Yesterday, the Charter Revision Committee, appointed by the Austin City Council primarily to consider the representative structure of Austin government (currently all at-large districts) and make a suggestion to the council, finally voted on its suggestions.
The following motions were passed on this penultimate meeting by the committee:
A motion "to change the current structure [of City Council] to some form of geographic representation" passed overwhelmingly. There was one "no" vote - from Ken Rigsbee (a Republican).
A suggestion to Council to then form an independent redistricting commission (that would exist for future census, too) was passed, based on a memorandum by the the committee's working group. More on that below, but this proposal passed with just two dissenters - David Butts and Fred McGhee.
A proposal for a 10-1 plan (10 single member districts and one at-large mayor with no other at-large seats) barely passed after much discussion. The vote was 8-7. The alternative plan, that failed, was 10-2-1.
This is all just the first step. None of these motions become law until the city of Austin, via ballot measure, says so. And nothing will appear on the ballot until the City Council approves it.
You would think that the big story is the almost unanimous support for single-member districts in the first place, but it's not. That was almost an afterthought, and after all, the activist community has supported the idea for decades. (How else would one explain it getting on the ballot six separate times?) The bigger stories were the other two motions.
The heavily supported idea for an independent redistricting commission is huge. In the past, a plan for single member districts would come with a map, and voters would reject the map. It's almost impossible to draw a map that satisfies everyone, so a commission finally came up with a separate proposal. Here, the idea is to put a commission on the ballot, instead, that would ensure that every group has an ability to affect the actual maps. This commission would have 14-members semi-randomly selected from a 60-person pool, generally meeting three major requirements. The first goal is for a "fully diverse commission" based on "gender, race, ethnicity, age, student status, sexual orientation, home address [geography]." Second, strong stipultions would be in place to avoid any conflicts of interest. Third, the pool should be "highly qualified," a phrase that refers largely to voting history, but also would take into account other knowledge bases, such as statistics.
This step is huge: the independent commission idea, instead of a map on the ballot, probably increases the chances of passage. That even "student status" found a place in the document shows how far this commission was willing to go to ensure that every community have a place at the table. (Special thanks to current UT Student Government Representatives John Lawler and Yaman Desai, as well as a few select Austinites for Geographic Representation, for pushing the student measures.) The City Council should keep with this theme, particularly the diversity section.
The other big story, of course, was the final 8-7 vote for a 10-1 system. 10-1 passed the committee (and received heavy audience applause), but the real story is that nothing passed with an overwhelming amount of support. After months of discussions and consistent agreement to adopt Single Member Districts, the committee barely agreed on "how." The 10-1 advocates needed the support Ken Rigsbsee, who was adamantly against any change at all, to win the day. The alternate motion, 10-2-1 (2 would represent a couple at-large seats), failed by the same margin, 7-8. Each side showed passion, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, no one thought, "Your slightly different plan is good enough." Ann Kitchen rhetorically presented 10-2-1 as a compromise idea, but received no votes from 10-1 advocates. Then, upon losing the vote, some in the minority insisted upon its opinion being heavily represented to City Council, anyway
The lack of clear, obvious agreement will affect this process all the way until the voters give word in November. After the committee confirms a staff report of their decisions, likely on February 16, the ball goes to City Council's court. Overwhelming support exists for both change and the independent commission, so every member will likely support change in that direction for fear of backlash. But as for the numerical structure of a Single Member District System: I am sure that 10-1's victory will be taken into account, but I expect each Council Member to give even greater weight to their own, personal opinion. Mayor Leffingwell has pushed a 6-2-1 plan, so he'll likelywill he continue pushing a hybrid? And no one really knows what the others will back, either. Keep in mind that every current member was elected in an at-large seat.
But once City Council agrees to a plan of any sort, what will those who lost their fight do next? Fighting against 10-1, 10-2-1, or anything else is one thing when doing so in these recomendation and legislative settings, but will the same fight continue to the ballot box? If so, Austin is doomed to stay with its draconian system only of at-large districts. City Council should deliberate carefully and actually take into account the winning 10-1 argument from their appointed committee, and each side should feel free to fight for 10-1 or 10-2-1 until the council gives its ruling. But afterwards...here's to hoping everyone comes together so we can actually pass this thing, whatever that may be.
[Below the jump, you will see the vote count for 10-1, and later links will be added to see the documents approved with the second motion for an independent commission.]
Lee Leffingwell continues his strong campaign for re-election as Austin's mayor, announcing the endorsement of two high-profile Austinites today: Willie Nelson and Lance Armstrong. BOR received the following announcement from the Leffingwell campaign:
Country Music Legend Willie Nelson and Seven-Time Tour de France Winner Lance Armstrong Endorse Mayor Lee Leffingwell
AUSTIN, TX - Mayor Lee Leffingwell is excited to announce today that he has been endorsed by two of Austin's favorite adopted sons - country music legend Willie Nelson and seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.
"I love Austin and I think Mayor Leffingwell has done a real good job of helping keep it a special place," said Nelson. "I'm proud to give him my endorsement."
"Mayor Leffingwell has been a strong leader and I think he deserves another term," said Armstrong. "I hope my fellow Austinites will join me in supporting him for re-election."
Willie and Lance join Lee's growing list of more than 500 endorsing community leaders.
It's no surprise that Willie endorsed the Mayor, since the Mayor renamed several blocks of 2nd Street in downtown Austin as Willie Nelson Boulevard. The photo at right is from the ceremony marking the occasion, which I cribbed from the Mayor's Facebook page.
Notably, both world-famous Austinites are significant humanitarians. As a co-founder of Farm Aid, Willie has raised tens of millions of dollars to help American family farmers. He's also a stalwart supporter of marijuana legalization, which I'm guessing would probably poll pretty well here in Austin. As a founder of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, aka Livestrong, Lance has raised immense amounts of money, awareness, and support for cancer survivorship. He also advocated forcefully for Prop 15, the 2005 statewide Constitutional Amendment that dedicated $3 billion in general revenue bonds to support cancer research, prevention, and detection. Lance is also a local business owner -- his bicycle store (and coffee shop) Mellow Johnny's is a stone's throw from City Hall.
You can view the rest of the Mayor's sizable and notable supporter list on his website, www.LeffingwellforMayor.com.
Austin's mayoral election will be held on Saturday, May 12. At this time, it's unclear at this time if we will have even had our Democratic primary by then.
"We're not going to lose the battle and lose the war and have to pay for it."
With those words from Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole, the Austin City Council voted unanimously today to repeal our old Crisis Pregnancy Center ordinance, and then unanimously passed a revised ordinance intended to survive scrutiny in ongoing legal battles.
Back in 2010, Council unanimously passed an ordinance requiring Crisis Pregnancy Centers to post a sign on their doors stating that the businesses don't provide abortions, refer for abortions, or provide FDA-licensed birth control, and that there is no licensed medical professional on site. Since the passing of the 2010 ordinance, other cities' CPC regulation efforts have come under increased scrutiny, and many have been struck down. Here in Austin, a group of plaintiffs that operate the centers and generally oppose abortions sued the City, claiming that the ordinance -- which simply requires CPCs to state what services they do not provide -- violated their First Amendment rights.
Today, Council considered a revised ordinance, sponsored by Council Members Bill Spelman and Mike Martinez, that removed language from the original that was not likely to stand muster in the courts. (Read a preview of this issue here.) Council repealed the old ordinance--we cannot have two contradictory ordinances on the books--and then considered a new ordinance. The new ordinance requires a sign that doesn't make reference to abortions or birth control. It is strictly a disclosure that there is no licensed healthcare professional on site. That's what was determined to be most likely to stand up in court.
The absurdity of the situation is that CPC's don't have to be licensed. Taxi cabs, nail salons, food trailers, pedi-cabbers, even fishermen have to be licensed, but any anti-choice group can set up shop to intimidate and misinform women into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Many of them also receive tremendous amounts of funding from the state. That's right -- our tax dollars are being used to help these organizations intimidate women and provide incorrect information about abortion, pregnancy, and women's health.
Speakers were vastly in favor of the new ordinance requiring CPC signage, noting time and again that it's about informing women about what services the business provides. Genevieve van Cleve, Deputy Political Director of Annie's List, thanked the Council for supporting women, and reminded all present of the Texas Legislature's unrelenting assault on Texas women, children, and families. She emphasized the rights of consumers to know what services businesses provide, stating "not only can the government require truth in advertising for healthcare purposes, the government should do so." Gen used the nail salon analogy to remind Council that most service providers must live up to a basic level of professionalism to keep operating. Not so for the deliberately misleading CPC's.
Other speakers included a volunteer attorney with Jane's Due Process who counsels pregnant women on their legal options and helps teenagers receive judicial bypass of parental notification laws when needed. She noted the time-sensitive nature of abortion, and that the longer women wait, the more costly or limited the services may be. (This especially true in Texas, where many providers won't perform an abortion after a certain number of weeks -- we're not talking third trimester here, we're talking early- to- mid-second trimester.) CPC's confuse teenagers who want abortions, which can cost them precious time and money.
Speakers against the ordinance were almost all male (of course), and as Martinez pointed out, most don't even live here in Austin. Some claimed that it was a First Amendment issue; others simply seemed to hate abortion. Several tried to intimidate the Council with threats of exorbitant legal fees, which apparently was the main reservation our staunchly pro-choice Council had with the new ordinance. An attorney from the Liberty Institute suggested that if the City loses in the courts, they'll need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars -- possibly over $1 million -- to the anti-choice groups pursuing the lawsuits.
That's a valid concern -- if indeed our ordinance couldn't stand up in court and we lost, does Austin want to funnel large amounts of taxpayer money into anti-choice coffers? That's hardly in keeping with our community values. However, MPT Cole got to the heart of that issue during questioning of Sara Clark, the attorney for the City in this matter. Cole drove the point that if it looks like Austin won't prevail in the lawsuit, we can immediately repeal the ordinance before we lose in court.
The current ordinance is currently being litigated in Federal court. An appeal of the outcome of this first trial would land on the 5th Circuit Court, home of Chief Judge Edith Jones, the noted anti-abortion zealot who recently overturned Federal Judge Sparks' stay on the sonogram law. (Read more about Jones' extreme anti-choice views here.) The plaintiffs in the CPC case will likely revise their filings to sue the City over this new ordinance. However, speakers today were very confident that our new ordinance was carefully crafted to follow existing legal precedent from other Circuit courts, and has a very strong chance of winning if challenged.
As NARAL lobbyist Blake Rocap pointed out, we're simply asking the CPC's to post information that they themselves state is true -- there are no licensed medical professionals on site. If CPC's already admit what Council wants them to admit on their own front doors, how is that compelled speech? Ironically, the sonogram lawsuit may actually work in our favor here, since Judge Edith Jones doesn't think it's an undue burden for abortion providers to perform a mandatory sonogram and require doctors to read off a fact sheet about fetal development before performing the procedure.
Spelman made a motion that Martinez seconded to pass the revised ordinance on all three readings, which requires a supermajority. Today, that would have been a 5-1 vote, since the Mayor was off the dais on an official trip to London to study economic development in the high-tech sector. Passing on all three readings means it's a done deal -- no need to vote two more times on this issue.
So, good job Council. It's great to see them uphold our community values and provide women with accurate information. And a special thanks to Council Members Spelman and Martinez -- both men, it's worth pointing out, who refused to let this issue drop and pushed this revised ordinance through. It's really great to see two males standing up for women's health, and something we'd all like to see a lot more of. Women's health is an issue that impacts our entire community, because it impacts our mothers, wives, sisters, friends, colleagues, and neighbors.
Hopefully our ordinance stands up in court, and can soon be enforced. If CPC's refuse to post the sign, citizens can call code compliance and 311. Likely the CPC's would be given a warning, but if they still refused to post the sign, they'd start getting tickets for Class C misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of up to $450.
We will keep you posted as this issue works its way through the courts.
This week, the Austin City Council will consider amending or repealing an ordinance that requires Crisis Pregnancy Centers to disclose that they don't provide or make referrals for abortion, or provide FDA-approved birth control. While I am very confident that our council members remain staunchly pro-choice -- the ordinance passed unanimously in 2010 -- the question is how Austin's ordinance can survive repeated lawsuits from the right-wing, and what other tools are available to warn women about these insidious anti-choice "resource centers."
Crisis Pregnancy Centers are essentially anti-choice entities that attempt to mislead, intimidate, and coerce young women into keeping their unwanted pregnancies. While many claim to be "clinics," in reality there are no medically licensed staff working at the centers, and many provide no health care services at all. Instead, the focus of these CPC's is to stop women from exercising their right to an abortion, and prevent them from avoiding unplanned pregnancies in the future.
NARAL Texas has more information about these insidious organizations:
CPCs not only fail to address the range of choices available to women; they often attempt to dissuade women from seeking abortion by presenting factually inaccurate and misleading information. Women seeking services are often told abortion leads to breast cancer and psychological distress, or "post-abortion syndrome"--despite no medical evidence backing either claim. Women may also be shown intentionally upsetting images or receive false information about their own pregnancies.
In 2009, the Texas Legislature shifted $4 million in family planning funds to these unlicensed, unregulated centers. CPC's are all over Texas. Austin has a number of these centers, which claim to "minister" to women with unexpected, unplanned, or unwanted pregnancies. In reality, CPC's don't provide women with a comprehensive list of options, which includes abortion, and they don't provide scientifically accurate information about how women can prevent future unplanned pregnancies.
In 2010, Council Member Bill Spelman sponsored and passed an ordinance requiring CPCs to post signage indicating that they don't provide abortions or FDA-approved birth control. Last fall, several CPC operators sued the City, claiming that the lawsuit violated their First Amendment rights. The CPC plaintiffs -- the Roman Catholic Diocese of Austin, Catholic Charities of Central Texas, the Austin Pregnancy Resource Center, and the South Austin Pregnancy Resource Center -- say that the City's ordinance doesn't place such burdens on other providers. However, as The Austin Chronicle notes, abortion providers are required by the State of Texas to disclose that they provide abortions.
What's so ironic is that CPC's are arguing against compelling speech, yet at the same time anti-choice activists are in favor of compelling unnecessary speech through their beloved sonogram law. In the lawsuit against the CPC's, anti-choice organizations are arguing that compelling speech violates their First Amendment rights, even though the signage is accurate (unlike the information provided by CPC's). In the sonogram law, the State of Texas is arguing that it's all fine and dandy to require doctors to perform mandatory sonograms of women seeking abortions, even though the speech they're compelling is medically unnecessary. Compelling speech is fine for the anti-choice movement when it serves their aim of pressuring and intimidating women into not having abortions. But when the speech actually gives women useful, important information -- Whoa, Nelly!
This week, the Austin City Council is looking for a way to amend the ordinance such that the City can successfully defend the ordinance in court. Meanwhile, the city legal department has a competing agenda item calling for the repeal of the CPC signage ordinance. Ideally, the amended ordinance -- put forward by Council Members Spelman and Martinez -- would remove specific language that has failed in other legal tests, leaving a CPC ordinance that can successfully be defended in court.
City Legal's concern may include the amount of time and money spent defending the CPC ordinance. It raises a valuable question: how much taxpayer dollars should we spend defending ordinances that uphold our community values? Similarly, council could explore whether there are other ways to accomplish the same aim of giving women warning that CPC's do not provide comprehensive services or medically accurate information, nor are they under any obligation to do so.
The right wing and anti-choice organizations have an immense amount of funding available to fight these ordinances and drag every other pro-choice or anti-anti-choice effort through the courts. It's part of their strategy to chip away at abortion rights in America. However, if the ordinance stands, Austinites have the chance to give anti-choice organizations a taste of their own medicine. While the CPC ordinance is in court, it is not being enforced. Should the City prevail and the CPC become an enforceable ordinance, CPC's could be ticketed for failing to comply. It would be a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $450 in municipal court. Should the City prevail and the CPC's refuse to post their warning signs, an orchestrated effort to call code compliance on them could result in thousands of dollars in fines levied against the centers.
NARAL has a handy one-click way to contact the entire Austin City Council in support of holding CPC's accountable. The anti-choicers are very well organized and will flood Council inboxes with blather against this effort. Make sure our side has its voice heard as well.
I'll have more coverage of the vote tomorrow.
Disclaimer: I'm on the board of NARAL Texas because I am super-duper pro-choice. If you want to support NARAL, we have a fundraiser this week. Click here for more information.
There's a municipal election this May, but you probably wouldn't know it if you weren't paying close attention. That's because what might have been an exciting election season with the opportunity to oust two of the council members that voted to keep our elections in May has instead turned into a bit of a snooze-fest with no real challengers announced against any of the incumbents.
Nevertheless, Lee Leffingwell is clearly taking nothing for granted as he seeks his second term as Mayor. His campaign has been working hard since November to rack up supporters, endorsements, and the all-too-important campaign war chest necessary to mount a strong re-election effort. Leffingwell has remained active in the community since he was elected, so it's no surprise to see such a broad and deep list of Austinites supporting the Mayor.
This past week, Leffingwell published his public supporter list on his website, and announced an impressive fundraising haul through the end of 2011. The supporter list, available here, is impressive in not only its size (500 and growing) but also in its scale, featuring notable current and former elected officials, city board and commission members, and a wide range of community activists. Not only has Leffingwell been endorsed by his 2009 opponent Brewster McCracken (and McCracken's #1 supporter, Alamo Drafthouse impresario Tim League), he also shows a broad range of support from people who backed both Randi Shade and Kathie Tovo in the last municipal election. Tovo's treasurer Joe Pinelli is on the list, as is former council member Jennifer Kim.
Perhaps the only thing larger than Leffingwell's supporter list is his fundraising haul: an impressive $87,624, with $80,000 cash on hand. That's pretty solid for a campaign that is hampered by antiquated contribution limits of $350 per individual, which, I will note, make running a professional campaign that focuses on voters outside of the traditional city electorate nearly impossible, unless your entire staff can work essentially for free, or you can self-fund to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Today Leffingwell announced the endorsements of the Police, Fire, and EMS employee associations as well. The public safety organizations backed up their support with a full-page ad in today's Austin Chronicle touting not only Leffingwell's accomplishments but the impressive achievements of our city as a whole. Download the ad here. Here's the statistics the ad sites about Austin under the leadership of Leffingwell:
Kiplinger's Personal Finance called Austin "the best city for the next decade." (June 2010)
Austin is #2 on Forbes' list of America's Most Innovative Cities. (May 2010)
Austin ranked first for best economic recovery in the U.S. according to Forbes.com. (March 2010)
Portfolio.com places Austin at the top of the list for "Small Business Vitality Rankings 2010." (January 2010)
Austin ranked #1 among the nation's 10 best places for young adults. (Portfolio.com, May 2010)
Portfolio.com lists Austin in the top 10 for Best Quality of Life. (May 2010)
Austin ranks "low" for Rate of Home Foreclosures according to RealtyTrac's Year-End 2009 Metropolitan Foreclosure Market Report. (January 2010)
Austin ranks #2 among Best Places to Retire & Row in the U.S. (RowingandCulling.com, January 2010)
Grubb and Ellis rank Austin "Best City to Invest in Commercial Real Estate." (January 2010)
Austin is the 9th Easiest City to Find a Job according to Juju.com's Job Search Difficulty Index. (January 2010)
Austin ranks #2 on Forbes' List of Cities Recovering from the Foreclosure Crisis. (December 2009)
As Leffingwell likes to say, if there was a list of cities on lists, we'd be on it, and probably ranked #1!
Meanwhile, former council member Brigid Shea still seems to be circling around a potential mayoral campaign. She filed a treasurer's report with little fanfare back in December, the same day that a poll on municipal issues went out to voters around Austin. However, Shea reported only $4,200 raised from a handful of donors. I hear constant rumors that the campaign is struggling to hire staff. And with so much support already behind Leffingwell, it's tough to see how Shea pulls together a winning coalition.
Let's be clear: challenging an incumbent mayor is very different than challenging an incumbent council member. To say that the Mayor needs to be ousted--and to support the ouster of said Mayor with time and or money--is to suggest that the fundamentals of our city are not strong and that we are in need of serious change at the top. People who want to support a campaign for the sake of "giving voters a choice" or simply because they need clients are nevertheless suggesting that things are going wrong in Austin. And looking at the list above of Austin's accomplishments, it's hard to take the suggestion that things are going in a bad direction very seriously.
Leffingwell ran in 2009 on a platform of focusing on the fundamentals, and he's definitely kept City Hall's eye on the ball. At the same time, he's helped oversee tremendous job growth, especially in biotechnology and information technology, two forward-looking industries that represent long-term potential here in Austin.
While people may disagree with Leffingwell on a few individual votes, his overall record speaks to a balanced approach to meeting the wide range of needs of folks in Austin. Leffingwell's job growth numbers are particularly impressive, with over 2,200 new jobs relocated or created here in Austin during his first term. It's easy to criticize the mayor when you're an independently wealthy gadfly that doesn't actually depend on sustainable job creation at all income levels. It's a lot harder to actually do the work of bringing jobs to Austin in a way that protects taxpayer resources and provides a diverse range of opportunities for our growing city.
The full press release from Leffingwell's campaign is below the jump. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen if anyone will actually take the plunge against the Mayor, and what rationale for replacing our successful city leader they might muster.
With Friday's announcement that SCOTUS stayed the redistricting maps and will review the case, it looks like the primaries for Congress and both houses of the Legislature will move to the May primary run-off date, since the maps won't be set -- and filing may not be extended or resume -- in time to let candidates file for whatever districts we end up with.
From Michael Li's excellent Texas Redistricting blog, here's the election calendar as it looks for the early voting periods for the partisan primary, municipal elections, and partisan run-offs and simultaneous Congressional, legislative primaries. Read the full post here. I added a few additional dates in [brackets].
February 21-March 2: Early voting period (for now) for the March 6 primary.
March 6: Primary election day (for now).
March 6-11: The Democratic and Republican parties hold their precinct conventions to select delegates for senate district and county conventions.
March 24: Democratic and Republican parties hold their senate district and county conventions and select delegates by senate district for their state conventions.
April 7: Deadline for counties to send mail ballots for the May primary runoff to military and overseas voters.
[April 30-May 8: Early voting for Austin City Council elections. added by KH]
May 12: Municipal and local elections in many Texas jurisdictions.
May 14-18: Early voting for primary runoffs and congressional/legislative primaries. (The state has not suggested a period for early voting for legislative and congressional primaries, but the normal primary early voting period is 10 days, which would cause it to overlap with the May 12 municipal elections.)
May 22: Primary runoff election day in Texas. This is also the date the state has suggested for legislative and congressional primaries.
[June 11-June 19, 2012: Early Voting, Austin municipal run-off election, if needed added by KH]
[June 23, 2012: Election Day, Austin municipal run-off election, if needed added by KH]
[Late July or early August: Primary run-offs for congressional and/or legislative primaries, if needed. added by KH]
I'm posting this not only to update y'all on what's happening here, but also to remind everyone that the Austin City Council decided in a 4-3 vote to keep our municipal elections in May, rather than use the state-provided opportunity to move them to November 2012. Laura Morrison, Kathie Tovo, Sheryl Cole, and Bill Spelman were the four votes for May -- just want to make sure all y'alls' Google alerts on your own names catch this!
Their rationale for preserving a May election and its usual abysmal below-10% turnout at a cost of almost $2 million to the City of Austin taxpayers was in the name of "upholding the charter" -- even though SB 100, the State Law that prompted election calendar switches, specifically allowed Austin to move their election without violating the charter. So basically that rationale was false. But, whatever. They also said it should be up to the will of the voters, but grassroots genius Mike Blizzard found a little-known measure approved by the Austin voters decades ago that allows the City Council to move the election if necessary. But, again, whatever -- all of these facts are meaningless in the face of an effort to preserve a no-turnout electorate that guarantees their re-election.
At the time, Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said that in her professional opinion, it was best to move the Austin municipal elections to November to save money in contracting fees and purchase of soon-to-be-obsolete voting machines. Now, thanks to Abbott, SCOTUS, and the redistricting lawsuits, it is exceedingly likely that we are going to have a primary run-off / Congressional and Legislative primary election that begins two days after the Austin City Council elections end.
And that's only if the state truncates the Early Voting period for the primary run-off and congressional/legislative primary -- if the state gives the voters the full 10 day period, there would be overlap in early voting for partisan races and the municipal election.
Hey, I'm just glad I'm not going to be running any vote-by-mail programs this cycle. Three to five rounds of applications and ballot chasing? YIKES.
During the debate about whether or not to move the Austin municipal elections, Bill Spelman specifically said that holding non-partisan municipal elections alongside partisan November elections would confuse the voters. Color me crazy, but I am pretty sure that the election calendar we're going to have now -- statewide and county primary, municipal election, statewide and county runoffs and Congressional and legislative primary -- is going to be much more confusing.
It's unclear right now how much more money this election calendar shift might cost Austin taxpayers. Partially that depends on the time frame set for early voting for the statewide/primary run-offs and congressional/legislative primary elections. We won't fully know until March 6 anyways, because if any primary races go to a recount that will put all of our county machines on "lockdown" so none can be used for the May municipals. That means Austin would have to buy even more voting machines. That costs money in an exceedingly tight budget cycle when Council is already struggling to keep our libraries, parks, and pools open.
Oh, and if any of the congressional or legislative primaries go to a run-off, or any of the Austin municipal elections go to a run-off, we'll vote for a potential fourth and fifth time.
Remind me again why it was such a bad idea for a majority of our Council to exercise leadership and save money, increase turnout, and simplify the election calendar?
Every Austin City Council member has pledged to move Austin beyond coal and phase out of the Fayette coal plant. Please thank the City Council members for their bold leadership in moving Austin towards a clean energy future.
In more good news, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) last week officially rejected a water permit for the White Stallion coal plant after over 2,000 of you sent comments and demanded that LCRA not give another drop of our water to dirty coal. This LCRA victory comes on the heels of San Antonio's recent decision to shut down their Dealy coal plant and invest in clean energy.
These are huge victories for our Texas grassroots movement!
Since the 2009 Austin Generation Task Force, our volunteers have been urging Austin City Council to move beyond coal. You collected petitions, attended leadership trainings, hosted house parties, made phone calls, flyered events, contacted City Hall, and now your efforts have paid off!
Austin joins cities across the country that have recognized coal's health effects and increasing costs are too risky to sustain. It's no longer a question of IF Austin will move beyond coal; it's now a question of WHEN.
Our next goal is to work with Austin Energy and the LCRA to develop an aggressive timeline to shut down Fayette by 2016. If we succeed, Austin will be the biggest city in the country to phase out of a municipally-owned coal plant. This is an opportunity for us to lead by example, and we look forward to the challenge of making Austin #1.
These victories show that when we work together, we can build a cleaner, smarter energy future for our community. Thanks for all your help to get us there!
A crowd of notable Austinites gathered in the library of Becker Elementary in South Austin yesterday afternoon to watch one of the school's more notable alumni, Lee Leffingwell, announce his plans to run for re-election as Mayor of Austin.
In front of most of the local print and TV media, Lee pledged to keep Austin focused on the fundamentals, praised our job growth, and touted infrastructure improvements we've made over the last three years. Lee also proved that he continues to be focused on the future of the city he grew up in, reiterating his support for a rail bond election in November 2012, and most importantly stating publicly for the first time that Austin will set a timeline to phase out of Fayette, our coal-fired power plant. The pledge to make Austin's power 100% coal free was a big claim, and Lee promised to work with stakeholders across the city and region to make it happen.
Three years ago, Lee ran as the strong and steady type, ready to hunker down and lead Austin through the recession. By all accounts, the mayor has done just that, protecting public safety and working to protect both our environment and affordability. However, Lee has also supported a tremendous amount of job growth here in Austin, as Council helped bring Facebook, Hanger Orthopedic, and Sunpower to the city, while also watching many local companies expand and employ Austinites.
Initially when he took office, it wasn't necessarily clear if Lee even planned to seek more than one term. However, he's not only done a solid job, he's genuinely grown into the role. In his speech yesterday (reprinted in full below the jump), Lee touched on many of his less well-known accomplishments in his first term -- increasing citizen engagement via his Community Cabinet, supporting the First Lady's Let's Move initiative to fight childhood obesity, and launching Austin Corps to get a new generation of people interested in government and public service. While Lee has definitely focused on the fundamentals, he's also brought a broad, community-wide focus to the Mayor's office, and seems to actually work hard to engage folks across Austin in major decisions. As a native Austinite, Lee's ties to and love for the community run deep. It's hard to argue that he doesn't make decisions with our entire, diverse city in mind.
Now, the only question remaining is if anyone will mount a credible challenge to the Mayor.
Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole had expressed an interest in running, as many City Hall regulars have heard her indicate plans to challenge the mayor. Conceivably a Mayoral run was part of the impetus for her unprecedented move to unseat Mike Martinez as Mayor Pro Tem after the last municipal cycle. But could Cole actually capture the same coalition that propelled Kathie Tovo onto the council? Cole's voting record closely mirrors that of Randi Shade's, in her votes for the Water Treatment Plant, and South Shore and Grayco PUD projects, all of which were vehemently opposed by the neighborhood activists and staunch anti-growth advocates who supported Tovo. And while MPT Cole's signature achievement, the Waller Creek project, will do much to develop an area of downtown in need of revitalization -- and contribute handily to our tax base when finished -- I'm not sure if a large downtown development is the kind of marquis project that wins support from the Austin Neighborhoods Council and the like.
No other credible names have really circulated among the City Hall gossip-mongers to date. Arguably, the recent decision over whether Austin should move its elections from May to November only solidified the Mayor's re-election chances. Lee's vote to move the Election to November -- a move which failed along 4-3 lines, Morrison, Tovo, Spelman, and Cole voting for the May status quo -- was in line with what the majority of Austin voters, and activists, supported. A November election would have saved the City over $1 million in tough economic times, and boosted turnout to something above the abysmal 10% we currently see. That vote -- and in particular, the votes of the four Council members who would rather keep turnout low and municipal elections in the hands of a small cadre of hyper-informed voters seemingly fit to "understand" the issues at hand -- will probably be an issue along the 2011 campaign trail.
Lee has put together a strong re-election effort. His campaign will be managed by JD Gins, who helmed his 2009 effort. Joe Deshotel (son of the State Rep, not the State Rep himself) will serve as field director. Given the broad and diverse range of Austinites who came to the launch yesterday -- including Alamo Drafthouse maestro Tim League, perhaps one of the strongest supporters of Brewster McCracken in the 2009 race -- it's clear that The Lee Team is already working hard to grow and solidify support.
In a scathing editorial yesterday, Samantha Katsounas called out members of the Austin City Council who voted to keep the city's 2012 election in May- a time when few students participate in local elections due to finals and summer vacation. The entire piece is worth a read, but I've selected relevant highlights below. It's one of the most succinct, smartly written pieces on the subject, emphasis mine.
While many UT students geared up for a trip to Dallas on Friday, Austin's City Council made a controversial and highly questionable decision regarding a seemingly innocuous topic: election dates. Instead of moving the 2012 municipal elections to November, the council voted 4-3 to keep them in May. The highly symbolic move significantly limits the principle of democracy in Austin while simultaneously creating a de facto limitation on the student vote.
...
Their refusal to move the election to November can be seen as a political move calculated to undermine Leffingwell. It's a travesty of democracy when dissatisfaction with a mayor, whether justified or not, supplants the desire to enhance the level of public involvement in elections.
For students, the issue is of particular concern. Currently, the May elections fall during finals week. College students, usually sleep-deprived and singularly-focused during their exams, do not have the opportunity to participate in elections as they might if the election were at another time. Likewise, any possible run-off elections take place during June, a time when most students go back home or are away on vacation. Moving the election to November would substantially increase the number of students able to vote.
...
The hard facts in favor of the November election heavily outweigh the arguments made by proponents of the status quo. Keeping municipal elections in May during 2012 will preserve low levels of voter turnout and cost the city money. Councilwoman Laura Morrison wrote in a Statesman column last week, "There is no compelling or pragmatic reason" to shift the election date. If saving money and involving more people in voting are not compelling enough reasons, what are? As long as our city council members are willing to perpetuate low voter turnout, students have every reason to be worried.
Students will vote when given the opportunity to organize around an issue or election. Turnout in campus precincts can range from the less than 0.5% turnout in this year's June city runoff to the over 99% turnout in the 2004 November presidential election. It's possible that this issue may spur student organizing once again- to step up to make students' voices heard next spring, in spite of the council's decision.
Over 250 Democratic and civic activists have signed on to a letter supporting a move of our 2012 Austin City Council elections to November. It's quite a broad list, and I can't think of the last time this broad range of folks stood up together on an issue that has generated such a divisive vote.
Individuals signing on to the letter include Democratic precinct chairs, officers of nearly every Democratic club, public safety groups, and labor unions. Notable signers include James Aldrete, Mark McCulloch, Peck Young, Katie Naranjo, Fred Cantu, Ian Davis, Amber Goodwin, Lulu Flores, Rick Cofer, Hill Abell, Crystal Viagran, Rachel Farris, Sylvia Camarillo, Alfred Stanley, Celia Israel, Lily Vo, Megan Woodburn, Rosanne Scott, Susan Harry, Jan Soifer, Rene Lara, Joene Grissom, and former State Senator Gonzalo Barrientos. It's an extremely broad list -- it cuts across age, race, gender, sexual identity, neighborhood, and preferred candidates in many of our recent contested council elections. On this issue -- greater participation, lower barriers to voting, and saving taxpayer dollars -- we can all agree. (The full list, and the letter, are below the jump.)
Council takes their third and final vote on this issue today at a special called meeting starting at 1:30 p.m. Honestly, I don't expect Council Members Cole, Morrison, Spelman or Tovo to change their votes and use this opportunity to lower barriers to democratic participation. It's disappointing, and the arguments against it have grown increasingly tortured. But it has triggered an eye-opening debate, and I think it's illustrated amongst our elected officials and activist crowds who fully supports the bedrock fundamental notion of more voters and more participation -- even at potential cost to their careers -- and who would rather keep turnout low despite every opportunity and reason to move these elections.
By the end of the day, a majority of our Council will have voted three times to protect artificial barriers to democratic participation.
You know, at some point, all of our City Council members decided to run for office because -- I hope -- they wanted to do good things for our City. And on Council, there are issues we can debate -- land use, social service contract prioritization, public transit, the budget. But when it comes to making it easier for more folks -- more minorities, women, young voters, students, working class folks -- to vote, that shouldn't be up for debate. It should be something you do when you have the opportunity, because it's an unequivocal public good.
I don't like to think that any members of our City Council ran with the express purpose of stifling democracy, but that's the sum total of their actions on this issue to date. It's sad. But it's galvanizing, and I think to a lot of activists -- self included -- it's a reminder of why we all got involved in progressive causes in the first place.
If you'd still like to sign on to the letter, you can do so by clicking here.
If you would like to join the rally on the plaza before the meeting, we're gathering at City Hall 1:00 p.m.
If you'd like to join the movement to support Fair Elections for Austin, there's a Facebook page you can like.
The full text of the letter, which will be read at council today, and the signers are below. I may not agree with a lot of my fellow letter signers on every race or every issue, but I'm glad to know that when it comes to expanding participation in our democratic process, lowering barriers to voting, and saving a boatload of money (probably $1.8 million when all is said and done), we can all agree.
It's no surprise that Willie endorsed the Mayor, since the Mayor renamed several blocks of 2nd Street in downtown Austin as 
