The Texas Republican Who Settled a Sexual-Harassment Suit With Taxpayer Money Won’t Seek Reelection

What’s next for his gerrymandered district?

Tom Williams/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Texas Republican Blake Farenthold, who earlier this month made headlines following revelations that he settled a 2014 sexual-harassment lawsuit using $84,000 in taxpayer funds, announced Thursday that he won’t seek reelection for his congressional seat in 2018. 

In an emotional video posted to his campaign Facebook page, Farenthold apologized for his “angry outbursts” as congressman and for failing “to treat people with the respect that they deserved.” “I’d never served in public office before,” he said. “I had no idea how to run a congressional office, and as a result I allowed a workplace culture to take root in my office that was too permissive and decidedly unprofessional.”

Farenthold’s district is likely to remain a GOP stronghold, at least through November, said Mark Jones, a political science fellow at the Baker Institute at Rice University. A handful of Republicans, including former county GOP chairman Michael Cloud and former Texas Water Board Development chairman Bech Bruun, announced their candidacies earlier this month. But the 27th Congressional District, which encompasses much of the Texas Gulf Coast and goes nearly as far inland as Austin, may not be around much longer.

This year, a federal court in San Antonio ruled that congressional and state house districts drawn by Republican lawmakers after the 2010 census, including Farenthold’s, were created with the intent to discriminate against African American and Latino voters. This despite Texas gaining more US House seats following the 2010 Census because of population growth—largely of voters of color.

It’s unlikely any changes will be made to the seat prior to the 2018 midterm elections, says Michael Li, senior counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, thanks to a Supreme Court decision in September that blocked enforcement of the lower court’s ruling until justices had time to review the decision.

The earliest the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case is June. By then it will be too late to make changes to Farenthold’s district—as well as neighboring districts—in time for next year’s elections, Li says.

Should the Supreme Court rule Fahrenthold’s district unconstitutional, redistricting could favor the Democrats, says University of Houston political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus. “I don’t know if it’s a winnable seat right now for the Democrats,” Rottinghaus says, “but it is definitely a seat that will change, and it will probably be a seat that flips.”

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate