Runoff is Saturday, June 13; Riley Defeats Cavazos Nearly 2:1 in Place 1
Mayoral candidates Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCracken will be forced to go to a runoff to decide who will be the next Mayor of Austin. The runoff will be Saturday, June 13.
With 100% of precincts reporting, Lee Leffingwell finished with a commanding lead on the field of five candidates with 47.26% of the vote. He won almost the same percentage of votes through the early vote period as he did on election day. Full results can be found here:
Election results from the Travis County Elections Division were reported throughout the night here at Burnt Orange Report through our site's new @texaselections widget. The results tally 58,630 votes cast, representing 13.01% of registered voters.
For about twenty minutes in the evening it looked like Leffingwell may tick up fast enough to reach the 50% threshold. But as more boxes came in, the returns evened out, and it became clear that a highly anticipated runoff would soon become a reality. Behind Leffingwell, Brewster McCracken won 26.8% of the vote, which will be enough to send him into a runoff. Slightly behind McCracken, once-Austin mayor and former Texas State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn finished has 21.43% of the vote, leaving her in a disappointing third place.
Burnt Orange Report writer David Mauro reported earlier in the night that in 1997, Ronney Reynolds conceded rather than face a runoff against Kirk Watson, who received 48.47% in his initial election. However, McCracken's campaign has clearly stated that McCracken will go forward for the runoff.
Rounding out the election returns for mayor, David Buttross won 3.84% of the vote, but may still be in for some exciting news. Earlier in the evening he went to the hospital for the possible birth of his second child. KXAN news is reporting Buttross and his wife were expecting a child before the night was over. Fourth place and a new child -- I'll bet he'll still be happy.
Josiah Ingalls, however, will have less to smile about. He finished in last place, with only 0.69% of the vote. Josiah has announced that he will be looking for a job on Monday -- he recently lost his position at the Hilton Hotel.
Riley Defeats Cavazos 65.52% - 34.48% in Place 1; Spellman, Martinez, & Cole Win Big
In the Austin City Council Place 1, which was expected to be the only other real contest on the ballot, Chris Riley defeated Perla Cavazos with over 65.52% of the vote. Cavazos thanked Riley for a hard-fought campaign, as Riley celebrated his victory with many supporters tonight, including Burnt Orange Report writer and Riley campaign manager, Katherine Haenschen.
In Place 2, Mike Martinez won a commanding 84.97% over Jose Quintero. Martinez' 43,630 votes were the most any candidate received in Saturday's election.
In Place 6, Sheryl Cole also won a decisive victory over Osemene Sam. Over 83.17% of voters chose Cole for the seat.
And finally, Bill Spellman won his unanimous election to Austin's Place 6 seat. Though he only needed his own, he did get 43,104 of the 58,630 voters to choose him, anyways.
To re-read Burnt Orange Report's all-night election coverage, scroll through our Twitter widget below for the recaps and updates we posted throughout the night.
Lee Leffingwell has earned the support of the progressive community in Austin, and he'll provide strong leadership as our next Mayor. If you haven't already voted, then please click here to find your polling location.
Leffingwell's willingness and ability to work patiently with disparate interest groups - as well as his council colleagues - has broken policy logjams and moved the city forward on water conservation, redevelopment, public safety, and other issues. We haven't agreed with him on every issue, but he listens very well and seriously considers all public input, including opposing viewpoints. His mandate will also include being an inspiring, forward-thinking leader; he will need to use wisely the "kitchen cabinet" he proposes, in order to generate fresh ideas, solutions, and public energy.
Come to Lee's headquarters today and volunteer! Let's spread the word about Lee's progressive vision for Austin.
You can choose from several volunteer options:
1) Phone banking
2) Poll workers
3) Street visibility
It's a beautiful day in Austin, TX. So come volunteer and elect a mayor who shares our values.
The basics was that McCracken had received about $8,000 more than he should have from out-of-town dollars. Leffingwell approached McCracken's campaign about this; McCracken's campaign said it was ridiculous; Leffingwell filed a municipal complaint, and here we are.
Why is nobody asking a single expert to weigh in on this issue? It certainly seems like rampant mudslinging. I heard yesterday that the Leffingwell camp was going to file "criminal" charges, which 1. They don't have the authority to do and 2. That makes it seem all the more likely this is just dirty politics less than a week before the election.
While there is some question as to who Mr. Bombadil may or may not be, calling for an expert to weigh is worthwhile. After all, we could debate things back and forth all day -- but I'm not an expert, and neither is Tom.
Jim Cousar, though, is an expert. In fact, another commenter in KT's original post, Jeb, even said:
Would it be too much trouble for someone in the media to speak with Jim Cousar or another expert in election law about this?
To answer Tom and Jeb's request, here is a legal memo from Mr. Cousar about the situation, as provided by the Lee Leffingwell campaign (I wonder if Tom and Jeb will still accuse Lee of dirty campaign tricks now that their requests have basically been met). From Lee's website, Cousar wrote an opinion:
SUMMARY There is no legal basis in the City Charter for accepting additional out-of-town contributions, prior to the May election, once the cap has been reached. Neither the plain language of the charter provision (which allows additional amounts only in the case of a runoff election), the legislative history of the Charter, nor analogous provisions of other campaign finance laws support that theory. If a candidate has accepted more contributions from out-of-town contributors than the Charter allows, those amounts should be immediately refunded to the contributors.
Brewster McCracken has had a formal complaint filed against him in municipal court by fellow Austin Mayoral candidate Lee Leffingwell. The charges are that he has accepted an excess of ~$8000 more than is allowable from out of Austin donors according to campaign finance laws that McCracken helped approve. Carole Strayhorn, while not a party to the complaint, has joined Leffingwell in criticizing McCracken and called for him to return the donors.
McCracken's campaign replies that the funds are within the caps if one considers the additional funds that can be raised when you allow for a runoff, though there is no explicit provision that allows for that line of reasoning in the current code. And of course, there is no guarantee that McCracken will make a runoff.
A good rundown of the story courtesy of Fox 7. We'd post the KVUE story but they are the ONLY broadcast station in Austin that hasn't woken up and made their broadcasts embedable elsewhere online. I guess they can have fun over in their walled garden along with News8Austin because I'm not linking to either of their content on this.
I wrote below about the cowardly anonymoity of the purveyors of Brewster Nation, and how they actually hurt free speech by violating campaign law and refusing to disclose who they were on their website or in their leaflets.
The internet is a new and powerful phenomenon. Let's treat it with some respect, be honest in our campaigning, and stop engaging in fear-mongering anonymous attacks that destroy the best parts of free speech that gave all of us our (online) voice in the first place.
Details about the group are extremely sketchy; their website has no contact info other than a generic email address. A Whois search says BrewsterNation.com is registered to Kimiko Tokita, a woman who is also named as a media contact in the press release announcing the website launch. However, in a comment on the Brewster Nation blog, the administrator writes “Brewster Nation is funded by a private Austin individual exercising his [emphasis added] right to free speech, and providing a web portal for others to share their opinion.” Tokita confirmed she was hired to work for the group by a figure who, for now, wishes to remain anonymous.
Update by KT: I know who's behind the website. It's clearly your neighbor Lisa.
It continues the Strayhorn message which is to attack Lee and Brewster. Though the tacking on of Cavazos in the ad seems a bit disjointed to the overall message.
We've reached that time, just days before the start of early voting in municipal elections, when campaigns finally take to the airwaves with their television buys. What fantastically awesome and awful ads await us this year? Continue on below to find out!
Mayoral Race: Brewster McCracken
Folksy-ish music? Yes.
On campaign message? Yes.
Walking into City Hall shot? Yes.
Actually see candidate talking? Yes.
Total number of pears left uneaten in family room? 7.
Folksier music? Yes.
On campaign message? It almost runs over you.
Walking into City Hall shot? No, like last year.
Actually see candidate talking? No, like last year.
Haven't we seen this footage before? Yes, like, you get the picture.
Likelihood for Phillip Martin to "hate" this: High.
Creepy, ominous music? Yes.
Creepy, fake cheery voice? Yes.
On campaign message? Yes, if crazy is a message.
City Hall shot? No, apparently City Hall moved since she was mayor.
Place 1: Chris Riley
Folksy music? Yes.
Number of bicycles in ad. 1.
Number of posed children. 5.
Walking into City Hall shot? Yes.
Born and raised inside city hall? Possibly.
Place 1: Perla Cavazos
Folksy music? Oh hell no.
Urban pseudo-latin spicy music? Oh hell yes!
Most memorable but most undefined message? Possibly.
Gives pro-downtown impression when played with sound off? Ironically, yes.
Laura Morrison-esque downtown building hate? NOOOOOOO! (meaning yes).
Number of Cesar Chavez Cavazos Cervezas I need now? Seis.
I didn't go to last night's City Hall Hustle event, but apparently Wells Dunbar included a scripted rap battle as part of the format. The video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Now what's interesting about this is that considering how McCracken's campaign is presenting the contrast between he and the much older Leffingwell, Leffingwell and his team clearly understood the format better and seemed much more comfortable in it, with threats, insults, self-referential boasts, et al.
McCracken, on the other hand, basically treats this as a poetry reading, with some sincere but wack material about the 80's, his corporate partners and the pecan street project, and on the occasion when he does the dozens his heart just doesn't seem in it. And maybe that's a credit to him, I don't know.
This has nothing to do with who should be mayor, of course, but it's pretty clear that Leffingwell had a better handle on the event.
Now, Dunbar's back-up track (as anybody between 25 and 40 should know) is the instrumental of the epic Mobb Deep Classic, "Shook Ones Pt II".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
It's no sin not being able to kick a freestyle. But watching McCracken push through this thing, I immediately thought of the chorus of the song:
"Son, they shook...
'cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks
Scared to death, scared to look
They shook"
Seriously, though, mad props to both campaigns, especially McCracken, for agreeing to it and having fun with it.
