Texas Registered Voters Party Identification, December 2023

 The Texas Tribune/University of Texas Poll results: 34 Percent Republican Party; 29 Percent Democratic Party; 37 Percent Independent.

Ideological Position of Texas Senators, Regular and Special Sessions, 2023

Mark P. Jones published the Lib-Con scores of Texas Senators in the regular and special sessions in 2023. The score is based on votes in the Texas Senate during those sessions.

Link to Flourish Publication

Who Voted in Travis County Precinct 450 in the 2023 Special Election

 Derek Ryan posted the following chart depicting who voted on the Texas Constitutional Amendments in November 2023. 

I decided to perform a similar study using data that I collected on registered voters in Travis County precinct 450. The data included all registered voters who voted in the 2022 Democratic Primary election. I then used the data from the Texas Secretary of State to determine who among the 2022 Democratic Primary voters also voted in the November 2023 Constitutional Amendment election.

The results are depicted below:

The chart depicts the number of votes cast in Precinct 450, the number and percentage of Democrats who voted on each day of early voting, the total early vote, and the Election Day vote. Democratic voters constituted nearly 40 percent of early voters and nearly 35 percent of Election Day voters in precinct 450. Overall, Democratic Party primary voters in 2022 constituted 37.2 percent of the total votes in precinct 450.

Interestingly, in the purportedly Democratic precinct in Travis County, those voters who could be considered strong Democrats in terms of party affiliation made up fewer than 4 in 10 voters on the constitutional amendments. This would lead one to conclude that special elections on constitutional amendments are not considered partisan elections to registered voters in precinct 450. 

Voter Turnout in November 2023 Special Election

 The votes are calculated by the Texas Secretary of State although there will some time before the results are official. Anyway, here is the voter turnout for all 254 Texas counties based on the unofficial results. Thirteen of the fourteen proposed amendments passed, bringing the total amendments to 530.

Projected Total Vote after Election Day

 Early voting is completed and posted by the Texas Secretary of State for all 254 counties in Texas. What will Election Day produce in terms of voter turnout? My prediction is that about 10 percent of Texas registered voters will vote on Election Day (November 7th), and the total will be about 17 percent (plus or minus 2 percent). The chart depicts the early vote, Election Day vote, and total vote in the Constitutional Amendment special elections in 2019 and 2021. It also includes my projection for 2023.

Texas Early Voting, 2019, 2021, 2023

 This chart depicts the results of early voting in Texas in 2019, 2021, and 2021. The results, when finalized later today, will provide a clue as to the total voter turnout in the 2023 November election in Texas. Election Day is November 7, 2023. If you haven't voted yet, be sure to go to the polls (any location in Travis County displaying the "Vote Here" sign) and express your choice on the 14 Constitutional Amendment Propositions and two Travis County bond proposals.

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/15563728/

Texas Early Voting Through Day 4

 In the chart below, early voting in Texas is depicted for November 2019, November 2021, and November 2023. As you can see, voter turnout is surpassing the vote in both 2019 and 2021. Part of the explanation might be the fact that Houston (Harris County) is electing its mayor and council members as well as the fourteen Propositions to amend the Texas Constitution. I will update the chart when the early voting period is complete (November 3rd). I will also predict the total voter turnout. Stay tuned.

Quick Guide to the 14 Constitutional Amendments 2023

On November 7, or before the Election Date during early voting, Texas' registered voters will be asked to approve 14 amendments to the Texas Constitution. 

If the past offers any guidance to the future, few Texans will vote, and most amendments will be approved. In the 7 special elections to approve constitutional amendments since 2011, voter turnout averages 8.56 percent of registered voters. In those same special elections, Texas voters considered 53 proposed amendments and approved 49 of them (92.45 percent). 

Please consider each amendment and vote early or on election day. Below are my considerations and recommendations. 

 TEXAS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 

Constitutional Amendment Election (November 7, 2023 )

 

Proposition 1

Proposition 1 creates a new right for people to engage in generally accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management practices on land they own or lease. This changes the ability of the state and local governments to regulate such activities. 

Proponents of Proposition 1 argue that local governments may misuse their authority to place limitations on farmers and ranchers to use the land as they desire, causing an undue burden. 

Opponents of Proposition 1 argue that the legislature is amending the Constitution and the authority of the legislature to regulate land use to prevent “imminent” threats to health and public safety and create a requirement for clear and convincing evidence that the threat is “imminent.” This reduces the ability of the government to regulate and could make large, commercial farms less accountable.

Recommendation: Vote against Proposition 1. I am reluctant to add rights to the Texas Constitution, especially a right that appears to reduce rather than expand the rights of the community as expressed through their local or state governments and are meant to protect the public health, welfare, and safety of its residents.

   

Proposition 2

Proposition 2 authorizes a local option exemption from ad valorem taxation by a county or municipality of all or part of the appraised value of real property used to operate a child-care facility. The Texas Constitution requires property taxes to be equal and uniform and to be based on their value unless an exemption is allowed or required by the Texas Constitution. This amendment allows counties and municipalities to exempt child-care facilities from property taxes. The enabling legislation amends Subchapter B, Chapter 11, Tax Code, by adding Section 11.36, which governs the exemption authorized by the proposed amendment. There are safeguards in Section 11.36 by defining “child-care facility” and providing that the child-care facility must serve children who could not participate without this program. It also ensures that the operators of child-care facilities that rent their facility receive the benefit of the tax reduction rather than the owner of the rented facility. 

Proponents of Proposition 2 argue that as child-care facilities become more expensive to operate and with many closing, the legislature should allow local taxing authorities to exempt a portion of property taxes for child-care facilities. 

Opponents of Proposition 2 offered no opposition to the amendment. 

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 2. A reduction in the cost of childcare is needed by most working parents. Providing a tax break for child-care facilities is one way to incentivize lower costs and increase the number of child-care facilities.   

Proposition 3

Proposition 3 prohibits the legislature from imposing a tax on the wealth or net worth of individuals or families. Because Article VIII, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, requires or authorizes, under certain circumstances, the taxation of both tangible and intangible property, a tax on an individual’s or family’s wealth or net worth, such as a property tax on an individual’s stock holdings or bank accounts, is not strictly prohibited by the Texas Constitution, this amendment is necessary to ensure that these taxes are prohibited. By adding Section 25, this amendment prohibits the imposition of a tax on the wealth or net worth of individuals or families, including a tax based on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or family.

Proponents of Proposition 3 argue that the amendment is necessary to ensure that Texans know they will not be penalized for creating wealth. Also, wealth taxes discourage economic innovation and can stagnate the economy. 

Opponents of Proposition 3 maintain that Texas does not tax wealth currently and is unlikely to do so in the future. Furthermore, the amendment prevents the legislature from adopting a wealth tax, even if supported by a majority of Texans. The amendment unnecessarily limits future legislatures’ options in addressing the needs of the state. 

Recommendation: Vote against Proposition 3. The Texas Constitution prohibits an income tax. Don’t restrict future legislatures’ ability to fund programs with contemporary fears of possible, but unlikely, taxation.   

Proposition 4. 

Proposition 4 authorizes several actions related to homestead exemptions by school districts, limits on the maximum appraised value of real property other than a residential homestead, adjusting the limitation of school district taxes on residential homesteads for the elderly or disabled, and exempting tax relief from the limitation on the rate of growth of appropriations.

Proponents of Proposition 4 argue that the legislature should use a portion of the state’s historic budget surplus ($32.7 billion) to return to taxpayers by cutting some taxes. The legislature could raise the homestead exemption and reduce taxes on residences that are not homesteads and commercial rental properties. Property tax relief for small businesses and landlords will stabilize businesses.

Opponents of Proposition 4 maintain that, if the amendment passes, the tax burden may shift from homeowners to business owners, that the tax rate compression is only temporary, and that future funding for education is placed in jeopardy.

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 4. Some of the budget surplus should go to homesteaders and businesses, who created the surplus and need tax relief. The proposition could have been better, but the legislature did not provide an alternative amendment. 

  

Proposition 5 

Proposition 5 amends Section 20, Article VII, Texas Constitution, to rename the National Research University fund as the Texas University Fund, remove the provision stating that a state university that becomes eligible to receive money from the fund in a state fiscal biennium remains permanently eligible to receive money from the fund, and expand the state universities that are ineligible to receive money from the fund to include any state university that is entitled to participate in funding from the available university fund under Section 18, Article VII, Texas Constitution. Only certain component institutions of The University of Texas System or The Texas A&M University System are entitled to participate in funding from the available university fund. The proposed amendment further provides that, for purposes of determining whether the rate of growth of appropriations from state tax revenues not dedicated by the Texas Constitution for a state fiscal biennium has exceeded the constitutional spending limit, money in the Texas University Fund is dedicated by the Texas Constitution and an appropriation of state tax revenues to deposit money to the credit of the fund is treated as if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by the Texas Constitution, which has the effect of eliminating appropriations to the new fund from the spending limit. The proposed amendment additionally provides for a dedicated revenue source for the Texas University Fund from the interest income, dividends, and investment earnings attributable to the state economic stabilization fund established under Section 49-g, Article III, Texas Constitution, also known as the “rainy day” fund. Under that provision of the proposed amendment, for each state fiscal year, a certain amount of the interest income, dividends, and investment earnings attributable to the economic stabilization fund for the preceding state fiscal year is appropriated to the comptroller of public accounts for immediate deposit to the Texas University Fund. The amount of the appropriation is limited to $100 million for the state fiscal year beginning September 1, 2023, and that limit is adjusted for each subsequent state fiscal year for inflation, if any, as determined by the comptroller based on changes in the national consumer price index and not to exceed two percent per state fiscal year.

Proponents of Proposition 5 argue that this amendment provides a stable source of income for high-level research at Texas universities, which enhances the universities’ ability to attract and retain faculty and students.

Opponents of Proposition 5 expressed concern about the use of money from the economic stabilization fund to fund higher education since that was not the purpose of the fund.

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 5. If more Texas universities are to reach elite status, then additional funding is needed. This amendment provides a method to increase funding, though to a limited number of universities.

Proposition 6

Proposition 6 creates the Texas Water Fund as a special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund to be administered by the Texas Water Development Board. The resolution authorizes the administrator of the fund to use the fund only to transfer money to other funds or accounts administered by the board. The resolution also provides that money transferred from the fund to another fund or account may be spent as provided by general law or may be restored to the Texas water fund without further appropriation.

Proponents of Proposition 6 argue that Texas, with a growing population and aging infrastructure, needs a significant investment in correcting existing problems and meeting future demands for water. Opponents of Proposition 6 maintain that the Texas Water Development Board should address the state’s water needs without new programs.

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 6. The future of Texas is dependent on the availability of potable water. This fund is needed now.

Proposition 7 

Proposition 7 provides for the creation of the Texas Energy Fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities. Pending approval of this amendment, the 88th Texas Legislature provided initial funding of $5 billion and enacted legislation to begin providing loans and grants from the fund. The Public Utility Commission of Texas will administer the fund as provided by general law, without further appropriation, to provide loans and grants to any entity to finance or subsidize the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities, including associated infrastructure, necessary to ensure the reliability or adequacy of the electric power grid in Texas.

Proponents of Proposition 7 argue that additional state funding is needed to increase the reliability of the state’s electric market and to ensure the reliability or adequacy of the state’s electric power grid. Opponents of Proposition 7 maintain that a more appropriate source of funding would be the rate-payer system rather than additional state funding.

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 7. The Texas grid needs additional sources of electrical generation. Creating this fund facilitates the existence of such sources, making the Texas grid more reliable.

Proposition 8

Proposition 8 creates a broadband infrastructure fund for expanding access to broadband and telecommunications services. The amendment is effective on January 1, 2024, and expires on September 1, 2035, unless extended by the legislature. Pending approval of this amendment, the 88th Texas Legislature appropriated $1.5 billion to the new fund.

Proponents of Proposition 8 argue that the fund would provide resources to close the digital divide in Texas, allowing more Texans to access educational and health care services. The fund would also allow Texas to take funds from the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. Opponents of Proposition 8 maintain that Texas has previously allocated $600 million for broadband purposes and is likely to receive billions of dollars from the federal BEAD program. The creation of a state fund for that purpose is unnecessary and excessive.

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 8.

The broadband gap in Texas deserves attention, and this fund will help narrow the broadband access gap.

Proposition 9

Proposition 9 amends the Texas Constitution to allow the legislature to provide a cost-of-living adjustment to annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and to appropriate funds from the general revenue fund to the comptroller of public accounts for deposit in the system’s trust fund to pay for the adjustment. Enabling legislation specifies the annuitants who are eligible for the adjustment and the amount and timing of the adjustment. A rider to the Appropriations Act appropriates $3.355 in FY 2024 from the general fund to provide the adjustment.

Proponents of Proposition 9 argue that a majority of Texas school districts do not participate in the federal social security system; thus, the TRS provides the only retirement benefit that most teachers receive. Since no cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) has been provided in 20 years, retired teachers have lost purchasing power due to a higher cost-of-living and inflation. The use of the state’s surplus revenue to provide retired teachers with a COLA is wise.

Opponents of Proposition 9 offered no reason to oppose the amendment.

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 9. TRS needs to adjust the pay for retired teachers to reflect the rise in the cost of living over the past twenty years. This amendment provides an avenue for achieving some relief for Texas’ retired teachers.

Proposition 10

Proposition 10 authorizes the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation any equipment or inventory held by a manufacturer of medical or biomedical products. The amendment modifies the Texas Constitution’s requirement that most property held by a business and used for income be subject to ad valorem taxation. Proponents of Proposition 10 argue that the tax exemption would encourage medical manufacturers to locate in Texas, reducing the cost of vital medical supplies. The exemption would also promote innovation and advancement in medical technologies, strengthen Texas’ medical supply chain, and create jobs. 

Opponents of Proposition 10 provided no reason to oppose the amendment.

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 10. This amendment provides an avenue for Texas to become a leader in medical technologies.

Proposition 11

Proposition 11 would allow the legislature to add El Paso County to the list of counties in the Texas Constitution that may authorize conservation and reclamation districts to develop and finance parks and other purely recreational facilities with taxes. An identical amendment, proposed by the Texas Legislature in 2011, failed to be adopted by Texas voters in 2011.

Proponents of Proposition 11 argue that when the Texas Constitution was amended in 2003 to allow certain counties to issue bonds to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities, El Paso County was not included among the counties. This amendment addresses a need in El Paso County for more parks and open spaces to improve the quality of life of county residents. Opponents of Proposition 11 maintain that the amendment would place additional taxes on county residents. Taxing authority for certain conservation and reclamation districts is unnecessary. Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 11. This amendment not only fixes a problem with a constitution that is statutory in nature and places constitutional restrictions on counties’ authority, but it also allows the El Paso County government to address its residents' needs.

Proposition 12

Proposition 12 provides for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County. 

Proponents of Proposition 12 argue that the Texas Constitution requires a county treasurer who is officed in the county seat, serves a four-year term, and is paid a salary as provided by law. The amendment also allows the Galveston County Commissioners Court to abolish the office and employ or contract with a qualified person or to designate another county officer, to perform the functions of the county treasurer. They further argue that the treasurer is unnecessary and that another person or county official can perform the position's duties more effectively, efficiently, and less expensively than the county treasurer.

Opponents of Proposition 12 argue that the elimination of the office would eliminate an important check and balance in the county government, would not save money, and could lead to a concentration of power within the county.

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 12. This amendment, like the previous amendment, fixes a problem with an antiquated constitution that is badly in need of major revisions.

Proposition 13 

Proposition 13 would increase the mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices. Currently, state judges and justices must retire at 75 years of age. Under the amendment, state judges and justices would not have to retire until 79 years of age.

Proponents of Proposition 13 argue that people are living longer and working longer. Consequently, the mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices should be increased. Increasing the mandatory retirement age would allow experienced public servants to serve longer, reduce turnover, and ensure a more predictable and stable judicial system.

Opponents of Proposition 13 offered no reasons to oppose the amendment. 

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 13. This amendment allows judges to serve longer, which is generally a good idea. Four additional years of service, if a judge desires it, is acceptable. 

Proposition 14

Proposition 14 provides for the creation of the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund to create and improve state parks.

Proponents of Proposition 14 argue that the current source of funding for state parks, which includes fees and legislative appropriations, is insufficient. The creation of the fund would provide for money (1) appropriated, credited, or transferred by the legislature, (2) gifts, grants, and donations received by the Parks and Wildlife Department, and (3) investment earnings and interest earned on the money in the fund. Pending the adoption of this amendment, the 88th Texas Legislature has already appropriated $1 billion to the fund. The creation of the fund is necessary to ensure that the state’s parks can be enjoyed by Texans in the future.

Opponents of Proposition 14 offered no reasons to oppose the amendment.

Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 14. Texas state parks need additional funds for renovations and additional facilities to meet future demand for state park facilities. This amendment provides those funds.

Summary of Recommendations

Against Prop 1; For Prop 2; Against Prop 3; For Prop 4; For Prop 5; For Prop 6; For Prop 7; For Prop 8; For Prop 9; For Prop 10; For Prop 11; For Prop 12; For Prop 13; For Prop 14.

How Liberal or Conservative are Democratic and Republican House Members

 Shortly after the end of the 88th Legislature's regular session, The Texas Tribune posted charts depicting the Democratic and Republican House members DW-Nominate scores for contested votes during the regular session. The charts indicate a liberal Democratic Party and a moderate Republican Party. Let's compare the two parties in terms of their members:

First, the Republican Party:

The Republicans range from conservative to somewhat liberal in their DW-Nominate scores. Any score greater than zero (a positive score) is conservative; any score less than zero (a negative score) is liberal.

The most conservative Republican is Jared Patterson at 0.454, followed by Briscoe Cain, Cody Vasut, Steve Toth, and Tony Tinderholt. The mean for all Republicans is -0.08, and the median is 0.00, which means that half of Republicans are above 0.00, and half are below 0.00. The most liberal Republican is J.M. Lozano at-0.61, followed by Morgan Meyer, Todd Hunter, Charlie Geren, and John Raney.

Second, the Democrats:

Democrats range from very liberal to somewhat liberal in terms of their DW-Nominate scores. The most liberal Democrat is Ana-Maria Ramos at -2.11, followed by Christina Morales, Gene Wu, Vikki Goodwin, and Jessica Gonzalez. The mean for Democrats is -1.56, and the median is -0.03. The least liberal Democrat is Richard Pena Ramond at -0.96, followed by Terry Canales, Tracy King, Oscar Longoria, and Bobby Guerra. 

The difference between the Republican mean and the Democratic mean is 1.48. There is no doubt that the two parties are polarized with Democrats more extreme than Republicans in terms of the members' DW-Nominate scores.   

The Meaning of Party ID in Contemporary Texas Politics

 One of the most important concepts in political science is party identification. As it was originally conceived, party identification (PID) was considered a psychological attachment to a political party. It was formed early and not likely to change. The parties were thought to represent different positions on public policy issues of the day. In a sense, it was a logical attachment to a set of ideas, or an ideology. However, both major parties in the United States were not sorted ideologically, since both parties contained liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

Currently, the conception of political parties is more a social identity rather than a shorthand for positions on public policies. The acquisition of party identification is also viewed differently. Party identification is not inherited from one's family; it is acquired through a series of social identities held by an individual. The figure demonstrates the process and its possible results:

As people have sorted based on social and ideological identities, partisan identification has become a social identity*, based on group affiliation rather than public policy issue positions. Partisanship as a social identity is affected by all of the psychological effects that are associated with group identity. An individual is more likely to take a hostile attitude toward members of the out-group and be biased towards members of the in-group. Members of the other political party are not just to be defeated in civil competition; they are to be eliminated because they are evil. Party competition is not a battle over ideas or public policy positions; it's a war to eliminate the competition. Winning is the goal. Politics is tribal: the in-group versus the out-group, a zero- sum game where a win by the out-group is a loss by the in-group. The opposition isn't legitimate, and its members are not human.

There are important implications of conceptualizing party identification as a social identity. Most importantly, the seven-category scale of party identification becomes unnecessary. If partisanship is a social identity, then there is no need to expand the three-category scale of party identification. Partisan leaning independents become unnecessary and even harmful in assessing party identification and political behavior. A person who considers themselves an independent will not have a partisan leaning. They may vote for a political party's candidate, but they cannot be considered a partisan. Emotionally, they have nothing in common with partisans. 

*There are many political scientists and journalists who see party identification as a social identity: Steven Greene, Donald Green, Larry Bartels, Bill Bishop, Shanto Iyengar, and Morris Fiorina. However, the conception is most fully developed by Lilliana Mason in Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity.

Partisan Change in Texas

 In Red State: An Insider's Story of How the GOP Came to Dominate Texas Politics, Wayne Thorburn describes the transition in Texas from a one-party Democratic state to a two-party state and ending as a one-party Republican state. The transition took decades, from the 1970s to the early 2000s. Over a thirty year span, Republicans came to control all of the statewide offices in Texas, a majority of the Texas congressional delegation, and both chambers of the Texas legislature. Thorburn identifies several factors in the 1970s and 1980s that assisted Republicans in dominating Texas politics and government: (1) John Tower’s senatorial victory in 1961 had consequences for Texas Republicans throughout the 1970s; (2) Liberal Democrats were effective in taking control of the Democratic Party during the 1980s and purging the party of conservative Democrats; (3)  the victory of Bill Clements in the 1978 gubernatorial election over John Hill, the liberal Democrat; and (4) the election of Ronald Reagan as the 40^th president of the United States.

To demonstrate the transition, Thorburn uses vote results from the following grouping of counties: Big Six, Suburban Counties, Metro Counties, and small city counties. The map depicts their location:

For some time, pundits have been predicting that the Democratic Party will regain its position as the dominant political party in Texas. Much of the prediction has been lodged in the increase of Hispanics in Texas. In 2022, according to the US Census Bureau, Hispanics became the largest ethnic group in Texas, surpassing non-Hispanic whites. Though Hispanics do not make up the majority of Texas’ population, they are a plurality of Texans.

To see how far (or not far) Democrats have progressed toward regaining the majority in Texas, let’s compare the votes of Texans in the gubernatorial election of 2022 with gubernatorial elections in the counties selected by Wayne Thorburn to measure the Republican rise to majority status.

The table depicts the 2022 gubernatorial election in the counties used by Thorburn.

Overall, in the 56 counties, Abbott garnered 837,583 votes to O’Rourke’s 603,502 votes, a difference of 234,081 votes. O’Rourke won the Big Six Counties by 601,124 votes. The only other grouping that O’Rourke won was the Travis County (Austin) and surrounding Suburban Counties. Abbott won the Dallas/Tarrant Counties Suburban Counties by 242,565 votes, the Harris County Suburban Counties by 181,356 votes, and the Bexar County Suburban Counties by 96,495 votes. Abbott won the Other Metro Counties by 317,167 votes.

The creation of the so-called “Red State” occurred largely during the 1986 to 1998 elections. We’ll look at the gubernatorial elections during that period through Thorburn’s data. We’ll also look at party identification (PID) during the period as another indicator of partisan change.

First, in 1978, Republican Bill Clements won his first term as governor, claiming the governorship of Texas for the first time in 105 years According to Thorburn, Clements’ victory was the result of winning the following groups of counties:

Year	Category						Statewide
	Big Six		Suburban		Other Metro
	Percent Republican	Vote Margin	Percent Republican	Vote Margin	Percent Republican	Vote Margin
1978	52.4	50,523	50.9	4,511	51.2	10,622	50.4
1994	51.3	52,089	59.9	146,114	58.4	51,959	53.8
2002	53.9	154,751	69.8	349,073	57.6	106,096	59.1
2006	49.4	-17,174	63.6	10,070	61.7	112,867	56.7
2010	47.7	-96,297	64.7	337,720	59.5	141,172	56.5
2014	48.8	-47,885	73.0	495,506	64.6	201,296	59.3
2018	44.3	-424,475	62.5	495,332	61.76	285,042	55.8
2022	41.3	-601,124	61.3	518,038	64.1	317,167	54.8

 Source: Thorburn, Red State, for Years 1978, 1994, 2002, 2006, and 2010. The author used data from the Texas Secretary of State’s election results for 2014-2022.

Obviously, the Republican percentage of the vote in the Big Six counties has declined since 2002, When Rick Perry won nearly 54 percent of the votes cast in the Big Six counties. Since the, the percentage of the vote for the Republican candidate for governor has declined each election, and the Democratic candidate’s margin has increased, reaching more than 600,000 votes in 2022. These counties are the primary target for further Democratic Party gains.

In the Suburban counties, Republicans hold a significant advantage over Democrats. After peaking at 73 percent of the gubernatorial vote in those counties, the percentage has declined, but the winning margin in votes has increased, reaching more than 518,000 votes in 2022. There are some counties where Democratic gubernatorial candidates can increase their share of the vote and reduce the Republican percentage of the vote as well as the margin of the vote.

In the Other Metro counties, Democrats lost support from these counties through several election cycles between 1986 and 1998, when Republicans won majorities in all of the selected counties. Since 1998, Republicans have won majorities in all six counties.

Here are the vote results for selected Other Metro counties:

There is not much hope for Democrats in these six counties.

In terms of party identification, we have polls since the 1960s that show how the once-dominant Democratic Party lost support to Republicans. In 2005, the Republicans held a commanding lead in party identification. Since 2005, however, party identification has settled to what is essentially a tie among party identifiers.

There are two distinct periods in which party identification shows the growth of Republican Party attachments and decline of Democratic Party affiliation. First, party identification from 1982 to 1990.

During the second period, 1991-2007 Republican Party identification increased, especially after 2000, and Democratic Party affiliation decreased. By 2005, 42 percent of Texas Registered voters identified with the Republican Party in Texas. Independents, people who profess no party affiliation, also grew during the period to become the largest segment of registered voters in 2007.

 

Since 2010, parity among Republican, Democratic, and independent identifiers has been the rule. In the June 2023, Texas Poll reported the following partisan attachments:

The second table shows that 34 percent of registered voters were either strong or weak Democratic Party identifiers, 37 percent were either strong or weak Republicans, and 29 percent were pure independents or independents who leaned toward the Republican Party or Democratic Party.[1]

Although there is no doubt that Republican candidates for partisan office hold a definite edge over Democratic candidates in statewide elections and a majority of US congressional districts, Texas House and Senate elections, partisan affiliations among registered voters only slightly favors the Republican Party. Among young voters—voters under 30 years of age, there is a distinct preference for claiming no partisan affiliation and voting for candidates on the basis of factors other than party identification.

 

---

[1] I consider independents who lean toward one of the two parties to be independents. The Texas Poll consider leaners to be partisans and add them to the two parties’ identifiers. See PID 3 in the table.

 

Counties 34-71

 If you're reading this blog to understand voting in the 71 Texas counties that comprise 90 percent of the registered voters in Texas, and you're not depressed yet, then this post should do it for you. Or, like me, you could look for something positive that would mobilize you to make a difference in the 2024 general election.

Here are remaining counties. The picture is not pretty!

Of the 38 counties in this final group of Texas counties, Beto won only two counties (Maverick County and Starr County). Note that voter turnout in those counties was extremely low; only 28 percent of the registered voters participated in Maverick County and only 32 percent in Starr County. Overall, Abbott won the 38 counties by a margin of 450,054 votes, garnering more than three out of every four votes cast. 

Unfortunately, being realistic is necessary when analyzing Democratic prospects in these counties. The only optimism can be found in the possibilities in Bastrop County, where Beto received nearly 42 percent of the vote, and voter turnout exceeded one-half of the registered voters in the county.

Texas Counties 11-33

 As we consider the second group of Texas counties, we should note that Democratic Party candidate Beto O'Rourke won only four of the 23 counties. Overall, Beto lost this set of counties by 483,219 votes. On the other hand, Governor Abbott won 63.6 percent of the two-party vote in the counties.

 

What do the counties that Beto won indicate for what Democrats can do in 2024 to garner more votes? First, note that voter turnout is extremely low in three (Webb, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties) of the four counties, averaging 33.5 percent of the vote. In the county that Beto won with the highest percentage of the vote (Webb County), voter turnout was a paltry 31.1 percent of registered voters. Only Hays County featured turnout that exceeded half of the registered voters. Obviously, voter turnout among Democratic Party identifiers who did not vote is the highest priority.

Second, among the counties that Abbott won, I would largely ignore those counties where he won with 65 to 80 percent of the two-party vote. I think that there are certain counties among this group that should be engaged. For example, Bell County, Brazoria County, and Nueces Counties provide an opportunity to expand the Democratic Party vote in 2024. I would hope that Democrats devote some money and organization to assisting Democratic Candidates in those counties. Montgomery County, because of its proximity to Harris County, might be considered for additional efforts to mobilize Democrats.

Third, I would expend little to no effort in the counties where Abbott earned more than 80 percent of the vote. There are probably few Democrats there to mobilize.