Voter participation: a lesson for Dallas

For the last couple of days I have been inundated by analyses from pundits on why voters cast their ballots the way they did on Tuesday. But there’s another analysis I haven’t seen that I would welcome and would find even more interesting.

U.S. citizens don’t vote and I have absolutely no idea why that’s so. Of course, there’s always going to be a lot of people who don’t take part in the political process in any form whatsoever. That’s their prerogative. But what mystifies me is that two thirds of Americans who devote the time and energy to register to vote never show up to the polls. Why? That’s what I want to know.

For Dallas municipal elections it’s even worse. Much worse. Last year, only 7 percent — 7 percent — of the city’s registered voters took the time to select a candidate to represent them on the city council. That’s disgraceful. But in 2011, when the city was picking a new mayor as well as council representatives, only 13 percent voted.

In Austin this year, the voter turnout for the city council election was 40 percent of the registered voters. Not great, but still significantly better than the Dallas numbers. In 2010 it was 38 percent in Austin, more than double the 15 percent that voted in Dallas’ 2009 elections. In 2006, it was 40 percent in Austin, 13 percent for the comparable election in Dallas.

That disparity I can explain quite easily because in 2012, only 11 percent of eligible Austin voters participated in the city council election process. The difference? That 2012 election was held in May, the others were held as part of the November general election ballot.

Dallas, for some reason, also holds its municipal elections in May. The argument for this that I’ve heard is that Dallas city council candidates don’t want their elections to be buried beneath all the statewide and nationwide choices that they would have to share the ballot with. What a crock. Talk about basic insecurity.

When Dallas was holding a series of public hearings on proposed changes to the city charter earlier this year I testified at one of them and one of my recommendations was to move Dallas city elections from May to November to attract greater voter participation. C’mon, 7 percent is a travesty that should make Dallas ashamed.

But I would still want to know why most of the nation’s registered voters don’t bother to vote. Would love for someone to take up that issue.

Jasso does the right thing the wrong way.

Dallas City Council member Delia Jasso ... caught in the cross-hairs

I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating. The resolution introduced by Dallas City Council member Scott Griggs supporting gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or gay rights. It was nothing more than Griggs displaying just how low he would go to win an election. And fellow City Council member Delia Jasso’s initial reaction to Griggs move was nothing more than a display of how spineless a city council candidate she was.

In fact, the only person on the council with the smarts to see through this entire subterfuge is Mayor Mike Rawlings who maintains, quite correctly, debating gay marriage is a complete waste of the council’s time because there is absolutely nothing legislatively the council can do about the issue.

For the 93 percent of the registered voters in Dallas who slept through the most recent elections, here’s what’s going on.

The Dallas City Council went through its every 10-year redistricting battle and when the smoke cleared, lo and behold, two incumbents, Griggs and Jasso, wound up in the same district. In a major bit of pandering, the city fathers tried to convince the world this was a Hispanic district because its population was 66 percent or so Hispanic. What the city fathers hid under the covers was the fact that the voting population of the district was at least 60 per cent white.

In an attempt to make sure as many of those white voters came to the polls as possible and do it with free media, Griggs announced his resolution only a couple of weeks before the election. However, in order to get it on the council’s agenda, he needed the signatures of four other council members. (The city charter allows only the city manager or the mayor to place voting items on the agenda. The only exception is if five of the 15 council members sign a petition to get an item on the agenda.) Of course, Angela Hunt signed on — she’ll sign anything Griggs puts in front of her (and vice versa). Then Griggs challenged Jasso, effectively telling her sign or right in the latter stages of the campaign I will brand you anti-gay. Instead of doing the right thing and echoing the mayor’s view, she collapsed under the pressure and signed on.

But, as expected, she lost the election so, according to a front-page story in today’s Dallas Morning News, she shouted "Screw you, Scott Griggs," and said she no longer wanted her name on the petition.

Hunt, who is term limited and will be leaving the council, proved again she hasn’t a clue as to what’s going on by calling Jasso’s decision "a slap in the face" to the gay and lesbian community, fulfilling her buddy Griggs’s plan to unfairly brand Jasso. Jasso is just as guilty, however, by failing to stand up and say what she should have said right from the outset.

It will be interesting to see if Griggs continues to pursue this swiss-cheese issue. The election is over. He won quite handily with 60 percent of the vote (go figure). He no longer needs to pursue it and it’s no surprise he’s been silent on the issue since the election. But if does pursue it, that will mean only one thing. He believes Rawlings only plans to serve one four year term as mayor and two years from now Griggs will run for the top elected post in city government.

Now that’s a real scary proposition.

Floyd falls for Griggs’ gimmick

For those of you not following this little slice of local intrigue, let me set the stage for you. Seemingly out of nowhere, Dallas City Councilman Scott Griggs announces he is going to introduce a resolution putting the council on record as supporting marriage equality. Not only that, but he says he has the votes to pass it.

The gullible Jacquielynn Floyd

Mike Rawlings, the mayor of our fair city, a well-intentioned, somewhat intelligent (two attributes not usually associated with our mayors of late) chap, says, while he’s all for marriage equality, the resolution is a complete waste of time, has nothing to do with city business and should not even be debated. Rawlings knows a ploy when he smells one.

Dallas Morning News columnist Jacquielynn Floyd, on the other hand, is not that clever. Perhaps she only sees things at face value.

In a column that began on the front page of the paper’s Metro section Friday, Floyd wrote that the mayor "is missing an opportunity to lend his moral weight to an issue that affects an awful lot of people in this community," as if Griggs’s resolution really had anything whatsoever to do with marriage equality.

No, what the mayor is missing an opportunity to do is to play Griggs’ dupe, something which Floyd had no problem succumbing to, proving it by devoting the rest of her column about how there’s this cultural shift taking place in America on the issue of marriage equality.

Wake up, Floyd! Griggs’ resolution is not about marriage equality, it’s about winning re-election in a neck-and-neck race against fellow council member Delia Jasso. Do you think it’s just a coincidence Griggs wants this resolution to come before the council in its last meeting before this month’s election? Griggs is mining for votes any way he can and this is nothing more than a blatant attempt to secure the gay vote in the district. And, if you look closely at the neighborhoods in the redrawn district, you’re going to find some with significant gay populations.

I’ll give Floyd 1,000-to-1 odds, Griggs wouldn’t even bother with this ploy after the election.

Rawlings knows exactly what’s going on here, but he’s too diplomatic to accuse Griggs of pandering, which he is guilty of. Instead the mayor says this is not an issue for the city council to debate, just like condemning Syria for possibly using chemical weapons is not an issue for the Dallas City Council to debate.

However, if Griggs happened to discover a large number of voting age Syrians in his district, no telling what he’d do.

And Floyd would probably go "Yeah, let’s get behind that. There’s a huge cultural shift taking place in today’s society concerning Syria’s possible use of chemical weapons."

Give me a break.

Why are these council candidates running?

Someone asked me today to pick a winner in the District 13 City Council race, the one between Jennifer Staubach Gates, Leland R. Burk and two other candidates no one cares about except their immediate families. After giving an answer, I fired back with a question of my own: Why are these candidates seeking this seat now held by retiring Ann Margolin?

Jennifer Staubach Gates

So I decided to visit their respective Web pages in search of an answer. Ms. Gates, who, of course, would hope and pray we don’t forget the "Staubach," says "Being a great city means having great basics. As our Councilmember, Jennifer will focus on improving the city services that touch our everyday lives, and she’ll making sure that City Hall is continually working to cut waste, find efficiencies and protect our taxpayers."

Talk about hyperbole. What does that mean exactly? Has she identified "waste" to cut? What efficiencies? And protect us from what, pray tell. (What we need is protection from empty headed city council candidates.)

She certainly has identified ways to spend more taxpayer money. "Council District 13 has the worst streets in the city with 170 lane miles of streets that need reconstruction, and another 70 lane miles of streets that need resurfacing. … As our Councilmember, Jennifer will work to prioritize the immediate improvement of our streets, and she will work to ensure regular maintenance so that we do not fall into such disrepair in the future."

That costs money. So does this:

"Jennifer knows first hand the value of our local parks, greenspaces and rec centers. As our councilmember, she will work to ensure these amenities are clean, well-maintained and enhanced, so that our neighbors of all ages can have access to the outdoor spaces that improve our quality of life."

So she’s for better streets and cleaner parks. That’s really standing tough on the issues.

But how about Burk?

Leeland Burk

He promises, according to his Web Page "to continue the strong fiscal leadership and neighborhood advocacy shown by previous District 13 leaders."

What???? Translate please. Is he including those previous District 13 leaders who are convicted felons?

He lists his priorities as "stimulate smart economic development (as opposed, I guess, to stupid economic development), protect the character of District 13's neighborhoods (does this include Five Points, one of the highest crime areas in the city?), make sure your tax dollars are not wasted (he doesn’t say how, but the way one of his "previous District 13 leaders," Mitchell Rasansky did it, was to be in the minority and vote against everything) and support the efforts of all who are combating crime" (which, I guess, answers my earlier question about whether he will protect the character of all his district’s hoods).

So he’s for economic development, neighborhood protection, against wasteful spending and against crime. Now that’s standing tough.

What I find interesting is that neither Gates nor Burke have the courage to publish a stand on a "real" issue facing the district, such as a lighted soccer field for Ursuline Academy.

Obviously, what we have here is a popularity contest, not a race involving issues. Just another example of why the city is so lacking in leadership from its elected officials and another reason I’m thankful for our council-manager form of government, Heaven forbid we should allow these dolts to actually run things around here.

Where the money is

As we head into the home stretch of this duller-than-dishwater mayor’s race, in which none of the candidates feel the need to address the city’s pressing budget problems, it appears Mike Rawlings has more than enough campaign funds to finance a major final push, David Kunkle doesn’t, and Ron Natinsky is in between. I still think, however, Kunkle may force Rawlings into a runoff. Nothing substantial to base that on, just a hunch.

Dear candidate Kunkle: We are not overtaxed and underserved by the city (but maybe by DISD)

Had a form letter from mayoral candidate David Kunkle in my mail box when I got home last night in which he said “My motto of this campaign has been: We are overtaxed and underserved.” I hate to tell the former police chief this, but for the majority of Dallas citizens that is simply not true.

We pay taxes to the city in a variety of ways but the two main ones are through sales and property taxes. One percent of all sales tax-eligible dollars consumers spend within the Dallas city limits goes into the city’s coffers. There are two things to remember about property taxes. The first is only about 25 percent of the total property taxes a homeowner pays goes to the city. About an equal amount goes to the county. The other 50 percent goes to the Dallas Independent School District. So, if you think your are overtaxed and underserved, it’s because you pay a lot in property taxes and don’t have a child attending Dallas public schools.

For years, we have sent misguided souls to the Dallas School Board who thought “things” were far more important than students. So money was poured into building new facilities while families fled to the suburbs or enrolled their students in private schools. Now we are paying for those mistakes because the current budget shortfall is forcing DISD to layoff teachers so it has enough money to pay the debt on all those capital projects. When was the last time you heard of a school board candidate run on a platform of “overtaxed and underserved”? No, it’s all about improving the quality of education which they think means “build another school,” which only serves to raise your property taxes even more.

But the last I heard the overwhelming majority of Dallas residents pay no property taxes directly at all because they are not property owners. More Dallas residents live in rented apartments than own single family homes. I have queried the Dallas Apartment Association for updated statistics and as soon as I receive them I will pass them on.

Until the city can find a way to levy some form of a rental tax that’s on a parity with what nearby property owners pay in property taxes, than you can’t argue that Dallas residents are overtaxed and underserved, especially at the city level.

UPDATE ON APRIL 13: I finally got the figures I was looking for. According to Gene Kriska, director of member/information services for the Dallas Apartment Association, 53 percent of the Dallas population lives in rental units and thus directly pays no property taxes.

The election bombshell

Larry Casto, one of Dallas’ assistant city attorneys, just completed what could have been a mundane presentation to the Dallas City Council on what’s going on with the Lege down in Austin. The reason it wasn’t mundane was because of the “oh, by the way” bombshell he dropped at the end of his presentation. He told the council that the Lege will pass and the governor likely will sign a bill creating a uniform election date throughout the state.

That means is all elections — whether they be school board, municipal, bond elections, congressional, presidential — will be held on the same date and that date probably will be the second Tuesday in November. Therefore, those elected to the City Council this May will not have to stand for re-election until November 2013 (in case of the mayor, November 2015).

This has far reaching effects. For one, like Casto told the council, instead of leading off the ballot like they will in May, city council candidates will probably be relegated to Page 14, 15 or later on the November ballot. But, although this subject wasn’t broached at the council session, I’m guessing this will also eliminate runoffs — that all a council candidate will need is a plurality, not a majority, of the votes. This will definitely favor incumbents, especially if they have more than one opponent in an election because all the opposition voters won’t have the opportunity to unite behind one candidate in a runoff. It also favors minorities in the mayor’s race, especially if the minority community can unite behind and come to the polls to vote for one candidate, which is far more likely to happen in a November election setting.

Unless, of course, the City Council takes the bold step (But when have you ever heard of our council taking a bold step?) of removing the bi-partisan status of the City Council elections. Force the candidates to affiliate with a political party. That way the candidates can run in their respective party’s primary prior to the general election, and the also-rans can be eliminated through that process.

As a semi-closeted anarchist, I love it when something comes along to disrupt the status quo and this is definitely one of those times. Those who are familiar with what really happened in the “location debate” will know if a uniform election date had been created a decade ago, the new Cowboys Stadium probably would have been constructed in Dallas.

Looking at the Dallas City Council races

Monday was the deadline for entering into this, so let's see how the races shake out

In District 1, Delia Jasso will face no opposition in her bid for a second term. The second time around is usually when incumbents are the most vulnerable so I'm betting Jasso is going to make it the full eight years, if she wants to remain on the council that long. Pauline Medrano does have an opponent in District 2, but I don't see Billy MacLeod offering much resistance to the Medrano machine.

District 3 could be interesting. Personally, I see incumbent Dave Neumann as vulnerable and I will be anxious to see what kind of a campaign attorney Scott Griggs can run against Neumann.

In District 4, D-Wayne has no opposition; neither does Vonciel Hill in District 5. With Steve Salazar term limited, District 6 is one of the few with no incumbent in the race. I'm thinking his replacement is going to be former JP Luis Sepulveda. He has one opponent, community volunteer Monica Alonzo.

In District 7, Carolyn (Somewhat less of an embarrassment than she was in her first term) Davis has drawn two opponents, but I give neither one of them much of a chance. She's already won re-election once and I don't see either retired auditor Helene McKinney or community activist Casie Pierce knocking her off this time. One can hope, but one can also hope to win the lottery as well.

Tennell Atkins is running unopposed in District 8 and in District 9, the mighty Sheffie Kadane will be running against a high school kid named Robert Foster. Go easy on him Sheffie.

I see Cynthia Durbin providing only token (if that) opposition to Jerry Allen in District 10 and Linda Koop is running unopposed in District 11. In District 12, where term limited Ron Natinsky is going for the mayor's chair, three candidates have filed to succeed him: retired CPA Donna Starnes, DART board member William Tsao and former city council member Sandy Greyson, whom I'm betting will win this race without even a runoff.

Ann Margolin is unopposed in District 13 which means this seat is hers for the next six years if she wants to occupy it that long.

That brings us to District 14 where three-term incumbent Angela Hunt is somewhat shockingly facing four opponents who apparently (and erroneously) believe she is beatable because of her vote last September to raise property taxes. I hate to break it to these four misguided souls, but the voters in her district approved of her property tax stance; in fact, at a series of townhall meetings they insisted on it. You heard it here first: Hunt takes all four down without a runoff.

That brings us to the mayor's race. Right now I'm leaning toward voting for the only one of the four candidates in the race that doesn't stand a chance of winning. As for who is going to win? It's just way too early to tell right now.

The Natinsky endorsements: Who's missing

Eleven current and former city council members endorsed Ron Natinsky (pictured), the council member representing far North Dallas' District 12, for mayor yesterday. What I found interesting is that interim Mayor D-Wayne Carriedaway was the only black council member to endorse Natinsky and neither District 2's Pauline Medrano nor District 6's Steve Salazar, two of the council's three Hispanic council members, attended the endorsement party.

So what gives? You think these minority council members will endorse one of the other two announced candidates, former police chief David Kunkle or former Park Board head Mike Rawlings? I'm not so sure. District 5 council member Vonciel Jones Hill told a City Hall department head she will endorse someone, but she refused to say who that person might be, except that the person will be a minority candidate who is not on the City Council at this time. I have no idea about who that might be.

How important are these endorsements for Natinsky's campaign? Gromer Jeffers Jr., about as good a reporter as you'll find anywhere, pointed out "The last time so many council members endorsed a colleague was in 2002 for Tom Dunning and 2003 for (Mary) Poss. Both candidates were beaten by former Dallas Mayor Laura Miller."

Da Mayor taps his successor

Two current members of the Dallas City Council - De-Wayne and A Hunt - and possibly a third - Ron Natinsky - want to become the next mayor of our fair city. De-Wayne wants it so desperately and so blatantly that he spent the majority of his first term as Da Mayor's echo, supporting him in everything he said and did, hoping this show of unabashed support would win him Da Mayor's endorsement. A Hunt chose an opposite strategy - challenging Da Mayor at every turn hoping against hope at re-assembling that coalition of anti-City Hall partisans that put Laura Miller into office. Natinsky's strategy has been to stick to his no-tax-increase, reduced government spiel that is popular among his ultra-conservative North Dallas constituency which, historically, has usually elected Dallas mayors.

I'm getting the impression that all their efforts are going to be for naught, however. Da Mayor has obviously decided on the person he wants to succeed him and because Da Mayor is still viewed positively by most, his decision will carry more weight with voters (and those who line up to support financially "the favored" candidate). This also means you can expect De-Wayne to oppose Da Mayor more often in the coming months as he seeks to create his own platform. It won't work, however. Neither will the populist drives by Hunt or the conservative push by Natinsky. You can almost make book right now that Mike Rawlings is going to be our next mayor. He is Da Mayor's choice.

One final observation about Saturday's Dallas City Council runoff election

The chances of defeating an incumbent Dallas City Council member seeking re-election are just about zero. If Carolyn Davis can't be beaten, no one can. The chances of defeating a term-limited council person's designated successor are slim -- witness the two newly elected city council members: Ann Margolin, Mitchell Ransansky's choice to replace him, and Delia Jasso, Dr. Elba Garcia's choice to succeed her -- but not as small as defeating an incumbent. If Carolyn Davis accomplishes one thing as a member of the city council -- and if her record is any indication, it may be only one thing - -it's that potential city council candidates should not waste their time, their money or their energy running against an incumbent.

Jasso slips by Epker

It was close but Delia Jasso, the person Dr. Elba Garcia anointed to succeed her on the Dallas City Council, appears to have defeated Justin Epker by 160 votes out of 2,702 votes cast in today's runoff election. Mr. Epker received 24 more votes than Ms. Jasso by those who voted early in person, but Ms. Jasso received 97 more votes by mail than Mr. Epker. It's this category where Mr. Epker is liable to cry voter fraud, but the 97-vote difference would not be enough to overcome Ms. Jasso's 150-vote lead, so he probably shouldn't yell too loudly.

In the other runoff, incumbent Carolyn Davis swamped school board trustee Ron Price. Ms. Davis, in what to me is a surprising outcome, received nearly 70 percent of the 1,932 votes cast. This, to me, is as much a repudiation of Price as it is an endorsement of Ms. Davis.

Davis surprises me by swamping Price

It's only a little after 8 p.m. and I only see the results from early voting, but I'm calling the the District 7 race for incumbent Carolyn Davis. It appears the Ragsdale machine has turned out the votes for Ms. Davis who will continue to be an embarrassment the city must bear for another two years. Early voting was more than 2-to-1 for Davis over Ron Price. I know I'm repeating myself, but I must agree with Dallas Morning News columnist Steve Blow when he wrote last month that no matter which candidate won this race, "District 7 loses." I must admit, however, that I'm surprised by the margin of Davis' victory.

I guess I should look on the bright side. You could say the only comedy show at City Hall is when Ms. Davis, as his her custom, shows up 20 minutes late to city council committee meetings and then asks questions that wouldn't have needed to ask had she (1) been on time and (2) had the intelligence to understand the subject in the first place.

The District 1 race right now is too close to call with Delia Jasso, the favorite and the hand-picked choice of the Garcia family, having only a 73-vote lead over Justin Epker, who's sure to shout voter fraud. Epker, I'm convinced, was relying more on election day voters than early voters anyway.