Falls and McLennan County Election Results

Here is a summary of the election results for Falls County, where I live. Pay attention to the numbers in red; we'll get to them in a minute.

President
John McCain: 59.35%
Barack Obama: 39.62%
Margin: 19.73%

U.S. Senate
John Cornyn: 59.17%
Rick Noriega: 39.28%
Margin: 19.89%

U.S. Representative, District 31
John Carter: 59.75%
Brian P. Ruiz: 38.56
Margin: 21.19%

Railroad Commissioner
Michael Williams: 49.76%
Mark Thompson: 47.54%
Margin: 2.22%

Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Wallace Jefferson: 49.73%
Jim Jordan: 47.14%
Margin: 2.59%

Supreme Court, Place 7
Dale Wainwright: 48.64%
Sam Houston: 47.94%
Margin: 0.7%

Supreme Court, Place 8
Phil Johnson: 52.32%
Linda Reyna Yanez: 44.72%
Margin: 7.6%

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Tom Price: 50.26%
Susan Strawn: 47.06%
Margin: 3.2%

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4
Paul Womack: 53.16%
J.R. Molina: 43.81%
Margin: 9.35%

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9
Cathy Cochran: 81.91%
William Strange (Libertarian): 18.08%
Margin: 63.83%

State Representative, District 57
Jim Dunnam: 86.03%
Neill Snider (Libertarian): 13.96%
Margin: 72.07%

10th Court of Appeals, Place 2
Rex Davis: 53.50%
Richard Ferguson: 46.49%
Margin: 7.01%

Now for McLennan County.

President
John McCain: 60.19%
Barack Obama: 39.16%
Margin: 21.03%

U.S. Senate
John Cornyn: 61.31%
Rick Noriega: 37.31%
Margin: 24.00%

U.S. Representative, District 17
Rob Curnock: 39.96%
Chet Edwards: 59.29%
Margin: 19.33%

Railroad Commissioner
Michael Williams: 56.70%
Mark Thompson: 40.88%
Margin: 15.82%

Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Wallace Jefferson: 57.60%
Jim Jordan: 40.36%
Margin: 17.24%

Supreme Court, Place 7
Dale Wainwright: 55.25%
Sam Houston: 42.73%
Margin: 12.52%

Supreme Court, Place 8
Phil Johnson: 58.18%
Linda Reyna Yanez: 39.84%
Margin: 18.34%

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Tom Price: 56.47%
Susan Strawn: 41.07%
Margin: 15.40%

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4
Paul Womack: 58.26%
J.R. Molina: 39.64%
Margin: 18.62%

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9
Cathy Cochran: 87.76%
William Strange (Libertarian): 12.23%
Margin: 75.53%

State Representative, District 56
Doc Anderson: 86.56
David Meine (Libertarian): 13.43%
Margin: 73.13

State Representative, District 57
Jim Dunnam: 92.11%
Neill Snider (Libertarian): 7.88%
Margin: 84.23%

10th Court of Appeals, Place 2
Rex Davis: 59.79%
Richard Ferguson: 40.20%
Margin: 19.59%

Ok, that was the boring part, I promise. I need to say this before I go any further: I am not a statistician or a political analyst by any means, but I need to do some math.

You see, there are some numbers that stick out to me. Alright, the average margin of victory of Republicans over Democrats in Falls County is 9.285%. In McLennan County, it's 18.19%. For these averages, I excluded races in which a Republican or Democrat was running against a Libertarian because, no offense to Libertarians, but these races were, and usually are, blowouts.

It is my opinion that the down-ballot results are a pretty good way to tell how a county is divided, as far as political parties go. The fact is, most voters are not all that educated on who is running for office, other than the folks at the top of the ticket. Furthermore, I believe that the most "unknown" races are judicial elections. After all, presidential candidates, senators, and representatives know that they must keep their constituents happy to either win office or remain there, so they stay pretty visible througout the campaign season.

So, let's look at the numbers for the judicial races. In both counties, Republicans won every race. In the three Supreme Court places, and the three places on the Court of Criminal Appeals, all six Republican incumbents remained in office. In Falls County the average margin of victory for Republicans in judicial races was 5.08%. In McLennan County, it was just about 17%.

Alright, I am going to try to make this make sense. I am not trying to say that all voters in McLennan or Falls County are uneducated, but I can tell you that there was virtually no campaigning done here for the Supreme Court and none at all for the Court of Criminal Appeals. So, unless you made a point to research the candidates, there would be no way to know much about them. So what's an uninformed voter to do? I can think of three things.

One, vote straight ticket. Two, vote for candidates that you have heard of somewhere before. Three, vote for those who have nice-sounding names.

I think that a little bit of all of these things happened. Falls County is the perfect example of this. We are a small, poor county that does not receive much attention from "outsiders." With so few voters, there's really no reason to campaign here; it wouldn't have a big enough impact. So, when I see election results from my county, I wonder why people voted the way they did.

My argument is that most voters voted straight-ticket along party lines, unless there is something about a candidate that a voter deems unacceptable. The races that I think are most indicative of the political alignment of Falls County were: Railroad Commissioner, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 7 of the Supreme Court, and Place 3 of the Supreme Court. These elections were all decided by margins between 0.7 and 3.2 percent, with Republicans holding a slight advantage.

What about the other judicial races? The Democrat lost Place 8 of the Supreme Court by 7.6 percentage points, and Place 4 of the Court of Criminal Appeals by 9.35 percentage points.

Why were these particular races determined by a larger margin than seemingly equivalent elections? Example: what voter knows the difference in candidates of Place 2 vs. Place 8 of the Supreme Court? My argument is that some voters voted not only along party lines, but along racial lines, as well. The candidates that lost by the larger margins were Linda Reyna Yanez and J.R. Molina. Molina was widely described as an unfit candidate, but Linda Yanez was praised and endorsed by major state newspapers.

Let's do some more math. In races (including for president, excluding Libertarians, in Falls County only) where there was no well-known minority or candidate with an "ethnic-sounding" name, the Republican margin of victory was 3.38%. This seems to indicate that the county is pretty well evenly divided along party lines. However, in the presidential election and in races where a candidate with a Hispanic name, the margin was 15.6%. For the record, even though this seems more apparent in Falls County, the margin for a race without a minority in McLennan County was 15.51% and, for races with a minority Democratic candidate, it was 20.51%.

Also for the record, I did not factor Michael Williams's, Wallace Jefferson's or Dale Wainwright's race into this. They are all black Republicans, but, as there was so little campaigning done around here, it is doubtful that voters knew this. Also, they were incumbents and easily won their races.

So, while I am definitely not a "numbers" person, I recognized a trend. I may be reading too much into this, but I have seen so much racism in the days since the elcetion that these results jumped out to me.

Is there an solution to this problem? Probably not. Until racial sterotypes and prejudice are eliminated, and people make it a point to become informed, I doubt that we will see voters voting solely on the issues. There will always those who vote based on the way a person's name sounds. In all fairness, it seems that Democratic judge Sam Houston received a modest boost in numbers, likely because of his name. On the other hand, it also appears that Susan Strawn lost by a larger number than some of the other judicial candidates. Was it maybe because people voted for the male candidate over the female? We'll probably never know.

In conclusion, though there is nothing official about these observations, it is a sad commentary on the state of racial relations in Texas. I'm not black, and I will never understand what it is like to be black, but I am saddened by the reaction that I have witnessed in Central Texas to Obama's election, and I will not stop trying to fix it. I keep harping on the race issue, but let me say this once and for all: racism didn't end with Obama's election. We may have made progress, but there is still a long way to go.

Electing Texas Judges

The two highest courts in Texas the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals are currently controlled by Republicans. Controlled is nowhere near a strong enough word to describe the Republican dominance of Texas courts.

The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices, currently, all of whom are Republicans. They are:

Wallace Jefferson, Chief Justice
Don R. Willett
Harriet O'Neill
David M. Medina
Paul W. Green
Nathan Hecht
Dale Wainwright
Phil Johnson
Scott A. Brister

The Court of Criminal Appeals is also composed entirely of Republican judges. They are:

Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge
Lawrence Meyers
Tom Price
Paul Womack
Cheryl Johnson
Michael E. Keasler
Barbara Parker Hervey
Charles Holcomb
Cathy Cochran

OK, I may secretly wish that all elected officials were Democrats, but, in reality, that wouldn't be fair. An all Democrat Congress, Senate, White House, and judiciary may serve my interests, but many citizens would be left out. While, I don't agree with most Republican/conservative beliefs, I still feel that all members of society should have a voice.

So, how fair is it that 18 out of 18 of the highest judges in the state are all members of the same party? How fair is it that these judges vote unanimously a good part of the time? I think that issues that are important enough to be brought before these courts of last resort deserves to be viewed from a more diverse perspective. There are four worthy Democrats running for election to Texas's two highest courts this year.

Susan Strawn, Jim Jordan, Sam Houston, Linda Reyna Yanez

Let's start with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which deals with criminal matters. There has been quite a bit of controversy recently surrounding this court. The biggest scandal was the execution of Michael Richard, who was denied a last-minute appeal by Presiding Judge, Sharon Keller because it came in after 5 o'clock. Apparently, even in matters of life and death, closing time is closing time. I'm not going to get into whether the Richard was guilty or innocent, or whether the death penalty is right or wrong, but when there is even an inkling of doubt about anything surrounding a death penalty case, I don't think it is too much to ask that a judge stay at the office a little bit late.

This year's election for the Court of Criminal Appeals really doesn't offer much hope for the prospect of immediate change. There is only one candidate that seems to have potential to bring about this change. Susan Strawn, who is running for Place 3, has been endorsed by the Austin American Statesman, The Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

When asked about the Michael Richard case, Strawn said, "I would have accepted the appeal. One of the principles of our justice system is that the courts are open 24/7. There may be sanctions for unexcused late or frivolous appeals, but these sanctions should fall on the lawyers, not the defendant."

Strawn is running against Tom Price, who is more moderate than many of the right-wing judges on the court, but seems to have a reputation more for his absences than what he has done as a judge.

The two other spots up for election are Place 4, which is currently held by Paul Womack, and Place 9, held by Cathy Cochran. J.R. Molina, a perennial candidate is running against Womack, but has not been endorsed by any major Texas news service. He has been mostly unavailable for interviews and really hasn't campaigned much. According to the Austin American-Statesman, neither man is "fit to hold office." There is no Democrat running against Cochran; her lone challenger is William Strange III, a Libertarian.

Now for the Supreme Court. The three Democrats trying to gain a spot on the all-Republican Supreme Court are Jim Jordan for Chief Justice, Sam Houston for Place 7, and Linda Reyna Yanez for Place 8.

Wallace Jefferson, the current Chief Justice, has done a respectable jobs by almost all accounts. In Place 7, Dale Wainwright has also done his job adequately, with the exception that he is slow and backlogged. In Place 8, Phil Johnson also seems to be doing a good enough job.

However, it is unacceptable that the Texas Supreme Court is so willing to overturn the verdict of juries. They have sided with the defendant 87 percent of the time. This has often benefitted big businesses who, after the Supreme Court rulings, get out of having to pay large settlements.

The Democratic challengers all have solid backgrounds in the judicial system. Despite the argument that judges should not be selected because of their political party affiliations, this is how Texas does it, and this, I admit, is how I am voting this year. All of the candidates seem to be equal besides their party affiliations. If there was a candidate on the Democratic side that was completely unfit to hold office (as J.R. Molina has been said to be) I would not recommend that person. However all three Democrats are good choices, and the need to balance the Texas Supreme Court is valid.

Sam Houston has been endorsed by The Dallas Morning News, the Austin American-Statesman, and the Waco Tribune Herald. Linda Yanez has been endorsed by the Houston Chronicle and the Waco Tribune Herald.

Another issue, which will likely not be changed anytime soon, is whether judges should be elected at all. Many voters know very little about the records of the judges that they are voting for, and vote with their party. It has been suggested by some (including Wallace Jefferson) that the legislature appoint judges, and then the voters decide whether to keep them. Another suggestion (supported by Sam Houston) is that judicial elections be held separately from the general election. Strangely enough, it seems that current member of the Republican high courts do not think that there is anything wrong with the system that put them there.

I am not an expert on legal matters, but Texas Courts have been entirely too one-sided for entirely too long. It is time to bring some diversity to the courts and let the Democrats play.