We are required to confirm that you assent to TLIPA sending you our latest voter guides and updates. Please renew your free subscription if you are already on the TLIPA email list. We only email members of our mail list during elections.
Please help us defray the costs of producing this 2020 TLIPA
Voter Guide and the General (Presidential) Election Voter
Guide in November. We appreciate your generosity.
|OFFICE||FIRST NAME||LAST NAME||RECOMMEND|
|United States Senator||John||Cornyn||Endorse|
|United States Representative, District 20||No Endorsement|
|United States Representative, District 21||Chip||Roy||Endorse|
|United States Representative, District 23||Tony||Gonzales||Favor|
|United States Representative, District 28||Sandra||Whitten||Favor|
|United States Representative, District 35||Jenny Garcia||Sharon||Endorse|
|Railroad Commissioner||No Endorsement|
|Supreme Court, Chief Justice||Nathan||Hecht||Endorse|
|Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6||Jane||Bland||Favor|
|Justice, Supreme Court, Place 7||Jeff||Boyd||Endorse|
|Justice, Supreme Court, Place 8||Brett||Busby||Endorse|
|Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3||Bert||Richardson||Endorse|
|Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4||Kevin Patrick||Yeary||Endorse|
|Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9||David||Newell||Endorse|
|Member, State Board of Education, District 5||Lani||Popp||Endorse|
|State Senator, District 19||Peter P. “Pete”||Flores||Endorse|
|State Senator, District 21||Frank||Pomeroy||Endorse|
|State Senator, District 26||No Endorsemet|
|State Representative, District 116||Robert||Litoff||Favor|
|State Representative, District 117||No Endorsement|
|State Representative, District 118||Adam||Salyer||Endorse|
|State Representative, District 119||George||Garza||Favor|
|State Representative, District 120||No Endorsement|
|State Representative, District 121||Steve||Allison||Favor|
|State Representative, District 122||No Endorsement|
|State Representative, District 123||No Endorsement|
|State Representative, District 124||No Endorsement|
|Chief Justice, 4th Court of Appeals District||Renee||Yanta||Endorse|
|District Judge, 37th Judicial District||Joseph P.||Appelt||Endorse|
|District Judge, 5737th Judicial District||No Endorsement|
|District Judge, 73rd Judicial District||No Endorsement|
|District Judge, 131st Judicial District||No Endorsement|
|District Judge, 144th Judicial District||Melisa||Skinner||Endorse|
|District Judge, 166th Judicial District||No Endorsement|
|District Judge, 175th Judicial District||No Endorsement|
|District Judge, 379th Judicial District||No Endorsement|
|District Judge, 386th Judicial District||Daphne Previti||Austin||Favor|
|District Judge, 399th Judicial District||Walden||Shelton||Endorse|
|District Judge, 407th Judicial District||No Endorsement|
|District Judge, 408th Judicial District||No Endorsement|
|District Judge, 438th Judicial District||No Endorsement|
|County Tax Assessor-Collector||Stephen David||Pennington||Endorse|
|County Commissioner Pct. No. 1||Gabriel||Lara||Favor|
|County Commissioner Pct. No. 2||No Endorsement|
|County Commissioner Pct. No. 3||Trish||DeBerry||Endorse|
|Constable Pct. No. 1||No Endorsement|
|Constable Pct. No. 2||No Endorsement|
|Constable Pct. No. 3||Mark||Vojvodich||Endorse|
|Constable Pct. No. 4||Larry||Ricketts||Favor|
|North East ISD – Trustee, Place No. 1||Mike||Osborn||Endorse|
|North East ISD – Trustee, Place No. 3||Ione||McGinty||Endorse|
|North East ISD – Trustee, Place No. 4||Joseph||Hoelscher||Endorse|
|North East ISD – Trustee, Place No. 5||Cimmaron||Gilson||Endorse|
|North East ISD – Trustee, Place No. 6||Robert “Steve”||Hilliard||Endorse|
|City of San Antonio Proposition A||Against|
|City of San Antonio Proposition B||Against|
|Advanced Transportation District – Prop. A||Against|
|San Antonio ISD – Proposition A||Against|
|San Antonio ISD – Proposition B||Against|
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO – PROPOSITION A
Sales and use tax for the “Pre-k 4 SA” early childhood education program.
*VOTE AGAINST – The “Pre-K for SA” program is a duplication of federal Head Start and local school districts’ role. Taxpayers already pay a school tax, so why should they pay another tax to the City for a city-operated school system. When students are staying home, and businesses are being closed because of the mayor and county judge’s direction, why do they want to gather children and teachers together? When businesses are closing, and people are unemployed, why is the city government taxing and spending? Finally, this is a program put together by former City Manager Sheryl Sculley to raise former Mayor Julian Castro’s national political fortune. It is NOT a needed program. Vote AGAINST.
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO – PROPOSITION B
Ready to work “SA Workforce” program for job training and scholarships, a reallocation of an existing sales & use tax resulting in no net tax increase.
*VOTE AGAINST – This is another waste of city taxpayers’ money for a municipal program that duplicates federal and state job-training programs. The city workforce grants are political payoffs that go to local non-profits who support the City’s political establishment. The City government should only fund projects and programs that benefit everyone, instead just some. Furthermore, taxpayers should not spend money on duplicate programs, and the city government should not spend money during the pandemic-caused economic crunch. Let private businesses keep the money to rebuild so they can hire workers. Otherwise, what’s the point of training anyone if there aren’t any jobs? The City must stop spending money on a duplicative job training program and stop reallocating funding except for critical public services like public safety, public works (streets and sidewalks), and drainage that benefit all citizens. Vote AGAINST.
ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT – PROPOSITION A
(Previously Created with Voter Approval by VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority) To provide enhanced public transportation and public transportation mobility options, the Advanced Transportation District (“District”) will utilize a one-eighth of one percent (1?8 of 1¢) sales and use tax.
*VOTE AGAINST – Again, why do taxpayers need a new tax during a period of economic stress, and why should they support a public transportation system that puts them close to each other when they are supposed to be socially-distanced? Furthermore, VIA is a public-funded agency, yet it has refused to allow an independent audit for public information. It has repeated wasted money on costly studies and consultants to build a streetcar system, even after taxpayers and voters said NO to the idea. Taxpayers do NOT need another tax or more public spending on a transportation system that is aloof, which goes against the pandemic guidance of social distancing, and creates another tax when citizens and businesses are suffering an economic downturn.
*RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTARY BY GEORGE H. RODROGUEZ, EL CONSERVADOR
SAN ANTONIO ISD – PROPOSITION A
School Buildings Proposition
**VOTE AGAINST. This is a $1.2 Billion bond proposal, the largest bond ever proposed by the SAISD. In 2016, SAISD’s bond election raised $450 million but the taxpayers have yet to be provided a substantive report or analysis about that spending. In spite of all the money SAISD receives from the taxpayers, it is still not a “top-performing” school district in the state.
Children at Risk’s 2019 rankings report for Texas elementary school does not show SAISD schools figuring in the top schools in Texas. Apparently, the $450 million bond money did not transform or improve the quality of education and professional standards of SAISD. It shows two San Antonio BASIS schools (no. 297 and 721) and the Young Men’s Leadership Academy (no. 1219) out of the state’s 4579 statewide schools rated in the report. After these three specialized schools, there is Schenck Elementary (No. 1470) and Highland Park El (No. 1637). The rest of SAISD schools trail towards the bottom end of the schools reviewed.
What are the taxpayers paying for? The private charter schools and vouchers for students to attend the schools of their choice are alternatives taxpayers must be provided…instead of funding moribund and failing public schools. Taxpayers must not throw good money at the poorly performing public school system in San Antonio. VOTE AGAINST
SAN ANTONIO ISD – PROPOSITION B
School Technology Proposition
**VOTE AGAINST. Proposition B is a $90 million bond which will increase property taxes under the pretext of improving the technological training of students. However, should taxpayers pay for new technology in schools where many students are struggling with the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic? Technology would provide “new toys” for most students who should be taught basic academic skills. High performing students should be rewarded for their accomplishments rather than rewarding everyone with everything.
Keep it simple. Go back to the three “Rs” and develop higher standards of teaching our children the three essentials of “Reading, ‘Riting, and ‘Rithmetic”. VOTE AGAINST.
Public schools need to be held accountable by taxpayers. If they are producing students who are academically underachievers, then alternatives like charter schools and vouchers for students are needed. Public schools need competition. Taxpayers must stop being forced to fund poorly performing public institutions. Texas families are better served by the education establishment providing every Texas child genuine reforms in public schools and authentic educational choice for every child.