Commissioner John Stacy to seek second term in Rockwall County
Precinct 4 Commissioner John Stacy on Tuesday got a jump on the 2026 campaign season when he announced that he will run for a second term – citing a strong record of fulfilling campaign promises and a commitment to continued service.
'I ran on a simple platform of being a full-time commissioner, curtailing spending and being a voice for the people of my precinct,' Stacy said. 'I am very proud of the work we accomplished and cannot wait to see what we can accomplish together in a second term.'
Stacy first won election to the commissioners court in 2022 – beating Democrat Ericka Ledferd in the November general election, 6,334 (69.22%) to 2,816 (30.78%).
Stacy said he has delivered on his initial goals and looks forward to building on that progress over another four-year term.
Precinct 4 covers Royse City, Mobile City and most of the city of Fate.
Stacy said he is a sixth-generation Texan who traces his ancestry to the original 300 settlers of Texas. He has been married to his wife, Amie, for 23 years, and the couple has three children.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
41 minutes ago
- New York Post
Chicago Tribune gives NYC stark warning on electing a socialist mayor like Zohran Mamdani: ‘The ending isn't pretty'
The Chicago Tribune issued a grim warning to New Yorkers about electing a socialist mayoral candidate like Zohran Mamdani in a bombshell op-ed Monday, the day before the Empire State's primary elections. The paper's editorial board paints a bleak image of Mamdani, the 33-year-old Democratic socialist Queens assemblyman who leapfrogged longtime frontrunner, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in a stunning new poll released earlier in the day. 'A familiar dilemma: a moderate, business-friendly Democrat versus a democratic socialist. New Yorkers, take it from Chicago — we've seen this movie before, and the ending isn't pretty,' the board of one of the last remaining big-city daily newspapers cautioned. 5 The paper's editorial board paints a bleak image of Mamdani, the 33-year-old Democratic socialist Queens assemblyman. Paul Martinka The Tribune likened Mamdani's buzz-worthy campaign, which has garnered a historic amount of grassroots support, to that of embattled progressive Windy City Mayor Brandon Johnson, whose took office in 2023. 'Johnson's approval rating cratered in his second year — a reflection of how quickly progressive promises collapsed under the weight of governance and Chicago's financial reality,' the paper wrote. 'What sounded good in theory has translated into dysfunction, driven by fiscal missteps and political inexperience. 5 The Tribune likened Mamdani's buzz-worthy campaign, which has garnered a historic amount of grassroots support. NurPhoto via Getty Images 'Johnson is one of the most progressive mayors in the U.S., but Mamdani, inarguably, is yet more radical,' it continued. The outlet pointed out that many of Mamdani's ideas — such as rent freezes, city-operated supermarkets and free transit — are 'shared (at least in principle) by Mayor Brandon Johnson, and many of them are popular in blue cities.' 5 'Johnson is one of the most progressive mayors in the U.S., but Mamdani, inarguably, is yet more radical,' it continued. LP Media But was quick to argue that 'experience has taught us here that far-left candidates do not make for effective or popular municipal executives in today's stressful economy.' The ed-board drew parallels between Mamdani's freebie-filled platform, which he plans to fund with tax hikes to bring in roughly $10 billion annually, to that of Johnson's similarly overzealous tax proposal. 'Johnson tried to float a $300 million tax hike — and failed. He tried to pass a 'mansion tax' that would've hiked the real estate transfer tax — and failed,' the Tribune highlighted. 5 The ed-board drew parallels between Mamdani's freebie-filled platform to that of Johnson's similarly overzealous tax proposal. Chicago Tribune The Tribune was the latest to pile on to the recent wave of news outlets denouncing the Queens pol's ambitious run. Follow The Post's coverage of the NYC mayoral race The paper echoed sentiments shared by myriad New York publications, including The Post, Daily News and New York Times — who have discouraged voters from ranking the socialist candidate, whose too-good-to-be-true platform is just that, they say. A through line in the anti-endorsements of the two-term Assemblyman is his lack of experience and the unrealistic nature of his policies. 5 The Tribune was the latest to pile on to the recent wave of news outlets denouncing the Queens pol's ambitious run. LP Media 'If New Yorkers are frustrated with Mayor Eric Adams, they should be careful not to trade him for someone who might preside over a city that is less competitive and less financially secure. 'Trust us — we're living that reality.' The Tribune's ominous warning comes just one day before Tuesday's primary election. Polls across the five boroughs will be open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Running a low-turnout Georgia runoff election could cost $100 per vote
ATLANTA (AP) — Miller County Election Supervisor Jerry Calhoun says he's not sure anyone will vote in an upcoming Democratic primary runoff. After all, the southwest Georgia county only recorded one vote in the June 17 Democratic primary for the state Public Service Commission among candidates Keisha Waites, Peter Hubbard and Robert Jones. Two other Democratic ballots weren't counted, probably because voters chose Daniel Blackman, who had been disqualified. Turnout wasn't much higher among Republicans, with 40 votes cast in Commissioner Tim Echols' victory over challenger Lee Muns. 'I'm going to tell you the truth, I'm worried about it for the runoff, but there's nothing I can do about it," Calhoun said of the July 15 Democratic runoff between Waites and Hubbard. Statewide turnout for the primary on June 17 reached just 2.8% of Georgia's 7.4 million active registered voters. That includes more than 15,000 people who likely voted for Blackman and didn't have their votes counted. But the Democratic runoff might struggle to reach 1% turnout statewide. And counties could spend $10 million statewide to hold the election, based on a sampling of some county spending. That could be more than $100 per vote. People who want to change Georgia's runoff system say this election shows how the state spends money only to have decisions made by a fraction of people who voted the first time. 'It's a terrible waste of resources," said state Rep. Saira Draper, an Atlanta Democrat. But key Republicans are opposed to two methods used elsewhere — letting someone win without a majority or using ranked choice voting to determine a majority. In the meantime, some Republican-dominated counties are using a state law to reduce the number of polling places for the runoff. In many states, finishing first is enough to win, even if it's far short of a majority. Georgia is one of only nine states, mostly in the South, that require runoffs. And it's one of only two states, along with Mississippi, that demand a runoff if no candidate wins a general election majority after a partisan primary. Historians say runoffs were created in part to make it harder for Black candidates to win office, giving white voters a chance to unify around a candidate. Georgia legislators in 1995 lowered the threshold to avoid a runoff, requiring a candidate to a earn only a 45% plurality. Republicans changed the threshold back to a majority after a GOP candidate lost a 1996 Senate race. Draper introduced a bill in 2023 to lower the threshold back to 45%, but it went nowhere. House Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Victor Anderson, a Cornelia Republican, is among many who believes a majority is an important electoral mandate. 'To actually win an election you should receive, in one form or fashion, at least 50% plus one of the vote. And so I am not in favor of a plurality system," said Anderson, whose committee oversees election legislation. Another option would be letting voters rank their choices and determining the winner using second or third choices. That's the system New York City voters are using to elect a mayor. Scot Turner, a former Republican state representative who champions that system, said turnout is typically lower for runoffs, silencing voters who don't return. He said ranked choice voting would broaden participation, ensure a majority chooses the winner and save money. 'It's a tweak of our existing system that maximizes turnout and lowers cost,' Turner said. 'Because we see these massive drop-offs in turnout for runoffs, those are disenfranchised voters. Their votes are tossed as if they never were cast.' Georgia issues ranked-choice ballots to military and overseas voters. But many Republicans oppose expansion, with the Georgia Senate passing bills to ban its further use. What some counties are doing is limiting the number of polling places for the runoff. State law allows a county to open only one polling place for a primary runoff if fewer than 1% of a county's registered voters cast ballots in the initial primary. That's likely to apply to some Republican-dominated counties. A few rural counties, including Miller County, already operate only one voting location. Cherokee County, with nearly 208,000 active voters, announced Friday that it would open only one polling place after fewer than 2,000 people cast ballots in the Democratic primary. Elections Director Anne Dover said the decision would cut the cost of the runoff in half, saving about $70,000. Travis Doss, president of the Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials, said Friday that as many as 20 counties are considering that option.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Democrats undermined their own arguments about Trump's war powers
Since President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. military to attack three of Iran's nuclear sites, congressional Democrats have glommed on to one talking point — the president has violated the Constitution by taking the country to war. Trump's Iran attack is 'unauthorized & unconstitutional,' said the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Rep. Katherine Clark. On the Senate side, Maryland's Chris van Hollen argued Trump's actions 'are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.' New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went further, posting Saturday evening that 'Trump has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations .. and it is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' Democrats have a point, but these arguments would be far more potent if Democratic presidents hadn't repeatedly acted the same way. For decades now, presidents of both parties have been unilaterally taking the country to war. In February 2024, for instance, President Joe Biden ordered the U.S. military to hit Houthi rebels in Yemen who were attacking international shipping in the Red Sea. At the time, many Democrats did complain about Biden's usurping of congressional authority, from liberal House members such as California Rep. Ro Khanna and Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal to Senate Democrats, including Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine. However, these complaints didn't amount to much. Congress failed to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force supporting the attacks, in part because Democrats were fearful of embarrassing Biden in the midst of a re-election campaign. When Trump took office in January, he ramped up U.S. military actions, again without any legislative input from Congress. At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental and unresolved constitutional debate — which branch of government is responsible for initiating military action? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says 'The Congress shall have Power…To declare War.' In 1973, Congress cited that section in passing the War Powers Resolution (WPR), which was intended to rein in the president's authority to wage war. The WPR allows U.S. presidents to initiate military action without congressional approval, but also requires them to report to Congress within 48 hours and terminate the action within 90 days, unless congressional authorization is obtained. Since the WPR was passed, however, no U.S. president has recognized its validity. Instead, they've argued that Article II of the Constitution grants them legal permission to use the military without approval from Congress. Again, this is a bipartisan phenomenon. Indeed, few presidents more blatantly disregarded congressional prerogatives on the use of force than a Democrat — Barack Obama. In 2011, when he ordered the military to attack Libyan government forces, he not only didn't get authorization from Congress, but he also absurdly claimed that the reporting requirement of the congressional War Powers Resolution didn't apply, because the U.S. was not engaged in active 'hostilities.' He made this laughable claim even though U.S. forces were bombing targets, firing missiles into the country and even coordinating with forward air controllers on the ground. Even Obama's own office of legal counsel dissented from the president's view. Later, Obama would expand the mission in Libya from preventing a humanitarian catastrophe to actively working to overthrow the government of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, but he still never obtained congressional authorization. Yet, as a candidate for president in 2007 — while Obama was still a senator — he claimed, 'The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.' That Obama took one side of this issue as a member of Congress and another as president is hardly surprising — just as it's unsurprising that presidents routinely ignore Congress when it comes to employing the use of force. Since the end of World War II — and more frequently since the end of the Cold War — U.S. presidents have regularly sent American troops into harm's way without congressional authorization. In recent years, presidents have regularly invoked the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force to justify military strikes from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa. The 2001 AUMF has, in the legal machinations of the executive branch, become akin to grandma's proverbial nightgown: It covers everything. In fact, it would hardly be a shock if Trump justifies the Iran attack by invoking it — if he even bothers to abide by the WPR's reporting requirements. Repeated congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 AUMF and re-establish congressional oversight in matters of war have failed. So it's not as if congressional Democrats are wrong that Trump is acting in ways that expand executive power and ignore congressional input. Those arguments, however, are akin to demands to shut the barn doors after the horses have escaped. There are plenty of grounds for criticism of the U.S. strikes on Iran. For example, Trump's public warnings about a potential attack may have spurred Iranian officials to hide their supply of enriched uranium. Moreover, with the president musing about regime change in Tehran, there is always the potential for 'mission creep.' But if Democrats are serious about re-establishing the legislature's role in taking the country to war, they need to be consistent with their argument — across all branches of the federal government. For now, they should demand that Trump come to Congress and seek authorization not just for the fact that already happened but also any future operations. They might even get a few Republicans on board with such a plan. But railing against the constitutionality of his moves — and raising the specter of impeachment — is an argument that almost certainly will fall on deaf ears. This article was originally published on
