Austin City Council District 8 Contest: An Analysis
Under the 10-1 election system, which was established
through a charter amendment in 2012, the mayor is elected at-large, and ten
council members are elected in single-member districts. The first election
under the new system drew seven candidates for mayor and 70 candidates for the
ten council seats. In District 8, which includes most of southwest Austin, five
candidates—Becky Bray, Darrell Pierce, Eliza May, Ed Scruggs, and Ellen
Troxclair—competed in the November general election. With five candidates, the
likelihood that any candidate would receive a majority of the vote and win the
seat was remote. Indeed, the general election resulted in the candidate who
received the greatest percentage of the vote—Ellen Troxclair—garnering only 27
percent of the vote. The next highest vote total belonged to Ed Scruggs, who
received 26 percent of the vote. Only 179 votes separated the two candidates.
With no candidate winning a majority, Troxclair and Scruggs moved on to compete
in the December 16, 2014 runoff election.
District 8:
Demographics and Politics
According to the 2010 census, District 8 has 77,650
residents. The population is primarily Anglo (69.7 percent), with some
Hispanics (17.7 percent), a few Asian Americans (8.0 percent), and very few
African Americans (2.2 percent). The median household income is $109,000 per
annum, the second highest among the ten districts. District 8 also has the
highest percentage of home ownership among the ten districts. In summary, the
population is largely affluent and Anglo.
Politically, the district is considered a swing district,
where neither Democrats nor Republicans dominate. In the 2012 presidential
election, Democratic President Barack Obama defeated Republican Mitt Romney by
994 votes in the precincts that are completely within District 8. (Four
precincts—301, 302, 338, and 364—have portions of the precinct that are not
within District 8’s boundaries.) In the 2014 gubernatorial contest, Democrat
Wendy Davis defeated Republican Greg Abbott in the same precincts by 3,531 votes
(55 percent to Abbott’s 45 percent). There is little doubt that the district’s
voters are nearly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.
The Prevailing
Candidates: the General Election in District 8
Ellen Troxclair, a realtor and chief of staff for Texas
House member Jason Issac (R-Dripping Springs), organized her campaign around
three key issues and presented herself as a candidate who would bring common
sense to City Council decision making. She framed the issues and her appeal to
the voters on the premise that Austin was spending too much money and that the
spending was on items that were not the basic functions of government. The
issues on which she focused her campaign were transportation, affordability,
and budget priorities. On transportation, she criticized the rail plan that was
presented to voters in November 2014, citing its cost and limited coverage. She
also emphasized the lack of public transportation in District 8 as well as a
number of road projects that have been delayed for southwest Austin, such as
the interchange at the “Y” in Oak Hill and the extension of Highway 45 SW to
connect MOPAC with FM 1826 in Hays County. The affordability issue involved
property taxes, which she argued had increased 40 percent since 1998. Given the
high percentage of home ownership in the district and the dramatic increase in
property values, her message resonated with voters. Her solution was an
immediate 20 percent homestead exemption. Her campaign also emphasized the
basic function of government, providing for the public’s safety with fire, EMS,
and police protection.
Ed Scruggs, a research associate,
has been active in his homeowners association, serving as a board member and
president. He also founded the Circle C Democrats and worked to establish
elementary and middle schools in southwest Austin. He maintained that he was the
better candidate to work with other council members to achieve collective
goals. Scruggs emphasized some of the same issues as Troxclair, but he framed
them differently. On affordability, Scruggs argued that a homestead exemption
of 20 percent should be phased in over a period of years rather than
immediately. He also maintained that a homestead exemption provided little
relief to homeowners and that the real solution involved how property was
assessed in Travis County, especially the discrepancy between commercial and
private property. He noted that tax appraisals by the Travis County Appraisal
District had increased dramatically in many subdivisions in southwest Austin.
Scruggs also differed with Troxclair on transportation issues, arguing that
extending Hwy 45 SW to FM 1826 would create an additional burden on MOPAC and
provide little relief for the congestion that burdens residents along Brodie
Lane. He also expressed environmental concerns as the road will be constructed
over the Edwards Aquifer. In terms of city services, Scruggs emphasized parks,
green spaces, and libraries, noting the needs of Circle C Metropolitan Park,
Dick Nichols Park, and Hampton Branch library. Scruggs appealed to liberal and
moderate Democrats, which formed his constituent base and provided most of his volunteers.
Though Austin City Council elections are nonpartisan
affairs, party identification played a major role in explaining the results of
the general election. In the general election, the two candidates most closely
aligned with a political party won enough votes to make the runoff. Neither
Troxclair nor Scruggs were bashful about their allegiance to their political
party affiliation. As a result, the candidates who tried to stake out ground in
the ideological center, found themselves losing to the most ideologically
liberal (Scruggs) and conservative (Troxclair) candidates. And the Travis
County party organizations, especially the Republican Party’s organization, had
no qualms about promoting the candidates and supporters of their cause. Thus, a
nonpartisan contest was made partisan.
Figure 1 displays the precincts won by Troxclair or Scruggs
and the vote for each candidate in the general election.
Figure 1: Votes For Troxclair and Scruggs in the November 2014 General
Election
Voter Turnout:
General Election
Voter turnout was 38.89 percent of the registered voters in
the district, which is second highest among the 10 districts. In all 21,538
citizens cast ballots either during early voting—60.02 percent—or on Election
Day—39.98 percent. Because of differences in voter turnout among the precincts,
each precinct’s contribution to the total vote varied considerably. Table 1
depicts the voter turnout in each precinct and each precinct’s contribution to
the total vote during the general election.
Table 1: Voter Turnout and Contribution of Precincts to the Total Vote
in the General Election
Precinct
|
Votes
|
Registered Voters
|
Voter Turnout
|
Contribution
|
301
|
111
|
505
|
21.98%
|
0.52%
|
302
|
234
|
599
|
39.07%
|
1.09%
|
303
|
18
|
42
|
42.86%
|
0.08%
|
304
|
1870
|
4,281
|
43.68%
|
8.68%
|
307
|
162
|
379
|
42.74%
|
0.75%
|
314
|
777
|
2,397
|
32.42%
|
3.61%
|
315
|
976
|
2,294
|
42.55%
|
4.53%
|
317
|
389
|
1,147
|
33.91%
|
1.81%
|
330
|
21
|
71
|
29.58%
|
0.10%
|
338
|
1
|
3
|
33.33%
|
0.00%
|
339
|
825
|
1,887
|
43.72%
|
3.83%
|
347
|
1137
|
2,873
|
39.58%
|
5.28%
|
349
|
1863
|
4,993
|
37.31%
|
8.65%
|
351
|
578
|
2,012
|
28.73%
|
2.68%
|
354
|
1981
|
4,498
|
44.04%
|
9.20%
|
356
|
473
|
2,052
|
23.05%
|
2.20%
|
358
|
1699
|
4,875
|
34.85%
|
7.89%
|
360
|
1569
|
4,368
|
35.92%
|
7.28%
|
362
|
1321
|
2,956
|
44.69%
|
6.13%
|
363
|
815
|
1,609
|
50.65%
|
3.78%
|
364
|
16
|
23
|
69.57%
|
0.07%
|
365
|
268
|
1,107
|
24.21%
|
1.24%
|
366
|
2112
|
4,875
|
43.32%
|
9.81%
|
367
|
2322
|
5,531
|
41.98%
|
10.78%
|
368
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
H230
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
442
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
Total
|
21,538
|
55,377
|
38.89%
|
100.00%
|
The Runoff Election
in District 8
In the runoff election, the candidates became even more
partisan in their attempt to win the election. Both campaigns relied on the
partisan base of their party for their support and campaign organization. An
indication of the degree by which partisanship explained the result in the
runoff election, the correlation (Pearson Product-moment) between Scruggs’ vote in the precincts in District
8 and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis’ vote was quite high (.85),
and the correlation between Troxclair’s vote and Republican gubernatorial
candidate Greg Abbott’s vote was .61.
Voter turnout in the runoff (22.27 percent) was only 58
percent of the turnout in the general election even though the number of voters
(12,412) was the second highest among the seven council districts holding
runoff elections. Also, a higher percentage of the vote was cast during the
early voting period in the runoff (68.37 percent) than in the general election.
As in the general election, Troxclair won the early vote (by 242 votes in the
general election and by 290 votes in the runoff). However, in both the general
election and the runoff election, Troxclair lost the Election Day vote by 63
votes and by 234 votes respectively. After the final vote tally, Troxclair won
by 56 votes.
Comparing the results of the general election with the
results of the runoff elections in each precinct, Troxclair won those precincts
where Becky Bray (precincts 315, 347, and 365) or Darrell Pierce (precincts 303
and 363) had won the most votes in the general election. Troxclair won only one
precinct (307) in which Scruggs had won the most votes in the general election.
On the other hand, Scruggs won three precincts (338, 362, and 364) in which
Troxclair had won the most votes in the general election. Otherwise, the
voters’ candidate preference in the general election did not change in the
runoff election.
In the table 2, precinct election results from the general
election and runoff election are displayed.
Table 2: Comparison of General Election and Runoff Election
General
Election—Nov 4, 2014
|
Runoff
Election—Dec 16, 2014
|
|||||||||
Voter Precinct
|
Votes for Troxclair
|
Votes for Scruggs
|
Votes for Bray
|
Votes for Pierce
|
Votes for May
|
Total Votes
|
Votes for Troxclair
|
Votes for Scruggs
|
Total Votes
|
%
RO/GE
|
301
|
30
|
32
|
18
|
16
|
15
|
111
|
18
|
18
|
36
|
32.43%
|
302
|
56
|
89
|
35
|
42
|
12
|
234
|
47
|
78
|
125
|
53.42%
|
303
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
6
|
5
|
18
|
6
|
0
|
6
|
33.33%
|
304
|
529
|
623
|
327
|
243
|
148
|
1,870
|
560
|
579
|
1,139
|
60.91%
|
307
|
36
|
43
|
40
|
28
|
15
|
162
|
63
|
50
|
113
|
69.75%
|
314
|
283
|
112
|
190
|
93
|
99
|
777
|
261
|
103
|
364
|
46.85%
|
315
|
162
|
119
|
424
|
118
|
153
|
976
|
433
|
154
|
587
|
60.14%
|
317
|
105
|
78
|
102
|
64
|
40
|
389
|
117
|
108
|
225
|
57.84%
|
330
|
2
|
9
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
21
|
2
|
5
|
7
|
33.33%
|
338
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
100.00%
|
339
|
151
|
250
|
123
|
170
|
131
|
825
|
209
|
317
|
526
|
63.76%
|
347
|
278
|
245
|
299
|
218
|
97
|
1,137
|
437
|
318
|
755
|
66.40%
|
349
|
492
|
522
|
337
|
280
|
232
|
1,863
|
479
|
578
|
1,057
|
56.74%
|
351
|
140
|
171
|
73
|
97
|
97
|
578
|
104
|
186
|
290
|
50.17%
|
354
|
527
|
546
|
323
|
305
|
280
|
1,981
|
607
|
714
|
1,321
|
66.68%
|
356
|
90
|
162
|
85
|
73
|
63
|
473
|
69
|
119
|
188
|
39.75%
|
358
|
352
|
458
|
236
|
237
|
416
|
1,699
|
364
|
516
|
880
|
51.80%
|
360
|
514
|
321
|
262
|
239
|
233
|
1,569
|
515
|
346
|
861
|
54.88%
|
362
|
369
|
317
|
226
|
275
|
134
|
1,321
|
351
|
462
|
813
|
61.54%
|
363
|
194
|
113
|
128
|
327
|
53
|
815
|
262
|
222
|
484
|
59.39%
|
364
|
7
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
16
|
4
|
7
|
11
|
68.75%
|
365
|
57
|
56
|
67
|
55
|
33
|
268
|
51
|
43
|
94
|
35.07%
|
366
|
564
|
587
|
407
|
346
|
208
|
2,112
|
545
|
641
|
1,186
|
56.16%
|
367
|
741
|
644
|
398
|
313
|
226
|
2,322
|
730
|
613
|
1,343
|
57.84%
|
Total
|
5,682
|
5,503
|
4,108
|
3,549
|
2,696
|
21,538
|
6,234
|
6,178
|
12,412
|
57.63%
|
Precincts 338 and 364 are split precincts.
|
||||||||||
The Travis County Republican Party could hardly contain its elation
when Republicans prevailed in three districts, which included District 8, in
the runoff election. The Austin American-Statesman
reported:
It was the
top end of what we hoped for,” said James Dickey, chairman of the Travis County
Republican Party.
“Three
conservatives on an 11-member panel are never going to win the day by brute
force,” Dickey said. “But perhaps the argument will not be about where to put (an estimated) $57
million headquarters for Austin Energy. Perhaps the debate will be about whether there should be a $57
million headquarters for Austin Energy.”
The Austin Monitor described Troxclair’s priorities at her victory
celebration at a southwest Austin restaurant: “Troxclair said she would pursue
her campaign platform of ‘bringing a voice to taxpayers. My priorities
are going to be immediately reducing property taxes, taking a hard look at the
budget and making sure that we’re getting a great return on the investment that
we’re spending.’” She also repeated the issues that she emphasized in the
campaign—transportation and affordability.Figure 2 depicts the precincts won by Troxclair and Scruggs and the votes for each candidate during the runoff election.
Figure 2: Votes For Troxclair and Scruggs in the December 2014 Runoff Election
Campaign Finances
& Organization
In the contest for contributions, Troxclair defeated Scruggs
in every reporting period prior to the general election. By eight days before
the election, Troxclair had raised $55,851.24 to Scruggs’ $23,230.62. Furthermore,
from that date until eight days before the runoff election, Troxclair again
outraised Scruggs, $53,805.38 to $37,151.28. Although Troxclair started raising
campaign contributions nearly three months after Scruggs, her total
contributions eclipsed his by $49,344.72. In addition, Troxclair loaned her
campaign $55,000, compared to Scruggs’ loans of $26,263.55. It’s fair to say
that Troxclair enjoyed a substantial advantage in terms of campaign
contributions. Nevertheless, in total campaign spending, Troxclair did not possess
a sizeable advantage. She spent $76,751.40 to his $74,238.63. However,
Troxclair did have nearly $81,000 to spend during the last ten days of the
campaign, and Scruggs only had a little more than $13,000. The final campaign
finance report is not due until January 15, 2015. Only then will the true extent
of Troxclair’s advantage in campaign funds be known. Table 3 depicts the
contributions, expenditures, loans, and remaining funds for Troxclair and
Scruggs.
Table 3: Campaign Reports for Troxclair and Scruggs
Candidate
|
Report Dates
|
Contributions
|
Expenditures
|
Maintained
|
Loan Principal
|
Scruggs
|
3/21-6/30
|
$ 9,210.00
|
$ 2,732.20
|
$ 12,741.35
|
$ 6,263.55
|
Troxclair
|
6/09-6/30
|
$ 18,520.00
|
$ 2,148.45
|
$ 20,578.09
|
$ 5,000.00
|
Scruggs
|
7/01-9/25
|
$ 5,285.62
|
$ 14,581.32
|
$ 24,252.57
|
$ 26,263.55
|
Troxclair
|
7/01-9/25
|
$ 29,393.24
|
$ 14,148.39
|
$ 80,120.69
|
$ 55,000.00
|
Scruggs
|
9/26-10/25
|
$ 8,735.00
|
$ 14,623.02
|
$ 18,829.19
|
$ 26,263.55
|
Troxclair
|
9/26-10/25
|
$ 8,008.00
|
$ 23,039.05
|
$ 69,613.00
|
$ 55,000.00
|
Scruggs
|
10/26-12/06
|
$ 37,151.28
|
$ 42,302.09
|
$ 13,134.45
|
$ 26,263.55
|
Troxclair
|
10/26-12/06
|
$ 53,805.38
|
$ 37,415.51
|
$ 80,908.93
|
$ 55,000.00
|
Scruggs
|
Total
|
$ 60,381.90
|
$ 74,238.63
|
$ 13,134.45
|
$ 26,263.55
|
Troxclair
|
Total
|
$ 109,726.62
|
$ 76,751.40
|
$ 80,908.93
|
$ 55,000.00
|
Scruggs employed Rindy and Associates,
an Austin-based campaign group that also offers multiple campaign services to
Democratic Party candidates. Dean Rindy, who also teams with his wife, Cynthia
Miller, at Rindy Miller Media, operates a full-service campaign operation.
During the campaign, Scruggs paid Rindy $32,045.00 for his services. Many
activities of the campaign, especially the field work, were coordinated by
Democratic Party precinct chairs and Travis County Democratic Party (TCDP)
employees, such as Stella Savage, TCDP volunteer coordinator. The campaign
manager, Jonathan Panzer, worked on Ora Houston’s campaign in District 1 before
joining Scruggs’ campaign for the runoff election. Volunteers used the Battleground
Texas VAN (Voter Application Network) to identify voters who had voted in
Democratic Party primary elections for mobilization efforts. In nine targeted
precincts that accounted for 63 percent of the total vote in the runoff
election, Scruggs won by a margin of 530 votes, losing only one precinct (367)
by 117 votes. The Travis County Democratic Party was not as quick to endorse
candidates as the Travis County Republican Party, giving an edge to Troxclair.
The
Results and the Future for District 8 Contests
More than any other factor, voters’
partisan affiliations explain the results in most precincts. Neither candidate
won by large margins in most of the precincts in District 8 in the runoff
election. Troxclair won only two precincts (314 and 315) with 60 percent or
more of the vote. Only a small portion of precinct 314, which occupies the most
western portion of the Travis Country subdivision, is in the City of Austin. Precinct
315, the southern-most area of the district along Brodie Lane, was probably
influenced by Troxclair’s support for—and Scruggs’ opposition to—State Highway
45 Southwest (SH 45 SW). On the other hand, Scruggs won seven precincts with 60
percent of the vote or more (302, 330, 338, 339, 351, 356, and 364). Table 4
depicts the percentage won by each candidate by precinct.
Table 4: Percentage of the Runoff Vote Won by Troxclair and
Scruggs by Precinct
Precinct
|
Percent Troxclair
|
Percent
Scruggs
|
301
|
50.00%
|
50.00%
|
302
|
37.60%
|
62.40%
|
303
|
100.00%
|
0.00%
|
304
|
49.17%
|
50.83%
|
307
|
55.75%
|
44.25%
|
314
|
71.70%
|
28.30%
|
315
|
73.76%
|
26.24%
|
317
|
52.00%
|
48.00%
|
330
|
28.57%
|
71.43%
|
338
|
0.00%
|
100.00%
|
339
|
39.73%
|
60.27%
|
347
|
57.88%
|
42.12%
|
349
|
45.32%
|
54.68%
|
351
|
35.86%
|
64.14%
|
354
|
45.95%
|
54.05%
|
356
|
36.70%
|
63.30%
|
358
|
41.36%
|
58.64%
|
360
|
59.81%
|
40.19%
|
362
|
43.17%
|
56.83%
|
363
|
54.13%
|
45.87%
|
364
|
36.36%
|
63.64%
|
365
|
54.26%
|
45.74%
|
366
|
45.95%
|
54.05%
|
367
|
54.36%
|
45.64%
|
368
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
Total
|
50.21%
|
49.77%
|
With only 56 votes separating the two
candidates in the runoff election, one can expect campaigns in District 8 to be
intense in the future. After drawing a four-year term on January 6, Troxclair
has four years to demonstrate that she can serve a constituency that is about
equally divided between supporters and detractors. Can she work with other
council members to deal with the issues that dominated the
campaign—affordability, transportation, and the city’s budget? There is little
doubt that many Democrats will be watching closely and that some will be
preparing to challenge her when she seeks re-election in 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment