Edinburg mayoral race headed to runoff, Cameron County arena plan rejected

Verilu Infante, Alejandra Yañez and Omar E. Zapata | THE RIDER

Tuesday night, eight proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution got the green light, while the Edinburg mayoral race headed to a runoff and Cameron County voters rejected a proposal to construct an arena.

EDINBURG 

In the race for mayor of Edinburg, Ramiro Garza Jr. and incumbent Richard Molina are headed for a runoff election. 

Garza, the former city manager, garnered 3,498 votes, or 43.51%, while Molina tallied 3,461 votes, or 43.05%. Gilbert Enriquez, former city councilmember, received 1,081 votes. With no candidate receiving over 50% of the votes, it will result in a runoff election between Garza and Molina.  

Molina faces felony charges of engaging in organized election fraud and illegal voting in connection with the 2017 mayoral election.

In the Place One Councilmember race, Dan Diaz narrowly led in votes with 2,326, or 30.56%. Close behind Diaz was Ismael ‘Smiley’ Martinez with 2,236 votes, or 29.37%,  followed by Gerardo “Gerry” Lozano with 2,223. Fern McClaugherty received 593 votes. 

In the Place Two Councilmember contest, Ruben “Bubba” Palacios led with 3,108 votes, or 40.63%, to Jason De Leon’s 2,376, or 31.06%, followed by Moises Segovia with 2,165. 

By a vote of 5,638 to 1,552, Edinburg voters approved Special Election Amendment No.1, adding Article XVII, Section 14.  

According to the amendment, “Any elected official of the City may, by a majority vote of the members of City Council not including the elected official who is the subject of the removal, be suspended from office upon that elected official being indicted for a felony while serving as an elected official of the City.

“The elected official against whom removal is sought shall be entitled to reasonable notice that the issue of his or her suspension shall be heard by City Council and shall be permitted to testify in his or her own behalf and present such other relevant evidence as determined by the majority of the other members of Council at such Council meeting.”

CAMERON COUNTY 

Voters rejected a proposition that would have authorized the renovation, planning, acquisition, development, construction and expansion of a multipurpose arena and convention center labeled as the Cameron County Venue project.

In a tight vote, 4,829 ballots were cast against the proposition and 4,754 in favor.

As previously reported by The Rider, the arena would have been the first of its kind in Cameron County and used for graduation ceremonies, large concerts and sporting events.

“Well, what it does is it increases the taxes that visitors will have to pay,” said Mark Kaswan, an associate professor in the department of Political Science at UTRGV. “The room taxes and I think car rental taxes. This is a very common way that cities, counties, use to raise money, particularly, if they are in a tourist-heavy area, which this is. We rely a lot on tourism and, so, it’s a way to raise money.”

PROPOSITIONS

Kaswan explained each proposition and how Texans’ votes today will affect some of the state’s politics, health care and taxes.

With 99% of the state’s counties reporting results as of 11:43 p.m., Texans were voting in favor of Proposition 1 with a vote of 1,113,115 to 215,688 against. The proposition allows rodeo associations, or organizations that are sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys and Women’s Professional Rodeo associations to conduct raffles at rodeo venues.

As of 9:18 p.m., with all 100% of precincts reporting, unofficial Cameron County results showed 7,895 votes for the proposition and 2,025 against.

With all 255 precincts reporting unofficial results for Hidalgo County, 15,866 voted in favor to 3,490 opposed to Proposition 1.

“So, for some reason, that is in our constitution,” Kaswan said. “It’s weird because, like, why is that not just something that they can do, why do they even have to have permission from anybody to conduct a raffle. Frankly, it’s bizarre.”

Texans were also voting in favor of Proposition 2 with 843,496 for and 488,862 against. Proposition 2 will give counties the authorization to finance transportation and infrastructure, such as water, sewage and electrical transmission, in “unproductive, underdeveloped or blighted areas of the county.”

In Cameron County, 6,574 ballots were cast in favor of Proposition 2, outpacing the 3,299 votes against.

Hidalgo County voted 13,603 in favor to 5,385 opposed to Proposition 2.

“So, in parts of the county, again, this is something that is kind of bizarre that it has to be in our constitution, but it authorizes counties to, basically, come up with ways to finance expanding infrastructure into more rural areas, rural areas that are underdeveloped,” Kaswan said.

The political science professor said Proposition 3 was created in response to actions taken toward religious institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic, not just in Texas, but in most states. 

“So, this is a reaction, this is one of those measures that is intended to limit the power of public health authorities in the case of things like pandemics,” he said. “I mean, but you could also imagine, like, if there was a hurricane and there was an evacuation order, and it just happened to fall on a Sunday. Then, what this is saying, is that there’s no authority that could close churches in the face of that hurricane, right, that could say to these churches, ‘No, you can’t hold services because there’s a Category 5 hurricane coming and you’re gonna die.’”

Texas residents were also voting to approve Proposition 3 with a vote of 839,223 for and 498,663 against. Cameron County was also voting in favor of the proposition, with 6,164 in favor and 3,745 against. 

 Hidalgo County residents voted 11,105 in favor of and 7,706 against Proposition 3 

Also on the ballot for the Nov. 2 Constitutional Amendment Election was Proposition 4, which is intended to add eligibility requirements for people who are candidates for judicial offices, district judge, appeals court judge, state supreme court and court of criminal appeals.

“That is intended to make it somewhat harder for people to be judges,” Kaswan said. “It means that they have to spend more time as active lawyers … actively as lawyers practicing in the state of Texas.”

As of 9 p.m., Texas voters leaned in favor of the proposition with a vote of 762,189 to 535,929 opposed. 

In Cameron County, 5,912 ballots were cast in favor of Proposition 4, outpacing the 3,790 votes against.

Hidalgo County voted 11,821 in favor of and 6,504 against Proposition 4. 

Kaswan said Proposition 5, if passed, would allow the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to assess candidates’ for judge qualifications and “give that commission greater power.”

“What it does is that it enables it to take complaints and conduct investigations and even take disciplinary actions against candidates for judicial office, which is kind of interesting that they would be able to take some sort of disciplinary action against a candidate for office, as opposed to someone that is actually in office,” Kaswan said.

He also said one perspective on why Propositions 4 and 5 were adopted to the ballot was in reaction to what happened in Harris County in 2018. 

“A large portion of the sitting judges lost their reelection bids, and all those sitting judges who lost were older, white, Republican men,” Kaswan said. “And all the people who replaced them were young, Black women and Democrats. So, basically, the [Texas] Legislature wanted to make it harder for younger people, people of color, to be able to run for judgeship.”

Proposition 5 was favored by most voters as of 9 p.m., with 767,940 ballots cast in favor and 530,601 against.

In Cameron County, residents were voting in favor of the proposition, with 5,885 for and 3,822 opposed. In Hidalgo County, voters were also in favor of the proposition, with 11,569 for and 6,610 against. 

Similar to Proposition 3, Proposition 6 was also in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Kaswan.

The proposition would allow residents of certain facilities, such as nursing homes, to identify an essential caregiver whom the facility may not prohibit from in-person visitation.

Texans voted 1,168,589 in favor of and 160,609 against Proposition 6.

In Cameron County, 8,423 ballots were cast in favor of the proposition, outpacing the 1,413 votes against.

Hidalgo County voters were heavily in favor of the proposition, with 15,580 for and 2,805 against. 

“And this is one of those things where we know, because of COVID, that there were tons of stories of people in nursing homes and care facilities who were, you know, basically unable to see their family at all because of COVID restrictions and that, you know, it was really sad, having to, basically, die alone because these COVID restrictions didn’t allow for any family members, for any visitors,” Kaswan said. “And, what this would do is … they would have to choose one person, but it would mean that they would have some connection to family or the outside world.”

According to Kaswan, propositions, such as 7 and 8 regarding exemptions for property taxes, are seen in virtually every constitutional amendment election. 

Proposition 7 proposes that a person who is 55 or older at the time of death of their spouse and is receiving a limitation on school district property taxes for their residence due to a disability, should continue receiving said help while they maintain occupancy. 

As of 9 p.m., Texans were voting in favor of the proposition with 1,157,593 for and 174,181 against. 

Residents in Cameron County were voting in favor of Proposition 7, with 8,678 in favor and 1,240 against. 

In Hidalgo County, 16,293 ballots were cast in favor of Proposition 7, outpacing the 2,248 votes against.

The last amendment on the ballot was Proposition 8, which proposed exemption from ad valorem taxation for all or part of the market value of the residence of the surviving spouse of the military who was killed or fatally injured in the line of duty. 

Texans were voting in favor of the proposition, with 1,162,550 votes for and 166,115 against. 

In Cameron County, 8,671 voted in favor of Proposition 8 and 1,216 against. 

Hidalgo County residents voted in favor of Proposition 8, with 16,309 for and 2,039 opposed.