Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Early Vote Period: Monday, March 4, 2019 – Friday, March 8, 2019

Election Day: Tuesday, March 12, 2019



Voter Registration Check & Polling Location Search

Check your registration and find your individual sample ballot and polling locations.

Polling Location Search By Address

Find the individual sample ballot and polling locations for an address.The address must match what is on the Voter Registration record. 

Generic Sample Ballot
View the generic sample ballot for the election.

Early Voting Locations & Hours
Map of Early Voting Locations

Early voters can visit any of our polling locations to vote.

Notice of Voting Order Priority


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

These candidates endorsed by foSAFA are committed to protecting, defending and promoting the family, the building block of society.

Early Vote Period: Monday, January 28, 2019 – Friday, February 8, 2019
Election Day: Tuesday, February 12, 2019

State Representative, District 125 Fred Rangel ENDORSED

Voter Resources:
Search Polling Location by address (Street name/zip code)

List of Election Polling Sites  MAP
Find your polling location to vote!

Download your ballot:
Sample Ballot 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Election: SA Proposition Education

Voter Resource & Education on #PropA Charter #Referendum

Proposition A-B-C Summary Explanation:

Prop A – will bring the SA Referendum back in line with other Home Rule Cities like Austin & Houston, Texas’ State Statute for General Law (Non-Home Rule) Cities and even the Referendum initiative language from 1951-1996.

Prop B – will restrict the Council’s responsibility to approve or disapprove of the City Manager and the respective contract for that selected person.

Prop C – will force both sides, the City and the Fire Dept., to come to the table and make a reasonable contract agreement that will usually involve both sides getting some of what they want and some of what they don’t want but should ultimately save tax payers money (depending on who has been elected to Council). Consider to #GoVoteYes on Propositions A & C.

Family Values Voter Guide – SA Prop A Peer City Comparison – condensed – Nov 6, 2018 – SAFA

Family Values Voter Guide – November 6, 2018

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Printable voter guide:

Family Values Voter Guide with Prop A Comparison – November 6, 2018 – foSAFA

Early Vote Period: Monday, October 22, 2018 – Friday November 2, 2018
Election Day: Tuesday, November 6, 2018
Voter Registration Check & Polling Location Search
Check your registration and find your individual sample ballot and polling locations.

Polling Location Search by Address
Find the individual sample ballot and polling locations for an address.
The address must match what is on the Voter Registration record. 

Generic Sample Ballot
View the generic sample ballot for the November 6 election

View Early Voting Locations & Hours
View a Map of Early Vote Locations
Early voters can visit any of our polling locations to vote



Brian Chasnoff Can’t Walk and Chew Gum at the Same Time

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

For Immediate Release
August 1, 2018

On Monday, Mike Knuffke, the chair of Friends of SAFA[1], the political action committee for the San Antonio Family Association answered questions via phone conversation, which were subsequently used to craft an opinion/hit piece on Friends of SAFA and the San Antonio Family Association written by Brian Chasnoff, that was published Tuesday, July 31, 2018 under the title, “SAFA still ‘proud’ of Brehm.”  Given Friends of SAFA’s past experience with some in the media and their penchant to misreport, misrepresent, or misunderstand, our answers and positions; we taped our side of the conversation to provide a correction should it be necessary.

Mr. Chasnoff has lived down to our expectations and created a piece of fiction that at worst fits a predetermined narrative to malign Friends of SAFA and the San Antonio Family Association in an attempt to marginalize our voice in the public square and at best represents a blindness and ignorance to worldviews outside of his own. We can’t ascribe motive to Mr. Chasnoff, but we can point out his failure to objectively report on a conversation and his willful neglect of facts stated within the interview. In our response we are going to assume the best of Mr. Chasnoff, namely that he lacks the ability to understand all the varied topics that were spoken of in relation to one another. The quotes we will provide (and yes we have the audio), demonstrate not only are Mr. Chasnoff’s conclusions faulty, but if he wasn’t intentionally trying to smear Friends of SAFA and the San Antonio Family Association, he demonstrated a lack of competence to follow the simple conversation. In other words, Chasnoff is purposefully lying to promote an agenda or he simply can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

Mike Knuffke, in concluding remarks to Chasnoff and in seeming agreement with Chasnoff, stated in concluding remarks:

Our biggest concern is the protection of the daughter during this period of time [while in the home with Norm Brehm] is one of the biggest questions we have [for Cynthia Brehm] . . . was she put in a situation whereby he, the predator [Norm Brehm] was still able to take advantage. You [Chasnoff] hit it on the head, and that is the biggest concern we have.

In unequivocal terms, Mike Knuffke and Friends of SAFA made it clear that the NUMBER ONE concern in light of the new revelations about Norm Brehm’s past, is whether or not Cynthia Brehm’s daughter was properly protected from a sexual predator. In fact, Knuffke, complimented Chasnoff and agreed with him that this is the biggest concern.

How did Chasnoff report on these comments? He wrote:

Keep it in mind the next time SAFA objects to a Planned Parenthood facility in San Antonio . . . The family, according to SAFA, is “the building block of society,” but the children are expendable.

Mike Knufke states, “Our biggest concern is the protection of the daughter . . .” Chasnoff reports, “ . . . children are expendable [to SAFA]. The disconnect between what was clearly stated and what was reported is glaring. One has to wonder how Chasnoff came to his conclusions.

We are going to assume for the purpose of our response, that Chasnoff didn’t willfully lie, but failed to grasp what we are saying. This is because we acknowledge that our worldview regarding marriage and family is counter-cultural. Thus it may be difficult for someone unfamiliar with our view to initially grasp what we are saying.

Further, the issues surrounding Cynthia Brehm are multiple. In addition to her remaining in her marriage, you have issues of punishing someone for the wrongs committed by another, the issue of overturning the results of an election, the implication that if you support a candidate you support their personal moral failings or the personal moral failings of their spouse, as well as Christian understandings of repentance and forgiveness. The issue is not simply Cynthia Brehm is married to a pedophile and disqualified for office (even as much as Chasnoff and many others would like to paint it to be).

One thing though, that is not an issue (contrary to Chasnoff’s article) is the dedication of Friends of SAFA and the San Antonio Family Association to the protection of children. For those who may have had questions raised about us on this issue, hear this, we condemn sexual abuse in all its forms (rape, incest, child molestation, sexual abuse committed against women or men). We favor legislation which provides legitimate protections against all such abuse, as well as laws which enforce the strictest of penalties against predators.

Our value of children goes far beyond many on the Left (and some on the Right), which is demonstrated by the countless hours, the financial investment, and the personal cost we have spent opposing the expendability of children through the act of abortion. Chasnoff may want to wag his finger and accuse us of inconsistency on this issue as he hypocritically criticizes us for opposing Planned Parenthood, but the truth of the matter is that the San Antonio Family Association consistently values the sanctity of human life and fights to protect children from the womb to the tomb. Mr. Chasnoff cannot say the same if he advocates for a woman’s right to kill her child in the womb.

Concerning marriage, Mike Knuffke told Chasnoff that Friends of SAFA believes in the “indissolubility of marriage.” To help Chasnoff and others understand the position of Friends of SAFA on this issue, perhaps some defining of terms and explanation is necessary. The word, “indissoluble” is defined at

not dissoluble;  especially  incapable of being annulled, undone, or broken permanent  an indissoluble contract.

Admittedly in our no-fault divorce culture, this view of marriage is rare. People enter into marriages and exist into marriages with great civil and legal ease. But such a view is not consistent with the faith beliefs of Mike Knuffke and the members of SAFA. The assert a biblical and Roman Catholic view of Marriage. The Roman Catholic Catechism in Article 7 states:

In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts. The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize (

Chasnoff and others may be among the “some who are perplexed” by Friends of SAFA and the San Antonio Family Association’s position on the “indissolubility” of marriage, but their being “perplexed” does not merit the charge that Friends of SAFA finds children to be expendable. Rather it is because Friends of SAFA does not find children expendable that holding such a doctrine is necessary, given that the vast majority of sexual abuse takes place within broken homes being committed by step-fathers and boyfriends[2](indeed this is the case even with Cynthia Brehm’s daughter).

Also, lacking from Chasnoff’s worldview is the idea that it is morally wrong to punish someone for the sins committed by another (unless they volunteer as Christ did for the sins of his people). The initial story provided to Friends of SAFA regarding Cynthia Brehm was that her husband Norm was guilty of exposing himself to her 14 year old daughter, that Cynthia acted immediately to get her daughter to safety and participated in the criminal proceedings against her husband. Further, though she did contemplate divorce and even filed for said divorce, that through a process involving clergy, her husband Norm repented, became a Christian, and reconciled with both his wife and his sole victim of sexual abuse.

Therefore, rather than throw stones at Cynthia for taking the difficult road of forgiveness and reconciliation we firmly celebrated her moral courage and her faithfulness to her vows because not only do we affirm the indissolubility of marriage, but believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which means that any sinner can find forgiveness and through the Holy Spirit be transformed so as not to walk in their past sins. This is Christianity 101, though it seems like a difficult concept for Chasnoff and others to grasp, especially in our day where an accusation equals a transgression or where past guilt removes the possibility of forgiveness and redemption is a concept all too forgotten.

Friends of SAFA was not only concerned with the calls for resignation being a punishment for Cynthia being faithful to her marriage vows and a denial of the gospel of forgiveness, redemption and reconciliation, but with the fact of overturning an election where the candidate won 70% of the vote. Our resistance to such an overturning is grounded in our constitutional republican understanding of government and our desire that no one’s vote be devalued or dismissed. A majority supported Brehm and it seemed, frankly, un-American and un-Republican to call for her resignation based solely on the acts of her husband and not a personal impropriety of her own.

Further, there is an implication in the article that the support of someone married to a spouse with moral failings is somehow an endorsement of that immorality or a dismissal of it. Chasnoff seems to be asserting because Friends of SAFA is ‘proud’ of Cynthia keeping her marital vows in the light of her husbands immorality that they are endorsing or supporting such immorality. One wonders if Chasnoff believes that all Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 supported rape, adultery and sexual harassment given that Bill Clinton is an alleged rapist, a confirmed adulterer, and a known sexual harasser? Or did all Trump supporting Republicans likewise support adultery, sleeping with porn stars, and the grabbing of women in private places? If the charge is that supporting a candidate with a spouse who has moral failings or a candidate who has moral failings equals support for those actions is being placed at Friends of SAFA’s feet, then members of both political parties are likewise guilty of what is being alleged. This seems like a ridiculous implication.

Why is it that Friends of SAFA no longer supports Cynthia Brehm? It isn’t because the question is moot,” as asserted by Chasnoff. It is precisely because Friends of SAFA has heard more details on this issue, learned that it allegedly wasn’t an isolated incident, and believes that Cynthia knew or should have known enough to have never placed her daughter in such the situation with her husband Norm. Simply, we have questions about Cynthia’s transparency, her ability to lead, and whether Cynthia exercised proper concern for her daughter’s safety, because as we told Chasnoff on Monday, “our biggest concern is the protection of the daughter.”

Our conversation with Chasnoff covered a lot of topics. He chose to report on one, leaving out crucial and defining remarks. Chasnoff doesn’t hold our worldview on topics such as marriage and family. Maybe this is why he finds it difficult to believe on can contend for the indissolubility of marriage and for the protection of children at the same time (or the fact that the indissolubility of marriage provides the best safety for children in the vast majority of cases). We don’t know if his bias dictated his reporting on the conversation. All we know is that he failed to cover the complexity of the issue and painted it in an unfavorable and flat manner. We wish he had referenced our original press release or that he could have walked and chewed gum, but instead he spit the gum out on the sidewalk hoping we’d step in it.

[1]Since #BrianChasnoff can’t get the organizations straight or possibly purposefully lumped them together to defame both organizations, please note that Friends Of SAFA Texas ( also known as foSAFA) is a General Political Action Committee (GPAC) that endorses candidates and is the entity releasing this Press Release as well as the one from Friday, July 27, 2018 which prompted Mr. Chasnoff’s calls for interviews but he didn’t even have the decency to mention it in his calumny-filled article on Tuesday, July 31, 2018. The San Antonio Family Association ( aka SAFA) that Mr. Chasnoff seems to hate is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that does not endorse anyone but does engage in education and advocacy of issues in the public square that impact the family. Maybe this short explanation will help educate Mr. Chasnoff.

[2]For more information read

Friends of SAFA Retracts Support of Republican Chairwoman Cynthia Brehm

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
July 27, 2018
Friends of SAFA Retracts Support of Republican Chairwoman Cynthia Brehm

Friends of SAFA has decided to retract our endorsement and support of Cynthia Brehm. This decision has not come hastily. After careful reflection and in light of new information which causes concern about her ability to lead the party and advance the platform, and questions raised about her judgment, prior omissions of facts, and potentially her role in enabling her husband in his predatory behavior, Friends of SAFA has come to the conclusion that Mrs. Brehm is not committed to protecting, defending, and promoting the family.

The strength of the family and and protecting children is what the San Antonio Family Association is all about.

Our current change of position regarding Mrs. Brehm has come through the consistent application of principles, which initially led us to resist the tide of requests for her resignation. Namely, the Friends of SAFA as a PAC supports candidates committed to protecting, defending, and promoting the family, the building block of society. Given the initial information provided to us concerning her marriage, her husband’s repentance of past misdeeds, the narrative that no physical contact occurred in the isolated incident of exposure, and the claim that all parties involved had reconciled, we found it inappropriate at that time to call for her resignation; given that we are an organization that celebrates the preservation of the family, stands for the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage; we stood by her based on her testimony of the reconciliation of her marital issues as consistent with the values we contend for every day.

Unfortunately, it appears that the narrative provided to us by Mrs. Brehm was seriously lacking concerning the alleged sexual predatory nature of her husband. Rather than a single isolated incident in which no physical contact took place, which was resolved both legally and within the family, we find that he is accused of multiple incidents of sexual molestation, which did involve physical contact.

These new revelations raise questions not only about his supposed reconciliation with his family but also about potential marital infidelities while overseas after said time of repentance and reconciliation. Given the additional information, we no longer find the narrative provided to us by Mrs. Brehm to be credible, nor do we believe she was transparent or forthright in providing a full accounting of the situation when given the opportunity.

We believe that patience and regarding all the facts are virtues that must be exercised toward those involved in public life. Hasty judgments are to be avoided. We extended this patience to Mrs. Brehm. Our desire has been to avoid the mistake of making a rash judgment harming both an innocent party and hurting the conservative cause in the process.

Given our commitments to marriage stated above (which are counter-cultural to the views of many today) and the imprudence of judging too hastily, we were not prepared to punish Mrs. Brehm for “standing by her man” or disqualify her based on the fact of her marriage. Asking her to resign for keeping her marital commitment in the context of a culture where too many devalue the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage is counter to our very purpose. We were not willing to quickly jump onto the bandwagon with those who sought her resignation initially based on the actions of her husband.Therefore, we are NOT withdrawing our support of Mrs. Brehm as Bexar County Republican Chairwoman ON THE BASIS OF HER HUSBAND’S ACTIONS. She has demonstrated a lack of leadership by providing less than full disclosure, seemingly putting her personal ambitions before the good of the party. We find Mrs. Brehm’s response to the situation lacking, not only in leadership but also raising questions of her own character due to perceived covering up of facts.

Friends of SAFA continues to fulfill its purpose in supporting candidates committed to protecting, defending, and promoting the family, the basic building block of society. In this endeavor, we affirm our commitment to marriage (sanctity and indissolubility), reconciliation between broken parties, and a belief in redemption.

However, our commitments to these principles are never at the expense of the safety of children. We adamantly oppose the sexual victimization of the young and vulnerable among us. Mrs. Brehm’s apparent lack of transparency regarding her husband’s conduct runs counter to our goals to protect children from such victimization because such a lack of transparency not only carries the risk of covering up such actions, but may also have enabled predatory behavior to continue in the past. We cannot, would not, and did not support such a risk or potential cover-up.

As a political action committee, Friends of SAFA’s endorsements have never been easily given. We have historically supported candidates based on a process of interviews and questionnaires, only endorsing those who hold to solid views regarding issues of family and life. Mrs. Brehm has taught us that while we were thorough in these processes, they are inadequate in this context. Therefore, future candidates seeking our endorsement and support will need to submit to criminal background checks for both them and their spouses as well as additional vetting. We will no longer simply take someone at their word without verification, in other words, we will “trust but verify.”

Friends of SAFA has always stood for the principles of forgiveness, reconciliation and family values. We have always believed that the sins of others do not transfer just because of a familial relationship. We have supported Mrs. Brehm because we believed she was not the evil actor. We believed her story and that her family through prayer and counseling moved forward stronger. But recent facts have arisen which brings us to question what we have been told. Too many inconsistencies have come to light. With a heavy heart, we must withdraw our support of Cynthia Brehm. We still maintain our support for our core values and the conservative movement.

We will continue to provide the necessary resources to defend, protect and defend the family (the most basic unit of society).

Special State Senate District 19 Election, July 31 2018

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

These candidates endorsed by foSAFA are committed to protecting, defending and promoting the family, the building block of society.


Early Vote Period: Monday, July 16, 2018 – Friday, July 27, 2018

Election Day: Tuesday, July 31, 2018


State Senator, District 19 Peter P. (Pete) Flores ENDORSED


Voter Resources:
Search Polling Location by address (Street name/zip code)

List of Election Polling Sites  MAP
Find your polling location to vote!

Download your ballot:
Sample Ballot 

We cannot have long-term domestic prosperity without a solid foundation for society and we cannot have that good foundation without strong families.

Voting is a right of citizens, and citizens are duty-bound not only to vote, but to vote with a well-formed conscience.

May this Family Values Voter Guide assist voters in making wise choices at the polling sites. Make your vote count!

Family Values Voter Guide July 31, 2018

Response to Tylden Shaeffer’s Call for Cynthia Brehm’s Resignation

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tylden Shaeffer is asking Republican voters in Bexar County to support him with their votes and make him their District Attorney. At the same time he is attacking the newly elected Chairwoman of the Bexar County Republican Party and calling for her resignation. In other words, criminal defense attorney Shaeffer is asking the same people who voted overwhelmingly for Cynthia Brehm to support him as he is prosecuting her in the court of public opinion. Therefore, we need to look at her alleged crime, his evidence, and determine if his leadership is worth our investing our support and votes.

Cynthia has now been charged with her husband’s crime and consequently the offense of being married to a man, that plead guilty to a sex crime 20 years ago. She is also charged with the crime of having worked hard to maintain her family, dealing with difficult issues, and working with clergy to assist her husband in repentance and reconciliation to the end that they can continue in their marital union with him supporting her as a wife and political candidate today. Lastly, she is accused of not sharing with the public this painful chapter in her life, which has already been adjudicated in a court of law (with Cynthia as a witness for the prosecution) and reconciled within her own family.

Criminal defense attorney Shaeffer asserts, based on the charges above, that Cynthia “needs to resign immediately,” and he further asserts that she will be unable to provide “honest, ethical leadership.” Shaeffer calls for “all Republican candidates at all levels of the ballot to join . . . [him] in demanding she step aside immediately.” We at the Friends of San Antonio Family Association object counselor! You are wrong on the law, wrong on the ethics and you are providing, at best questionable leadership in your call for Cynthia’s resignation.

Consider the fact that the Texas Constitution prohibits exactly the basis of Shaeffer’s assertion, “No conviction shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate, and the estates of those who destroy their own lives shall descend or vest as in case of natural death (Tex. Const. art. I, § 21).” This prohibition means that one cannot be tried for the crimes of a family member. But this is exactly what aspiring candidate for district attorney Tylden Shaeffer is doing in his charges against Cynthia Brehm. His issue isn’t with a crime that Cynthia actually committed but with a crime her husband was charged with and which has already been fully resolved before a court of law.

This brings us to another legal concept we are all familiar with, namely that of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy refers to the fact that one cannot be tried multiple times for the same offense. Cynthia’s husband’s case has already been fully adjudicated in the court of law. But defense attorney Shaeffer wishes to reopen the case in the court of public opinion not against the accused but against his wife. He is prosecuting her in a manner disallowed in courts of law and in violation of basic legal principles and he ought to know these facts. And, yet, he wants to be the next Bexar Criminal District Attorney.

As to his charge of Cynthia lacking ethics, she has answered this charge stating, “No teacher, no counselor, no pastor, no law enforcement, no military official and no prosecutor has ever said that my actions were inappropriate in how I personally dealt with this situation that involved my family.” She further notes, this “It is a story of repentance, redemption, and restoration.” In other words, Shaeffer somehow finds a woman who maintained her wedding vows, worked through a very painful and difficult situation, and who by the grace of God loved her husband through a process, which resulted in not just her reconciliation with her husband but with her family being reconciled to one another. I guess Shaeffer, would have preferred it if Cynthia had just walked out the door instead of holding fast to her commitments. But in accordance with the dictates of her faith and in trust of her Redeemer she believed in the grace of God for forgiveness of her husband and the strength to reconcile.

As to the assertion that Cynthia had an obligation to disclose this event, perhaps there is room for disagreement. Consider this though, how many of us believe one must be required to relive the most painful chapter in their life over and over in the court of public opinion? Especially, if this chapter was 20 years ago, and related not to your own conduct but to an offense committed by a family member. Are we going to likewise require future candidates to share every instance of date rape, personal sexual abuse, or reveal every family member who has committed any type of offense? Is the new standard of qualification for office in Bexar County for the Republicans that every negative instance in one’s life must be shared in order to run for office? The response of those like Shaeffer, who demonize the victim, is exactly why so many victims of sexual harassment remain silent.

For Cynthia dealing with a personal matter 20 years ago, as a personal matter, Shaeffer would have every candidate on every level of the ballot cast their stones at her. Shaeffer’s ethic is one that denies redemption and punishes a woman who follows the dictates of her faith. Who in their lack of humanity would seek to punish a woman victimized by her husband, who participated in the legal process against him, and who miraculously found the strength to not only to forgive but also to remain and reconcile with him? The answer, Tylden Shaeffer, the candidate for Bexar County DA.

So we have the would-be prosecutor sitting in the seat of judge, jury and executioner. He has dared to offer condemnation to the victim of the crime, who has complied with law enforcement and submitted to the counsel of her clergy. He asserts guilt by association and denies a story of redemption. One wonders what Shaeffer would do before Christ as he wrote in the sand words that led the Pharisees to drop their stones? Would he hold a tight grip on his own rock? Would he toss it at the woman? These are fair questions given that he is now impugning a woman who did nothing wrong but trusted God to restore her marriage and bring that same faith and commitment to serve the Republican Party. This raises questions not only about Shaeffer’s leadership within the Bexar County Republican Party, but also about the compassion he will have for women who likewise find themselves the offended party in a crime. Perhaps he should look at the writing in the sand and drop his stone. That might just be an act of real leadership.