The Austin-American Statesman reported late yesterday that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) modified its rules for in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented immigrants. According to the THECB, since 2001, non-U.S. citizens who did not claim legal residency status for federal purposes, but who could otherwise claim Texas residency pursuant to the Texas Education Code for the purpose of obtaining in-state tuition at the post-secondary (college) level, were entitled to in-state tuition at Texas public colleges. There was a requirement of living continuously in Texas with a parent or guardian for 36 months up to high school graduation. These students were also required to sign an affidavit indicating an intent to apply for permanent resident status. For reasons not germane to this discussion, the law was modified slightly in 2005. The law in its current state is Texas Education Code § 54.052,entitled Determination of Resident Status.
The legality of this provision was questioned in 2009. The office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott provided guidance on this matter. They concluded that no precedent that would be binding in Texas had yet found this statute to violate federal law, specifically Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1623, and that the Attorney General's office could not predict with certainty that any court would. As a result, the rule still stands in Texas. Undocumented immigrants may qualify for in-state tuition rates at Texas public colleges and universities. The full text of the Attorney General's opinion may be read here.
The modification reported yesterday by the Statesman and other outlets now requires those colleges and universities to provide to students who are undocumented immigrants, annual reminders (as well as at graduation) that they earlier pledged to seek legal status. They must also refer these students to the federal government to inquire how to accomplish this end. The problem that has been cited is that these students may follow these admonitions, proceed imprudently, and risk deportation.
The text of the THECB's guidance on the background legislation may be read here.
The text of the relevant provision of the Texas Education Code is below:
§ 54.052. Determination of Resident Status
(a) Subject to the other applicable provisions of this subchapter governing the determination of resident status, the following persons are considered residents of this state for purposes of this title:
(1) a person who:
(A) established a domicile in this state not later than one year before the census date of the academic term in which the person is enrolled in an institution of higher education; and
(B) maintained that domicile continuously for the year preceding that census date;
(2) a dependent whose parent:
(A) established a domicile in this state not later than one year before the census date of the academic term in which the dependent is enrolled in an institution of higher education; and
(B) maintained that domicile continuously for the year preceding that census date; and
(3) a person who:
(A) graduated from a public or private high school in this state or received the equivalent of a high school diploma in this state; and
(B) maintained a residence continuously in this state for:
(i) the three years preceding the date of graduation or receipt of the diploma equivalent, as applicable; and
(ii) the year preceding the census date of the academic term in which the person is enrolled in an institution of higher education.
(b) For purposes of this section, the domicile of a dependent's parent is presumed to be the domicile of the dependent unless the person establishes eligibility for resident status under Subsection (a)(3).
Today the San Antonio panel meets to discuss the most pressing issues in the ongoing redistricting battle pertaining to primary election dates. The main question is what date we'll be able to hold our primaries, and if we will need two dates. Floated proposals include a split primary with President and whole-county offices (and precinct chairs, possibly) on the April 3 primary date, holding a primary with all stateide and county-wide races plus non-controversial districts on the April 3rd date, or moving the whole thing to late May.
The State of Texas must also tell the court today if they can afford to reimburse counties and political parties for the cost of holding two primaries. That figure has been estimated at approximately $13 million, which obviously our cash-strapped state doesn't have just lying around.
The Texas Democratic Party supports one unified primary. Republican State Senators and Congressmen largely support one unified primary. Now that Perry's out, it's unclear if Perry loyalists still support a split primary with the Presidential primary held ASAP and legislative and Congressional races held later. A split primary would result in much lower, more-partisan turnout in the second primary, which could benefit Tea Party supported candidates.
Michael Li, redistricting expert extraordinaire, will be liveblogging from San Antonio today so we can keep abreast of all of the happenings.
(The preclearance trial wrapped up yesterday in DC, leaving Texans awaiting the verdict on the Legislature's maps. Today we should get big news from the San Antonio panel about primary dates. Here with the scoop, as always, Michael Li! - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
The 8-day preclearance trial wraps up in Washington today, but yesterday brought a stunning admission from the State of Texas' expert witness, Rice professor John Alford.
Put on the stand to testify about the treatment of minority groups under the state's maps, Alford testified under oath that the state's senate map hurts the ability of minorities in SD-10 in Tarrant County to elect their candidate of choice. That's, of course, the district currently represented by State Sen. Wendy Davis.
As reported in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Alford surprised Davis' attorney during questioning by agreeing that the reconfiguration of Davis' District 10 into four parts hurt minority voters and turned back the clock on the ability of blacks and Hispanics to vote for a candidate they prefer.
Davis' attorney, Gerry Hebert, asked Alford, "In 2008, black and Latino voters in District 10 demonstrated the ability to elect the candidate of their choice?"
Alford replied "yes" and that the candidate was Davis.
"Would you agree," Hebert continued, "that under the state's proposed plan that the ability of minority voters in District 10 to elect the preferred candidate was retrogressed?"
"Gerry," Alford said, "I couldn't agree with you more."
Wow. Just wow.
And it's not the first time that Alford has agreed with groups challenging the state's maps. Back in September during the trial before the San Antonio court, Alford also testified that the state's congressional hurt Hispanics in CD-23. As reported at the time by the San Antonio Express-News:
also questioned how the Legislature redrew the lines for a current Latino-opportunity district that stretches from West Texas to San Antonio.
"I would not have done what was done to the 23rd," Alford said. "(It's) less likely to perform" and elect a Latino. He later said the Legislature's changes to the district had invited a lawsuit.
He said the congressional redistricting plan for the 23rd Congressional district swapped out high-voter-turnout Latino precincts for low-turnout precincts, so the district became more Hispanic, while reducing the influence of the Hispanic voting bloc.
Changes to that district were highlighted in the complaints against the state.
That first concession brought out a firestorm of criticism among Republicans, as highlighted in the video below of the October meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee. One can only imagine what Republicans are saying now.
"We're not going to lose the battle and lose the war and have to pay for it."
With those words from Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole, the Austin City Council voted unanimously today to repeal our old Crisis Pregnancy Center ordinance, and then unanimously passed a revised ordinance intended to survive scrutiny in ongoing legal battles.
Back in 2010, Council unanimously passed an ordinance requiring Crisis Pregnancy Centers to post a sign on their doors stating that the businesses don't provide abortions, refer for abortions, or provide FDA-licensed birth control, and that there is no licensed medical professional on site. Since the passing of the 2010 ordinance, other cities' CPC regulation efforts have come under increased scrutiny, and many have been struck down. Here in Austin, a group of plaintiffs that operate the centers and generally oppose abortions sued the City, claiming that the ordinance -- which simply requires CPCs to state what services they do not provide -- violated their First Amendment rights.
Today, Council considered a revised ordinance, sponsored by Council Members Bill Spelman and Mike Martinez, that removed language from the original that was not likely to stand muster in the courts. (Read a preview of this issue here.) Council repealed the old ordinance--we cannot have two contradictory ordinances on the books--and then considered a new ordinance. The new ordinance requires a sign that doesn't make reference to abortions or birth control. It is strictly a disclosure that there is no licensed healthcare professional on site. That's what was determined to be most likely to stand up in court.
The absurdity of the situation is that CPC's don't have to be licensed. Taxi cabs, nail salons, food trailers, pedi-cabbers, even fishermen have to be licensed, but any anti-choice group can set up shop to intimidate and misinform women into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Many of them also receive tremendous amounts of funding from the state. That's right -- our tax dollars are being used to help these organizations intimidate women and provide incorrect information about abortion, pregnancy, and women's health.
Speakers were vastly in favor of the new ordinance requiring CPC signage, noting time and again that it's about informing women about what services the business provides. Genevieve van Cleve, Deputy Political Director of Annie's List, thanked the Council for supporting women, and reminded all present of the Texas Legislature's unrelenting assault on Texas women, children, and families. She emphasized the rights of consumers to know what services businesses provide, stating "not only can the government require truth in advertising for healthcare purposes, the government should do so." Gen used the nail salon analogy to remind Council that most service providers must live up to a basic level of professionalism to keep operating. Not so for the deliberately misleading CPC's.
Other speakers included a volunteer attorney with Jane's Due Process who counsels pregnant women on their legal options and helps teenagers receive judicial bypass of parental notification laws when needed. She noted the time-sensitive nature of abortion, and that the longer women wait, the more costly or limited the services may be. (This especially true in Texas, where many providers won't perform an abortion after a certain number of weeks -- we're not talking third trimester here, we're talking early- to- mid-second trimester.) CPC's confuse teenagers who want abortions, which can cost them precious time and money.
Speakers against the ordinance were almost all male (of course), and as Martinez pointed out, most don't even live here in Austin. Some claimed that it was a First Amendment issue; others simply seemed to hate abortion. Several tried to intimidate the Council with threats of exorbitant legal fees, which apparently was the main reservation our staunchly pro-choice Council had with the new ordinance. An attorney from the Liberty Institute suggested that if the City loses in the courts, they'll need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars -- possibly over $1 million -- to the anti-choice groups pursuing the lawsuits.
That's a valid concern -- if indeed our ordinance couldn't stand up in court and we lost, does Austin want to funnel large amounts of taxpayer money into anti-choice coffers? That's hardly in keeping with our community values. However, MPT Cole got to the heart of that issue during questioning of Sara Clark, the attorney for the City in this matter. Cole drove the point that if it looks like Austin won't prevail in the lawsuit, we can immediately repeal the ordinance before we lose in court.
The current ordinance is currently being litigated in Federal court. An appeal of the outcome of this first trial would land on the 5th Circuit Court, home of Chief Judge Edith Jones, the noted anti-abortion zealot who recently overturned Federal Judge Sparks' stay on the sonogram law. (Read more about Jones' extreme anti-choice views here.) The plaintiffs in the CPC case will likely revise their filings to sue the City over this new ordinance. However, speakers today were very confident that our new ordinance was carefully crafted to follow existing legal precedent from other Circuit courts, and has a very strong chance of winning if challenged.
As NARAL lobbyist Blake Rocap pointed out, we're simply asking the CPC's to post information that they themselves state is true -- there are no licensed medical professionals on site. If CPC's already admit what Council wants them to admit on their own front doors, how is that compelled speech? Ironically, the sonogram lawsuit may actually work in our favor here, since Judge Edith Jones doesn't think it's an undue burden for abortion providers to perform a mandatory sonogram and require doctors to read off a fact sheet about fetal development before performing the procedure.
Spelman made a motion that Martinez seconded to pass the revised ordinance on all three readings, which requires a supermajority. Today, that would have been a 5-1 vote, since the Mayor was off the dais on an official trip to London to study economic development in the high-tech sector. Passing on all three readings means it's a done deal -- no need to vote two more times on this issue.
So, good job Council. It's great to see them uphold our community values and provide women with accurate information. And a special thanks to Council Members Spelman and Martinez -- both men, it's worth pointing out, who refused to let this issue drop and pushed this revised ordinance through. It's really great to see two males standing up for women's health, and something we'd all like to see a lot more of. Women's health is an issue that impacts our entire community, because it impacts our mothers, wives, sisters, friends, colleagues, and neighbors.
Hopefully our ordinance stands up in court, and can soon be enforced. If CPC's refuse to post the sign, citizens can call code compliance and 311. Likely the CPC's would be given a warning, but if they still refused to post the sign, they'd start getting tickets for Class C misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of up to $450.
We will keep you posted as this issue works its way through the courts.
It's Not The Size Of The Latino Electorate That Matters - All of the punditry and political posturing, all of the urgency and calls for action, all of the outrage and tacit and direct messages sent will be for naught if on election day Latinos don't show up to vote.
GOP Latino Vote Manipulation Shows They Can't Get Past Race - Republican gerrymanderers were planning to create a "metric" to manipulate the numbers of Latinos to the advantage of the Republican Party before the redistricting process in Texas even began, according to recent emails released from the redistricting preclearance trial in Washington, DC.
Obama's DREAM Act Promise Could Help Millions Of Youth - In President Obama's State of the Union address he made his case for the DREAM Act, which could help 258,000 students in Texas adjust their status through college or military service.
The Tale Of Romney And The DREAMer - What happened between an undocumented student and GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a recent Manhattan fundraiser reads like something written by the the Brothers Grimm. A deceivingly simple story that's loaded with nuance, undercurrents, archetypes and mythology.
Romney's Self Deportation Rhetoric Is Offensive To Latinos - Has Mitt Romney forgotten that Latinos speak English as well as Spanish? How else can he explain his double talk when it comes to the Latino community? While Mitt Romney runs Spanish-language media ads to try to convince the community that he shares our values, his record on jobs, immigration, and education paints a vastly different story.
"Mexican Mitt" Is A Latino Response To Political Doublespeak - Many Latino voters are frustrated by the double-talk from politicos who at once say they have Latinos' best interests in mind, yet have no intention of guarding against nasty verbiage or legislation that says the contrary. Enter an entirely different sort of double-talk: Mexican Mitt Romney.
Albondigas, Or Mexican Meatball Soup - In this soup, puffy meatballs studded with rice float in a slightly spicy tomatoey broth with hearty vegetables - once you get through the chopping - this soup is easy and delicious.
(This week's Watson Wire was particularly solid. If you're not getting the Watson Wire, you should be. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
K. R. "Doc" Vanderslice was a true cowboy. He was also my maternal grandpa.
He grew up in Northwest Oklahoma working as a cowboy. When I was a kid, my brother Kyle and I spent time on his place getting to do "cowboy" stuff.
Grandpa was a cattle guy. I don't recall him ever having a goat and am certain he never thought too highly of what my mother called "goat ropers."
Now, most folks know that a "goat rope" refers to a big fiasco and mess. While he never would have allowed his grandsons to participate in a real goat rope, Grandpa did get a kick out of putting us in situations that led to utter chaos, particularly when he was partnering with my dad. Those two loved to make each other laugh, including at the expense of their progeny.
One of my strongest memories is of being 6 or 7 (heck, I might have been all of 8), when Grandpa had picked up a new Shetland pony named Dusty. Somehow, it was decided that I'd be perfect to "break" the horse.
I chased that mean little jackass of a horse around the corral, occasionally caught him without help, and tried to avoid getting bit as I fought to crawl on his back. Every time, over and over, he'd jump and buck and throw me hard to the ground.
All the while, as I'd get up, I'd look to Daddy and Grandpa, two men I loved who were, uh, keeping an eye on me – probably to make sure I didn't get hurt, but certainly to have a little fun, too. They were ceaselessly encouraging (and not just a little teasing), telling me "You almost had him that time," or "I think he's worn out," or "Hang on. You'll get it."
But, no, this was a goat rope, only with a pony. It had all the signs:
It went on forever and seemed to get worse and worse.
There was no end in sight.
Nothing seemed to work.
What I thought I knew one time didn't work the next time.
I couldn't figure out what success was supposed to look like.
It really hurt.
I was covered in filth and it stunk.
A goat rope with, y'know, democracy.
But this Watson Wire isn’t about cowboys or dubious moments of family history. No, this is about redistricting. (If that's the sort of rapid change of subject that makes you feel like you've been bucked from a horse, well, as Doc Vanderslice would say, "Just hang on. You'll get it.”)
Redistricting is the process of redrawing lines for districts represented by state legislators, Congressional reps, and other elected officials. Basically, people move out of one place and into another, so district lines have to shift with the population (legally every 10 years, though you can try doing it more often depending on how little shame you have) to make sure that an elected official represents about as many constituents as his or her colleagues.
If that sounds boring and technical, well, that’s probably how it should be. The problem is that it’s a very political exercise – always has been – that can affect which political party controls a particular legislative delegation or chamber. So things have a way of getting unpleasant and nonsensical really fast.
And that’s before the folks running the redistricting process in the Texas Capitol decided to make this goat rope even more messy.
Take this redistricting. Please!
Last year, the Texas legislature passed maps for state senators and representatives in its regular legislative session, and passed another map for Congressional representatives in a special session.
A number of us argued at the time, over and over, that the maps frequently failed to allow minority voters in some parts of Texas to elect candidates of their choice. Those in control ignored us.
The state, which is required by the federal Voting Rights Act to get preclearance before using the new maps, had a choice to seek approval from either the U.S. Department of Justice or a three-judge federal court in Washington, DC. The state chose to seek this preclearance from the court instead of the Department of Justice.
At the same time, some folks sued the state, claiming – quite persuasively – that some parts of the maps violate the U.S. Voting Rights Act. That case ended up being before a different three-judge federal district court in San Antonio. So the Texas redistricting process was falling apart in two federal courtrooms about 1,500 miles away from each other.
The DC federal court denied the state's request for a quick, summary decision approving the maps. It said that the court needed more time to investigate if there was discriminatory intent or effect, and that there needed to be a full trial to do so.
The court opinion said the state needs to use a more comprehensive definition of what it means for a group of minority voters to have the "ability to elect" the candidate of their choice. The full trial finally started last week. It's still going on and won't wrap up for a while.
Then, last fall, the federal judges in San Antonio – sensing that the legislative maps would not be approved or denied in time for Texas' 2012 primary elections – drew some so-called "interim maps." That shuffled all of the timelines for when candidates have to file for office and even required new election dates.
And last week, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the maps that the San Antonio federal judges drew – yes, the same maps that replaced the not-quite-legal maps that those in control of the legislature drew. The Supreme Court sent the San Antonio judges back to the drawing board.
Good news and bad news
But there was some good news: the Supreme Court ordered the judges to keep Voting Rights Act-related concerns in mind as they work through this. That’s a big deal, because some had worried that the Supreme Court would use this case to throw out vital portions of the Voting Rights Act. That doesn’t seem likely to happen at this point.
The bad news, however, is that almost everything else is up in the air right now, particularly when it comes to this year’s legislative and Congressional elections:
We basically have no maps.
Thus, if you live in Texas, you have no way to know for sure who you’ll be voting on this year to represent you in the legislature or in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The primary elections, which had already been postponed from March until April, now probably can’t be held until sometime after that – unless both of the courts in San Antonio and Washington really hustle.
The whole mess is now split between a court in San Antonio, which is trying to draw interim maps that the Supreme Court will like, and the court in Washington DC, which is evaluating the legislatively drawn maps in the context of the Voting Rights Act and trying to figure out a permanent solution.
I’m missing Daddy, Grandpa and even Dusty right about now.
This week, the Austin City Council will consider amending or repealing an ordinance that requires Crisis Pregnancy Centers to disclose that they don't provide or make referrals for abortion, or provide FDA-approved birth control. While I am very confident that our council members remain staunchly pro-choice -- the ordinance passed unanimously in 2010 -- the question is how Austin's ordinance can survive repeated lawsuits from the right-wing, and what other tools are available to warn women about these insidious anti-choice "resource centers."
Crisis Pregnancy Centers are essentially anti-choice entities that attempt to mislead, intimidate, and coerce young women into keeping their unwanted pregnancies. While many claim to be "clinics," in reality there are no medically licensed staff working at the centers, and many provide no health care services at all. Instead, the focus of these CPC's is to stop women from exercising their right to an abortion, and prevent them from avoiding unplanned pregnancies in the future.
NARAL Texas has more information about these insidious organizations:
CPCs not only fail to address the range of choices available to women; they often attempt to dissuade women from seeking abortion by presenting factually inaccurate and misleading information. Women seeking services are often told abortion leads to breast cancer and psychological distress, or "post-abortion syndrome"--despite no medical evidence backing either claim. Women may also be shown intentionally upsetting images or receive false information about their own pregnancies.
In 2009, the Texas Legislature shifted $4 million in family planning funds to these unlicensed, unregulated centers. CPC's are all over Texas. Austin has a number of these centers, which claim to "minister" to women with unexpected, unplanned, or unwanted pregnancies. In reality, CPC's don't provide women with a comprehensive list of options, which includes abortion, and they don't provide scientifically accurate information about how women can prevent future unplanned pregnancies.
In 2010, Council Member Bill Spelman sponsored and passed an ordinance requiring CPCs to post signage indicating that they don't provide abortions or FDA-approved birth control. Last fall, several CPC operators sued the City, claiming that the lawsuit violated their First Amendment rights. The CPC plaintiffs -- the Roman Catholic Diocese of Austin, Catholic Charities of Central Texas, the Austin Pregnancy Resource Center, and the South Austin Pregnancy Resource Center -- say that the City's ordinance doesn't place such burdens on other providers. However, as The Austin Chronicle notes, abortion providers are required by the State of Texas to disclose that they provide abortions.
What's so ironic is that CPC's are arguing against compelling speech, yet at the same time anti-choice activists are in favor of compelling unnecessary speech through their beloved sonogram law. In the lawsuit against the CPC's, anti-choice organizations are arguing that compelling speech violates their First Amendment rights, even though the signage is accurate (unlike the information provided by CPC's). In the sonogram law, the State of Texas is arguing that it's all fine and dandy to require doctors to perform mandatory sonograms of women seeking abortions, even though the speech they're compelling is medically unnecessary. Compelling speech is fine for the anti-choice movement when it serves their aim of pressuring and intimidating women into not having abortions. But when the speech actually gives women useful, important information -- Whoa, Nelly!
This week, the Austin City Council is looking for a way to amend the ordinance such that the City can successfully defend the ordinance in court. Meanwhile, the city legal department has a competing agenda item calling for the repeal of the CPC signage ordinance. Ideally, the amended ordinance -- put forward by Council Members Spelman and Martinez -- would remove specific language that has failed in other legal tests, leaving a CPC ordinance that can successfully be defended in court.
City Legal's concern may include the amount of time and money spent defending the CPC ordinance. It raises a valuable question: how much taxpayer dollars should we spend defending ordinances that uphold our community values? Similarly, council could explore whether there are other ways to accomplish the same aim of giving women warning that CPC's do not provide comprehensive services or medically accurate information, nor are they under any obligation to do so.
The right wing and anti-choice organizations have an immense amount of funding available to fight these ordinances and drag every other pro-choice or anti-anti-choice effort through the courts. It's part of their strategy to chip away at abortion rights in America. However, if the ordinance stands, Austinites have the chance to give anti-choice organizations a taste of their own medicine. While the CPC ordinance is in court, it is not being enforced. Should the City prevail and the CPC become an enforceable ordinance, CPC's could be ticketed for failing to comply. It would be a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $450 in municipal court. Should the City prevail and the CPC's refuse to post their warning signs, an orchestrated effort to call code compliance on them could result in thousands of dollars in fines levied against the centers.
NARAL has a handy one-click way to contact the entire Austin City Council in support of holding CPC's accountable. The anti-choicers are very well organized and will flood Council inboxes with blather against this effort. Make sure our side has its voice heard as well.
I'll have more coverage of the vote tomorrow.
Disclaimer: I'm on the board of NARAL Texas because I am super-duper pro-choice. If you want to support NARAL, we have a fundraiser this week. Click here for more information.
This November, Texans must choose someone to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is (finally) retiring.
In the Republican primary, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is running on the myth of a Texas economic miracle. Dewhurst is so dedicated to this strategy, which didn't seem to work with the Perry campaign, that they've put together an ad featuring Gov. Perry's praise for Dewhurst while campaigning in Iowa.
Dewhurst has collected the high-profile endorsements of former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Michael Reagan, and the Texas Oil and Gas Political Action Committee (shocking).
Former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz is running against Dewhurst. Of course, he's angling as the "true conservative" in the race.
Cruz has collected the endorsements of Sen. Jim DeMint (R - SC), the Young Conservatives of Texas, social conservative James Dobson, George P. Bush and former Republican Party of Texas chairwoman Cathie Adams.
Right now, Cruz is slamming Dewhurst for missing several debates and candidate forums. The Cruz campaign has set up a website, www.DuckingDewhurst.com, with a memorable video calling Dewhurst a "political animal." There's even a "Ducking Dewhurst" duck costume that keeps showing up at Dewhurst's events.
The latest poll of the race shows Dewhurst sitting at 36% of the vote with 18% support for Cruz. However, Cruz leads among those who know who he is. Expect a bloody Republican primary...if the hilarious Fake Ted Cruz Twitter account doesn't end it before it even begins.
The Democratic primary has been much more quiet thus far, and is really just starting to get revved up.
There are six Democratic candidates so far, including Jason Gibson, President of the Houston Trial Lawyers Association,
Sean Hubbard, strategy director of Manny Molera's 2002 congressional campaign, and Paul Sadler, former state representative.
Greetings to everyone from the Texas AFL-CIO in downtown Austin, Texas! BOR is coming to you tonight from the joint watch party hosted by the Travis County Democratic Party, Organizing for America-Texas, Asian Pacific Americans for Progress and us! We've got a full house here tonight, and we're excited to be joined by a number of candidates, elected officials, and great progressive activists.
Rather than try to live-blog it all ourselves, we're using CoverItLive to capture all of the tweets from the event.
Want to join in? Use the hashtag #SOTUatx and your Tweet will show up in the feed below. Not on Twitter? Comment in the comment box and we'll approve them.
Want to join in? Use the hashtag #SOTUatx and your Tweet will show up in the feed below. Not on Twitter? Comment in the comment box and we'll approve them.
Tonight, Republican Representative Quico Canseco of Texas's 23rd Congressional district will be giving the Republicans' Spanish language response to the State of the Union address. Immediately following Canseco's speech, Mitt Romney will ask him to deport himself. Just kidding. But really, how many Republicans are going to listen to Canseco give a speech in Spanish? Alienating Latinos is practically a plank in the Republican party platform at this point. By the time he's done, Sheriff Joe Arpaio might be waiting on Canseco's doorstep with a shotgun to try and intimidate him into not voting.
If you're unfamiliar with the West Texas representative, here's a chance to learn more about Francisco "Quico" Canseco: tax cheat, firefighter defunder, crazy right-winger, and soon-to-be-former Congressman.
7 Things To Know About Republican Congressman Quico Canseco:
Despite record wildfires in Texas, Quico Canseco voted against increased funding for firefighters and first responders. He attacked Obama for not providing funding for Texas wildfires (which Obama did, in fact, provide) and then voted against increasing funding for FEMA firefighter assistance grants by $510 million. The new total funding would have given $390 million for firefighter assistance grants and $420 million for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants. Canseco was one of only 113 members of Congress to vote against SAFER. Source: Burnt Orange Report
Canseco is funded by Wall Street, and now serves on the House Financial Services Committee. The bulk of Canseco's fundraising comes from the financial industry, which kicked in over $100,000 to his election effort. Now, he's supposed to be writing the rules to help rein in the worst Wall Street abuses. Source: Sunlight Foundation
Canseco has reportedly had $715,000 worth of federal, state, and mechanics liens levied against him in the last three decades. The liens are to recover unpaid payroll taxes and contracting fees since the early 1980s. Source: Burnt Orange Report
Canseco is supported by the American Action Network, a right-wing organization that recently sent misleading mail to senior citizens about Democrats' efforts to protect Medicare Part D and save the government $112 million dollars. Source: ThinkProgress
During redistricting, Republicans in the legislature specifically looked to draw low-performing Hispanic precincts into the 23rd district to help "shore up" Canseco's re-election chances. By including low-turnout precincts and drawing out high-turnout precincts, Republicans made district look more Latino on paper based on Hispanic surname voter registration than it is based on voting performance. Source: txredistricting.org
During his campaign in 2010, Canseco was endorsed by Michele "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann and followed the Minnesota Republican's then-practice of refusing to debate, declining to meet with the San Antonio Express News' editorial board. Source: ThinkProgress
Canseco has avoided taking questions and talking directly with citizens during town halls. Maybe he's afraid to talk to senior citizens directly about why he supports cutting their Medicaid and Medicare benefits. Source: San Antonio Express-News
Here's the best news about Quico Canseco: he has a great Democratic challenger in State Representative Pete Gallego. Gallego was elected to the State Legislature in 1990 at age 28, and has spent his entire adult life fighting for the people of West Texas. His gigantic legislative district closely overlaps with CD-23, the district in which he's now running for Congress. Gallego is a great champion of the people. As a legislator, he has crafted and passed legislation to invest billions of dollars in public schools, secure our border, reform our criminal justice system, and support Texas veterans.
Gallego also on the DCCC's targeted Red to Blue fundraising list, which looks for the best pick-up opportunities as we fight to take back the House of Representatives. If you like Pete Gallego or you really don't like Quico Canseco, consider dropping Pete some coin here.
Republican Congressman Quico Canseco is failing the people of Texas. He votes against first responders, and wants to weaken medical coverage for senior citizens. He's a tool of the financial industry and backed by right-wingers determined to shred what's left of our social safety net. Let's hope voters sending him packing this November. Then Republicans will need to find another Spanish-speaking patsy to respond to Obama after the next State of the Union.
When you have an overtly political law to defend, file an overtly political lawsuit.
Back in September, we predicted that the new Voter ID law (Senate Bill or SB 14) passed by the Texas Legislature and signed into law by Governor Perry would find its way into federal court. Better late than never, the state did not disappoint. Yesterday, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia demanding a declaratory judgment by the court that SB 14 take effect immediately "because it neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, nor will it deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote because he is a member of a language minority group."
Briefly, Texas has been unable to implement SB 14 because it has been awaiting preclearance to do so from the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (the "Act"). For background on why this is the case, as well as more information on preclearance and Sections 2 and 5 of the Act, see our past articles here and here.
The gravamen of yesterday's lawsuit is that the state of Texas must seek relief from the federal court because DOJ is taking too long to decide whether to grant SB 14 preclearance. Normally, such complaints are reserved for a deli or the department of motor vehicles. Maintaining that conceit, however, the state has pulled the number two - as in recent memory, it is the second state, right behind South Carolina, the voter identification laws of which have drawn the critical eye of DOJ. As the Texas lawsuit notes several times, DOJ ultimately refused to preclear the voter identification law at issue in South Carolina.
(Reminder! Join us tonight, please RSVP to help the organizers plan. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
TCDP, OFA, BOR, and APAP are joining forces to host an SOTU party at the AFL-CIO. It sounds like alphabet soup but it's really a chance to come together and watch President Obama give the State of the Union address. Join us tomorrow, Tuesday January 24th, for a watch party and pot luck at the AFL-CIO here in Austin. Here's the details:
State of the Union Watch Party and Pot Luck Tuesday, January 24
6:30-9:30 p.m.
At The Texas AFL-CIO
1106 Lavaca Street
Austin, Texas
Hosted By Travis County Democratic Party
Organizing for America
Burnt Orange Report
Asian Pacific Americans for Progress
RSVP on Facebook or BarackObama.com
Please feel free to contribute to the pot-luck. A bag of baby carrots, some hummus, chips, or beverages of some sort will do just fine. See you there!
(Great post from Back to Basics PAC, who continue to hammer on Perry's abuse of the public trust and our tax dollars. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Rick Perry did a funny thing yestoday - he actually responded to his critics. In the past few days, our friends at Progress Texas and Democratic Caucus chair Rep. Jessica Farrar called on Perry to pay back the approximately $2,651,429.14 that his presidential campaign burned through in security costs. This confounding sum wasn't paid for by the Perry campaign though - it was your tax dollars. And the Perry campaign's answer?
The Department of Public Safety has a policy of providing security for governors and their families everywhere they travel ... These policies are determined by DPS and not the governor's office.
Apparently, it was also the policy of longtime Perry ally and civil liberties foe Steve McCraw to insist on keeping the travel security costs secret. It was so important to keep the public from knowing what was in those records that both Perry and Anita spent time during the June special session pressing for a measure to keep the records sealed for 18 months. In other words, until after the 2012 election. According to an August story from the Washington Post:
One Republican legislator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the governor as "extremely concerned" about keeping his records sealed, and said Perry was actively lobbying key legislators to get it passed in the waning days of the special session. The legislator said Perry's wife, Anita, also was pressing legislators on the issue.
But Perry didn't have to stick Texas taxpayers with the bill for his security. Presidential campaigns typically pay for private security services. Or he could have requested Secret Service protection, as former candidate Herman Cain did in November 2011. Although he may not have met the requirements for protection - the law stipulates that a candidate must have "national prominence," along with other qualifying factors.
So what was that security money spent on exactly, and was it worth it to fulfill Rick Perry's calling? Maybe we'll find out - after the election.
As if you needed another reason to eat Girl Scout cookies, turns out you're actually taking a stand against right wing intolerance with every bite.
A Colorado Girl Scout troop welcomed a 7-year old transgender girl into its ranks. And they didn't just admit her, but issued a statement welcoming all transgender girls to join.
But every time an organization or institution becomes more inclusive, it seems there are some crazies shrieking about the disintegration of the moral fiber of America. Enter HonestGirlScouts.com.
In an attempt to prevent a 7-year old from canoeing, visiting nursing homes and learning to identify plant species, HonestGirlScouts.com is taking a stand against the Girl Scouts' "bias for transgenders," among other things. (They also criticize the Girl Scouts for things like aligning themselves with the United Nations and Planned Parenthood, promoting sex education, "New Age consultants," and the use of gay role models.)
A 14-year old posted a video on the website calling for the boycott of Girl Scout cookies, which has since been taken down. But you can still check out the alarmist flyer about where your Girl Scout cookie money goes.
Let's just say that after reading this literature, I want to eat Girl Scout cookies even more. Because if there's anything more delicious than a Caramel deLite, it's gender equality.
Warning: What it lacks in rationality, HonestGirlScouts.com makes up for with a lot of pink and purple. This site will make both your eyes and your brain hurt.
In an order issued this afternoon, the San Antonio court asked the parties to appear for a status conference this Friday, January 27, at 1 p.m.
However, the court told the parties that if they wish to maintain a unified April 3 primary date that they would need to agree among themselves on interim maps by February 6. (Yes, there probably is some parallel universe out there where this will happen- and Greg Abbott has a beard - but my irking suspicion is that it's not this one.)
If the parties are unable to agree upon maps, they are to submit a list of unobjected to districts by February 6 for the court's consideration.
The court also said that it was giving 'serious consideration' to a split primary and asked the State of Texas to be prepared on Friday to say whether it would reimburse counties and political parties for the added expense. That added costs is expected to run somewhere in the neighborhood of at least $13 million.
The also asked all parties to be prepared to discuss two alternative options for split primaries: one that would have a presidential (+ precinct chair) primary on April 3 and another that would have an April 3 presidential primary and primary countywide and whole county races (+ precinct chairs). [Before you ask, it's not entirely clear why the court rolled precinct chair elections into the first option except that it seems to be under the impression that having precinct chair elections is necessary to start the process of having precinct conventions. It'll get sorted out.]
Read Glen Maxey's tell-all about his quest to uncover the truth about Rick Perry.
Now available in paperback!
The Perry Compendium
Know the truth about Rick Perry's record of failure.
--On The Issues: Rick Perry's positions on the issues that matter.
--In Our Archives: A growing list of everything we've written about Rick Perry.
--On Perry's Trail: Regular coverage of campaign stops, quotes, and coverage.
--Everything Else: Lists, links, and archives from across Texas.
