Burnt Orange Report

Ben Grant Files for Lt. Gov

By Damon McCullar

Former Lege member, former judge, Ben Grant has filed for Lt. Governor. The Marshall News Messenger has the story. Here is an excerpt, full story after the jump:

Marshall resident and attorney Ben Z. Grant on Thursday announced he will be a candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor in the March Democratic primary.

Grant, 65, a former state representative who also served 17 years as justice of the Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana, said he is looking forward to the statewide race.

[...]

"I realize it will be an uphill battle," Grant said, "but I want to give the people a choice."

Grant said voters across the state are unhappy with the lack of progress by the Texas Legislature on solving the state's school finance challenges.

"There has been a lot of disenfranchisement from both parties because the legislature has been unable to get together on school finance," he said. "It's not an easy task, but I feel I can work with people of both parties."

Former judge, state representative says it's time for change

|By MIKE ELSWICK, Managing Editor|

Friday, December 30, 2005

Marshall resident and attorney Ben Z. Grant on Thursday announced he will be a candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor in the March Democratic primary.

Grant, 65, a former state representative who also served 17 years as justice of the Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana, said he is looking forward to the statewide race.

He shipped his filing papers Thursday to Texas Democratic Party headquarters in Austin. As of Thursday afternoon no other candidates had filed.

Incumbent Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst filed on Dec. 15 as a Republican seeking re-election. Grant said, assuming he wins the Democratic Party primary, he is looking forward to likely taking on Dewhurst next November.

"I realize it will be an uphill battle," Grant said, "but I want to give the people a choice."

Grant said voters across the state are unhappy with the lack of progress by the Texas Legislature on solving the state's school finance challenges.

"There has been a lot of disenfranchisement from both parties because the legislature has been unable to get together on school finance," he said. "It's not an easy task, but I feel I can work with people of both parties."

Grant retired from the Sixth Court of Criminal Appeals when his term ended in 2002. He served as a state representative from 1971 until 1981.

Grant was also a district judge for the 71st Judicial District Court in Harrison County and was appointed to the court of appeals in 1985 by then-Gov. Mark White. He said he spent 37 years in government, starting his career as a school teacher.

Grant has also been a weekly Sunday columnist for the Marshall News Messenger the past eight years. Those columns will cease as of this week, newspaper officials said.

He has also written plays and a novel, he said. During his teaching career in Carthage and West Texas he taught English, speech and journalism.

Dewhurst was out of state Thursday and could not be reached for comment, according to a spokeswoman from his Austin office.

Grant said he has nothing personal against Dewhurst. "I'm not faulting him altogether for the disenfranchisement," Grant said. "But I hope I can be a catalyst on the school finance issue, which is the number-one priority for state government right now."

Also unavailable was Harrison County Democratic Party Chairman Brendan Roth.

County Republican Chairman Sam Moseley said, while he wishes Grant well, he anticipates Dewhurst will continue serving as Texas Lieutenant Governor after the November election.

"Ben Grant is a good personal friend whom I admire in many ways," Moseley said Thursday afternoon. "I know this statewide campaign will be a valuable experience for him."

Moseley and Grant ran against each other in 1970 for state representative with Grant winning that race.

"Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is also a friend, and a person of great personal skill and integrity," Moseley said. "Legislators from both parties say he serves very effectively as our state's lieutenant governor.

"I have confidence in Gov. Dewhurst, and expect him to continue serve our state honorably and well."

Grant said his legislative experience in the Texas House included serving 10 years as chairman of the House judiciary committee. He said he has received encouragement to run from Democratic Party leaders across the state, including Bob Gammage, who is running for governor.

Grant said he has known Gammage since they served in the legislature together.

"I feel strongly the Democratic Party needs good, qualified people to run," he said. "I will speak out on the issues and give the people a choice."

Grant said among the biggest obstacles to his candidacy is a lack of name recognition and lack of funding.

"I'm not rich and will have to spend time in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and other big cities doing fund-raising," he said. Grant would not put a figure on what he estimated it will take a Democratic candidate to be viable against Dewhurst in next November's general election.

"I know it's going to take a lot to run a television campaign in the metro areas and that's about the only way you can reach a large portion of those voters," he said.

Grant was the author of a constitutional amendment that gave the courts of appeals criminal jurisdiction.

"At the time, we had only one court hearing all criminal cases in the state," he said. The amendment helped ease a backlog of criminal cases that sometimes stretched out for years in the courts.

He considers himself a lifetime student of history and the law.

Grant said this is not his first statewide run for office. He was seeking a slot on the Texas Supreme Court in 1985 when White appointed him to the Sixth Court of Appeals. Upon that appointment, Grant withdrew from the top court race.

Along with the $3,750 filing fee he sent to Austin Thursday, Grant designated his sister, Romola Greer of Hallsville, as his campaign treasurer.

Contact managing editor Mike Elswick via e-mail at: melswick@coxnews.com; or by phone at (903) 927-5962.

One Tough Independent Grandma, More Rumors Are Flying **UPDATE**

By Damon McCullar

Today, via QR:

Campaign says she is a Republican

Rumors are careening around Austin with increasing conviction that Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn has decided to run for Governor as an independent.

One rumor is that the Strayhorn Campaign had contacted the Secretary of State's office to verify that it would be open Monday to receive her notice that she intends to run as an independent. However, spokesman Scott Haywood says that they have received numerous inquiries about Monday, but most callers do not identify themselves.

For the record, the Secretary of State's office will be open Monday.

Update 4:13pm
Apparently there are rumor flying around that One Tough Grandma is considering running for Lite Gov as well. Monday is the deadline. We will know then.

SD2: Deuell's Republican Opponent Challenges Him To Debates

By Vince Leibowitz

Though it's been reported here and here that Texas Senator Dr. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) will have Rockwall City Councilman Tim McCallum as a primary opponent in the March 7 GOP Primary, this is a bit of a new twist:

"Today I sent a message to my opponent, Bob Deuell, inviting his campaign manager to meet with mine within a week to schedule dates for two debates, one in January and a second in February," said McCallum. "The people of District 2 deserve to have my opponent and I stand before them and debate the issues that affect them each and every day. They deserve the opportunity to personally ask and to know clearly where we stand on the critical issues."

McCallum gave the above tidbit to the Tyler Morning Telegraph for his standard filing story appearing in this morning's editions.

Though McCallum didn't quite call Deuell a lapdog for the GOP's as he did in the Dallas Morning News article last month ("The incumbent has represented the party leadership well, but he hasn't represented people in District 2"), he did take a few jabs at him:

"It is time to send a truly fiscal conservative to Austin," said McCallum in an issues statement. "Our leaders passed a record-high budget, but managed to underfund schools, underfund parks and underfund roads. I am proud of my fiscal record of conservatism and I will take that to the Senate."

...

"Simply put, we have lacked the leadership that is needed to make progress on many key issues for our district and our state. The biggest disappointment was school finance. I was a member of the district's school finance panel, and we counted on our representative to use his experience and our feedback to further the cause of public schools. That did not happen."

McCallum, 32 grew up in the Austin area and graduated from Leander High School. He served as chairman of the College Republicans while a student at SWTSU, now Texas State University in San Marcos. McCallum came to Rockwall in 2000 to work at the corporate headquarters of 7-Eleven Inc. When he resigned from 7-Eleven in 2005, he was the company's youngest executive, according to the Tyler paper.

This should make for a pretty good GOP bloodbath in East Texas.
However, according to Texas Ethics Commission Reports, Deuell himself has no campaign warchest. Instead, it's all being run through a PAC, Texans for Bob Deuell, which maintained $62,679.44 in cash as of the most recent reporting period. Aside from an expense for political consulting of $500 to someone in Greenville, more consulting fees to Jim Arnold & Associates in Austin and lots of gas and parking expenditures, the most interesting expenditure is a $500 donation to "Drummers for Jesus."

And, depending upon what Deuell has raised between that report and the one due in next month, $62K is a pretty small warchest for a contested GOP Primary in SD 2, which includes all of Rockwall, Hunt, Rains, Delta, Fannin, Hopkins, Kaufman and Van Zandt counties, and parts of Dallas and Smith counties.

By contrast, Deuell spent $73,223.76 in 2000, when he faced a contested GOP Primary. And, that was in the old SD2, which included a different portion of Dallas County. He was also facing an opponent from Smith County at the time. Since McCallum has filed no reports to date, it is unknown how much he's raised or spent.

Given that Rockwall County, at least according to 2000 census figures (which don't take into account the population boom the county has experienced in recent years), has one of the smaller populations of the counties in SD2, with Dallas being the largest, it's too early to tell where, aside from the two candidates home counties, where the real 'battlegrounds' will be. Obviously, given the number of voters there, Dallas County will be a major factor for both campaigns as it is where SD2 elections are typically won and lost. However, look for Kaufman and Van Zandt Counties to be major battlegrounds, too, as both counties have good numbers of GOP primary voters.

Definately one to watch.

HD-47

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Some short notes. Outgoing State Rep. Terry Keel has filed for place 8 on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, currently held by Charles Holcomb.

Now, in addition to Valina Bolton and Jason Earle, Royce LeMoine has entered the Democratic primary for the race. I've had little word on who he is.

(Gene Kelly has filed for the US Senate seat as well, like he has in recent years, though this is the far less famous one.)

2008 National Convention

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Houston.
Dallas.
San Antonio.

All three have been invited to make a bid along with around 30 other cities. Where would each likly host the DNC? Do any of them stand a chance?

Sound off.

A House Update

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

With Rick Perry's special election just weeks away (early voting starts on Monday if you can believe it), I have the great misfortune of being out of town. I'm currently back home in Fredericksburg, enjoying the tales of local politics from Councilman Musselman, eyeing the "medium density residential housing" complex going up down the street from our house, reading the almost final draft of the City Comprehensive Plan, watching Season 7 of Stargate SG-1 on my laptop, sleeping until after 1 every day, and enjoying not being online for an entire week for the first time in years. Of course, seeing 166 unread messages in my inbox (one of 3 anyways) made me reconsider even coming back online this once to check to see how things were doing.

In any case, this update should more more about the Texas House than my own, so let's meander back there. With Andy Brown out of the HD-48 Special Election, University Democrats held an online endorsement election, the first in its history which I had the great honor of creating as my last act as the outgoing webmaster. It officially endorsed, "No Endorsement", for what use that was, not that anything would have been terribly important as most UDems members like myself won't be in town to do much for the election.

Glen Maxey, who was helping the Andy Brown campaign, is now coordinating some efforts for those who want to do what they can to help a Democrat (be it Rider or Howard) take the seat or force a February run-off which would allow us to regroup and win the race. In speaking to him, there has been an agreement reached that if either Howard or Rider wins the Special Election seat, Brown and the other Democrat would refrain from running in the March primary.

In the meantime, Donna Howard is launching TV ads which you can view here. In low turnout elections (and this one could be a record breaker for the "huh-what election" factor), name ID and some TV time can have a effect as Austinites saw in last year's city council Place 3 race where Jennifer Kim made an unexpected second place in the May election, allowing her into the run-off which she won, thanks in part to her effective use of her Firefighter's endorsement on TV.

On top of that, Howard has now been endorsed by the Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) as well as the People for Efficient Transportation. Those Press Releases are included in the extended entry.

But the important thing to remember, is that even though this Rick Perry Special Election was designed to hurt us, we can turn the tide and just like in Minnesota, Democrats can pull through.

The following are the Press Releases for the endorsements of Howards's campaign.

The Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) is proud to announce its endorsement of a strong supporter of public education and public school employees, Donna Howard, in the January special election for the District 48 seat vacated by resignation of Todd Baxter.

"I am honored to have Texas teachers on board this quick special election campaign," Howard said. "They work long hours and still have the energy and commitment to back a candidate who knows firsthand that no profession is more important to our future."

“We are confident that Donna Howard will be a strong voice for improving the salary and benefits of active and retired public school employees,” Haschke said.

TSTA President Haschke urged all those in District 48 who value our public schools and our children’s education to turn out to vote for Donna Howard.

"Donna Howard will fight to stop those who want to take our tax dollars away from public schools to pay for the private education of a privileged few to attend private schools, and we know she will work to provide our public schools the funding they need to give all our children an opportunity to succeed," Haschke concluded.

PETPAC

People for Efficient Transportation Political Action Committee (PET PAC) has endorsed Democrat Donna Howard for State Representative District 48 in the Special Election that begins Jan 3rd (early voting). PET PAC is a nonpartisan, grassroots group of Texans focused on keeping tolls off roads we've already paid for.

“Donna Howard understands the tremendous negative impact that freeway tolls will have on our local economy,” said Sal Costello, founder of PET PAC. “In addition to freeway tolls creating an unaccountable bureaucracy that only serves the special interests, they actually make our traffic worse, as our Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's own numbers prove” Costello added. “PET PAC believes Donna Howard will work the hardest to keep toll tax collection booths off our public highways”

Donna Howard was born and raised in Austin and has spent her adult life working to help strengthen her community. A recognized expert on public education, Howard was an elected member of the Eanes ISD board in West Austin from 1996 to 1999. She was a cofounder of Advocates for Eanes Schools, a parent organization, and helped start the Texas Education Crisis Coalition, a grassroots group of parents and community leaders.

Based in Austin, People for Efficient Transportation Political Action Committee enhances its members’ abilities to improve accessibility, quality and cost-effectiveness of transportation for all Texans.

Contact:
Sal Costello
Founder of People for Efficient Transportation PAC

Sexton on Talton

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Though Texas blogs mentioned her intentions as far back as June, Janette Sexton has officially filed against Republican Robert Talton in HD-144 over in the Houston area. Talton, infamous this past session for trying to tear foster kids out of their foster homes if their foster parents happened to be a same gender couple, deserves to become the latest GOP icon to fall victim to a Run, Everywhere strategy.

Janette's profile on this Democracy for Houston page is reflective of why I am thankful for what the Howard Dean campaign has left in it's wake. The conversion of his campaign into Democracy for America has enabled new political activists, regular Texans, Virginians, Californians, and beyond to take hold of their individual accomplishments, abilities, and idealism and translate that into campaigns and change, not only for the Democratic Party, but for Democracy itself. It's allowing us to fulfill the concept of Run, Everywhere, which is not only needed for rebuilding our state party, but for giving voters a choice and a chance to organize and reclaim their government.

With that in mind, as the filing period draws to a close on January 2, I can only hope that our state party helps to fill out that statewide ticket, which is looking pretty slim right now. More on that soon enough.

BORed: My Apologies

By Matt Hardigree

Sometimes you make mistakes. In politics, you're always making mistakes. But the biggest mistake of all, might be to not admit your mistakes. This is the lesson of Nixon, of Clinton and, perhaps, of Hardigree.

This is going to be all over the news, so I thought I should address this now. I made a call to Kinky's right-hand man Little Jewford and told him I thought he couldn't win the governor's race and should run for agricultural commissioner instead.

First, let me premise this by saying that this isn't in anyway connected with any of the campaigns that I'm working with. Second, let me say that Little Jewford and I are old friends and we've done lots of charity work in the past. So, I didn't think this was a big deal. Honestly.

I just told him what I felt to be the truth. I told him the words of that great Texan, Sam Rayburn (the longest serving and arguably most successful Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in history) when he said: "Any Jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one." I said that we need men of action, not men with action figures.

I also thought that Agricultural commissioner was a better fit for a man with his own line of salsa. I think that's true. He reminds me of a young Jim Hightower. Jim Hightower is America's favorite populist and Kinky is easily Texas' favorite Jew.

I also want to mention a call I made to Shirley Schmidt, chair of the Burnet County Democratic Party, who I told should run for Lt. Governor. I said that there could be lots of money for someone pursuing that seat. I don't remember a specific number, let's just say somewhere between $1.0 and $400.0 million dollars. Which I think is true.

So, there it is. I made a mistake. It's not my place and it looks suspicious. But, I'm apologizing. That's what is important. I mean, let's be honest. What the hell was I thinking? What did I think would happen? It's hilarious, if you think about it.

Cruel Intentions

By Jim Dallas

"Jeebus Alito's a fascist" is Atrios's response to this recent New York Times editorial which asserts, in part, that:

In a second memo released yesterday, Judge Alito made another bald proposal for grabbing power for the president. He said that when the president signed bills into law, he should make a "signing statement" about what the law means. By doing so, Judge Alito hoped the president could shift courts' focus away from "legislative intent" - a well-established part of interpreting the meaning of a statute - toward what he called "the President's intent."

In the memo, Judge Alito noted that one problem was the effect these signing statements would have on Congressional relations. They would "not be warmly welcomed by Congress," he predicted, because of the "novelty of the procedure" and "the potential increase of presidential power."

Frankly, Atrios is overreacting; even at its worst, consolidating power in the presidency is more monarchism than fascism (and I might as well say now that, while I disagree with Judge Alito and probably wouldn't vote to confirm if I were a senator, he's certainly smart, qualified, and not a fascist).

More importantly, though, I think that the discussion raised by Alito's memo is an important discussion that people (not just lawyers) ought to be having. I'll explain why below the fold.

I think most appellate judges - and not just conservative "originalists" - will tell you that looking at the intentions of the founding fathers and subsequent law-givers is an important undertaking when interpreting the Constitution or a statute. This is spurs from a common-law tendency to attempt to read documents as their authors meant them. At least until the 19th century contracts were interpreted (kindasorta) through the lens of subjective intent; the buzzword today is "objective intent". Wills are treated in a similar way. There is pretty much an agreement among most people that laws are not just made up on the spot.

But that's where the agreement breaks down, at least with statutes, because the question is - whose intent should matter? The bill author? The whole Congress? The mark-up committee? Legislative intent is difficult to figure out. Some judges - for example Justice Breyer - will give weight to conference committee reports, while others - for example Justice Scalia - won't. And so while there tends to be an agreement that intent matters, there are many different yardsticks for assessing it.

The New York Times reports that Judge Alito once preferred - and may still prefer - to give the President's interpretation weight. I presume this position is rooted in the logic that "the buck stops there." Rather than having 535 opinions to sort through, a presidentialist would only worry about one - the president's. Already, some folks will give at least a little weight to presidential signing statements. The controversy seems to be how much weight to give it.

I personally think that giving too much weight to the president would be a mistake - and not just because I have an instinctive pro-Congress bias (like most liberals, I think, when it comes down to questions of presidential versus congressional prerogative). The problem with relying on the president is that he (or she) doesn't have to give any opinions at all. Many presidents - like George W. Bush - are basically just rubber stamps, rarely ever vetoing bills, and often giving scarce attention to the contents of bills that reach his desk. To be sure, many members of Congress don't read the bills they vote on. But at least they're supposed to have an opinion (or intent) about them.

The reason why I say this is something everyone should consider is because it really is a question about who writes history. As Orwell wrote, he who controls the past controls the future. Ultimately, judges must decide which history (or histories) should be given controlling weight. All too often I think our current president has been willing to doctor history for political purposes (Members of congress do it too, I'll concede, but at least you get both sides of the story when reading the Congressional Record). Do you really want the judiciary relying heavily on politically-sanitized history? I don't.

Merry Christmas!

By Phillip Martin

Hope everyone is enjoying time with family and friends. I'm jumping the gun on this post, I know -- but I'm about to head off to Church, and then I'm taking a break from the computer for the weekend.

It was a gorgeous 71 degrees here in Austin today. Leave some holiday cheer below, and remember -- just a little more than 10 days until the Rose Bowl!

Here's a little Santa-tracking for you. Enjoy!

What is One-Tough Grandma Up To? **Update**

By Damon McCullar

Well, it's a little under two weeks until the filing deadline and it seems that One Tough Grandma is have an identity crisis. With her poll number in the Republican primary in the sub-basement, it seems to me that Carol Four-Names is shopping around for a way to run for Governor.

First, as noted here at BOR she floated a poll about running as an Independent.

Now it seems as if she is trying clear the field in the Democratic Primary to run as a Democrat. From the AAS:

A top aide to Republican gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn called Democratic candidate Chris Bell's wife last week and suggested that Bell drop out of the governor's race and instead run for comptroller.

Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders said he told Alison Bell that "there would be support for him" if Chris Bell ran to succeed Strayhorn as comptroller. Sanders said that he and Alison Bell have known each other since they worked on a campaign together 15 years ago and that he wanted to advise his longtime friends that they could not win the governor's race.

"I made this call to Alison on my own out of a sense of concern for them and their family," Sanders said. "And I did not make this call in reference in any way to the comptroller's gubernatorial campaign."

To which Chris Bell said he will not run for comptroller and that there was no mention in his wife's conversation with Sanders of Strayhorn running as a Democrat.

His campaign responded on their blog with three things that the campaign is taking away from the story:

First and foremost, let me say emphatically and unequivocally that Chris is not going anywhere. Backroom maneuvering and wink-and-a-smile promises of “unnamed” financial support for a downballot run may get the chattering classes buzzing, but Chris has no interest at all in any race but this one. He’s running for governor because he’s fed up with Rick Perry’s Reign of Error and believes that our best chance to change the direction of our state is to start at the top. Chris is a fighter, and he’s not backing down one inch on this one.

Second, it’s worth noting that while One Tough Grandma was fearless enough to take on Rick Perry among Republican primary voters, she’s apparently frightened enough of Chris Bell’s strength among Democrats to want him out of the picture before considering a switch. It’s a little more validation that Chris’s optimistic New Mainstream message is resonating with Democrats across the state who are tired of Rick Perry’s failures and have no patience for candidates running as “Rick Perry lite.”

Third, it warrants mentioning that Strayhorn’s campaign, which has been floundering for months, appears increasingly desperate as we approach the Jan 2 filing deadline. Rick Perry’s continued low 40’s approval numbers are proof that there’s a clear majority out there ready to fire him next November, and its becoming just as clear that voters looking for an alternative to Perry need to start looking past Carole Strayhorn.

Now, I realize that Mark Sanders and Alison Bell are friends that go back fifteen years and Mr. Sanders says that he was only looking out for the welfare of his friend. I might believe that if the Independent poll wasn't floated two weeks ago. I think that the Strayhorn Campaign has gotten the memo that they won't win the Republican Primary and is now shopping around for a place to run. If that means switching parties again, then so be it. I really don't think Strayhorn would do well as a Democrat again. Here's a rundown of where she has stood in the past:

- She says she is “pleased and proud to be a Republican” and “I consider myself to be a Republican and feel philosophically and personally comfortable with the GOP”
- She calls us the “Democrat Party.” If she can’t get the name right, then she has no right to the name.
- Campaigned for Claytie Williams against Ann Richards, even defending him when he joked about rape
- Was the deciding vote on the Legislative Redistricting Board that passed the map that put Tom Craddick in the Speaker’s Chair (Laney and Ratliff voted no, Perry and Dewhurst voted yes)
- When she switched parties and lost a ton of weight, she joked “It just goes to show you that inside every fat Democrat, there’s a skinny Republican trying to get out”
- She’s pro-life
- She’s never been afraid to take on Rick Perry as a Republican, but it seems she wants to clear the field in the Democratic Primary because she's scared to take on Chris Bell among Democrats.

I guess we will find out exactly what her intentions are after the Christmas holiday. She only has seven working days left to file. I've given you a few facts to chew on, see if you can dig up some more and let me know how would you feel if Strayhorn was to run as a Democrat? How do you think it would influence the primary? Does she still have enough following in the Democratic Party to be effective? Let's hear it!

**Update** 10:16

Kuff and Perry Vs The World have some interesting posts on this same subject.

House Slashes Patriot Act Extention **Update**

By Damon McCullar

As I'm sure that you are aware of, the Patriot Act renewal passed the Senate yesterday. The renewal was for six months so that lawmakers could sort out differences on violations of civil liberties. Well, when the measure when to the House of Representatives, they only approved a month extension. Now I'm fuzzy on the rules, but I think that the bill has to either go back to the Senate for approval or to conference committee to work out the differences.

Also in Congressional news, the ANWR amendment (drilling in ANWR) that was attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill was removed after the Republican leadership couldn't drum up enough votes to end debate (i.e. filibuster). Once the ANWR amendment was removed, the Defense Appropriations Bill was approved unanimously on voice vote. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens has been trying to get this measure passed for twenty-five years! In his latest attempt, he did everything but get down on his knees an beg senators to vote for it. And of all the underhanded tricks the Republican leadership has played, labeling a vote against the Defense Appropriations Bill with the ANWR Amendment as a vote against the troops is about as low as I have seen them stoop.

And finally, yesterday the Senate passed a budget deficit reducing bill that reduced the amount of money set aside for college loans and slashed funding for programs for the poor. The Vice-president had to come forth from his undisclosed location to cast the tie-breaking vote.

**Update** 10:30pm

The Senate met for a few hours today and approved the one month extention that the House had preiously approved.

David Van Os: "The Constitutional Crisis"

By Damon McCullar

This is a press release I received via email from David Van Os, candidate for Attorney General. The thing that I thought was the most interesting about it was the precedents that he sited in the footnotes (case precedent after the jump). For your reading pleasure:

George W. Bush has plunged the country into the kind of Constitutional crisis that was resolved in 1974 by the issuance of articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon and Nixon’s subsequent resignation. Make no mistake about it – the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution covers telephone communications, and warrants are required for wiretaps. (See for example, Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 [1967]*). Federal judges can and do quickly issue warrants authorizing wiretaps whenever the government shows the need. George W. Bush cannot and does not claim that the judges have been stingy with such warrants; rather he claims that the legal and constitutional requirements simply do not apply to him. As if that were not bad enough, he also claims the authority to spy on peaceable American citizens who are engaging in traditional American freedom of speech and assembly. Make no mistake about this – Bush’s claim of the authority to wiretap Americans’ telephones without warrants and to spy on peaceful First Amendment activities is in brazen defiance of the Constitution.

George W. Bush’s arrogant claim that the “executive power” referenced in Article II of the Constitution authorizes him to override the First and Fourth Amendments is a declaration of war against the very notion of a Constitution, because if his claim wins out, then there are no longer any limits on what the chief executive can do, and we will be living under dictatorship instead of in a democracy. To George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzalez, the Constitutional rights and liberties of Americans can be wiped away by a president’s executive decree – my dear friends and fellow Texans, a Bill of Rights that exists only at the sufferance of executive power is not a Bill of Rights at all, and an executive who claims such power is no longer the executor of Constitutional government, but has become by such actions an unconstitutional usurper. My words are provocative, because the situation is provocative when the U.S. president makes open war on the Bill of Rights that so many fearless American patriots sacrificed so much to preserve, protect and defend.

If Bush’s claim of the power to wiretap the telephone communications of Americans without warrants and to spy on peaceful American citizens is not blocked now, he will have prevailed in claiming that he can overrule our Bill of Rights by executive decree. There is no tomorrow on this one. There is no middle ground on this, no room for normal protocols. George W. Bush has declared that he has been wiretapping Americans without warrants, that he has the power to do so, and that he is going to continue to do so. He has declared that he is going to continue to spy on Americans’ freedom of speech and assembly. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet, and he has dared the people to pick it up.

A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the people’s lawyer would pick up that gauntlet. The Bill of Rights belongs just as much to the people of Texas as it does to anyone else in America. As Texas Attorney General I will fulfill my duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, by fighting on behalf of Texans with every means and resource at my disposal against any and all such anti-constitutional federal usurpations. For example, I would move swiftly into the courts as the lawyer for the people of Texas to challenge the Bushite government’s defiance of the Bill of Rights and have their actions declared unconstitutional. The current Texas Attorney General clearly will not challenge them, since he is a Bushite mouthpiece and will not bite the hand of the master who appointed him to statewide Texas public office. Probably no other Texas public official will challenge them either; but under the Texas Constitution it is the Attorney General, more than other state office-holder, whom the people of Texas most depend upon to fight for their Constitutional rights and liberties; and I will do so against all comers.

*United States Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark in Berger v. New York (1967): “They [previous Supreme Court decisions] found ‘conversation’ was within the Fourth Amendment’s protections, and that the use of electronic devices to capture it was a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Amendment, and we so hold. …The purpose of the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment [is] to keep the state out of constitutionally protected areas until it has reason to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed.” (Justice Tom Clark was from Texas.) Justice Louis Brandeis, 77 years ago in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928): “The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. …As means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants [two examples of British abuse that contributed to the American Revolution] are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping. …The makers of our Constitution…conferred, as against the government, the right to be left alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

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.

Armbrister Not Running in 2006

By Damon McCullar

Via The Victoria Advocate:

Ken Armbrister, the former Victoria policeman who rose to become the powerful chairman of the Texas Senate's Natural Resources Committee, will not seek re-election. "After 38 years of public service, it's time for new challenges," said Armbrister, in a news release issued late Monday afternoon. The senator said he has made no decisions on future plans, other than finishing his term, which ends January 2007. Armbrister, a Democrat, was first elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1983. Victoria-area voters sent him on to the Senate in 1986.

As glad as I am to see Sen. Armbrister and his conservative voting record go, it means that we will probably have a Republican take his seat in that very conservative district, putting the Democrats that much further from a majority in the Texas Senate.

Rep. Ana Hernandez Sworn Into Office

By Phillip Martin

In a ceremony on the House floor this afternoon, Ana Hernandez was sworn into the office of State Representative of District 143. Rep. Hernandez replaces the seat vacated by the unexpected death of Rep. Joe Moreno back in May.

Rep. Hernandez was sworn in by Rep. Paul Moreno (D - El Paso), a fellow Mexican-American and senior member of the House of Representatives. During her brief speech, Rep. Hernandez told the story of how, after she won the special election a few weeks ago, she drove around the district and thought of all the people she now represents, and how eager she is to begin fighting for their families and their futures. She thanked her supporters -- many of whom joined her in attendance, as well as many House Democrats -- and promised to do her best for her district.

On behalf of the BOR crew, I'd like to wish Rep. Hernandez all the best as she begins her work representing House District 143.

Federal Judge Rules Intelligent Design Out of the Classroom

By Damon McCullar

A federal judge today ruled that a statement read before studying the theory of evolution in the Dover, PA school system is unconstitutional.

From the Washington Post:

In his ruling today, Jones said several members of the Dover Area School Board repeatedly lied during the trial to cover their motives for promoting intelligent design even as they professed religious beliefs, the Associated Press reported.

I'm impressed. I was sure that this dressing up of creationism would be able to sneak it's way into the classroom. I guess over the years I've become a bit of a cynic when it comes to the religious right. It just seemed to me that they were a overpowering influence in our country that was insurmountable. I guess they aren't as powerful as I figured. Maybe brighter days are ahead.

New from Jib Jab: 2-0-5

By Damon McCullar

From the creators of This Land, It's Good To Be in DC, Second Term and Big Box Mart comes a year in review politcal parody, 2-0-5. Check it out it's worth a few chuckles.

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.

President Bush Bashes NY Times

By Phillip Martin

In a televised address, President Bush said that the New York Times article that described the secret authorization of wiretapping and eavesdropping should not have been released, and that sharing this information with the public "puts our citizens at risk."

From the transcript of his remarks:

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies.

Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

The secret program described in the Times article differs from wiretapping that is legal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. That act allows for a secret court to receive and approve warrants that seek to gather information for any person or persons that could be a threat to national security. A recent FISA report showed that, in the past three years, the issuance and approval for such warrants has more than doubled from previous years. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC):

There were 1758 applications for secret surveillance in 2004, an all-time high. None of the applications for secret suveillance warrants were denied. In 2004, as in 2003, more secret surveillance warrants were granted than federal wiretap warrants, which have more stringent standards. A report on federal wiretapm warrants in 2004 reveals that state and federal courts authorized 1,710 interceptions in 2004, an increase of 19 percent over 2003 and more than in any previous year. Federal officials made an all-time high 730 intercept applications in 2004, a 26 percent increase over 2003.

The secret program President Bush has reauthorized 30 times, however, allows for the covert eavesdropping on any domestic communication without court-approved warrants. This change in intelligence gathering policy surprised many Senators and Congressmen -- especially since FISA already allows for immediate, 72-hour emergency wiretapping without court approval. Should an emergency come up immediately, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on any person for three days, so long as they receive the warrant after the three days. Considering the fact that not a single warrant was been denied in 2004, it seems to some that existing law would be more than sufficient for any national security purposes.

President Bush didn't explicitly detail why there was a need to change the intelligence gathering policy, simply stating that the secret program "is crucial to saving American lives."

Partially due to the contents of the controversial NY Times article, the Patriot Act was not approved by the Senate on Friday. President Bush was not pleased with the Senate's delay, saying:

A minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), who is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that his committee plans to investigate the matter. In the mean time, the Patrioat Act remains in the Senate, and President Bush plans to continue reauthorizing his secret eavesdropping program as long as is necessary.

No word yet on whether or not the New York Times story was in fact illegal, as President Bush suggested.

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

Andy Brown is Gearing Up for HD 48 Primary

By Katie Naranjo

Andy Brown, already a candidate for the March 7, 2006, Democratic primary, will not run in the January special election to fill the House District 48 seat.

“Today, the Court affirmed a ruling by the Secretary of State that I disagree with but accept. However, I concede nothing to Rick Perry or Ben Bentzin now, or in the future. I”ll continue to be a voice for education,ethics and insurance reform in District 48.”

“I am especially grateful to the Central Austin Democrats for their recent endorsement, and will continue to do everything possible to make sure a Democrat wins District 48,” said Brown.

Chris Bell Rails Against Gov. Perry's Executive Order to Enhance College Readiness Efforts

By Damon McCullar

Apparently Gov. Perry has just noticed that there is a problem with the the readiness of our high school students entering college. According to his press release, the new executive order will:

* A new system of college readiness indicators for every high school, including a requirement that schools report the number of graduates who have to take remedial courses when they get to college,
* Voluntary end-of-course assessments for technology-related subjects like math and science to more accurately measure student progress,
* An electronic academic records system to facilitate the transfer of student transcripts between school districts and between high schools and colleges. This will reduce paperwork requirements and make it easier for students to apply to multiple colleges at once,
* Summer residential programs at Texas colleges and universities for secondary students who excel to provide enhanced learning opportunities, and
* A pilot program to pay the cost of college entrance exams for economically disadvantaged students.

These programs will cost an estimated four million dollars. Former Congressman and Gubernatorial Candidate Chris Bell responded by saying:

“It took Rick Perry five years to figure out that college readiness is a growing problem, but what’s he’s proposing doesn’t address the real cause. Kids are leaving high school less prepared for a higher education under Rick Perry’s administration because high-stakes testing has corrupted the curriculum and driven teachers from the profession. What we need to get our kids ready for college are higher teacher salaries, uncensored textbooks, and safe classrooms where our kids can learn something more valuable than just how to take yet another standardized test.”

Some statistics on college readiness of Texas high school students:

In 1993, the year high-stakes testing was introduced, 78 % of the graduating high school seniors who took the state’s college readiness test (the TASP exam) passed all 3 sections. By 2002, that rate had plummeted to below 22 %.

Texas ranks 3rd from the bottom in average SAT scores. The 995 average score for Texas students in 2005 was more than 30 points below the national mean.

It's all well and good the Governor wants to fix this "emergent" problem, but what happens when these students are all ready to enter college and then get smacked with a $3600 bill for tuition and fees. That's no joke folks, that's how much I pay to take more than 12 semester hours (flat rate tuition plan) in the College of Natural Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin. Earlier this semester, the Advisory Board recommended hiking tuition by almost 10% over the next two years. The recommendation was for a 5.5% increase for the 2006-2007 academic year and then a 3.9% hike the year after. Chris Bell has also spoke out on this by saying that tuition deregulation has been a total failure and that we should but the genie back in the bottle on this issue.

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.

Senate Blocks Renewal of Expiring Provisions of the USA Patriot Act

By Damon McCullar

According to Reuters, the Senate has block renewal of the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act On a vote of 52-47, the resolution fell 8 votes short of the the 60 needed to end debate and bring the measure to a vote.

Senate Democratic and Republican foes of the proposed renewal said the law could be swiftly reauthorized if lawmakers agreed to better balance national security with civil liberties.

"None of us wants it to expire, and those who threaten to let it expire rather than fix it are playing a dangerous game," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.

Proponents of the legislation warned that much of sweeping anti-terror law was to expire at the end of the month, and if it did, the nation could be placed at increased risk.

"We have a clear choice before us today: Do we advance against terrorism to make America safer or do we retreat," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said shortly before the vote.

It seems that the tide is turning in at least one of our houses of Congress. It's ironic that "The People's House", otherwise known as the House of Representatives can't do the will of the people but the Senate can. Hopefully that will change in November.

David Van Os Blasts AG Abbott on Redistricting

By Damon McCullar

In a press release today, David Van Os took Attorney General Greg Abbott to task on his role in the on going redistricting dispute.

From the press release:

“A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the People's Lawyer would have long ago sided with the people rather than with the Republican Party political bosses when it came to Texas redistricting. Greg Abbott may be concerned that Texans will learn the truth about their Attorney General’s complicity with the rest of the Republican Party’s power-grabbing political hacks in their arrogant pursuit of one-party rule – and well he should be.”

David Van Os

The complete press release is after the jump.

Van Os’s Complete Statement:

“When he got the news that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments in the Texas redistricting case, Bushite Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott quickly issued a press release blithely stating that it was ‘not surprising’ for the Supreme Court to hear arguments on the case and that he expects the Court will find the Texas redistricting plan to be ‘wholly constitutional.’

”First of all, every lawyer worth his salt knows that the U.S. Supreme Court only rarely grants review in cases appealed to it. Putting aside the fact that his statement is misleading, one must wonder why Greg Abbott felt it necessary to editorialize at all. Is he perhaps feeling defensive about the role he played as Texas Attorney General in giving his legal blessing to Tom DeLay’s power grab? Could he be feeling defensive about the fact that he was not successful in trying to persuade the Supreme Court to summarily affirm the lower court's decision without hearing argument? Or is he perhaps defensive because the professional legal staff in the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that the Texas redistricting was illegal?

”Remember, this is the same Greg Abbott who tried to convince the Texas courts they had no authority to take action over an unconstitutional school finance system. Even the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court had no stomach for that stellar argument.

”A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the People's Lawyer would have long ago sided with the people rather than with the Republican Party political bosses when it came to Texas redistricting. Greg Abbott may be concerned that Texans will learn the truth about their Attorney General’s complicity with the rest of the Republican Party’s power-grabbing political hacks in their arrogant pursuit of one-party rule – and well he should be.”

Wiktory!

By Jim Dallas

This is either bad news for Britannica or good news for Wikipedia. For the record, I currently have Weird Al's "Everything You Know is Wrong" stuck in mind.

Kinky Ads on TV

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I was at Kerbey Lane the other night, chatting with University Democrat's President Alex Hunt, President-Elect Brandon Chicotsky, and Austin consultant Glen Maxey about the District 48 race, state student strategies, and University Democrats, when I saw one of the new Kinky TV ads I had received an e-mail about Monday.

Running in Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin and El Paso (what's the price tag on that I'd like to know), they feature Kinky, or rather, his 13-inch action figure responding to Press Questions.

You can watch the 3 ads online here. If you want to catch one of the ads, they will be running on the following programs.

Update: From the comments, a very good point...

I had to do a check to find out that Friedman's campaign manager is former Senator Dean Barkley (IP-MN). When Jesse Ventura ran for Governor in 1998, North Woods Advertising released ads with a Jesse Ventura action figure.

The Ventura ad is here

In Politics, everything old is new again.

Ellen
Oprah
Meet the Press
Face the Nation
Nightline
Today Show
GMA
Saturday Night Live
Early and late news shows
Jimmy Kimmel
Letterman
Leno
Entertainment Tonight
Tyra Banks
Daytime soaps
Dr. Phil
Friends
CSI
Simpsons
King of the Hill
Everybody Loves Raymond
Frasier
Seinfeld
Fear Factor
Bernie Mac
That 70s Show
Malcolm in the Middle
CNN Headline News

HD 48 Update

By Damon McCullar

Andy Brown petitioned a week or so ago to run in the HD 48 special election even though he did not meet the one-year residency requirement.

Via QR:

Democratic candidate for House District 48 Andy Brown responded to the Secretary of State’s denial of a place on the special election ballot with a federal lawsuit challenging the residency requirement in a special election.

Brown moved to the district in May to meet the one-year residency requirement for the November general election. Abruptly, state Rep. Todd Baxter (R-Austin) resigned, effective Nov. 1. Unsuccessful GOP Senate candidate Ben Bentzin’s name quickly circulated as the likely Republican candidate. Gov. Rick Perry called for a special election on Jan. 17.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Bob Gammage Files for Governor

By Damon McCullar

Well folks, we now have a primary race on our hands. Bob Gammage filed for governor of the state of Texas today. In a statement on his website, Mr. Gammage says "This campaign is about reform. It is about opening state policy-making to public scrutiny. It is about restoring the public trust." He goes on to say that "Today we have a governor who is just a cog in that machine. Rick Perry's been a weak governor with a failed record. He totally lacks the will and the ability to reform a system that produced him." He specifically attacks Gov. Perry for his ties to special interest and lack of action on school finance:

After two years of talk and no action, Rick Perry finally decided to tackle the most important issue facing Texas -- the public school finance mess. So what did he do? He went on a cruise. He sailed the Caribbean on a ritzy yacht with a bunch of rich supporters and came back with a school finance plan that would be good for their special interests---and to hell with everybody else.

Chris Bell Announces Initiatives To Reduce Teen Pregnancy, Number of Abortions in State

By Damon McCullar

Last night, while speaking to the Democratic Women of New Braunfels, Chris Bell announced his strategy to take on the teen pregnancy rate in Texas and offered policy to reduce the number of abortions in the state. Texas is second only to Mississippi in the number of teen pregnancies reported. From the speech:

In his speech, Bell, who had a 100% NARAL rating for his voting in Congress, said that "I know a lot of people who are pro-choice, and I know a lot of people who call themselves pro-life. But I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion. Nobody likes abortion. We’re all comfortable saying that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, but Democrats should not be shy about saying just how rare we think abortion should be." He went on to say that "the way we start to do that (reduce abortions) is by finding the moral courage to give our kids the age-appropriate, medically accurate information they need to not get pregnant in the first place." Finally he attacked Perry's abstinence only sex ed program saying "In fact, one study showed that Texas high-schoolers were more sexually active after undergoing Rick Perry’s sex ed, which is an abstinence-only approach." And then blasting Perry for vetoing a Medicare waiver bill in 2001:

I’ve said throughout this campaign is that budgets are moral documents, that there are human costs associated with fiscal decisions.

Rick Perry gave us a great example of this when he vetoed a Medicaid waiver bill in 2001 that would have brought Texas $131 million in federal matching funds for family planning. This women’s health initiative would have allowed Texas to provide subsidized family planning for thousands of women who don’t make a lot of money. And for every dime we spend on things such as pap smears, screening for breast and cervical cancer, and contraceptives, the federal government would have given us 90 cents. That’s a nine-to-one match, without, I should mention, even one penny going towards performing abortions. Just preventing them.

From the San Antonio Express-News, Perry's spokesman responded by saying Bell's ideas represent "the same failed policies we always hear from liberal Democrats — more sex education in elementary schools and free condoms in high schools." Of course I saw nothing in Chris Bell's speech about sex ed in elementary school and free condoms in high schools. What I heard him say was "age-appropriate, medically accurate" sex ed information.

Also cited in the article was that the abortion rate in Texas had declined 26% between 1999 and 2003. However good that news is, I think it is overshadowed by the fact that we have the second highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Something has to be done and I think that abstinence only sex ed has proved to be a complete and utter failure. Seems to me that Chris is doing the logical thing and trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Makes sense to me. What do you ya'll think?

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?

Andy Brown to Run in HD 48 Special Election

By Katie Naranjo

A Note: Brown intends to run in the March Primary with Donna Howard and Kathy Rider no matter the outcome of the legal status of the special election. Howard and Rider are already filed for both elections. Brown has filed with the Secretary of State for the special election as it is a required step to force a decision on his legal status as a candidate to stand in that election (due to residency). That question remains unresolved. Candidates officially approved for the Jan. 17 special will show up here. -KT

Press Release just sent out from the Brown Team indicates that Brown will run in the Special Election called by Gov. Perry to be held Jan. 17th.

BROWN TO BENTZIN: 'LET’S HAVE A FAIR FIGHT'

State Representative candidate Andy Brown, already a candidate for the March 7, 2006, Democratic Primary for House District 48, has filed an application for a place on the January 17, 2006 Special Election ballot with the Texas Secretary of State.

Andy Brown, a long time resident of Austin and a graduate of both Austin public schools and the University of Texas School of Law, resides in District 48, works in District 48, and is eligible to serve the families of District 48 in the 80th Texas Legislature.

"My aggressive campaign against Todd Baxter and the DeLay/Perry machine resulted in Todd Baxter's decision to cut and run. That decision resulted in this orchestrated maneuver to call the election in January."

"In the spring of 2005, no one realized Todd Baxter would resign from the Legislature with a pending and vitally important Special Session looming," said Mr. Brown. "Todd Baxter’s decision to cash in on his office for a six figure-lobbying contract began an orchestrated effort by Todd Baxter, Rick Perry, and the Republican leadership to call an election that they hoped would benefit their hand picked candidate, Ben Bentzin."

"I'm calling on Ben Bentzin to come clean about his role in this special election plot to have an unfair election in District 48. Ben Bentzin and the corrupt Republican machine politics we've come to endure in this district should tell the voters why they called this election on such short notice? What did he know and when did he know it? This deliberate attempt to coincide with the holiday season and the University's calendar will disenfranchise thousands of the ability to vote early with convenience."

"They are attempting to deny the families of this district a choice in this election," said Mr. Brown, "but the law clearly shows that I have a right to be on this ballot."

"I am waiting for a response from the Secretary of State’s office regarding my status on the ballot, and I plan to fight for the families of District 48 for their right to choose."

Brown will continue his campaign for real school finance solutions and ethics and insurance reform. Over the past six months, Brown and his volunteers have campaigned vigorously across the district. Brown is a successful local attorney and community advocate who is mounting an aggressive race for House District 48.

Web Sightings

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

So in the Daily Texan article about Chris Bell filing for Governor, it looks like we have received our first official media mention of Bob Gammage's intentions to move from prospective candidate to 'running'.

Bob Gammage, another prospective Democratic candidate for governor, said he plans to file before Christmas. Gammage said his campaign will tackle statewide corruption, incompetence and, like Bell, a constitutional public school finance plan. So far, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn is running as a candidate for the Republican party. Other major candidates include Texas novelist and musician Kinky Friedman, who is running as an independent candidate.

Though of course, let's not forget about Larry Kilgore, the only candidate to display a dead baby picture on his campaign homepage. I'm wondering what happened to the Rhett Smith or Jennifer Gale for Governor campaigns. Maybe Jennifer Gale endorsed Chris Bell. If so, I offer this picture for the campaign blog.

In other news, we have two Texan of the Year: Carter Casteel sightings in the Texas Media.

FW Star-Telegram: If People magazine can choose the "Sexiest Man Alive" and Barbara Walters can deem herself the last word on who is fascinating, then why can't a bunch of bloggers pick the Texan of the Year?

A group of Texas political bloggers asked for nominations from readers and searched their own souls before voting on their choice. The winner, announced recently on all of the blogs, was Rep. Carter Casteel of New Braunfels. The pick was a surprising one considering the 17 bloggers skew liberal and Casteel is a Republican.

The bloggers said they picked Casteel for her decision to go against her own party earlier this year in the school-funding saga and her strong opposition to school vouchers. She also opposed a measure that would have banned gay foster parents, although she voted for the recently signed gay marriage amendment, which was opposed by most of the blogs.

Kuff also points out some mention of Rep. Casteel in this post.

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.

Supreme Court to Review TX Redistricting

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

When it came to light just over a week ago that DOJ expert staff opinion was silenced by political appointees in the initial review of Texas Redistricting, we thought it was the end of the road, a memo come to light without any action to be taken. Now that's changed, as the US Supreme Court has taken up four of the remaining seven Texas Redistricting cases.

The Texas case has been to the Supreme Court once before, and justices ordered a lower court to reconsider the boundaries following a decision in another redistricting case from Pennsylvania. Justices in that splintered opinion left little room for lawsuits claiming that political gerrymandering — drawing a map to give one political party an advantage — violates the "one-person, one-vote" principle protected in the Constitution.

However, now the court will have a chance to revisit that issue and the outcome could change because the court's membership is changing. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring, and Chief Justice John Roberts has been on the bench just a few months.

For a more in depth analysis of what's on the table, check out this SCOTUSblog post.

Also coming to light is a new rule over at the DOJ, that expert staff opinions have been banned in Voting Rights cases.

The Justice Department has barred staff attorneys from offering recommendations in major Voting Rights Act cases, marking a significant change in the procedures meant to insulate such decisions from politics, congressional aides and current and former employees familiar with the issue said.

...

The policy was implemented in the Georgia case, said a Justice employee who, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of retaliation. A staff memo urged rejecting the state's plan to require photo identification at the polls because it would harm black voters.

But under the new policy, the recommendation was stripped out of that document and was not forwarded to higher officials in the Civil Rights Division, several sources familiar with the incident said.

...

Tensions within the voting section have been rising dramatically, culminating in an emotionally charged meeting last week in which Tanner criticized the quality of work done by staff members analyzing voting rights cases, numerous sources inside and outside the section said. Many employees were so angered that they boycotted the staff holiday party later in the week, the sources said.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Georgia, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory election practices are required to receive approval from the Justice Department or a federal court for any changes to their voting systems. Section 5 prohibits changes that would be "retrogressive," or bring harm to, minority voters.

For decades, staff attorneys have made recommendations in Section 5 cases that have carried great weight within the department and that have been passed along to senior officials who make a final determination, former and current employees say.

Preventing staff members from making such recommendations is a significant departure and runs the risk of making the process appear more political, experts said.

Here we go again.

Houston wrap-up

By Jim Dallas

Sue Lovell edged out Jay Aiyer by a few hundred votes yesterday to replace Mark Ellis down at city hall. Greg is not pleased; personally, I can't complain because... I forgot to vote. And boy do I feel silly. While some may have their misgivings, here's wishing all the best to Ms. Lovell. And I hope Jay Aiyer will stay in politics, because he's a stand-up guy.

Meanwhile, Anne Clutterbuck and Jarvis Johnson won city council seats by landslides; Ana Hernandez will be rep'in' District 143 for the remainder of Joe Moreno's term (and probably longer). For more details, see Kuff.

Update: A wise and sagacious commenter notes that At-Large 2 is Gordon Quan's old seat, not Mark Ellis's. Your out-going council is listed here.

Marty, You've Got to Come Back with Me

By Jim Dallas

Although this strikes me with a twinge of "why is this news?", the American Prospect informs us that the 80s are hip again.

This seems like a debatable topic; shall we?

Friedman, Bell File for Governor **Update**

By Damon McCullar

Okay, it's a really, really slow news day. However I did learn that former-Congressman Chris Bell of Houston has officially filed to run for Governor of the great state of Texas. There was a moment of levity at the event. The new gubernatorial candidate was almost bonked on the head when a plastic wall clock fell off the wall at state Democratic Party HQ. One reporter commented "Time's up."

Bell didn't roll out any new policy initiatives, but did say he favored expanding the business tax both to pay for reductions in local school property taxes and to spend more on education.

The Kinkmeister filed yesterday. At his filing, he declared that he's not running against Perry but voter apathy:

Friedman told a few dozen supporters and reporters huddled for a brief, sidewalk announcement that his real opponent was not Gov. Rick Perry, but voter apathy.

Only 29 percent of Texas' voting age population cast ballots in the 2002 gubernatorial general election.

"If we can get the 29 percent who voted last time up to 39 percent, it'll all be over, and there will be a whole new spirit blowing through Texas," he said. "There will be a smile on everybody's face and a chill up the spine of every politician."

Perry vs. The World (via Kuff) had this to say regarding this sort of strategy:

Lots of folks base their campaign plans on changing the turnout model into one more favorable to them. We generally have a name for these candidates: losers.

**Update 6pm**

The AP story about Bell's filing can be found here.

One Tough Independent Grandma?

By Damon McCullar

Seeing as she has hardly any support from Republicans and Democrats aren't taking the bait to vote for her in the Republican primary, Carol Four-Names is considering joining Kinky Friedman as an independent candidate. From the DMN:

Some Texans have received calls from a polling company asking whether they would support Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn for governor if she ran as an independent rather than as a Republican.

Gov. Rick Perry's campaign denies it is sponsoring the poll. Mrs. Strayhorn's campaign won't say. "We don't discuss our polls," said Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders. "We are regularly in the field testing voter attitudes."

...

The Perry campaign said it would not be surprised if its rival were considering an independent run. "After spending the last six months becoming very cozy with trial lawyers, people who have tried to defeat President Bush and people close to the Clintons, it doesn't surprise me that Carole Strayhorn would be looking for someplace to run other than the Republicans' primary," said Robert Black, a spokesman for the Perry campaign.

...

According to a Strayhorn supporter from Houston, some backers have tried in recent weeks to encourage her to leave the GOP and run as an independent. One backer said she probably would lose a race against Mr. Perry in the GOP primary but would fare better as an independent on the November general election ballot.

As an independent, Mrs. Strayhorn would have to collect 45,000 signatures from registered voters who skipped the primaries to qualify for the ballot. Singer Kinky Friedman plans to try to get on the ballot as an independent.

When she couldn't win as a Democrat, she became a Republican. Now that she can't win as a Republican she is becoming an Independent. I'm but a mere college student, but I just can't see trusting someone that twists with the political winds like Ms. Strayhorn does. One interesting thing about Strayhorn running as an Independent is that in a four way race between Bell/Gammage, Perry, Kinky, and Strayhorn, it lowers the bar on the amount of the popular vote a candidate has to get to win the governor's mansion. In my opinion, it would make the governor's race a horse race with every candidate in a good position to win.

Bell Attacks Perry on Corporate Welfare

By Damon McCullar

In a speech to a labor group in Galveston yesterday (speech, press release, fact sheet, article), former Congressman Chris Bell attacked the Texas Enterprise Fund as a slush fund for corporate welfare.

Here is where the façade falls down and we find out the dirty little secret behind all those big promises. Rick Perry says that he spent more than $200 million to bring more than 22,800 jobs. But earlier this year, the Legislative Budget Board reported how many jobs had actually been created. Anyone want to guess how many jobs we got for $215 million dollars?

It wasn’t 22,000, not by a long shot. Anyone have any guesses?

The truth is so awful it makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. For $215 million, the Texas Enterprise Fund only created 275 jobs as of January 31. Two-seventy-five. That’s about a million bucks a job. Some of those jobs will become real in the future, maybe ten years down the road, maybe someday, if we squeeze our eyes shut and wish really hard, but right now we’re paying way too much to do way too little.

Perry spokesman Robert Black claims "The Texas Enterprise Fund is being used to create over 37,000 direct jobs, and $6 billion in capitol investment for Texas that will result in over 130,000 new jobs in the state — overall about 25 times greater than the state's original investment"

Chris Bell:

Finally, we can keep bribing companies till the treasury’s empty, or we can apply the radical notion of common sense to the situation. Companies move jobs to where the best-educated workers are. Everyone in this room knows that we will lift the next generation into the New Mainstream when we have a governor who realizes that an investment in education matters more than yet another taxpayer subsidy for a big-box superstore.

I have called for nothing less than a moon shot for schools with the specific goal of having the best public schools in the country within 10 years. We need to start paying teachers a good wage, stop censoring their textbooks, and teach them something more important than how to take yet another standardized test.

If you remember one thing I said tonight, remember this. My economic development plan is to invest in Texas by investing in our people. I want Texas to waste less money on corporate subsidies and invest more money in classrooms.

The Governor's office countered, "You have to create the jobs before you can train for them," Black said. "The bottom line is that training follows jobs, jobs do not follow training."

The best that Perry's spokesman could do was hurl insults. "If he doesn't understand job creation and economics any better than this, it's no wonder that Chris Bell's own constituents kicked him out of Congress after only one term," Black said.

But this in itself exposes Perry's and the Republican Party's underhandedness in the whole redistricting scheme. The New York Times addresses it best when it quotes Congressman Bell and says:

Chris Bell, a Houston Democrat who served one term in the House before losing his race last year in a redrawn district and is now running for governor against Mr. Perry, said, "If you can't have faith in the Department of Justice, where are you going to have faith?"

Mr. Bell called the memorandum "shocking" and said, "No wonder they kept it under lock and key." He said that it "helps to drive home how corrupt the entire scheme was, top to bottom" and that "it will not sit well with voters to find out the game was fixed in the Department of Justice."

We've all become accustomed to expecting the worst with redistricting," he said, "but I don't think anyone expected it to be this bad.

Now, I'm no economist, but it seems to me that giving a cash payment to a company to relocate is a bad idea. It seems to me almost as a bribe. One point to ponder is how we can afford to spend all this money to create so few jobs when we have an underfunded education system that ranks near the bottom in the nation. Maybe some of our dear readers can enlighten me on the merits of the Texas Enterprise Fund? I'm all ears to hear what you have to say!

Word of the Year

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Podcast.

Candidate Round-Up

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

+ Vote for John Courage to garner Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriot Award (worth $5k). Lampson is the only other Texan in the running but John is tied for first as it is, and that $5k will go a lot further right here, right now than it will out in DeLay's seat. Plus, I think Grassroots All-Star and Progressive Patriot Award go together real nice. So Vote.

+You've got to read the latest from the Larry (Stallings) for the Lege (HD-122) blog. That goes for any day of the week. It's probably the most entertaining, and yet incredibly informative campaign blog in the state. You'd almost think they were the Kirk Watson campaign with how excited they are sometimes.

+ A report from the Henley for Congress campaign in CD-7 from Lamar High student Michael Hurta.

The last time I emailed you all, I was informing about an upcoming announcement by Mr. Jim Henley to run for Congress in Texas' District 7. Now the announcement has passed, and I am pleased to say that it was a great success.

On Sunday, December the 4th, an estimated crowd of over 250 filled a popular West University resteraunt for an announcement that was expecting to only use less than half of the space within the building. Mr. Henley was introduced by former students Grace Sun and Muthu Alagappan followed by sister Susan McDougal.

In a meeting to kick off a campaign, Channel 2 News was covering along with print media. On top of that, the campaign raised several thousand dollars during the night.

Twenty Five "Meet the Candidate" Home Parties are expected to be scheduled throughout December and January. Please check the calender of scheduled events at the campaign's website in order to learn of more information. Mr. Henley also welcomes any invitations to speak at Democratic and Independent groups.

+ Mary Beth Harrell had a great top listed diary at kos the other day, a good read still after the fact.

+ Rep. Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio) is officially running against Sen. Frank Madla in SD-19. Support him, and read up on what the Red State has to say about it.

+ Valinda Bolton, running for HD-47 against Jason Earle at the moment, will have her website up soon and recently gave a great speech at the last UDems meeting. Here is some background on her. Glen Maxey is consulting for her campaign.

As a direct descendant of General Sam Houston, Bolton has deep roots in Texas and a life long commitment to Texas families. Her work preventing child abuse, advocating for affordable housing and leading the battle on domestic violence and sexual assault issues has afforded Bolton the opportunity to build the leadership skills needed to work with Legislators, both Democrat and Republican, to get Texas back on track. As a speaker at conferences throughout the country, Bolton provided training on the value of building collaborative efforts.

Bolton has served as the Training Director for the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence (NCDSV), as a staff consultant to the Department of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, as a trainer on Interpersonal Violence to numerous police and sheriff departments, and to the military. An advocate for affordable housing, Bolton helped found WOMAN, Inc., a community housing development organization that works to develop transitional housing for women and their families.

A lifelong Democrat, Bolton has volunteered for several Democratic candidates including Ann Richards and most recently Kelly White. She is a member of South Austin Democrats, Southwest Austin Democrats, Austin Women’s Political Caucus and a sustaining member of the Travis County Democratic Party.

+Keep a watch on Kuffner, he's able to keep up with the filing madness faster than I can try to this week, including this post which tells the tale of a Republican turned Democrat running for the statehouse.

Perry v. Strayhorn... v. Larry Kilgore?

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Perry and Strayhorn pick back and forth at each other, using various family relation's statements against their campaigns.

Apparently there is another challenger in the Republican Primary, according to the Texas GOP list, Larry Kilgore.

Larry, and I didn't know this was possible, is running to Rick Perry's right flank. While he may be serious about running, he's certainly not credible. His front page declares, "My first priority as governor will be to submit to Biblical law given to us by the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ. My job, according to 1st Peter 2:14, will be to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."

His Issues page is equally... Biblical. I especialy like 1-40 lashes for crime of maliciousness, like graffiti, porn, strip clubs, though a close second might be execution for crime of deadly negligence, like DWI. He openly advocates pre-Civil War state's rights arguements, including re-instating the Republic of Texas.

I might also mention now that Barbara Radnofsky has a primary on her hands, Darrel Hunter has entered the ring. I don't know any more than you do.

Libertarian Ben Easton to Run in HD 48

By Phillip Martin

This race just keeps getting more and more interesting. Again, from the Statesmen:

Wes Benedict, head of the Libertarian Party in Travis County, said today that teacher Ben Easton is planning to run as a Libertarian in the Jan. 17 special election to replace former state Rep. Todd Baxter in western Travis County.

...

Usually the fear for Republicans in a tight race is that a Libertarian could take away just enough conservative voters to hand the Democrat a victory. In the special election, it’s a little different: You have to claim a majority to win. So a Libertarian could take enough votes to push a Republican into a runoff with the top-drawing Democrat.

In two 2004 statewide judicial races that featured only a Republican and Libertarian on the ballot, the Libertarian candidates picked up about a fourth of the vote in District 48. That’s a strong showing, although some (if not many) of those voters were probably Democrats who did not want their votes going to a Republican. Plus, voter turnout is a completely different game in a special election because far fewer people show up to the polls.

So, quick recap:

Ben Bentzin is the Republican candidate. He is for vouchers, has serious money/ethics questions from 2002, and has said that "Rest assured, it is my ability to work across the aisle in a principled way that has truly partisan Democrats quaking in their Birkenstocks."

Democrats Donna Howard and Andy Brown have filed for the special election. As the Statesmen (and then, I) reported yesterday, there are questions as to whether or not Andy Brown can run in the HD 48 race. He may challenge the ruling, he may decide to stay out of the race -- this much is still being discussed. We'll know more in the coming days. Kathy Rider has not yet filed (to my knowledge), and Kelly White has released a statement (pdf) saying she most definitely will not run.

Fun, huh?

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

UT Shutting Down as of 2 PM: Updated

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Texan: The University will be closed due to weather concerns from 2 p.m. Wednesday until 10 a.m. Thursday.

I'm sure the University Wide e-mail will be out shortly. Students may want to contact professors if you had tests or projects due during this time. It's going to be cold and slightly frozen out there, so stay warm, wrap the pipes, and bring your plants indoors (or put bags over them). It's already 34 degrees here in Austin, but real-feel is around 23.

So instead of going to class, you can read this piece by the Bell campaign which knocks down some Perry claims.

UPDATE

Official University E-mail now out.

Due to today’s forecast of inclement weather, the University will officially close beginning at 2 p.m. today and reopen at 10 a.m. tomorrow. Employees who must work to provide essential services and functions will receive state compensatory time.

All university buildings normally locked by night custodial staff will be locked by the day custodial staff immediately after closure.

Classes and exams scheduled for this afternoon will be made up on Monday (Dec.12) using the same class or exam schedule and location. Classes and exams scheduled for tomorrow morning before 10 a.m. will be made up on Tuesday (Dec. 13) using the same class or exam schedule and location. If this “last” class meeting is not necessary, faculty may cancel the class.

Human Resource Services will provide instructions on recording time to Department HR Contacts.

UPDATE:

Due to the university closure and potentially unsafe road conditions ALL UT Shuttle service will be suspended at 7 p.m. today (Wednesday, Dec. 7) and is scheduled to resume tomorrow (Thursday, Dec. 8) at 9 a.m.

Please refer to the Capital Metro website (www.capmetro.org) for more information regarding service interruptions and schedule information.

Please note: Classes and examinations in the Division of Continuing Education are cancelled for today (Dec. 7). University Extension students should contact the University Extension office for information about rescheduling evening classes.

If you've been trying to check your UT e-mail, the system is being strained and is not logging some people on. Be patient.

Andy Brown Won't Run in Special Election

By Phillip Martin

From the Statesman:

State law requires a House candidate to live in the district for a year before the general election for that office. Brown, a lawyer, moved into District 48 in western Travis County last May, meaning he is eligible to run in the March primary and November general election for a new two-year term that will start in January 2007.

Brown said he still plans to run in the March primary. But with the special election in January, he does not think he will try to push his way onto the ballot to fill the rest of Baxter's term.

"Many supporters and activists have asked me to challenge the residency requirements for the special election," Brown said this morning. "At this point, I do not think that is the best course of action for the Democratic Party or the families of District 48. Over the next day or so, I will consult with my family and supporters regarding my decision, and how best to achieve true education, ethics and insurance reform in the state Legislature."

Gubernatorial Domain

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Just an interesting point to note since I'm a nerd.

www.bobgammage.com

But when it was registered was interesting and by whom.

Registrant Contact:
Attorney
Bob Gammage
P.O.Box 400
Llano, TX 78643
US

Creation date: 18 Jun 2005
Expiration date: 18 Jun 2006

Looks like someone was thinking ahead. Now just be sure to renew it next year so mid campaign it's not stolen by the Texas GOP, a la www.txdemocrats.com.

UPDATE: I was poking around some more, just to see what was out there, and interestingly www.laneyforgovernor.com was purchased by Brannon & Associates in Sulphur Springs a couple months ago. Specifially Vali Brannon.

Registrant:
Brannon & Associates
Route 1, Box 334
658 CR 3451
Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482
United States

Created on: 21-Sep-05
Expires on: 21-Sep-06

This happens to be the group that was paid quite a few Democratic consulting dollars in the Sadler (D), Eltife (R) Senate race in Bill Ratliff's old seat when he retired. Vali Brannon also did some fundraising for Max Sandlin. Bill Brannon got close to $40k in that same Congressional race.

Now there is no history between Laney and this group to date that I could find, so it's likely that it's just precautionary, but interesting to note.

Gammage: "It's a go," the source said.

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Though an official announcement may be coming in the next week, Selby at the Statesman (the go-to source for leaking your intended interests in Austin), has the sources that say former State legislator, State senator, US Representative, and Texas Supreme Court Justice Bob Gammage is tossing his hat into the race for the Democratic nominee for governor, joining Chris Bell and Felix Alvarado.

Gammage, who filed paperwork with the Texas Ethics Commission designating himself the treasurer of his gubernatorial campaign last month, intends to announce next week, according to a source who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the kickoff.

"It's a go," the source said.

Gammage, 67, a Llano lawyer who has served on the state's highest court as well as in the Texas House and Senate, the U.S. House and Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals, didn't confirm or deny the decision. He said he's fielded much encouragement and it "looks real good, but I'm not ready to make my announcement today."

Initial reaction from the two existing campaigns (which according to the Texas Poll among Democratic Primary voters get: Undecided-60%, Bell-23%, Alvarado-14%)...

Bell spokesman Jason Stanford said Monday that Bell has no comment on "cut-and-run Bob," a reference to Gammage resigning from the high court in 1995 to move to Llano and start a solo practice.

Gammage on Monday called the attempted nickname "silly. If he can't throw anything better than that, he ought to save his pitching arm." Alvarado said: "The more the better."

Cut-and-run Bob. I'll-Explore-That Bell. Alvarado, not Avacado. In any case, I'll agree with the more the merrier concept. As much as we'd like to not take Kinky seriously, a lot of independents and disaffected white progressives who normally vote Democrat are going to take him seriously.

And if anyone thinks that Bell, Gammage, or Alvarado is going to become Governor with their left flank in the Kinky camp, I'd like to know which tea leaves they're reading. Having competive statewide Democratic primaries are about the only thing that are going to keep those voters interested in turning out in our primary, keeping them from crossing over for Comptroller CKMRS, or saving themselves for Kinky.

And who knows, in the process someone might actually notice that we have candidates fielded. Which reminds me, David Van Os and Barbara Radnofsky filed to run for AG and US Senate.

CNN/Gallup Poll: Delay Would Lose CD 22 Today

By Phillip Martin

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll taken from December 1-4 shows that, if the election were held today, Congressmen Tom Delay would lose his CD 22 seat to an unnamed Democratic candidate. Here are the numbers from CNN's website:

QUESTION: If Tom DeLay runs for re-election in 2006, in general, are you more likely to vote for the Republican candidate Tom DeLay or for the Democratic Party's candidate for Congress?

Democrat 49%
Tom DeLay 36%

Opinion of Tom DeLay

Favorable 37%
Unfavorable 52%
Unfamiliar 11%

Charges Against DeLay Are...

Definitely true 15%
Probably true 40%
Probably false 26%
Defintely false 8%

From the DCCC:

This poll merely confirms what we already know: Texas families are sick and tired of the culture of corruption and pay-to-play politics that have come to define Tom DeLay. Next November, Texans will have the opportunity to send someone to Washington more concerned with the solving of the challenges facing Texas than paying his own legal bills.

This poll comes on the heels of the announcement that, while Congressmen Delay will not have to stand trial for conspiracy charges, he will still have to stand trial for the serious charge of money laundering.

Tomorrow's Texas Poll

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Via every other Texas political blog, tomorrow Texas Poll numbers.

Republican primary Perry--55% Strayhorn--24%

General Election
Perry -- 45%
Bell-- 25%
Friedman -- 13%

If you assume that Friedman's numbers would break 10% points to Bell and 3% points to Perry, you'd have a 48%-35% matchup. Seeing Perry under 50% is always a good thing. Seeing a Perry out of office would be a better thing.

The Bell campaign has their analysis over here, though they have the Republican primary number with Perry at 65% instead of 55% which Quorum Report seems to have. In either case, CKMRS has, at best, a case of Joe-mentum, though most every campaign for Governor at this point (including Tony Sanchez) across the board seems to be stuck in neutral. That will be sure to change when people start tuning in sometime in January.

Y'all haven't had a Gubernatorial post in a while to comment on so here ya go. Play nice.

Reporting on Them Reporting on Us

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Thanks to Eye on Williamson County for keeping an eye on Charles Kuffner, for keeping an eye on the Houston Chronicle, where our combined Texas blogging efforts made Rep. Carter Casteel the Texan of the Year.

They are the first, though we hope not the last of the Texas media to mention this honor, but let me quote them like the rest of the bloggers have already.

FOR many Republican lawmakers, being selected Texan of the Year by a bunch of liberal political bloggers might not be welcome news.

But state Rep. Carter Casteel of New Braunfels said she was "tickled" to be recognized by the bloggers for political courage in bucking the House leadership on several education issues this year.

Charlie of Pinkdome, who goes by his first name only because of his day job with a finance company, came up with the idea to have 17 bloggers work together to recognize a Texas politician.

The blogs asked their readers to nominate politicians. Communicating by e-mail, the bloggers ranked the 150 suggestions and finally decided on Casteel, a lawyer and former teacher whose West Texas accent commands attention when she steps to the microphone in the House.

Casteel opposed school vouchers and bills pushed by the House leadership that would have intruded on local school district control. She chastised her colleagues for treating educators as the enemy and said she didn't care if her stands on issues cost her re-election.

"We like fire in the belly. And that's why she won," said Eileen Smith, whose In the Pink Texas is a popular blog among Capitol insiders.

Heflin to Challenge Vo

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Via QR, former House Appropriations Chair Talmadge Heflin will run for his old seat, HD-149, which he was knocked out of by Hubert Vo. Heflin was seen as being lazy last cycle and underestimated the threat of his Democratic challenger, waiting until the last few weeks to spend money, once it was too late.

With rumors still floating about that Jack Stick might file against Mark Strama, and that even Kelly White might still file for the HD-48 special election, there seems to be quite a number of races this cycle which are nothing but rematches. We'll see as the month goes on, since the filing deadline ends January 2.

NEA: Per Pupil Expenditures Falls in Texas, Increases Everywhere Else

By Phillip Martin

A recent report by the National Education Assoication showed that Texas is the only state in the country that lowered the amount of money it spends per student, falling from $7,214 in 2004 to $7,142 in 2005. In contrast, the average expenditure per pupil nationwide increased by $300.

Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) President Donna Haschke had the following to say about the recent slip in per-pupil spending:

“The Texas Supreme Court just warned the legislature that we are ‘drifting toward constitutional inadequacy,’ and this new data indicates that our state education investments may have already failed to make the grade and slipped into that category,” said Texas State Teachers Association President Donna New Haschke.

“Although teachers and education support professionals have fought against all odds to help our students continue to make progress and meet academic standards, they cannot continue to do so without the tools they need for teaching and learning,” Haschke observed.

“The legislative leadership has failed to craft and pass a viable plan to provide funding to improve Texas schools for the past three years,” she said. “It was inevitable that Texas would continue to fall farther behind what other states are doing to help our students and teachers.”

The report didn't factor in the recent influx of students from Hurricane Katrina.

Also to consider: Texas teachers make $6,688 less than the national average. Compared to other states, Texas teacher salaries fell – for the fifth consecutive year – to 33rd in the country. Nationwide, teachers saw more than $1,000 in average pay increase; in Texas, teachers only saw slightly more than a $500 average pay increase, received due to local districts and built-in salary increases. The state has not given teachers a raise since 1999.

Fine, take a nap, then FIRE ZE MISSILES!

By Jim Dallas

The IAEA has Iran's gonna have nukes.

So, let's see, that makes two out of three charter members of the Axis of Evil so far. At this rate maybe we will end up finding WMDs in Iraq...

(Click here if you don't get the headline).

UT vs. USC!

By Byron LaMasters

The stars are aligned, and for once, all is right in college football. The undisputed top two teams in the country will battle for the national title in the Rose Bowl in January. I'm excited. Last year's Rose Bowl was perhaps the best football game that I have ever been to, and I will certainly look forward to the game this year (which I'll likely just be watching from home).

Of course, the BCS system still needs fixing, and UT certainly comes into this game as an underdog, but for now - all is right, and Longhorn fans can be pleased tonight. We're in the national championship game, and no one can dispute that UT deserves to be there.

Light Posting

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I don't actually have any finals, which means that this week is when all my tests and papers are hitting. Expect light posting during this time and slower response to e-mails. I already have a backlog so everything new just adds on top of that. Hopefully some of our writers who are either graduated or on a different schedule can help fill in the gaps.

This is getting boring; PLUS: Barton tackles the BCS

By Jim Dallas

Down at Reliant, it's time for Mack Brown to start suiting up the Band (or maybe the cheerleaders). Colorado just can't catch a break. Except when Texas throws it to them.

The USC/UCLA game better be more interesting.

Meanwhile, Smokey Joe Barton has decided to solve a serious problem facing his constituents:

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee has announced it has called a hearing on how to repair what it called the "deeply flawed" Bowl Championship Series, designed to crown college football's national champion. "College football is not just an exhilarating sport, but a billion-dollar business that Congress cannot ignore," committee Chairman Joe Barton [R-TX] reportedly said.

The hearing, scheduled for next Wednesday, was termed a "comprehensive review" of the BCS and postseason college football. Barton said he does not have legislation in mind to force a change, but said he hopes congressional hearings will spur discussion and improvements. The supreme irony of this is the fact that, barring a major upset in either of two games being played today (Saturday), this year's championship will indeed be a legitimate showdown between the two acknowledged top contenders for the title, Texas and the University of Southern California.

UPDATE: I see Kuff beats me to the good stuff. Go over to his place, will ya?

Texan of the Year Sighting

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

After posting on the Blogosphere's first Texan of the Year, Carter Casteel, it was nice to see today that she's continuing the fight for rural rights, by granting counties more rights to regulate their landscapes from the onslaught of billboards.

[Comal County] Commissioner Jan Kennady said she is setting up a meeting with Rep. Carter Casteel, R-New Braunfels, to discuss ways to keep Comal County from being overrun with billboards...

Casteel said she has gotten more telephone calls about the new signs on Texas 46 than any issue other than school finance.

"It has incensed people," she said. "There are so many it's a complete blighting of the landscape."

Casteel said she wants to balance property rights concerns with the desire to "have a beautiful environment" and said the billboard industry should play a role in any legislation, but she will definitely support a bill to give more local control on regulating outdoor signs.

She sponsored a bill in the last regular session, which passed, banning new billboards in Bandera County.

"The community got very united about two years ago about prohibiting new ones," Casteel said. "We were able to get that done."

You may think this is silly, but as the Austin Metro region grows, I-35 and many of the major transportation feeders in the Hill County counties are becoming the prime targets for billboard growth. And for many of these cities, Fredericksburg is a perfect example, sign ordinances are a huge local issue. In these cases, it's a brand of conservative environmentalism (what used to be conservation) which puts the landscape above the corporate bottom line.

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.

Analysis of Hidden DOJ Memo

By Phillip Martin

As I posted below, professional voting rights experts concluded that Delay's redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act. Despite their conclusions -- detailed in this 73-page memo -- political appointees from the Bush administration ignored the unanimous findings of their own professional staff and then imposed a gag order.

So who were those justices that overruled the DOJ experts' recommendation? And what were the conclusions of the 73-page memo? Our friends at the Lone Star Project have put together an analysis that sheds some light on the whole case.

The Justices

Hans von Spakovsky is a political operative who has written extensively advocating widely criticized voting changes that make it more difficult for minorities to register and vote. Prior to his DOJ appointment, Spakovsky worked as part of the infamous Voter Integrity Team which worked to remove African Americans from the voter rolls in Florida during the 2000 General Election.

Schlozman, much like Michael Brown at FEMA, was assigned to the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department although he had no experience in civil rights law or minority voting rights.

DOJ Experts' Conclusions in the Memo

Page 71:

“For the reasons set forth above, we recommend that you interpose an objection of H.B.3, which provides for the redistricting of the congressional districts in Texas….”

Page 69:

In sum, the proposed plan reduces the level of minority voting strength because it eliminates the ability that minority voters have in Benchmark 15 (Hinojosa), 23 (Bonilla) and 24 (Frost) to elect candidates of choice. In each of these districts, the state failed to follow its traditional redistricting principles preserving communities of interest and forbidding fragmentation or packing of minority voters.”

Page 31:

“Our examination of the proposed plan indicates that it will lead to an impermissible retrogression in the position of minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.”

Page 66:

The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect.

Houstonist.com - Shameless Plug

By Matt Hardigree

Ask anyone, ask former Texan editor Ben Heath, I'm a huge whore. That being said, I'm also giving it for free at Houston's very own -ist site: Houstonist.com. If you live in Houston, it's the best new way to find out what's going on (becuase, be honest, you can't navigate the new chron.com site either).

If you live in Austin you should check out Austinist as well.

Delay's Redistricting Plan Violated the Voting Rights Act

By Phillip Martin

Late last night (a little after midnight), I posted this news from DailyKos and the Washington Post. Here's the article:

Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.

The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.

"The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo concluded.

The memo also found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options.

But the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seats in the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control of Congress.

J. Gerald "Gerry" Hebert, one of the lawyers representing Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in court, said of the Justice Department's action: "We always felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. . . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed bag or anything like that. This should have been a very clear-cut case."

A quick read of this article makes it clear that professional voting rights experts concluded that Delay's plan violated the Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, it seems that the plan was only saved and the Delay map is only in place because political appointees from the Bush administration at the Justice Department decided to ignore the unanimous findings of their own professional staff and then imposed a gag order.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the 73-page memo.

SEIU Unionizes 5,000 in Houston

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I've been slow to catch up on this one due to classes, but thanks to Kuff and MyDD for picking it up.

Janitors who clean Houston's big buildings at near-minimum wage rates have won the right to begin negotiations with their employers for higher pay and benefits.

The Service Employees International Union announced Wednesday that a majority of the 4,700 janitors who work for four of the city's largest cleaning companies have joined its ranks.

For Houston's labor movement, SEIU's Justice for Janitors campaign is its most successful organizing drive in 25 years, signaling potentially higher wages and benefits for janitors and higher costs for building tenants.

"Wages are clearly the No. 1 issue," said Dan Schlademan, vice president of SEIU Local 1 in Chicago, who was in Houston for the announcement.

...

The janitors earn an average hourly wage of $5.30 and receive no health care benefits, according to the union. The minimum wage is $5.15.

"Today, I am very pleased to say we did it, Houston janitors," Flora Aguilar told the dozens of janitors who crowded into a conference room at Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston for the festive announcement that was accompanied by a mariachi band and janitors banging on plastic buckets.

SEIU officials said that with the support from the majority of janitors at the four companies — ABM Janitorial Services, Sanitors Services of Texas, OneSource Facility Services and GCA Services Group — it will represent 62 percent of those who clean the city's big buildings.

You might want to check out the SEIU of Texas website as well. Even in Texas, certainly not a Union friendly state, the movement is making progress. I think it may be more of a sign of the new labor movement though (of which SEUI is a part of) than Labor at large, but that will play out over time. I've greatly appreciated the SEIU, one for the work it does and employees in the union. Plus they endorsed Howard Dean and stuck with him even after Iowa.

Hello #5: South Africa

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

South Africa's highest court, in a 10-1 decision the other day ruled that the country's very progressive constitution, demands that the state recognize same-sex unions on par with heterosexual ones. They have set a deadline of one year for Parliament to comply. The one odd vote was not against the decision, rather opposed to it because they felt it should go into affect now, not in a year.

South Africa will become the fifth country in the world to permit same-sex marriage, behind the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Canada; but the decision is not only at odds with the views of the vast majority of its own citizens, but also the rest of Africa, where homosexuality remains largely taboo.

In neighbouring Zimbabwe, President Mugabe frequently attacks homosexuals and lesbians as “worse than dogs and pigs”. Yoweri Museveni, the President of Uganda, has outlawed homosexual sex, declaring it to be “against the order of nature”. He recently ordered detectives to find gays and “lock them up and charge them”.

In a landmark ruling, the Johannesburg-based Constitutional Court ordered that the definition of marriage be changed from a “union between a man and a woman” to a “union between two persons”.

Remember, here in Texas, the Attorney General the other day denied the marriage of a Kerr County Heterosexual couple, based on nepotism laws.

When Kerr County Tax Assessor-Collector Paula Rector decided to get married, she sought permission - not from family or friends, but from the state attorney general.

And she didn't get it.

Rector, 54, wanted to marry one of the district's tax appraisers. But the couple worried that their marital union would violate the state's nepotism law, so they brought the case before Attorney General Greg Abbott.

In an opinion released Tuesday, Abbott confirmed their fears, ruling that the couple could not marry and simultaneously retain their positions.

"Isn't that crazy? We thought it was funny that we had to wait for an attorney general's opinion to tell us whether we could or couldn't," Rector told the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday. "I bet that's never happened before."

Join the club Paula. You'll make a fine addition to "Can't Get Marriage" brigade.

Texan of the Year: Rep. Carter Casteel

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

You nominated them, bloggers reviewed them, and now we are happy to announce that the Bloggers Choice for Texan of the Year is none other than State Representative Carter Casteel. Casteel, who is my hometown representative, hails from New Braunfels, where she previously was Comal County judge, a teacher, and a member and past president of the Comal ISD.

But the reason why I'm thrilled with this choice is that Rep. Casteel reminds us of days under the dome when our representatives had better blend of bipartisanship, courage, and respect for the concerns of the state over party ideology. A straight arrow who still has that good old girl charm, Casteel has the personality and political mind that gives me hope.

Even after multiple failed sessions on public education, I feel as if she can play a crucial part in making sure that the June 1st deadline results in actual reform, and not a last minute partisan railroading. (Her responses to our Blogger questions are in the extended entry, though I'm a bit sad she didn't answer my question of where she shops to get all her snappy outfits.)

Casteel, one of the moderate Republicans in the house, especially when it came to education issues, had the courage to vote against vouchers, which we talked about here on BOR before. She voted for the Hochberg Amendment with over a dozen other House Republicans, showing that there is hope for an education solution this spring. While voting for HJR 6, she voted against Rep. Talton's "gay adoptive parents ban" amendment, which was the focus of this post here on BOR. All while representing an 80%+ Republican district. And to date, she still doesn't have a Republican primary challenger, even though the Texas GOP wishes they could do something about it.

I'd like to quote from an article titled, Revenge of the Rural Republicans.

Rep. Carter Casteel (R-New Braunfels) stands before her colleagues to offer an amendment that could endanger her political career. "So, I’ve made a decision," she tells them. "It may send me home."

...

Casteel, who worked as a public school teacher for 17 years, explains why she is offering an amendment that would strip the voucher plan from the bill. The 63-year-old Casteel often presents herself as a proud grandparent. It’s a standard politician’s trope that in her case is boosted by a shock of white hair and a folksy West Texas accent. Yet tonight Casteel is all fire and scalding wit, musing about her role on the floor of the Texas House and whether it’s "to represent someone who visited with me with a lot of influence and power and money" or to "represent the people in my district who called me and wrote to me." She notes that voucher proponents are circulating an opinion piece that calls for abolishing public schools in favor of private schools. "Today’s public schools have forfeited their right to exist," wrote David Gelernter, a computer science professor from Yale, in an article that ran in the Austin American-Statesman. "Let’s get rid of them."

"Baloney! Baloney!" Casteel cries in response. "We have a Texas Constitution that says it’s up to us to educate public children—all children and not take money away from the public school system."

There's just something about Casteel. It's that something that makes her constituents appreciate her, her party nervous at times, and the Bloggers Texan of the Year.

Thanks to the following blogs for participating. Links to their posts.

PinkDome
In the Pink Texas
Eye on Williamson County
By the Bayou
Common Sense
Off the Kuff
The Jeffersonian
Annatopia
The Agonist
Brains and Eggs
People's Republic of Seabrook
Appalachia Alumni Association
Just Another Blog

Still to Post are:
A Little Pollyanna
Houston Democrats
Sharpening Our Wits

Representative Casteel answers our questions and tells us that if it weren't for blogs she would never have known why everyone was laughing when she mentioned her (ballot) box on the House Floor.

Representative Casteel took a moment to answer our questions. Here's her answers: She says thank you and that she loves the blogs.

DO YOU EXPECT A CHALLENGER IN THE PRIMARY OR OPPOSITION PARTY?
I always run a campaign like I've got a challenger. I've not heard of one so far.

ARE YOU BEING TARGETED IN THE PRIMARY IN 2006?
Not to my knowledge.

What do you think of your party's attempts at targeting those that voted for the Hochberg Amendment?
I don't think they are being targeted by the leadership.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE 65% RULE?
That's fine. That's an admirable goal. Depending on how you count it. But here's the question: what is the classroom? Are you talking about the teacher, the aide, the nurse, the librarian, the counselor? You have to include some of the support for the teacher so the kid is in the classroom in the first place.

How does one balance voting one's district, one's party, and one's personal feelings when those three points are not all in line on a single issue?

I've got a brain and a background so I know that's important to use. I'm also in a district I've lived in for thirty-something years. I have a fair understanding of my district, but it is critical that I communicate with my district. It is a struggle because you are going to vote your district and your conscience and every two years you have to answer to them. I'm comfortable with my party platform.

What concerns me is how public education became a liberal issue! That's a conservative value.

I balance all those things and make my decision. It can offend people, but I can stand by my decisions. Don't forget, I listen to the debate.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING?
I think adequacy is still on the table and will come up in the next special session.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE LEGE DO WITH SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM?
Competitive teacher pay and health care benefits. I don't think it's fair to ask our teachers to help shape the future of Texas and not compensate them in a fair way.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN WITH SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM?
I think everything is on the table. I've met with John Sharp and I believe we are all eager to see solutions that are fair from district to district. I think there is a growth and interest among the people of Texas that are paying attention and I think that is a good thing. People are concerned about our lack of progress and stepping up to the plate to get in front of the right people.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS YOU ADMIRE MOST IN A LEGISLATOR?
First of all, you just have to be honest about how you conduct yourself. You have to be a straight shooter and have the willingness to get along with people. You can't agree with everyone all the time, but you have to be willing to talk and to listen. If God had intended for us to talk all the time he'd given us two mouths and one ear. Lastly, you have to have humor. You have to have the attitude that "I don't care who gets the credit"; you just have to care that it gets done. Dig in the mud and not care who cares who finds the diamond ring.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE EDUCATION COMMUNITY 'LOBBYING' THE LEGISLATURE?
How in the world can the Ed. Community communicate with the legislature without coming up there and talk to them? If you want to call it lobby, fine. But people go on their own time and write letters. People have made the same complaints against everybody that comes up to the legislature. That being said, I'd rather see my tax dollars being used to educate children. If that's not happening, then I want my tax dollars to communicate with the
legislature on behalf of what's not happening. I don't know what the rule is, but we'll see if a rule is going to be proposed.

How is it being done? Can we invite the Education Community to the legislature in a different way? They've been shut out so maybe a lobbyist is the only way to get in the door.

Choose Victory (A Predictably Long Dobbs Post)

By Andrew Dobbs

So George W. Bush has reasserted his by now well-tread position on the War in Iraq: “stay the course”. His “Plan for Victory” as the banners noted was to “not run.” He tells us that the process will take time and patience and that soon things will be so much better and we will finally be able to begin drawing down troops. Yet with a government riddled with corruption and beset by insurgency, a military defined largely by its incompetence in the face of murderous thugs and a recent history of chaos, this all seems a bit insanely optimistic.

I can hear the cries now. Dobbs flip flops again? Hardly. Because the opposing sentiments seem far more shortsighted than George W. Bush’s at this point. Calls for withdrawal to just “over the horizon” would lead us to abandon the Iraqi people, break our commitment to them and make it clear to the families of fallen soldiers that their sons and daughters really did die in vain.

I suppose these statements will raise the righteous indignation of withdrawal supporters, but what part of this isn’t accurate? Iraq is unable to defend itself against the homegrown intrigues of Baathists and Bin Ladenists, not to mention the international ploys developing in Syria and Iran. Indeed, other than complete chaos the most likely scenario is that the government we have worked so hard to establish will relish the absence of US oversight to amp up their already considerable corruption and fight amongst themselves over who gets to be the next dictator or mildly legitimate plutocrat. Seems like a desperate place for the people of Iraq to be, and little as they like us now they are likely to be livid when the problems that our haphazard occupation has created would explode into transcontinental crises that would plague us for decades.

But more significant than all of this, we would have to live with the knowledge that 2,000 soldiers have died in vain. Many of you will argue that their lives were already lost in vain in that this war was “unwinnable.” That, my friends, is idiotic. Does anyone really think that with the most powerful military in the history of the world, an $11 trillion economy and 300 million people we really can’t beat a group of maybe 10,000 insurgents that are loosely organized, lightly armed, poorly trained and spread over a country “slightly more than twice the size of Idaho”? Remember that we invaded the country and toppled its full-fledged government and laid waste to its standing army in a matter of days. This is a pre-conference schedule game, people. This is one of those “money games” where some Division II team gets their skull cracked by our scout team.

The only thing we lack is the one non-negotiable when it come to war: the will to win. We need to decide to win this war. Bush wants us to stay the course as we circle the drain in a particularly execrable part of the world; Pelosi et al want us to flee ASAP. Instead, we should admit that “the course” has been terrifically blown and rather than staying it we should change it and rather than giving up we should redouble our efforts until we have won. We should decide to win or resign ourselves to losing.

Bush’s incompetence is proved by all of the reasons we mentioned above. He continually talks about the “hard work” of this effort, but any job can be made hard if you are bad at it. He claims that “he gives the generals what they ask for” and that “they haven’t asked for more troops/money/materiel/whatever.” That probably has something to do with the fact that the last guy who made a bold request for troops was Eric Shinseki who was subsequently compelled to update his resume. Generals don’t become generals because they tell their superiors things they don’t want to hear, nor by declining to learn from the mistakes of those who bilged out. They quickly learned to ask for what the President wanted to give to them.

And for a president who casually admits that longtime political hack Karl Rove has a role in foreign policy decisions and has appointed another PR maven fresh out of Travis County, Karen Hughes, to a significant diplomatic post it should come as no surprise that politics will always take priority over doing what is right. Interestingly enough his gamble failed to pay off: he is more unpopular than he would have been had he actually done what he claims he has, to demand mutual sacrifice for the war effort. Short of the couple hundred thousand soldiers and their families (out of 300 million people and perhaps 100 million families) and in particular the 2,000 who have died, what have we really had to sacrifice during this war? Bush kept cutting taxes! We not only haven’t had a draft, hadn’t had cutbacks in consumer goods or restriction of any of our liberties or forswearing of our luxuries, we actually have more money in our pockets than we did before the damn thing. Indeed, the only thing we have sacrificed is our dignity and the only thing we have gone without is our pride of place as the last great hope of humanity. A bunch of the same slick, well-heeled political hacks that are less than a decade removed from county commissioner races in Houston were the ones telling him how to fight a war without really trying and now that it is clear that they fucked up, his congenital inability to admit failure and his cultural brand of stiff-neckedness is leading us to disaster.

The thing that keeps me up at nights (and it is now 3 AM) is the fact that this guy gets to be president for another three years, and Democrats aren’t offering a whole lot more. We pride ourselves on our moral superiority and we mouth silly platitudes about how we aren’t pacifists, we simply believe that we should only fight “just wars.” The sad fact is that all wars are unjust, but that in a world full of evil we sometimes have to choose our particular brand of injustice. War is little more than politics writ large and with grossly inflated stakes. There is little use in opposing a war that is already begun, as one is most likely to lose the battle (as we stay in the war) or in the event that one succeeds can have only the cold celebration of knowing that their side lost and their countrymen died for no good reason. Keeping your country out of a war is often noble; pulling it is never more than a tragedy. Rather, we should simply resign ourselves to the reality of the war and try and win the damn thing. Sensible Democrats and the few honest Republicans now freed from their party leaders’ iron grip now that chaos has set in in DC should come together to pressure this administration to win the war.

This also happens to be one of those beautiful times when the right policy also happens to make for good politics. No matter how many people tell the pollsters that they oppose the war, few relish the prospect of surrender and those that do tend to live in places we win anyways (for better or for worse). They cannot stomach a vote for the man and the party that has led us into this shameful enterprise, yet the prospect of voting for a party that seems to be capitalizing on our losses seems cold comfort. Polls reflect this, as Bush’s unpopularity is paired with disdain for our party. John Murtha could have been a voice for a new position, and I think he still can, though I’d like to see others (perhaps Harold Ford as he runs for US Senate or Chet Edwards, a good pro-military Texas Democrat and the President’s congressman) stand up and make our party’s position clear: we don’t believe in staying the course, we believe in changing the course. We don’t believe in withdrawal, we believe in winning. To coin a bumper sticker: Don’t Withdraw—Win.

I’ll wrap up with my thoughts on what winning would be. The necessity of this task proves the absurdity of the way Bush jumped into this war. Typically victory is self-evident: a certain bit of territory is obtained, a political entity is obliterated or a particular enemy surrenders. But because the president, in his intense desire to go to war and his shameful attempt to do so without demanding any sort of gut check from the American people, kept moving the goal posts to find a casus belli that pleased everybody we don’t know why we went there any more. In fact, the reason he initially sold the effort on—weapons of mass destruction—turned out to be a non-starter: the weapons were not there. Mission Accomplished. But rather than declaring victory in what ended up being false terms, I believe we should look to the legitimate reasons that existed for war.

First, the US and its allies had a legitimate cause for war beginning in 1998 when Saddam Hussein broke the terms of the ceasefire agreement that halted hostilities during the First Gulf War. In essence, Saddam’s expelling of the weapons inspectors resumed the First Gulf War, which was fought because the government of Iraq refused to recognize the sovereignty of its neighbors and endangered global security by threatening the oil resources of Saudi Arabia. So the first measure of victory is to establish an Iraqi government that respects the sovereignty of its neighbors and cooperates with the rest of the world in a peaceful and constructive way. We need a strong, respected, legitimate central government that has the approval of its people and the rest of the world.

Secondly, Saddam Hussein was sympathetic to, solicitous of and beginning to cooperate with international terrorist groups that wish to harm the United States and our allies. This is a point that the Left likes to deny, despite the fact that a Senate Intelligence Committee Report signed by both John Kerry and John Edwards noted that there had been some cooperation between the government of Iraq and members of al Qaeda. These contacts were testy, embryonic and casual, but it was clear that the longstanding animosity between the two groups had begun to thaw in the wake of 9/11. Don’t believe this? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is currently “leading” the insurgency and is recognized by Osama bin Laden as the head of “al Qaeda in Iraq”, was in Iraq before the invasion with the approval and full knowledge of Saddam’s government. That, my friends, is harboring a known terrorist, one who is now responsible for hundreds of American deaths. Additionally, Saddam’s support of Hamas, Hezbollah, Abu Nidal and other primarily Palestinian-led terrorist groups was actually trumpeted by his government, and he openly gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to suicide bombers and their families. These groups have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israelis and others. Our second measure of victory is an Iraq that is free of terrorist operations and able to continue to ferret out and prosecute terrorists in their own country. Additionally, Iraq should be led by a government that is allied with the United States in the War on Terrorism.

Thirdly, the government of Iraq was brutal to its own people to the point of creating a moral imperative for the United States to address the issue. The first step in this effort should be to remove the mote from our eye: we should acknowledge our wrongdoing at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere and make a commitment to refrain from any form of torture. We must then establish the organs of representative democracy that will lead to lasting self-determination and respect for individual rights. A particular threat to human rights in Iraq is its proximity to three vicious suppressers of human rights: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Iraq needs defensive military capabilities that will enable it to protect itself from threats posed by these countries and others without raising the specter of a return to her past as a threat to these same neighbors. Finally, we need to recognize the threat to the Iraqi people’s dignity that economic devastation and the exacerbating effects of UN sanctions pose. The US and its allies (which can include many of those who were opposed to military action) must help Iraq develop its economy in a way that allows for free enterprise, economic independence and widespread prosperity. This effort will take a generation or more, but reestablishing and expanding the oil industry, helping the agricultural sector recover and creating a climate suitable for other enterprises must be undertaken.

I’d say that an Iraq with a legitimate and self-sufficient government that is freely elected, respectful of human rights, an ally to the United States and other free nations, an Iraq free of terrorism, economically developing at a fast pace and able to defend itself from threats foreign and domestic is a good measure of victory. We will have to spend quite a bit of time and effort killing terrorists, training soldiers, cajoling government officials, building infrastructure and sealing off borders, and it might take a few years. It will, most likely, take decades for us to be comfortable with having no troops on the ground (we still have troops in Germany and Japan, for goodness’ sake), but we can have a minimal presence in a relatively short time as long as we are willing to win and make the sacrifices that demands. Our choice is simple: sacrifice and victory or “staying the course” and withdrawing towards defeat. Honor or shame.

Choose Victory.