We couldn’t have dreamed up a
better story: three of the four candidates running in the Republican primary in
District 47 of the Texas Legislature are among Travis County’s most
controversial figures. Each has achieved singular notoriety, but all together
in one race, they make for bang-up politics. Sheriff Terry Keel, whose heroic
antics in public and fear tactics in the office have earned him multiple
lawsuits from those he’s allegedly abused; former Congressional candidate Jo
Baylor, whose charm and Teflon appeal got her through failed business
partnerships, back taxes, and property swaps with barely a scratch; and former
Christian Coalition president Kirk Ingels, who is finally coming out of the
closet a la Pat Buchanan, ready to finally bless us with Jesus
and the state, together again.
The fun will just keep coming after the primary election March 12, because one
of these three is likely to win on name recognition alone, not to mention the
fact they’ve brought in tens of thousands of dollars for adverstising.
The fourth candidate, insurance executive Randall Riley, may have the most
experience at the state level since he served as a state representative in the
mid-Eighties, but that’s probably not going to help him — he hasn’t got the
funds, and in his own words, “I’m not always a Republican.”
In this race, that’s the key: The redrawing of the district boundaries in 1991
by Democrats threw most of the county’s Republican voters into a single area,
understood to be an attempt to protect Democratic positions. The district has
an odd crescent-moon shape, stretching north around the city to Pflugerville,
south to Onion Creek, and including West Lake Hills and rural western Travis
County, home of both Barton Creek Properties and the Circle C development. Keel
called it “gerrymandering,” but should he win the primary March 12, he only has
cause to celebrate, considering the evident ease of victory for a GOP candidate
come November.
Susan Combs, District 47’s Republican
representative last session, became a leader for the property-rights movement
in the state, leading the charge with a landmark bill that later became law,
giving private-property owners the right to sue municipalities for compensation
if government regulations lower their property values by 25%. Despite her
successes at the Lege for two terms, Combs announced last fall that she would
not run for re-election, although her victory was virtually assured. Political
expediency being what it is, Combs left her office in January to take a
position as the state coordinator for U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
(Combs’ early departure necessitates a special election on May 4 to fill out
her unexpired term through December 31. All of the candidates have committed to
run for the temporary post except Keel, who will continue to serve as sheriff
until the general election in November.)
Combs’ conservative bills were just a sign of things to come for this area —
Travis County, the Camelot of liberalism for the state, lost its queen, and
George W. is no fan of Austin’s. Bills introduced by the District 47
representative will have a good chance of being heard, despite that person’s
freshman status.
And while the property-rights movement still has considerable momentum, it
will no doubt share headlines during the 1997 legislative session with the next
big battle: block grants and bulky state programs. And all four candidates are
talking big about their plans for the money, for property-tax reform, and for
pounding state government down to size. With the exception of Keel, all have
ideas about a new tax — whether it be a consumptive tax, a gross-receipts tax
of 1% on corporations, or a higher sales tax. With the exception of Baylor, all
are pro-life, and even she goes along with the rest in wanting parental consent
for minors, and the elimination of public funding for abortions. They all
differ on sex education programs, but would all like to reduce the role of the
Texas Education Agency (TEA), an administrative body which disburses funding,
writes policy for the State Board of Education, and applies for federal grants
including those for sex-education programs. All have expressed a similar fear
of state environmental regulations, and, naturally, all claim to be
environmentalists.
The Chronicle spoke with each candidate, with the exception of Ingels,
who did not respond to repeated requests for an interview. Ingels’ campaign
manager, Mike Arnold, did speak at length with us, and was able to give an
overview of Ingels’ positions, but declined to give details on specific policy
questions. Ingels also failed to show up at a recent candidates’ forum at West
Lake City Hall, but his longtime friend, Mickey Powell, came in his place.
Naturally, Powell spoke highly of Ingels, but then gave West Lake Hills city
council members his own personal answers to their policy questions. A fifth
Republican, Bill Welch, dropped out of the race early. Democrat John Lindell is
unopposed in the primary, and will face the Republican choice in November.
What follows is a profile on each of the Republican candidates and their
positions.
Jo Baylor We’ve called her a “perennial” candidate, but since she’s only run for U.S.
Congress recently and lost, the term should rather be used more as a
description of her personality. Baylor, 44, is irrepressibly ambitious, with an
incredible Teflon nature.
She has been endorsed by Combs, who wrote in a press release that Baylor was
well-equipped to handle negotiations at the Capitol and would carry on the
torch for property rights and conservative policies for the district. Former
legislator Terrell Smith also backs Baylor, but beyond that, her endorsements
are few. She says she’s running because the issues she campaigned on in 1994
“are coming home to the state: welfare reform, block grants, education…” She
touts her ability, as a professional property-tax consultant, to assist in
property-tax reform during the next session. And she has created a “Property
Owner Bill of Rights,” which includes a proposal to reform the way property
valuations are conducted as a way to lower taxes.
At the West Lake forum, Baylor described her three local businesses — Austin
Realty Consultants, Realty Tax Consultants, and Klean Seats, a toilet seat
supply company — and then joked to the attending councilmembers that because
of the last company, she “understands the bottom line.” She got the laugh she
deserved. Charming to a fault even to her enemies, undeterred by criticism, and
with an unfailing ability to come back from a fall, Baylor has what it takes to
be the consummate modern politician.
And she has a lot to come back from. For example, despite charges — some
described in lawsuits against her by former business partners — that she was
lax in meeting some of her responsibilities and overstepped her boundaries in
those partnerships, she touted herself as a “very good businesswoman” during
the Congressional campaign in 1994. And despite evidence that some of the
Eastside properties she held during the Eighties and later sold to the city
were, shall we say, under-managed, and occasionally used as crack houses — and
that she failed to pay property taxes for several years on a few of those
properties — she claimed during that campaign that, having grown up on the
Eastside, she was committed to bettering the area, and could speak to its needs
with authority. Through all of this, Baylor maintained that the lawsuits
brought against her were “minutiae,” that her property taxes had been paid (the
city paid them at the sale), and that with regard to the condition of the slum
properties, she was a victim of the bust just like everyone else. An additional
$17,666 in back taxes she owed on the nicest development she’s ever been
involved with, the 1101 Navasota office strip, was paid during the campaign
after the press found out about it.
Although she was treasurer in 1992 of Save Our Neighborhoods (SON), an
anti-Save Our Springs organization, she claimed during a meeting with
Chronicle editors in 1994 that she had never worked against SOS. She
also never filed contributor and expenditure reports for SON, as required by
the Texas Ethics Commission, but when asked about it, Baylor said SON was a
neighborhood group, and thus not required to file those reports. Shortly after
the issue came to light, Baylor dissolved the organization. During our
interview for this story, Baylor changed her tune, and touted her past with SON
as an anti-SOS group. “Jo Baylor is for property rights,” she said of herself.
“Especially considering the SOS opposition we had with SON.” Currently, she
says, she’s more interested in the environmental racism issue for East Austin.
Would she then sign up with Representative Glen Maxey (District 51), who has
sponsored bills in the Legislature pertaining to that inequality? “If it’s
fair,” she hedged. “I’m willing to sit down with anyone.”
She laughed during our interview that the Chronicle is “hard” on her,
but that we could always count on her to call back and talk. And to her credit,
she is certainly open to interviews. Call her up; she’ll tell you anything.
Terry Keel The sheriff has the longest list of endorsements, and the names on the list
are not surprising — including several law-enforcement, teacher, and victim’s
advocacy organizations. His goals for the district fall just about center of
the road — and he’s refreshingly realistic about property tax reform. He’s not
going for the Republican rhetoric supporting a “consumptive tax,” or a “gross
receipts tax,” or a higher sales tax. Forget all that, he argues — just reduce
the size of government and make it more efficient. Keel, 38, points to his
experience at the sheriff’s department, and certainly, he has worked to make
the Del Valle correction facility as self-sufficient as possible, using inmate
labor to build two new facilities, and growing vegetables on-site.
We’ve written about Keel just recently, outlining a few of his more
embarrassing moments since he won the sheriff’s election in 1992. It’s been
suggested that those embarrassments coming to light, in the Chronicle,
in Texas Lawyer, and in the Austin American-Statesman, were what
convinced the former assistant DA that it’s time to change jobs again. Keel,
who will continue to serve as sheriff during his campaign for state office,
scoffs at this theory, saying that if he “was afraid of a political fight, he
wouldn’t have run for sheriff in the first place.” Since he’s been in office,
he’s had an on-going skirmish with Travis County Judge Bill Aleshire over
budgetary and litigation issues. In fact, Keel continues to lead the sheriff’s
department in virtual isolation from the rest of county government; any
appearance by him in County Commissioner’s Court is excitedly covered by the
press because it’s a guaranteed showdown. His isolation is due in part to his
Republican alignment within a Democratic structure, and in part due to his
abrasive personality.
In fact, Keel is quite proud of his ability to stand for battle, remarking
that since all four of the Republican candidates in the race have similar goals
— he ticks them off: tax reform, government efficiency, property rights — the
key question is what sets them apart. In Keel’s opinion, the answer is, “which
candidate will not back down from a tough fight? I believe my public record
says it all.”
Indeed it does, whether it’s standing up to his nemesis, Democratic Travis
County Judge Bill Aleshire, or to an attorney who’s dug her heels in. But at
what cost? Recall the defamation case against Keel which occurred in the
aftermath of the kidnapping and murder of the Baugh baby in 1994 by Cathy
Henderson. Keel made public statements accusing Henderson’s attorney, Nona
Byington, of being an accomplice to the kidnapping because she would not
release a map made by Henderson of the child’s whereabouts to authorities.
Byington was bound by attorney/client privilege to withhold the map, but Keel
persisted, even searching her office without a warrant. There is evidence,
moreover, that Keel knew the baby was already dead at the time he was
pressuring Byington. The following year, Byington sued Keel for defamation, and
in court documents, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alan Albright recommended to U.S.
District Judge James Nowlin, who was to hear the case, that Keel’s motion for
summary judgment on the defamation claim be denied. In the end, the county
settled, and Byington was paid $100,000 by the taxpayers. Additionally, the
case cost the county $230,000 in legal fees.
In a recent phone interview on his campaign, Keel claimed that he “got that
summary judgment in my favor,” even though the documents show he did not; he
also claims that the county paid the money to Byington to avoid extensive
litigation costs.
Keel has a nasty reputation among some of his officers (just read the
newsletters), and among Democrats in the county, some of whom have said (and
I’m not kidding here) that he’s Hitler reincarnated, or maybe even the
anti-Christ. Fear and loathing aside, Keel is simply the embodiment of the
tight-ass, small-town sheriff, and he’s admired for it by conservatives who
like his toughness, and his aggressive victim advocacy, and who don’t
particularly care if he goes over the line.
At the West Lake candidates’ forum, the audience is stacked with middle-aged
and elderly folks sporting Keel buttons — and he’s the only one to get
enthusiastic applause. Before and after the forum, Keel works those unfamiliar
with him like a pro — he’s not as obsequious as Baylor, not as hesitant as the
unknown Riley, not a Democrat like Lindell, and finally, unlike Ingels, he’s
actually there in person. Baylor may have gotten more laughs, but Keel carries
a gun on the job, and that’s impressive.
Will the evidence, or as Baylor would say, the “minutiae” of Keel’s
predilection for hubris distract voters from the question of his ability to
serve at the Lege? Probably not. As we’ve pointed out earlier, conservatives
don’t particularly care if Keel steps over the line — expediency and true
passion are attractive qualities. The issue most certainly is whether Keel will
serve the district well — and that remains to be seen. He seems to have all
the right positions, and perhaps even the right temperament.
Kirk Ingels Ironically, despite the recent re-emergence in this country of religious,
social conservatives as valid candidates for public office, and campaign
literature that echoes the pride of Pat Buchanan’s stand as “the only fiscal
and social conservative in the presidential race,” former Austin
Christian Coalition president Kirk Ingels remains a sort of stealth candidate,
in that he’s a no-show in this campaign. Perhaps because of that, he’s got his
opponents running scared; two of the other candidates stress that Ingels is the
front-runner. “He’s got a devoted, zealous following,” one says, with
appropriate religious overtones.
Guess you can’t fight him if you can’t see him. He never granted an interview
to this reporter — although that’s no surprise — but he also failed to show
up at the important forum with West Lake Hills city councilmembers. And after
the initial interview with Ingels’ campaign manager Arnold, even the campaign
office stopped returning my phone calls. During the initial interview, Arnold
said that Ingels is spending most of his time on the phone bringing in the
money — as if he needed any more. He’s far ahead of the rest on that score,
having raised over $100,000 already. Just wait until the television-ad blitz
begins.
The candidate’s campaign literature touts his experience as a business owner
— he’s an independent insurance agent for State Farm Insurance — and his
efforts in the community to stem the flow of public monies. Arnold cites
Ingels’ work on Proposition 22, which repealed the extension of health
insurance to domestic partners of city employees, and his effort to fight the
spending of $10 million in city funds on a minor league baseball stadium as his
two major local accomplishments.
Ingels may take credit for Prop. 22 now, but in 1994, when a conservative
group called Concerned Texans got the referendum on the ballot, then-Coalition
President Ingels denied involvement, even after Concerned Texans co-founder
Michael Brandes acknowledged that campaign workers were stopping by Ingels’
office to pick up Prop. 22 yard signs and other materials.
“Kirk is pro-family, and pro-business,” says Arnold. No kidding.
“Dedicated family man” is listed on his campaign literature with equal
importance as his other qualifications for running. Arnold says Ingels is
“opposed to `Robin Hood’ funding,” and is “in favor of parental school choice,”
meaning vouchers, but deferred to Ingels the question of whether it should be
put to public vote. He’s also pro-life, “without any hedges,” says Arnold, “but
he wouldn’t be an activist on that. He’s more into parental rights.”
Arnold may downplay the point, but Ingels’ socially conservative beliefs will
come into play with the Legislature poised to delve more deeply into the role
of the TEA. Ingels and others like him at the Lege will be able to influence
the issue of school-based clinics, and whether sex education programs will be
comprehensive and include HIV prevention programs. Ingels and other
conservatives could call for more decentralism and local control, which would
position the state to have even more of a “hands-off” approach to comprehensive
sex education programs.
Randall Riley Randall Riley, 41, is really more of a hybrid than a pedigree as candidates
go, someone you might dismiss as both too conservative and too liberal,
depending on which of his theories you happen to be hearing. He probably never
was a household word even to his own constituents when he served then-District
52 (Williamson and Burnet Counties) for two terms from 1985-88. Back then, his
biggest accomplishment was initiating the donor program on the back of your
driver’s license. “Someone else finished it off,” he explains, and adds that he
really wasn’t in a position as a freshman legislator to pass a big bill.
In part, this also explains his reason for running. “Susan was set to become a
chairman [of a legislative committee], then she quit. When I saw that, I
thought that was crazy — the area’s going to have a newcomer again. There are
too many environmental and political policy questions [coming up].” With his
established tenure in the Lege, he says he “can become a chairman the first
time around… I feel certain I can get a position that’s good for the
district.” Riley is the biggest proponent in the race for the gross receipts
tax of 1% on corporations, an idea that Governor Bush is said to have already
rejected because it may be bad for business. But, he argues, the tax on
corporations “would eliminate the franchise tax for corporations, and all
residential and commercial property taxes.” How would corporations feel about
shouldering the burden for the entire state for that revenue? “I don’t think it
would be that popular,” Riley admits.
Try to mesh that rather progressive idea with Riley’s theory that “water
should be viewed similarly to oil — it’s a mineral.” Oil is under the ground
and belongs to the individual property owner, but so is water, he says, “and
yet we say it belongs to the state. We should pay for it… People would be to
more apt to take care of it if they’re compensated.”
State government is a broken system, Riley says, and he blames the attorneys
in the Legislature. “The Legislature is made up of attorneys; they don’t really
want the system to work because they make no money off it.” He wants compromise
between the two political parties, and doesn’t subscribe to Keel’s theory that
the best fighter is the best candidate. “We need compromise, not a fight. The
art of compromise, of drawing together, that’s what you have to do.” Riley, it
seems, has something for everyone.
All the talk of property tax
reform and less government in this campaign may be pleasing to the ear for the
district’s voters, but the reality is that as the federal government hands over
education and social program monies to the states, local governments may be
forced to enlarge their administrative responsibilities, thus creating bigger
local government. As the candidates could discover, cutting down on social
programs and education administration, while it makes for good campaign
sound-bites, just may not be feasible in coming years.
More importantly on a local level, the growing suburbs surrounding Austin,
especially those in District 47, will gain in power and must take a place at
the table concerning regulation and growth issues. That’s what makes this
district so important in Austin politics: we only got a taste of our future
with Susan Combs and property rights — what’s waiting in the wings is the
question of regional management, planning, and governance, and how it will be
shaped. n
This article appears in February 23 • 1996 and February 23 • 1996 (Cover).