Texas’s stunning election results have revived a familiar complaint: people fleeing California and other blue states are moving here and voting to turn Texas into the places they escaped.
It’s an easy story to tell after Democrats won the governorship and a US Senate seat. But it overlooks a basic question: why did those people choose Texas in the first place?
Someone leaving California, Oregon or Washington could choose Texas. But they could choose any of the other 48 states. Jobs, housing and family matter, of course, but so do taxes, regulation, economic opportunity and the sort of place people want to live. Many migrants may choose Texas precisely because they like what they see.
My family did. We moved from Seattle to Dallas in 2020, largely because we wanted our children back in classrooms during the pandemic. This wasn’t an option for us in Seattle at the time. Nothing we’ve seen of Seattle’s direction since has made us regret that decision. We certainly didn’t move here hoping Dallas would become more like Seattle.
What the voters tell us
In 2018, CNN exit polling found that Beto O’Rourke narrowly defeated Ted Cruz among native-born Texans, while Cruz won decisively among those born elsewhere.
The pattern repeated in 2024. As the Texas Tribune reported, Democrat Colin Allred won Texas-born voters by four points, while Cruz won non-native Texans by 16.
A 2023 Blueprint Polling survey was even more revealing. Among voters who had moved to Texas from blue states, Donald Trump led Joe Biden 56% to 39%. Among migrants from red states, his lead was narrower, 50% to 46%. Western-state migrants, including Californians, favored Trump 64% to 32%.
Almost a third said Texas’s Republican-controlled government made them more enthusiastic about moving; 18% said it made them hesitant.
This wasn’t a California-only survey, and it doesn’t establish why every respondent moved or how they voted in 2026. But it’s difficult to reconcile these findings with the notion that newcomers are turning Texas blue.
A lesson from immigration research
Around 2021, I attended a talk organized by SMU’s Bridwell Institute for Economic Freedom by economist Benjamin Powell, discussing Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions, his book with Alex Nowrasteh.
Powell examined whether immigrants weaken the institutions of their destination countries. I asked whether his findings might apply to migration between American states. He hadn’t studied that question, he said, but thought some findings might carry over.
One example was Israel. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it absorbed immigrants from former Soviet republics equivalent to roughly 20% of its population. Yet Israel didn’t become more socialist. Its economic institutions became substantially freer, and Powell’s research found evidence that immigrants helped bring about that change.
Another was Jordan, which absorbed a large influx of Palestinian-origin refugees fleeing Kuwait after Iraq’s invasion in 1990. Its economic institutions improved too.
These cases aren’t perfect parallels: refugees fleeing a war aren’t choosing freely among 50 states. But they undermine the assumption that migrants inevitably reproduce the institutions they left behind.
Republicans have themselves to blame
So what explains last week’s results?
Republicans scored a spectacular own goal by nominating Ken Paxton for the Senate. His personal and political baggage was extraordinary. He seemed to be counting on Republican voters holding their noses as they cast their ballots.
As Jim Geraghty wrote in National Review ahead of the election:
You can’t be a terrible reprobate and be a lazy candidate. At minimum, you must be a hard-working terrible reprobate.
His point was that a flawed candidate might survive through relentless effort, or an uninspiring campaign might be forgiven if the candidate were appealing. Paxton managed neither.
He won just 43% of the vote, the weakest showing by a Republican statewide candidate. I suspect he dragged Greg Abbott down with him, though the scale of the defeat shows he wasn’t the only problem.
Voters were also unhappy with household costs, Trump’s tariffs and higher fuel prices amid the Iran war. As the Texas Tribune noted, Republican infighting and unpopular decisions in Austin contributed to the backlash.
James Talarico deserves credit, too. He ran a good campaign, spoke convincingly about his Christian faith, and avoided coming across as an extreme liberal. He made voting Democratic easier for voters who wouldn’t normally consider it.
Don’t confuse protest with conversion
A vote against Paxton—or Abbott—doesn’t necessarily signal a rejection of low taxes, limited government or economic opportunity. Elections can be verdicts on candidates and the party in power, not conversions to an opposing philosophy.
Texas may become more competitive. But there’s little evidence that Californians are to blame.
People don’t necessarily move to Texas to change it. Many choose it because they already like what it offers, and don’t want it to become the place they left.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.