Houston Versus Texas Election Rules: Why Requiring a Majority to Win City Offices Makes a Huge Difference

My friend Marc Campos’s blog Daily Commentary occasionally shifts from the Astros’ fading fortunes to analyzing the Houston mayoral contest.  I enjoy his takes on the race and mostly agree with his points.  Mostly, but not always.  Marc has been pounding a “SHOW ME THE TV” message for several weeks, arguing that the absence of television buys with less than three months until election day is a serious lapse for the major contenders.  I am not convinced of that for four reasons.

First, with campaign money hard to raise, none of the candidates has the huge resources that candidate Bill White used back in 2003 to fund a months-long major media buy.  White was virtually unknown when the race began, and simply had to send such sums on paid media to compete with Orlando Sanchez and Sylvester Turner, who had both very nearly won previous mayoral elections.    City Controller Annise Parker and Council Member Peter Brown have run and won city-wide elections so they do not start with the name identification deficit that Bill White faced six years ago.  Former City Attorney Gene Locke has not run citywide, but he starts from a stronger position than Bill White in 2003 because, as the only African American candidate in the race, he can likely count on a base of black voter support November 3 that is not as influenced by the mainstream TV ads Marc Campos is eagerly waiting for.  And Locke has been racking up important endorsements like the Houston Realtors that should translate into some votes outside the black community. 

Second, and most importantly, keep in mind that the November 3 city vote is the semi-finals. Houston’s charter requires a majority for election.  In open seat contests like the current mayoral race, it is very difficult for any candidate to get 50 percent plus of the total vote, so runoffs are the norm.  This is very different from our state election rules.  Recall that Texas Governor Rick Perry was returned to office in 2006 with just 39 percent of the statewide vote, as his three major opponents split the remaining ballots.  Under Houston rules, Perry would have been forced into runoff with Democratic nominee Chris Bell, who finished second with 30 percent of the vote.  Mr. Perry might well have won such a runoff, but it would have been a very different race facing a single opponent.  The point I’m driving at is that in city elections, the strategic focus cannot just be to run first on November 3^rd, but rather to run first or second that day, and then be in a position to win a runoff a month later against the other finalist.

This important runoff reality means rational candidates need not put everything they have into a pre-November paid media effort, if they can make the finals without spending scarce dollars early.  Ms. Parker seems to be in that position, and Gene Locke has strengthened his chances by taking most of the important endorsements to date.  That leaves the TV ball in Peter Brown’s hands.  Less well known that Controller Parker, and capturing few significant endorsements, Mr. Brown is the best candidate to follow Marc Campos’ advice and spend big bucks on television ads.  The problem is those would largely be personal bucks, as the Council Member has lagged Parker and Locke is raising money.

A third consideration is television ads are costly and not especially efficient in city elections.  A basic problem with buying ads that are beamed throughout the media market is that only forty percent of the people who see and hear these commercials live in the City of Houston.  So, in contrast to the coming Rick Perry-Key Bailey Hutchison shootout in the March 2010 Republican Primary, a lot of mayoral ad dollars are wasted on non-residents in a major media market like Houston. 

Fourth, campaign spending is relative.  If no one else in the mayoral race is running ads, this lessens the pressure on other candidates to run commercials in August or September when few  voters are tuned into a low-key (to date) contest where the policy positions of the three candidates that have significant resources are quite close.   Roy Morales, a fourth candidate who is a Republican and a conservative, differs significantly from Parker, Brown, and Locke on many issues but has raised almost no money.  That means he cannot sate Mr. Campos’ thirst for some snappy 30 second spots.

Finally, I do agree with Marc Campos that this no-TV campaign season most benefits Controller Parker.  But not, in my opinion, to the extent that she can win a majority of the vote November 3^rd.   And a one-on-one runoff will be vastly different that the semi-finals.  If Houston ends up with a gay Anglo woman in a month-long runoff against a black, straight male, there will be a lot of free media coverage in addition to whatever television ads the candidates can finance.  Which means the name-identification advantage Ms. Parker enjoys in the first round becomes less important in a December runoff. 

Dr. Richard Murray

Comments

[Kevin Whited]

** My friend Marc Campos’s blog Daily Commentary occasionally shifts from the Astros’ fading fortunes to analyzing the Houston mayoral contest. I enjoy his takes on the race and mostly agree with his points. **

Here's a link to his blog:

http://camposcommunications.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/no-tv-equals-low-voter-turnout/

[Jen]

Good article. I would add one thing, however - a lot of people forget that Peter Brown is the only white male in the race, that has major advantages...