers from immediately becoming lobbyists and prevent campaign payments to relatives.

Another bill, filed by Charlie Geren, R-River Oaks, would make lawmakers who run afoul of the ethics rules pay fines to the Texas Ethics Commission with personal funds, rather than with campaign donations.

“It makes a bigger impression on you if you write your own check rather than out of campaign dollars,” he said. “It doesn’t make any sense to me to fine me $500, or $50,000, and I can just go down the hall, raise it and pay it.”

Geren said some of his colleagues strongly objected to his bill. Among the other bills that could face challenges is a measure that would explicitly prohibit any payments of campaign funds to relatives.

The bill, by state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, is a reaction to recent ethics findings against lawmakers who, for example, hired their wives as campaign bookkeepers.

“We’re trying to make sure that campaign contributions are used in furtherance of another cause, and that it’s not a slush fund to pay members of your family,” she said.

Another bill would restrict the most prolific donors from giving more than $100,000 in total to all candidates during an election cycle.

Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, for example, has donated more than $2.1 million to elected officials from both parties since January 2008, according to campaign finance reports.

Geren’s bill is HB477, Thompson’s is HB3178. It’s hard to argue with Geren’s bill, since what he describes is generally what happens. I will say that TEC enforcement, such as it is, tends to be a bit capricious, and their guidelines are not nearly as concise as they should be; as such, I’m at least somewhat sympathetic to claims that this will be unfair to the members who aren’t as well-heeled as some of their colleagues. Still, I think the general principle is correct. As for Rep. Thompson’s bill, the poster child here is Christi Craddick (latter link is a PDF). Were it not for abuses like that, I wouldn’t care much about a bill like that, but if it weren’t for abuses like that such a bill likely wouldn’t exist in the first place.

The contributions limit bill is HB391, by Reps. Mike Villarreal and Mark Strama; both have introduced legislation like this in previous sessions. It’s something I’ve been calling for myself for some time now, so I’ll be rooting for it. As with the others, I don’t really expect it to get anywhere, but bills like these serve a useful purpose regardless. If nothing else, I look forward to hearing what the opponents have to say about it.