Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Jane Bland

Precinct analysis: Statewide judicial

Congressional districts
State Rep districts
Commissioners Court/JP precincts
Comparing 2012 and 2016

We’re going to take a look at the seven statewide judicial races in this post, with all of the districts considered so far grouped together. You’re about to have a lot of numbers thrown at you, is what I’m saying. I’m ordering these races in a particular way, which is to put the contests that included a Libertarian candidate first (there were no Green candidates for any statewide judicial position, or indeed any judicial position on the Harris County ballot), and then the contests that were straight up D versus R next. There were three of the former and four of the latter, and we’ll see what we can determine about the effect that a Libertarian may have had on these races as we go.

Dist    Hecht  Meachum    Lib  Hecht% Meachum%   Lib%
CD02  179,887  154,785  7,979  52.50%   45.17%  2.33%
CD07  154,058  149,348  6,725  49.68%   48.16%  2.17%
CD08   25,686   15,145  1,014  61.38%   36.19%  2.42%
CD09   37,479  119,471  3,516  23.36%   74.45%  2.19%
CD10  101,965   60,290  3,917  61.36%   36.28%  2.36%
CD18   58,684  179,178  5,906  24.07%   73.50%  2.42%
CD22   21,575   20,271  1,140  50.19%   47.16%  2.65%
CD29   48,349  101,662  4,049  31.38%   65.99%  2.63%
CD36   82,593   48,435  3,259  61.50%   36.07%  2.43%
HD126  38,883   33,427  1,726  52.52%   45.15%  2.33%
HD127  53,978   35,464  2,040  59.00%   38.77%  2.23%
HD128  48,000   22,103  1,606  66.94%   30.82%  2.24%
HD129  47,867   35,292  2,208  56.07%   41.34%  2.59%
HD130  69,884   32,443  2,440  66.70%   30.97%  2.33%
HD131   9,887   44,240  1,236  17.86%   79.91%  2.23%
HD132  50,149   48,527  2,544  49.54%   47.94%  2.51%
HD133  51,732   35,958  1,730  57.85%   40.21%  1.93%
HD134  50,646   56,804  2,018  46.27%   51.89%  1.84%
HD135  36,285   36,987  1,891  48.28%   49.21%  2.52%
HD137  10,333   20,930    827  32.20%   65.22%  2.58%
HD138  31,730   30,982  1,548  49.38%   48.21%  2.41%
HD139  15,475   44,630  1,365  25.17%   72.60%  2.22%
HD140   9,151   21,719    840  28.86%   68.49%  2.65%
HD141   6,824   35,967    981  15.59%   82.17%  2.24%
HD142  13,637   41,662  1,238  24.12%   73.69%  2.19%
HD143  11,821   24,338    938  31.87%   65.61%  2.53%
HD144  13,535   16,631    867  43.61%   53.59%  2.79%
HD145  14,758   26,918  1,255  34.38%   62.70%  2.92%
HD146  11,363   43,152  1,235  20.38%   77.40%  2.22%
HD147  14,973   53,050  1,799  21.44%   75.98%  2.58%
HD148  22,163   36,851  1,701  36.50%   60.70%  2.80%
HD149  21,616   30,814  1,133  40.36%   57.53%  2.12%
HD150  55,585   39,695  2,339  56.94%   40.66%  2.40%
CC1    92,529  278,828  8,580  24.35%   73.39%  2.26%
CC2   149,483  145,171  7,746  49.43%   48.01%  2.56%
CC3   228,402  210,197 10,006  50.91%   46.86%  2.23%
CC4   239,862  214,392 11,173  51.54%   46.06%  2.40%
JP1    93,898  163,620  6,237  35.60%   62.03%  2.36%
JP2    33,762   49,003  2,174  39.75%   57.69%  2.56%
JP3    51,276   68,138  2,733  41.98%   55.78%  2.24%
JP4   233,213  185,525  9,970  54.40%   43.28%  2.33%
JP5   204,389  214,695  9,945  47.64%   50.04%  2.32%
JP6     7,834   27,042  1,074  21.79%   75.22%  2.99%
JP7    18,495   99,632  2,600  15.32%   82.53%  2.15%
JP8    67,409   40,933  2,772  60.67%   36.84%  2.49%

Dist     Boyd Williams    Lib   Boyd%Williams%   Lib%
CD02  177,810  155,876  7,349  52.14%   45.71%  2.15%
CD07  149,700  152,887  5,923  48.52%   49.56%  1.92%
CD08   25,674   15,116    894  61.59%   36.26%  2.14%
CD09   37,235  120,311  2,810  23.22%   75.03%  1.75%
CD10  101,850   60,145  3,613  61.50%   36.32%  2.18%
CD18   57,552  180,778  5,054  23.65%   74.28%  2.08%
CD22   21,529   20,300  1,030  50.23%   47.36%  2.40%
CD29   48,900  101,209  3,423  31.85%   65.92%  2.23%
CD36   82,368   48,573  2,879  61.55%   36.30%  2.15% 

HD126  38,664   33,525  1,557  52.43%   45.46%  2.11%
HD127  53,700   35,556  1,891  58.92%   39.01%  2.07%
HD128  48,078   22,019  1,431  67.22%   30.78%  2.00%
HD129  47,371   35,620  2,000  55.74%   41.91%  2.35%
HD130  69,697   32,424  2,234  66.79%   31.07%  2.14%
HD131   9,814   44,580    937  17.74%   80.57%  1.69%
HD132  50,168   48,466  2,311  49.70%   48.01%  2.29%
HD133  49,946   37,393  1,520  56.21%   42.08%  1.71%
HD134  47,593   59,069  1,938  43.82%   54.39%  1.78%
HD135  36,215   37,075  1,607  48.35%   49.50%  2.15%
HD137  10,226   21,044    708  31.98%   65.81%  2.21%
HD138  31,413   31,231  1,372  49.07%   48.79%  2.14%
HD139  15,293   44,932  1,208  24.89%   73.14%  1.97%
HD140   9,270   21,715    677  29.28%   68.58%  2.14%
HD141   6,943   36,106    738  15.86%   82.46%  1.69%
HD142  13,649   41,816  1,006  24.17%   74.05%  1.78%
HD143  11,953   24,211    783  32.35%   65.53%  2.12%
HD144  13,712   16,444    757  44.36%   53.19%  2.45%
HD145  14,749   26,907  1,082  34.51%   62.96%  2.53%
HD146  10,957   43,683    985  19.70%   78.53%  1.77%
HD147  14,628   53,564  1,547  20.98%   76.81%  2.22%
HD148  21,551   37,172  1,616  35.72%   61.61%  2.68%
HD149  21,554   30,949    980  40.30%   57.87%  1.83%
HD150  55,473   39,693  2,090  57.04%   40.81%  2.15%
CC1    90,441  281,651  7,183  23.85%   74.26%  1.89%
CC2   149,519  144,951  6,793  49.63%   48.11%  2.25%
CC3   224,732  213,022  8,935  50.31%   47.69%  2.00%
CC4   237,926  215,574 10,064  51.33%   46.50%  2.17%
JP1    90,471  166,282  5,724  34.47%   63.35%  2.18%
JP2    33,968   48,891  1,877  40.09%   57.70%  2.22%
JP3    51,567   68,134  2,269  42.28%   55.86%  1.86%
JP4   232,446  185,828  8,942  54.41%   43.50%  2.09%
JP5   201,507  217,080  8,748  47.15%   50.80%  2.05%
JP6     7,848   26,989    935  21.94%   75.45%  2.61%
JP7    17,772  100,858  2,001  14.73%   83.61%  1.66%
JP8    67,039   41,136  2,479  60.58%   37.18%  2.24%

Dist    Busby   Triana    Lib  Busby%  Triana%   Lib%
CD02  180,619  152,062  8,019  53.01%   44.63%  2.35%
CD07  154,593  146,826  6,759  50.16%   47.64%  2.19%
CD08   25,758   14,928    955  61.86%   35.85%  2.29%
CD09   37,362  119,463  3,094  23.36%   74.70%  1.93%
CD10  102,251   59,298  3,908  61.80%   35.84%  2.36%
CD18   58,913  178,629  5,394  24.25%   73.53%  2.22%
CD22   21,575   20,090  1,118  50.43%   46.96%  2.61%
CD29   47,694  102,644  3,275  31.05%   66.82%  2.13%
CD36   82,901   47,695  3,069  62.02%   35.68%  2.30%

HD126  38,980   33,040  1,658  52.91%   44.84%  2.25%
HD127  54,112   34,934  2,025  59.42%   38.36%  2.22%
HD128  48,180   21,765  1,477  67.46%   30.47%  2.07%
HD129  47,955   34,683  2,230  56.51%   40.87%  2.63%
HD130  70,019   31,790  2,447  67.16%   30.49%  2.35%
HD131   9,827   44,382  1,012  17.80%   80.37%  1.83%
HD132  50,189   48,200  2,493  49.75%   47.78%  2.47%
HD133  51,870   35,055  1,814  58.45%   39.50%  2.04%
HD134  51,239   55,036  2,250  47.21%   50.71%  2.07%
HD135  36,361   36,664  1,790  48.60%   49.01%  2.39%
HD137  10,325   20,780    812  32.35%   65.11%  2.54%
HD138  31,761   30,656  1,497  49.69%   47.96%  2.34%
HD139  15,489   44,606  1,222  25.26%   72.75%  1.99%
HD140   8,987   21,995    659  28.40%   69.51%  2.08%
HD141   6,791   36,116    798  15.54%   82.64%  1.83%
HD142  13,605   41,732  1,042  24.13%   74.02%  1.85%
HD143  11,665   24,588    733  31.54%   66.48%  1.98%
HD144  13,471   16,721    744  43.54%   54.05%  2.40%
HD145  14,593   27,092  1,061  34.14%   63.38%  2.48%
HD146  11,412   42,928  1,129  20.57%   77.39%  2.04%
HD147  15,183   52,758  1,661  21.81%   75.80%  2.39%
HD148  22,402   36,229  1,688  37.14%   60.06%  2.80%
HD149  21,574   30,729  1,065  40.42%   57.58%  2.00%
HD150  55,675   39,155  2,284  57.33%   40.32%  2.35%
CC1    92,822  277,923  7,778  24.52%   73.42%  2.05%
CC2   149,446  144,793  6,922  49.62%   48.08%  2.30%
CC3   228,849  207,334  9,987  51.29%   46.47%  2.24%
CC4   240,549  211,588 10,904  51.95%   45.70%  2.35%
JP1    94,735  161,383  6,127  36.12%   61.54%  2.34%
JP2    33,518   49,255  1,882  39.59%   58.18%  2.22%
JP3    51,327   68,119  2,341  42.14%   55.93%  1.92%
JP4   233,635  183,442  9,668  54.75%   42.99%  2.27%
JP5   204,626  212,437  9,722  47.95%   49.78%  2.28%
JP6     7,711   27,250    875  21.52%   76.04%  2.44%
JP7    18,508   99,518  2,270  15.39%   82.73%  1.89%
JP8    67,606   40,234  2,706  61.16%   36.40%  2.45%

Dist    Bland    Cheng  Bland%   Cheng%
CD02  186,706  154,725  54.68%   45.32%
CD07  159,574  149,326  51.66%   48.34%
CD08   26,540   15,186  63.61%   36.39%
CD09   39,465  120,736  24.63%   75.37%
CD10  105,349   60,323  63.59%   36.41%
CD18   62,985  180,105  25.91%   74.09%
CD22   22,415   20,441  52.30%   47.70%
CD29   51,670  102,080  33.61%   66.39%
CD36   85,490   48,367  63.87%   36.13%

HD126  40,209   33,586  54.49%   45.51%
HD127  55,788   35,414  61.17%   38.83%
HD128  49,423   22,087  69.11%   30.89%
HD129  49,640   35,394  58.38%   41.62%
HD130  71,946   32,493  68.89%   31.11%
HD131  10,622   44,674  19.21%   80.79%
HD132  52,183   48,781  51.68%   48.32%
HD133  53,308   35,720  59.88%   40.12%
HD134  52,985   55,899  48.66%   51.34%
HD135  37,544   37,368  50.12%   49.88%
HD137  10,776   21,212  33.69%   66.31%
HD138  32,815   31,243  51.23%   48.77%
HD139  16,488   44,881  26.87%   73.13%
HD140   9,808   21,860  30.97%   69.03%
HD141   7,537   36,159  17.25%   82.75%
HD142  14,573   41,837  25.83%   74.17%
HD143  12,622   24,375  34.12%   65.88%
HD144  14,320   16,647  46.24%   53.76%
HD145  15,721   27,079  36.73%   63.27%
HD146  12,136   43,482  21.82%   78.18%
HD147  16,299   53,306  23.42%   76.58%
HD148  23,760   36,701  39.30%   60.70%
HD149  22,218   31,229  41.57%   58.43%
HD150  57,472   39,861  59.05%   40.95%
CC1    98,928  280,012  26.11%   73.89%
CC2   156,101  145,437  51.77%   48.23%
CC3   236,143  210,982  52.81%   47.19%
CC4   249,022  214,861  53.68%   46.32%
JP1    99,802  162,942  37.98%   62.02%
JP2    35,454   49,274  41.84%   58.16%
JP3    53,615   68,275  43.99%   56.01%
JP4   241,226  186,223  56.43%   43.57%
JP5   211,577  216,054  49.48%   50.52%
JP6     8,598   27,274  23.97%   76.03%
JP7    20,093  100,384  16.68%   83.32%
JP8    69,829   40,866  63.08%   36.92%

Dist    BertR  Frizell  BertR% Frizell%
CD02  182,683  156,878  53.80%   46.20%
CD07  154,962  152,062  50.47%   49.53%
CD08   26,171   15,356  63.02%   36.98%
CD09   38,285  121,530  23.96%   76.04%
CD10  103,856   61,112  62.96%   37.04%
CD18   60,147  182,281  24.81%   75.19%
CD22   22,094   20,602  51.75%   48.25%
CD29   49,588  103,742  32.34%   67.66%
CD36   84,033   49,223  63.06%   36.94%
HD126  39,527   33,961  53.79%   46.21%
HD127  54,907   35,913  60.46%   39.54%
HD128  48,755   22,498  68.43%   31.57%
HD129  48,845   35,746  57.74%   42.26%
HD130  71,099   32,881  68.38%   31.62%
HD131  10,143   45,055  18.38%   81.62%
HD132  51,129   49,476  50.82%   49.18%
HD133  51,832   36,580  58.63%   41.37%
HD134  50,395   57,371  46.76%   53.24%
HD135  36,941   37,669  49.51%   50.49%
HD137  10,540   21,336  33.07%   66.93%
HD138  32,162   31,590  50.45%   49.55%
HD139  15,861   45,360  25.91%   74.09%
HD140   9,330   22,296  29.50%   70.50%
HD141   7,087   36,609  16.22%   83.78%
HD142  14,019   42,335  24.88%   75.12%
HD143  12,089   24,821  32.75%   67.25%
HD144  13,871   17,022  44.90%   55.10%
HD145  15,087   27,539  35.39%   64.61%
HD146  11,553   43,886  20.84%   79.16%
HD147  15,480   53,890  22.32%   77.68%
HD148  22,624   37,382  37.70%   62.30%
HD149  21,970   31,301  41.24%   58.76%
HD150  56,572   40,268  58.42%   41.58%
CC1    94,471  283,329  25.01%   74.99%
CC2   152,430  147,946  50.75%   49.25%
CC3   231,007  213,789  51.94%   48.06%
CC4   243,911  217,725  52.84%   47.16%
JP1    94,825  166,188  36.33%   63.67%
JP2    34,572   49,950  40.90%   59.10%
JP3    52,322   69,282  43.03%   56.97%
JP4   237,425  188,270  55.77%   44.23%
JP5   207,011  218,653  48.63%   51.37%
JP6     8,115   27,625  22.71%   77.29%
JP7    18,911  101,267  15.74%   84.26%
JP8    68,638   41,554  62.29%   37.71%

Dist    Yeary  Clinton  Yeary% Clinton%
CD02  181,198  157,995  53.42%   46.58%
CD07  151,549  154,946  49.45%   50.55%
CD08   26,274   15,252  63.27%   36.73%
CD09   38,213  121,550  23.92%   76.08%
CD10  103,978   60,908  63.06%   36.94%
CD18   59,656  182,560  24.63%   75.37%
CD22   21,975   20,676  51.52%   48.48%
CD29   50,071  103,069  32.70%   67.30%
CD36   83,847   49,311  62.97%   37.03%

HD126  39,406   34,008  53.68%   46.32%
HD127  54,799   35,974  60.37%   39.63%
HD128  48,866   22,330  68.64%   31.36%
HD129  48,336   36,186  57.19%   42.81%
HD130  71,143   32,784  68.45%   31.55%
HD131  10,107   45,059  18.32%   81.68%
HD132  51,349   49,189  51.07%   48.93%
HD133  50,252   37,973  56.96%   43.04%
HD134  47,809   59,740  44.45%   55.55%
HD135  36,998   37,557  49.63%   50.37%
HD137  10,513   21,328  33.02%   66.98%
HD138  31,954   31,731  50.18%   49.82%
HD139  15,775   45,409  25.78%   74.22%
HD140   9,482   22,099  30.02%   69.98%
HD141   7,189   36,455  16.47%   83.53%
HD142  14,134   42,173  25.10%   74.90%
HD143  12,173   24,673  33.04%   66.96%
HD144  13,989   16,866  45.34%   54.66%
HD145  15,119   27,441  35.52%   64.48%
HD146  11,410   43,976  20.60%   79.40%
HD147  15,255   54,067  22.01%   77.99%
HD148  22,154   37,759  36.98%   63.02%
HD149  21,889   31,344  41.12%   58.88%
HD150  56,659   40,145  58.53%   41.47%
CC1    93,178  284,268  24.69%   75.31%
CC2   152,526  147,534  50.83%   49.17%
CC3   228,374  215,887  51.41%   48.59%
CC4   242,683  218,581  52.61%   47.39%
JP1    92,164  168,445  35.36%   64.64%
JP2    34,638   49,779  41.03%   58.97%
JP3    52,563   68,943  43.26%   56.74%
JP4   237,318  188,099  55.78%   44.22%
JP5   205,042  220,128  48.23%   51.77%
JP6     8,132   27,549  22.79%   77.21%
JP7    18,576  101,549  15.46%   84.54%
JP8    68,328   41,778  62.06%   37.94%

Dist   Newell    Birm  Newell%    Birm%
CD02  183,283  155,303  54.13%   45.87%
CD07  154,445  151,554  50.47%   49.53%
CD08   26,375   15,075  63.63%   36.37%
CD09   39,055  120,306  24.51%   75.49%
CD10  104,616   60,043  63.53%   36.47%
CD18   61,174  180,645  25.30%   74.70%
CD22   22,249   20,322  52.26%   47.74%
CD29   51,148  101,583  33.49%   66.51%
CD36   84,501   48,451  63.56%   36.44%

HD126  39,784   33,498  54.29%   45.71%
HD127  55,127   35,497  60.83%   39.17%
HD128  49,062   22,055  68.99%   31.01%
HD129  48,920   35,437  57.99%   42.01%
HD130  71,414   32,353  68.82%   31.18%
HD131  10,424   44,586  18.95%   81.05%
HD132  51,878   48,536  51.66%   48.34%
HD133  51,273   36,800  58.22%   41.78%
HD134  49,412   57,931  46.03%   53.97%
HD135  37,337   37,104  50.16%   49.84%
HD137  10,697   21,067  33.68%   66.32%
HD138  32,371   31,165  50.95%   49.05%
HD139  16,204   44,873  26.53%   73.47%
HD140   9,722   21,767  30.87%   69.13%
HD141   7,342   36,259  16.84%   83.16%
HD142  14,466   41,754  25.73%   74.27%
HD143  12,491   24,246  34.00%   66.00%
HD144  14,227   16,561  46.21%   53.79%
HD145  15,377   27,059  36.24%   63.76%
HD146  11,707   43,563  21.18%   78.82%
HD147  15,713   53,487  22.71%   77.29%
HD148  22,748   37,026  38.06%   61.94%
HD149  22,175   30,953  41.74%   58.26%
HD150  56,974   39,704  58.93%   41.07%
CC1    95,668  281,099  25.39%   74.61%
CC2   154,203  145,222  51.50%   48.50%
CC3   231,571  211,887  52.22%   47.78%
CC4   245,404  215,077  53.29%   46.71%
JP1    94,960  165,091  36.52%   63.48%
JP2    35,233   48,975  41.84%   58.16%
JP3    53,108   68,215  43.77%   56.23%
JP4   238,952  185,854  56.25%   43.75%
JP5   208,027  216,365  49.02%   50.98%
JP6     8,409   27,151  23.65%   76.35%
JP7    19,213  100,651  16.03%   83.97%
JP8    68,944   40,983  62.72%   37.28%

Another word about the order in which these races appeared. On the Harris County election returns page, they appeared in the order you’d expect: first was the Supreme Court Chief Justice race, then Places 6, 7, and 8, followed by Court of Criminal Appeals Places 3, 4, and 9. In other words, the order a random person off the streets might have put them in if they had been tasked with it. For whatever the reason, on the Secretary of State election returns page, the order is different: Chief Justice, then Supreme Court Places 8, 6, and 7, followed by CCA Places 4, 9, and 3. I have no idea why they did it this way.

What difference does it make? The answer is in the total number of votes cast. The generally accepted wisdom is that the farther down the ballot, the more likely it is that a voter will skip the race, presumably because they thought “well, that’s all the voting I have in me, I’m going to call it quits now”. This was the underpinning of the many breathless articles about the effect of not having straight ticket voting, which came with the implicit assumption that Democratic voters would have less endurance in them, thus giving Republican candidates farther down the ballot an advantage. You know how I felt about that.

That said, the dropoff effect was there, albeit in a small amount. Here are the turnout totals for each race, going by the order on the Harris County ballot, which I’m taking as the proper order for elsewhere in the state. (You can check other county election sites to check this, I’ve already spent too much time on it.)

Position      Statewide     Harris
President    11,315,056  1,640,818
Senate       11,144,040  1,614,525
RRC          11,000,982  1,594,345
SC Chief     10,997,978  1,596,369
SC Place 6   10,954,061  1,591,486
SC Place 7   10,961,811  1,590,486
SC Place 8   10,948,768  1,588,895
CCA Place 3  10,918,384  1,584,608
CCA Place 4  10,898,223  1,583,031
CCA Place 9  10,879,051  1,580,131

I included the other statewide races here for comparison. There is some dropoff, but it’s pretty small – at both the statewide and Harris County level, the last race still got more than 96% of the vote total of the Presidential race. The dropoff among just the state offices is much more minimal, which I can understand – if all you care about is who’s running the country, you’ll probably stop after President, Senate, and Congress, which will be the third race on your ballot. Note also that with one exception in each column, the totals comport with their order on the ballot. Someday I might like to meet the person who decides to get off the bus after voting in three of the four Supreme Court races, or one of the three CCA races. Today is not that day, however.

The other thing to talk about here is how the candidates in races with a Libertarian candidate did versus the ones in races without a Libertarian. My eyeball sense of it is that the Republican candidates in two-person races picked up more of the erstwhile Libertarian voters in the redder districts, and the effect was more diffuse in the Dem districts, but I can’t say that with any level of rigor. There are too many factors to consider, including the gender and race of the candidates and their campaign finances and tenure in office and who knows what else. Maybe someone with a PhD can create a viable model for this.

Beyond that, what we see in these numbers is what we’ve been seeing all along. CD07 was a slightly tougher environment than it was in 2018, with three of the seven Democratic candidates carrying it. CD02 is basically a seven- or eight-point Republican district. HD135 leaned slightly Democratic, while HDs 132 and 138 leaned slightly more Republican, and HD134 completed its journey to becoming a Democratic district. Commissioner Precincts 2, 3, and 4 were all slightly to slightly-more-than-slightly red, but it won’t take much in redistricting to flip that around, at least for precincts 2 and 3. Everyone carried Constable/JP precinct 5, while precinct 4 remains a bit of a stretch. Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you’re wondering why I haven’t included SBOE and State Senate districts in these reports before now, wonder no more. I’ll be delving into those next. Let me know what you think.

Initial thoughts about the election

And now for some reactions and analysis…

– The polls were garbage. Oy vey. Not just here, though they were definitely off here, underestimating Trump and the Republicans after doing the same to Beto and the Dems in 2018. This time, after all that national soul-searching following the 2016 state-level misfires (the national polling was fairly accurate overall in 2016), we got this flaming mess. Not my problem to solve, but I wonder how much of this is the known issue of “differential response” writ large. We know that in some circumstances, like when there’s been a big news event, one candidate’s supporters, or members of one party in general, may be more or less likely to answer the phone and respond to a pollster. It may be that just as a matter of course now, Republicans are less likely to respond to polls, in a bigger way than previously thought, and that had a disproportionate effect on the numbers. I’m just guessing here, but if that’s the case then perhaps the web panel approach to polling needs to be used more often. For what it’s worth, the UT/Texas Tribune and UH Hobby School polls from October, both of which had Trump up 50-45, used web panels. Maybe that’s a fluke, maybe they had a better likely voter model going in, maybe they were onto something that the others weren’t, I don’t know. But they came the closest, so they get the glory. As for the rest, thanks for nothing.

– Along those same lines, pollsters who did deeper dive polls on Latino voters, such as Univision and Latino Decisions, really need to question their methods and figure out how they went so mind-bogglingly wrong. I get that what we had, at least to some extent, appears to have been lower-propensity Latino voters turning out at surprisingly high levels for Trump, but damn, this is your job. You need to be on top of that.

– The old adage about “Texas isn’t a red state, it’s a non-voting state” can be safely buried for now. We had record-breaking turnout, over 11 million votes cast when we’d never surpassed nine million before, and yet Trump still won by six points while other statewide Republicans were winning by nine to eleven points. To be sure, that’s closer than 2016 was, but at this rate we’ll need to have thirty million people voting for Dems to catch up, and I feel confident saying that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. The lesson here is that there are low-propensity Republican voters, too, and they are capable of showing up when they are persuaded. We saw that happen in 2018, and we saw it again this year.

I admit I bought into the hype, and put too much faith into the idea that the non-voters would be more consistently Democratic than Republican. To be fair, I think that was the case in 2018, as Democrats made huge gains relative to past off years. It’s certainly been the case in Harris County that increases in voter registration have led to significant increases in Democratic votes – I’ll get to this in more detail later in the post, but this can be pretty easily quantified, and it’s why Dems have been dominating the countywide races with increasing ease. It’s where those gains came from that seems to have been a difference-maker.

I don’t want to sell short what was accomplished here. Joe Biden got over 1.3 million more votes than Hillary Clinton; Trump improved on his total by about 1.15 million. Chrysta Castaneda got 1.36 million more votes than Grady Yarbrough. The statewide judicial candidates got between 3,378,163 and 3,608,634 votes in 2016; in 2020, the range was 4,762,188 to 4,899,270 votes. If you want to be particularly gruesome, Biden got 3.3 million more votes than Wendy Davis did for Governor in 2014. Granted, Trump outdid Greg Abbott by just over 3 million votes, but still. A lot more people now have voted for a Democrat in Texas than at any other point in history. Even as we pick through the wreckage, that’s worth keeping in mind.

So how do we close that remaining gap of 700K to one million voters statewide? One, we should remember that off year elections are far more volatile from a turnout perspective, and we need to do everything we can to make these new folks habitual voters while we continue to register and recruit new voters. Two, having dynamic statewide candidates, who can learn the lessons of these past elections while applying them to the environment they’re in, would help. And three, maybe we need to give another look to the reviled old “persuasion” strategy, and see how we can do a better job of peeling away some of the other guy’s voters. Easier said than done, but then that’s why I’m a blogger and not a campaign professional.

– By the way, if anyone asks you who the current all-time vote leader in Texas is, the answer as of 2020 is Supreme Court Justice Jane Bland, who tipped the scales at 6,002,233 votes. No one else topped six million. She was helped by not having a third-party opponent in the race; the Libertarians in three other races got between 254L and 283K votes.

– I take no position on the question about whether the Republicans’ continued use of traditional door-to-door campaigning during the pandemic, which the Democrats largely eschewed out of a sense of safety for their campaign workers and as a statement of living their values, was a factor in this election. The academic research on various methods of increasing turnout and persuading swing voters is mixed, and does not suggest that one method (such as door-knocking) is clearly superior to others (such as phone-banking). Winning teams always point to their methods and strategies as the reason why they won and the other team lost. I’m not saying this couldn’t have made a difference, or that it didn’t make a difference. It may have, and I have no way to disprove the assertion. I’m just saying that it’s anecdotal data, and I consider it to be such.

– Also, too: I saw people again cursing Beto’s name for not running for Senate this year. All I can say is that anyone who thinks Beto would have done better than Biden is not thinking clearly. He probably would have exceeded MJ Hegar, but there’s a lot of room between that and winning. With all the money that was spent in Texas this year, I do not buy the argument that having Beto on the ticket would have moved the needle for Dems.

– Speaking of money, hoo boy. I hope this isn’t the end of our candidates being able to raise enough of it. We’re going to need plenty in 2022.

– How much of an effect did the lack of straight ticket voting have? Far as I can tell, very little. In Harris County, there were 1,633,557 votes cast in the Presidential race. Way down at the bottom of the ballot, in the two At Large HCDE races, there were 1,551,731 and 1,548,760 votes. In other words, about 95% of the people who voted in the Presidential race also voted in these two HCDE races.

Now, if you look at the various judicial races, you will see that Democratic judicial candidates generally got 60-80K fewer votes than Biden, while most Republican judicial candidates (though not all) exceeded Trump’s total. Some of that was just crossover voting, which we knew was happening, but some of it may have been a greater propensity by Dems to skip some number of downballot races. It’s hard to say how much is each. For what it’s worth, 12 out of 15 Dem judicial candidates (district and county courts) who had a Republican opponent had fewer votes than MJ Hegar, who had 848K to Biden’s 911K, while 8 out of those 15 Republican opponents did better than John Cornyn’s 717K votes; Trump got 699K, and all but two of those Republicans did better than that, while no one came close to Biden.

So did the absence of straight ticket voting mean more crossovers in general? I will remind you, as I have done before, there’s always a range of outcomes in the judicial races, so there has always been some amount of crossover voting, just usually not that much. Why did MJ Hegar get so many fewer votes than Joe Biden did? Some of it was more voting for third party candidates – there were 22K votes for the Libertarian and Green Presidential candidates, and 42K such votes in the Senate race – some of it was the 26K fewer votes cast in the Senate race (about 98.5% of all Presidential voters also voted for a Senate candidate), and some of it was the 18K people who voted for Cornyn but not Trump. Make of that what you will.

– While I’m thinking about it, let me update that range-of-results table I just linked to:

Rep 524K to 545K
Dem 460K to 482K

Rep 526K to 564K
Dem 533K to 585K

Rep 550K to 580K
Dem 555K to 581K

Rep 580K to 621K
Dem 643K to 684K

Rep 690K to 740K
Dem 812K to 865K

So congratulations to Republicans, who have boosted their base vote by almost 200K since 2004, while Dems have increased theirs by over 380K. Five points was as close as any Republican got.

– Despite their successful defense of their Congressional and legislative seats, Republicans still face some tricky decisions in redistricting. Look at it this way – in an election year that clearly wasn’t as good for Dems as 2018 was, they still managed to hold onto all but one of the seats they won that year. The same map that gave Republicans 95 House members was only good for 83 this year, and it wouldn’t have taken much to knock that number down by a half dozen or so. Morgan Meyer and Angie Chen Button may have survived, but Dallas County is a problem for the GOP. Harris County has three safe Republican districts – HDs 127, 128, and 130 – four that are still pretty safe but have gotten a lot less so over the decade – HDs 126, 129, 133, and 150 – and two on the knife’s edge, HDs 132 and 138. That may have been hard to see from the vantage point of 2011, but the broad outlines of it were there, and as I have noted before, HDs 132 and 135 were already trending Dem in 2012, with both being a little bluer than they were in 2008 despite 2012 being a slightly lesser year for Dems overall. Who’s going to need protection, and whose seat may wind up on a target list a couple of cycles later because you didn’t understand the demographics correctly? In Congress, Dan Crenshaw won by a comfortable 14 points…in a district Ted Poe won by 24 points in 2016, and 32 points in 2012. How do you shore him up? Splitting pieces of Travis County into four Republican districts was a great idea, until it threatened the re-election of three of those Republicans. Who even knows how many Congressional seats we’ll have, given the chaotic nature of the Census?

Oh, and here in Harris County, I’m sure the Democratic majority on Commissioners Court will bolster Adrian Garcia in CC2, as the Republicans did for Jack Morman in 2010. The bigger question is do they go after their new colleague Tom Ramsey, or do they just not help him out and hope nature takes its course? That’ll be fun to watch.

I think that’s it for now. I’m sure more things will occur to me as we go. When I get a draft canvass, I’ll start doing the usual slicing and dicing.

A focus on the SCOTX races

With so much litigation over a variety of voting issues, the Supreme Court of Texas is in the news a lot these days. Will that mean more attention being paid to the four races for SCOTX positions?

Justice Gisela Triana

The sleepy contests for seats on Texas’ highest courts have taken on new energy this year as Democrats, bullish on their chances to claim seats on the all-Republican courts, seek to capitalize on a series of controversial pandemic- and election-related decisions.

Voters have the chance to choose four justices on the nine-member Texas Supreme Court, the state’s highest court for civil matters, and three judges on its sister body, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

It’s notoriously difficult for judicial candidates, even those running for the state’s high courts, to capture voters’ attention, particularly with a hotly contested presidential race above them on the ballot. But this year, Democrats say they have something new to run against: decisions by the high court to end Texas’ eviction moratorium and election opinions that limited mail-in voting options.

“The Supreme Court has been in the news on almost a weekly basis over the last several months … with all the election shenanigans that are going on,” said Justice Gisela Triana, who serves on the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals and is running as a Democrat for a seat on the high court. “I think they’ve been complicit in allowing the Republican Party to try to make it harder for people to vote.”

For Republicans, meanwhile, the virus is an argument for sticking with the status quo. Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, who faces reelection this fall, said unprecedented challenges of access to justice and budget concerns during the pandemic would best be handled by a judge with experience running the court.

“We’re in such untraveled waters — dangerous, difficult, challenging times,” said Hecht, who has served on the court for more than three decades. “It takes some leadership not only to try to discern a wise course through all this, but to get the other branches to go along with you.”


Even as President Donald Trump runs an unusually tight race in Texas with Democratic nominee Joe Biden, less controversial Republicans lower on the ballot are expected to perform better in Texas. Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, facing Democrat MJ Hegar, has shown a wider lead in polling than the president, and statewide judicial candidates outperformed U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018 and Trump in 2016.

Republicans say they’re confident Trump will carry the state — but that the judges could win even if he doesn’t.

Pollsters sometimes view statewide judicial races as pure tests of a voter’s partisan allegiance since so few Texans are familiar with the candidates.

“Even though we’re toward the top of the ticket, people don’t know much about who we are,” Hecht said.


Along with new attention to the high court comes the uncertainty about what the end of straight-ticket voting will mean for Texas. This Nov. 3 marks the first election in which Texans won’t have the option of voting for every candidate in a certain party with just one punch — a colossal change whose effects neither party can fully anticipate.

All that, coupled with a volatile presidential race, means “you just can’t tell” where the outcome may land, Hecht said.

“It’s just completely unpredictable,” Boyd said. A higher profile for the court could help him as an incumbent, he said.

“If people are seeing the coverage and thinking, ‘I need to do my homework on these races,’ I have full confidence that when they do their homework they’ll end up supporting me,” Boyd said.

Democrats see reason for optimism in early voting totals, which have shattered records, especially in large, blue counties like Harris. But Republicans are also turning out to vote early in high numbers.

And there may be more reason for Democrats to be hopeful. Keir Murray, a Democratic operative in Houston, said based on the statewide numbers he’s seeing, women are outvoting men by 10 points — a potentially major boon for an all-female Democratic slate for Supreme Court.

“Women usually outvote men, but not to that degree,” he said.

Let’s start with the obvious – the statewide judicial races are mostly affected by the Presidential race. It’s true that the Supreme Court has been in the news a lot recently and have made a number of consequential rulings that affect not just the election and how it is being conducted but also the COVID pandemic and how it is being handled. The story does a good job laying all this out, and I’d be willing to believe that a lot of people are at least aware of these things. How many of those people are more likely to vote, or are likely to change how they vote, as a result of these stories is a question none of us can answer, but my suspicion is that it’s pretty small. Makes for good speculation and the basis of stories like these, but that’s as far as we can go.

What about the claim that Republicans are likely to win the statewide judicial races even if Biden carries Texas? It’s kind of amazing that Republicans would advance that hypothesis instead of just laugh off the question, but a check of recent elections suggests they’re onto something. All of the Republicans running for statewide judicial office in 2016 won by a wider margin than Trump did, and all of the Republicans running for statewide judicial office in 2018 won by a wider margin than Ted Cruz did. If there are Republican voters who don’t vote for Trump like that, then that’s a plausible scenario. I feel like a lot of the people who avoided Trump but otherwise mostly voted R in 2016 were voting mostly D in 2018, but maybe I’m wrong about that. Keir Murray’s point about the electorate being disproportionately female so far means Dems are probably doing pretty well so far and that’s a boost for all Dem candidates, but it doesn’t tell us anything about how the court candidates may do compared to Trump. I don’t think the Cornyn/Hegar polling tells us all that much either, as there’s a name recognition component to that.

An alternate possibility is that some number of people who vote for Trump will peace out after that. Trump has spent plenty of time attacking Republicans, too, so some of his supporters are loyal to him but not the party. The 2016 experience suggests that’s unlikely, but maybe this year is different. I don’t think the lack of straight ticket voting will matter much. The Supreme Court Chief Justice election is the fifth race people will see on their ballots, following the three federal elections (President, US Senate, US House) and Railroad Commissioner. Maybe some people who aren’t strong partisans will skip those races because they don’t feel they know the candidates well enough, but it won’t be because they’re tired of all that voting.

Look, Democrats are motivated to vote, and they’re pissed at the rulings in some of these lawsuits, even if SCOTX maintained its integrity in the latest Hotze provocation. I think there’s a strong urge to vote all the way down. I just don’t know how to quantify that. I’ll know more after the election.

30 Day 2020 campaign finance reports: State races, part 1

Time once again to look at campaign finance reports. I don’t usually review the 30-day reports but this is a special year, and there’s a lot of money sloshing around, so let’s keep an eye on it. As before, I will split these into four parts. Part one will be statewide, SBOE, and State Senate, part two will be State House races from the Houston area, part three will be State House races from elsewhere in the state, and part four will be for Democratic incumbents that may be targeted. I’m not going to be doing every race of course, just the ones of interest. January reports for statewide candidates can be found here, January reports for various SBOE and State Senate races can be found here, and the July reports for the candidates in this post are here.

Chrysta Castaneda, RRC
Jim Wright, RRC

Amy Clark Meachum, Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Nathan Hecht, Supreme Court, Chief Justice

Gisela Triana, Supreme Court, Place 8
Brett Busby, Supreme Court, Place 8

Kathy Cheng, Supreme Court, Place 6
Jane Bland, Supreme Court, Place 6

Staci Williams, Supreme Court, Place 7
Jeff Boyd, Supreme Court, Place 7

Rebecca Bell-Metereau, SBOE5
Lani Popp, SBOE5

Michelle Palmer, SBOE6
Will Hickman, SBOE6

Marsha Webster, SBOE10
Tom Maynard, SBOE10

Susan Criss, SD11
Larry Taylor, SD11

Roland Gutierrez, SD19
Pete Flores, SD19

Candidate   Office    Raised     Spent     Loan     On Hand
Castaneda      RRC   310,709   161,145   27,166     103,934
Wright         RRC   243,765   452,473   45,000     169,761

Meachum      SCOTX   103,704    27,920        0     200,072
Hecht        SCOTX   176,761   806,375        0     105,298

Triana       SCOTX    37,075    19,945        0     134,736
Busby        SCOTX   314,946   580,588        0     342,010

Cheng        SCOTX    17,901     5,196   90,174      80,371
Bland        SCOTX   167,487   490,849        0     132,174

Williams     SCOTX   127,667    69,733    1,000      78,572
Boyd         SCOTX   128,500   168,373        0     466,196

BellMetereau SBOE5    63,473    18,316    2,250      66,834
Popp         SBOE5    64,012    22,713   60,000      50,637

Palmer       SBOE6    17,395     8,251        0      12,982
Hickman      SBOE6     2,660       819    2,500       2,887

Webster     SBOE10     4,195     3,200       25       4,523
Maynard     SBOE10     4,332    14,797    4,000         848

Criss         SD11    18,137    29,403        0       5,048
Taylor        SD11    47,775   138,166        0   1,054,841

Gutierrez     SD19   199,270    50,785        0      11,309
Flores        SD19   627,919   531,779        0     606,589

I didn’t have a whole lot to say about these reports last time, and I don’t have much to add now. Chrysta Castaneda raised a few bucks and has done a bit of TV advertising, but there’s not a whole lot you can do statewide with less than a million bucks as an opening bid. She has done well with earned media, and I think Democrats may be more aware of this race than they usually are, which could have an effect on the margins if it keeps the third-party vote level low. To be sure, the Presidential race is by far the single biggest factor here. The hope is that Castaneda can outpace Biden, even by a little, and if so then she just needs it to be close at the top.

The same is true for the Supreme Court, where Dems at least are fired up by the rulings relating to mail ballots. I think the potential for crossovers is lower than in the RRC race, where Jim Wright is so obviously conflicted, but just retaining a sufficient portion of the Presidential vote would mean a lot. I know people like to talk about the lack of straight ticket voting, but 1) these races are all near the top of the ballot, following the three federal contests, and 2) the message about voting out Republicans at all levels has been pounded all over the place. How much will it matter? I have no idea. All this may be little more than a social media mirage. It’s just what I’ve observed.

I am a little surprised that Roland Gutierrez hasn’t raised more money, and it’s equally odd to me that Pete Flores has outspent him by that much. But like everywhere else, the top of the ticket will drive this result more than anything else. In the context of 2016, this was basically a 10-12 point Dem district. Flores has to convince a lot of people to cross over in order to win. That’s the challenge he faces.

More of these to come. Let me know what you think.

Endorsement watch: For (just a little) more diversity

The Chron says a few words about the need to diversify the Supreme Court, then mostly endorses the status quo.

Judge Staci Williams

When talk turns to Texas’ highest civil court — as it must, given voters’ opportunity to select four of the nine justices in the upcoming election — the old frames of left versus right take on entirely new and even hazy meanings.

As an editorial board, we’ve grappled with the consequences of one-party rule in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to statewide office in 26 years. But those concerns are even more relevant when the topic is the Texas Supreme Court, and its criminal law counterpart, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

All 18 justices on these two courts are Republican, and we believe that lack of ideological diversity would do damage to any state, but especially one as big and diverse as Texas. That concern weighed heavy on our minds but still was only one factor in deliberations over which candidates to recommend.

We’re delighted to report that not one of the candidates was unqualified. We faced tough choices in selecting only one for each race. In addition to experience, judicial record, temperament and aptitudes for research, writing and analysis that form the heart of appellate law, we also gave thoughtful consideration to candidates’ ideological and personal backgrounds, including gender, race, ethnicity and life experiences.

What follows is our best advice in each of these four, consequential races. Endorsements in the Court of Criminal Appeals will be published soon.

And then they endorse three of the four Republican incumbents – Chief Justice Nathan Hecht over Judge Amy Clark Meachum, Justice Jane Bland over Kathy Cheng, Justice Brett Busby over Justice Gisela Triana; Judge Staci Williams over Justice Jeff Boyd was the lone exception – with nods to experience and temperament over the other factors. It’s fine to prefer those three incumbents and to value their experience, though I at least would argue that Triana has at least as much experience as the Abbott-appointed Busby, but the expressed concern over “lack of ideological diversity” sounds hollow given the result. The Justices in question may well be sober and experienced and learned, but I doubt anyone would claim they differ in any significant way on their philosophy and jurisprudence. Endorsing more of the same is not a great way to get something different. We’ll see what happens when they review the Court of Criminal Appeals.

July 2020 campaign finance reports: State races, part 1

I’m going to take a look at the July finance reports from the various state races, which I will split into three parts. Part one will be statewide, SBOE, and State Senate, part two will be State House races from the Houston area, and part three will be State House races from elsewhere in the state. I’m not going to be doing every race of course, just the ones of interest. January reports for statewide candidates can be found here, and January reports for various SBOE and State Senate races can be found here.

Chrysta Castaneda, RRC
Jim Wright, RRC

Amy Clark Meachum, Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Nathan Hecht, Supreme Court, Chief Justice

Gisela Triana, Supreme Court, Place 8
Brett Busby, Supreme Court, Place 8

Kathy Cheng, Supreme Court, Place 6
Jane Bland, Supreme Court, Place 6

Staci Williams, Supreme Court, Place 7
Jeff Boyd, Supreme Court, Place 7

Rebecca Bell-Metereau, SBOE5
Lani Popp, SBOE5

Michelle Palmer, SBOE6
Will Hickman, SBOE6

Marsha Webster, SBOE10
Tom Maynard, SBOE10

Susan Criss, SD11
Larry Taylor, SD11

Roland Gutierrez, SD19
Pete Flores, SD19

Candidate   Office    Raised     Spent     Loan     On Hand
Castaneda      RRC    43,072    38,785   27,166      16,043
Wright         RRC   384,282    90,680   45,000     350,856

Meachum      SCOTX    51,093    44,271        0     132,303
Hecht        SCOTX   312,030   106,598        0     727,648

Triana       SCOTX    17,592     9,781        0     113,567
Busby        SCOTX   207,080   116,130        0     611,700

Cheng        SCOTX     7,637     4,033   90,174       9,292
Bland        SCOTX   264,370   106,000        0     417,335

Williams     SCOTX    14,135    47,262        0       7,466
Boyd         SCOTX   104,743   171,002        0     492,183

BellMetereau SBOE5    27,439     8,027    2,250      20,935
Popp         SBOE5    22,930    98,185   10,000      25,354

Palmer       SBOE6     6,873     9,134        0       6,076
Hickman      SBOE6     1,800     2,225    2,500       1,047

Webster     SBOE10     2,480     1,589       25       3,529
Maynard     SBOE10     3,170     1,103    5,000       4,216

Criss         SD11    22,586    14,071        0      13,644
Taylor        SD11    64,150   116,848        0   1,129,009

Gutierrez     SD19    60,074    99,208        0      11,309
Flores        SD19   295,760    65,577        0     563,459

I skipped the Court of Criminal Appeals races because no one raises any money in them. Jim Wright is the no-name Republican challenger who ousted incumbent Ryan Sitton in the GOP Railroad Commissioner primary, in an upset no one saw coming. He had $12K on hand in his eight-day report for the March primary. You can see where he is now, thanks to the Republican money machine including Tim Dunn (evil rich guy behind Empower Texans, $20K) and a slew of PACs. Ryan Sitton had $2.5 million in his account at the time of his defeat (all of which he can now donate to other campaigns, if he wants), so Wright isn’t in that league yet, but the point is that Wright wasn’t a no-name nobody for long. The establishment just moved over to his camp and did their thing. The Republican Party of Texas is currently a dumpster fire, and many of its county parties (see, in particular, Harris and Bexar) are even worse off, but the real power structure is still operating at peak efficiency.

The larger point I would make here, as we begin to see Joe Biden and Donald Trump ads on TV – I saw one of each while watching the Yankees-Nationals game on Saturday night – is that there’s more than one way to do a statewide campaign in Texas. For a million bucks or so, you could probably blanket local and cable TV in many of the media markets with ads for Chrysta Castaneda and the statewide Democratic judicial slate. I have seen my share of “vote for Republican judges” ads on my teevee, as recently as 2016 and 2018. Our Congressional candidates have shown there’s plenty of financial support out there for Democratic contenders, even those in odds-against races. There are many people who know enough to create a PAC, get some dough in the door, then cut an ad and buy some time for it. The numbers say this is the best chance we’ve had in a quarter century to win statewide. What are we going to do about that?

As for the Senate races, SD11 isn’t really competitive. It’s on the list of “races that may end up being closer than you might have thought because of prevailing conditions and recent political shifts”, but it’s too far out of reach to expect more than that. The thing I’d ponder is if the likes of Larry Taylor, and other Republican Senators in safe districts or not on the ballot this year, will put some of their spare cash towards helping their fellow partymates who are in tough races. I’m sure we can all think of a few of them. As for SD19, I’m not too worried about the current gap between Roland Gutierrez’s and Pete Flores’ cash on hand. I fully expect Gutierrez, the one Dem running in a truly flippable district, to have the resources he needs. But I’ll still check the 30-day report, because SD19 officially makes me nervous after the 2018 special election fiasco.

Nobody ever raises money in the SBOE races. It would have been fascinating to see what might have happened had cartoon character/performance artist Robert Morrow won that primary runoff, but alas. It’s just another boring contest between two normal people. Which, given the history of the SBOE, is actually quite comforting.

Dems ask some Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from convention appeal

Stay with me here, this will all make sense.

The Texas Democratic Party on Friday called for four of the state’s nine Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from a case involving the Texas Republican Party’s in-person convention, claiming each had a conflict of interest.

The campaigns of Chief Justice Nathan Hecht and Justices Jane Bland, Jeffrey Boyd and Brett Busby each sponsored the convention, according to an archived list of sponsors that since has been removed from the Texas GOP’s website.


Texas GOP officials are seeking a writ of mandamus from the court that would block Turner from canceling the convention, a day after a Harris County judge denied the party’s attempt to do so in state district court.

Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said the four justices, each of whom is up for re-election in November, are “faced with an obligation to do the right thing and choose the law over political allegiance.”

“A justice who funds a dangerous convention should not judicially decide the fate of that same convention,” Hinojosa said in a statement. “All four have interests in the case coming before them and all four should recuse.”

See here for the background. The allegation is that by sponsoring the convention and being on the November ballot, these judges have a conflict of interest. A press release from the TDP provided the following justification for the petition:

Canon 3(B)(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that Texas judges “shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate.”

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18(b) requires a judge to recuse themself from a case when “(1) the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or “(2) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a party.”

I’m not qualified to assess this claim, but I will note that if the four Justices do recuse themselves, there’s still enough justices left to issue a ruling, and since all nine are Republicans it doesn’t change the dynamic. Given the compressed timeline for this litigation, I presume we’ll get an answer quickly.

Coronavirus and the State Supreme Court

Just a reminder, nearly half of the State Supreme Court is up for election this November. You know, in case you had opinions about their recent opinions.

Typically not top of mind for voters, the nine Republican justices of the Texas Supreme Court have come under the spotlight during the coronavirus pandemic with a slate of high-profile and controversy-generating moves.

Actions on bailevictions, debt collections, vote-by-mail and a Dallas salon owner named Shelley Luther have foregrounded the court in a year when four incumbent justices face reelection — making it easier, Democratic challengers say, to make the case against them.

Last week, the high court lifted its coronavirus ban on evictions and debt collections, put in place in March as the economy shut down and hundreds of thousands were added to the unemployment rolls. And the justices temporarily put on hold a lower court ruling that expanded vote-by-mail access during the pandemic. Both decisions have infuriated some voters and energized the Democratic Party.

This month, the court ordered the release of Luther, who was jailed for contempt of court after refusing to shutter her salon under coronavirus orders; earlier this spring, it sided with state officials in limiting how many inmates could be released from county jails, which have become hotspots for disease.

Democrats, who have not won a seat on the state’s highest civil court in more than two decades, have reclassified the typically sleepy races as a “top-tier priority,” a designation party officials said comes with digital ad spending. And some candidates have already begun to speak out publicly against high court decisions they say disenfranchise voters and risk their safety.

“I think people’s eyes are opening up,” said 3rd Court of Appeals Justice Gisela Triana, one of the four women running for Supreme Court on the Democratic ticket this year. “What has been the sleepy branch of government … has woken up.”

There’s more and you should read the rest. For obvious reasons, these races are largely going to be determined by the Presidential race – if Joe Biden can run even with or ahead of Donald Trump, one or more of the Democratic candidates can break through. It surely wouldn’t hurt for their to be some money spent on these races, in part just to make sure voters are aware of them and in part to highlight some of the decisions that are not exactly in line with public preferences, but there’s only so much the individual candidates can do about that. In case you’re wondering, I have one Q&A from a Democratic candidate for Supreme Court from the primaries, from Judge Amy Clark Meachum.

On a more sobering note:

Justice Debra Lehrmann

One day after presiding over a hearing on the state’s mail-in ballot controversy via videoconference, Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra Lehrmann says she and her husband have tested positive for COVID-19.

“We began to exhibit symptoms last week, despite diligently complying with stay-at-home rules,” Lehrmann wrote on Twitter on Thursday. “Thankfully, this has not interfered with #SCOTX work, as the Court is working remotely. We are grateful for your thoughts & prayers.”

Her diagnosis marks the first known coronavirus case of a top state official. The justice did not immediately respond to requests for an interview but told the Dallas Morning News that she and her husband Greg had fevers and body aches early last week before getting tested at an Austin drive-thru testing center.

She also told The News that their Houston lawyer son, Jonathan, his wife Sarah and their six-month-old son Jack, who had been visiting them every other week, stopped and are believed to also be infected.

Her tweet is here. I wish Justice Lehrmann and her husband all the best for a swift recovery. (She is not on the 2020 ballot, in case you were wondering.)

January 2020 campaign finance reports: Statewide

There’s a whole lot of candidates of interest for state offices. I’m going to break them down into several groups, to keep things simple and the posts not too long. Today we will look at the candidates for statewide office. This will include the statewide judicial races, and both Republicans and Democrats. I have previously done the Harris County reports.

Roberto Alonzo, RRC
Chrysta Castaneda, RRC
Kelly Stone, RRC
Mark Watson, RRC

Ryan Sitton, RRC

Amy Clark Meachum, Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Jerry Zimmerer, Supreme Court, Chief Justice

Nathan Hecht, Supreme Court, Chief Justice

Kathy Cheng, Supreme Court, Place 6
Lawrence Praeger, Supreme Court, Place 6

Jane Bland, Supreme Court, Place 6

Brandy Voss, Supreme Court, Place 7
Staci Williams, Supreme Court, Place 7

Jeff Boyd, Supreme Court, Place 7

Peter Kelly, Supreme Court, Place 8
Gisela Triana, Supreme Court, Place 8

Brett Busby, Supreme Court, Place 8

William Demond, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Elizabeth Frizell, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Dan Wood, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3

Gina Parker, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Bert Richardson, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3

Tina Clinton, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4
Steve Miears, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4

Kevin Yeary, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4

Brandon Birmingham, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9

David Newell, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9

Candidate     Raised     Spent     Loan     On Hand
Alonzo         1,500     8,458    7,340       3,840
Castaneda     46,297    42,196   26,000      46,297
Stone         25,331    23,465    3,875       3,018
Watson           750     3,762        0         750

Sitton       480,850   154,832  378,899   2,514,759

Meachum      139,370    42,854        0     119,067
Zimmerer      10,680    22,213   20,000      45,251

Hecht        296,168   146,575        0     531,660

Cheng          1,315    41,200   84,167       8,129
Praeger        1,280     5,227   10,000       1,280

Bland        335,707    73,945        0     277,965

Voss         100,696   135,076  100,000     169,470
Williams      55,154   105,936        0      59,074

Boyd         134,844   100,193      177     562,533

Kelly         30,527     7,037        0      50,963
Triana       100,970    39,710        0     106,577

Busby        260,378   129,825        0     542,918

Demond        4,250      5,050    5,000       3,599
Frizell       1,000        988        0          11
Wood          6,490     68,592        0      41,291

Parker       58,195     82,247   25,000      21,055
Richardson   52,975     21,690    4,500      35,207

Clinton           0     10,216   25,000       4,944
Miears            0      3,750        0           0

Yeary        14,355     11,203    3,004       6,245

Birmingham   29,770     16,375   10,960      25,003

Newell        8,879      7,370        0       1,391

Railroad Commissioner is not a high profile office and not one for which a bunch of money is usually raised, though Ryan Sitton has clearly made good use of his five-plus years on the job. If you’ve listened to my interviews with Chrysta Castañeda and Kelly Stone, you know that I’m a little scarred by goofy results in some of our statewide primaries in recent cycles. Strange things can and do happen when people have no idea who the candidates are, as the likes of Grady Yarbrough and Jim Hogan can attest. On the plus side, I’d say three of the four candidates running in this primary would be fine – Castañeda and Stone are actively campaigning, Roberto Alonzo is a former State Rep, you can have confidence they’ll do their best. As for Mark Watson, at least I could identify him via a Google search. It’s a low bar to clear, you know?

I don’t often look at finance reports for judicial candidates – there’s just too many of them, for one thing, and they usually don’t tell you much. None of what I see here is surprising. The Republican incumbents have a few bucks, though none of their totals mean anything in a statewide context. I’m guessing the Dems with bigger totals to report had cash to transfer from their existing accounts, as District Court or Appeals court judges. It’s possible, if we really do see evidence of the state being a tossup, that some PAC money will get pumped into these races, for the purpose of making sure people don’t skip them. Everyone has to be concerned about the potential for undervotes to have an effect on the outcome, in this first year of no straight ticket voting.

As for the Court of Criminal Appeals, well, the money’s on the civil side of the house. It is what it is. I’ll be back with the Lege next, and then the SBOE and State Senate after that.

Filing period preview: Statewide

Previously: Congress. As before, I am using the Patrick Svitek spreadsheet as my primary reference.

Statewide elections are much less exciting in Presidential years in Texas, since the state offices are on the ballot in the off years. We do have a US Senate race of interest, which I think you are familiar with. Beyond that, there’s the one Railroad Commission spot (there are three Railroad Commissioners, they serve six year terms, with one slot up for election each cycle), and the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals positions. We’ll take a look at those this time around.

Railroad Commissioner: We discussed this recently. Chrysta Castañeda and Kelly Stone are in, 2016 candidate Cody Garrett is thinking about it, and I will worry about Grady Yarbrough rising like a zombie to sow chaos until the filing deadline.

Supreme Court: There are four races, thanks to a previous retirement and appointment by Greg Abbott. Three of the races are contested.

Against Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, in Position 1, we have Amy Clark Meachum, a District Court judge in Travis County first elected in 2010, and Jerry Zimmerer, a Harris County judge elected to the 14th Court of Appeals in 2018.

For Position 7 against Jeff Boyd, the candidates are Brandy Voss, an attorney and law professor from McAllen, and Staci Williams, a District Court judge from Dallas County, first elected in 2014.

Position 6 is the open seat, where Jeff Brown was replaced by Jane Bland, a former First Court of Appeals judge who was defeated in 2018. Kathy Cheng, a Houston attorney who ran for this same position in 2018, finishing with 46.3% of the vote, and Lawrence Praeger, also a Houston attorney, are the contenders.

Position 8, held by Brett Busby, is the only one that has a lone Democrat, at least so far. Gisela Triana, a longtime District Court judge in Travis County who was elected to the Third Court of Appeals in 2018.

Court of Criminal Appeals: Three positions are up, as per usual: Bert Richardson (Place 3), Kevin Yeary (Place 4), and David Newell (Place 9). There are candidates running for Place 6, except that that election may not happen this cycle. The spreadsheet only lists the Place 3 race and doesn’t mention any Dem candidates, so at this point I don’t have any knowledge to drop on you. I’m sure there are people running for these positions, but for what it’s worth the one statewide office that Dems did not challenge in 2018 was a CCA slot. I will of course keep my eyes open for this.

Next up: SBOE, State Senate, and State House. Let me know what you think.

Another appeals court case to be proud of

By “proud”, I mean “deeply embarrassed”. Here’s Rick Casey discussing a decision by the 1st Court of Appeals in which the infamous case of death row inmate Calvin Burdine and his sleeping lawyer, Joe Cannon is referenced, and not in a good way.

“Like the ‘sleeping lawyer’ case, this case will stand as a significant embarrassment in the history of Texas jurisprudence,” wrote Justice Terry Jennings in a stinging dissent.

This isn’t a death penalty case, but a lawsuit in which child protection authorities sought to terminate a father’s parental rights. We Texans consider families so important that we give indigent parents a tax-paid attorney to represent them if the state tries to take away their children.

In this case, John Spjut (pronounced “Spyoot”) was appointed to represent Frederick DeWaynne Walker.

Spjut didn’t sleep through the trial. He simply didn’t attend it. Nor did he do much preparation. Walker testified he called Spjut’s office at least five times but never reached him.

Spjut’s bills to the county do not indicate any contact with his client. He did bill the county for filing an answer to the state’s termination lawsuit, writing two letters to Walker, and spending one hour preparing for trial. Total fee: $750.

But on the actual day of the trial, Spjut didn’t show. Instead, he sent his brother Dan to try the case.

It must have been a challenge. Without a lawyer guiding him, Walker had a hard time finding the right courtroom and didn’t show up until after lawyers for the state had put on their case against him.


By Jennings’ estimate, based on the trial transcript, Dan Spjut’s direct examination of Walker lasted less than four minutes.

The entire trial, Jennings estimated, took less than 45 minutes.

Yet the two other justices on the panel that heard Walker’s appeal ruled that his right to have a lawyer had not been violated. Justice George C. Hanks Jr., joined by Justice Jane Bland, wrote that Walker had to prove that he would likely have won if his attorney had done a better job.

Hanks wrote that Walker didn’t prove that the way Spjut conducted his defense wasn’t “the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.”

Jennings argues in dissent that Walker received “assistance” of counsel “far below that afforded to the criminal defendant in the infamous ‘sleeping lawyer case.’ ”

“Walker’s appointed trial counsel never discussed the case with Walker and then abandoned Walker on the trial date,” he wrote.

I guess if there’s somebody who can be called a “lawyer” that’s with you in the courtroom, that’s good enough. I wonder if any of the justices who render opinions like this have the same expectation of what a basic level of assistance would be from, say, a doctor or a broker.

Sadly, neither of the justices who thought this kind of lawyering was A-OK are up for re-election next year – we’ll have to wait till 2012 to render our own opinions. On a side note, in searching around for info about Calvin Burdine and his snoozing attorney, I came across this old blog post that detailed some fun and games then-District Court Judge, now State Sen. Joan Huffman played in Burdine’s retrial. I wish I’d have remembered it before her election last year, but oh well.