Today, State Rep. Mike Villarreal showed how our Legislature prioritizes energy industry donors over our state's children. This is a great angle, and very accurate.
New Data Show Natural Gas Tax Break Costs Schools $2 Billion
San Antonio - The state's high-cost natural gas tax exemption cost the state $2.3 billion during fiscal years 2010 and 2011, according to data provided by the state Comptroller's office. The dollar figure is roughly equivalent to the amount needed to cover the increase in student enrollment, which the legislature chose not to pay for in the current state budget.
"Texas voters know the legislature should prioritize schoolchildren over the natural gas industry," said Rep. Villarreal. "Instead of using this money to subsidize the gas industry and forcing schools to make deep cuts, we should invest these funds in hiring great teachers, keeping class sizes manageable, and making college affordable for hard-working students. If we want to create jobs and grow the economy, then we need to invest in our children's education."
During the last legislative session, as the legislature was cutting $5 billion for public education, Republican legislators voted down an amendment by Rep. Villarreal to suspend the business subsidy during years when education funding declines or when natural gas prices were clearly high enough for the market to spur significant production.
The subsidy cost the state $1.3 billion in 2010, while the natural gas production tax yielded $700 million for the state. In 2011 the exemption totaled $1 billion and the state collected $1.1 billion from the tax. The majority of the revenue goes into the state's general revenue fund, which is available to fund education and other essential services.
A recent study by the Legislative Budget Board found that the subsidy cost the state $7.4 billion from 2004 to 2009. The report found that over half of natural gas wells now qualify for the tax subsidy that was designed to only serve "high cost" wells. The LBB reported that the natural gas industry paid no state severance tax at all on approximately one-third of wells. Over half of the refunds audited by the state Comptroller proved to be fraudulent.
The primary season is upon us, even if we don't have legislative maps or a primary date. That's not going to stop the eager Democratic activists of Travis County from kicking off the club endorsement season! Last night, the South Austin Democrats held their forum, and voted to endorse in several Travis County primary races.
The SAD endorsement is viewed as one of the more valuable ones to earn in Travis County, since the group has often mailed yellow postcards to Democratic voters who live south of Lady Bird Lake touting their chosen candidates. Here are the results, from their Facebook page.
2012 South Austin Democrats Endorsements
Tax Assessor Collector: Bruce Elfant
District Attorney: Rosemary Lehmberg
Sheriff: Greg Hamilton
167th District Judge: David Walberg
Commissioner Pct. 3: Karen Huber
Constable Pct. 3: Sally Hernandez
Constable Pct. 4: Maria Canchola
The 167th race initially went to a run-off between Wahlberg and Efrain de la Fuente, after no one failed to clear the 50% endorsement threshold in the first round of balloting. (Attorney Bryan Case is also in the race.) Wahlberg prevailed in the run-off.
SAD didn't endorse in the County Commissioner Precinct 1 or Constable Precinct 2 races, but to be fair, they are the South Austin Democrats, and those races are Northeast and Northwest, respectively.
Next up, the Austin Progressive Coalition will hold its endorsements a week from Saturday on February 18th. At that time Central Austin Democrats and the University Democrats will vote on the candidates of their choice. Any candidate who receives both endorsements gets the coveted APC endorsement. APC in turn will distribute thousands of fliers touting their endorsements to doors across Central Austin. This is widely considered to be one of the more valuable endorsements in the local election scene.
In other primary news, the San Antonio court moved up the date of the next hearing on redistricting/maps/primary dates from the 15th to the 14th. That's good news if you want to spend Valentine's day with your fellow redistricting litigants, I guess.
(What's going on in Big D? James Van Sickle is here to tell us. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
While speculation and bargaining continue for how the 2012 maps for Congress, State Senate, and State House will look, I wanted to take some time to look at the contested Democratic Primary races in Dallas based on current filings. Once the maps are finalized, I will post another article discussing changes we get when the filing period reopens for a brief period of time. It should also be noted that this article will be discussing only races contained solely within Dallas County and not any statewide or multi-county campaigns. All tables in this article are sorted by Contributions in descending order.
United States Congress, District 30
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson is currently serving her 10th term (20 years), and is actively campaigning for another term in office. So far two candidates have risen to challenge Congresswoman Johnson in Democratic Primary. State Representative Barbara Mallory-Caraway (HD-110) filed for a ballot position, along with Taj Clayton who is a litigator at international law firm Fish and Richardson.
It should be noted that only the below table only looks at reporting period totals between 10/1/2011 to 12/31/2011.
In theory, State House Districts 110 and 107 should be hot primary races. The ongoing issue regarding our maps is putting all of that into question, however. Regardless of how the maps come out, District 110 will be a hot race because it will be to replace Barbara Mallory-Caraway as she runs for Congress. HD-110 is a safe Democratic district with a large African-American population. Right now there are three candidates for HD-110, but this could easily change depending on how those maps lines come out. Once the maps for 2012 have been finalized, I will put together a follow-up article discussing who is and who is not running for each State House district in Dallas County.
District Judge, 162nd Judicial District
The 162nd Judicial District has been held by Lorraine Raggio since her initial election in 2004. Judge Raggio announced her retirement, several candidates have announced or filed for this seat.
Phyllis Lister Brown is currently a municipal judge in the City of Dallas. According to the city charter, city appointees and elected officials must resign their position when seeking higher office. Judge Brown has argued that she does not have to do so given past precedence of when municipal Judge Elizabeth Frizell ran in 2006 for higher office. Dallas City Council voted on January 18 to remove Phyllis from office. Phyllis' lawyers filed a restraining order against the removal, and the city attorney appealed this order. Now it appears that this will be going to court to decide whether Judge Brown gets to keep her seat on the municipal bench or be removed. (See Judge Phyllis Lister Brown Will Soon Get a Shove Off the Bench or a Day in Court)
In the interest of transparency, it should be noted that I am providing technology and communications support to Maricela Moore in this race.
Criminal District Judge, Count No. 4
John Creuzot is the incumbent judge for Criminal District Court 4, and has served since 2008. Judge Creuzot has indicated that he will be retiring and not seeking re-election. So far two candidates (JR Cook and Dominique Collins) have filed to run for this seat. Races for the criminal bench tend to be low dollar affairs compared to their judicial counterparts in Civil Court (i.e. 162nd Judicial Court).
In the interest of transparency, it should be noted that I am providing technology and communications support to JR Cook in this race.
Sherriff
In 2008, Lupe Valdez solidly won re-election in both Primary and General elections. Sherriff Valdez has remained very popular in local Democratic circles. In 2011, Dallas County Jails passed inspection for the 2nd year in a row, which was a top issue for Republicans and other opponents in 2008. An individual named Charlie J. Thomas has filed to run against Lupe in the Democratic Primary, but I have no information about his candidacy at this time.
County Commissioner, District 1
In 2010, Democrats gained majority on the Dallas County Commissioner's Court, and have subsequently redistricted District 1 to be a Democratic-opportunity district. This seat is currently held by Maurine Dickey who along with her husband owns the Dickey's BBQ franchise. Originally, it was rumored that there were over 7 potential candidates interested in running. Since the map was finalized, that number has now sized itself down to 3.
In the interest of transparency, it should be noted that I am providing technology and communications support to Theresa Daniel in this race.
County Commissioner, District 3
Commissioner District 3 had been held by John Wiley Price since 1985. On June 27, 2011, FBI agents searched Commissioner Price's offices and home, and were looking for documents relating to fraud, bribery, money laundering, and tax evasion allegations (See Commissioner John Wiley Price's Office, Home Searched). The investigation is still ongoing, and no charges have been filed against Commissioner Price. Commissioner Price has drawn three opponents in the upcoming 2012 Primary.
While Bennie Brown did file the required January 15 campaign finance report, they failed to mention the $1,250 filing fee paid to the Dallas County Democratic Party in the campaign finance report. According to Dallas County Elections Department, neither Betty Culbreath nor Micah B. Phillips filed their January 15 campaign finance reports. All candidates are required to file campaign finance reports on January 15 and July 15 each year as long as they have a treasurer appointment on file.
Commissioner Price wrote "N/A" under the Cash On Hand line item for his campaign finance report, which is why I left question marks under that section.
DCDP County Chair
In a previous article, I had mentioned that an individual named Lymon King was looking to run for County Chair. Mr. King has since decided against running in 2010, and made this announcement through a robocall to his supporters. No one else has indicated about a run for County Chair so it appears that Darlene Ewing will be starting a fourth term, which she announced will be her last as County Chair.
Unopposed Countywide Races
Here is the list of countywide offices up for re-election in 2012 that so far do not have a primary opponent.
What a long strange primary season it has been. We started our BOR GOP Debate Watch events five months ago, with Rick Perry's first appearance in a debate. Since then, Rick dropped out, Romney muddled along, Gingrich briefly grabbed the lead, and now Santorum has surged from the rear once more.
Through it all we've watched Republicans use anti-immigration and anti-Latino rhetoric that has grown increasingly offensive. From opposition to the DREAM Act to varying forms of ineffective border fences to outright racism, Republicans seem determined to do everything they can to alienate Latino and progressive voters.
Now, the Republicans are heading to Arizona, and we're going to hold our final GOP Debate Watch to highlight the anti-immigration and anti-Latino views that will surely be on display.
From SB1070, the draconian "Papers, please!" immigration law, to elected Republican officials like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former State Senator Russell Pearce, Arizona has become infamous for terrible anti-immigration and anti-Latino policies. Now, those same policies are being echoed by the Republican candidates for President.
Join us for the GOP debate in Arizona. We'll have games, prizes, and surprises to emphasize the anti-immigration stance of the Republican Party.
"Do I Look Illegal?" Arizona GOP Debate Watch Wednesday, February 22, 6:00-9:00 p.m.
Angie's, 1307 East 7th Street,
Austin, Texas 78702
RSVP on Facebook
Join BOR as we shine a light on the anti-immigration and anti-Latino rhetoric of the Republicans, and watch what is hopefully one of the last GOP debates this cycle.
(Great guest post from a long-time BOR reader, featuring content from Cuentame. We hope you will be hearing more from both Nick and Cuentame in the future. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
What happens if you privatize prisons is that you have a large industry with a vested interest in building ever-more prisons." -- Molly Ivins, 2003
For the past three years, the small West Texas town of Littlefield has had to come up with $65,000 a month to service a loan on an empty prison it never needed. To avoid defaulting on its prison loan, Littlefield has laid off workers, cut every department's budget, raised property taxes, increased fees, raided its municipal sewer and water fund, and even delayed its purchase of a new police car.
With just 6,507 residents during the 2000 census, Littlefield did not need a new prison. The city's elected officials decided to build one anyways. Littlefield issued $10 million in revenue bonds for construction of a 310-bed for-profit detention center as part of the city's economic development strategy in 1999. Revenue bonds are a special type of municipal bond that do not require voter approval, because they are backed by the expected revenue a project will generate. Littlefield's politicians built the prison believing it would pay for itself, pump money into the local economy, and expand job opportunity.
The nonprofit organization Cuéntame produced the excellent video below about the experience of Littlefield, Texas with speculative for-profit prison construction. Take a look:
As a result of this experience, Littlefield's bond rating was downgraded to junk status, and Littlefield taxpayers were saddled with millions in debt after discovery of mismanagement by for-profit prison operator Geo Group led the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC) to terminate its contract and remove its prisoners in 2009. When IDOC cancelled its contract, Geo Group bailed on Littlefield by terminating its contract and laying off 74 workers.
The Idaho Department of Corrections discovered Geo Group's mismanagement when it conducted an audit of the Littlefield lock-up. The audit was prompted by the suicide of Randall McCullough, one of Idaho's inmates, at the prison. McCullough had been placed in solitary confinement for more than a year as administrative punishment for a fight that was never criminally prosecuted. The IDOC audit revealed that Geo Group chronically understaffed its facility. On the night that McCullough died, the facility was so short on staff that the warden worked the midnight shift.
Of course, extreme right-wing organizations like the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council defend privatization of prisons, schools and social services by peddling sanctimonious twaddle about the "innovation," "competition" and "efficiency" associated with private entrepreneurship. The most common way for corporations like Geo Group and Corrections Corporation of America to save money in running a prison is to cut guards' salaries, though (innovative!).
It turns out that when prison guards are paid wages as low as grocery store cashiers and fast food workers, they don't stick around very long. And when prisons are understaffed or have high turnover, they end up with inexperienced staff, higher rates of prisoner-on-guard assaults, more escapes, and more contraband violations as evidenced by higher rates of positive urine tests for drug use. Or, they might just be plain understaffed, à la Geo Group.
I would continue from here, but Molly does it better:
"The right says that, in the private sector, pay and performance are related. I look at the CEOs of American corporations, and if there's a connection between pay and performance there, I missed it.
What you get when you privatize and outsource is something like the Department of Defense and the military-industrial complex. We spend $399 billion a year on defense, and if you think that money is well spent because much of it gets run through defense contractors, you have not been paying attention.
DOD is the happy home of the $700 hammer, the endless cost overrun, and the revolving door, with accompanying conflicts of interest and dubious contracts. It's a fiscal nightmare. The Pentagon once had to announce that it couldn't account for $17 billion.
You get nightmare public policy consequences, as well. What happens if you privatize prisons is that you have a large industry with a vested interest in building ever-more prisons. The result is even more idiocy, like the three-strikes law and long terms for small-time drug possession."
--Molly Ivins, 2003 Syndicated Column
Amen.
The video in this post was produced by Cuéntame. Cuéntame is an online platform where the Latino community and the public at large can address social, political and cultural topics through social media, videos, interviews, and docu-series. Cuéntame translates "count me" or "tell me your story," and Cuéntame facilitates conversations about everything from soccer and music to immigrant detention and the anti-immmigrant legislation crafted by extreme right-wing, corporate-funded organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council. Find out more about Cuéntame or tell your own story by following Cuéntame on Facebook or Twitter.
This week, the UT community started posting thousands of Forty Acres-specific memes to the new UTexas Memes Facebook page.
The student-generated memes poke fun at everything from bikers on campus to Texas A&M.
One of the most popular memes takes the biggest joke on campus as its subject: the College Republicans.
Well done.
In December, Burnt Orange Report broke the national news story about Cassie Wright, the second UT College Republican president in a month to post something terribly offensive and racist on Twitter.
We're happy to see UT students have taken note of the shame brought upon their school by the College Republicans...and aren't happy about it.
Some of you may remember the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as a major Biden initiative from before he was cool (and by cool I mean Vice President). The National Organization for Women called it "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades." Phyllis Schlafley called it proof "that the feminists control the Democratic Party." So you can guess where John Cornyn stands.
Last week, VAWA came up in the Senate Judiciary Committee for reauthorization. And while the Democrats on the committee voted it to the floor unanimously, Cornyn joined his Republican brethren in doing just the opposite. Fortunately, despite their best efforts, it's still moving on to a full floor vote.
Cornyn and the other Republicans on the committee tried to play down their opposition by pointing out that they supported an alternative of the bill. This "more fiscally responsible" alternative included things like shutting down the Office of Violence Against Women. And the version that did pass - they one they thought was too expensive - is already $135 million cheaper than the 2005 version. As with many other issues, this is the first time it's gotten really partisan. VAWA was passed in 1994 and has been reauthorized twice with bipartisan support.
We've come a long way since (and because of) VAWA. It was one of the first major pieces of legislation to recognize the severity of domestic violence. In fact, thirty years ago, spousal rape was not recognized as a crime. Many states didn't have a single domestic violence shelter or a hotline to help victims. It provided for stronger prosecution and law enforcement surrounding domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and provides grants for services and housing for victims, community violence prevention programs, and legal aid.
The best part of the VAWA reauthorization is that it now recognizes that domestic violence is not always an act perpetrated on a woman by a man. In an important (though overdue) step, the reauthorization bill also includes language that would ensure protections and services for all victims of domestic violence- regardless of gender and sexual orientation.
So Cornyn missed yet another opportunity to support basic human decency. But there's still a good chance the bill passes this year - and with some pretty big improvements.
While the US Senate is debating a bill that would revive the moribund Keystone XL pipeline while limiting legal challenges to the route, Joe Nocera of the New York Times published an ill considered OpEd today that shows he understands neither the risks nor the economics of tar sands oil.
Nocera makes at least four completely false assertions in his piece.
The first, which makes up the bulk of the essay, is that the Obama administration’s rejection of Keystone is driving the Canadian government into the arms of the Chinese and thereby endangering US energy security. Keystone was always aimed at the Chinese market. As a result of increased efficiency and the global downturn, US oil consumption has steadily dropped since 2005 (from about 20.5 million barrels per day to 19 million bbd in 2010). China’s demand, on the other hand, rose from about 6.5 million bbd to over 9 million bbd during the same period. Source: CIA Factbook. Over this same period, Port Arthur, Texas (the proposed endpoint of Keystone XL) undertook “the largest US refinery expansion to occur in 30 years” with major additions to Motiva and Valero refineries. That expanded refining capacity and easy access to the Panama Canal made Port Arthur the easiest and cheapest route for tar sands oil to reach the Chinese market. Tar sands oil has been in the US market for years it just never had an easy path to overseas markets. A recent Cornell University study on Keystone’s economic impact predicted that were the pipeline built, midwest gasoline prices would likely rise 10-20 cents per gallon. Also, though Joe asserts that Canada has a “newfound willingness to to business with China,” the Canadian logging industry has never had an issue with selling lumber to China.
The second, is that tar sands oil would allow the US “to become, if not energy self-sufficient, at least energy secure, no longer beholden to OPEC.” Not only is all that Canadian oil not bound for US markets, it will not endanger price points set by, in Joe’s words, “countries that don’t like us.” Countries like Saudi Arabia which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves and which recently indicated that it would keep global oil prices “around $100 per barrel” regardless of new supplies (tar sands) or supply instability (Iran). $100 per barrel is, conveniently, about the lowest price for tar sands oil to be economically viable, as the cost in extracting and transporting the sticky, nearly solid substance is substantially higher than traditional crude oil.
Nocera’s third false premise is that tar sands oil is just ” a little dirtier than the crude that pours forth from the Saudi Arabian desert, but is hardly the environmental disaster many suppose.” Tar sands oil is a lot dirtier than Saudi crude. It contains 10 times more sulfur and is 3 times more acidic than traditional crudes. When piped, it is subject to 3 times more pressure than crude oil, and contains a 3 times greater flow of abrasive quartz and silica than a commercial grade sandblaster. There already has been a major tar sands oil spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and the increased size and flow of the Keystone XL pipe would raise the risks of another, bigger, spill considerably. Also, just last week, Canadian officials announced a plan to start poisoning wolves in northern Alberta in an attempt to stave off the collapse of caribou herds which have been affected by massive habitat loss due to tar sands mining that destroys huge tracts of forest to get at the sticky substance underneath. If the massive deployment of strychnine is not an admission of an environmental catastrophe, what is? See it for yourself. This is what a tar sands strip mine looks like from space. This is a whole lot different from the “crude that pours forth from the Saudi Arabian desert.”
Nocera’s final wrong assumption is that if Keystone XL isn’t built, Canada will, with a sweep of its imperial hand, find its own “diverse buyers so it won’t be held hostage by American politics.” To do this, Canada would need an oil exporting terminal along with a pipeline bringing oil to it from Alberta. This has not proved easy for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s administration. Enbridge, a major player in Albertan oil, has proposed the Northern Gateway pipeline which would terminate in Kitimat along the pristine northwest coast of British Columbia. British Columbians, blessed as they are with natural beauty and clean waters, are not pleased with this plan and have been staging large protests ever since Northern Gateway was first proposed.
Joe Nocera should stick to issues he understands, apologia for Canadian oil profiteering is beneath him.
Contact your senators here to let them know that a revived Keystone pipeline is unacceptable. We have enough oil in this country, and it is dirty enough as it is thank you very much.
So why is it such a big deal for Greg Abbott if he succeeds in keeping the primary on April 3, or as early as possible before the Republican presidential nomination is totally sewn up? Perry's not in the race anymore, so what does it matter? The answer lies in Abbott's own future ambitions here in Texas, and his desire to serve the wealthy big-money donors who fund pro-corporate Republicans here in Texas.
Abbott needs to keep a unified primary on the highest-turnout date possible, to make sure Dewhurst wins--as well as the incumbent Republican Congressmen and State Senators--to please the big-money donors that will likely back Abbott when Perry decides he's not running for Governor again.
The Texas Republican Party is primarily dominated by extremely wealthy corporate interests, who in turn want to keep Republicans in office that serve their wishes, rather than the whims of the Tea Party. It costs money to campaign in Texas, and whether you're playing by the FEC's rules or the TEC's, in a state this big if you can't raise real money you won't get too far. In the ongoing Senate primary, Dewhurst is clearly the candidate of the big-bucks donors who backed Rick Perry's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns. While Dewhurst and Cruz both raised similar amounts of money in the last quarter ($1.5M and $1.1M respectively), and both have raised close to $4 million overall, Dewhurst's average donation is over $2000 (and remember, donors are hampered by limits of $2500 per donor, meaning that most of The Dew's donors are maxing out). Meanwhile, Cruz's average donation is a much more modest $319. It's a testament to Cruz's support from the right-wing grassroots / Tea Party / YCT sector of the Texas Republican Party. The big donors are opening their wallets for Abbott as well, who has over $10 million in the bank and raked in $1.6 million during a 10-day period in early 2011, unfettered by individual donor contribution limits. The AG has made it quietly clear that he plans to seek the top spot in the state, but first he's got to dispatch with Dewhurst to be next in line.
So what does the primary date have to do with anything?
As of Noon Tuesday, February 7, 2012, there are few things clear, and many more things unclear, about the status of Texas electoral calendar and the maps for Texas' U.S. Congressional and State legislative races.
THE SAN ANTONIO COURT HAS REJECTED PARTIAL COMPROMISE
First, it appears clear, as reported by detailed articles in both the Dallas Morning News, and the Austin American Statesman, and as discussed yesterday afternoon in Michael Li's 4:45 update on this story, the three Judge Panel in San Antonio is not accepting the "proposed settlement" offered by Attorney General Abbott and some, but not all, of the Plaintiffs suing the state to enforce the Voters Rights Act.
Specifically, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia has appeared to reject any partial deal as satisfying the Court's prior order and instead issued a court Order notifying the parties that "in the absence of a general agreement between all Plaintiffs and the State of Texas, the parties are reminded that they must follow all prior deadlines."
UNCERTAINTY REIGNS AS NEXT HEARING FOR MAPS IS 8 DAYS AWAY
Second, under the court's previously announced schedule, the next hearing on interim maps is not scheduled to occur until Wednesday, February 15, at 8 a.m.
Third, as many parties had previously stated that settlement was the last best hope for an April Texas Primary, the above items places the currently hoped for April primary in jeopardy and places the calendar for the future Texas 2012 primary in a total state of uncertainty.
The Texas NAACP sent the following statement to BOR regarding AG Greg Abbott's maps and purported "settlement" that is only apparently supported by some of the redistricting plaintiffs. Here's their statement, emphases mine:
The Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches opposes the proposal presented by the Texas Attorney General's Office because it does not address the letter or spirit of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act was created to ensure that all citizens would be able to select their choices for representation at the local, state, and national levels. The proposal of the Texas Attorney General damages the ability of communities of interest, both geographical and ethnic, to pick the candidates of their choice to represent the interests of the communities in which they live and work.
Texas State NAACP President and National NAACP Board Member Gary Bledsoe said,
"The NAACP has stood throughout this litigation with our friends and allies from National LULAC, which has already announced its opposition to the proposal from the State Attorney General. We are proud to say that the African-American Congresspersons from Texas and those Congresspersons who consistently get A's on the NAACP Report Cards understand the significant gravity of this subject. We are pleased that some changes were made by the State from its passed C185 regarding the current African-American Congressional Districts, but the changes do not guarantee that the citizens who increased the population of this state during the last decade have their voices recognized through the electoral process.
"Sadly, but not surprisingly, all three of Texas African-American Congresspersons had their offices left out of their districts. It is equally not surprising that this did not happen to any white Congressperson. The State also drew Congresswoman Johnson's residence out of her district. This stark racial disparity of treatment clearly got the attention of the DC Court as it did with the San Antonio Court."
Some of those matters seem to have been addressed by the proposed plan though there are still some serious problems that exist with the drafting of the Congressional Districts. However, we need more time to study the proposed maps but our preliminary analysis yields the following opinions. We are disappointed in the plan offered by the State of Texas today in an attempt to push through an early primary election for the State of Texas. The plan provides for 70% of 36 Districts to be dominated by white majorities. This proposed solution flies in the face of fairness and awards most, if not all, of the new seats to white voters, even though minorities account for nearly 89% of Texas' total growth during the last decade. It sets Texas on a path to join other Southern States as a full-fledged adherent of the Southern Strategy. Besides having districts that were not fairly treated in the process, African-Americans are reduced to having opportunities to elect the candidate of their choice from 9.3% of the Districts to 8.3% even though they constitute 12% of Texas population. All minorities in Texas deserve to be treated equally and fairly in the electoral process and Texas still has a long way to go to meet that expectation. If the Texas Attorney General is interested in getting the primary on a faster track, then we request that he follow the spirit of the Voting Rights Act.
Now we know how AG Greg Abbott likes to kick off Black History Month: by disenfranchising African-American voters and drawing elected African-American officials out of their districts.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott: an example of why the Voting Rights Act still exists. (Think he'll put that on a tee shirt when he runs for Governor?)
MALDEF, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, has released a statement in favor of AG Greg Abbott's terrible compromise maps. Remember, Abbott has not obtained the support of the NAACP, Wendy Davis, the Travis County Groups, or MALC.
MALDEF praises the maps, since they ensure more Hispanic districts, even though they do so at the potential expense of an African-American elected from Tarrant County, or the coalition of Hispanic, African-American, Anglo, and Asian liberals in Austin electing a Congressperson from our own community. Let's not forget that African-Americans had significant population growth in Texas as well. This is a short-sighted deal by MALDEF. By bargaining with Abbott for short-term gain and hurting other members of our coalition, MALDEF is creating unnecessary divisions between the plaintiffs, and potentially creating a long-term rift between Hispanic and African-American groups.
Abbott's maps are intended to help minimize Republican losses in 2012 and protect Republican incumbents. His real goal is to prevent a split primary, for fear that Tea Party voters would outnumber pro-business and moderate Republicans. The big-money backers of the Texas GOP are pushing for this settlement for their own best interests. It's shameful to see MALDEF going along with Abbott's chicanery rather than what is in the best interest of all Texans.
As long as more Republicans are elected, all Latinos will suffer in Texas.
Republicans pass restrictive Voter ID laws that disenfranchise Latinos more than any other group.
Republicans slash funding to education, pre-K, healthcare, Medicaid and Medicare, on which our Latino populations depend.
Republicans simply don't care about the poor here in Texas. Over 50% of Texans in poverty are Latino.
In dealing with the Republicans for short-term gains this cycle, MALDEF is denying everyone in Texas the chance for fair representation, and decreasing the odds that Democrats will win many more seats this cycle. They can't even keeping the Hispanic coalition together, since MALC refuses to support Abbott's plan. I know MALDEF is a non-partisan organization, but it seems they don't seem to realize any Democrat is better for Latinos in Texas than any Republican. By refusing to maximize Democratic gains in redistricting litigation, they're hurting everyone here in Texas.
On Wednesday, the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate debated in Austin.
Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, working to raise his name recognition, touted his business experience and bragged about bringing down Dallas' crime rate.
ESPN football analyst Craig James claimed that his experience as a football player, broadcaster and parent qualified him for the Senate. "God blessed me with the ability to communicate, and we need people to go to Washington who can communicate their experiences of being a citizen," James said.
Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, the front-runner, faced direct attacks from only one candidate: former Solicitor General Ted Cruz.
"He's a nice man, but his record is consistently been that of a conciliator, it has consistently been that of a moderate," Cruz said. "If you think what we need right now is a fighter, then I am asking for your support."
Cruz is trying fervently to take the "true conservative" mantle in this race. Dewhurst defended himself by portraying his career of that as a doer, not a talker.
But Cruz's attacks may be reaching more GOP ears than Dewhurst would like. On Saturday, Cruz won a Tarrant County GOP straw poll with 44 percent support. Tarrant County's GOP is considered more ideologically conservative than average, suggesting that Cruz may be able to corner the Tea Party faction of the Republican electorate.
Cruz may also benefit from Rick Perry's failure to capitalize on his "Texas Miracle" message during his presidential campaign. Dewhurst talks at length about his administration's record of pure conservative leadership, but at least some Republicans can see that Texas government is anything but pure under Perry and Dewhurst's leadership.
Looks like the Perry-Dewhurst administration could be in for another Texas-sized blow to its reputation, this time coming from inside the state. Great!
What the frick. Apparently some of the redistricting plaintiffs split off and are making a deal with Attorney General Greg Abbott that would help some, but not all of the plaintiffs, such that Abbott can deliver a unified GOP primary to his big-money backers.
AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today issued the following statement on the proposed interim redistricting maps for Texas' 2012 elections:
"The proposed maps minimize changes to the redistricting plan passed by the Legislature and, as the U. S. Supreme Court required, makes changes only where necessary. The Texas Attorney General's Office has worked with a wide range of interest groups to incorporate reasonable requests from all parties to the extent possible without compromising the will of the Texas Legislature. Even though these proposed interim maps aren't fully supported by all interest groups, modifications have been incorporated based on requests made by all parties. Today's maps should allow the court to finalize the interim redistricting maps in time to have elections in April," Attorney General Abbott said.
The proposed House and Congressional interim redistricting maps are the result of an agreement between the State of Texas and the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force - which includes Texas LULAC, MALDEF, GI Forum, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Domingo Garcia, The Mexican American Bar Association of Texas, and La Fe Policy Research and Education Center. The proposed Congressional interim redistricting map is also supported by Congressman Henry Cuellar. Although the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC), the Black Legislative Caucus and the NAACP have not agreed to support the proposed maps, those maps include modifications that address some of the primary concerns those plaintiffs raised during negotiations with the State. The proposed maps also reflect consensus among the State leadership - including Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and Speaker Joe Straus.
::
The maps suck for Democrats, and they basically return us to the partisan gerrymandered nightmare the Legislature drew in the first place. Travis County is split into 5 districts. The 25th becomes a Travis-to-Tarrant monster that was drawn to elect a Republican. Doggett is likely drawn back into the 35th, which again stretches from Austin to San Antonio. Folks on Twitter report that Pete Gallego and Ciro Rodriguez may be drawn back into a district together, the 23rd. Michael Li has links to the maps and data on their past electoral returns on his blog, www.txredistricting.org
::
In various news reports, a LULAC spokesman said they were not on board. It is unclear if MALDEF is or is not on board.
::
First in the in-box, Wendy Davis, with a statement that she has NOT agreed to any deal:
"There is no agreement on a Senate map. Rather than meet the concerns of Texas voters, the Texas Attorney General continues to advance the same effort to dilute minority voting strength as we saw attempted in the 82nd Legislative Session. This is not a good faith effort."
::
Next in the in-box, the Texas Democratic Party, who see Abbott's true political purpose here:
TDP spokesperson Rebecca Acuña released the following statement in response to the redistricting maps released by General Abbott:
"We're greatly disappointed the Attorney General did not deal in good faith with all parties involved.
For the Texas Democratic Party, any maps that do not have the consent of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus, and other plaintiffs are nonstarters.
The Attorney General is clearly terrified that the DC court will find that the state's maps are discriminatory in both effect and intent. Until there's a legitimate agreement among the parties, we support the court continuing to do its work."
::
Update: 2:56 p.m. -- MALC is next in the in-box, and they don't support these maps either.
Statement from MALC Chairman Trey Martinez Fischer:
"MALC worked in good faith with General Abbott in hopes of arriving at a compromise that reflected the changing diversity of our state in a manner acceptable to all parties. Unfortunately negotiations stalled when it became apparent some parties in these discussions had a narrow and at times unrealistic view of the evidence presented at trial. The maps proposed by the Attorney General today are a beginning point, not an end.
MALC has maintained from day one that minority rights should not be subordinated in order to facilitate political expediency. We have presented a fair plan that recognizes the growth of the Latino and African American community while at the same time eliminating discriminatory tactics used by the State to disenfranchise the minority community.
As we have said before, MALC and the redistricting plaintiffs have presented a compelling case at trial in both San Antonio and in Washington, D.C. We will not compromise our principles for the sake of expediency and will not be forced into a resolution that fails to recognize the fundamental fact that Texas' growth is minority growth. We are confident that the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Texas' maps violate both Section 5 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The Attorney General presents an illusion of an inclusive map; the reality is that it falls short of recognizing minority growth in Texas. For instance in CD 23, the compromise district clearly performs worse than it had in the benchmark map. No one needs to be reminded that the candidate of choice of the minority community failed to win election in the benchmark map in 2010. MALC could not accept a CD 23 that is worse off than it was in the benchmark map, considering that reality. While all the parties support a primary as soon as possible, we want to ensure that Texans have fair and legal redistricting maps. MALC is encouraged that with the issuance of these maps the Attorney General has made it clear that he accepts the growing reality that the maps adopted by the state legislature for the state house, state senate, and United States Congress were constitutionally-flawed and require immediate remedial action."
::
Update: 3:10 p.m. -- From State Rep. Dawnna Dukes' Facebook Page:
"A.G. cherry picked groups with whom to cut a deal on the redistricting maps to rush for an April primary. The Texas Legislative Black Caucus, Mexican American Legislative Caucus, NAACP and all of the Democractic Congressional Members except Henry Cuellar (who got what he wanted in the Republican drawn maps) were excluded from discussions and did not support the [maps] issued today by A.G. Abbott's office. Travis County was not made whole nor partly whole. It is still divided into five separate congressional districts. Travesty....excluding TLBC, MALC, NAACP, TX LULAC, Gonzales Litigants [which includes Travis County]...this is not a good faith effort on the part of the A.G. to draw agreed upon maps as instructed by the San Anthonio Federal District Court."
::
Update: 3:23 p.m. -- More commentary on the Congressional map changes, from my own eyeballing and the analysis of folks on Twitter and in the press.
CD-6 was apparently none of Abbott's concern, as the AG ripped into him on a redistricting press call, suggesting that his only concern is keeping the Cowboys stadium in his district. In reality Barton and his lawyer are very worried about the inclusion of more Hispanics in his district, which was already only "Lean Republican." Barton already has two decent Democratic challengers. [via]
CD-10 gets vastly more conservative than the interim maps, with the re-inclusion of ultra right-wing Tomball.
CD-23 gets more Democratic, thus making the winner of the primary, which is currently State Rep. Pete Gallego vs. Some Other Guy, and now potentially Gallego vs. Ex-Congressman Ciro Rodriguez.
CD-27 gets more Hispanic and thus more likely to flip Democratic. It looks like TX Republicans aren't afraid to say "sayonara" to Blake "Ducky Pajamas" Farenthold.
CD-33 goes from a district that was entirely in Tarrant County and favored the winner of the Marc Veasey-Kathleen Hicks primary, to one that spans Dallas and Tarrant, and has more Dallas than Tarrant. This would be a minority opportunity district in North Texas. [via]
::
Update: 4:17 p.m. -- Michael Li posts filings from plaintiffs who don't agree to Abbott's purported "settlement."
Li reports that LULAC, NAACP, Davis, and the Travis County group told the San Antonio courts today that they did not agree to a deal, and that some of them had not even been contacted by the AG's office about this supposed deal.
The plaintiffs also have a list of House, Senate, and Congressional districts that they have problems with, notably the Central Texas boondoggle, the entirety of South Texas, the entire DFW Metroplex, and specific Congressional districts 23, 27, 30 and 35.
This is good news because the courts will need to take this into account and understand that not all plaintiffs are on board here.
Ok, and now Li is reporting that State Senator Estes, SD-30, wants to intervene in the lawsuit since Abbott's new maps.
Good work, Abbott.
::
Update 4:31 p.m. -- Twitter Scuttlebutt.
Nolan Hicks of the San Antonio Express-News quotes Gary Bledsoe of the TX NAACP, who says that they may appeal to SCOTUS if the San Antonio panel selects this map. That makes sense, since the maps disenfranchise the African-American communities in Austin and to a degree in Tarrant County.
Quorum Report says the Court (which one?) has told the parties in redistricting to "keep negotiating."
Steve Rivas points out that only only would these maps cut Travis County in 5, they would cut the City of Austin into 6 Congressional districts. (Chunks of Austin are in Hays and Williamson Counties.)
::
Update 4:45 p.m. -- MALDEF Likes It, San Antonio Courts Say No Dice
The San Antonio court entered an order this afternoon telling parties that the court's scheduling orders would remain in place "in the absence of a general agreement between all Plaintiffs and the State of Texas."
In short, it does not appear the court is inclined - at this time at least - to move up its schedule for drawing interim maps unless the parties can reach a complete agreement.
Under the court's previously announced schedule, a hearing on interim maps is set for Wednesday, February 15, at 8 a.m.
Also, MALDEF issued a statement supporting the maps, which is posted on BOR here.
::
Update 4:58 p.m. -- Lone Star Project Sends Update
The Lone Star Project emailed out a key update on the filing by several plaintiffs (NAACP, Travis Co., Davis) opposing Abbott's maps. Here's the key quote from the plaintiffs' filing, highlighted by the email:
Excerpt from Plaintiffs Advisory in opposition to AG's Proposal:
"We understand that the Court indicated in its February 2nd order that, if the April 3 primary was to remain in place, "all parties" should submit an agreed interim map by today. That will not be happening. None of the parties to this submission has joined in or has any plans to join in any proposed agreement with the state, in the person of the Texas Attorney General, as to interim maps for the districting plans at issue in this dispute. Some have been contacted by the Office of the Texas Attorney General about discussing potential areas of agreement; others have not been contacted in that regard at all. In any event, no agreement has been reached, and none is foreseeable.
That makes it pretty clear that there is no agreement and we likely can't have our April 3rd primary, since there is no agreed-upon map, and the San Antonio court has asked all parties to continue negotiating, in advance of the February 15th court date.
Other key points from the Lone Star Project:
Under the AG's plan, minorities can elect the candidate of their choice in only 11 of 36 districts, down from 11 of 32 in our current map. That's a decrease from 34.4 to 30.5, and therefore doesn't accommodate minority population growth.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, the one Democratic congressperson who signed on with the deal, supported Tom DeLay's redistricting efforts in 2001 and 2003.
Also, Burka says that only 1 of 10 redistricting attorneys has signed on to this plan. So, it sounds like no deal after all.
Ok, last update, I swear.
::
This is the last update for now. We'll have additional coverage elsewhere on BOR.
(The "Guns in Schools" bill has been a major issue for many of us here at BOR, due in no small part to our strong ties to the UT community. Thanks to founder of Students for Gun Free Schools Texas and multiple-time "Best of Austin" Chronicle award winner John Woods for this post. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Over the last two legislative sessions, I organized students against bills which would have forced colleges and universities to allow guns in classrooms. I did so because I lost people close to me in the Virginia Tech shooting, and grew tired of lawmakers exploiting our tragedy to promote a political agenda having nothing to do with campus safety.
We won that fight, in no small part because of people like Chief Acevedo and Constable Bruce Elfant, as well as all the other members of law enforcement who oppose arming college students.
So it was with great concern that I learned Michael Cargill is running for Travis County Constable, Precinct 2.
There are a number of good things I can say about Mike. He is hard-working, warm, and intelligent. He holds to his convictions.
These bills were about opening a new market for firearms sales and concealed handgun licensing classes - and Mr. Cargill was one of those who stood to gain a great deal from that market. You see, Mr. Cargill earns his living at least in part by running CHL Class Austin, which - among other things - markets CHL classes to college students[2][3].
The Twitter feed for Mr. Cargill's business - which may also be his personal feed - offers some additional hints about his beliefs. It seems that Mike Cargill not only supports guns in classrooms, but also guns in bars.
And on July 26th, Cargill wrote, "Rep. Ron Paul of Texas introduced all three bills in the US Congress....We salute you Sir [sic]," referring to legislation which would (1) force the FAA to allow commercial airline pilots to carry guns, (2) repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, and (3) repeal the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (which instituted federal background checks).
Cargill believes in a Wild West version of Texas that no longer exists. Guns should be readily available to everyone, without background checks, for them to carry anywhere they want. One has to ask: if Michel Cargill believes these things, what would his role be as a member of law enforcement?
I worry that Cargill, if elected, will use his office to promote his own business. I also worry that his motivation for running for this position is to give himself a megaphone through which to broadcast his beliefs about guns.
I ask the Democratic voters of Precinct 2 to take a good hard look at the candidates before primaries come around. Ask hard questions. Make sure that the person you elect is a person who represents your beliefs - and the beliefs of Texans.
