Texas

Placeholder

Highest-power issue: Emergency orders against peaceful businesses. Current recommendation: Endorse Harlow Singh.

1. Emergency orders against peaceful businesses · power 100
2. Crimes of doing business without a mental state · power 80
3. The civil forfeiture docket · power 80
4. Criminal penalties for unlicensed harmless work · power 60

Governor

Placeholder

The governor signs or vetoes statutes, issues and withdraws executive orders, appoints agency heads, and proposes the budget. The office does not write a criminal penalty on its own.

Emergency orders against peaceful businesses

Placeholder scenario, not a description of current Texas law. An emergency order threatens jail for operating a peaceful business.

Harm: 4
Reach: 5
Office impact: 5
Power: 100

Conduct 4 and penalty severity 3 (Misdemeanor, up to a year) blend 60/40 into harm 4. Power 100 = 4 × 5 × 5.

Who can act

The governor holds the order. Ending it is direct. The legislature can cap emergency authority afterward. Prosecutors decide whether to file. The score gives the governor a 5 because the penalty in this scenario is the order itself.

Winnability is Harlow Singh's chance in this office, 3 of 5. It is a property of the leading score, not of the statute. Harlow Singh is fictional.

Convictionless forfeiture, governor's share

Placeholder. Same forfeiture practice as the legislative entry, scored here for the veto and the appointments rather than the text.

Harm: 4
Reach: 3
Office impact: 3
Power: 36

Conduct 5 and penalty severity 2 (License, property, or forfeiture) blend 60/40 into harm 4. Power 36 = 4 × 3 × 3.

Who can act

The governor can veto a wider forfeiture bill and appoint officials who file the petitions. The governor cannot require a conviction without the legislature. Office impact is a 3.

Winnability is Harlow Singh's chance in this office, 3 of 5. It is a property of the leading score, not of the statute. Harlow Singh is fictional.

2026 gubernatorial election

Endorse Harlow Singh

Placeholder gubernatorial slate. Fictional names only.

Formula: Endorse Harlow Singh (The lead clears the toss-up gap.)

Each segment is issue power times alignment. Alignment runs from −1 to +1. Right of zero, the candidate would narrow the penalty. Left of zero, they would keep or expand it. Fictional candidates.

Fictional candidate

Harlow Singh

Cautious-reform placeholder · Winnability 3 · Score 86

Fictional placeholder. Not a real person. Would narrow emergency authority and sign a conviction requirement if the legislature passed one.

Fictional candidate

Beatrice Holm

Enforcement-first placeholder · Winnability 4 · Score -78.2

Fictional placeholder. Not a real person. Favored, and on the record against narrowing either tool.

Singh is not a maximal reformer on the emergency order — the alignment is a one, not a two — and Holm is more likely to win. The forfeiture difference is large, the weighted scores still separate cleanly, and winnability of 3 clears the floor. Editors endorse Singh and say out loud that the emergency half of the record is only a lean. Both candidates are fictional.

All calls for this state

Attorney general

Placeholder

The attorney general decides appeals, civil enforcement, and often whether the state will defend a statute. Charging power over ordinary crimes may sit with county attorneys. The entry says so when that split matters.

The civil forfeiture docket

Placeholder model: the attorney general controls the state's civil forfeiture filings. Real offices differ. Confirm the structure before using this entry for anything but the method.

Harm: 4
Reach: 4
Office impact: 5
Power: 80

Conduct 5 and penalty severity 2 (License, property, or forfeiture) blend 60/40 into harm 4. Power 80 = 4 × 4 × 5.

Who can act

In this sample the attorney general decides which forfeiture cases are filed, settled, or appealed, and whether the office will defend a conviction requirement. That is as close as an executive lawyer gets to the penalty. The legislature still writes it.

Winnability is Ida Pell's chance in this office, 4 of 5. It is a property of the leading score, not of the statute. Ida Pell is fictional.

2026 attorney general election

Endorse Ida Pell

Placeholder. The office is modeled as the owner of the civil forfeiture docket.

Formula: Endorse Ida Pell (The lead clears the toss-up gap.)

Each segment is issue power times alignment. Alignment runs from −1 to +1. Right of zero, the candidate would narrow the penalty. Left of zero, they would keep or expand it. Fictional candidates.

Fictional candidate

Ida Pell

Limited-government placeholder · Winnability 4 · Score 92

Fictional placeholder. Not a real person. Would stop filing convictionless forfeiture cases and support a conviction bill.

Fictional candidate

Nico Abern

Enforcement-first placeholder · Winnability 3 · Score -80

Fictional placeholder. Not a real person. Would expand civil forfeiture filings.

If the attorney general owns the forfeiture docket, Pell is the strategic vote: favored, and committed to stopping convictionless filings. Abern would expand them. The model is a placeholder — real attorney general powers vary — and the call is only as good as that premise. Pell is not a real candidate.

All calls for this state

Legislature

Placeholder

The legislature drafts the statute, sets the penalty and the mental state, funds the agencies, and can sunset an emergency power. On most of these issues it holds the text.

Crimes of doing business without a mental state

Placeholder. Regulatory misdemeanors across the code with no knowledge element.

Harm: 4
Reach: 4
Office impact: 5
Power: 80

Conduct 4 and penalty severity 3 (Misdemeanor, up to a year) blend 60/40 into harm 4. Power 80 = 4 × 4 × 5.

Who can act

The legislature writes the default rule. That is the whole remedy. A governor's veto stops a bad bill and does not repair the code already on the books.

Winnability is Esther Cho's chance in this office, 4 of 5. It is a property of the leading score, not of the statute. Esther Cho is fictional.

Criminal penalties for unlicensed harmless work

Placeholder. Working in a harmless trade without a license is more than a civil fine. It is a criminal case.

Harm: 3
Reach: 4
Office impact: 5
Power: 60

Conduct 4 and penalty severity 2 (License, property, or forfeiture) blend 60/40 into harm 3. Power 60 = 3 × 4 × 5.

Who can act

The legislature sets the penalty and can drop entire categories. Boards fill in hours and exams underneath that statute.

Winnability is Esther Cho's chance in this office, 4 of 5. It is a property of the leading score, not of the statute. Esther Cho is fictional.

2026 legislative elections

Endorse Esther Cho

Placeholder chamber slate, scored as if a voter were choosing a direction rather than a single seat.

Formula: Endorse Esther Cho (The lead clears the toss-up gap.)

Each segment is issue power times alignment. Alignment runs from −1 to +1. Right of zero, the candidate would narrow the penalty. Left of zero, they would keep or expand it. Fictional candidates.

Fictional candidate

Esther Cho

Limited-government placeholder · Winnability 4 · Score 161

Fictional placeholder. Not a real person. Favored reform slate on mens rea and licensing penalties.

Fictional candidate

Simone Kerr

Enforcement-first placeholder · Winnability 3 · Score -100

Fictional placeholder. Not a real person. Would keep strict-liability misdemeanors and add license crimes.

Cho is favored and is on the right side of both statutes this office writes. Kerr would add license crimes. Unlike the New Hampshire legislative toss-up, winnability here is a 4, so the 'one seat is not a majority' caution does not erase the call. It does limit it: an endorsement of a slate is not a promise the bill will pass. Cho is fictional.

All calls for this state

Judiciary

Placeholder

Judges rule on warrants, constitutional limits, and how a penalty is applied. They do not rewrite a clear statute, and this scorecard does not ask them to.

Qualified immunity in cases with no violent suspect

Placeholder. Officials who injure or seize from a nonviolent person are dismissed from civil court on immunity. Severity is scored as a lost remedy, closer to a property injury than to a prison term. That judgment is explicit so it can be argued with.

Harm: 3
Reach: 3
Office impact: 5
Power: 45

Conduct 4 and penalty severity 2 (License, property, or forfeiture) blend 60/40 into harm 3. Power 45 = 3 × 3 × 5.

Who can act

Texas judges, in this model, apply the immunity rule in the cases in front of them. The legislature can create a state remedy that does not borrow the federal shield. The attorney general chooses whether to defend the shield. Judicial impact is high because the doctrine is judge-made and judge-applied.

Winnability is June Pellham's chance in this office, 3 of 5. It is a property of the leading score, not of the statute. June Pellham is fictional.

2026 judicial elections

Endorse June Pellham

Placeholder. One slate has a thin favorable record. The other has none.

Formula: Endorse June Pellham (The lead clears the toss-up gap.)

Each segment is issue power times alignment. Alignment runs from −1 to +1. Right of zero, the candidate would narrow the penalty. Left of zero, they would keep or expand it. Fictional candidates.

Fictional candidate

June Pellham

Cautious-reform placeholder · Winnability 3 · Score 22.5

Fictional placeholder. Not a real person. A short record criticizing immunity in nonviolent cases.

Fictional candidate

Arthur Geddes

Incumbent-leaning placeholder · Winnability 3 · Score 0

Fictional placeholder. Not a real person. No usable record.

The formula endorses Pellham because Geddes has no record and Pellham has a one-step lean, at equal winnability. Editors agree, and they say the agreement is only as strong as that one step. This is not a mandate. It is a refusal to treat a blank slate and a mildly better slate as the same choice. Both are fictional.

All calls for this state