With Austin Rep. Donna Howard winning her recount by 12 votes, Democrats thought they had locked in their important 51st vote in the Texas House, denying the GOP a 100 vote supermajority in the lower chamber. A 2/3rds majority is largely symbolic as there are few provisions that require a 2/3rds vote in the House- tapping the Rainy Day Fund, constitutional amendments, and overriding a gubernatorial veto or, in extreme cases, breaking quorum.
On Election Night, I remarked that Democrats were lucky that Democratic Representative Allan Ritter did not have a Republican opponent as he would have likely lost like the rest of his East Texas Anglo Democratic colleagues. I even remarked privately to folks in Austin that because of the slim margin we would be wise to keep an eye out for GOP pressure to garner a party switch from the Democratic caucus.
It appears that may be happening, but from an unlikely source.
Today, Rep. Aaron Pena of Hidalgo County, which still has no Republican officeholders, announced that he will issue a statement in the coming days to address swirling speculation that he may switch parties. From the Rio Grande Guardian...
"I am out of state with my wife on a mini-vacation. With so many calls coming in, I cannot simply ignore the speculation any more. As a result of the devastation in the general election, where Texas Democrats lost their conservative and much of the moderate wing of their party, I responded to questions posed by the Rio Grande Guardian as to what the future holds for the party.
"That article caused a lot of speculation and the Texas Tribune, in a podcast, and Texas Monthly's Paul Burka, in a blog, asked questions about my future. Although Paul took his post down soon afterwards, it opened up the floodgates and I have received over 50 calls, from Democrats and Republicans alike.
"Many of the Democrats are still thinking the party can be reformed and that perhaps, in a decade, we can be competitive again.
"Many of the calls from Republicans, including lawmakers, were that our community can still have a seat at the table now. Why wait a decade when you can have opportunities now?
"And so, after the large number of calls today and the growing speculation, I can say I am taking the matter under consideration and I will issue a public statement in the coming days, one way or the other. I am who I am and my intention is to represent my community and to give them the best possible advantage under the current environment."
Peña added that when he gets back home he will talk to family, close friends and community leaders before issuing his public statement.
While Pena isn't the only Democrat to be disappointed with the Texas Democratic Party, this is a poor way of resolving those concerns if he's seriously considering becoming a Republican.
First, aligning yourself with the Republicans for the sake of "the best interests of your district" aka "access" is something we've heard before- from the sellout Craddick Democrats. I don't have the list handy, but I think that most of them have been now been defeated in primaries, generals, or retired. Given that Rep. Pena is already a pledge to Speaker Strauss, switching parties doesn't change the speaker math unless he's planning to throw his support behind Rep. Paxton which would be a whole other level of bizarre. Maybe Strauss could claim that he enabled the GOP 100 vote supermajority but that seems largely irrelevant from the real dynamics in the current anti-Strauss campaign. Does Strauss have any spare Chairmanships to hand out to Pena if he switches? He's already chair of the Select Committee on Emergency Preparedness and I doubt that the GOP caucus would stand for Strauss elevating him from Vice Chair to Chair of Elections when Voter ID is on the top of the agenda. Pena already has seats on the Redistricting and Ways & Means Committees so I'm puzzled by how much more he can extract by switching parties.
Second, the 100 vote supermajority is a lot like when Democrats got their "60th vote in the Senate" with Al Franken. We know that because of the ideology of those 60 Senators, which included 2 Independents, that Democrats never really had an effective 60 vote coalition. The same thing is true of the Texas GOP where the ideological spectrum of 100 will make it hard to wrangle party-line votes on a number of issues.
Plus, there is no filibuster in the Texas House; the few things which 100 votes are needed for (tapping the Rainy Day Fund, constitutional amendments, and overriding a gubernatorial veto) will probably end up being cross-party votes unless Pena is suddenly going to vote for hard right constitutional amendments. It's just as likely there are still a couple of votes in the Democratic caucus that will replace some GOP moderate votes on 100-vote type of issues. Having 100 votes for veto overrides is kind of pointless so long as we still have a Republican Governor. Tapping the Rainey Day Fund is something that Democrats want, not Republicans (according to the Tea Party and GOP budget writing leadership) 100 votes is equally meaningless there. The ability to break quorum might be the biggest, but it was hard to get 51 members to do that when Democrats had nearly a dozen more seats available as a buffer- with 51 seats there no margin for error and that includes Democratic members that did not participate in the quorum busting during the redistricting debate in 2003.
Third, we have the electoral issue. Rep. Chuck Hopson switched parties because he was in the most Republican district held by a Democrat in the Texas House. He switched out of self preservation and was successful in winning a GOP primary and general. Rep. Pena is from Hidalgo County which has no other elected Republicans. Switching might earn him some love from a GOP drawn redistricting and as such he'd have to count on somehow getting a GOP leaning district drawn in Hidalgo County. If that somehow happens, it will be the 'most Anglo' district you can draw in Hidalgo which would open up Pena to primary challengers that will never see him as conservative enough. Hopson was already conservative when he switched and didn't have to move much ideologically in his voting. Pena would have to really change his voting behavior to accomodate GOP primary voters, however few of them there are in Hidalgo. And if he does get out of the primary, he'll have to face a 2012 general election electorate in Hidalgo County.
I guess the silver lining in a Pena party switch would be that he'd finally give Democrats a contested general election race in Hidalgo County in 2012- a presidential year where KBH's US Senate seat will be up.
Since giving the GOP a 100 vote supermajority doesn't actually have that many practical effects on the 2011 legislative session, maybe we should let Pena go. The irony would be exquisit if Pena's party switch led to the very rebuilding the Democratic Party, particularly in South Texas, that is being given as the rationale for him becoming a Republican.
Update: Rick Perry vs The World ran the numbers. Basically, there is no way Pena wins as a Republican.
Since there’s not enough DEMAND in the economy, there’s not enough GROWTH in the economy. Larry says this deal will help grow the economy, which it will. By roughly .5% and it’s purely short term. The estimates of 1.3 million jobs created are even less credible than the Administration’s claims (which were driven by Summers) that ARRA was large enough to reignite job growth. I don’t care what Mark Zandi says, businesses are not going to hire just based off tax policy and there is no way this creates enough demand to generate employment growth, especially in light of the fact that we’re looking at massive layoffs in the public sector coming very soon. This is, in short, tax policy as stimulus and it’s targeted EXACTLY the wrong way.
Republicans got what they wanted — an extension of all the Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthy. This part of the deal was bad all around. Yes, some of those tax cuts would be spent, boosting the economy to some extent. But a large part of the tax cuts, especially those for the wealthy, would not be spent, so the tax-cut extension increases the budget deficit a lot while doing little to reduce unemployment.
Ezra Klein, of the Washington Post, has a couple graphs that really drive home the point that Krugman is making. By expanding the deficit and allowing Republicans to hold everything hostage -- despite the fact that, for the current lame duck session, Democrats control both legislative chambers and the White House -- there is concern that, come February, Republicans will not want to raise the debt ceiling without making significant cuts into social services. As Klein writes:
Republicans want a deal that will add hundreds of billions of dollars onto the deficit. That deal should be packaged, as I and others have been arguing for some time, with an increase in the debt limit. That would not only stop Republicans from taking the full faith and credit of the U.S. government hostage in February, but it'd establish the important principle that tax cuts are not free.
Democrats in Congress should insist on this as a condition of any deal, and so should the White House. And if Republicans want to blow up the bargain because they're unwilling to accept the consequences of their own spending? Well, let them. Not all ransoms are worth paying.
Republicans, of course, will always pay for their tax cuts -- while saying we can't afford the extension of unemployment benefits. The only silver lining for Democrats (if there is one) is the idea that maybe, just maybe, President Obama has a reason to be mad at the "professional left" for not understanding what a coup he has made:
Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?
If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years. Two-thirds of that is above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts but includes such urgent national necessities as windmill subsidies.
Can Democrats demand and expect better? After all, President Obama spent months before the election campaigning against extending the tax cuts for the rich. It was Congressional Democrats that refused to follow suit, and refused to make extension of the Bush-era tax cuts an issue in their campaigns. Now, we're at the point where we have to govern -- is it reasonable to say that President Obama is doing the best with the hand Democrats left him to play?
A voting problem left more than 1,500 local ballots off the Nov. 2 election canvass, a problem the Tom Green County Elections Office said would not have changed the outcomes but which it has reported to the Texas Secretary of State’s Office and local political leaders.
The problem resulted partly from a mobile ballot box getting left behind at one of the precincts during early voting, said Vona McKerley, the elections administrator.
“Once we realized it was something to do with early voting, we realized one of the mobile ballot boxes was missing,” McKerley said. “We found a shelf that had our training equipment, and somehow that piece of equipment had gotten set on those shelves.”
[...]
“I take full responsibility that this has happened,” McKerley said. “We were under no obligation to let anybody know, but because our office aims for integrity, we let people know that this happened and that we will try to find ways that this never happens again.”
Personally -- I don't really care. Mistakes happen. No election outcomes were changed by the discovery of the missing ballots, and this woman appears to have done everything she can to take full responsibility and announce a problem she probably could have just tried to cover up. I applaud her honor and integrity on the matter.
But in the upcoming legislative session, Republicans are going to push -- and most likely pass -- voter ID legislation. They will dehumanize Democrats and Hispanics for cheating the system. For Republicans, a granddaughter helping her grandmother vote can constitute voter fraud in the right circumstances. They will choose cases involving a single misplaced ballot and pontificate for hours about how that single ballot could have led to the end of democracy as we know it. So when they do, kindly remind Republicans that a Republican elections administrator lost over 1,500 ballots for an entire month, and nobody is persecuting her or claiming she was trying to steal an election or demanding drastic new laws to increase government control in order to over-correct a simple human error.
Reason and sensibility is one of our only advantages we'll have in the next seven months. Keep this story in your back pocket, Democrats.
Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, dismissed by Rick Perry earlier in the year in the GOP gubernatorial primary, should expect a crowded primary field for her United States Senate seat should she decide to run again. Courtesy of the Star-Telegram:
"She personifies everything that the Tea Party is fighting," said Konni Burton, a member of the Northeast Tarrant Tea Party steering committee. "She is a Republican, but when you check her votes on many issues, they are not ones that conservatives are happy with."
Adrian Murray, president of the grassroots 912 Project Fort Worth, said: "For the sake of what's left of her own reputation and credibility, she should not run again. She got shellacked in the primary, and that should have been [a] signal enough that we're done with her. KBH epitomizes the slick career politician that so many in the movement despise."
You are quite likely to have better luck guessing Texas Lottery numbers than you are guessing if Kay Bailey Hutchison will run again for the U.S. Senate or simply retire. God only knows, honey. Her motivation for running for governor against Perry really settled on the fact she was angling for that Governor's mansion as a retirement home. However, given her tarnished record and personality at the hands of Republican Perry, Hutchison may be forced out of her seat whether she wishes to be or not. The likes of Weatherford car salesman Roger Williams and Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams all claim to be running regardless of Hutchison's plan. They've seen this horror flick before after all, having been bit by Kay's capitulation in the past.
I'm not certain that Hutchison is politically savvy enough to know what is going on here, which is that moderates in today's Republican Party are not welcome and becoming far more extinct with each passing day. The withering fire and utter chaos that has erupted in the recent race for Speaker of the Texas House between the moderate Joe Strauss and his extreme challengers Warren Chisum and Ken Paxton is indicative of what is occurring throughout the country with this marriage of convenience between the GOP and the Tea Party. As Kay Bay can attest to, and now Strauss as well, the Tea Party doesn't play fair, they play nasty with a mission to tarnish, burn, and ultimately destroy one's reputation. Hutchison has proven once before she really doesn't have the stomach for the type of race that Tea Party extremists like Rick Perry run. As Joe Strauss is realizing within the Texas House, politicians like he and Kay Bay could be all that stands between an ultra-conservative, extreme takeover of the modern Republican Party and the destruction of GOP moderates along the way.
In some of the most candid public remarks to date Republican Representative Jim Pitts of Waxahachie indicated that if any savings is to come from Texas opting out of the federal Medicaid program that "we will have to throw some people out in the street." The full context of the entire quote is below thanks to the Texas Tribune:
Pitts told the crowd that the state is studying Medicaid and other forms of government-run health care with the idea of getting out of it. A man in the audience mentioned a friend on the program and asked whether lawmakers would "throw him out on the street."
"If we did exactly what we're doing today, we wouldn't be throwing him out on the street," Pitts answered. "But if we have any savings on getting out of Medicaid, we will have to throw some people out in the street. I'm not telling you that your friend would be, but the eligibility to receive state benefits will go down.
Well most of us knew what was coming, but to hear it so blatantly and unapologetically said in a less than heartfelt manner by Republican Pitts should give much reason for Texans to sweat these days. Moreover, Pitts said clearly your friend will not be thrown off if we keep things the way they are right now, but he would if we change things to the GOP way. Inciteful!
If a program such as Medicaid, which the federal government reimburses the state of Texas upwards of 60% of the total cost, is on the cutting block one can only imagine what other programs are next. Although Rick Perry and other Republicans continue to say that the state can handle the needs of those on Medicaid "by ourselves" he is unequivocally and deceptively lying. How can the state of Texas replace 60% of reimbursed funds from the federal government when the state already faces a $25 billion dollar shortfall? The answer is they can't, and they have no intention to even try. Since the 1980's it has been the mission of Republicans to end programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and others and they fully intend to use an internally perceived "election mandate" to do exactly that. The new GOP extreme machine fully intends to throw as many people into the streets as possible with a slash and burn approach to governing that has no mercy.
I don't believe this is the mandate that voters truly went to the polls and voted for, I believe it is a dramatic stretch on the part of Republicans to believe that is the case; however, I'm not surprised that Republicans have manifested the election results to be a full-fledged dismantling of state and federal government of the likes we have never, ever seen before.
The new GOP extreme machine may believe their mandate will be well received by Texans, but as the microscope magnifies the extent of this destructive, slash and burn approach to governing the tide will quickly turn back.
Imagine Austin is seeking input to develop the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan for the city. Take the survey here.
Dear City of Austin leaders developing the 2012 Urban Rail proposal: Showing off the snazzy looking rail cars is great, but the thing that really matters is the routes you want them to take. For the sake of all that is good in this world, please do not compromise on the route map by doing something stupid like running the line east of campus or opting for tons of shared guidelines instead of dedicated lanes. We are a decade behind on this and we've got one more shot at going this right. I do not want or plan on giving you cover for a crap proposal because you think that is necessary for it to pass. Shoot for the Moon like Kennedy instead of giving us some middle of the road, DOA roadkill like Obama.
Did you read about how the city of Lago Vista bought up the failing golf courses that make up a large chunk of their city? If not, read this to understand why I give a hearty hell yeah to the following quote.
"Lago Vista is one of the most conservative areas in all of Texas," said an exasperated Patrick Dixon, a former City Council member and local leader of the Libertarian Party who opposed the golf course acquisitions. "But if you think that Barack Obama is employing the wrong policies by bailing out GM and banks, you have to apply the same thinking locally.
"Don't complain about socialized medicine if you support socialized golf."
Hypocrites. It's just like the right-wingers who now rail against the government because of the invasive TSA screenings... when they were the ones front and center defending the Patriot Act. Give me a break.
Students at UT-Austin will get to vote in February on another round of changes to the structure of Student Government on campus.
The new executive structure creates multiple appointments under each officer of the executive branch and streamlines the agency structure to reduce redundant positions and increase efficiency. ... The new structure would also include a clerk to manage meetings and take minutes and a parliamentarian to monitor meeting procedure. In addition, the recommendations include the creation of a judicial branch with the authority to settle disputes between the executive and legislative branches, enforce the constitution and bylaws and oversee the Election Supervisory Board.
In addition, the Assembly would have the power to elect its own Chair to run meetings in place of the Vice President of the student body.
The most frequently mentioned individual - named by 7 percent of respondents- was Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed last year to the U.S. Supreme Court. About 5 percent chose U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., of Chicago, followed by 3 percent who cited Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and 2 percent who selected Jorge Ramos, an anchor on Noticiero Univision, the national evening news program on the Spanish-language television network Univision.
Do we have one in Texas and if so, who? Mayor Castro of San Antonio? Any State Senators or State Reps? Rick Noriega or Linda Chavez-Thompson?
According to the library, there will be at least 29 truly new Republican House members in 2011, the most of any of the 68 sessions included in the library's list. Depending on the outcome of a special election and a pending recount, that number could go up. The year with the second-highest number of new Republican members was 2003, when 27 freshman Republicans came to Austin.
But the upcoming influx is not a record increase in new House members in toto - not even close. According to the library, 2011 will see at least 34 freshman House members. However, from 1876 to 1967, when Democrats dominated Texas politics, turnover in the House was usually much higher, with a high of 97 new members in the 1913 session and only one session proceeding with fewer than 34 new members (32 in 1943). Since 1967, seven sessions have had a freshman class of more than 34, with a high of 71 in 1973.
San Antonio resident Aaron Schulze joins his two older brothers in becoming just one of about 130 Eagle Scouts to earn every merit badge offered by the Boy Scouts of America. As a fellow Eagle Scout, my congrats to Aaron. That is no easy feat.
Video
Sen. Kirk Watson spoke 2 weeks ago about the upcoming legislative session. Below is the 30 minute preview.
As a result of this month's shift in control of the US Congress to the GOP, House Committees will see an influx of new Chairs. With Republicans holding a 23-9 edge among the Texas delegation, it's no surprise that a couple of them are in the running to grab gavels of their own. Unfortunately, that's not going to be of much benefit to our state or the nation. Consider the following from Newsweek...
Joe Barton, candidate for House Energy and Commerce Committee chair: The Texas congressman faces an uphill road to reclaiming the chairmanship of the committee he led from 2004 to 2006. After he'd repeatedly antagonized the GOP leadership, his apology to the then-CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, during a congressional hearing in June crossed a serious line in the sand and allowed liberal politicians and groups to lampoon Republicans as cartoonishly pro-big oil. Although party leaders are said to want to shunt him aside, he's launched a furious campaign, rallying the Republican rank and file to support him. While Barton's BP comments caused an uproar, they weren't the most aggressive statements he's made. As The Washington Post pointed out at the time, he had previously stated that humans would simply adapt to global warming, argued that wind would compensate for rising temperatures by cooling the planet, and said carbon dioxide was basically good for the world: "CO2 is odorless, colorless, tasteless-it's not a threat to human health in terms of being exposed to it. We create it as we talk back and forth. So, and if you go beyond that, on a net basis, there's ample evidence that warming generically-however it is caused-is a net benefit to mankind." (His comments, of course, don't account for the much greater volumes of carbon dioxide being produced today that don't come from respiration or conversation.)
Ralph Hall, candidate for House Science and Technology Committee chair: Texas representative Hall is in line to head the House's main body on science. Currently the committee's ranking GOP member, he is an attorney by trade and was a Democrat until 2004. Hall is, at best, skeptical of science on global warming, despite an overwhelming consensus among scientists that the planet's climate is changing because of human activity. In particular, he objects to the Environmental Protection Agency's attempts to regulate greenhouse gases. A court ruled in 2007 that the EPA could regulate carbon, and with attempts to move a bill through Congress dead in the water, it's likely to be the locus of CO2 action for the foreseeable future. Last week Hall told Politico: "This administration argues that cutting greenhouse emissions as a policy directive is justified by science. I think this hearing today will demonstrate and should demonstrate that reasonable people have serious questions about our knowledge of the state of the science."
Barton has multiple challengers for the spot, not that they are any better. John Shimkus from Illinois isn't worried about global warming because he believes the Bible is the final word of God and God stated to Noah that he wouldn't destroy the world by flood ever again. Fred Upton is more moderate due to his support of more energy efficient lightbulbs, though that stance might be enough to sink his chances among a GOP caucus that would rather have the House Energy and Commerce Committee stay in the scientific dark.
How far have we fallen? And to think that the Texas delegation's seniority once meant something.
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, known as "The Hammer" amongst GOP colleagues for his heavy-handed style of leadership, has been found guilty on the charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering. The money laundering charge alone could carry a sentence of five years to life in prison. The lesser charge of conspiracy could carry a minimum of two years.
The New York Times has a good synopsis of the case overall and the arguments by both Delay's attorney, Dick DuGuerin, and the prosecution.
Of course, the Austin American-Statesman has essentially the hour by hour breakdown of deliberations by the jury which convicted Delay on two counts today.
No doubt that Delay will appeal this ruling, but for now justice has been served. Dancing with convicts anyone?
With the loss of State Representative Jim Dunnam, the House Democratic Campaign Committee has begun to transition and prepare for the 82nd Legislative session. Tarrant County's own, Lon Burnam, has been added to the HDCC Board and I think that is a great move on the part of Representatives Garnett Coleman and Pete Gallego.
In a note from Rep. Burnam, which includes a message from Coleman and Gallego:
To continue the outstanding record of Member-leadership at the HDCC, we have asked Representative Lon Burnam to join our board. We can tell you that since the HDCC was formed, few Members have matched Lon's willingness to contribute both time and financial support to the organization. Lon has dedicated many days at the HDCC office to donor call-time, and time and again has been willing to share his campaign funds -- and his own campaign contributors -- with the HDCC, so that the organization can better serve Members in tough primary and general election races. We are excited to formalize Lon's role, and look forward to working closely with him.
With Democrats deeper in minority status come January, adding Representative Burnam to the leadership at the HDCC will bring an individual with tremendous knowledge, skills, and deep understanding of the tools that can be utilized by the caucus to limit the GOP from ramming too much bad legislation down the throat of Texans. There's not a whole lot our caucus can do given how deep in the minority they are, but this move helps. Lon is routinely singled out as the legislator who takes new members under his wing and teaches them the ways of the legislature. As recognized by his colleagues above, Lon is also very good at fundraising and very willing to do the hard work necessary to win! He has spine and grit, which we know Democrats need a lot more of these days, not necessarily Texas Democrats, but it doesn't hurt having someone of Lon's capabilities helping us in 2011.
I'm catching up on some key stories before heading out for Thanksgiving back home in Fredericksburg with Mayor Tom Musselman and the First Frau. Chief among those would be city politics in Austin. While last week wasn't the start of filing for office, it was the beginning of the fundraising period and public announcements by incumbents as to whether they are running for re-election.
Places 1, 3, and 4 are on next May's ballot and incumbents Chris Riley, Randi Shade, and Laura Morrison have all announced they are running for re-election with the following treasurers and advisors.
Place 1: Chris Riley
Democratic and neighborhood activist Mike Clark-Madison will serve as treasurer of Riley's re-election campaign. Longtime Austin political consultant David Butts will help lead the campaign, with support from fundraising consultant Susan Harry, who also worked for Riley's 2009 campaign. More information is available at Riley's re-election campaign website: www.ChrisforAustin.com.
Announced challengers include former Mayoral candidate Josiah Ingalls who received less than 1% of the vote in the 2009 contest against Lee Leffingwell. Riley won Leffingwell's unexpired term that year and as a result is back on the ballot aiming for a full term.
The only other rumors in the race involve Austinites for Action's Dominic Chavez who was one of a handful of people opposing this November's Proposition 1 Mobility Bond campaign. Chavez is also considering running against Laura Morrison in Place 4 but has yet to make a decision on which seat he'd prefer to run in, if either. The only thing that's different about the two seats is the margin Chavez would lose by and how much money he'd have to waste in the process.
Place 3: Randi Shade
Of the three races, this is the "hottest" but that's still not saying much. Burnt Orange Report's Katherine Haenschen, who's coming off leading the 2010 Travis County Democratic Party coordinated campaign and managed Riley's 2009 successful campaign, will be managing Shade's race. Susan Harry will serve as Shade's fundraiser. Well known consultants Mike Blizzard and Mark Littlefield will act in advisory roles.
Shade is up for her first re-election bid after defeating incumbent Jennifer Kim with 64% of the vote in 2008 which was nearly equal to then Councilmember Lee Leffingwell's margin against Jason Meeker & Friends. Shade definitely has a base from which to start but this race is already being defined as a referendum on the incumbent, much like her original race three years ago. Shade has not been one of the more visible councilmembers due in part to her governing style as well as the birth of her second child Emme just two months after taking a seat on the council dias- something Shade's campaign acknowledged in their first email to supporters.
Rumors of challengers started back in October with much of the attention being focused on former Democratic State Representative Ann Kitchen who was being urged to challenge Shade focusing on the debate over Water Treatment Plant #4. WTP4 has split the local environmental community and the council with a series of 4-3 votes pushing the project forward. Kitchen has since withdrawn her name according to the Austin Chronicle leaving environmental activist Robin Rather's name in the mix.
Rather would be a credible candidate and would occupy a lot of space to Randi's left flank which is somewhat exposed with quiet grumblings among some union players and some members of the GLBT community who don't see Shade as a fierce advocate on their behalf. But the talk about Shade keeps coming back to the Water Treatment Plant which isn't a broad enough or damaging single issue for a challenger to run on. Based on polling I've seen over the last two years, the public is pleased with the city council at above average levels and messaging around WTP4 actually works in Shade's favor. As much as people are pro-conservation in this town, when push comes to shove, they aren't willing to risk their water supply to two half century old water treatment plants (already down from three) as the city doubles in population yet again by ~2030.
I hate to say this 6 months out from the election, but the clock is ticking. If the forces behind Kitchen and now Rather don't formalize an announcement by the second week of December they will be severely weakened. That means they would have to be canvassing key voters and city political players right now to get their ducks in a row in time; every day that goes by in this 'silent campaign' period is one day closer to victory for incumbents. Even for the "buzziest" of the 3 seats, there has been remarkably little chatter, leaving Shade an opportunity to solidify some of her more 'squishy' support and pull in a lot of cash.
Place 4: Laura Morrison
Consultant David Butts will be chief consultant to Laura Morrison's re-election bid with Jim Wick filling in a campaign manager. Wick was largely responsible for Karen Sage's upset victory over Mindy Montford in the 2008 judicial primaries and recently led Rep. Valinda Bolton's field campaign. Dean Rindy will be the media consultant with Jeff Smith as pollster and former Leffingwell field hand Shawn Badgley doing field.
Morrison has evolved and grown into her position on the dais- and in a good way from most anyone you talk to. She's disarmed many potential opponents and does not have any announced challenged other than the same rumors of Dominic Chavez (see my notes under the Place 1 area). If you asked folks 3 years ago if Shade or Morrison would have a tougher re-election the vast majority would have said Morrison, myself included. That appears to be wrong. Morrison has shored up her (non-neighborhood) left flank since being elected and doesn't face any particular issues with the environmental community (she voted with Riley opposite of Shade on WTP4). That doesn't leave a lot of space for a challenger, at least among the traditional city electorate and power bases.
I expect that all three council members will end up being re-elected, continuing a long period of stability on the city council. It's quite possible that we'll have a 5 year stretch of the Leffingwell/Martinez/Cole/Shade/Morrison/Spelman/Riley council- at least until Austin votes on an expected Single-Member District plan in 2012 which could alter the makeup of the dias considerably. And both of those things, and in that order, might be what Austin needs as it finalizes a number of major long range planning processes in the next couple of years.
