fbpx

Geographic Representation

An Election For History Books

 An Election For History Books

Geographic representation achieved, GOP wins
three seats, and several other records set

by Ken Martin
©The Austin Bulldog 2014
Posted Wednesday December 17, 2014 8:28pm
Updated Thursday December 18, 2014 6:21am

Steve Adler at victory party, with wife Diane Land looking onThe largest landslide margin ever in an Austin mayoral runoff was achieved last night, as mayoral victor Steve Adler swamped incumbent Council Member Mike Martinez.

In Travis and Williamson counties a combined total of 80,669 votes were cast in the mayor’s race. Adler garnered 54,366 for 67.39 percent, while Martinez netted 26,303 for 32.61 percent.

Laura Morrison set the previous record by getting 65.0 percent of the votes in her 2008 runoff against Cid Galindo. Robert Barnstone got 64.98 percent in beating Sam Guzman in a 1988 runoff.

Lee Cooke in 1988 set the prevous record for margin of victory in a mayoral runoff when he got 58.43 percent of the votes to unseat incumbent mayor Frank Cooksey.

Greg CasarAt age 25, Greg Casar became the youngest Austin City Council member ever elected.

Previously the youngest council member was 26-year-old Jeff Friedman, elected in 1971.

Friedman’s campaign consultant in that election, Peck Young, verified this, saying, “Jeff was the youngest when he was elected and Greg beats him by a year.” Casar will turn 26 in early May.

Casar ran a smart campaign to soundly defeat now two-time loser Laura Pressley (she got an impressive 44.48 percent of the votes in her one-on-one challenge of incumbent Martinez in 2012).

Laura PressleyCasar’s District 4 victory of 2,851 votes (64.62 percent) to her 1,561 (35.38 percent) resulted in part from her campaign’s faux pas. Perhaps not the least of which was getting involved in a discussion of the 9-11 attacks being an inside job, which drew intense media coverage, and her latest mail piece attacking Casar for, among other things, allegedly being an atheist.

Still, last night Pressley couldn’t resist a parting shot. A little after 8pm as early voting results showed she was already behind by more than 700 votes, she insisted on being quoted as saying, “Greg sold District 4 to special interests.”

In response Casar told The Austin Bulldog, “My track record stands up for working people and progressive ideals, even when special interests stood in the way. I’m going to stay committed to that.”

Women rule

What Can Austin Learn From California?

What Can Austin Learn From California?

Panel discussion focuses on how Golden State
experiences inform city’s move to 10-1 council

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Monday, May 6, 2013 2:00am
Updated with video link Tuesday May 7, 2013 10:50am

Emcee Bickerstaff and panelists Ancheta, Lewis, Hadavi, Limaye, FishkinCalifornia’s official nickname, The Golden State, adopted in 1968, harkens back to the discovery of gold in 1848. Now the left-coast state’s experiences with using an independent citizens commission to draw maps for 177 seats in four different governing bodies offers a golden opportunity for learning how best to implement the City of Austin’s 10-1 plan.

The 10-1 plan for electing council members from geographic districts was approved by 60 percent of Austin voters last November 6 who voted for Proposition 3. Work is well underway to establish an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) that will draw council districts to be implemented in the November 2014 election. The ICRC’s duties are specified in Article II, Section 3 of the Austin City Charter.

Close to a hundred people attended the panel discussion held the evening of Thursday, May 2, at the Bass Lecture Hall on the University of Texas campus. Upwards of half of those raised their hands when asked who had applied to serve on the ICRC.

The event was jointly hosted by UT’s School of Law, the LBJ School’s Center for Politics and Governance, and Austinites for Geographic Representation.

Redistricting Veteran Shares His Wisdom

Redistricting Veteran Shares His Wisdom

 Member of California Redistricting Commission
describes what to watch out for in Austin redistricting

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Thursday May 2, 2013 3:55pm

One of the 14 members of the California Redistricting Commission was the featured speaker at today’s luncheon hosted by Austinites for Geographic Representation and sponsored by the Austin Area Research Organization and League of Woman Voters Austin Area.

Angelo AnchetaAttorney Angelo Ancheta is director of the Katherine and George Alexander Community Law Center and an associate clinical professor at Santa Clara University, where he teaches on subjects including election law, voting rights, and immigration. He came to Austin at his own expense and with no other business here to help educate the community about what to expect going forward.

From an applicants’ pool of 30,000 people, Ancheta won a slot on the California Redistricting Commission, the group that drew the maps for four different political jurisdictions, which included 80 seats in the California State Assembly, 40 seats in the California State Senate, 53 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and four seats on the California State Board of Equalization.

Ancheta’s experience in drawing maps for California, a state with 38 million people, offers good insights into what lies ahead for the City of Austin and its 845,000 people.

Proposition 3 Campaign Relies on Grass Roots

Austinites for Geographic Representation is going door-to-door, running phone banks, and distributing info at polling places.

Prop 3 Proponents Question Prop 4 Legality

Prop 3 Proponents Question Prop 4 Legality

Civil rights attorney and two minority groups
say federal preclearance for 8-2-1 is unlikely


by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2012
Posted Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:38pm

President Lyndon Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965A pointed legal question keeps cropping up in the debates between proponents of Proposition 3 (the 10-1 plan for electing council members) and Proposition 4 (the 8-2-1 plan).

Proposition 3 debaters have repeatedly stated that the Proposition 4 hybrid plan will not be able to win federal approval because it will not pass muster under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Prop 4 advocates insist the 8-2-1 plan would indeed be approved.

It would be good to get past this back-and-forth argument so that voters know whether or not the hybrid 8-2-1 plan has a good chance of being approved before casting ballots for a proposal whose implementation might be doomed. The election is November 6. Early voting starts tomorrow.

Poll Triggers Backlash from 10-1 Proponents

Poll Triggers Backlash from 10-1 Proponents

Proposition 3 advocates say Prop 4 playing dirty
with a misleading poll, Prop 4 denies the charge

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog
Posted Wednesday October 17, 2012 10:09pm

Proposition 3 backers of the 10-1 plan for electing council members issued a press release today claiming that Proposition 4 supporters of the 8-2-1 plan used “Karl Rove dirty tricks” with a “push poll” that mischaracterized the sources of the group’s funding.

Proposition 4 proponents say an automated poll was conducted but it was not a push poll.

“A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll,” according to Wikipedia. “In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.”

Bruce ToddThe Austinites for Geographic Representation (AGR) press release quoted Bruce Todd of Bruce Todd Public Affairs, who was mayor of Austin from 1991-1997,  saying, “Not only are the Prop 4 proponents engaging in dirty political tactics by using a push poll, they are funding it with money that came in after the 30 day out reporting period. Prop 3 is supported by the largest, most diverse grassroots coalition in Austin’s history. Prop 3’s support includes the NAACP, LULAC Districts 7 and 12, South Austin Democrats, Travis County Green Party, Austin Central Labor Council–Texas AFL-CIO, Austin Tejano Democrats, and, yes, Republicans. Our breadth proves all of Austin wants Prop 3.”

It should be noted there would be nothing improper about using funds raised by Austin Community for Change (AC4C) after the September 27 reporting deadline for any legitimate political purpose.

AC4C reported raising $2,685 in the three months ending September 27 and a total of $4,592 since it began fundraising June 1. AGR had raised nearly $90,000 with four weeks left till the November 6 election. AGR’s largest contributors were the Homebuilders Association of Greater Austin and environmentalist Kirk Mitchell.(Disclosure: Mitchell is The Austin Bulldog’s largest donor.)

Facebook comment triggered reaction

Proposition 4 Campaign Reports Finances

Proposition 4 Campaign Reports Finances

Late report lists $2,685 raised in last three months
but fails to provide details about campaign expenses

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2012
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 7:54pm
Corrected Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:34pm

Austin Community for Change (AC4C) submitted its latest campaign finance report after the 5pm deadline to reach the City Clerk’s office yesterday.

A copy obtained this morning indicates the political action committee (PAC) favoring the 8-2-1 plan for electing council members collected $2,685 in the past three months. Combined with the previous reported total of $1,907 brings the AC4C PAC’s total fundraising to $4,592.

The amount of campaign contributions netted by the Proposition 4 supporters is swamped by the competing Proposition 3 plan for geographic representation. Austinites for Geographic Representation (AGR) has raised nearly $90,000.

As reported yesterday, AGR raised $40,662 in the latest reporting period and nearly $70,000 to date. AGR also reported receiving an additional pledge of $20,000. That will bring the PAC’s total fundraising to almost $90,000, with nearly four weeks remaining before election day.

Proposition 3 Campaign Reports Finances

Proposition 3 Campaign Reports Finances

10-1 campaign proponents raised more than $40,000,
Proposition 4’s 8-2-1 advocates’ report not submitted

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:23pm
Corrected Thursday, October 11, 20129:57a

Austinites for Geographic Representation (AGR), the proponent for Proposition 3 on the November 6 ballot, reported raising $40,662 from July 1 through September 27. However, The Austin Bulldog’s tally of the contributions totals $37,882. Campaign treasurer Stacy Suits was in Dallas today and not able to resolve the discrepancy. (The report was correct as submitted. The Austin Bulldog regrets the error.)

The AGR total does not include the $29,131 previously reported in the January and July campaign finance reports. The latest report brings total campaign contributions to nearly $70,000.

Austin Community For Change (AC4C) the proponent for Proposition 4, did not submit its PAC report by today’s 5pm deadline. AC4C’s only previous report showed the organization had raised $1,907.

AGR’s largest donation was the $15,000 received from “Home PAC Corporate,” a political action committee operated by the Homebuilders Association of Greater Austin. Home PAC gave two donations, one for $11,000 and another for $4,000. (Home PAC also donated $1,000 during the previous reporting period that ended June 30.)