It’s time to Run for Office

President of the United States isn’t the only office on the ballot in 2016. Depending on your precinct over 50 offices at all levels could be on the ballot.

Who is going to run for President 8, 16, 24 years from now? It could be you! But it’s time to start building your resume. Candidate filing for the 2016 Democratic Primary opens Saturday, November 14, 2015. The primary date is Tuesday, March 1, 2016. Early voting begins on Monday, February 15, 2016. Yard signs may be erected as soon as Wednesday, December 1, 2015.

What qualifications do I need to meet?

All candidates running for office in Texas need to meet basic requirements for the position, including age, citizenship status, residency and other requirements.

Important documents:

Where do I file?

Who you file with, and where the paperwork goes, depends on the office you are running for in Texas.

If you are running for an office based in Nueces County, you file to run for office at the Nueces County Democratic Party administrative office 3765 S. Alameda Street, Ste. 324, Corpus Christi, TX 78411The Nueces County Democratic Party is open from 10 – 4 weekdays and 10 – 1:30 this Saturday to accept filing paperwork. Sunday appointments available by request; email to set up an appointment.

If you are running for an office that represents more than one county, such as a statewide office, district attorney and many state senate and representative seats, you file with the Texas Democratic Party, 1106 Lavaca St #100, Austin, TX 78701 by mail or in person. The Texas Democratic Party is open from 9 – 5 weekdays and 10 – 2 on Saturday to accept filing paperwork. Sunday appointments available by request; email to set up an appointment.

These offices file in Corpus Christi: Texas House (District 32 & 34), Nueces County Court-at-Law Judges, Nueces County Constables, Nueces County Attorney, Nueces County Tax Assessor, Nueces County District Judges, Nueces County Sheriff, Nueces County Justice of the Peace, Nueces County Commissioner (District 1 & 3), Chair Nueces County Democratic Party, and Precinct Chair.

These offices file in Austin: President, U.S Congress (we are represented by District 27), Texas Railroad Commissioner, Texas Senate, Texas House (District 43), Texas State Supreme Court (3 seats up), Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (3 seats up), Texas 13th District Court of Appeals, Texas State Board of Education (we are represented by District 2), District Attorney (105th Judicial District)

City council, board of trustee, and board of regents elections for the 21 local city, town, and school governments in Nueces County are non-partisan. Filing for those offices runs from July 25 to August 16, 2016.

Paperwork and the fee for running for office must be submitted by 6 pm December 14, 2015.

Important documents:

Name a Treasurer

Before you raise or spend a single dollar for your campaign, you must file a campaign treasurer.

If your office is a countywide or county district office, you file your treasurer with the Nueces County Clerk in person.

If you are running for an office that represents more than one county, you file your treasurer with the Texas Ethics Commission.

If you are running for U.S. Representative or President, you file with the Federal Election Commission.


2015 Texas Constitutional Election

Since the Texas Constitution was adopted in 1876, voters have authorized 484 separate constitutional amendments, this year another 7 issues are on the ballot. The last 10 amendments, in the 2013 and 2014 elections, passed with an average support of 77%; however, that support only came from the 8-9% of registered voters that actually showed up to the polls. That’s (sadly) about what you’d expect from a state that ranks so poorly in voter turnout.

You can boost that turnout by voting early (from Monday, October 19 to Friday, October 30) or going to your local precinct on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 from 7am to 7pm.

On one issue, #3 it is imperative that you vote NO, issue #3 if passed would enable Land Commissioner George P. Bush and Attorney General Ken Paxton to continue to not show up for work.

All the propositions on this year’s ballot are:

  • Proposition 1 increases the homestead exemption from $15,000 to $25,000.
  • Proposition 2 extends a property tax exemption to the surviving spouse of a totally disable veteran who died before 2010.
  • Proposition 3 repeals the requirement that certain statewide officers live in Austin.
  • Proposition 4 permits professional sports teams to conduct charitable raffles.
  • Proposition 5 allows counties with fewer than 7,500 people to provide private road maintenance.
  • Proposition 6 includes in the Constitution the right to hunt and fish.
  • Proposition 7 diverts $2.5 Billion or more of sales tax revenue from the General Fund to the State Highway Fund.

Proposition 1: Homestead Exemption MAYBE

Official Ballot Language:

The constitutional amendment increasing the amount of the residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxation for public school purposes from $15,000 to $25,000, providing for a reduction of the limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for those purposes on the homestead of an elderly or disabled person to reflect the increased exemption amount, authorizing the legislature to prohibit a political subdivision that has adopted an optional residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxation from reducing the amount of or repealing the exemption, and prohibiting the enactment of a law that imposes a transfer tax on a transaction that conveys fee simple title to real property.


The proposed amendment would raise the amount of a homestead exemption from $15,000 to $25,000 on ad valorem, or property, taxes, for public school purposes beginning January 1, 2015. For a person 65 or older or a disabled person, the proposed amendment would also grant an additional $10,000. The amendment would require the state to offset any school property tax revenue losses resulting from the additional homestead exemption amount. The Legislative Budget Board estimates this would be over $1.2 billion for 2015-2016.

Arguments For

  • Increasing the homestead exemption is one of the fairest ways to cut taxes. Indeed, Texas Democrats have called for an increase in the homestead exemption for more than a decade—so it’s easy to see this GOP-led initiative as merely a long- delayed realization of a good idea progressives had a long time ago. Homeowners appreciate any relief from property taxes, even if that relief does nothing more than slow down rising rates, and cutting taxes for homeowners is certainly more equitable than giving tax cuts exclusively to big corporations.
  • Cutting property taxes by increasing the homestead exemption would stimulate real economic growth and provide tax relief that voters have asked for and to those who need it most. Consumers would have more expendable income, allowing more money to be used more efficiently in the economy.
  • Data from the comptroller’s Tax Exemptions and Tax Incidence report indicates that homestead exemptions particularly benefit low-income individuals. This is because a homestead exemption exempts a higher percentage of the total value of a less expensive house.
  • This amendment increases the state share of education funding.

Arguments Against

  • The cost of this tax cut is significant. There’s no long-term plan for how Texas will pay back the estimated $1.2 billion in lost money for schools; surplus funds will cover the cost in the short-run, but what happens if we don’t collect as much money as we project? Relying on court-imposed changes of Texas’ school finance system is a risky maneuver. At a time when our state budget has yet to catch up from the devastating cuts of 2011, prioritizing tax cuts for some (renters won’t benefit from this tax cut) over investing in community-wide improvements in health care or education can reasonably be considered irresponsible.
  • Many taxpayers will see little reduction in their property taxes as this is only a minor increase in their homestead exemption. It is estimated that the average homeowner will receive $126 in annual tax saving. Certainly they will see little, if any, increase in tax savings if appraisals increase.
  • This amendment would increase the state share of education funding but would not actually increase school funding.
  • A sales tax reduction would be better for the Texas economy than an increase in the homestead exemption. The Legislative Budget Board estimates that over five years a sales tax cut could create more than 42,000 jobs and spark $5.2 billion more in GDP growth than an equivalent increase in the homestead exemption.

Proposition 2: Spouses of Disabled Veterans MAYBE

Official Ballot Language:

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran who died before the law authorizing a residence homestead exemption for such a veteran took effect.


Proposition 2 in conjunction with its enabling legislation, HB 992, would amend the Texas Constitution, Art. 8, to extend the current homestead property tax exemption to include the surviving spouse of a totally disabled veteran who died on or before January 1, 2010, and who would have qualified for the full exemption on the homestead’s entire value if it had been available at that time. In 2011, voters approved a constitutional amendment to allow a surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran an exemption from property taxation from all or part of the market value on the disabled veteran’s residence homestead, as long as the surviving souse had not remarried. The amendment passed in 2011, however, did not apply to surviving spouses of veterans who died before January 1, 2010. Proposition 2 would extend the homestead exemption to include these spouses. According to estimates by the comptroller, extending the exemption would allow roughly 3,800 surviving spouses of totally disabled veterans to claim this exemption.

Arguments For

  • In 2011 Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment that allows surviving spouses of disabled veterans to be exempt from property taxes on the current value of their home. That proposition was forward-looking; Prop 2 would extend this to spouses who would have qualified for the exemption if it had been available to them prior to 2011. Prop 2 would only apply to approximately 3,800 surviving spouses of totally disabled veterans, with a minimal impact to the state budget. This exemption only applies to spouses of disabled veterans that remain in the residence of the surviving spouse, and is only granted if the spouse has not remarried. Additionally, legislation passed by the Legislature would ensure there is no disproportionate impact on any one community or school district that may have a uniquely large number of people eligible for this tax break within the community.
  • Proposition 2 would allow the Legislature to provide a valuable form of tax relief for families of deceased disabled veterans, and the fiscal impact on a single taxing district would be minimal.
  • Current law unintentionally creates two classes of surviving spouses of totally disabled veterans: those whose spouses died before January 1, 2010, and those whose spouses died on or after that date. Proposition 2 would extend the homestead exemption to include those who are currently not receiving an exemption and thereby eliminate the two different classes of surviving spouses.

Arguments Against

  • The Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note on the enabling legislation, HB 992, indicates that school districts, municipalities, counties, and other special taxing districts such as hospitals would lose some tax revenue under the bill and proposed amendment. This increase in property tax exemptions might require local governments to increase taxes for other taxpayers.
  • School districts would receive less revenue from property taxes so the State would have to cover this reduction by pulling it from the General Revenue Fund, creating a cost to the State.

Proposition 3: Residency for Statewide Officers NO

Official Ballot Language:

The constitutional amendment repealing the requirement that state officers elected by voters statewide reside in the state capital.


When the Texas Constitution was initially adopted in 1876, Article 4, Section 23, required the comptroller of the General Land Office, the attorney general, and any statutory state officer who was elected statewide to reside at the capital during their terms of office. Proposition 3 would amend the Constitution by removing that requirement.

Arguments For

  • The requirement mandating that specific elected state officers live in Austin during their terms made sense in 1876 when travel by buggy, wagon, or horseback created hardships. Today’s advances both in transportation and technology make this requirement obsolete. State office holders, wherever they live in the state, have a variety of travel modes available to them to get to Austin quickly, and if unable to get to Austin to conduct business, they can manage their duties wherever they reside by way of email, Skype, or conference call.
  • An elected officials’ choice of where to live and/or establish their residences should not be limited. Considerations involving employment and school for an elected official’s spouse and children could make permanent residence in Austin difficult and costly.
  • Some officials elected statewide who had previously represented a legislative district might not want to lose their local residency in case they later decide to seek an office that requires them to reside in a certain district.

Arguments Against

  • This amendment was originally conceived as a way for Texas’ GOP elected officials to escape prosecution from corruption charges in Travis County. So when Attorney General Ken Paxton is indicted for violating securities law—as he is right now—he could claim residence in a county with a friendlier, Republican-leaning district attorney. A different law passed that allows Paxton and his GOP colleagues to live elsewhere, making the Republicans’ initial purpose of this amendment unnecessary—but there’s still no reason to enshrine a bad idea into the constitution.
  • This provision in the Constitution has served Texans well. Those elected to guide large agencies like the comptroller’s office, the land office, or the attorney general’s office should be present at their respective agency headquarters in Austin on a daily basis.
  • While technology has made it easier for workers to conduct business from home, such an arrangement is not appropriate for some officials who should be available to constituents, staff, and other state leaders at any time during the work day. Living away from Austin creates hardships on those who need to consult in person with the state officeholder.
  • Being physically present in Austin ensures these officials are available to handle the important business of the state and not worry about when or how they can travel to Austin. It also means their staff members have better supervision.

Proposition 4: Charitable Gaming Expansion MAYBE

Official Ballot Language:

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit professional sports team charitable foundations to conduct charitable raffles.


The Texas constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 47 prohibits lotteries and gift enterprises, with a few exceptions. One exception is an amendment adopted in 1989 that permits charitable raffles conducted by a qualified religious society, a volunteer fire department, a volunteer emergency medical service or a non-profit organization. This provision requires that all proceeds from the sale of raffle tickets be spent for charitable purposes of the organization and that the charitable raffle be conducted and promoted exclusively by the members of the organization. Proposition 4 proposes an amendment to Texas Constitution, Art. 3, sec. 47, to include another exception and allow a professional sports team charitable foundation to conduct charitable raffles under the terms and conditions imposed by the law. The law could authorize the charitable foundation to pay reasonable advertising, promotional and administrative expenses with the charitable proceeds. These raffles could only be conducted at games hosted at the home venue of the professional sports team associated with the charitable foundation.

Arguments For

  • Prop 4 allows Texas’ professional sports teams to host what is known as a “50/50” raffle at their home games. These are raffles where contestants (who must be present at the game) can enter to win cash prizes. The payouts are then split 50/50 with the contestant winner and a charity of the organization’s choice—typically a youth, education, or community program affiliated with the professional sports team. Since this could be considered gambling, a constitutional amendment is required to allow teams’ to participate in such raffles. If passed, ten Texas teams could host the raffles: the Houston Astros and Texas Rangers (baseball); the Houston Rockets, Dallas Mavericks, and San Antonio Spurs (basketball); the Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans (football); the Dallas Stars (hockey); and the Houston Dynamo and FC Dallas (soccer). The accompanying legislation for this amendment prevents these teams from profiting from the raffle, and ensures that only teams that existed for three years prior to the law going into effect may participate.
  • Proposition 4, along with its enabling legislation, HB 975, would increase philanthropic donations by allowing charitable foundations of Texas professional sports teams to hold charitable raffles and use proceeds to pay for reasonable operating expenses.
  • The Proposition and its enabling legislation would permit charitable raffles for cash prizes at home games. Twenty-five states have laws that allow sports teams to hold charitable raffles and allow a type of raffle called a 50/50 raffle, in which half the proceeds go to charity and the other half is paid to the winner. Proposition 4 would make these types of charitable raffles possible by authorizing the Legislature to enact laws allowing them.
  • This proposition would not create new forms of gambling; it would only authorize the Legislature to craft laws governing how professional sports team charitable foundations may conduct raffles, including using raffle proceeds to pay for reasonable operating expenses.

Arguments Against

  • This amendment would enable the expansion of a raffle system that utilizes a charitable cause to improve branding for sports franchises, some of which are valued at over a billion dollars.
  • Proposition 4 would increase the number of exceptions to the constitutional prohibition against lotteries and gift enterprises. It would be the first time in 24 years that the Texas Constitution was amended for gambling purposes, and only the fourth time since its adoption.
  • This proposition could lead to forms of gambling more serious than charitable raffles. With every Amendment to the Constitution, new ways are found to push the limits of what is allowed under the law it authorizes. Opening the Constitution to even more interpretation and flexibility could allow the enactment of future legislation that was never intended by the proposal, such as electronic raffles at bingo halls and race tracks.
  • Proposition 4 differs from the amendment adopted in 1989 in that it does not specify that all proceeds from the sale of raffle tickets be spent for charitable purposes and allows for proceeds to be used for operating expenses. This could lead to a misappropriation of funds and ultimately, less funds being ear-marked for charitable foundations and causes.

Proposition 5: Roadwork in Small Counties YES

Official Ballot Language:

The constitutional amendment to authorize counties with a population of 7,500 or less to perform private road construction and maintenance.


An amendment to the Texas Constitution was adopted in 1980, giving rural counties with less than 5,000 inhabitants the right to construct and maintain private roads if the county imposes a reasonable charge for the work. Proposition 5 would amend Texas Constitution, Art. 3, sec. 52f, to increase the statutory population cap to 7,500. It would update the Constitution to reflect the population growth in Texas counties over the past 35 years and include an additional 21 counties.

Arguments For

  • Small counties rely on this provision to maintain roads, make them passable and improve mobility. In small counties there are rarely private contractors available, so private roads are often poorly maintained, creating safety hazards for citizens and emergency services.
  • The population cap was enacted to prevent all counties in the state from competing with private industry; in the counties covered by Proposition 5, however, there is very little if any competition from private industries.
  • Private landowners would have more flexibility to update poorly maintained roads. They would still be able to hire a private company instead of the county if they chose to do so.
  • Revenue received from private road work may be used only for the construction, including right-of-way acquisition, or maintenance of public roads.

Arguments Against

  • Private landowners must pay for the improvements.
  • Improved road surfaces increase traffic usage, commercial interest, and vehicle speed traveling the road.
  • Improved property increases the taxable value of the property.
  • Instead of increasing the maximum population, the population limit should be eliminated. All counties in the state should have the option to construct and maintain their roads as long as private land owners agree and pay the county for the cost of the work.

Proposition 6: Right to Hunt and Fish MAYBE

Official Ballot Language:

The constitutional amendment relating to the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation.


Proposition 6 would change Article 1 of the Texas constitution by adding the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife using traditional methods. The proposed amendment maintains that this right is subject to regulations that conserve and manage wildlife. The proposed amendment is not intended to affect existing laws relating to trespass, property rights, eminent domain, and municipalities’ right to prevent hunters from using their guns to hunt in populated areas. Arguments Neutral

  • There is no threat to hunting, fishing, or harvesting wildlife in Texas, and the people who suggest conservation efforts are limiting any of those outdoor activities are probably the same ones who thought Jade Helm was a U.S. military invasion of Texas. Conspiracies aside, there is no negative consequence if this amendment passes. Then again, there is no need for it to pass, either, since it changes absolutely nothing. We recommend skipping it entirely. Or voting for it passionately. Whatever. There’s literally no way you could screw this one up.

Arguments For

  • This is a backdoor expansion of gun rights by the NRA. If you like the NRA, vote in favor.
  • Hunting and fishing are very popular sports in Texas, and many Texans feel the need to protect their right to hunt and fish. Proposition 6 would ensure that no laws could be made to take away that right without another amendment proposed by the legislature and voted on by Texans.
  • Revenue from hunting and fishing helps support rural communities and ranch and farm families.
  • Licenses for hunting and fishing provide revenue for wildlife conservation projects by the Texas Parks and Wildlife department.
  • One method of controlling the over population of wildlife such as deer and geese is through hunting.

Arguments Against

  • This is a backdoor expansion of gun rights by the NRA. If you dislike the NRA vote against.
  • The right to hunt and fish does not need to be in the Texas constitution. Hunting and fishing are already protected by laws in place today that are regulated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Ch. 1, which provides that the fish and wildlife of Texas are held in trust by the state for the benefit of all Texans.
  • Hunting and fishing is one wildlife management technique used for specific species, but should not be in the Texas constitution as the “preferred” method as other methods might be more appropriate in certain situations.
  • There are many types of wildlife other than those that are hunted, including endangered species. Although Proposition 6 is subject to laws that promote conservation, there could be misinterpretation, further endangering these species.
  • Traditional methods are not defined so there is concern that traditional may include methods of hunting that many Texans find cruel such as snares or leg/foot traps.

Proposition 7: Road Funding MAYBE

Official Ballot Language:

The constitutional amendment dedicating certain sales and use tax revenue and motor vehicle sales, use, and rental tax revenue to the state highway fund to provide funding for nontolled roads and the reduction of certain transportation-related debt.


Proposition 7 proposes an amendment to the state constitution to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from the state sales and use tax and the tax imposed on the sale, use, or rental of a motor vehicle to the state highway fund. Under current law, these funds are deposited to the General Revenue Fund. The amendment would dedicate $2.5 billion of revenue from the sales and use tax annually to the State Highway Fund starting on September 1, 2017. This allocation would expire on September 1, 2032. Beginning September 1, 2019, 35 percent of revenue from the sales and use tax on motor vehicles exceeding $5 billion would be dedicated to the State Highway Fund annually. For example, if $6 billion came in from this tax, then 35 percent of $1 billion, or $350 million would be dedicated to the State Highway Fund. Currently, this tax is about $4 billion, and it goes directly to the General Revenue Fund. The new revenue for the State Highway Fund would be used only to construct, maintain or acquire rights-of-way for public roadways, but not toll roadways, or to make payments on general obligation bonds issued by the Texas Transportation Commission. The Texas Legislature would be allowed to reduce the amount of sales and use tax revenue allocated to the State Highway Fund if two-thirds of legislators agree to do so. The legislature would also be permitted to extend these revenue allocations beyond their expiration dates for 10-year periods if a simple majority of legislators agree to do so.

Arguments For

  • This amendment provides a consistent source of revenue for road maintenance and construction.
  • The population of Texas is growing rapidly, at almost 1,000 new Texans per day, which is good for the economy. All these people, however, need safe roads, highways and bridges to drive on. Investment in the Texas transportation system is vital to sustaining our quality of life and continuing the state’s strong economic position.
  • The proposed amendment is necessary to fund transportation infrastructure in Texas. Proposition 7 would present a politically viable means to secure a portion of the funding Texas needs to maintain roadway congestion at current levels, given population and economic growth.
  • Texas voters passed Proposition 1 in November 2014, which was a critical first step in providing funding for the transportation infrastructure in Texas, but it did not provide for all our transportation needs. Proposition 7 is a sustainable funding solution to our highway infrastructure needs that does not increase taxes and dedicates existing tax revenue toward transportation projects.

Arguments Against

  • Just like Texas’ public schools and health care systems, Texas’ roads are chronically underfunded. The reason is that Republican state officials are unwilling to close egregious tax loopholes for big corporations in order to invest in the infrastructure the people of Texas deserve. One analysis by the New York Times found that Texas allows $19 billion in tax exemptions every year. With that kind of tax system, it’s no wonder we struggle paying for better schools, hospitals, and roads.
  • Prop 7 is an end-run attempt by lawmakers to pay more for roads without having to close any tax loopholes. Or as the Houston Chronicle put it, “This Rube Goldberg constitutional contraption is the outgrowth of lawmakers unwilling to raise the gas tax or user fees to pay for the state’s transportation needs.”
  • This amendment constitutionally dedicates up to $5 billion in state tax dollars to transportation. The guaranteed appropriation would be in place until 2032, could be temporarily ratcheted back with a ⅔ vote of lawmakers, and can be extended in 10-year increments with a majority vote of legislators.
  • Prop 7 rewards cowardice, and that’s exactly what Prop 7 is: a coward’s attempt to get permission from Texas voters so legislators can forego real funding solutions for our state’s infrastructure. Prop 7 prioritizes our roads above our schools and health systems, and further limits the amount of discretionary revenue the Texas Legislature may access for other important budget items.
  • If Proposition 7 is passed, this would be the largest single increase in transportation funding in Texas history. It is the second time in two years that Texan voters have been asked to divert existing revenue to the State Highway Fund. Proposition 7 does not provide a new source of funding; it is just taking funds and renaming them, and it ties the hands of future lawmakers.
  • The shift of sales tax money to roads rather than to the General Revenue Fund will mean less money in the budget for other necessary items. The two-year impact for 2019 would be $5 billion; a $5 billion decrease in public and higher education funding or investment in the general government, for example, is very significant.
  • Most of the new money could not be used on projects that include toll roads. This means it cannot be used for the proposed rebuilding of the third and final phase of the Dallas LBJ East Freeway Project as a hybrid part-free, part-tolled road. Urban mega-projects like the LBJ East Freeway may face needless delays because of the limits imposed on funding.

Fri 10-23 Dolores Huerta Keynote at Coastal Bend Social Forum

As one of the most famous and celebrated Latinas in the US, Dolores Huerta has been an advocate for social justice, women’s rights, and reproductive freedom and LBGT civil rights. She continues working to develop community leaders to advocate for the working poor, immigrants, women and youth through her work with the Dolores Huerta Foundation. She speaks at universities and conference forums on issues of public policy, social justice, and advocacy influencing thousands of young people to serve their communities.

Friday, October 23 at 6:00pm

Richardson Performance Hall
101 Baldwin Blvd
Corpus Christi, Texas 78404

Please RSVP here


Sat 10-24 2015 Coastal Bend Social Forum

The 2015 Coastal Bend Social Forum brings together diverse populations to discuss issues and ideas that directly impact people’s quality of life.

Del Mar College Music Bldg.
101 Baldwin Blvd
Corpus Christi, Texas 78404

RSVP here.

Time Title Speakers
Panel I
Victories & Challenges Over the Last 50 Years Dawson Barret (Moderator)
Dolores Huerta (Foundation of Hope)
Becky Moeller (past President of the Texas AFL-CIO)
Hunger and Homelessness in Corpus Christi Patty Clark (Corpus Christi Metro Ministries)
The Modern Cannabis Reform Movement Kyle Holscher (NORML-Corpus Christi)
#BlackLivesMatter Elle Hearns (#BlackLivesMatter)
On your own
Panel II
Detention Rights are Human Rights Adriana Piñon (senior attorney for the ACLU of Texas)
Dr. Olivia Lopez (social worker, formerly on staff at the Karnes City detention facility)
Jennicet Gutierrez (GetEqual)
Immigrant Deaths in the Wild Horse Desert Eddie Canales (South Texas Human Rights Project)
Stop the Silence of Family Violence Susan Trevino (Executive Director of the Women’s Shelter of South Texas)
Laura Jimenez (Nueces County Attorney)
Judge Nanette Hasette (District Court 28)
Judge Inna Rogoff Kline (Chief Municipal Judge for the City of Corpus Christi)
Shut It Down: Training for Nonviolent Resistance Jakob Ozias (Get Equal)

Abel Herrero’s 13th Annual Shootout!

All Democrats are invited to Abel Herrero’s 13th Annual Shootout! Saturday, August 29, 2015 12 noon ’til dark

DLP Group
1891 CR26
Corpus Christi, TX 78415

PLATINUM SPONSOR $2000 Eight (8) Event Tickets
GOLD SPONSOR $1000 Six (6) Event Tickets
SILVER SPONSOR $500 Four (4) Tickets
INDIVIDUAL $100 Per Person
*All contributions include entry to venue, food, and beverages
Please make all contributions (corporate contributions prohibited by law) payable to:

Abel Herrero Campaign
P.O. Box 2923
Corpus Christi, TX 78403

For more information, please contact the campaign at or RSVP here.