Burnt Orange Report

Leininger & the Texas Legislative Republican Campaign Committee

By Phillip Martin

Quorum Report has the story: James Leininger, the well-known Republican contributor who has spent a great number of years and an even greater amount of money for voucher programs in Texas, has officially bankrolled a PAC. Leininger has sank $50,000 into the Texas Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, whose main purpose -- it seems -- is to defeat incumbent Republicans that voted against his voucher plan during the 79th Regular Session.

On the night of May 24, 2005, the Texas House of Representatives debated whether or not to include school vouchers in the school finance bill. A summary of the day's actions may be found in the BOR post by Byron titled "Vouchers Fail in the State House, Did Leininger Offer Bribes?" School vouchers had been one of the key education reforms proposed by Speaker Craddick, largely due to their tremendous support from Republican millionaire Dr. James Leininger.

At the time, many questioned whether or not Leininger was calling moderate Republicans (who were bucking against the leadership to vote against vouchers) into a back office to twist arms, offer bribes, and threaten the incumbents with campaign opponents. Vouchers, ultimately, were defeated, thanks to such independent conservatives as Rep. Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth) and Rep. Carter Casteel (R-New Braunfels), the latter of whom was named Texan of the Year. For an excellent account about what fully happened to stop vouchers, read the Texas Observer article, "Revenge of the Rural Republicans."

The lines are clearly drawn. On one side, you have Leininger, the man with the money, willing to sink fortunes into a single issue. On the other, you have the rural Republicans, those moderates who -- in all honesty -- represent districts not that different than some conservative Democrats, doing what is best for their districts. The rural Republicans didn't get scared by those back office meetings in May, and I see no reason why they'll be scared in the primaries.

The question is -- what happens if/when Leininger's tactics backfire? Do vouchers even have a chance? Does Speaker Craddick have any sort of majority to push his far-right education reforms? Only time will tell...

Stee-rike!

By Jim Dallas

Although I'm biased as all get-out in favor of Chris Bell, I can still call the balls and strikes fairly, just like Chief Justice John Roberts. In today's episode,Greg tells us (with documentation!) that Bob Gammage wanted to revive the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1970s. A lot of people change their minds over the course of thirty years, but one surmises that something like this that would have been right considered malicious, conniving, or boneheaded at that time as well. By framing this as a character issue Greg gets a gold star and a cookie from this fairly unbalanced scorekeeper.

Fox Paid $14,000 For DeLay Appearance

By Vince Leibowitz

Fox News paid $14,000 for Tom DeLay to appear on Fox News Sunday in an 'exclusive' interview on October 2, four days after his indictment. The Statesman has more.

Am I the only one who thought public officials appeared on these shows for free?

VOTEXAS.ORG: It's Not A Hubert Vo Campaign Website...

By Vince Leibowitz

I'm sitting around waiting to watch 60 Minutes to see what Kinky Friedman has to say and suddenly, I see Texas Secretary of State Roger William's face on the television screen in a commercial talking about voting in Texas and how it's "Easier. Faster. More Secure." Then, a url flashes on screen, and I think it says "votetexas.org." Well, it didn't, because there are no such sites. It was actually "votexas.org," supposed to be a cute play on words, I guess.

I immediately know the website is a one of those things to make us feel better about electronic voting. And, it is, but it's very well hidden within the website.

It's on the "Special Events" page, actually:

To effectively implement and educate Texans on the Help America Vote Act, Secretary of State Roger Williams is kicking off the VOTEXAS program with a three-day, nine-city tour of Amarillo, Austin, Corpus Christi, Edinburg, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, Lubbock and San Antonio. Over the three-day event, the Secretary is unveiling the most sweeping changes in election law Texas has seen in four decades.

Now, nowhere does it say "electronic voting," but what else could it mean? This is just a lame attempt to make people feel better about e-voting. How much the commercials and the site are costing the taxpayers of Texas, I have no idea. I immediately decided the site was worthless when I found, in the FAQ section, a notice that the site doesn't list polling places although it has a little button that actually says "polling places." It refers readers to their local newspapers or elections offices. Gee, how handy.

Update: Felix Alvardo Off the Ballot

By Phillip Martin

Last night, we heard rumors from fellow Texas blogs that Felix Alvardo was kicked off the Democratic gubernatorial primary ballot running. Today, it's official.

From the Statesman:

A Fort Worth man, the only Hispanic person to declare for governor, was bounced from the ballot late Thursday after his check to the Texas Democratic Party for the $3,750 filing fee bounced.

The name of Felix Alvarado, a middle school administrator, will not appear on the March 7 party primary ballot, said Charles Soechting, the party's state chairman.

(...)

"I take full responsibility for that. That's my mea culpa. I overplayed my hand," he said. "I'm disappointed."

Alvarado was a very hard worker, and may very well end up on the ballot some day - just not this year. I hope he continues staying active in his communities, and runs again next time.

Updates and Open Thread

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

This is an open thread. What races are you watching?

And some updates...

+ John Courage's District (TX-21) gets an overview in this post at Casual Soapbox.

+ Austin's Green Choice energy is actually cheaper than the regular plan right now.

+ Bob Gammage is finishing up Day 3 of his "Un Nuevo Dia Para Sur de Tejas" tour. A number of readers commented on the fact that his announcement tour excluded the valley, El Paso, and the Panhandle. His campaign is planning on covering them in a serious of geographic tours. So if you are in Laredo or Corpus Christi Friday, go see him. (The recording of the Austin Press Conference didn't turn out, sorry about that.)

+ Juan Garcia is running in HD-32 against Rep. Gene Seaman, anchored in Corpus Christi (pdf). Gen. Wesley Clark will be kicking off his campaign next Thursday, Jan. 26.

+ The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund will be having a Spring Brunch fundraiser next month, honoring Rep. Barney Frank, Lupe Valdez (Dallas County Sheriff), Elena Guajardo (San Antonio City Council), Annise Parker (Houston City Controller), and Sue Lovell (Houston City Council). You can buy tickets here.

February 19, 2006
11:30am- 1:30pm
Renaissance Houston Hotel
6 Greenway Plaza East
Houston, TX 77046

Ray Allen to Resign...Special Election for HD 106?

By Phillip Martin

Via QR and Pinkdome: Ray Allen may officially resign his seat tomorrow, allowing Perry to call a special election to fill his seat before the spring special sessions. Now, this is just QR's reporting -- there's no official word as of yet -- but if it's true, it would make the second special election for a swing district Perry would call in the past few months.

Katy Hubener, a Democrat who only lost to Allen last election cycle by less than 2,000 votes, is the only Democratic candidate who filed for the November race. Presumably, she would have a clear shot at any sort of special election, but I'd have to check on that. There are two Republican candidates filed for the March primary - Tom Johnson, a college professor, and Kirk England, an insurance agent who has the support of "300 local leaders" and attended the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Policy Conference last week.

Updates when/if they come. Everyone should feel free to leave any news, tips, or comments they may know. Just shootin' from the hip, here.

Perry via DMN: April/May Session Likely

By Phillip Martin

From a brief Dallas Morning News article:

Gov. Rick Perry said he probably will call a special legislative session on school finance in April or May, just before a June 1 court deadline for action.

The Republican governor, who spoke with reporters at a campaign event for a legislative candidate Monday, said he probably won't place private school vouchers on the session agenda. That issue most likely would be addressed in the 2007 regular legislative session, he said.

We'll see if vouchers really stay off the table, or if that he's just trying to keep that off the radar screen for Republican priamries.

There's as many theories about when he'll call (and whay may happen in the special sessions) as there are days between now and the June 1 deadline. I could write 1,000 words about what I think will happen, but that'll just waste everyone's time. Whatever happens will happen when it happens (that's a fun sentence to write). In the mean time, we've got to help Donna Howard win her run-off election, be thankful that we have Rep. Hernandez finally filling the HD 143 seat, and continue to get out our Democratic message for how we should improve our public schools.

Who is the Pro-Choicest of the Pro-Choicers?

By Jim Dallas

As I believe I've noted, I'm supporting Chris Bell in the Democratic primary. I am, however, fairly amicable towards Bob Gammage's candidacy. Unless Bob Gammage eats a baby on national television, I'll probably be fairly unlikely to engage in gratuitous Gammage-bashing myself. That means I'll probably spend the next few weeks or months (hopefully until the primary, you know, but these truces don't always last) sitting on the sidelines acting as scorekeeper as the die-hards heat things up.

Liz Carpenter, Sarah Weddington, Molly Beth Malcolm, et al - Bell backers - stepped up to the pitchers' mound today with an e-mail to the Chris Contingency on the abortion issue:

When Texas Democratic women help choose our next nominee for governor, we need to know we can trust that the nominee will not just say the right things about a woman's right to choose, but will also do the right things. We need to know that we can trust him to fight for our rights when the pressure's on. Both of the top Democrats running for governor say they're pro-choice, but only one of them has faithfully stood by us in our political fights, and that is Chris Bell.

The other Democratic candidate, Bob Gammage, said he was pro-choice when he filed for governor, but when he had to choose between placating anti-choicers and sticking up for his beliefs in Congress, Bob abandoned us. Bob was on the anti-choice side of just about every vote on reproductive rights when he was in Congress. The votes may have been taken a long time ago but it’s the most recent and telling legislative experience he offers for this office. We can’t trust Bob Gammage to take the heat and fight for our rights.

Ladies, I have tremendous respect for you all. But I have to call this one a ball, not a strike. Besides the fact that these votes took place nearly thirty years ago (Gammage was elected to one term in Congress, from 1977 to 1979), the characterization of Gammage's record as "placating anti-choicers" is somewhat questionable. Let's take a look at Bob Gammage's actual votes to see why. (Below the Flip)

P.S.Brains and Eggs - which really ought to be added to our blogroll - notes that the Bell campaign summarized the votes here. As I note below, interpreting voting records can be kind of a dodgy affair, and their interpretation is different than mine. I'd like to hear from a Congress expert (which I am not).

The roll call votes in the 95th Congress which were clearly about abortion were vote numbers 326, 466, 550, 595, 596, 603, 681, 690, 696, 701, 1087, 1088, 1290, 1344, 1496, 1516, and 1521. All but one of these votes turned on whether the government should fund abortions, not whether abortion itself should be legal. The other vote (1344) turned on whether the civil rights commission should be involved in studying abortion regulations.

The issue of public funding of abortions was the major abortion rights issue in 1977 and 1978. These votes largely served to clarify and extend the scope of the 1976 Hyde Amendment. As a 1978 Newsweek article stated, "[f]or women who are unable to pay for abortions, the big questions now [was] what exceptions will be allowed in the federal ban." Throughout much of 1977 and 78, the issue raged, with the House preferring language banning funds completely or in all cases except for where the mother's life was in jeopardy. The Senate, however, wanted exceptions for the mother's health and in the cases of rape and incest. Gammage's record (and they can sometimes be something of a Rorschach blot) suggests that his views aligned fairly closely with that of the Senate, favoring a liberalized or compromise ban. Given that the status quo ante in 1977 was a total ban, per the 1976 Hyde Amendment, Gammage's position could be construed as moderately pro-choice. Moreover, Gammage's position seems to have been roughly in line with the Carter Administration's (which seems to have opposed federal funding of abortion).

Laid out, here are Gammage's votes:

* For information on paired votes, see here. My understanding is that you must reverse the position (Yea means Nay) in order to understand the paired vote's real meaning here.

At any rate, it seems to me that one can be both pro-choice and anti-funding. This was (apparently) Al Gore's position during the 1980s, and is the position of the Libertarian Party. Granted, I understand there is an argument that the abortion issue is about positive liberty (female empowerment, etc. etc.) and not negative liberty ("keep your laws off my body"). Under the former, public funding is actually sort of a big deal. But personally, I find it a stretch that voting against government funding for abortion can be called "abandoning" the pro-choice movement. Though to be sure, Bob Gammage's record clearly indicates that he wasn't an automatic vote for the women's rights groups who (in the 1970s) had some fairly exorbitant demands.

On the other hand, however, it is equally plain that Gammage's entire Congressional record is moderately conservative. His Americans for Democratic Action ratings were 20 (out of 100) in 1977 and 25 in 1978. These scores were actually fairly typical for most of the Texas Democratic congressmen in the 95th Congress (only Reps. Eckhardt, Jordan, and Gonzales - regularly scored above 50).

Chris Bell received a score of 100% from NARAL in 2004 (these rankings did not exist in 1978) and 85% from ADA in 2004. Clearly, Chris Bell is more attuned to the interests of reproductive rights activists. Nevertheless, given the very real fact that today's anti-abortion activists are trying to criminalize (as oppose to privatize the funding for) abortion, one cannot escape the impression that the Ladies are comparing apples to oranges, and making mountains out of molehills. To say the least, I am not yet convinced that Bob Gammage is a baby-eater (good for him).

Lowering Property Taxes Won't Fix The School Finance Mess, Solicitor General Says

By Vince Leibowitz

Though it may be politically expedient, Texas' Solicitor General Ted Cruz told the Texas Tax Reform Commission (chaired by former State Comptroller John Sharp) Monday that such an action will not get the state out of legal hot water when it comes to public school finance.

According to an AP story, the commission appointed by Governor Perry is looking at additional state taxes to pour into schools in place of local property taxes:

To lower property taxes by a third, which has been the goal, lawmakers need to find about $5.5 billion a year in new consumer and business taxes to replace current income.

Giving homeowners a break may be a good idea politically, said Ted Cruz, Texas' solicitor general who represents the state in the school funding lawsuit. But as a legal matter, lowering property taxes presents a new funding challenge to lawmakers without addressing the court order, he said.

Lowering the school property tax cap from $1.50 per $100 of property value has been the benchmark of numerous failed school funding proposals during the last three years. Simply lowering the cap won't make the system comply with the Texas Supreme Court's opinion on what would be legal, Cruz said.

The tax cap was intended to be a locally levied tax. But the Texas Supreme Court ruled that school districts no longer have discretion to set their own rates because they are required to fund state and federal education mandates — which eat up much of the property tax revenue — and still not tax above the cap.

The rate has become both a minimum and maximum taxing level, the court ruled. That amounts to a prohibited statewide property tax, which makes the system unconstitutional.

Until districts have discretion to set their own rates, the tax remains illegal, Cruz said.

That means that if lawmakers choose to replace property taxes with new tax revenues, but still lower the cap, districts would still be forced to tax at the new cap and wouldn't have the flexibility to set their own rates.

Cruz said lawmakers could bring the state into compliance by dropping some state mandates to ease spending requirements. Additionally, school districts could gain flexibility to set their tax rates if lawmakers gave them more money and removed the property tax cap, Cruz said.

All this came during one of the group's meetings Monday in Austin. The group has been holding public hearings across the state to seek input for its upcoming recommendations concerning new business and consumer taxes.

AP also noted:

An estimated 15 in every 16 businesses avoids the state's main business tax because of exemptions and loopholes in the law. Former comptroller John Sharp, chairman of the panel, said many businesses have indicated they are prepared for their tax-free ride to end.

"There are going to be some people that are going to hold out until the end, that think that the good Lord put 'em here not to pay taxes," said Sharp, who wants to submit the committee's recommendations to the Legislature by the end of March. "But most of the business community knows that that's not a situation that can work."

So, what's all this really mean? Not much, in the grand scheme of things. The fact remains that the Lege has until June 1 to fix the school finance mess. Perry will reportedly call another special session after the March primaries. However, given the problems the Lege has had coming to terms with school finance in the past, it remains to be seen whether or not a constitutionally viable solution will be able to be hashed out by then.

The fact that Texas' top pols—Perry, Lt. Governor Dewhurst, and Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn—are all in the midst of an election cycle won't make things any easier, either.

Eye on Williamson County has more on this.

Vince Leibowitz is a regular contributor to Burnt Orange Report. He also writes for PolState.

DeLay Denied

By Vince Leibowitz

Most of you probably have already heard/read that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has denied Tom DeLay's requests for relief (a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corups) requesting that the money laundering charges against him be dismissed or sent back to a lower court for an immediate trial.

But, for those who have not (and I appologize for not posting this earlier and just doing links now, but...), you can read news stories here, here and here. Also, Pink Dome and Off the Kuff have some good reads on the subject.

To view the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' logs on the two cases, go here and here.

And, just because it's been bugging me while reading the blogs this afternoon...NOTE to all out-of-state bloggers: The Texas Supreme Court did NOT hear Tom DeLay's case. It was the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In Texas, we have two top courts—one for civil and one for criminal appeals.

More On TAB Activities

By Vince Leibowitz

Though most of it is a re-hash of what's already known, the Austin American Statesman has an article in Sunday's editions concerning the Texas Association of Business and some new information relating to John Colyandro and Ben Bentzin.

The article notes that Colyandro, one of the primary masterminds behind TAB's massive 2002 direct mail campaign aimed at defeating Democratic incumbents, also worked as a consultant to Bentzin's unsuccessful State Senate campaign during the same cycle. Bentzin is presently running for an open seat in the Texas House.

The article notes:

Ben Bentzin, a Republican Senate candidate in 2002, said last week that political consultant John Colyandro produced his campaign's mailers while Colyandro was helping the association with its direct-mail efforts, including a pro-Bentzin mail advertisement paid for with secret corporate money.

Joe Turner, Colyandro's lawyer, said Colyandro did nothing wrong in his dual roles working for a campaign and working with a group that was supposed to steer clear of campaigns.

"He had a lot of different clients during that period of time," Turner said. "They were totally unrelated in most instances."

Indeed, in the world of politics, it's not unusual for a consultant to work for more than one campaign. But the state's largest business organization, through four years of criminal investigation, always insisted that it followed its lawyer's warning not to coordinate its mailings with any campaign.

That the association had an outside campaign consultant helping could undercut its defense that the mailers were protected free speech intended to educate voters about issues, not political ads for candidates.

"In the last couple years I haven't seen any evidence of coordination," Austin lawyer Roy Minton said Friday, speaking of his time representing the business group. Told of Colyandro's dual roles, Minton said, "I just don't deal with hypotheticals based on hearsay."

Bentzin, who is currently running for an open state House seat and has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and association President Bill Hammond said they were unaware of Colyandro's dual roles.

"I had no idea at all," Hammond said.

Until Bentzin this week volunteered Colyandro's role with his 2002 campaign, the public would not have known because Bentzin paid Colyandro indirectly. Bentzin paid Austin printer Bob Thomas a fee for printing the mailers, which Thomas shared with Colyandro.

Last fall, a grand jury indicted the association on 128 felony counts, accusing it of illegally spending $1.7 million of corporate money on 4 million mailers that were sent to voters to help elect or defeat candidates.

State law generally bars the use of corporate money in elections.

The association has said it did not have to disclose the corporate money, mostly received from insurance companies, to the public because the mailers did not urge voters to support or oppose candidates. The association also says it never coordinated the message, timing or design of the mailers with any campaign.

On Friday, Hammond did not retreat from that assertion. "Our efforts weren't coordinated with that (Bentzin) campaign," he said.

The association's publicist, Chuck McDonald, who produced most of the mailers, testified in a civil trial last year that Colyandro was "part of the TAB team" that met frequently in McDonald's office to discuss the creation of the mail pieces.

"He had input on discussions. . . . All (in the room) would talk to me about the message and, you know, the strategy and those kinds of things," McDonald said.

Colyandro has been indicted, along with U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and another DeLay aide, on charges that he laundered money and illegally used corporate money in the 2002 elections through his role with the Texans for a Republican Majority political committee.

Aside from being just another juicy revalation, however, I'm not exactly sure how this will play out, mainly because TAB can't really be in a worse situation than it already is. Second, it comes as no surprise (and I think I'd already heard it before anyway) that this kind of thing went on in Bentzin's campaign since it's already been revealed, in the TRMPAC scandal (sister to this one) that consultant Kevin Brannon worked on the campaigns of State Reps. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) and Dan Flynn (R-Van).

Filing Deadline/Bowl Games

By Phillip Martin

Today is the filing deadline for the 2006 General Elections. I've got lots of e-mails in our inboxes, but today is the last day of my holiday vacation, it's a beautiful day outside, and I'm going to play frisbee golf with my best friend before he goes back to school.

I'd imagine there are dozens and dozens of names, headlines, and press releases out there, and I wanted to give anyone the opportunity to post about someone who's running.

As a side note to this post, there are some big bowl games today. I'm not going to run a prediction on all of them, but I'm certain Ohio State will beat Notre Dame. I'm thinking by at least ten points.

Happy New Years!

All Tom DeLay Wants For Christmas...

By Damon McCullar

...is his majority leader office back. Unfortunatly, it looks as if he won't qualify for the job when elections come around in January. It won't be because his attorney's aren't trying.

From the AAS:

Time may have run out on U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's quest to be tried on money-laundering charges before Congress begins a new term in late January.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin refused Thursday to intervene immediately in DeLay's request to be tried quickly on the first-degree felony charge. The appellate court also denied DeLay's request to speed up the exchange of legal briefs on whether DeLay can get a quick trial.

The decision means DeLay's trial might be postponed for weeks, if not months, and Congress likely will begin a new term in late January without the Sugar Land Republican reclaiming the U.S. House majority leader post.

Of course if the Court of Appeals does take the extraordinary step of dismissing all the charges against DeLay, it may be all for naught. Rumor has it that Abramoff is trying to cut a deal with the Justice Dept. There's no telling what kind of dirt he has gainst DeLay and company.

DeLay has been delayed.

By Damon McCullar

Judge Priest today decided to cancel a December 27th trial until Travis County DA Ronnie Earle's appeal of the dismissal of the Conspiracy to Violate Campaign Law has been decided.

Via QR:

Judge Pat Priest has posted, "The record on appeal will be filed with the Third Court of Appeals in Austin on Monday, 12/19/05. I will be without jurisdiction in the matter until that court has acted upon the state's appeal. The hearings previously scheduled for 12/27/05 are canceled.I will set no other hearings until the appellate court has acted."

In other words, hearings on prosecutorial misconduct and venue will be delayed until sometime in January. If the case survives the hearings, the actual trial would probably not begin until the end of January at the earliest.

Congressional Republicans are expected to hold the Majority Leader position open for Delay until late January or early February.

I don't know when leadership elections are held in the House, but it looks like there's a good chance that Rep. DeLay won't be eligible when they do come around.

The Courage to Be a Progressive Patriot

By Andrea Meyer

I am pleased to announce that John Courage, running against Lamar Smith in CD 21, has been elected as the winner of the Progressive Patriots Fund. Here is an excerpt of the e-mail I received with the announcement in the extended entry, as I am having issues including part of the e-mail.

Thanks to all who voted, and many felicitations to Mr. Courage!

I am excited to announce that you have chosen John Courage to be our first Progressive Patriot. John is a terrific candidate running in the Texas 21st. He's running to protect social security from privatization, to bring affordable health care to all Americans, and to make our country a leader in alternative energy. He's a veteran who wants to bring our troops home safely, and a teacher who will work to improve public education. I'm proud to call John Courage a Progressive Patriot, and based on your recommendation we will contribute $5,000 to his campaign for Congress. You can find out more about John at his website.

With so many deserving candidates competing in this online voting event, it is difficult to support only the candidates receiving the most votes, so we have also decided to make smaller contributions to each of the other ten candidates. I hope that you will also consider financially supporting these great candidates in the future.

Because of the overwhelming response to this event, we hope to do similar events several times over the coming year. There are many other strong democratic candidates running in 2006 who deserve our support. I am committed to doing everything I can to help elect more democrats across the country, but I need your financial help if we are to be effective. Please consider making a contribution today, so that we may continue to help to support these candidates through the Progressive Patriots Fund."

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/morepatriots

Ronnie Earle Fights Back

By Damon McCullar

Remember those "Ronnie Earle is a partisian attack dog" ads? Well, according to Drudge Report, Earle as suboneaed two officals at the Free Enterprise Fund.

From Drudge:

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has subpoenaed two officials at the Free Enterprise Fund in connection with ads the conservative group has run criticizing him for his indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). The ads attacked Earle, who has a history of indicting his political enemies in both parties, comparing him to an attack dog.

The draft subpoena served to the organization demands that FEF communications director Todd Schorle and executive director O'Brien Murray testify in Texas at DeLay's change of venue hearing on Dec. 27 -- the Tuesday after Christmas.

In the subpoena, Earle also demands "any and all documentation regarding the advertisements that have been produced or paid for by the Free Enterprise Fund.

Vote for Courage

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

This is it! Thanks to your help, John is in the lead for the Feingold Progressive Patriot Poll.

The Progressive Patriot Award is an online competition between 11 Congressional candidates put on by the Progressive Patriots Fund (Senator Feingold's PAC) , and comes in the form of $5,000 for the campaign (to be spent in TEXAS) and a little bit of nice national recognition.

John currently leads Colleen Rowley of Minnesota by 3 points, 23%-20%!

Voting ends at MIDNIGHT, DECEMBER 14!

If you have not yet voted, please do so by clicking here.

Latest Developments in the DeLay Case

By Damon McCullar

Via QR:

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has sent notice to the court that he will appeal Judge Pat Priest's decision to quash the charge that Congressman Tom Delay conspired to violate the Texas Election Code. He is seeking a stay on any trial pending the outcome of the appeal.

So it looks like the trial will drag out through the leadership elections at the beginning of next year. Can't say I don't blame Earle. Who really likes being called a partisan attack dog?

Also via QR:

Today, the Travis County District Attorney issued a subpoena for records and depositions from former Tom Delay business associate Robert Blankenship.

According to a 1999 Washington Post story, "Robert Blankenship, a former DeLay business partner, and his attorney, Gerald P. DeNisco, said in interviews yesterday that it is hypocritical for the House majority whip to attack Clinton's integrity given what they said were the congressman's own evasions and misstatements in a civil deposition five years ago.

"DeLay denied under oath in a 1994 deposition for a lawsuit brought by Blankenship that he was head of Albo Pest Control Co. He reported to Congress at the same time that he was chairman of the firm, according to a recent report in the New Republic.

"The Hill newspaper reported yesterday that an examination of other documents in the court case indicate that DeLay made other misstatements about the amount of money he was receiving from the company and also about the amount of speaking fees he collected in the late 1980s.

"DeLay declined to address the reported discrepancies. His spokesman, Michael Scanlon, said: "It's pretty obvious that there are people who are doing everything they can to make Tom DeLay look bad. There's more to this story than meets the eye. And it will become apparent in the future. In the meanwhile, we choose to sacrifice the public relations aspect for the eventual truth."

And finally via CNN:

District Attorney Ronnie Earle issued subpoenas late Monday afternoon for California businessmen Brent Wilkes and Max Gelwix, records of Perfect Wave Technologies LLC, Wilkes Corp. and ADCS Inc. in connection with a contribution to a fundraising committee at the center of the investigation that led to DeLay's indictment on money laundering charges.

Perfect Wave contributed $15,000 in September 20, 2002 to Texans for a Republican Majority, a fundraising committee founded by DeLay, R-Texas.

So what does it mean that Ronnie Earle has subpoenaed all these records? The first set of documents seems to be evidence against Rep. DeLay's character. The second set of records may be used to establish the money trail from DeLay to TRMPAC to the RNC and then back to the Texas Republican Party. I'm certainly not a lawyer but that's the only reason I can fathom for this round of subpoenas. What do you guys think?

Handicapping Travis County v. Perry

By Jim Dallas

A quick skim of the briefs suggest this could be an interesting case.

The appellant's brief presents the following question:

Does the legal fiction of inter-censal population accuracy provide a safe harbor from the stringent one person, one vote constitutional rule for congressional districts when the state voluntarily redistricts mid-decade only to advance partisan objectives and not out of any judicial or other legal necessity?

The last time Texas re-redistricting came before the Court, it was remanded in light of the Court's decision that year in Vieth v. Jubilerir (2004). The controlling precedent here is probably not Vieth(which, to put it gently, was a case with a highly ambiguous outcome), but Cox v. Larios (2004) and Karcher v. Daggett (1983). These two cases are cited a bunch of times in Travis County's briefs. In Larios, the Court upheld a lower court decision which struck down a gerrymander in Georgia. In Karcher, the Court struck down a gerrymander in New Jersey. In both cases, the Court was persuaded that the only reason the plans deviated from "one man, one vote" was because of partisanship.

Another case that Travis County cites is Kirkpatrick v. Preisler (1969), which can be read as establishing a "best available data" rule. On the other hand, the best data, according to the Kirkpatrick opinion, for a 1967 Missouri remap was... the 1960 census data. I'm not sure if Kirkpatrick helps or hurts Travis County's appeal.

This could probably come out in a number of different ways; if I had to guess, I'd imagine it will come out 5-4. Which way, I'm not sure.

Update: I ought to add that in the last couple of years there have been at least a few law review articles that have come out advocating for a categorical "no mid-decade redistricting" rule. The Travis County case is certainly a new twist on "one man, one vote" but one with at least a little support out in the wider legal community.

Update 2: And of course, the Travis County case contains only one of the ten questions that will be taken up together.

Filing Information on All Offices

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Filing for a place on the Democratic Primary Ballot began Saturday, December 3 and continues through Monday, January 2, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. Please note that this is the deadline for the receipt of the application and payment of the filing fee or petition in lieu of a filing fee. Postmark dates do not count.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Some overnight services, such as FedEx and UPS, will not deliver on Monday, January 2. The U.S. Postal Service will deliver Express Mail on that date. Please check with your local post office for more details, or better, file early and beat the rush!

If the geographic boundary of the office you plan to seek is totally contained in one county, you file with the Democratic County Chair in that county. If the geographic boundary has territory in more than one county, you should file with the Texas Democratic Party in Austin, Texas. All offices up for electoin down to the precinct level are listed in the extended entry.

Donate to the Texas Democratic Party to help get the Online Voter File geared up for this next election cycle. They are looking for $7,500 in the next 10 days. Be sure to check out their candidate checklist as well.

U. S. Senator
6 yr. term
Kay Bailey Hutchison

All 32 United States Representatives
2 yr. term

Governor
4 yr. term

Lieutenant Governor
4 yr. term

Attorney General
4 yr. term

Comptroller of Public Accounts
4 yr. term

Commissioner of General Land Office
4 yr. term

Commissioner of Agriculture
4 yr. term

Railroad Commissioner
6 yr. term
Elizabeth A. Jones

Chief Justice, Supreme Court
2 yr. unexpired term
Wallace Jefferson

3 members of the Supreme Court
6 yr. term
David Medina, Place 4
Nathan Hecht, Place 6
Open, Place 2

1 member of the Supreme Court
2 yr. unexpired term
Phil Johnson, Place 8

Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals
6 yr. term
Sharon Keller

2 members of the Court of Criminal Appeals
6 year term
Barbara Hervey, Place 7
Charles Holcomb, Place 8

16 State Senators
4 yr. term
Districts 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 29

All 150 State Representatives
2 yr. term

8 Members, State Board of Education
4 yr. term
Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15

Various Court of Appeals Justices
6 yr. term

Various District Judges, Criminal District Judges, Family District Judges
4 yr. term

All Criminal District Attorneys
4 yr. term

All County Judges
4 yr. term

*Statutory County Court Judges
4 yr. term

All District Clerks
4 yr. term

All District and County Clerks
4 yr. term

All County Clerks
4 yr. term

County Treasurers
4 yr. term

County Surveyors
4 yr. term

County Commissioners, Precincts 2 & 4
4 yr. term

*Justices of the Peace (except those with a place 1 designation)
4 yr. term

Inspectors of Hides and Animals
County Chairs of both parties
Precinct Chairs of both parties
4 yr. term

Pete Laney to Retire

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Having served Texas as the Speaker for many years, Democratic Representative Pete Laney today announced he will not seek re-election.

Laney’s decision not to run for re-election comes after 33 years of distinguished service to the people of House District 85 and the State of Texas. "When I first ran for office, I did so out of a commitment to represent the ideas and interests of the people of our area at the State Capitol. And while the geographic makeup of this district has changed from three counties to 16 counties, my commitment to House District 85 remains as strong today as it did some 30 years ago."

Laney's seat will be hard to hold. He's held it as long as he has because of his power as Speaker and service to the district, two things that cannot be easily replaced.

UPDATE: The Statesman stub is up.

"I'm not leaving town," Laney said. But not seeking another term "is best for what I need to do now."

Laney worked well with then-Gov. George W. Bush, introducing Bush to the country from the House chamber on the night he claimed victory in the 2000 presidential election.

His seat has long been expected to turn Republican once he retires. GOP leaders tried to beat him in 2001 with a dramatic redrawing of his district, but he held on.

"Not leaving town" sounds like either a nice lobbying spot or higher aspirations. Cryptic, but I've come to expect anything being possible with Texas Politics these days.

Greg Abbott gets a gold star

By Jim Dallas

Ditto what Kuff said. The Sony DRM RootKit kerfluffle (especially given that the EULA apparently was drafted by somewhat who must have flunked contract law -- that's the only logical explanation for drafting something so obviously unconscionable) should concern every American about the dangers of corporate Big Brother.

At the moment, I am currently approving of the job performance of our state Attorney General.

Courts Rule on School Finance

By Phillip Martin

Quorum Report has the full ruling. I'll try to put together a summary together for this afternoon. Basically they said that the ad valorem taxes, because of how they were capped, constituted a state property tax that is unconstitutional. The Legislature will have to pass a new law by June 1, 2006, to fix it.

Here's what they said about funding:

"We recognize that the standard of arbitrariness we have applied is very deferential to the Legislature, but as we have explained, we believe that standard is what the Constitution requires. Nevertheless, the standard can be violated. There is substantial evidence, which again the district court credited, that the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change, whether that change take the form of increased funding, improved efficiencies, or better methods of education. ... But an impending constitutional violation is not an existing one, and it remains to be seen whether the system’s predicted drift toward constitutional inadequacy will be avoided by legislative reaction to widespread calls for changes."

SO, the funding is legally fine for now, but it could easily "drift toward constitutional inadequacy" if the Legislature doesn't make some changes -- whatever changes they feel should be made.

Anyone with any better reading/understanding, leave a comment...

UPDATE: Statesman article is up.

The Key Parrothead Demographic

By Jim Dallas

Taegan Goddard passes along word that Jimmy Buffett has endorsed Kinky Friedman for mayor of Margaritaville governor of Texas.

Rep. Coleman Issues Letter to John Sharp

By Phillip Martin

Today, State Representative Garnet Coleman sent the following letter to fellow Democrat John Sharp, Chair of Governor Perry's Tax Reform Commission:

I have read with interest your comments regarding the Tax Reform Commission’s role in saving Texas schools. Without question, the commission’s work to propose a reliable state revenue source could play an essential role in developing a school finance solution, and I sincerely hope you are successful in your efforts.

However, the goal you have set for the Commission - "producing a tax system that is the envy of the other 49 states" - addresses only half of the school finance equation. Our commitment to our children and a prosperous economic future also require us to develop an education system that is the envy of the other 49 states.

The letter raises the important concern that tomorrow's long-expected Supreme Court ruling, and the work of the Tax Reform Commission, may only address part of the problem facing our public schools. How we get the money to our schools is, of course, important -- but how much money we send to our public schools, and what we do with that money once it's there, is as equally important.

We have a serious responsibility to solve the school finance issue for Texans, their children and the future of our state. Just as we have for the past three years, responsible legislators will continue working with educators, parents, and taxpayers to reach a bipartisan consensus on how to use available revenue to improve our children’s schools. We reached that goal on the House floor during the second special session last summer, and we can afford to do no less.

Some figures worth noting: In 1994, the state share of education funding was 45%. Today, the state pays approximately 36% of the bill for our children’s schools. Texas ranks 32nd in classroom expenditures per student, $873 below the national average. What's more, Texas ranks 34th nationally in average teacher salary, $6,232 below the national average and the lowest among the 15 most populous states.

As you can see, there's a lot to be done to improve public education in Texas. Let's see what tomorrow's ruling will bring.

RPT Gets Deferred Prosecution

By Phillip Martin

No, they weren't being investigated for an MIP. The Republican Party of Texas agreed to stop certain campaign practices, in order to temporarily suspend an investigation into whether or not their use of corporate money for certain expenditures was legal or not. From the Statesman:

The Republican Party of Texas avoided prosecution Thursday by agreeing to stop using corporate money in several ways being investigated by Travis County Attorney David Escamilla.

Escamilla's investigation, which is similar to allegations being pursued by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and the Texas Association of Business, is put on hold through March 31, 2007. In return, the Republican Party agrees to stop using corporate money the way it did during the 2002 election. The party's administrative expenses spiked five-fold to about $5.6 million that year.

...

Under the agreement, called deferred prosecution, the Republican Party of Texas agreed not to use corporate money for so-called issue ads that mention a state candidate; to follow federal campaign finance restrictions against using corporate money in the final 60 days of an election to aid a federal candidate; to file the party's campaign finance reports electronically; and to specifically describe every transaction on its reports.

The RPT noted that this action is not an admittal of wrongdoing, but merely a temporary agreement to suspend the investigation. I would like to note that he who has nothing to hide should have nothing to fear.

Editorial: The Year of Change

By Phillip Martin

"Our responsibility, as people who are active in politics, is to change the minds of the disinterested and show them that government can be good again."

Change is hard. People work hard to keep the jobs they have, and even harder to seek new and better employment. Family members get sicker, and many constantly struggle to get better. Parents worry about an increasingly dangerous world of sex, drugs, and crime, while children awkwardly yet inevitably grow into society’s newest generation.

We experience countless changes in a year, and the changes in our personal lives often dwarf our cares and concerns for changes in our social and political lives. For people like me – and for many of you who are reading this – the question of how to motivate those who aren’t habitually engaged in politics is daunting, even after a year like 2005.

Since the 2004 November elections, President Bush has proposed a failed social security plan, overseen a horrific search and rescue operation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and threatened to veto a bill that would ban torture. Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff has been indicted for leaking the name of a CIA agent to the press, and Tom Delay has been indicted for criminally conspiring to send illegal corporate contributions into the 2002 state elections here in Texas. Meanwhile, in our own backyard, Governor Perry and the legislative leadership failed three times this year to solve the public school finance crisis that continues to plague our state.

Despite the cronyism that has permeated state and national politics, there is no guarantee that people will vote for change next year. Our responsibility, as people who are active in politics, is to change the minds of the disinterested and show them that government can be good again. Government – when in the hands of responsible leaders – can make change easier for that person who is struggling to find a job, or for those parents that worry about their child’s education, or for that family in need of quality, affordable health care.

How do we inspire change? My idea is pretty simple, and I'm sure it's borrowed from others before me, but I felt it merited mention as we embark on this year of change. Here it is:

Educate. Energize. Elect.

First, we must educate the general public about our policies and our candidates. For the last three years, we have talked to Texans about the problems facing public education in Texas, and why our plan will bring real improvements to our schools. As a result, we convinced a bipartisan majority of state lawmakers to sign on to our education plan. We must educate the people of Texas about all of our policies and show them a viable alternative to the current slate of government leaders.

Secondly, we must energize grassroots efforts throughout each and every community in Texas. We are not the party with the most money, and we're not going to be for some time. We are, however, the party that appeals most to people my age, many of whom are eager to work on political campaigns for little-to-no money – if they believe in the cause. We must energize students and communities and remember that government doesn't belong to a small group of folks in the back room; it belongs to everybody.

Finally, we must elect leaders that will fight to change the way we do things here in Texas. Some changes should move us back to the way things were, like when the state funded fifty percent of public education. Other changes should move us forward, to a Texas that is willing to admit we aren't the greatest state in the union – in terms of education, in terms of health care for children, in terms of equal civil rights for every person – and improve ourselves accordingly. We must elect strong, viable leaders and build a majority willing to embrace the changes necessary to make Texas great again.

Educate. Energize. Elect. So long as we commit ourselves to those three goals, and put aside the one thing that can drown them all – our own, selfish ego – I believe we can bring more people to the polls and change Texas for the better. That's what I'm going to do, anyways.

How about you?

Republican Moderates Targeted by RPT

By Phillip Martin

A story posted on Quorum Report confirms rumors I have heard that the Republican Party of Texas is targeting the moderate R's that voted their districts and voted with Democrats on school finance and property taxes.

The RPT polled likely Republican primary voters in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 8 election, asking about Prop 2, school finance and property taxes, the Tom Delay trial, and even vouchers. According to my sources, the polls then concluded "would you vote for [name of moderate Republican incumbent] in a primary."

During the Regular and Special Sessions, many moderate Republicans were called into the back hallways and threatened with primary challengers. Seems like Perry, Dewhurst, Craddick, and Leininger are making good on those threats.

Personally, I hate to see this kind of stuff happening. It's one thing if you target incumbents that don't represent the best interests of the communities in their districts (that's why a few Democrat incumbents lost their primaries last go 'round). It's another if you target incumbents because they aren't falling lock-step in line with a group of lawmakers that could give a shit about what the communities and people of Texas want.

If anyone who works for these moderate Republicans need some folks to vent about the out-of-touch Republican leadership, come by some of our offices. We'll share a drink.

AP: Prop. 2 Approved

By Jim Dallas

via the H-Chron, Proposition 2 is projected to have carried by a margin of 74-26.

Vote Now!

By Jim Dallas

Today is the last day of early voting. If you're leaving work, remember, you've got an hour or two left. Swinging by the grocery store? Don't forget to buy toilet paper. More importantly, don't forget to vote!

Sure, you can vote on Tuesday in your precinct, but you can vote now and get treated like a celeb with the supercool short lines.

Meet the New (Judge), Same as the Old (Judge)

By Phillip Martin

From the Statesman:

Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, asked to name a trial judge for the DeLay case, shared the same campaign treasurer and consultant as DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority. One of his largest campaign donations -- $25,000 --was from the arm of the Republican National Committee that's at the center of the allegation that DeLay and his co-defendants laundered corporate money into political donations in 2002.

This revalation comes only hours after Judge B.B. Schraub recused himself from the case. Judge Schraub was the temporary replacement for Judge Perkins, who stepped down due to his money ties to Democrat groups. Judge Schraub stepped down because of his money ties to Governor Perry.

As others have already said, this is just becoming silly. Judges are elected in Texas, and trying to find one that doesn't have political ties will be impossible. To suggest that there's no conflict of interest in the Supreme Court's charge to select an appointee -- considering these reported donations from the RNC and TRMPAC -- is equally impossible.

So, where is all this heading? Will the Supreme Court appoint a judge anyways, money and donations be damned? Is Delay trying to maneuver his way entirely out of the Texas judicial system -- and therefore away from District Attorney Ronnie Earle? Is that possible? Where does this end?

Oh, and my apologies to The Who.

E-mails; The Wright Amendment

By Jim Dallas

We here at BOR get a lot of e-mails from people with agendas (hidden and otherwise) and axes to grind. Occasionally, they are useful to us. Occasionally, they get ignored. And occasionally, there's that little-known gray area.

Dropped in my inbox today was a fairly well-sourced (kudos for that, at least) hit on Senator Hutchison in re: legislation regarding Love Field in Dallas. Although the basic facts appear to check out, I'm not sure what to make of it, and cannot vouch for its veracity. Take it with a huge boulder of salt.

At any rate, this is a perfect excuse for me to start a little (Hutchison-free) rant about the Wright Amendment, a federal law which restricts flights to Love Field in order to prevent competition with flights to D/FW International.

There is no morally pure, corporate-interest free position on the Wright Amendment. If you're for keeping it, you're (whether you like it or not) in bed with American Airlines. If you're against it, you're in bed with Southwest Airlines. That said, the Wright Amendment strikes me as unjust and economically inefficient because it is, at it's core, anti-competitive legislation. Progressives ought to support free and competitive markets. As such, my gut feeling is that it is hurting the public interest. Other Burnt Orange Report bloggers, of course, may have entirely different opinions about this.

Incidentally, the KBH-bashers would do well to note that Ron Kirk and Barbara Ann Radnofsky are both V&E folks. I have no idea what Radnofsky's position on the Wright Amendment is, but I would prefer that she would oppose it.

A Disgruntled Blogger with a Uterus

By Katie Naranjo

I have been reading studies recently about teen pregnancy in Texas and it has made me so fustrated I needed to share some information with ya'll. So forgive me if this sounds like I am preaching, but as someone who was preached to about sexual conduct I think it is appropriate.

Growing up in East Texas was a rewarding experience. The small town charm and friendly faces of the people you know are fond memories. However, when it came to education about one’s body, growing up in a small town school system was an interesting experience.

I remember our sexual education class we took in the 8th grade; it was scary. It consisted of a man standing in front of several classes describing our “gift” (virginity) and the benefits of having our “gift.” Girls are supposed to hold on to our “gifts” and to bestow them on our husbands. In return our husbands will love and cherish us until death. The girls are told that men are evil, and predatory looking for “gifts” to take and put on their wall of accomplishments. However, when discussing rape, he told us that God has a plan for your “broken gift” so those in the room who were no longer virgins did not have to worry. With God and a rededication to your virginity, those who had been raped could repair their “gift.” While describing this process to 8th grade children, the man did not forget to mention that even thought one could rewrap their gift, they would never be virgins again.

That message—the doctrine of rationing the truth to kids in middle school—has contributed to Texas having the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Teaching sex education without giving students medically accurate information they need to prevent pregnancy damages them because it does address methods to handle social pressures regarding sex, teen pregnancy, contraceptives or sexually transmitted diseases.

My graduating class had almost 30 girls who had either had babies or were pregnant by graduation, meaning they did not cross the stage because of their “irresponsible decisions.” Unfortunately for these girls, they were never taught how to prevent pregnancy if they become sexually active. They were only taught abstinence, and then, fortunately, they were provided classes on child care once they became pregnant. However, the state continues to cut funding for children’s insurance (CHIPS), which mothers like those in my graduating class depend on for health care for their children. The state’s irresponsibility to educate the mothers on safe sex practices or to provide childcare has lead to a devastating problem that has run full circle.

There seems to be startling contradictions in the doctrine of Rick Perry’s administration. The voices of teenagers and their children are falling on deaf ears. The Texas government is not taking a realistic approach to sexual education and as a result there are pregnancies that are unwanted occurring at high rates. There has not been a vehicle provided to prevent pregnancy, or a vehicle provided to help the new mothers once they have the child. The young families of Texas are changing in scope, from the young professional at age 28, to the young high school kid at age 17. There needs to be a shift in paradigm and priorities; instead of trying to ineffectively take care of the effect we need to take care of the cause.

Teaching children right from wrong is a parent’s duty, but public polling shows that an overwhelming majority of Texas parents want schools to teach their kids the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the medically accurate, age-appropriate truth when it comes to preventing pregnancy.

With the 2006 elections coming up, I hope that before any candidate who decides to claim God as his partisan reads the Bible before speaking. If ever there are moral imperatives before us to resolve, children without health care, teenage pregnancy, and the contradicting initiatives of the current administration, here they are.

AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL