| Ed. Note. Want a quick refresher on why this is voter suppression? Go to the TDP voter twister website to find out... 4:30pm - I forgot to mention the Texas Observer's blog, Floor Pass, as one to follow today. Democrats continue to lay the groundwork for the case against voter ID. The arguments are important -- all of this is being entered by a court reporter for a reason. Should the Republicans in the House decide to actually see this thing through to the end -- and guarantee their own political undoing when the Democrats take over the House in 2010 -- then the bill still will have to pass the muster of the courts. Republicans who are whining about the process so far should remember -- they chose this path. They chose to place this ridiculous piece of legislation before every other issue facing the state of Texas, and they chose to throw out the Senate procedures in the process. I have no sympathy for their whining about the extended discussion of the process -- either it is important enough to merit a week's worth of discussion, or it's not. 2:45pm - Continue following updates here: A quick scan shows nothing too new. Senator Watson doing a great job asking questions. Senate to break for "10 minutes." I may not miss anything during this class if they break for "10 minutes." Little known rule -- the whole Senate gets ten minutes to break, but each Senator takes those 10 minutes at different times, thus explaining the delays.
2:00pm - Duncan has now dismissed aside all procedural arguments; Republicans begin their inane arguments. It can't be stressed enough -- voter fraud (and every example that they are going to bring up today) is not what the bill is designed to stop. The bill is designed to stop voter impersonation, not voter fraud. And there is no case of voter impersonation in Texas. They know it is designed to lower the ability of college students, recently married women, seniors, minorities, and practically every other Democratic constituency from being able to vote. They know that it will reduce turnout by 2-3% almost exclusively among Democratic voters -- unless the President runs a major campaign in that state (re: Indiana, Georgia). I can't listen to their idiocy on this -- I'll write a wrap-up later. In the mean time, read "Manic Suppression" by Paul Burka and take a look at the excellent post Glenn Smith penned earlier this week: "The Ultimate Wedge Issue in Democracy." I'm out for the afternoon. Feel free to continue the conversation in the comments below. 1:38pm - Senator Tommy Williams -- who admits voter suppression legislation is more important than CHIP or tuition deregulation -- now says that the rules of the Senate floor don't apply to the Committee of the Whole. It's wonderfully symbolic: Republicans will follow those rules that they want, and ignore those they don't want -- that's the entire story of the voter suppression legislation. 1:35pm - Dewhurst/Duncan ruling throwing out the Senate rules basically leaves the Senate without any official rules to operate under. Senator Royce West is pointing out that the Republicans threw out the rules -- and to say now that they don't want to follow them and "apply them to the situation" is beyond logic, reason, or understanding. Basically -- the R's wanted to play this game. The Democrats are better at procedure, because when R's break tradition in the Senate they don't have a way to really get in and fight back appropriately. 1:30pm - Selby breaks a big story: Duncan sent a memo to Senator Van de Putte saying that Abbott shouldn't testify (today he is saying he never suggested such a thing to Abbott...which may be true, but give me a break). Again, from Selby (who, along with Elise Hu is doing phenomenal work today): Duncan didn’t think it appropriate that Abbott testify and told the Senate Democrats’ leader that last week. He still could have kept that position to himself—that is, not talked to Abbott or Abbott’s office about it. Seems unlikely, perhaps, but that’s what’s in the public record.
Here's the relevant quote from the Duncan memo: Given the fact that the Office of Attorney General will represent the state of Texas in litigation, if any, arising out of this legislation, it would be inappropriate to present the Attorney General as a witness in the legislative debate. To the extent there are procedural or technical questions relating to elections in Texas, the Office of Secretary of State may be invited as a resource.
A-mazing. 1:15pm - Dewhurst/Duncan basically say that the rules of the Senate do not apply to the Committee of the Whole...questions on that going on now. 12:58pm - Senator Royce West is raising several points of order on the leigslation. Selby is reporting that Dewhurst told him that the points of order shouldn't be valid: “It’s not valid,” Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst told me shortly before yielding his gavel to Sen. Robert Duncan, the Senate’s president pro tempore, to preside over the Senate sitting as a committee of the whole. Gallegos this morning put a “tag” on Senate Bill 362 by Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, a move that under Senate rules usually results in delaying a hearing by 48 hours. Dewhurst told me it wouldn’t stick; he didn’t elaborate except to call it invalid.
(Click "There's More" below to read earlier updates) |
