Houston Blogs: Prof13

Sifting Through the Ashes of the 2009 Houston General Election

2009-11-04T18:50:03-06:00

The voters of Houston have spoken. What did they tell us and what does it mean for the runoffs that will decide the races for mayor, controller, and five council seats? Today, I’ll focus on the mayoral runoff and address other races next week.

First, the elimination round did not interest or engage the vast majority of Houstonians. Turnout in the city precincts averaged about 20 percent, far below the norm for a contested, open-seat mayoral contest. Voter apathy reflected the absence of a funded, credible, white, conservative Republican. Roy Morales was two for five on that list – enough to garner 20% of the 175,000 votes cast for mayor, but a five-for-five candidate would have produced thousands of additional voters in a city where John McCain garnered over 220,000 votes last November. Turnout was also not helped by a mostly low-key, positive campaign where the three funded candidates resolutely refused to draw out clear differences on issues that mattered to city voters. Annise Parker and Gene Locke also had money problems, as did Peter Brown until his wife put personal funds into his campaign.

Second, when turnout drops to really low levels, pre-election polls are often badly off the mark. Peter Brown became the anointed frontrunner after a Houston Chronicle Zogby poll showed him with a significant lead over both Parker and Locke. But among the few who showed up at the polls Tuesday, Brown ran fourth behind Roy Morales.

Third, TV advertising ain’t what it used to be in terms of campaign effects. Brown vastly outspent Parker and Locke in this media, and lost to both. Other forms of interpersonal communication have become much more important as voters gather election information from diverse sources.

Fourth, there is no clear front-runner going into the runoff. Parker’s lead is small compared to previous frontrunners as she needs to pick up nearly 20 additional percentage points to win the runoff on December 12^th. Locke will require an even higher percentage gain to win in the finals.

Nearly half the General Election voters supported a losing candidate for mayor. Where do they go? I think African American supporters of Peter Brown will gravitate to Gene Locke, and Anglo Brown voters toward Annise Parker without regard to what Mr. Brown does personally. Since there are twice as many white Brown voters compared African American supporters, that nets an advantage for the Controller. But Roy Morales voters may well have a harder time supporting a lesbian contender than a black man backed by much of the business community. Probably a net advantage here for Locke but there is more uncertainly here forecasting movement among Morales voters than is the case with Peter Brown voters.

Two other things make predictions about the runoff unreliable at this point. First, does turnout increase so that the December electorate is larger than the November voter group? I think that could well happen for the first time since 1971 when a runoff between Mayor Louie Welch and challenger Fred Hofheinz brought more voters to the polls than cast ballots in the November election. And if the electorate expands, which campaign most benefits? No one can say at this point.

Another confounding factor could be the intervention of third parties into the runoff contest. I expect Ms. Parker and Mr. Locke will personally run campaigns that avoid personal attacks. I am not at all sure other interested parties that wish to elect or defeat Parker or Locke will abide by this standard. If the runoff turns mean, turnout will likely go up even more than anticipated.

The long first electoral round showed the survivors to be smart, tough competitors with extensive knowledge of the city and its governmental process. Now Annise Parker and Gene Locke will be tested in a 38 day one-on-one competition quite unlike the multi-candidate scramble just concluded. Let the games begin!

Dr. Richard Murray

Houston: We Finally Have a Mayor's Race

2009-10-29T18:01:57-05:00

I had lunch today with fellow blogger Nancy Sims (Check out her "MayoralMusings" website). We agreed this has been one strange mayoral contest. The three well-funded contenders differ greatly in age, race, and sexual orientation, but not much on policy issues, and not at all in party and ideology (all are progressive Democrats). The race started slow and lost momentum, characterized by a civility rarely observed in an open race for one of the most powerful mayor positions in the United States. Voters hardly seemed aware they had to choose a replacement for popular, but term-limited incumbent Bill White, and many have continued to tell pollsters they remain undecided as the race draws to a close.

But over the last week things have perked up. City Controller Annise Parker, Council Member Peter Brown, and former City Attorney Gene Locke have taken the gloves off and begun to slug it out, as one of the three faces certain elimination by the voters on November 3rd. All now have decent advertising budgets delivering commercials and mailers, door-knocking and phone banks have kicked in, and the contenders have finally started poking each other with rather sharp sticks. Good. Nothing to stir some interest in a hitherto boring race like some good charges and counter-charges.

The way I size the race up as early voting winds down and late-deciders have to fish or cut bait is as follows.

(1) There remains great uncertainty as to the order of finish among Brown, Parker, and Locke. Brown has led in recent media-sponsored polls, but his support is “soft” and that can be a very big problem in a low-turnout election such as we seem headed toward. Parker has the most committed base, but the least money for a closing push. Locke has the strongest support from cue-givers (the police and fire-fighters union, prominent Republicans and business groups, etc.) but no one knows if these usually conservative sources can deliver many votes on election day to a black man.

(2) My personal sense is that Annise Parker remains the advantaged candidate in this race because she started as and remains the best-known candidate in the race, and has a net positive image with voters who know her. Peter Brown and Gene Locke lag in both respects. There is some chance she runs third and out of the money, but I make it less than ten percent.

(3) If my guess is right about Parker, that means the big question is who gets the remaining runoff spot? Will it be Peter Brown or Gene Locke? If the election had been held two weeks ago, it would very likely have been the council member. But the election is next Tuesday, not back in mid-October, and things have changed since then. Locke has finally moved ahead of Brown in the black community, and likely will increase that margin over the weekend. Meantime, many west-side whites still seem up for grabs between the two. Locke has to improve his standing here as well as in the black community to edge past Brown.

(4) This means, for me, the critical fronts in the Brown-Locke struggle as the election wraps up are among black Democrats and white Republicans – the two largest voter groups in the city. And the two most important things about these groups are relative turnout – what percentage of the total city wide vote does each make up when the polls close at 7PM Tuesday – and what share of the each group’s vote goes to Peter Brown compared to Gene Locke. Locke needs relatively high turnout in the black community, and must carry that vote by more than two-to-one to make a runoff. He does not need high turnout among voters who identify themselves as Republicans, but the former City Attorney must run at least even with Council Member Peter Brown among GOP partisans who vote.

OK, that’s enough guessing for now. Let’s get to the polls and vote. Our city faces great challenges in coming years, and given the enormous powers Houston’s city charter bestows on the chief executive and chief legislator, we should hope voters choose carefully in selecting the best two finalists for the December runoff.

Dr. Richard Murray

Polling in the Houston Mayoral Election: Does It Tell Us How the November 3rd Vote Will Go?

2009-10-22T15:41:23-05:00

The 2008 presidential primaries and general election featured the largest number of published polls in American history. And, despite numerous technical problems like greater use of cell phones and higher refusal rates, the pre-election polls were remarkably accurate. There was one notable exception in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary where every survey showed Senator Barack Obama beating Senator Hillary Clinton by an average margin of eight points, when in fact she ended up winning by three percent. That case aside, virtually every other state primary and general election result was correctly predicted by surveys published before election day. Should the success of pollsters in predicting the state-by-state and national presidential results give us confidence that published pre-election polls here in Houston will also correctly forecast the November 3^rd election results? The answer is no. Here’s why.

The presidential election campaign started more than a year before primary voting began, and 20 months before the general election in November 2008. Voters were highly interested in the contest, and unusually attentive. Several of the major candidates (Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards) were already well-known to voters before the race started and others (Barack Obama, Mitt Romney) would become familiar figures to the electorate long before voters went to the polls. Free or earned media coverage of the leading candidates was intense, and the major contenders had large campaign war-chests (excepting McCain) to advertise themselves before the polls opened. And, finally, this was a partisan contest that the great majority of the public that think of themselves as Democrats or Republicans could filter political information through a blue or red political lens.

None of these conditions exist in the Houston mayoral race. The campaign has only been visible to voters for a few weeks, and the city electorate has displayed little interest to this point. None of the candidates were well known to voters when the race began, and that remains the case two weeks before the polls open on November 3^rd. That reflects the fact that free media coverage has been limited, and until Council Member Peter Brown tapped his family wealth to fund a major TV ad blitz in September, paid advertising has been anemic. And this is not only an officially non-partisan race, but it is also one in fact because the three candidates with funded, active campaigns (Brown plus Controller Annise Parker and former City Attorney Gene Locke) are all Democrats.

In short, the conditions that enabled pollsters to accurately measure voter intentions before the presidential voting in 2008 simply do not exist in Houston this year. A better analogy to draw from the 2007-2008 presidential cycle is to look at the polling results in 2007 after all the major candidates had announced. From March to December of that year, the polls consistently showed Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by statistically significant margins, and from May to December showed John McCain trailing Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and (briefly) Fred Thompson. Of course, none of the 2007 “front-runners” won their respective party nominations. So, as accurate as the pollsters were just before the actual voting in 2008, their earlier results were badly off the mark.

Keep that in mind in looking at surveys like the Houston Chronicle poll published last weekend. The Chronicle found Peter Brown leading the field with 24 percent of likely voters, followed by Annise Parker at 19 percent, Gene Locke at 13 percent, and Roy Morales at 7 percent. Does these data mean Peter Brown has wrapped up a runoff spot, as Commentary’s Marc Campos suggested in his blog today? I think not. Brown’s lead is almost certainly of the “soft” variety driven by his huge advantage in television and direct mail advertising in the weeks prior to newspaper’s poll. That advantage will be less over the next two weeks as Parker and Locke run more ads. But more importantly, most of the cue-givers in the city that also provide important information for voters are supporting Annise Parker or Gene Locke. With the exception of some black ministers, almost none are backing Peter Brown. The cumulative effect of these groups and individuals is not easily measurable, but it will certainly work to the advantage of Ms. Parker and Mr. Locke and the disadvantage of Mr. Brown.

In closing, I would note that the Houston Chronicle newspaper is among those cue-givers that made their recommendation to mayoral voters on Sunday, October 18^tha couple of days after releasing their poll. The paper made a dual endorsement, praising both Annise Parker and Gene Locke as worthy successors to Mayor Bill White. Notably absent were any good words about Peter Brown.

Dr. Richard Murray

Gene Locke's Pincer Strategy: Can He Combine White Republicans and Black Democrats in a Winning Coalition?

2009-10-03T14:46:49-05:00

In Houston mayoral elections, the largest voter blocs are white Republicans and black Democrats. Each accounts for about 30 percent of the total vote in a typical city election. Although Houston elections are officially non-partisan, in past competitive mayor elections, these groups have supported different candidates. For example, in the four contests when there was a credible black on the ballot (Sylvester Turner in 1991 and 2003. Lee Brown in 1997 and 2001), the African American candidate got between 78 and 95 percent of the black vote, but lost white Republican areas by equally large margins. This year things might be different. Gene Locke certainly hopes so, as he is clearly trying not only to unite the black community behind his candidacy, but to also run strong in Republican areas on the west side of town. Given the fact that no black mayoral candidate has done this before, why does Mr. Locke think he can create this unique political coalition?

In my view, there are several reasons. First, there is no strong Republican in the field this year. Yes, I know Roy Morales is running, but he has raised little money and has not won support from prominent members of his party. Couple this with the fact that Gene Locke's major opponents, City Controller Annise Parker and Council Member Peter Brown are also Democrats, like the former city attorney, and we have the Republican vote truly up for grabs this year. But why would Locke think that he can do much better than the previous black male contestants in appealing to self-identified Republican voters, most of whom have little knowledge of him and what he stands for?

The answer to that is that Gene Locke has won the support of important cue-givers that have credibility with many of these voters, starting with former mayor Bob Lanier. Accordingly, we can expect to see a great deal of Mr. Lanier over the next few weeks. Ditto for Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman, now the longest serving Republican in a county-wide administrative office. She just cut a robocall message promoting Locke’s candidacy targeted at Republicans. (One Locke supporter we won’t see much of is former Mayor Lee Brown, who remains very unpopular with GOP voters.) Locke has also gotten the nod from groups whose endorsements play well on the west side of town like the Houston Police Officers Union, the Firefighters Association, the Realtors Association, and the C Club (the C stands for Conservative). And Locke has hired prominent Republican consultants like Mary Jane Smith for field organization, and Herb Butrum for fund-raising.

Will this strategy work? That remains to be seen, as Peter Brown and Annise Parker also understand the heightened potential of Republican voters this year. Ms. Parker especially aims to do well with Republican women voters, much as Kathy Whitmire did in her mayoral victories in the 1980s. And Peter Brown hopes his "blueprint for Houston" theme will win over a sizeable number of white Houstonians, including some Republicans, who support more vigorous urban planning.

Besides the risk that Gene Locke's strategy will fall flat on the west side of town, his visible effort also creates a possible backlash in the most important pillar of his election campaign - the black community. Will these most reliable of Democratic voters in partisan elections hesitate to rally behind a black candidate courting Republican voters across town? Peter Brown sure hopes so, and his prominent black supporters like Pastor Emeritus Bill Lawson of Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church may find this a useful theme to stress in pushing the Council Member's campaign for African American votes.

Gene Locke is willing obviously willing to take that chance. On November 3^rd we’ll find out if can pull off this unusual electoral coalition.

Dr. Richard Murray

Updating the Houston Mayor’s Race with Five Weeks to Go

2009-09-28T16:48:45-05:00

With the city general election just five weeks away, let me share my perspective on how the race is unfolding. One thing we now know is that Council Member Peter Brown used his financial advantage to dominate the air waves in September. After a small TV buy a few weeks ago, Mr. Brown has had a robust media program the last couple of weeks. City Controller Annise Parker has just debuted her first television ad, and former City Attorney Gene Locke has yet to hit the big screen so Peter Brown has had the screen to himself. Television advertising is much more effective when your opponents are not on the air, so this development should help tighten the race up, since as readers of this blog know, I thought Ms. Parker and Mr. Locke had the easier track to a December runoff than Council Member Brown. We have not had any recent public polls, so just how much Peter Brown’s ads have moved the needle is largely conjecture, but I still think Parker and Locke have the advantage in the fight for one of the top two spots.

Public interest may finally be picking up a bit, but I still think turnout will lag well behind 2003, when 304,907 ballots were cast in the city. Two reasons I continue to think turnout will be low is that the major candidates do not disagree much on the major issues facing the city, nor have they gone after each other personally, in sharp contrast to the looming Texas governor race between Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and incumbent Rick Perry. This makes sense in a non-partisan multi-candidate field where a runoff is extremely likely, because no one wins the job on November 3^rd, so the survivors will need endorsements and new supporters to prevail in the December finale.

Shifting gears, I was a panelist on a three-hour radio show Saturday morning that former Council Member Ada Edwards organized. I thought all three serious candidates performed well (Harris County Board of Education Trustee Roy Morales skipped the event). They stated their respective cases effectively, and with a good deal more passion than I observed at a forum three months ago. They are clearly knowledgeable about city government, bullish on Houston’s future, and promised to move the city forward without dwelling much on the details of just how this will be done. They avoided talking about the likely hard choices the next mayor is going to face in a deteriorating fiscal environment. Nothing new here. Candidates promise. Office-holders have to choose. And their choices are often between unattractive options, the discussion of which before an election would lose not win votes.

Early voting starts in three weeks, on Monday October 19^th. Two things to watch is how many people turn out in the 12 day period, and where the vote is heavy or light compared to 2003 when we had the Sylvester Turner-Bill White-Orlando Sanchez contest. Six years ago, 84,994 early and absentee ballots were counted, or 28 percent of the total vote. My guess is that early voting will start very slowly this year, because many Houstonians have not been following the contest, know little about the candidates, and will wait to cats their ballots the last couple of days of early voting, or on November 3^rd.

For the statistically inclined, here are some numbers from representative precincts across the city in 2003 to use for comparisons this year:

Pct Nature of Registered Early Election Total %

No. Precinct Voters in 2003 Voters Day Voters Vote Turnout

003 Heights 1878 143 609 752 40.0

060 Montrose 2434 167 674 841 34.5

234 Westside Anglo 3330 508 1133 1641 49.3

306 Clear Lake 1859 349 442 791 42.6

469 Kingwood 3613 503 879 1382 38.3

046 Hispanic/ 2814 106 495 601 21.4

Northside

031 Black/ 2456 242 455 697 28.4

Sunnyside

156 Black/ 3463 535 745 1284 37.1

MLK Area

Note the 2003 vote pattern – highest in white Republican areas (Westside/Clear Lake/Kingwood) and the Heights, followed by Montrose and the African American precincts, with heavily Hispanic precinct 46 having the lowest turnout. This raises the questions of whether the Republican areas will vote so heavily in a mayoral election without a credible candidate from their party, and if these areas do turn out, for whom will they cast their ballots?

Dr. Richard Murray

The Rick and Rudy Show Hits Houston: Governor Perry and Former Mayor Giuliani Partner Up Again

2009-09-16T16:55:36-05:00

Today Rudy Giuliani was making the rounds here in our fair city, boosting the political stock of Texas Governor Rick Perry. What’s the former mayor of New York City and 2007-2008 presidential contender doing injecting himself into the showdown between our governor and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is planning to give up her senate seat any day now and come back to Texas and try to take the CEO job away from the incumbent?

A couple of points: In the run-up to the 2007-2008 presidential cycle, most Texas Republicans kept their distance from Rudy. A large majority of the GOP legislators, for example, signed up as backers of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, but Governor Perry was an early and enthusiastic supporter of the former NYC mayor. So some of today’s action is payback. Rick Perry helped Rudy Giuliani in 2007, so the favor is returned in 2009 when the governor faces the fight of his political life against the senior senator.

And Rudy does have Texas connections. Back in 2000 when he was mayor, Rudy Giuliani collected a fair amount of money in Texas for his abortive race against then First Lady Hillary Clinton for an open U.S. Senate seat. Family and health issues forced him out of that race, but he established a financial base here that he worked hard in his presidential run. Now that he is weighing another run for office back in New York (either for governor or the senate, now that Hillary has moved on to the State Department), renewing acquaintance with his friends in Texas makes sense. And, of course, Mr. Giuliani is a name partner in the veritable Bracewell law firm, one of Houston’s larger legal partnerships, so embracing the sitting governor on a swing through Texas might just be good for business.

And the Governor? Isn’t he taking some risks by squiring a pro-choice defender of gay rights around the Lone Star State? Rick Perry evidently feels he is solid enough with social conservatives these days that his right flank is secure going into the primary fight with Senator Hutchison. Remember, before Rudy, there was Sarah. The recently retired Alaska governor has also endorsed the pride of Haskell County in the gubernatorial primary, and Sarah Palin has a passionate following in these parts among likely Republican primary voters.

So score one for Governor Perry in this round. Having Rudy here helps him get back to his border security/stop terrorists plank because the former mayor has credibility with Republicans on national security issues, and his presence does little to excite concern that gays will soon be marrying at the Harris County Courthouse.

This latest development continues the trend of the last six months where the governor has been on the offensive, and Senator Hutchison is playing defense, and not playing it very well in my opinion.

As a consequence, although Ms. Hutchison entered the race as the most popular office-holder in Texas, that initial advantage has been frittered away as she continues to vacillate about leaving the U.S. Senate and has, to this point, failed to lay out for Texas Republicans a clear case why they should fire the a nine-year governor and replace him with a 16-year U.S. senator.

Dr. Richard Murray

Voter Interest and Likely Turnout in the 2009 Mayoral Election

2009-09-06T18:42:42-05:00

There are about 2.2 million people living within the Houston city limits, but I expect only about one person in eight will vote in the November 3^rd General Election. How do we end up with so few voters out of such a large population, especially given a competitive mayoral election for one of the most powerful executive positions of any American city?

Let’s do the math. Of the 2.2 total population, about 500,000 are not of voting age, so we can subtract them, leaving 1.7 million of so persons meeting the 18 or older requirement to register and vote.

Then, subtract from the age-eligible residents who are not U.S. citizens (probably about 150,000 adults in the city), and persons convicted of felonies who have not had their civil rights restored (maybe another 75.000), which drops our potential voter pool to less than 1.5 million.

Next, delete persons who are eligible to vote but are not registered to vote in the city. That drops about 400,000 additional people out of the potential electorate. Now these folks still have another 30 days to get on the voter rolls, but very few people register in advance of city elections, in contrast to the November presidential contests, so we will end up with only have about a million registered voters qualified to cast ballots when early voting commences in October.

Now subtract the largest group – people who are registered, but will not vote. That total I expect to be a staggering 750,000, compared to maybe 250,000 who show up at the polls. Why do I expect such a huge dropoff?

First, turnout patterns in competitive city mayoral elections is usually only about 30 percent of eligible voters. In 2003 when we had out last open-seat contest for mayor, about 300,000 votes were cast in the city.

We are unlikely to reach that level this fall for several reasons. The field of candidates is not as well known as six years ago when two previous mayoral finalists (Orlando Sanchez and Sylvester Turner) were competing against the biggest campaign spender (Bill White) in Houston's election history.

This year the major candidates, Annise Parker, Peter Brown, Gene Locke and Roy Morales are much less well known to voters 60 days before the polls open than was the case in 2003, and they have far less money to address that problem. That means potential voters will get much less information from paid advertising, especially on television, than was the case in 2003.

Nor will free media likely devote as much attention to the mayoral contest compared to six years ago. This fall much political coverage will focus on Washington D.C. where a great fight over health care, climate and environmental policy, and the role of the federal government in the economy is unfolding. That battle on the Potomac is being waged along party lines with virtually all Republicans united against President Obama’s major proposals, and most Democrats sticking with the President. The national party battle does not transfer to our city election, because the only three candidates that have raised any substantial campaign funds (Locke, Parker, and Brown) are all Democrats and differ little on most substantive policy issues.

Add to this the battle royale shaping up here in Texas between our senior U.S. senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Governor Rick Perry for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, and even less media attention is likely to be focused on city politics over the next 60 days.

These considerations lead me to conclude that turnout in 2009 will be significantly below our 300,000 voters in 2003. How much lower? I think in the 225,000 to 250,000 range. This means campaigns have to carefully target mail, electronic messages, and phone bank efforts at a shrunken electorate. How to do that? Start with the 125,000 persons who voted in the 2007 General Election. If they came out when Bill White had no meaningful competition two years ago, they will very likely come back to the polls this year, if they are still on the city voter rolls. Then, try to figure out who the other 125,000 likely suspects are by a variety of means.

Low interest and likely low voter turnout in the upcoming city election should not detract from the important reality that those who do vote will be choosing the most powerful local political leader in this metropolitan area of 5.5 million people, and one of the most dominant urban executives in the country. For better or worse, Houstonians put most of our local political eggs in the Office of the Mayor basket when a new city

charter was enacted back in 1942. That is even more the case in 2009 when term limits have weakened council, and the city bureaucracy that answers to the mayor is twenty times larger than it was when local voters approved a new form of city government early in World War II.

Dr. Richard Murray

Endorsements in the Houston Mayoral Race: My Take on the Tally to Date

2009-08-29T11:08:23-05:00

Earlier in the week Carl Whitmarsh, a Democratic political activist, forwarded a list of mayoral endorsements to his 8000 plus Internet list. Most of the groups that formally support candidates in Houston city elections have made their calls, with a few exceptions like the Houston Restaurant Association, while others like Planned Parenthood’s PAC have passed because they like the issue positions of all the major candidates in the race. What, if anything, can we learn from the endorsements to date?

First, let’s review the endorsements. Gene Locke garnered the most groups (13, counting the two Teamster and Longshoreman locals as one), while Annise Parker shagged the second largest number (8, counting the Hope/SEIU/UNITE HERE combination as a single endorsement). Peter Brown was endorsed by one group (Texas Society of Architects) and claimed more than 100 African American preachers as supporters.

Locke’s endorsements reflect the dual strategy his campaign is pursuing. The former city attorney is trying to augment his expected strength in the black community with support from downtown players and business leaders to get a decent share of the white vote. Critical to this working was getting the backing of the two public safety unions with a long history in city elections (the Houston Police Officers Union and the Houston Firefighters) and business associations with major interests at City Hall like the Houston Association of Realtors and the Houston Apartment Association. He passed that test by getting the nod from these players.

Annise Parker would have liked, of course, to get support from these heavyweight political groups, and sought all their endorsements. However, her campaign is considerably less dependent on such groups’ support than is Gene Locke’s because she is better known to voters, and has won a couple of hard-fought city-wide elections for council and controller over the last 12 years. The endorsements Parker has won, with the notable exception of the relatively new HOPE labor group, are from partisan and issue oriented groups like the Harris County Democrats and the GLBT Political Caucus (the acronym is for Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender). This points to a very different strategy than Locke’s for winning the big job at 901 Bagby – more akin to what Kathy Whitmire did back in 1981. That is to bypass the downtown players and put together a coalition of liberals and progressives, feminists and gays, civic activists and moderate Republicans (especially female Republicans) sufficient to assure a place in the expected runoff and build on that toward victory in the December finals. Like Locke’s, her endorsements reflect progress in achieving her goals.

And Peter Brown? Obviously, group endorsements are not his strong suit. The Texas Society of Architects endorsement can be discounted because they have no track record as a player in Houston city elections, and their support of a fellow architect is a dog-bites-man non-story. A hundred black ministers is OK, but the other candidates have hundreds of individuals supporting them that they are not touting in the group endorsement game. Don’t mix apples and elephants together.

The good news for Peter Brown is that endorsements are overrated in politics. Voters make up their minds based on a number of factors, and many candidates that score big endorsements falter at the polls.

Despite the general overrating of endorsements, they are important in the 2009 Houston mayoral election. In many elections the candidates are identified by political party affiliation, and the D or R by a contestant’s name is a far more powerful cue for voters than group endorsements. But Houston elections are legally non-partisan so voters cannot avail themselves of the party label to sort candidates out. Plus, this year all three major contenders are Democrats, so that cue would not help anyway. Not only are Parker, Locke, and Brown associated with the same party, they also have not differed much on city issues. Nor any of the three held the powerful office they seek, so voters cannot cast a ballot based on how the incumbent has been doing his/her job. Meantime the retiring popular mayor, Bill White, has remained strictly neutral in this contest. Former mayors Kathy Whitmire (1982-1992) and Bob Lanier (1992-1998) are respectively supporting Annise Parker and Gene Locke, but both left office years ago.

Finally, in an election cycle where money is much tighter than a few years ago, candidates cannot hit the airwaves heavy and often with television and radio ads touting their qualities. Peter Brown has begun a moderate television campaign, but Parker and Locke are yet to air commercials. Deprived of paid advertising, group recommendations become somewhat more important than was the case, say, in 2003 when well over ten million dollars was spent in the competitive mayoral contest between Bill White, Orlando Sanchez, and Sylvester Turner.

The bottom line on endorsements this year: No change in my original forecast that Annise Parker enters the race with such strength that she is almost certain to make the December runoff, and that Gene Locke has an easier track to securing the second spot than Peter Brown. Of course voters decide elections, not commentators, so let’s sit back and watch the 70 day campaign that is about to unfold.

Dr. Richard Murray

Houston Versus Texas Election Rules: Why Requiring a Majority to Win City Offices Makes a Huge Difference

2009-08-20T00:15:02-05:00

My friend Marc Campos’s blog Daily Commentary occasionally shifts from the Astros’ fading fortunes to analyzing the Houston mayoral contest. I enjoy his takes on the race and mostly agree with his points. Mostly, but not always. Marc has been pounding a “SHOW ME THE TV” message for several weeks, arguing that the absence of television buys with less than three months until election day is a serious lapse for the major contenders. I am not convinced of that for four reasons.

First, with campaign money hard to raise, none of the candidates has the huge resources that candidate Bill White used back in 2003 to fund a months-long major media buy. White was virtually unknown when the race began, and simply had to send such sums on paid media to compete with Orlando Sanchez and Sylvester Turner, who had both very nearly won previous mayoral elections. City Controller Annise Parker and Council Member Peter Brown have run and won city-wide elections so they do not start with the name identification deficit that Bill White faced six years ago. Former City Attorney Gene Locke has not run citywide, but he starts from a stronger position than Bill White in 2003 because, as the only African American candidate in the race, he can likely count on a base of black voter support November 3 that is not as influenced by the mainstream TV ads Marc Campos is eagerly waiting for. And Locke has been racking up important endorsements like the Houston Realtors that should translate into some votes outside the black community.

Second, and most importantly, keep in mind that the November 3 city vote is the semi-finals. Houston’s charter requires a majority for election. In open seat contests like the current mayoral race, it is very difficult for any candidate to get 50 percent plus of the total vote, so runoffs are the norm. This is very different from our state election rules. Recall that Texas Governor Rick Perry was returned to office in 2006 with just 39 percent of the statewide vote, as his three major opponents split the remaining ballots. Under Houston rules, Perry would have been forced into runoff with Democratic nominee Chris Bell, who finished second with 30 percent of the vote. Mr. Perry might well have won such a runoff, but it would have been a very different race facing a single opponent. The point I’m driving at is that in city elections, the strategic focus cannot just be to run first on November 3^rd, but rather to run first or second that day, and then be in a position to win a runoff a month later against the other finalist.

This important runoff reality means rational candidates need not put everything they have into a pre-November paid media effort, if they can make the finals without spending scarce dollars early. Ms. Parker seems to be in that position, and Gene Locke has strengthened his chances by taking most of the important endorsements to date. That leaves the TV ball in Peter Brown’s hands. Less well known that Controller Parker, and capturing few significant endorsements, Mr. Brown is the best candidate to follow Marc Campos’ advice and spend big bucks on television ads. The problem is those would largely be personal bucks, as the Council Member has lagged Parker and Locke is raising money.

A third consideration is television ads are costly and not especially efficient in city elections. A basic problem with buying ads that are beamed throughout the media market is that only forty percent of the people who see and hear these commercials live in the City of Houston. So, in contrast to the coming Rick Perry-Key Bailey Hutchison shootout in the March 2010 Republican Primary, a lot of mayoral ad dollars are wasted on non-residents in a major media market like Houston.

Fourth, campaign spending is relative. If no one else in the mayoral race is running ads, this lessens the pressure on other candidates to run commercials in August or September when few voters are tuned into a low-key (to date) contest where the policy positions of the three candidates that have significant resources are quite close. Roy Morales, a fourth candidate who is a Republican and a conservative, differs significantly from Parker, Brown, and Locke on many issues but has raised almost no money. That means he cannot sate Mr. Campos’ thirst for some snappy 30 second spots.

Finally, I do agree with Marc Campos that this no-TV campaign season most benefits Controller Parker. But not, in my opinion, to the extent that she can win a majority of the vote November 3^rd. And a one-on-one runoff will be vastly different that the semi-finals. If Houston ends up with a gay Anglo woman in a month-long runoff against a black, straight male, there will be a lot of free media coverage in addition to whatever television ads the candidates can finance. Which means the name-identification advantage Ms. Parker enjoys in the first round becomes less important in a December runoff.

Dr. Richard Murray

Harris County Precinct 149: Something Has Changed out on the Katy Prairie

2009-08-03T15:34:17-05:00

Since I arrived as a baby professor at UH in the fall of 1966 I have followed the voting patterns across Harris County through 22 general elections. In the course of this, my office has become so stuffed with precinct maps, official election results and other political detritus that the university’s fire marshal recently wrote me up for creating a combustible hazard. In thousands of hours of poring over city and county precinct maps, census data, and precinct election returns I have developed (I think) a pretty good sense of the political and demographic changes taking place across our metropolitan area.

Most changes are fairly gradual and predictable. For example, new subdivisions emerge on the edge of the expanding urbanized area and are largely populated by Anglos who strongly support Republicans. Balancing this off are older city neighborhoods where whites move out, blacks and Hispanics move in, and the Democratic vote goes up. This combination has preserved a relative political balance for the last 30 years, giving Republicans an edge in county wide elections. In 2008, that pattern broke down, as Democrats led in 43 of the 47 contests on the ballot that voters throughout Harris County cast ballots in.

There are different explanations for this shift, with the most common being an “Obama Effect” that swept in local Democrats. There is something to this, as the Democratic presidential nominee produced record turnout among African American voters in the nation and in Houston, voters who voted the straight Democratic ticket here and elsewhere. But the Obama Effect hurt local Democrats in other areas as Latino turnout was well below expectations, and normally Democratic white voters in areas like Deer Park, Baytown, and Tomball either stayed home or shifted to the Republican column. If Senator Obama both helped and hurt local Democrats, what accounted for the big overall blue swing in Harris County on November 4, 2008?

The number one factor, from my on-going analysis of the 874 voting precincts in Harris County, was a big change in normally Republican suburban areas. The most prominent example is in State Representative Bill Caligari’s District 132 in far west Harris County. When this district was drawn by the Republican majority on the Legislative Redistricting Broad in 2001, every one of the precincts in the district was solidly red. But in November 2008, eight of the 26 local voting units went for Barack Obama. Overall, the Republican presidential vote in District 132 increased in 2008 by 2,640 compared to 2004. However, this was trumped by a Democratic gain of 12,911 votes. That net gain of 10,271 votes accounted for about one-half the 20,000 vote lead Senator Obama won in Harris County. This shift surprised me because it was both very large and very sudden. Look at the presidential vote in this part of Harris County from 1988 to 2004, and then check 2008.

Presidential Vote by Party in District 132

Year Republican Democratic Rep. %

1988 16,841 5,320 24.0

1992 18,914 7,043 27.1

1996 23,301 9,181 28.3

2000 32,855 11,189 25.4

2004 38,652 15,647 28.8

2008 41,292 28,558 40.9

Nothing gradual at all about the 2004 to 2008 shift. Looking more closely at individual precincts in District 132, one can surmise what happened. There was some moderate shift toward the Democrats in established neighborhoods as whites moved out and minorities moved in, but that alone could not lead to a near doubling of the Democratic presidential vote in just four years. Rather, the majority of blue gains came from new subdivisions built after the 2004 General Election. Those new housing developments clearly attracted a large number of minority families and voters who favored Senator Obama and all other Democrats on the county ballot.

A good example is Precinct 149, a huge area west of Barker-Cypress Road and north of FM 529. This was a thinly inhabited part of the Katy Prairie for most of the years I have been in Houston. The precinct’s population and voter registration actually declined in the 1970s and 1980s as rural families moved to the city or its suburbs. In 1976 there were 923 voters in the Carter-Ford presidential election, but this dropped steadily until 1992 when only 602 ballots were cast in Precinct 149 (which was, that year, relabeled as Precinct 616).

Then suburbanization reached the fringes of Precinct 149, and presidential turnout more than doubled by 1996 to 1494 voters. The new arrivals followed the expected pattern, voting mostly Republican. For example, in 2004 there were 2,186 ballots cast in Precinct 149. President Bush got 1472 votes to 673 for Senator Kerry. Nothing new here – just a big Republican margin in a new suburban area.

But thousands of new residents moved into Precinct 149 after the 2004 vote. The accompanying growth in voter registration forced the county to split 149 in 2006, creating a new Precinct 143 in the northeast corner of the old voting area. In 2008, Precinct 143 did the expected and voted for the McCain-Palin ticket, 1,547 to 618 for Obama-Biden. But in the remaining portion of Precinct 149, the Democratic presidential ticket outpolled the Republicans by 2,568 to 2,042. This flip happened because, from Day One, the new subdivisions in Precinct 149 included sizeable numbers of minority families that voted Democratic. Nor was Precinct 149 alone. A half dozen other precincts in Rep. Caligari’s district also saw big increases in African American and Hispanic voters. We’ll get a head count of minority grow in suburban Harris County from the 2010 census, and those new data will force a complete redrawing of all legislative and congressional districts in early 2011. Stay tuned for more on that.

Dr. Richard Murray

Revisiting the Republican Contest for Governor: Thoughts on Senator Hutchison's Decision to Resign from the Senate Before the March Primary

2009-07-29T20:01:01-05:00

Texas senior United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has been in the news the last couple of days. Yesterday she announced her intention to vote No when Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination is presented to the full Senate next week. Today, she is quoted by Mark Davis in Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report saying she expects to formally announce her run for governor in August and to resign from the Senate in October or November so to give full time and attention to the gubernatorial race.

Opposing Judge Sotomayor was expected - voting for the "wise Latina" nominee would have likely killed any chance Senator Hutchison has of winning the Republican nomination for governor. But her comments today do have some news value, at least to me.

I have long thought that Senator Hutchison painted herself into a corner more than two years ago by saying that she was going to resign the senate seat that she was reelected to in November 2006, for a term that runs until January 2013, to pursue a race for governor. Why make such an early commitment to both challenge a sitting governor, if he chooses to run for reelection, and to give up the balance of a six-year senate term?

I thought the wiser course would have been to emulate Texas Senator Price Daniel, who ran for governor back in 1956. Senator Daniel did not give up his senate seat before the Democratic Primary, nor did he resign after he was the party's nominee and virtually assured of election in those one-party days. That seemed the wiser course for several reasons, not the least of which is the Texas rule that if a U.S. senator resigns, the sitting governor gets to call the election to fill the vacancy and to name an interim replacement to represent the state in Washington, D.C.. Now if the governor happens to be the person the resigned senator is running against, you can bet your bottom dollar they will use their control of the timing of the new senate election and the nomination of an interim replacement to improve their chances of beating back a primary challenger. Why would Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison hand this sword to Governor Rick Perry?

Senator Hutchison's comments to Mark Davis today shed light on her thinking. "I had hoped that he wouldn't run. You know, no one expected him to run again. And, I thought, you know I stepped back last time, Mark. I tried to give him a really free ride with no primary because I thought it was right for Texas. But for him to stay on for 15 years is too long."

As I parse these statements, my conclusions are:

While Senator Hutchison's number one priority was to return to Texas as governor, her number two priority was to avoid a messy primary fight at all costs. Her one election defeat came in a bitter Republican congressional primary in Dallas in the 1980s and I expect unpleasant memories of that lose led the Senator to gamble that she could force Governor out of the race by making it widely known that she was running for real this time, and to show that she truly meant it, she would resign her seat and come back to Texas for the primary.

That was, as Ms. Hutchison put it, a "hope." Hope ain't a good political strategy in my book. Nor is gratitude. The fact that she stepped back and gave Governor Perry "a really free ride with no primary" in 2006 did not leave the incumbent with any sense that he owned Senator Hutchison for her late decision to pass on a primary race in 2006. Rather than gratitude, I expect what Governor Perry feels is resentment that the Senator talked about running against him for a year and a half before finally pulling back in 2005.

So, the Senator's gambit did not work. Perry is very much running for reelection, and she is stuck with a promise to resign that works against her in multiple ways. There are several reasons why Ms. Hutchison's campaign has stalled lately, as the Governor has moved ahead in recent published polls, but this "I'm resigning, but not yet" posture has surely helped him and hurt her.

There is time to recover, but we will now find out if the soon to be former senator has a Plan B - how to win a bitter, expensive Republican Primary.

Dr. Richard Murray

Follow the Money: What Does the July 15th Campaign Reports Tell Us About the Houston Mayoral Election?

2009-07-21T16:49:51-05:00

In the election business, we often say that the first primary is raising money. One might decry the reality, but American elections for significant offices almost always require substantial spending to get voters acquainted with candidates and issues. Money does not guarantee winning, but it is almost always necessary to be competitive.

Now that we are in one of our competitive mayoral cycles with popular incumbent Bill White forced to leave office by term limits, what can we glean from the recent financial reports city candidates filed this week? Here is my take:

Unlike six years ago, these reports do not show any definite advantage for one any of the three major candidates. City Controller Annise Parker, Council Member Peter Brown, and former City Attorney Gene Locke can all claim something positive from the numbers - and all quickly did. Six years ago the mid-summer reports showed Bill White was moving into a position to dominate the race. Considered a long shot early in 2003, White's combination of personal money and significantly larger contributions from others made it increasingly likely he would make a runoff with either Orlando Sanchez or Sylvester Turner, a runoff Bill White would almost certainly win. (White was also using his superior financing extremely well, in contrast to the disorganized campaign Sanchez was running).

OK - so this time around we do not see any game-changing aspects from the July reports, but that does not mean these filingsdo not give us some useful information for assessing the race. Here are a few things that stand out:

Money is very tight this year. Nationally and locally campaign contributions are down sharply from previous cycles. That means the pattern of fund raising we see in July will likely not change much over the rest of the year.

Each campaign, as noted, got some positive news from the reports. Let’s look first at the presumed front-runner in the race, Annise Parker. She had a decent haul – over 800,000 dollars raised – and still seems to have the easiest track to a runoff stop. Ms. Parker had the largest number of individual contributors, a plus because donors often follow their money and help their candidate in other important ways. Parker’s base of contributors continues to look a lot like Kathy Whitmire’s in the early 1980s. Whitmire, you recall, led into a runoff in 1981 and easily dispatched Sheriff Jack Heard in the December finals. Like the previous City Controller, Annise Parker can continue to hope for a repeat in 2009.

Gene Locke had the most to lose from these reports. He is less well-known than the office-holding candidates, and his campaign organization has recently been shaken up. He needed to reassure supporters and potential supporters that the fund raising was going well. He did this. By raising more than 1.1 million dollars, significantly more than his opponents, he met that test, and it was vital for him to do so. Clearly he will now have the resources to wage a competitive campaign, and as a credible African American candidate with a lot of white financial supporters, he has strengthened his runoff prospects.

Turning to Peter Brown, the best news here was neither of his opponents are raising the huge sums needed to launch a TV blitz like Bill White did six years. In contrast, Mr. Brown reported about three times as much cash on hand as Parker or Locke, so he alone could seize the initiative and make a major media buy to try and shake up the race and improve his position. His financial advantage should also enable him to aggressively court black voters - a constituency he simply must finish a strong second with to have any chance of making a runoff. But these reports show Peter Brown's ability to raise money from contributors is declining, so his financial advantage is entirely due to personal money he has put in the race. Let's now see if he is willing to spend those dollars to cut into the edge that Annise Parker and Gene Locke seem to have in mid-July.

Dr. Richard Murray

Redistricting the City of Houston: Third in a Series

2009-07-07T13:04:00-05:00

Last week the U.S. Census Bureau released its population estimates for incorporated places across the country, as of July 1, 2008. The Bureau put the City of Houston’s estimated head count at 2,242,193, up from 1,953,631 in April 2000 when the last official census was taken. This big jump assures we will have the most interesting redistricting within Houston in more than 30 years when the 2010 census numbers are released in early 2011. Let me explain.

The last big shakeup in political representation at Houston City Hall came in 1979. As part of a deal with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the City was allowed to complete its annexation of Clear Lake City, over the objections of most residents of that area, only if it broke up its eight person city council system with all members elected at large. The new city council would retain five at-large members, but nine district seats were added. To placate minority leaders who had pushed for an all district council, the City and DOJ agreed that when the municipal population, then about 1.6 million, reached 2.1 million, two additional district council seats would be added. Most of us around at the time thought this trigger would be reached after the 1990 census, and certainly no later than 2000. That did not happen. The collapse of oil and real estate prices dramatically slowed area population growth in the 1980s, and the City of Houston abandoned its pattern of annexing adjacent suburban areas. Consequently, the 1990 census showed that, for the first time in its history, the City of Houston hardly grew over the previous ten year period. Growth did resume within the city in the 1990s, and Kingwood was forcibly annexed in 1996, but the 2000 census still found the population count well below the 2.1 million trigger.

With council membership stable for 30 years, city redistricting has been a pretty tame affair, featuring mostly minor adjustments to accommodate sitting council members. The 2011 redistricting will, however, require major surgery across the city, but especially on the west side, where most new growth has occurred. The insertion of two new districts, each with about 210,000 residents, into the current map will necessarily ripple across all the existing nine districts requiring extensive modifications. These unavoidable changed will almost certainly ignite heated political infighting as various groups and individuals try to use the realignment to strength their position at City Hall. Let me give a couple of specific examples of why this could lead to some bloody infighting.

First, Houston has been a majority-minority city for years, with large Hispanic and African American populations, plus a diverse set of Asian residents. All these groups, noting that it has been their population growth that moved the city above 2.1 million, will want the new districts shaped to maximize their political opportunities. Both blacks and Latinos are surely going to expect that at least one new district will give voters from their respective communities the opportunity to elect representatives to City Hall. That can probably be done fairly easily in the case of African Americans, give their high levels of voting in city elections, and the tendency of the black vote to coalesce behind credible candidates from the community. Hispanics, however, face a tougher situation in using redistricting to their advantage. Although far larger that the black population (the City population is about 38% Latino, 25% African American), the Hispanic vote is much smaller, is more dispersed, and has less of a tradition of rallying behind a single candidate in city elections. So, while adding a third district African American voters will likely dominate is doable if the political will is there, drawing a third Latino district will be a challenge.

Second, the city’s GLBT Caucus (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender) has chaffed for years over most of Montrose being part of District D, which is dominated by African American voters in south central Houston, while the Heights is mostly in District H which has been electing Hispanics since the 1990s, as happened last month when Ed Gonzalez beat the GLBT-endorsed Maverick Welsh. The GLBT and many white progressives would like to see the Heights and Montrose combined in a single district that is not tilted toward black or Latino precincts elsewhere in the city. But pulling these neighborhoods out of existing “minority” districts, will reduce the opportunities for blacks and Hispanics to increase their clout in a realigned council.

As these cases suggest, this will all be very interesting, now that we know massive redistricting will have to happen on Houston City Council in early 2011. And we also now know that the new redistricting map will have to be pre-cleared with the DOJ after the Northwest Austin Utility District v. Holder decision last month.

How U.S. Census Will Affect Voting: Second in a Series

2009-07-07T13:02:18-05:00

Last week I posted the first of a series of entries addressing the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision (or non-decision) in Northwest Austin Utility District v. Holder. Despite widespread speculation, the court left intact, at least for the near term, Section Five of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requiring political jurisdictions in some parts of the country to pre-clear any changes they wish to make in their electoral systems. This is very important for Texas and Houston.

Only Texas among the very large states is entirely covered by Section Five. So every government in the Lone Star State has to secure approval from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or a federal court in the District of Columbia before making any changes in how it registers voters, draws district lines, sets up polling places, and so forth.

One should also note that in nine months the federal government will undertake the 23rd census of the U.S. population. That April 1, 2010 count will require all representative districts across the country be redrawn so that populations are equally represented in Congress, the Texas Legislature, on Houston City Council, and so forth. And now all those changes will have to be run by the DOJ before they can go into effect.

Texas has been the fastest growing large state in the country since 2000, and our population makeup has greatly changed due to very rapid Hispanic and Asian growth, along with above average African American increases, but with very little growth of our "Anglo" population. (Anglos were defined as persons who say they are "white" and not of Hispanic origin) As a consequence, current projections show Texas has become a "majority-minority" state, with less than half the population in the Anglo category, but with Anglos holding most power across the state. Besides rapid minority growth, the census will show the population within the state has continued to shift to the major metropolitan areas, so we will have to move more congressional and legislative districts from rural and small town Texas to the great urban centers of Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and Austin-San Antonio.

In summary, the 2000 census will trigger a huge realignment of political boundaries across Texas, with great implications for political power over the next decade. With Austin Utility District v. Holder decided, we not only now know all these shifts will have to be run by the DOJ in Washington, but also that the Justice Department is now headed by Eric Holder, President Obama's Attorney General. This is of especial significance because after every census since the federal courts' "one person, one vote" decisions in the 1960s, the DOJ has been headed by Republican appointees.

With Republicans holding every statewide office in Texas, plus majorities in the Senate and House (barely), the June 22nd court decision thus sets up a potential partisan confrontation between state GOP leaders and the Democratic Administration in Washington, which drew strong support from both African Americans and Hispanics in the 2008 elections. Had the Supreme Court thrown out Section Five, Texas Republicans would have had a much freer hand in drawing congressional and legislative districts than will likely be the case in 2011 when the new population numbers are released.

In practical terms this will likely block any aggressive redistricting efforts that work to the disadvantage of Latino or African American voters in Texas. Case in point: Senate District 17 was artfully drawn in 2001 to split the black community in Port Arthur off from African American neighborhoods in Beaumont, resulting in Jefferson County being represented in Austin by one Anglo senator from The Woodlands and another from the West University-Bellaire area in Southwest Harris County. A district so configured in 2011 would have virtually no chance of passing muster with the Holder DOJ, in contrast to 2001 when John Ashcroft's Voting Rights Division did not object to that very odd shaped district.

The Austin decision means we will see our redistricting fights in Texas occurring across three principal stages. First will be the regular political process, where legislators and other elected officials draw up new maps to reflect population changes. Then, the action will shift to the pre-clearance front where elected officials and the Voting Rights Division of the DOJ will negotiate over what is permissible and what is objectionable. Then, whatever plans are approved will almost certainly be challenged in federal court, with months or years of litigation to follow. And out of all this will emerge some reshuffling of partisan and racial/ethnic political power in Austin, at courthouses, city halls across Texas.

Next, we'll take a look at redistricting in the City of Houston after the new census.

POSTSCRIPT: Yesterday State Representative Sylvester Turner announced he would not run for mayor of Houston this fall. That leaves four significant candidates in the field, headed by City Controller Annise Parker who seems to have the easiest track to one of the runoff spots in the November General Election. As the likely frontrunner in the horse race, it will be interesting to see if her major competitors, Council Member Peter Brown and former City Attorney Gene Locke, focus most of their fire on Ms. Parker, attack each other, or stick to touting their own qualifications. Roy Morales, a Harris County Board of Trustees member with little money or establishment backing, figures to be the most aggressive of the significant players since he has to shake the race up to become a contender. Maybe he'll enliven a rather dull race since we won't have Representative Turner to stir the pot this time around.

The Voting Rights Act: What Are the Implications for Texas and Houston?

2009-06-26T15:28:25-05:00

The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Section Five of the Voting Rights Act: What Are the Implications for Texas and Houston? The first of a series.

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated decision in a case brought by a small Austin area utility district challenging a vital section of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). When the case was argued on April 29th, the critical tenor of questions and comments put to defenders of the law suggested to most observers that a majority of the court was prepared to declare Section Five of the VRA unconstitutional. That would surely have ignited a political firestorm in the voting rights forest.

Of course, that did not happen. Chief Justice Roberts punted the big issue down the road by saying in his 8-1 majority opinion that, while times have changed from the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s, and thus maybe the original special provisions of the landmark legislation were no longer needed, there was no pressing need to rule on that big issue this week. So, at least for a couple of years, the full act as passed by Congress and renewed in 1975, 1982, and 2006 remains the law of the land.

What does this mean for us here in Texas and Houston? Let’s start with a little history lesson. When President Lyndon Johnson pushed the original Voting Rights Act through Congress in 1965, overcoming a 80 plus day filibuster in the U.S. Senate, Texas was not subject to the special provisions of the VRA. Those provisions were applied to only a few deep South states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia that had especially bad records of denying black citizens their voting rights. It is not surprising that LBJ left his home state off the “bad conduct” list – he was, after all, a cagey political operator who needed every vote he could muster in the Senate to shut down the filibuster, including that of Ralph Yarborough of Texas. The state’s then senior senator was one of just two members from states that seceded from the Union in 1861 who broke with their southern colleagues and supported the VRA in 1965. If Texas had been subject to the special provisions of Section Five requiring that all political jurisdictions in the state would have to “preclear” any changes in their voting rules or procedures with the U.S. Justice Department or a federal court in Washington D.C., Yarborough may well have been forced to oppose the historic legislation.

Section Five of the VRA quickly proven to be a powerful level for opening the door to meaningful political participation for blacks across the deep South, but, again, it did not apply in Texas. When, how, and why did that change?

The change happened in 1975 when Congress extended the VRA for another seven years. Why was Texas now included? Mostly because while President Johnson was dead and gone, another Lone Star State politician was moving toward a race for the White House – U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen. But Bentsen had a big problem with minority voters who were a growing force in Democratic presidential politics. The junior U.S. Senator had won his seat by defeating Ralph Yarborough, a favorite of liberals and minorities, in a very rough 1970 primary. To strengthen his presidential position, Bentsen was convinced by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, a national star after the Nixon Impeachment hearings, that he must not only support extending the Voting Rights Act to his home state, but that it must also be amended to bring under its protection Hispanics as well as African Americans. The powerful combination of Barbara Jordan in the House and Lloyd Bentsen in the Senate secured both these major changes in the original VRA.

The maneuver did not end up helping Bentsen, whose presidential race fizzled in 1976, but when the VRA was reauthorized in 1982 and 2006, these 1975 changes were left intact, so Texas remains one of 16 states covered by Section Five. But unlike the other large states of New York, Florida, and California, the entire state, including several thousand local governments, is subject to Section Five. Add to that the fact that we have two large and growing minority groups (Latinos and African Americans now account for almost half the Texas population), plus Vietnamese Americans who are covered by the VRA in selected jurisdictions, and one can begin to appreciate why Texas had the most at stake in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder. Our next couple of posts will explore some of the ramifications of this decision at the state and local levels.

Will He or Won’t He? Sylvester Turner Ponders a Third Race for Mayor

2009-06-05T16:05:53-05:00

There’s a buzz this week in the local political village that long-time State Representative Sylvester Turner (Democrat, District 139) is mulling over another run for mayor of Houston. As a young legislator in 1991, Turner ran ahead of incumbent Mayor Kathy Whitmire in the November General Election and very nearly beat out Bob Lanier in a hard-fought and controversial runoff. Turner’s hope to secede the term-limited Lanier in 1997 were confounded when former Houston Police Chief Lee Brown’s entered the race that year, and when Rep. Turner tried to succeed Mayor Brown in 2003, he ran into the Bill White juggernaut and ran third behind the current mayor and former city council member Orlando Sanchez. Turner blamed his loss in part on widespread disappointment in Mayor Brown’s six year tenure, which arguably soured Houston voters on black CEOs at City Hall.

If Turner ran third in 2003 when there was no other African American in the field, why would he get in the race this year when a credible black candidate, former City Attorney Gene Locke has been campaigning for seven months? Two strong black candidates would almost certainly split the African American vote (usually about 30-35% of the total), and might well result in neither making the December runoff.

Here is my take on this question. Turner is at a very different place in 2009 than he was in 1997 when he reluctantly stayed out of the race and gave Lee Brown a clear path to the runoff and eventual election. Like most of us, he is 12 years older, and his political future is more limited in Austin where his alliance with Speaker Tom Craddick has become a liability after the Midland Republican was deposed in early 2009. Congress would be an attractive alternative, but we already have two African American members from Houston, and Turner’s north side district is the 18^th District represented by the younger and more politically entrenched incumbent, Sheila Jackson Lee. The other local office Representative Turner is attracted to, Harris County Commissioner Precinct One, is represented by his old enemy El Franco Lee, who beat Turner and two other major candidates way back in 1984 and has held the job since. But Commissioner Lee was just reelected in November 2008, so there is no opportunity there for three years. And a race for Countyommissionerwould require Turner to give up his safe Texas House seat, something he is understandably reluctant to do.

One of the real attractions of a state elected official running for mayor is you do not have to give up your day job to compete, as Sylvester Turner well knows from his 1991 and 2003 races. So, count that as a big plus for taking another shot. A second is the very powerful mayor job has attracted Mr. Turner all of his political life as he made clear in his previous campaigns. Third, Turner really wants this position in part because he feels he was unfairly denied it in 1991 by late-breaking negative news stories that clearly helped Bob Lanier eke out a 53% to 47% win. Fourth, a late entry would help even the score with former mayors Lanier and Brown, who are in Gene Locke’s corner, as well as Commissioner Lee, a longtime ally of the former city attorney.

So there is a lot on the plus side of the ledger for making the race. The downside is simple: It is a very hard race for Representative Turner to win. Obviously, he will have to do a lot better than six years ago when he failed to make the runoff. But how can he achieve that? In 2003, as the only black candidate in the race, Representative Turner got about 80% of the African American vote, with Bill White getting most of the rest. But this time, Gene Locke will surely out-perform White’s 2003 showing, and City Council Member Peter Brown and Controller Annise Parker have made significant efforts in the black community whereas Sanchez ignored this segment of the electorate. Bottom line: If Sylvester Turner could win 60% of the black vote this November, that would be a terrific showing in the 2009 field, but that would still leave him well short of what he needs to make a runoff.

So it is even more imperative that Sylvester Turner solve the problem he had in 2003 – that he got almost no votes from whites, Latinos, or Asian Americans. Turner was a very impressive campaigner in 2003, often out-shinning Bill White and Orlando Sanchez is the 80 plus public forums held around town. And he had a war-chest of about a million and a half dollars. This time around he would still bring superior campaign skills to the table, but much less money, plus the history of being a two-time loser. This suggests to me it will be difficult for Representative Turner to substantially improve his showing outside the black community. And without that improvement, he would fall well short of making the December runoff.

Looking at the ledger, I have no idea what Representative Turner will decide to do. He seemed to enjoy running for mayor six and 18 years ago. Maybe the fire in the belly is still there. And he surely knows this while this race would be a long-shot, he also knows his entry would shake the race up, mostly to the detriment of his old political enemies, and to the benefit of City Controller Annise Parker, whose support base is least likely to be much impacted by what Mr. Turner decides to do. Stay tuned. He says he’ll tell us thumbs up or down in a couple of weeks.

Dr. Richard Murray

Analyzing the Special City Council Election in District H

2009-05-24T10:54:05-05:00

A couple of weeks ago I posed the question: Is District H still a Hispanic dominated electoral area? Now that the first round of the special election has occurred and we have a runoff coming up in a few days, let’s revisit that question and speculate about the runoff between Ed Gonzalez and Maverick Welsh.

Readers may recall that if one just looks at the registered voter population in District H, the Hispanic electorate is now a bit smaller than the Anglo voter group (45% to 42%), with blacks accounted for most of the remainder. Based primarily on those numbers, I thought Maverick Welsh was likely to get one of the runoff spots, leaving the best known and funded Latino contenders, HPD officer Ed Gonzalez, and Houston Community College Trustee Yolanda Navarro Flores, fighting for the other opening. Gonzalez won that fight, leading the field with 31.4% of the vote to Welch’s 26.9%, and Ms. Flores taking third with 18.3%.

Beyond the order of finish, what else does the May 9th vote tell us? Most obviously, very few voters were much interested in who replaces Adrian Garcia as their district council member since just 4,141 people voted out of 93,883 registrants – a paltry 4.41% turnout. Among the few who did vote, it is interesting to see how the six candidates with obviously Hispanic names did collectively. If we add the votes received by Lupe Garcia, Gonzalo Camacho, Hugo Mojica, and Rick Rodriguez to the Ganzalez/Flores total, that comes to 2,707, or 64.7% of the total vote. So, by this measure, the special election turnout was dominated by voters supporting Latino candidates, whether or not these folks themselves were Hispanic. Welsh, the only Anglo on the ballot got 26.6% of the total vote, with African American Larry Williams taking 7.4%.

Now if anything like the combined Hispanic candidate vote rallies behind Ed Gonzalez, he would easily outdistance Maverick Welsh in the runoff. Will that happen? Probably, but not necessarily. Hispanic voters have some inclination to rally behind a runoff contender from their community, but this is far less pronounced that the African American community’s cohesion in similar circumstances. Back in 1991, the Texas Legislature drew a new majority Hispanic congressional district in Harris County, the 29th District of Texas. Three prominent Hispanic candidates entered the 1992 Democratic primary, City Council Member Ben Reyes, State Representative Al Luna, and Houston Municipal Judge Sylvia Garcia. One Anglo, State Senator Gene Green, also ran. Reyes led Green into the runoff, and the combined Hispanic candidate vote totaled more than 70 percent, so Reyes seemed sure to move on to Washington, D.C. after a runoff with Green. That did not happen. Green beat Reyes in the April 1992 runoff election, then repeated his victory later that summer when a federal court forced a rematch because of illegal crossover voting in the April contest. Reyes lost because he could not unite the Hispanic community behind his candidacy when he faced a single Anglo opponent.

Maverick Welsh needs to hope that happens again and he can pull an upset runoff win like Gene Green did 17 years ago. In that regard, he did garner the endorsement of Yolanda Navarro Flores, somewhat increasing his chances.

But if Welch is to prevail, he has to do a far better job in the runoff with his absentee and early vote program. About 15% of the May 9th vote was cast by absentee ballot, and Welsh ran far behind Gonzalez and Flores (even losing this vote to Larry Williams) among the voters who mailed in their ballots. Nor did Welsh do much better with those who voted early in-person across the district, finishing a poor third among these folks who made up 30% of the total special election vote. Since runoffs like this typically attract even fewer voters than the first round, if Mr. Welsh does not substantially close this gap among mail-in balloters and early voters, he will have effectively lost the election before the polls open on “election day” next month.

-Richard Murray

Early poll in the Houston Mayor’s Race warrants a second look

2009-05-13T16:49:07-05:00

Last week I received an analysis prepared by the Carreno Group of a survey of Houston voters done by the National Hispanic Professional Organization (NHPO), which describes itself as a “networking, non-profit, membership-based organization.” The headline on the summary was “Parker Has Commanding Lead in the 2009 Mayoral Election.” Since this was the first survey I have seen not associated with a particular mayoral campaign, it is a good idea to briefly discuss polling in the upcoming city elections, and apply some of the general principles to this particular voter survey.

Polls have been a mainstay of election campaigns for more than a half century. Candidates and political parties use their own surveys as essential planning tools, news media commission independent polls to keep track of the “horse race” and explore issues that matter to voters, and private groups like NHPO sometimes sponsor election surveys for various reasons. In high profile contests like the 2007-2008 presidential race, 15 or more survey outfits were releasing their findings every week or two. With so much data available, a good strategy for the consumer of polls in such cases is simply to average the results to get an idea of how the race is moving along. If there is a problem with a specific survey or polling operation, averaging largely addresses that possibility. Unfortunately, in cases like the Houston mayoral election, we have relatively few polls publicly available, so consumers need to look carefully at each data set.

What should people be looking for in such cases? First, who did the poll? Do they have a track record, and is that record good, fair, or poor? Second, are the technical aspects of the survey fully described? When was the survey done, using what method of contacting voters, and how many surveys were completed with what error margin at a given confidence level. Is the questionnaire available for review so that one can see exactly how questions were worded and the order in which they were asked? And, are we given the basic demographic breakdowns of persons interviewed? How many whites, blacks, and Latinos are in the sample? What was the partisan composition of respondents? Their education level, and so on? If, this information is available, it gives one more confidence in the data presented, although all consumers of singular polls should keep in mind that even the best are just snapshots of fast changing landscapes.

Turning back to the NHPO survey, we note it measures up in some areas. We are given the dates when the data was collected (April 14 – May 1), via the Internet, with ZIP code addresses used to delete non-City of Houston respondents. The summary of responses does not have the exact questions used, but we are given some basic demographic information about the 736 individuals included in the mayor poll results, which showed City Controller Annise Parker with 48.8%, followed by former Houston City Attorney Gene Locke at 29.6%, City Council Member Peter Brown at 13.9%, and retired military officer Roy Morales at 7.7%. After looking over the summary, there are clearly major problems with this particular survey aside from the fact that NHPO has no track record in this area and Internet-based surveys raise significant issues in diverse communities where many voters cannot be contacted using this methodology. Let me zero in on two very evident problems with the poll.

First, the demographics in the NHPO sample bear little resemblance to the actual electorate in Houston mayoral races. In competitive mayor elections like 2009, recent history suggests the voters will be about 48% Anglo or non-Hispanic whites, 32% black, 15% Latino, and five percent Asian-Other. The NHPO demographic breakdown of survey takers is OK on Anglos (43.1%) and Asian/Others (5%), but wildly off the mark on Hispanics (41.4%) and blacks (just 10.5%). Since we have a credible black candidate, Gene Locke, in the race, this under-representation of African Americans seriously understates his likely support level.

Second, the data summary we are given does not add up. We are told that Anglo voters are breaking 44.6% for Parker, followed by Roy Morales at 28.4%, with Locke and Brown third and fourth. We are also informed, as noted, that Anglos constituted 43.1% of the total sample. Assuming these data are correct, we should be able to calculate for a candidate like Roy Morales what percentage of the total vote for mayor is made up of Anglos supporting him by multiplying the Anglo vote share (43.1%) by his share percentage of same (28.4%). When we do that, we get 12.2% as the result. But, when we look at the total mayor vote breakdown, Morales gets just 7.7% when his Anglo support alone is well above this percentage. This does not make any sense, and when a poll’s internal numbers do not add up, readers are well advised to look elsewhere for readings on how the mayor’s race is actually shaping up.

By Richard Murray

Looking at the Special Election in District H

2009-05-05T18:59:19-05:00

Looking at the Special Election in District H: Is This Still a “Hispanic” District?

When the City of Houston cut a deal in 1979 with the U.S. Department of Justice to shift from eight at-large council districts, to a nine district, five at-large system, the relatively small Latino vote in the city led the map-drawers to concentrate all the heavily Hispanic voting precincts in a single district – I – that would presumably give a candidate from that community a good chance of winning. That happened, as Ben Reyes was elected, and re-elected from District I until terms limits forced him off council in January 1996.

Meantime, the Hispanic population in the city was growing rapidly, and the Latino community began pressing for the creation of a second district they might dominate. This happened after 1991, when some of the Latino precincts in District I were shifted to District H to make it significantly more Hispanic. That split worked. Latino candidates finished one-two-three in the 1993 council district election, with Felix Fraga winning the seat in a runoff against Liz Lara. Fraga was easily reelected in 1995 and 1997, and in 1999 Gabe Vasquez led a field again dominated by Latino candidates and won a runoff with Yolando Black Navarro. Then in 2003, Adrian Garcia led a mostly Hispanic field into a runoff with Diana Davila Martinez and narrowly defeated her. Garcia easily won reelection in 2005, and was unopposed in 2007.

Adrian Garcia’s successful campaign for Harris County Sheriff required him to give up his council seat in 2009, necessitating a special election this Saturday in District H. This special election raises the possibility that one of the two traditionally “Hispanic” seats on Council will revert back to an Anglo, Maverick Welsh. Since the Hispanic population has continued to grow in the city and county, while the overall Anglo population is basically flat, what is going up here?

The basic problem for Hispanics is that old bugaboo of a low rate of registered voters compared to total population. When District I was redraw in 2001, for example, the census numbers showed it was 66.4% Hispanic, 17.6% non-Hispanic white (or Anglo), and 14.7% non-Hispanic black. However, the registered voter population in the district was only about 40% Hispanic at the time, 40% Anglo, and 20% black. Given this diversity, why were all the major candidates who ran in the redrawn district from 2001 to 2007 Latinos? My guess is the “Hispanic reputation” of the district made it unattractive for non-Latinos to run in the district, and also resulted in the city hall insiders who largely fund council races concentrating their financing behind viable contenders from the Hispanic community.

Whatever the reasons, the field was left to Hispanic contenders until this year’s special election. Two serious Anglo candidates initially entered the race, but realtor Karen Derr failed to file on time, leaving Peter Brown’s former chief of staff, Mr. Welsh, as the lone Anglo in the field. He is, in my view, a likely runoff candidate, given the changes going on in the district. Why?

First, he is running an active campaign and appears to be well funded. And he now gets some benefit as the only Anglo on the ballot. That is especially true because the district is changing. The Hispanic and black vote shares are dropping in District H, and the Anglo vote is steadily growing. The parts of the district near downtown are experiencing significant gentrification, as rising land values force low income minorities out to be replaced by more affluent, and mostly Anglo newcomers. Evidence of this shift can be seen in the latest breakdown of registered voters in the district compiled by Hector DeLeon at County Clerk Beverly Kaufman’s office where the 33,014 Spanish surname registered voters in District H accounted for just 36.5% of the 90,473 persons on the voter rolls. By contrast, I estimate the current Anglo registration at more than 45% in District H.

The mostly upscale Anglos residents of H also tend to be high-turnout types. In the November 2008 presidential election, the Spanish surname vote was just 28.2% in District H, blacks an estimated 18%, and Anglos 53%. No wonder Ms. Derr and Mr. Welsh decided to run in 2009. This is now a district that a Hispanic candidate can win, but that individual must have some crossover appeal to claim the office.

Based on this analysis, what is likely to happen Saturday? As noted, the changing nature of the district gives Maverick Welsh a likely runoff spot, with the best funded Hispanic candidates, Yolanda Navarro Flores and Ed Gonzalez, fighting for the other position. Turnout will be very light – probably only five or six percent – so every vote will really matter in this changing district.

- By Richard Murray

What’s Governor Perry Up To?

2009-04-27T14:02:00-05:00

If Governor Rick Perry was concerned about his low visibility on the national scene, he pretty well cured that problem this month. On April 9th, the longest serving chief executive in Texas history staked out a “states’ rights” position Governor George C. Wallace would have cheered back in 1963. Six days later, the Governor joined a tax protest “tea party” and suggested Texas just might want to consider leaving the ole U.S.A. if Washington D.C. keeps messin’ with the Lone Star State. Those comments quickly circled the globe via the Internet, talk radio, and nightly comic monologues. Much of the commentary was not, let us say politely, in a positive vein.

What’s up here? Why would a governor up for reelection stir up a ruckus that makes him (and his state) a target of national ridicule? Is this a bad Aggie joke? I don’t think so.

Keep in mind the immediate problem for Governor Perry is securing the nomination in the March 2010 Republican primary. For the first time since he switched parties in the late 1980s (Perry was elected as a Democratic State Representative from a West Texas district), the Governor faces a really tough fight to get the GOP nomination. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has made it more and more clear she is running against Perry in the March primary come hell or high water. And polls consistently show she is better liked than Rick Perry, and has led him in among likely Republican Primary voters in every published poll. If that’s the case, does not the Governor suddenly reinventing himself as George Wallace just make a bad problem worse? Not exactly.

The thing to keep in mind about the Texas Republican Primary is that few people vote in this very important election. Since 1994, the 200 or so winners of the GOP primary for all statewide offices have beaten the Democrats and all others in November General Elections. In these Republican primaries, turnout has averaged less than 900,000, in a state with 12-13 million registered voters.

Who are these Republican Primary voters? First of all, they are almost entirely “Anglos,” or persons who say they are “white” and not of Hispanic origin. A couple of days ago I looked at the voting patterns in predominately black and Latino areas of Texas or Houston. In 12 heavily Hispanic counties along the Mexico border, there were only 32,320 voters in the March 2008 Republican primary, out of 1.097,072 registered voters. And most of the GOP voters came from Anglo neighborhoods in El Paso, Harlingen, and McAllen. By contrast, the same counties had 326,057 Democratic voters. In Houston, I looked at 10 heavily Mexican American precincts in the same primary, and saw there were only 269 Republican voters, out of 20,162 registered persons. The March 2008 Democratic Primary attracted 5.307 voters in these same voting boxes. The disparity is even more pronounced in African American areas. Again using a sample of 10 local precincts that have almost no non-black residents, I found the 2008 Republican Primary attracted just 57 voters out of 26,475 registered persons, compared to 11,109 voters in the Democratic Primary.

In addition to being a nearly all-white primary, the March Republican election is dominated by voters who label themselves “conservative” or “very conservative.” We see the importance of this ideological tilt to the right when polls show just 18% of all Texas adults approved of Governor Perry’s comments about seceding from the union, but nearly half of self-identified Republicans agreed with his stance. And if one could go from identified Republicans to Republicans who regularly vote in their party’s primary, my guess is the Governor position draws strong majority support.

So what the Governor is up to, in my opinion, is very simple. If he does not change the electoral climate, he will lose the Republican Primary to Senator Hutchison. He has two options in trying to do this. He can launch a mud-fight and try to slime her personally and politically. That might work, but could easily backfire, particularly if female voters think he has crossed the line and is running a dirty campaign. The safer course is to take very far right positions on issues like federal stimulus monies and putting the secession option on the table as a way of appealing to the small primary electorate that in no way represents the broad swath of opinion in Texas. Will this work? We won’t know until March, but what we do know is that Jay Leno, Bill Mayer, Steve Colbert and Jon Stewart do not vote in Texas Republican Primaries, nor do many of their viewers. But listeners to Rush Limbaugh do, and the “Ditto Heads” seem fine with Governor Perry’s new national prominence.

- Richard Murray

What are Peter Brown's mayoral chances?

2009-04-13T18:24:04-05:00

Council Member Peter Brown’s Record in City Elections: What Does It Say About his 2009 Mayoral Chances?

In previous posts I have reviewed the electoral track record of announced mayoral candidates Roy Morales and Annise Parker. That review led me to conclude while Mr. Morales has little chance of winning the mayor position, his presence on the ballot virtually assures a runoff. And that runoff, based on past performance, will likely include retiring City Controller Annise Parker, based on her demonstrated strength in recent competitive elections. The remaining candidate who has run in city elections is Council Member Peter Brown, who lost a runoff in December 2003 to At-Large Council Member Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, but won an open at-large seat in 2005, and was elected without opposition in 2007. Let’s look at the competitive elections Peter Brown ran in 2003 and 2005 to see his sources of strength and weakness with city voters.

In analyzing vote patterns, I break the 520 voting precincts that are entirely or substantially inside the city into seven different categories. These are:

Kingwood – Mostly Anglo, politically conservative, and the most Republican part of the city. This corner of the city usually accounts for 5 to 6% of the vote.

Clear Lake City – Somewhat less Anglo than Kingwood, and also a bit less conservative and Republican, and accounting for 6% or so of Houston voters.

Westside Anglos – Republican and conservative, but a little less so every election cycle. These precincts account for about 20% of the city electorate.

African American – There are more than 100 precincts in the city that are almost entirely black, and usually cast about 24% of the total vote.

Predominately Latino. There are now about 40 precincts in Houston with a majority of Spanish surname registered voters. They make up about 8% of the electorate.

Inner-urban Anglos. A group of 80 or so mostly Anglos precincts stretching from Garden Oaks and the Heights on the north side, thru Montrose and the Rice/Braeswood area to Meyerland in the southwest. Political moderate to liberal, leaning Democratic. About 20 percent of all voters are in these areas.

Transitional/mixed. There are about 100 demographically unstable precincts in Houston. Eighty percent are seeing a shift as Anglos move out and are replaced by minorities, but in about 20 precincts inside the Loop, Anglos are displacing Blacks and Hispanics. This set of precincts have about 16% of the electorate.

Now let’s see how Peter Brown did in these areas when he first ran in 2003 against Council Member Sekula-Gibbs. In the first round, the incumbent drew 41.6% of the vote against three opponents, with Peter Brown finishing second with 25.6% of the vote. He secured the runoff spot by finishing ahead of my former student Jolanda (Jo) Jones, an African American attorney and former UH star athlete, who got 21.5% of the vote. (a fourth candidate took the remainder). Peter Brown made the runoff by running first in the Inner-urban Anglo boxes, and running a decent second to Jolanda Jones in the black precincts, where he took about 28% of the vote to her 50%. The December runoff was close, but Brown lost to Sekula-Gibbs by a 52.4% to 47.6% margin. The runoff vote broke down as follows:

Area	% of Vote	Shelley Sekula-Gibbs%	Peter Brown%

Kingwood	6%	71.5%	28.5%
Clear Lake	6%	71.6%	28.4%
Westside Anglo	21%	64.4%	35.6%
Inner Urban Anglos	18%	41.5%	58.5%
African American	24%	25.8%	74.2%
Majority Latino	7%	51.7%	48.3%
Mixed/Transitional	18%	57.5%	42.5%

In 2005, Peter Brown won an open at-large seat by beating Roy Morales and Michael “Grif” Griffin, with 51% of the vote. Morales took about 32% of the vote, and Griffin 17%. The vote by area broke down this way:

Area	% of Vote	Combined Morales/Griffin%	Peter Brown%

Kingwood	9%	66.0%	34.0%
Clear Lake	8%	56.5%	43.5%
Westside Anglo	22%	47.8%	52.2%
Inner Urban Anglos	22%	34.7%	65.3%
African American	19%	27.1%	72.9%
Majority Latino	6%	75.4%	24.6%
Mixed/Transitional	14%	56.2%	43.8%

What do these numbers suggest about Council Member Brown’s prospects in 2009? My read is he faces a tough race to make the finals. He has demonstrated a past appeal to inner urban Anglo voters and African Americans, if there is no black candidate in the race. But in 2009, City Controller Annise Parker also has considerable appeal to inner urban white voters, and there is a credible African American, former City Attorney Gene Locke, also in the race. To secure a runoff spot, Peter Brown has to run a decent second across nearly all areas of the city. It can be done (witness Bill White’s success in 2003), but Mayor White spent a record nine million dollars to garner 37% of the total vote. That is a good deal more than anyone has spent before or since in running for the CEO job in Houston. We will all eagerly await the July 15th campaign finance reports to see if Peter Brown is raising the money needed to run a city-wide vote effort that could propel him into a runoff.

- Richard Murray

The Electoral History of Annise Parker

2009-04-07T12:54:15-05:00

The Electoral History of Annise Parker: What Does It Tell Us About Her Prospects for Mayor in 2009?

When political analysts look at a current election campaign, a common approach is to review previous elections, especially if one or more of the current contenders were candidates in comparable contests. Applying that perspective to the 2009 Houston mayoral race, one notes that while none of the announced candidates have run for the CEO job before, three of the four significant candidates have run in previous city elections. Of those, Annise D. Parker has the longest electoral history, having run four times for city council (three successfully), and three more times for city controller (all successfully). What does Ms. Parker’s track tell us?

Annise Parker’s only losing race was back in November 1991, when she challenged Houston City Council Member Vince Ryan in District C. She lost badly, getting just 10,644 votes (23.4%) to Ryan’s 34,885. That result confirmed the near impossibility of defeating a sitting city council member in Houston, unless the incumbent has been tarred by personal scandal. Perhaps realizing that, Parker did not run again until 1997 when the city’s tough term limits rule created several open council spots. Parker entered a seven candidate field for At-Large Position One, squeaked into a runoff with 20.1% of the vote, and soundly defeated her remaining rival, businessman Don Fitch, 57.9% to 42.1%.

Since this was Annise Parker’s “breakthrough” election, it warrants close study. In hindsight, the at-large field set up exceptionally well for Ms. Parker in that it included three African Americans, two Hispanic candidates, an Anglo male (Fitch), as well as the eventual winner. Especially important for Ms. Parker’s success was the presence of multiple black candidates, since the first round came down to fight for the runoff spot opposite Mr. Fitch, whose Republican credentials and business background enabled him to lead all contenders with 28.4% of the November vote. But Annise Parker just nosed out Alphonso Delaney, getting 48,660 votes to his 46,578. Parker bested Delaney because her bases in Montrose and the Heights gave her about 65% and 45%, respectively, of the local vote, and she added 12% to 15% everywhere else in the city. Meantime, Delaney led in virtually all black precincts, but his margins were often under 40%, with African Americans Hershel Smith and Theloniaus Peugh cutting into his support. Yolanda Black Navarro and Rafael Hernandez also divided the smaller Latino vote, giving Annise Parker the very valuable runoff position with Don Fitch.

Why was the runoff spot opposing Fitch so valuable? Because since the victories of Kathy Whitmire and Eleanor Tinsley in the 1970s, a white female supported by a coalition of moderate to liberal whites and minorities has defeated a white male conservative in every high-profile city runoff contest for the last 30 years. The pattern was repeated in 1997. With the five minority candidates out of the race, Annise Parker took about 75 percent of the black vote in the runoff, and 68 percent in heavily Latino precincts.

Once on council, Annise Parker benefited from the “incumbency advantage” in her 1999 and 2001 reelection campaigns. With three city wide victories behind her, she was in a great position to run for the open city controller job in 2003. In a six-person field she easily lead with 41.7% of the vote. Her runoff opponent was District A Council Member Bruce Tatro, like Don Fitch, a conservative Anglo. The 2003 runoff results were the same as 1997, with Parker benefiting from a “progressive” coalition of moderate and liberal Anglos, plus strong support from both black and Hispanic voters with no minority candidates on the ballot. And once in the controller position, Annise Parker was reelected without opposition in 2005 and 2007.

So, after an initial loss at the polls 18 years ago, Annise Parker has won six consecutive city-wide elections. With the mayor’s position open, her successful track record once again makes Ms. Parker a strong favorite to win one of the runoff spots for the December showdown. But unlike her breakthrough wins in 1997 and 2003, there seems little likelihood Annise Parker will again be paired with a white conservative in December 2009 because her principal rivals are Council Member Peter Brown, who also draws support from white moderates and liberals, and African American Gene Locke, who has significant support from major business interests. Either way, we should be headed for a quite different runoff election in 2009 than we saw in 2003 and 1997.

Richard Murray

Looking at the Perry/Hutchison Republican Primary

2009-03-22T12:28:08-05:00

Statewide Polls in Texas: Looking at the Perry/Hutchison Republican Primary

By Richard Murray

I wrote a couple of weeks ago on the likely Republican Primary showdown between Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in March 2010. Governor Perry, already the longest serving chief executive in Texas history, seems headed for his toughest race, not against a Democrat, but a fellow Republican, as he tries for a fourth term in office. The anticipated race is already drawing lots of press, and a couple of polls have been released in the last month. The first, by a group based in North Carolina, showed Senator Hutchison with about 20 point advantage over Governor Perry among likely primary voters. The second, a University of Texas survey, showed a much closer race, with the Senator still leading, but by half that margin. What should one make of these early polls in the governor race?

Based on more than 30 years for polling in Texas and the nation, here is my take.

Above all else, keep in mind polls taken a year before an election are notoriously unreliable. If you could take these early readings to the bank we would had a presidential match-up last November between Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Hillary Clinton, as both were well ahead of their rivals a year before their respective party nominating conventions.

Early polls miss for all kinds of reasons. Many voters have not yet begun to focus on the election, so their “top-of-the-head” answers to telephone surveyors often tell us little more than which of the candidates named are best known to voters. However, by election day people usually know a lot more about all the serious contenders. Besides getting to know more about the candidates, the issues that concern voters can change a lot over a few weeks, much less a year or so. In 2007 most analysts (and most candidates) thought the war in Iraq would be the driving issue in the presidential race, but by the time voters went to the polls in November 2008 that issue had been pushed aside by the economic meltdown.

Back to the 2010 Republican primary, at least we have two opposing candidates that are equally known to voters in Kay Bailey Hutchison and Rick Perry. That means these early polls merit serious consideration. As such, it is meaningful that Senator Hutchison has consistently higher job approval ratings than the Governor, and is better liked among persons who identify themselves as Republicans. She thus enters this long election season with an edge, but it does not mean she will defeat the Governor next March.

One reason is, as noted, no one knows the issues motivating voters a year from now. And while we already know both candidates will be well funded, we have no idea what the quality of their respective campaigns will be. Remember, these veteran politicians have never faced off against another Republican in a high profile race. We expect the primary to be hard-fought, perhaps even bitter, increasing the odds for unforeseeable twists and turns.

But the major reason we have to be quite careful in projecting current poll numbers into March 2010 results is the huge uncertainty as to who will actually show up at the Republican polls next year. One can see why that is a big problem by looking at Republican primary voting in the last four gubernatorial years (1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006) compared to the vote received by the Republican nominee in the November General Election.

These numbers show that while there have been millions of votes for Republican nominees in recent General Elections, there were far, far fewer voters in the March party primaries. That tells me that trying to figure out who the primary voters will be a year from now, and poll just those voters, is not possible at this stage. Any one of the 13 million registered voters in Texas can vote in the Republican Primary next year, but if past performance is a guide, less than a million will actually cast ballots.

We do know that the very selective GOP primary voters from 1994 – 2006 have been disproportionately hard-right conservatives. This explains why Governor Perry has been busily moving to the far right since he realized Senator Hutchison really is going to try and take him out in 2010, unlike four years ago when she talked about running against him, but pulled back at the last minute.

Why Houston Is Not Likely to Elect a Hispanic Candidate as Mayor in 2009

2009-03-11T16:25:39-05:00

Why Houston Is Not Likely to Elect a Hispanic Candidate as Mayor in 2009. Second of Two Posts

By Richard Murray

A couple of days ago I reviewed the poor performance of Hispanic candidates in Houston mayoral elections in recent years. The most important reason for this, I contend, is that the Latino vote share in city elections (typically 12 – 16 percent) is far smaller than their population share (about 41 percent). There is a lot of “tribal” voting in city elections, but the “tribes” of white Republican conservatives and African Americans are much larger in city elections (each averages about 30 percent of the total electorate), so Latino candidates are at a distinct disadvantage in competing against opponents that have a political base in these other camps. So, while a black or white conservative can make a runoff in a multi-candidate field simply by mobilizing voters like themselves, Hispanics must draw strong support from outside their community to make it into the finals. Excepting Orlando Sanchez, a Cuban American Republican, no Latino has been able to do this.

There are other reasons for the non-success of Latino mayoral contenders. One problem is the lack of cohesion among local Hispanic voters. Some Hispanics were living here before Texas became a state, but most local Latinos trace their ancestry to later migrations at different times under different circumstances. Once in Houston, divisions have been as common as unity among Hispanics, often preventing formation of a common front in city elections. Credible black candidates in Houston can count on 80% plus of the African American voters. Hispanics fall short of such percentages. In his 2001 runoff election with Lee Brown, for example, Orlando Sanchez actually ran behind Mayor Brown in most heavily Latino precincts.

The lack of previous success creates and sustains a negative feedback barrier to future Hispanic candidates. Because Hispanics have yet to demonstrate they can win the top job at city hall, serious Latino candidates for this position have been few and far between. And when Hispanics do run for mayor, poor prior performance makes hard for them to raise money, garner free media coverage, and attract committed volunteers.

This negative feedback loop seems to be operating in the 2009 cycle. One Latino candidate, Roy Morales, has announced for mayor. His presence will affect the race, as he figures to get a decent share of the total vote if he remains the sole Latino on the ballot and the only identified Republican. Still, few think he can win. I concur. Mr. Morales’ ran for at-large council seats in the last two Houston General Elections in 2005 and 2007. He got 32 percent of the vote in a three person race in 2005 that Peter Brown won with 51 percent. He got 34 percent in a head-up council race with Melissa Noriega two years later – giving him a 33 percent average. If he could get the same share in a multi-candidate field in 2009, he would surely earn a runoff spot. I doubt that is possible. Why do I think he will fall well short of that?

First, Morales did not raise much money in 2005 and 2007, meaning the “investors” who fund down-ballot city races did not think he was a viable candidate for council. I doubt they will change their minds now that he is running in a much tougher race for mayor.

Second, Morales has tapped into two different voter bases in his two previous runs, Latino voters and Republicans, but an analysis of his support in both camps suggests their backing is shaky at best. In 2005, Morales carried all the heavily Hispanic precincts in the city when he was running against two Anglos, averaging about 60% of the total vote. But when he ran against Melissa Noriega in 2007 (who happens to be an Anglo married to Rick Noriega), Roy Morales’ vote dropped to just 25% in Latino precincts. This pattern indicates to me that in a high visibility race like mayor in 2009, Mr. Morales cannot count on as large a share of the Hispanic vote as he got in 2005. Mr. Morales also ran well in strongly Republican precincts in Kingwood and a few outlying areas in 2005 and 2007, but he lost the heavy voting inner-city Republican areas like River Oaks that are more plugged into what is going on at City Hall. These better informed Republicans will be more numerous in a mayoral race than was the case in the earlier council contests, and harder to attract, in my judgment, to a candidate with little chance of winning.

Sizing these vote patterns up, if the present field stays intact with the major opposing candidates being Annise Parker, Peter Brown, and Gene Locke, I think Roy Morales gets somewhere between 12 and 20 percent of the total vote November 3rd. That is enough to keep any other candidate well short of a majority, but not enough to make a runoff, much less win the final decisive round in December.

Why has there never been a Latino mayor?

2009-03-09T17:25:26-05:00

Hispanics Are the Largest Racial/Ethnic Group in Houston, Yet We Have Never Elected a Latino Mayor: What Gives Here? One of Two Posts.

By Richard Murray

Current population estimates place the Hispanic population in Houston at about 41 percent, considerably larger than non-Hispanic whites (about 28 percent), or African Americans (24 percent), with Asian Americans comprising most of the remaining 7 percent. Houston has recently elected and reelected a black mayor (Lee Brown, 1998-2004). An Anglo woman, Kathy Whitmire, won five consecutive mayoral elections from 1981 to 1989. This year many observers think the City might elect City Controller Annise Parker, an openly gay Anglo. Despite Houston voters evident willingness to elect persons from various backgrounds, few observers, including your humble correspondent, think there is much chance a person of Hispanic origin can win the mayor’s job this fall. If so, that would continue a 173 year losing streak for Latinos in winning our town’s biggest political plum. Why?

Historically, one should keep in mind that Houston did not have a large Hispanic population percentage until after World War II, and municipal politics were effectively dominated by Anglos, who marginalized the local black population until the late 1960s and pretty much ignored Latinos. Given that reality, it is not surprising that no Spanish surname candidates filed for mayor between 1926 and 1973, and only one African American (Curtis Graves, 1969) was on the ballot in the 25 mayoral city elections over this span.

Finally, in 1975, Pedro Vasquez qualified for the mayor’s race. He got 1,396 votes – less than one percent of the 240,029 ballots cast that year. In 1977 two Latino candidates (Arthur Abrego and Manuel Velasco) were in a 12 person field hoping to succeed retiring Mayor Fred Hofheinz. Together, they got 1,305 votes out of 170,959 – again, less than one percent.

The first serious Hispanic contender for mayor of Houston was Leonel J. Castillo in 1979. On paper Castillo seemed a strong candidate. He had been elected City Controller in 1973 and 1975, and had served in Washington, D.C. as President Carter’s Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization. He did a lot better than the previous Latino candidates, getting 44,685 votes, but still finished third with 23.6% of the total vote. Eighteen years passed before another Hispanic, City Council Member Gracie Saenz, ran for mayor in 1997. In an eight person field she finished fourth, with just 7 percent of the total vote.

In 2001 A Hispanic candidate had the one real opportunity to win Houston’s CEO job when my former student, Council Member Orlando Sanchez ran a close second to Mayor Lee Brown, forcing a December runoff. Sanchez increased his vote from 115,967 to 155,164 in the runoff, but fell just short of ousting Mayor Brown who got 51.7% in winning a third term. Orlando Sanchez tried again in 2003. Although this was an open seat election (Brown was term-limited that year), and Sanchez again qualified for a runoff with newcomer Bill White, he was crushed in a December runoff, losing by more than 25 percentage points. No Hispanic candidates ran in 2005 or 2007 as Mayor White was easily returned to office.

Adding things up, there have been 42 mayoral elections in Houston between 1926 and 2007. Two hundred candidate names have been on the ballot. Just six of those had Spanish surnames, or three percent. None have won, and only Sanchez came close in 2001.

What explains this record? Several factors, but let’s look at the most important today, and move on to the others later in the week.

Numero uno, the Latino vote share in the City of Houston is far smaller than the Latino population share. We mentioned at the start that more than 40 percent of the city’s population is Hispanic, but when we look at the voting population we find a very different pattern. A good place to show this is our most recent presidential election. If we look at the vote in Houston on November 4, 2008, one finds about 584,000 total ballots were cast by city residents. We can then look at how many of these voters had Spanish surnames, which is a good measure of overall Hispanic voting. By this measure, the total Latino vote in the City of Houston was just 70,000, or about 12 percent of the total. I know Hispanic voters were less interested in the McCain/Obama contest than were African Americans or white conservatives who both turned out in huge numbers last November, but even allowing for that, it is clear the Hispanic vote in the city is far, far smaller than either the black vote (which averages around 30 percent of the total), or the white Republican vote (also about 30 percent in a typical city election). With a base Latino vote in the 15 – 18 percent range, Hispanic candidates must receive a large non-Latino vote to have any chance of winning the mayor position. To date, only Orlando Sanchez in 2001 has been able to do that.

The 2009 Houston Mayoral Race: The Black Vote and Gene Locke’s Candidacy

2009-03-03T12:22:09-06:00

From time to time I will revisit the ongoing Houston mayoral race. Today let’s look at the role of the African American vote in recent contests and speculate about it’s impact in the 2009 November results. A good way to get one’s arms around an upcoming election is to look at past comparable contests. Over the last 18 years Houston has had four competitive mayoral elections in1991, 1997, 2001, and 2003. In each case there was a single serious black candidate in the field as State Representative Sylvester Turner ran in 1991 and 2003, and former Houston Police Chief Lee Brown was on the ballot in 1997 and 2003. All of these November contests went to runoffs in December since no candidate gathered a majority in the first round. The 2009 General Election seems to be taking the same track as there is just one credible African American in the race (former City Attorney Gene Locke), and with several other serious contenders in the field, it is well nigh impossible for anyone to break the 50% plus one barrier on November 3rd, 2009.

The table below reviews the performance of Sylvester Turner and Lee Brown in the last four competitive elections. The table shows the total vote for mayor, the vote received by the black candidate, and his percentage of the total. Also shown is how well the African American candidates ran in a sample of 20 voting precincts that are predominately black. As one can see, Sylvester Turner got 36% of the total vote in 1991, taking about 73% in our black sample areas. Turner’s second place finish put him into a runoff with Bob Lanier, where he lost 47% to 53%. In 1997, Brown got over 42% of the total vote, including 96% of the black vote, putting him into a runoff with Rob Mosbacher that he won with about 53% of the vote. Brown repeated that performance in 2001, and beat Orlando Sanchez in a runoff. In 2003, Turner upped his black vote share to 81%, but his 29% total vote left him a close third, out of the runoff.

What do these numbers tell us? First, while most African American voters rally behind a credible candidate from their community, that level of support has varied between the low 70 percentages and the high 90s. Since the black vote is usually about 30 percent of the city total, if a black candidate gets almost all the African American vote, as Lee Brown did in 1997 and 2001, they are virtually assured of making a runoff. But as Sylvester Turner’s 2003 experience shows, even an 80% share does not automatically send one into the December runoff.

The African American Vote in Competitive Houston Mayoral Elections

Year

Total Vote

Black Candidate

Vote for Black Candidate and % of Total

Black Candidtate Vote and % in 20 African American Precincts

1991	316,278	Turner	113,982	36.0%	12,012 of 16,389	73.4%
1997	313,123	Brown	132,324	42.3%	18,581 of 19,462	95.5%
2001	288,283	Brown	125,282	43.5%	15,260 of 15,978	95.5%
2003	300,768	Turner	87,267	29.0%	12,901 of 15,875	81.3%

This recent black election history is most relevant in 2009 to Eugene Locke’s candidacy. In that respect it is clear how important Ben Hall’s decision not to run this year was. If Hall, an African American as well as a former City Attorney like Locke had run, they would have likely split the black vote, making it very difficult for either to make a December runoff. Locke’s task is now much easier. If he can get 90% of the black vote, he is assured of making the runoff no matter what his non-black support level will be. At 80% he needs at least 10% of the non-black vote to get in a runoff, and at 70% he needs about 17% of this remainder to get into the finals. Of course, while making a runoff is essential in 2009, to actually win the office will require any African American to take at least 33% of the votes cast outside the black in December 2009.

So Eugene Locke’s job is two-fold this year. With Hall out he must firm up broad support in the black community. Which may not be easy in that Locke has never run for citywide office before, while all three other major announced candidates (Annise Parker, Peter Brown, and Roy Morales) have run in recent City of Houston contests. But Locke must also move beyond the black community , showing he can be a “crossover candidate” capable of getting a decent share of the votes of Anglos, Latinos, and Asian Americans. Since Locke is not well known, both tasks will require a well-funded campaign. So, as I say in my political marketing class, a new candidate’s “first primary” in American politics is raising the money. Opponents Parker and Brown now seem on track to raise and spend 2-3 million dollars before November. Locke needs to show he is in that league when he files his first financial report on July 15th, 2009.

Sizing up the Perry/Hutchison Republican Gubernatorial Primary

2009-02-18T18:09:57-06:00

Years ago Texas often had highly competitive primaries for governor, but that was back when the Democrats dominated state elections, so their party’s nomination was eagerly sought as it virtually assured election the following November. Interestingly, although the Republican Party has dominated Texas elections since 1992, it has not had a meaningful contest for governor in that time span. That run seems over as Texas senior United States Senator appears determined to challenge Governor Rick Perry, the longest serving chief executive in state history (there are no term limits for state or county officials).

Why are Texas’ most prominent elected Republicans set to duke it out over next year’s governor nomination? Some of it is personal. The Senator and Governor simply do not like each other, so there is no bond of affection to be severed here. They also represent different sectors of the party. Senator Hutchison has always done well with moderate upscale voters, particularly women in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston. Governor Perry hails from rural Texas (Haskell County), but his current base is the sizeable social conservative wing of the party that is strongly pro-life, opposed to gay rights, hostile to teaching evolution in the public schools, and tough on immigration.

Senator Hutchison’s senate term runs until January 2013, but she is clearly unhappy in Washington and ready to pursue her often-stated ambition to finish her political career in Austin as she threatened to do in 2005 when she weighed a race against Governor Perry but passed on it at the last moment and was easily reelected to the Senate. This time she has clearly signaled it is a go. Transferring eight million dollars from her senate campaign fund and releasing a list of hundreds of gubernatorial supporters pretty well locks Ms. Hutchison into making this race. Governor Perry seems equally determined to ask voters for another four year extension to his already record tenure.

Who has the edge? Hard to say as some factors favor the Senator, others the Governor. Kay Bailey Hutchison is the more popular of the two with Texas voters, but weaker with social conservatives who tend to vote in the low-participation Republican Primaries. The Senator needs a high-turnout primary that attracts moderate urban voters. The Governor needs a low turnout in March 2010 where the born-again Christian vote wields power. Both should be able to fund 12-15 million dollar campaigns and have capable political teams working on their behalf so those factors will not decide the race.

Hutchison faces a tough choice in keeping or resigning her senate seat before the March 2010 primary. In favor of resigning are the arguments that it absolutely removes any doubt that she is running, it gets her out of Washington (and the many hard votes coming there in the next year) and back to Texas to campaign for the next year. Countering are the arguments it is a very bad idea to give up a Republican seat when a shift of just one vote to the Democrats would break her national party’s ability to use the filibuster threat to slow President Obama’s expansive legislative agenda, plus the fact that Governor Perry would get to name an interim senate replacement and reap political credit if he makes a choice that pleases Republican Primary voters. I have not had a personal conversation with Ms. Hutchison since 1992, but my unsolicited advice would be to keep your senate seat while running back in Texas, just as Democrat Price Daniel did in 1956. If you win (as Daniel did that year), then you get to name your short-term replacement after you are sworn in as governor.

For political junkies, the Perry-Hutchison matchup looks like a lot of fun. Man versus Woman. Good hair versus Pretty Good Hair. River Oaks Country Clubbers versus Second Baptist parishioners. I’m laying in a good supply of popcorn and angling for a good seat in the bleachers.

But Republicans should keep one thing in mind. The last time the governor of the dominant party was challenged in his own primary was 1978 when Dolph Briscoe faced Attorney General John Hill. That Democratic Primary was bitter and divisive. General Hill won, but the bad feelings from the spring contest were still around in the fall when Republican Bill Clements broke his party’s 100 year losing streak in gubernatorial elections. Texas is a “red state”, but a divisive primary could change that.

Thoughts on Eleanor Tinsley

2009-02-10T16:25:58-06:00

I was informed today that Eleanor Tinsley has died. Her passing brings back a flood of memories of her career in Houston and the great changes she helped bring about in our city since the 1960s.

I met Eleanor and her husband Jim Tinsley shortly after coming to the University of Houston as a 25 year old professor in 1966. Jim was a professor in the UH History Department and he and Eleanor had numerous friends in the Department of Political Science where I had an appointment. We became friends and remained so.

Eleanor Tinsley was, as I recall, already deeply involved in civic affairs with a special interest in the great struggle to desegregate the 250,000 student Houston Independent School District. These efforts faced formidable opposition from a white conservative faction that had dominated the HISD board and administration in the 1950s and 1960s. Ms. Tinsley was soon in the middle of that fight as a member of the Citizens for Good Schools (CGS) slate that won control of the HISD board in the late 1960s, only to lose it back a few years later when Mrs. Tinsley was swept out of office by a resurgent conservative faction. But electoral defeat did not deter Eleanor from reentering the political arena in 1979 when she defeated longtime member Frank Mann in one of the most spirited races for Houston City Council I have witnessed. She and Cristin Hartung then became the first women to serve on Houston City Council in the 144 history of our municipality.

Eleanor Tinsley was reelected to seven terms at City Hall until term limits forced her off council in January 1996. As her council tenure was winding down, she won the Democratic nomination for Harris County Commissioner in Precinct Four, only to lose the General Election to Republican Jerry Eversole in November 2004.

After leaving public office, Ms. Tinsley remained active in a wide range of projects like SPARKS, the joint City of Houston/HISD program bringing park facilities to local public schools. She also volunteered in numerous campaigns, most recently supporting Barack Obama’s presidential bid in both the Democratic Primary and General Election.

Looking back over Ms. Tinsley’s 40 plus years in public life, half in office, half out, my impressions of her are as follows:

First, beneath a kind and gentle “southern” exterior was the heart of a fighter for good government and civility. She was tough and determined.

Second, through victory and defeat, Eleanor Tinsley remained remarkably steady and optimistic that things were going to get better, especially if good people kept working at it. Which she clearly did, whether it was to peacefully desegregate the largest public school system in the South, end harassment of and discrimination against gays and lesbians in Houston, or bring down many of the billboards that lined our freeways and avenues in the 1970s and 1980s. Her side won some (billboards), and lost others (zoning), but she never stopping pushing ahead, speaking out, trying to make a difference.

And finally, she really did make a difference. Houston is a far better place for its citizens in my opinion than the city that I came to in the 1960s. Of course, it has more and better restaurants and art galleries and museums and a more diverse economy and all these things are very important. But we also have a political system that is far more open and representative of all our population, and we have a much stronger civic culture that has, among other things, banished the “N” word in public debate, and we have striven with some success to make our urban diversity an asset, not a wedge to divide some against others to win elections. Many people helped bring this new Houston into existence. Eleanor Tinsley was one of them. I will miss her.

Dr. Richard Murray

A Few Pointers On the Houston Mayoral Race

2009-02-04T09:51:44-06:00

Monday City Controller Annise Parker formally declared her candidacy for mayor of Houston. City Council Member Peter Brown has also been campaigning for months, and Former Houston City Attorney Gene Locke has designated a treasurer and begun raising campaign funds. Another former City Attorney, Ben Hall is expected to enter the race shortly, with others likely to follow. With the Houston General Election still nine months away, several questions come to mind. Here is a short list, with my responses to each.

Why is the race starting so early?

First, the mayor’s job in Houston is a very attractive position, so it always attracts several heavyweight contenders when the incumbent cannot run for reelection as is the case this year. Second, all across the nation, political campaigns in the 21st century start earlier and Houston is no exception. Serious candidates have to match their competitors in fund raising, hiring staff, and shaping a campaign message to appeal to voters, and one cannot get behind in these regards. Bill White, virtually unknown to most city voters in 2003, showed the wisdom of an early start when he used his ample war chest in February and March of that year to fund a major television effort introducing himself to voters on his own terms. That laid a foundation for him to overcome his better known opponents, State Representative Sylvester Turner and former City Council Member Orlando Sanchez, both of whom had been finalists in previous mayoral races.

A lot of people like former Texas Governor Mark White are mentioned as possible mayoral candidates, when does the field really take shape?

Officially, not until filing closes in September. But as the answer above suggests, we should know all the serious candidates before March 1st. What we do not know, however, is whether all these candidates will go the distance. In the 2003 mayoral race, my former student Michael Berry ran for mayor all spring and summer only to decide in mid-September to drop out and run again for his city council position. So we do not expect additions to the field after March, but we may well get subtractions as declared candidates withdraw because of fund-raising problems, poor polling numbers, or other personal reasons.

What role do political parties play in Houston city elections?

Officially, city elections are non-partisan. Candidates can run on a slate with others, but that slate cannot be the name of a political party. However, most serious candidates for mayor have been active in partisan politics for years, and their voting history in party primaries is public information, so we can figure out who the Democrats and Republicans are despite the absence of labels on the ballot. Lately, most serious candidates have had Democratic connections like Bill White and Sylvester Turner in 2003. That reflects the fact that the City of Houston is more Democratic than Republican in General Elections like the recent McCain/Obama presidential contest. That said, a solid 35% of city voters are Republicans, and in a multi-candidate field like we have in 2009, that can provide a large enough base to get into the runoff although not enough to win the mayoral office.

What’s with the runoff? Didn’t Governor Perry get elected two years ago with 39% of the vote? Why was there no runoff in that contest?

Besides being officially non-partisan, city elections require a majority (50 percent plus) for election. General Elections for state, federal, and county offices only require a plurality, or more votes than any other single contender, so Governor Perry’s 39 percent made him a winner over the second place finisher, Chris Bell, who got 30 percent. Requiring a majority virtually assures we will have a runoff in Houston this year, because with four or more serious candidates, it is very unlikely anyone can get a majority on November 3rd 2009, thus forcing a runoff in early December.

What else should Houstonians be watching for as this race gears up?

Initially, two things. One, follow the money. Except for wealthy candidates who can self-finance, a competitive candidate has to raise 3 – 5 million dollars to mount a nine month campaign. Second, watch how the contenders perform as they take their campaigns out into the community. None of them have run for mayor before, so we do not know much about what their messages will be nor how effectively they can connect with voters. As the race moves along, other considerations like group endorsements will play more of a role, but that is down the road.

Redistricting Texas in 2011

2009-01-29T10:08:32-06:00

Redistricting Texas in 2011: What Do the Recent Census Estimates Tell Us About Our State and Local Congressional Representation? (1st of an Occasional Series)

By Richard Murray

In late December 2008 the U.S. Census Bureau issued its annual estimate of the total U.S. population broken down by states as of July 1, 2008. These estimates, coming just 21 months before the official census count date of April 1, 2010, give us a pretty good idea of the “raw material” state lawmakers will be working with when they have to redraw all the congressional, Texas House and Senate, and State Board of Education districts in the 2011 legislative session.

Today, let’s focus on the U.S. House of Representatives The constitutional requirement that seats be apportioned among the states based on population is the original reason for our decennial census count, starting in 1790. What are we likely looking at in the congressional area based on recent available data?

For Texas the news is good. The U.S. population is estimated to have grown from about 281 million in 2000 to over 304 million as of July 1, 2008 – a gain of 8.04 percent. However, the Texas estimate is for a gain from 20.9 to 24.3 million – or 16.7 percent. Since the Lone Star State is growing more than twice as fast the country as a whole, we stand to do well when the official 2010 census numbers are released in January or early February 2011. A fairly complicated mathematical formula is used by Congress to divvy up the 435 seats in the U.S. House among the fifty states, starting with giving every state one representative and then apportioning the remaining 385 among the 42 or 43 states that have sufficient populations to get additional seats.

Using the July 2008 estimates, we can project the likely national and Texas populations as of April 1, 2010 with a fair degree of confidence because we are now relatively close to the actual count. So let’s do that projection, and see what it means for Texas and our area. By my calculation, if present trends continue, the U.S. count on 4/1/2010 will be 308.9 million and the Texas tally will be 25.1 million. We can roughly estimate how many additional seats Texas will get by dividing the total U.S. population by 435 to see how many people will be in the average district in the country, and then divide that number into the Texas population to estimate how many seats we’ll end up with.

To illustrate, the 2000 census counted 281.4 million Americans, so if we divide that number by 435 we get an average population per district from the last census of 646,947. Now if we divide that into the total Texas population of 20.9 million, this projects Texas getting 32.23 seats. Rounded to 32, that gave Texas two additional seats over the 30 we got after the 1990 census. Repeating this for our 2010 estimates, we get a projection of 35.86 seats, which would likely round up to 36 seats, a net gain of four, which would be the largest increase in the country. Even if the estimates are off, it now seems virtually certain that Texas will get at least three new seats in the 2011 reapportionment, and quite possibly four.

What does that mean for the Houston area? Well, congressional districts have to be drawn to have exactly equal populations, so we can make a pretty good guess for the metropolitan region based on the county-by-county estimates provided by the Census Bureau. Unfortunately, we’ll have to use the July 1, 2007 county estimates because more recent numbers have not been released. Here’s what those numbers, projected out to 2010, show for Harris County and the other populous counties in the Houston area.

County

Estimated Seats if Texas Gets:

	2000 Pop	House Seats	2010 Pop	35 Seats	36 Seats
Harris	3,400,578	5.22	4,138,891	5.78	5.94
Fort Bend	354,452	.54	568,755	.79	.82
Montgomery	293,768	.45	457,727	.64	.66
Brazoria	241,767	.37	314,134	.44	.45
Galveston	250,158	.38	296,819	.41	.43

TOTAL	4,540,723	6.97	5,776,326	8.07	8.30

The bottom line is that whether Texas ends up with 35 or 36 seats, the Houston metropolitan area is going to gain an additional U.S. House seat in two years, with some population to spare. That said, we need to keep in mind that while the apportionment of districts among the states is driven by a mathematical formula, and within a state every district’s population must be equal, there is still an enormous amount of discretion in exactly where the congressional district lines will be drawn in 2011, starting with the question of will the Texas Legislature be able to enact a plan and will that effort be sustained after review by the U.S. Justice Department and the federal courts.

In coming blogs, we’ll look at what the U.S. Census estimates suggest for our Texas House and Senate representation across the state and in our area.