FATE, TX – Just two months after Councilwoman Codi Chinn publicly posted an unredacted recall affidavit that included citizens’ names and home addresses, she now refuses to release a similar document that would reveal her supporters. Her explanation for the change, however, appears to conflict with information provided by city officials.

The dispute centers on an “Affidavit of Petitioners’ Committee,” the formal document required to begin a recall process under Texas law. The affidavit lists the members of the committee seeking the recall, including their names and home addresses.

Earlier this year, such an affidavit was filed to initiate a recall election against Chinn. According to records obtained by Pipkins Reports, Chinn received the document through her city-issued email account and later posted the affidavit publicly on Facebook without authorization or redacting the listed addresses.

The disclosure drew widespread criticism from residents and local observers who argued that publishing citizens’ home addresses could expose them to harassment or intimidation. A police report later named Chinn as a suspect in a possible unlawful disclosure investigation, a matter previously reported by Pipkins Reports.

Among the individuals listed on that recall affidavit were Andrew Greenberg and several members of the Fate City Council.

At the time, Chinn denied wrongdoing and defended her decision to publish the document.

The political situation in Fate has since flipped.

Supporters aligned with Chinn recently filed their own recall affidavit targeting Greenberg along with council members Mark Hatley, Rick Maneval, and Martha Huffman.

When residents asked on social media whether Chinn would again release the affidavit publicly, she declined and suggested there was a key distinction between the two situations.

“… there’s one big difference between the email we received from the city secretary when it was notifying council about my recall and the one notifying us about the recall for Greenberg, Hatley, Maneval, and Huffman,” Chinn wrote online. “One came without a confidentiality disclaimer and the other did. I’ll let you do your ‘investigative journalist work’ to figure out why that is.”

So, we did. To verify the claim, Pipkins Reports contacted Fate City Manager Michael W. Kovacs to ask whether the city had changed the language used in emails sent to council members regarding recall documents.

Kovacs said it had not. “All City originated emails have always carried the notice below,” Kovacs wrote in an email response.

The notice warns recipient that the message “may contain confidential and/or privileged information” and it cautions against copying or disclosing the contents if the recipient is not authorized.

In addition to the standard email disclaimer, Kovacs also noted that council members have long received additional guidance reminding them that although elected officials may view unredacted documents in their official capacity, they remain subject to restrictions on disclosing confidential information. The additional disclaimer says, “As Mayor and Council Members you are entitled to see any document of the city without redaction of confidential information,” Kovacs wrote. “However, you are also bound to the restrictions against disclosure of any information deemed confidential by the Public Information Act.”

Kovacs added that the city recently moved the confidentiality language higher in the email to emphasize the notice, following consultations with the city attorney during a period that included several recall petitions and open records requests. (ie: after Chinn disclosed the document)

Public records law and city policy

Under the Texas Public Information Act, most government records are presumed public unless they fall under specific statutory exceptions. The law requires government bodies to withhold certain categories of sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, financial account data, and some contact information. While a citizen’s name and address may appear in some public filings, many municipalities (including Fate) adopt internal practices designed to limit the disclosure of personal identifying information when documents are shared publicly. This includes the redaction of addresses of the public.

Opinion and analysis

The facts of the situation are relatively straightforward.

When the recall affidavit targeted Chinn, she had no problem releasing the document publicly on social media with citizens’ addresses intact. When a similar affidavit surfaced targeting her political opponents, the same kind of disclosure suddenly became off limits.

Chinn has attributed that difference to changes in the email disclaimer language. The city manager’s explanation suggests the warning language was not new, but rather long-standing. Only the prominent location of the language changed.

So it would appear that Chinn’s response is a case of political convenience.

Ultimately, voters in Fate will decide how they view the episode. But the unfolding recall battle has already delivered one clear lesson. In politics, the standard you apply to others often returns to test you.

### Pipkins Reports has requested a copy of the Affidavit of Petitioners’ Committee from the City of Fate. When received, we will provide that information to the public … redacted of course, as we did previously.

Cost per Vote Calculated

TEXAS – After more than $100 million in political warfare, Texans woke up Wednesday morning to a simple reality, the Republican primary for U.S. Senate is not over. In fact, it may have only reached halftime.

Incumbent U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton are now headed to a runoff election after neither candidate secured the majority required to win outright in Tuesday’s Republican primary. The contest, widely described as the most expensive Senate primary in American political history, will now stretch another two months before Republican voters decide the nominee.

As of publication, with roughly 94 percent of the vote counted, Cornyn held a narrow lead with 41.9 percent of the vote, totaling 897,187 ballots. Paxton followed closely with 40.7 percent, receiving 871,672 votes. U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt finished third with 13.5 percent, or 289,403 votes.

Under Texas election law, a candidate must receive more than 50 percent of the vote to win a primary outright. When no candidate crosses that threshold, the top two candidates advance to a runoff election. That runoff is scheduled for May 26.

The results guarantee an extended political showdown between two figures representing sharply different visions of Republican leadership.

Paxton addressed supporters Tuesday night during an election watch event in Dallas hosted by the pro-Paxton Lone Star Liberty PAC. The attorney general framed the outcome as a rejection of the political establishment and a signal from grassroots voters across Texas.

“Together with your support, we just sent a message loud and clear to Washington,” Paxton told the crowd. “Texas is not for sale.”

Paxton also pointed to the massive financial disparity between the campaigns, arguing that despite overwhelming spending by groups aligned with the incumbent senator, Republican voters still rejected the status quo.

“Nearly 60 percent of Texas voters, who have known Cornyn for over 40 years, after hearing $100 million worth of ads, chose to vote against the incumbent,” Paxton said. “That’s historic.”

Cornyn did not host an election night event but briefly addressed reporters Tuesday evening as the vote count continued.

“I’ve worked for decades to build the Republican Party, both here in Texas and nationally,” Cornyn said. “I refuse to allow a flawed, self-centered and shameless candidate like Ken Paxton risk everything we’ve worked so hard to build over these many years.”

Cornyn’s campaign has consistently argued that Paxton represents a risk to the Republican Party’s electoral prospects, while Paxton’s supporters have framed the race as a battle between grassroots conservatives and Washington insiders.

Cornyn campaign spokesman Matt Mackowiak previously told reporters that the campaign would not hold an election night celebration because the team does not “do halftime parties.”

The Cost of Each Vote

The financial dynamics of the race reveal an even more striking contrast between the campaigns.

Based on available spending figures tied to advertising and campaign messaging efforts, Cornyn’s political operation and allied groups spent roughly $70 million supporting his campaign. Paxton’s campaign and aligned efforts spent approximately $4.1 million, while Hunt’s campaign spending totaled about $11.4 million.

When those spending totals are compared with the number of votes received, the results highlight a dramatic difference in campaign efficiency.

• Cornyn’s spending equates to roughly $78.02 per vote, calculated by dividing $70 million by his 897,187 votes.

• Paxton’s campaign achieved nearly the same vote total at dramatically lower cost, spending approximately $4.70 per vote to secure 871,672 votes.

• Hunt’s campaign, which finished third, spent about $39.39 per vote, based on $11.4 million in spending and 289,403 votes.

In practical terms, Paxton’s campaign proved vastly more efficient at converting dollars into voter support, achieving almost the same vote share as Cornyn while spending only a fraction of the money.

Political analysts say the spending gap reflects heavy financial involvement by national Republican organizations and establishment political committees seeking to defend the incumbent senator.

Despite that financial advantage, the spending did not produce the decisive victory many expected.

Instead, it produced a runoff.

What Comes Next

The May 26 runoff now becomes the defining stage of the race. Historically, Texas runoff elections attract significantly lower voter turnout than primary elections, meaning campaigns must rely heavily on organization, messaging, and targeted voter mobilization.

Both candidates are expected to intensify campaigning across the state in the coming weeks, focusing on grassroots engagement, media messaging, and turnout operations.

The runoff will determine which candidate ultimately represents the Republican Party in the general election.

Opinion

One candidate’s role in Tuesday’s outcome should not be overlooked.

Congressman Wesley Hunt finished a distant third, but his presence in the race likely ensured that Paxton would not get the 50% needed to secure the nomination and may have now handed the election over to Cornyn.

It matters because Texas runoff elections tend to favor the campaign with the deeper pockets and stronger political machinery…that’s Cornyn. Cornyn’s access to national Republican fundraising networks and establishment political organizations could translate into a powerful turnout operation. Ground operations, voter targeting, and aggressive get-out-the-vote campaigns often determine the winner when turnout drops.

Paxton, by contrast, will rely heavily on grassroots enthusiasm among voters who see his candidacy as a challenge to what they view as a disconnected Washington political class. Cornyn is deeply hated by the electorate. The only question is, do they hate him enough to come out for a 2nd time to vote against him?

FATE, TX – Fate voters are heading into a May 2 election that could fundamentally rearrange the city’s governing body.

Two City Council seats are open, with no incumbents seeking reelection. At the same time, residents will weigh a recall question targeting sitting Council Member Codi Chinn. If the recall succeeds, the newly seated council, whatever its composition after the election, would appoint someone to fill the resulting vacancy.

Taken together, the ballot presents more than routine municipal housekeeping. It presents a potential structural reset.

Who Is On The Ballot

For Council Member, Place 2, voters will choose between Lorna Grove and Ashley Rains. The seat is currently held by Mark Harper, who opted not to run for another term.

For Council Member, Place 3, Melinda McCarthy faces Allen Robbins, a former Fate councilman. That seat is currently held by Scott Kelley, who also chose not to seek reelection.

In addition, the ballot includes a recall measure concerning Council Member Codi Chinn. Under Texas municipal law, recall elections allow voters to decide whether an elected official should remain in office before the end of a term. If a majority supports removal, the position becomes vacant.

What Happens If The Recall Succeeds

If voters approve the recall, the City Council would be responsible for appointing a replacement to serve out the remainder of the term, unless the city council calls a special election. In Fate’s case, the council has authority to fill a vacancy by appointment.

That means the composition of the council immediately after May 2 will matter significantly. The same body that voters help shape at the ballot box would select the individual who fills the recalled member’s seat.

In practical terms, voters are not only choosing two new council members. They may also be indirectly influencing who could become a third.