Unofficial Copy Travis Co. District Clerk Velva L. Price 1 Who Plaintiffs Chose Not to Include in This Lawsuit

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Unofficial Copy Travis Co. District Clerk Velva L. Price 1 Who Plaintiffs Chose Not to Include in This Lawsuit 9/26/2017 5:00 PM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-17-003451 D-1-GN-17-003451 Irene Silva LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS, TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE § OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION § FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF § COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP) and § RUTHANN GEER, § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS Plaintiffs, § § v. § § ROLANDO PABLOS, Secretary of State § for the State of Texas, and KEITH § INGRAM, Director, Texas Elections § 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Division of the Secretary of State, § Defendants. § § DEFENDANTS’ PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT: Defendants, Rolando Pablos, Secretary of State for the State of Texas, and Keith Ingram, Director, Texas Elections Division of the Secretary of State (collectively, “Defendants”) file this Plea to the Jurisdiction and would respectfully show the Court the following: INTRODUCTION This lawsuit challenges the Secretary of State’s (“SOS”) production of public information in response to a request for information made by the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the “Commission”). Pursuant to the controlling statute, Texas Election Code § 18.066, the SOS is required to produce information from the statewide computerized voter registration list—subject only to limited, enumerated exceptions—to any requestor who complies with the statute’s procedures. The SOS intends to follow State law in response to the Commission’s request—no more, no less—just as it has in the past with similar requests from individuals and Unofficialorganizations from copy across the Travis political spectrum. Co. District Clerk Velva L. Price 1 This case represents a classic example of a plaintiff suing the wrong party under the wrong cause of action. In their Second Amended Petition, Plaintiffs bring claims under Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (“UDJA”) alleging that Defendants’ actions violate section 18.066 of the Election Code and section 552.101 of the Texas Government Code (the “Texas Public Information Act” or “PIA”). But even a cursory glance at their pleadings reveals that Plaintiffs’ true grievance lies not with State actors, but with the Commission. See, e.g., Plfs’ Sec. Am. Pet. at ¶ 22 (“[T]he Commission’s stated intention…would enable widespread abuse of [private voter data] to the detriment of Texas citizens.”); id. at ¶ 79 (“[T]he Commission’s intended use of the Voter List, as confirmed in the Commission’s Letter itself, would violate Texas law and the rights of Texas citizens.”); id. at ¶ 86 (“The Commission’s intended (or compelled) publication of the information provided by Texas (and other states) would eviscerate the requirements set forth in Tex. Elec. Code § 18.066.”) (emphasis added). Regardless of the merits—or lack thereof—of Plaintiffs’ complaints about the federal Commission,1 their allegations are insufficient to state a claim against Defendants that falls within this Court’s jurisdiction. Rather, at the very least, Plaintiffs must allege and prove that the State Defendants have acted outside their legal authority under State law. But there is simply no evidence that the Defendants have violated or will violate State law. Indeed, as Plaintiffs grudgingly acknowledge in their amendments to their Original Petition, the SOS has applied section 18.066’s requirements in processing the Commission’s request. Id. at ¶ 22 (“[T]he Commission has submitted an affidavit providing that it ‘will not use the information obtained in connection with advertising or promoting commercial products or services’…”). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs continue to proceed with this lawsuit ostensibly to ensure that the production does not violate State law. But Unofficial copy Travis Co. District Clerk Velva L. Price 1 Who Plaintiffs chose not to include in this lawsuit. 2 their requested relief would compel the opposite result, by requiring the State to violate its own laws simply based on the fact that the request comes from the Commission. The Court should reject setting this dangerous precedent and find that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by sovereign immunity. BACKGROUND In 2003, the Texas Legislature amended the Election Code to require the SOS to maintain a statewide computerized voter registration list. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 18.061; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1315, Sec. 6, eff. Jan. 1, 2006. The enacted legislation took effect in 2006 and also required the SOS to produce information from the statewide computerized voter registration list to “any person on request not later than the 15th day after the date the request is received.” Id.; TEX. ELEC. CODE § 18.066 (emphasis added). In 2007 and 2009, the Legislature further amended the statute to directly address what voter information can be withheld from production under section 18.066. Id.; Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 594 (H.B. 41), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2007; Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 465 (S.B. 281), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2009. In its current form, the Legislature requires the SOS to withhold social security numbers and residential addresses for judges and their spouses. Id. This suit arises from the Commission’s request for information from the statewide computerized voter registration list. On or about June 28, 2017, the SOS received a letter from the Commission for publicly available voter registration records. See Ex. A-1. Shortly thereafter, the Commission requested that the State delay submitting any records until the United States District Court of the District of Columbia ruled on a pending motion that sought to prevent the Commission from receiving records. See Ex. A. After that motion was disposed of, the Commission sent the UnofficialSOS another letter copy re-asserting Travis its previous Co. requestDistrict for voter Clerk registration Velva records. L. ThePrice letter 3 explicitly and repeatedly stated that “the Commission will not publicly release any personally identifiable information regarding any individual voter or any group of voters from the voter registration records” the SOS submits. Ex. A-1. On September 7, 2017, the Commission formally requested the information through a “Voter Registration Public Information Request Form.” Ex. A-2. As this request constituted a request under 18.066, the SOS required the Commission to also submit an affidavit swearing under oath that the “information obtained from the State Master Voter File will not be used to advertise or promote commercial products or services.” Id.; see also TEX. ELEC. CODE § 18.066(d). Six days later the Commission submitted a re-executed request form that was amended to specifically request voter history for certain elections from 2006 onward. Id. Notably, the Commission submitted the required affidavit in conjunction with each request. Id. On September 19, 2017, the Commission paid the SOS $3,427.00, the full amount for the cost of the file which would be charged to any other requestor requesting the file. Further, in addition to requiring the affidavit, and the payment, which it has already received, the SOS intends to follow the law in processing this request, including by withholding social security numbers and the exempted residential addresses of judges and their spouses. Ex. A. The Commission’s request for voter information is not unusual. Indeed, the SOS responds to similar requests from requestors from across the political spectrum. See Ex. A-3. For instance, state and federal legislators, as well as people associated with political campaigns—both Democrat and Republican—routinely request this information to use in conjunction with elections, campaigns, and constituent outreach. University and research organization, such as Catalist and Harvard University, also request this information. Likewise, non-profit organizations, such as the UnofficialMexican American copy Legal TravisDefense and Co. Educational District Fund Clerk (“MALDEF Velva”) and L.the PriceNational 4 Association of Latino Election Officials (“NALEO”), have also requested and received this information in furtherance of their missions. Finally, federal courts routinely request this information to populate jury lists, both under section 18.066 and separate federal statutes and court order specific to jury information. Notably, Plaintiffs have never objected to the release of public voting information to these requestors. Instead, they single out the Commission and ask the Court to impose restrictions over and above—and in conflict to—what the law requires in conjunction with this specific request. But the statute in question requires the SOS to equally apply the law’s requirements to “any person” who requests information—including the Commission. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 18.066. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by sovereign immunity and fail as a matter of law for multiple independent reasons. First, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by sovereign immunity because they have not identified a statutory waiver of immunity for any of their claims. More specifically, it is well established that the UDJA does not waive the State’s immunity by itself and neither the Election Code, nor the PIA waive the State’s immunity to allow this suit. Second, Plaintiffs have not alleged and cannot establish a valid ultra vires claim because it is undisputed that Defendants have acted in accordance with State law. Initially, as Plaintiffs effectively concede in their pleadings, the Election Code—not the PIA—controls the Defendants’ response to the Commission’s request as it is the more specific and later enacted statute. And, there is simply no evidence that Defendants have violated or will violate the Election Code. Rather, Plaintiffs’ attempt to have the Court condition the release of public information on additional restrictions—not found in the statute or applied to other requestors—is a blatantly improper attempt to control State action. Third, even if Unofficialthe Court holds thatcopy the PIA Travis governs Co.the production, District the ClerkCourt still Velva lacks jurisdiction L. Price over 5 Plaintiffs’ claims because their claims and requests for relief are redundant to those available under section 552.3215 of the PIA.
Recommended publications
  • 87Th LEGISLATIVE SESSION and COVID RESTRICTIONS On
    87th LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND COVID RESTRICTIONS On January 12, 2021, lawmakers from across the state will convene the 87th Texas Legislative Session, meeting for the Regular Session over the following 140 days through May 31. This will be the first time that all 181 legislators will come together since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the virus is top-of-mind for everyone involved. While the Governor recently announced the re-opening of the Capitol building on January 4, we have minimal knowledge of the health and safety protocols the members, staff and Capitol visitors will have to follow when they enter the building next week. It will surely be a much different environment than previous sessions. We know the following requirements will be in place as of today, per a memo released by the State Preservation Board last week: • The Capitol building will only be open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday; it will be closed Saturday and Sunday for cleaning. • The public may only enter through the North Capitol entrance. • Covid testing will be encouraged and provided on the North Plaza at no expense. • A mask will be required to be worn inside the building at all times. • All deliveries to the Capitol, including food and beverage, must be left at the loading dock; no delivery personnel will be allowed beyond the loading dock or through the public entrance. • No public tours or groups or sponsored event space will be available. • The House and Senate will manage public access to their offices once convened and rules are adopted, and the public will need to check with the offices directly for specific guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Vetoes of Legislation 85Th Legislature
    HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION October 5, 2017 Texas House of Representatives Vetoes of Legislation 85th Legislature Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed 50 bills approved by the 85th Legislature during the 2017 regular legislative session. The vetoed bills include 36 House bills and 14 Senate bills. This report includes a digest of each vetoed measure, the governor’s stated reason for the veto, and a response to the veto by the author or the sponsor of the bill. If the House Research Organization analyzed a vetoed bill, the Daily Floor Report in which the analysis appeared is cited. A summary of the governor’s line-item vetoes to SB 1 by Nelson, the general appropriations act for fiscal 2018-19, will appear in an upcoming House Research Organization state finance report, Texas Budget Highlights, Fiscal 2018-19. Focus Report: Number 85-7 Page 2 House Research Organization Contents Recognizing academic success by former special education students HB 61 by Guillen (Uresti) ............................................................................................................. 7 Entitling a parent to view a deceased child’s body before an autopsy HB 298 by Larson (Campbell) ..................................................................................................... 8 Requiring state agencies to cite legislation authorizing rules HB 462 by Dale (Zaffirini) ............................................................................................................ 9 Coordinating statewide pesticide disposal activities HB 572 by Stephenson (Kolkhorst)
    [Show full text]
  • Hugh Shine ‘74
    Hugh Shine ‘74 Hugh Shine was born in Houston, TX and grew up in Navasota, TX before coming to Sam Houston State in 1970. Hugh was a Lowman Rifle at Sam Houston. He graduated and was commissioned Armor in 1974. After receiving his commission, Second Lieutenant Shine completed a basic officer course at Fort Knox, Kentucky. He was then assigned to the U.S. Army Aviation Center and School for flight training as a helicopter pilot. His active duty assignments included South Korea and Fort Hood, Texas before separating from active duty at the rank of Captain after six years of service. After leaving active duty, he continued his military service in the Texas Army National Guard. While a National Guard member, He attended the U.S. Army War College, where he completed an M.A. in strategic studies. He commanded aviation units, including the aviation brigade of the 49th Armored Division, garrisoned at Camp Mabry, Austin, Texas, and following that assignment, Hugh retired from the military at the rank of Colonel with 30 years of service. In 1983, shortly after separating from active duty and while a member of the National Guard, Hugh began a civilian career as a financial advisor in Temple, TX. He completed an M.B.A. from Baylor University and later an investment associate certificate through the executive education program of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. In addition to that, COL (R) Shine served from 1986-1990 in the Texas House of Representatives, representing the 55th District. He again ran for that same seat and won it in 2016 and is still serving as Representative for the 55th District.
    [Show full text]
  • HRBC 2020 General Election Endorsements
    HRBC 2020 General Election Endorsements To receive an endorsement from HRBC, candidates and issues must receive a two-thirds majority of Trustee votes. No money was accepted from candidates in our endorsement process. U.S. Senator: John Cornyn U.S. Representative, District 2: Dan Crenshaw U.S. Representative, District 7: Wesley Hunt U.S. Representative, District 8: Kevin Brady U.S. Representative, District 10: Michael McCaul U.S. Representative, District 18: Wendell Champion U.S. Representative, District 22: Troy Nehls U.S. Representative, District 29: Jaimy Blanco U.S. Representative, District 36: Brian Babin Railroad Commissioner: James “Jim” Wright Chief Justice, Supreme Court: Nathan Hecht Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6: Jane Bland Justice, Supreme Court, Place 7: Jeff Boyd Justice, Supreme Court, Place 8: Brett Busby Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3: Bert Richardson Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4: Kevin Patrick Yeary Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9: David Newell State Board of Education, District 6: Will Hickman State Board of Education, District 8: Audrey Young State Senator, District 4: Brandon Creighton State Senator, District 11: Larry Taylor State Senator, District 18: Lois W. Kolkhorst State Representative, District 26: Jacey Jetton State Representative, District 29: Ed Thompson State Representative, District 126: E. Sam Harless State Representative, District 127: Dan Huberty State Representative, District 128: Briscoe Cain State Representative, District 129: Dennis Paul State Representative,
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2020 PAC Contributions
    2019-2020 Election Cycle Contributions State Candidate or Committee Name Party -District Total Amount ALABAMA Sen. Candidate Thomas Tuberville R $5,000 Rep. Candidate Jerry Carl R-01 $2,500 Rep. Michael Rogers R-03 $1,500 Rep. Gary Palmer R-06 $1,500 Rep. Terri Sewell D-07 $10,000 ALASKA Sen. Dan Sullivan R $3,800 Rep. Donald Young R-At-Large $7,500 ARIZONA Sen. Martha McSally R $10,000 Rep. Andy Biggs R-05 $5,000 Rep. David Schweikert R-06 $6,500 ARKANSAS Sen. Thomas Cotton R $7,500 Rep. Rick Crawford R-01 $2,500 Rep. French Hill R-02 $9,000 Rep. Steve Womack R-03 $2,500 Rep. Bruce Westerman R-04 $7,500 St. Sen. Ben Hester R-01 $750 St. Sen. Jim Hendren R-02 $750 St. Sen. Lance Eads R-07 $750 St. Sen. Milton Hickey R-11 $1,500 St. Sen. Bruce Maloch D-12 $750 St. Sen. Alan Clark R-13 $750 St. Sen. Breanne Davis R-16 $500 St. Sen. John Cooper R-21 $750 St. Sen. David Wallace R-22 $500 St. Sen. Ronald Caldwell R-23 $750 St. Sen. Stephanie Flowers D-25 $750 St. Sen. Eddie Cheatham D-26 $750 St. Sen. Trent Garner R-27 $750 St. Sen. Ricky Hill R-29 $500 St. Sen. Jane English R-34 $1,500 St. Rep. Lane Jean R-02 $500 St. Rep. Danny Watson R-03 $500 St. Rep. DeAnn Vaught R-04 $500 St. Rep. David Fielding D-05 $500 St. Rep. Matthew Shepherd R-06 $1,000 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health December 2010
    InterIm report to the 82nd texas LegisLature House Committee on Public HealtH December 2010 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTERIM REPORT 2010 A REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 82ND TEXAS LEGISLATURE LOIS W. KOLKHORST CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE CLERK BRYAN LAW Committee On Public Health December 6, 2010 Lois Kolkhorst P.O. Box 2910 Chairman Austin, Texas 78768-2910 The Honorable Joe Straus Speaker, Texas House of Representatives Members of the Texas House of Representatives Texas State Capitol, Rm. 2W.13 Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Mr. Speaker and Fellow Members: The Committee on Public Health of the Eighty-first Legislature hereby submits its interim report including the committee's findings and policy recommendations for consideration by the Eighty-second Legislature. The committee held six public hearings on the interim charges and gathered a broad requisite of knowledge from the leading experts and leaders in all the policy areas outlined by the interim charges. We hope this report will be a useful guide and point of reference for the Eighty-second Legislature. We thank you for providing this committee the opportunity to serve the people of Texas by studying these important issues of public health for all Texans. Respectfully submitted, _______________________ Lois Kolkhorst, Chair _____________________ ______________________ Elliot Naishtat, Vice Chair Garnet Coleman _____________________ ______________________ John E. Davis Veronica Gonzales _____________________ ______________________ Chuck Hopson Susan King ______________________ ______________________ Jodie Laubenberg Jim McReynolds __________________ ______________________ Vicki Truitt John Zerwas [Lois Kolkhorst] Chair Members: [Elliot Naishtat, Garnet Coleman, John Davis, Veronica Gonzales, Chuck Hopson, Susan King, Jodie Laubenberg, Jim McReynolds, Vicki Truitt, John Zerwas] TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • VERTICAL TARGET February 4, 2021 TIPRO Newsletter
    VOLUME 23, NO. 3 FEBRUARY 4, 2021 TIPRO releases “2021 State of Energy Report” Texas The Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO) released the sixth edition of its Independent “State of Energy Report” on Thursday, February 4, offering a detailed analysis of national and state trends in oil and natural gas employment, wages and other key economic factors for the state's energy industry in 2020. Producers and TIPRO’s “State of Energy” repor” series was developed to quantify and track the economic impact of domestic Royalty Owners oil and natural gas production with an emphasis on the state of Texas. In 2021, TIPRO updated its industry Association definition to include the Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction sector and provides updated and historical data in this year's publication. According to the association’s new report, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry employed 902,223 professionals in 2020, representing a net decline of 160,323 direct jobs compared to 2019. The industry paid a national annual wage averaging $113,601 last year, 86 percent higher than average private sector wages in the United States. Payroll in the U.S. oil and gas industry meanwhile totaled $102 billion and direct Gross Regional Product (GRP) for the industry was $741 billion in 2020, or 4 percent of the U.S. economy. Additionally, total U.S. goods and services purchased in 2020 by the oil and gas industry decreased, but still exceeded $527 billion from over 900 business sectors, notes TIPRO. In Texas, the oil and gas industry continued to provide significant economic support despite challenging market conditions, accounting for 39 percent of all oil and gas employment in the nation, as outlined in the new report.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Texas State Voter Guide
    2014 Texas State Voter Guide 2014 Texas Voter Guide Table of Contents • Importance in getting civically engaged • Important dates • Who is your representative The Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-TX) has compiled some resources to help inform community members when they vote in the November 2014 elections. Enclosed are Texas School of Education, State Representatives, State Senators, Lt. Governor race, Governor’s race, and Congressional representatives. Policy information gathered on candidates is strictly from the respective candidates official websites. Where such a website was not available, information was taken from interviews directly with candidates, or the candidates’ respective political party official websites (i.e. Democrat, Republican and Libertarian). The amount of information listed on candidates’ profiles is based strictly on the information provided on their official websites, or (where necessary), interviews/party websites. No opinion pieces, news articles, opinion polls or opponent sited facts/opinions were used on the candidates’ profiles. No candidate profiles were made for unopposed positions. CAIR’s aim is to provide unbiased, bipartisan information on key candidates running in the November 2014 election cycle. While CAIR’s aim is to assist the voter with non-bias information, we encourage everyone to do his or her own research and to not rely solely on this brochure. If any information in our Election Voter Guide is found to be false or inaccurate, please contact us at (713) 838-2247 and we will make it our priority to correct any mistakes. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is the largest American Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • IDEOLOGY and PARTISANSHIP in the 87Th (2021) REGULAR SESSION of the TEXAS LEGISLATURE
    IDEOLOGY AND PARTISANSHIP IN THE 87th (2021) REGULAR SESSION OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE Mark P. Jones, Ph.D. Fellow in Political Science, Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy July 2021 © 2021 Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and the Baker Institute for Public Policy. Wherever feasible, papers are reviewed by outside experts before they are released. However, the research and views expressed in this paper are those of the individual researcher(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Baker Institute. Mark P. Jones, Ph.D. “Ideology and Partisanship in the 87th (2021) Regular Session of the Texas Legislature” https://doi.org/10.25613/HP57-BF70 Ideology and Partisanship in the 87th (2021) Regular Session of the Texas Legislature Executive Summary This report utilizes roll call vote data to improve our understanding of the ideological and partisan dynamics of the Texas Legislature’s 87th regular session. The first section examines the location of the members of the Texas Senate and of the Texas House on the liberal-conservative dimension along which legislative politics takes place in Austin. In both chambers, every Republican is more conservative than every Democrat and every Democrat is more liberal than every Republican. There does, however, exist substantial ideological diversity within the respective Democratic and Republican delegations in each chamber. The second section explores the extent to which each senator and each representative was on the winning side of the non-lopsided final passage votes (FPVs) on which they voted.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunday, May 26, 2013 — 82Nd
    HOUSE JOURNAL EIGHTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION PROCEEDINGS EIGHTY-SECOND DAY Ð SUNDAY, MAY 26, 2013 The house met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the speaker. The roll of the house was called and a quorum was announced present (Recordi1286). Present Ð Mr. Speaker; Alonzo; Anderson; Ashby; Aycock; Bell; Bonnen, G.; Branch; Burkett; Burnam; Button; Callegari; Canales; Capriglione; Carter; Clardy; Collier; Cook; Cortez; Craddick; Creighton; Dale; Darby; Davis, J.; Davis, S.; Deshotel; Dukes; Dutton; Elkins; Fallon; Farias; Farney; Fletcher; Flynn; Frank; Frullo; Geren; Goldman; Gonzales; GonzaÂlez, M.; Gonzalez, N.; Gooden; Guerra; Gutierrez; Harper-Brown; Hilderbran; Howard; Huberty; Hughes; Hunter; Isaac; Johnson; Kacal; Keffer; King, K.; King, P.; King, S.; King, T.; Kleinschmidt; Klick; Kolkhorst; Krause; Kuempel; Larson; Lavender; Leach; Lewis; Lozano; MaÂrquez; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; McClendon; Miller, D.; Miller, R.; Morrison; Murphy; Naishtat; NevaÂrez; Oliveira; Orr; Otto; Paddie; Parker; Patrick; Perez; Perry; Phillips; Pickett; Pitts; Price; Raney; Ratliff; Raymond; Riddle; Ritter; Rodriguez, E.; Rose; Sanford; Schaefer; Sheffield, J.; Sheffield, R.; Simmons; Simpson; Smith; Springer; Stephenson; Stickland; Taylor; Thompson, E.; Thompson, S.; Toth; Turner, C.; Turner, E.S.; Turner, S.; Villalba; Villarreal; Vo; White; Workman; Wu; Zedler; Zerwas. Absent Ð Allen; Alvarado; Anchia; Bohac; Bonnen, D.; Coleman; Crownover; Davis, Y.; Eiland; Farrar; Giddings; Guillen; Harless; Hernandez Luna; Herrero; Laubenberg;
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Lilly Report of Political Financial Support
    16 2016 Lilly Report of Political Financial Support 1 16 2016 Lilly Report of Political Financial Support Lilly employees are dedicated to innovation and the discovery of medicines to help people live longer, healthier and more active lives, and more importantly, doing their work with integrity. LillyPAC was established to work to ensure that this vision is also shared by lawmakers, who make policy decisions that impact our company and the patients we serve. In a new political environment where policies can change with a “tweet,” we must be even more vigilant about supporting those who believe in our story, and our PAC is an effective way to support those who share our views. We also want to ensure that you know the story of LillyPAC. Transparency is an important element of our integrity promise, and so we are pleased to share this 2016 LillyPAC annual report with you. LillyPAC raised $949,267 through the generous, voluntary contributions of 3,682 Lilly employees in 2016. Those contributions allowed LillyPAC to invest in 187 federal candidates and more than 500 state candidates who understand the importance of what we do. You will find a full financial accounting in the following pages, as well as complete lists of candidates and political committees that received LillyPAC support and the permissible corporate contributions made by the company. In addition, this report is a helpful guide to understanding how our PAC operates and makes its contribution decisions. On behalf of the LillyPAC Governing Board, I want to thank everyone who has made the decision to support this vital program.
    [Show full text]
  • Betomania Has Bitten the Dust, but Texas Democrats Still Have a Reason to Give a Smile Mark P
    Betomania Has Bitten the Dust, But Texas Democrats Still Have a Reason to Give a Smile Mark P. Jones Baker Institute Fellow in Political Science Joseph D. Jamail Chair in Latin American Studies Rice University Shift in US House & TX Leg Seats & Appeals Judges & Harris County Comm Court Office Seats 2018 Seats 2019 Net Dem Gain US House 25 R vs. 11 D 23 R vs. 13 D +2 TX Senate 21 R vs. 10 D 19 R vs. 12 D +2 TX House 95 R vs. 55 D 83 R vs. 67 D +12 Appeals Court Judges 66 R vs. 14 D 41 R vs. 39 D +25 Harris County Comm Court 4 R vs. 1 D 3 D vs. 2 R +2 Could Have Been Worse for TX GOP • Trump + Beto + Straight Ticket Voting – Record Midterm Turnout – Greater Use of STV – Higher Democratic STV • The 5 Percenters – Statewide – US House – TX Legislature The Statewide Races: Office GOP Percent Dem Percent Margin ’18/’14 Governor Greg Abbott 56 Lupe Valdez 43 13/20 Land Comm. George P. Bush 54 Miguel Suazo 43 11/25 Comptroller Glenn Hegar 53 Joi Chevalier 43 10/20 RRC Christi Craddick 53 Roman McAllen 44 9/21* Ag. Comm Sid Miller 51 Kim Olson 46 5/22 Lt. Governor Dan Patrick 51 Mike Collier 47 4/19 Atty General Ken Paxton 51 Justin Nelson 47 4/21 US Senate Ted Cruz 51 Beto O’Rourke 48 3/27* Trump 2016: 9% Margin of Victory. Statewide GOP Judicial: 15% Margin of Victory The US House 5 Percenters & Friends District Republican Democrat 2018/2016 Margins CD‐23 Will Hurd Gina Ortiz Jones** 1/1 CD‐21 Chip Roy* Joseph Kopser 3/21* CD‐31 John Carter MJ Hegar 3/22 CD‐24 Kenny Marchant Jan McDowell 3/17 CD‐10 Michael McCaul Mike Siegel 4/19 CD‐22 Pete
    [Show full text]