We Still Have A Lot Of Work To Do
We’re not powerless. We’re just not showing up where it matters most.
If you didn’t already know, I always try to keep an up-to-date list of upcoming election dates under every newsletter I send out (see the bottom of this page).
The next election is the runoff later this month.
And while I believe Lone Star Left readers are generally aware of elections and when it’s time to vote, because we’re always talking about it, in a state of 31 million, you’d be surprised at how many people are completely tuned out.
The Republican won the special election in SD04. However, that seat was there for Democrats to take.
Voter turnout:
Montgomery County: 5.69%
Harris County: 3.54%
Galveston County: 10.12% (Only a small sliver here of 2,500 voters count.)
Chambers County: 6%
Jefferson County: 4.09%
There are about 950,000 people in each State Senate district. Only 34,730 showed up to this Special Election. Yes, it’s disappointing, especially on the heels of Taylor Rehmet’s win, but this wasn’t a seat we realistically expected to flip.
But we could have.
The curse of non-voting hits us again.
What about the municipal races?
We’ve talked about these “nonpartisan” races before, the ones that County Republican Parties make endorsements in and West Texas billionaire fascists dump a ton of cash in. It doesn’t matter what they’re labeled. Given the endorsements, funding, and voting behavior, these elections remain largely functionally partisan.
Did the good guys pick up some wins tonight?
Across the state, yes.
Not as many as local Democratic groups were hoping for.
The biggest problem across the state is just like every other municipal election. Low voter turnout.
Of course, this is a problem we’ve pondered a lot. People in Texas barely vote in presidential elections, but in local elections? Almost no one.
This is the system the Republicans want. It helps them control the most local functions of government, where decisions are made about whether police can get mental health training, or whether all the water is given to industry or residents, or if a billionaire can come in and take all the water for himself, or maybe stick a data center in your backyard.
A lot of us are aware that Texas city races are often “nonpartisan” only on paper. Do you think everyone else is?
What’s the solution?
This is a big problem that has to change. And there are plenty of reasons why this is an immediate problem.
Corpus Christi is under a severe water crisis.
Abilene’s housing market is getting crushed by data center growth.
Conroe is arguing over stormwater fees because the infrastructure costs money for flooding. (Even after the July 4th floods.)
McAllen voters approved an anti-corruption measure limiting campaign contributions, only for the law to be quickly challenged/undermined afterward.
These are the things city councils do. Not boring things. Not “nonpartisan” things.
In the last legislative session, lawmakers passed a bill allowing various local entities to move elections to the November uniform election date, but it is not mandatory statewide.
But each city has to decide for itself, which means each city will have to vote on it. So, if a city wants to move its elections from May to November, the mayor and city council have to:
Put it on the agenda.
Vote to pass an ordinance or resolution.
Adjust the timing of terms so everything lines up with the new election date.
Then, the Legislature has to approve it.
And once they do that, the elections move.
Some cities, like Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, have already made the switch or are in the process of doing it.
There’s no population size requirement under this new law, so if your city is still holding elections in May, it’s a decision that your local elected officials are making.
Right now, while Republicans control the state, every city that can move its elections to November should do it. Call your mayor. Call your council member. Ask why your city is still holding elections when most voters aren’t paying attention.
But in the long term, maybe this should not be optional. When Democrats take power in Austin, moving local elections to November should be one of the first democracy reforms on the table.
Because the May elections are not neutral, they empower insiders, donors, and organized right-wing networks while regular working people are left out of the process.
Cities need better campaign finance disclosure.
Do you know how to find out who has been filling the coffers of your mayor? Your city council member? Your school board trustee?
It is not always easy.
Federal campaign finance is searchable. State campaign finance is searchable. But local campaign finance? That depends on where you live, how your city or school district posts records, whether the website is functional, and whether you know what obscure corner of the internet to dig through.
In Texas, local candidates often file campaign finance reports with a local filing authority rather than directly with the Texas Ethics Commission. That can mean the city secretary, school district, water district, or another local office. The Texas Ethics Commission says local filers include candidates for city offices, school boards, community colleges, MUDs, water districts, and local PACs that support or oppose those candidates or ballot measures. That means the information may exist, but good luck finding it.
And sure, political subdivisions are now supposed to post campaign finance reports online within 10 business days after receiving them. That was a real improvement. But “posted online” does not always mean searchable, standardized, easy to compare, or easy for a normal voter to understand.
The Texas Legislature should pass a law to make these reports more standardized and accessible to everyday individuals.
Voters should be able to easily look up a mayor, city council candidate, school board trustee, or local PAC without being a politico or spending hours online trying to figure it out, because local elections are where the money hides. Developers know this. Police unions know this. Charter school PACs know this. Anti-LGBTQ groups know this. Billionaires know this. The voters should know it, too.
And maybe (just maybe) we should drop the facade of “nonpartisan.”
Not in every city and town, because, obviously, we can all see how that would hurt Democrats in red/suburban areas. But not every state in the Union handles its local elections in a “nonpartisan” manner. Some states allow cities to run their local elections however they want, and those cities do run partisan elections, while their rural counterparts are still in “nonpartisan” territory.
Most low-information voters do not know who half of these city council candidates are. A party label gives an instant ideological cue. That matters in low-turnout local races where insiders, donors, police/fire PACs, developers, churches, and local machines already know who their people are.
In blue cities or diversifying suburbs, party labels could help Democratic voters identify candidates aligned with labor, housing affordability, public transit, LGBTQ rights, environmental justice, public schools, and anti-corruption reforms.
What do you think?
Should Texas keep all its municipal races “nonpartisan?”
And where does that leave us?
Not in despair.
We don’t sit around wringing our hands about turnout and hope something magically fixes itself. We don’t pretend the system is working when it clearly isn’t. We don’t ignore the fact that local elections are practically invisible to most voters, even though they shape the most immediate parts of our lives.
We name the problem, understand it, and then we work on solutions.
We know turnout is a problem. We know May elections suppress participation. We know “nonpartisan” races aren’t actually nonpartisan. We know money is flowing through local politics in ways most voters never see. And we know that in the age of rising authoritarianism and MAGA control, we cannot afford to keep pretending local government doesn’t matter.
Because too much of our system is failing us.
And it’s not going to fix itself.
Some cities are already moving their elections to November. Not enough. More should. And in the meantime, we apply pressure where we can. We call our mayors. We call our council members. We demand better transparency. We demand better access.
And when Democrats take control of the Legislature (and they eventually will), we make these reforms permanent. We standardize election dates. We build a system that works for voters, not just insiders.
That’s the work.
Not despair.
Action.
May 15, 2026: Last day to apply to vote by mail (Democratic primary runoff elections)
May 18, 2026: First day of early voting (Democratic primary runoff elections)
May 22, 2026: Last day of early voting (Democratic primary runoff elections)
May 26, 2026: Last day to receive ballot by mail (Democratic primary runoff elections)
May 26, 2026: Election day! (Democratic primary runoff elections)
Click here to find out what Legislative districts you’re in.
LoneStarLeft is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Lots to do, but you picked the right races! Fahad winning with 50.54% with all Irving sites in, and Kejal easing out Tammam by 4 votes to face Abdul in the runoff! We will see! I have to go to bed!
Removing the non-partisan fiction would change how these races are fought. Instead of voters being presented with two candidates making the same bland, generalized statements like "for the kids!", we could see more pointed discussions about finances, projects, etc. People in the know are having these discussions but the majority of the public is clueless about who to choose.
In the past, the newspaper revealed sources of funding, skeletons in the closet and other material information. The public read the newspaper before they voted. A neutral, public database of the financing and perhaps other relevant information like the composition and goals of the PAC's donating to the candidate is now needed. Because the newspaper has gone the way of the horse and buggy.