Sunday Funnies

"Tell me one area where Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin would disagree. I cannot find one area. So somehow he's the smartest guy in the party and she's the stupidest woman on Earth but they agree on everything."

-- Bill Maher

"His eyes are just so blue. It's like looking into a Smurf's anus." -- Jon Stewart

My nomination for Protest Sign of the Year.

Brainy endorsements: Henry Cooper

Henry Cooper is the Green running against Jessica Farrar in Texas House District 148. There is no Republican or Libertarian in the contest.

Here's why he is challenging the Texas House Democratic Caucus chair, a well-respected -- and usually progressive -- Democrat.

I’m a native Houstonian, married and have two children. I’m a machinist by profession and have worked for more than 20 years in the gas and oil manufacturing industry. In my line of work, I’ve seen how oil companies have grown and profited through the years, and yet the good old jobs have vanished, outsourced, or transferred to subcontractors to lower the cost of labor.

Yet, despite the steady growth in the private sector, we are told that there is not enough revenue for the public services or schools and that the state is in an ‘economic crisis’. I don’t think so!

I am asking for your vote because I stand for:

1. Promoting the development of new jobs and solve the revenue ‘crisis’ of our state, especially when we live in Texas, one of the richest and most profitable states in the United States.
2. Impeding in the next legislature's funding cuts to the education budget and instead invest in our children’s education to prepare them for the challenges ahead (prepare them with a high quality education).
3. Enforcing fiscal responsibility on the multi-billion dollar corporations that are not paying their fair share of taxes by eliminating loopholes that allow them to evade their fiscal duties. If you are paying your fair share, so should they!
4. Developing and promoting alternative technologies to the carbon-based fuels with the scientific participation of some of our best universities in the state. We can start changing the fossil-fuel consumption and increase the wealth of all Texans.
5.  Increasing the capacity, delivery and quality of medical services across all our communities.
6. Supporting our children’s vision to pursue a higher education by making their college education affordable across all disciplines, and particularly medicine and nursing studies.

I am asking for your vote to be a state representative that is not only willing to present solutions that will benefit all Texans, but will also lobby among the electorate of those representatives that don’t have in mind the best interest of our state and its residents. A legislator is not limited to represent his or her constituency but works for the benefit for all Texans.

Here's a bit more, also in his own words.



Más sobre esto de Henry en Español.



Henry is holding a meet-and-greet tomorrow, Saturday, August 18, at the Oak Forest Library, from 2-4 pm. I encourage residents of the district to introduce themselves. You can also see Henry's Facebook page for more, and donate to Cooper's campaign here.

Here's the part where some Democrats are going to want to know why I passed over Farrar, the kind of Democrat I can usually support.

Keep in mind also that I not only, like Cooper, have a great deal of respect Farrar personally and for her long list of accomplishments, but further that I accepted her invitation to ride to Austin on her bus -- at her expense -- for the opening day of the Texas legislative session in 2011.  Here's my post about that. I and the rest of my TPA blog brethren endorsed Farrar in 2008.

Farrar has, in my opinion, lost her way a bit as a progressive. Cooper notes incorrectly in the first video above that Farrar supports the Keystone XL pipeline; she does not, according to a staff member in Austin I spoke with shortly before posting this. Though I found it extremely difficult to get that opposition on the record.

This letter, signed not only by Rep. Farrar but also Cooper and many other progressive elected officials and environmental activists over one year ago, requested that Secretary Hillary Clinton utilize all legal and environmental checks and balances, including public hearings, before moving forward on Keystone XL. Hearings were held; no official approval has been granted by the State Department, and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline quietly proceeds apace. Without noticeable opposition, I might add, from anyone except a few community activists.

Farrar has also stood behind Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia and his well-documented and vigorous efforts to execute the Obama administration's controversial Secure Communities program. She also -- very much a rarity for a Texas House member, much less the caucus chair -- made a public point of endorsing the Corporate Democrat in the CD-07 primary.

That was the last straw for me, personally.

Farrar had a fairly close go of it but only in relative terms in 2010, the year of the Red Tea Tide, and no Republican stepped up this year... probably on the thought that 41% was their high water mark. Cooper is only likely to expose whatever vulnerability the Democratic Leader has on her left as a result of abandoning a few precious progressive values, but my feeling is that she's in for a bigger challenge in two years if she keeps forgetting to dance with the ones that brung her.

Thanks for all you've done, Representative Farrar, but there is a better choice in November 2012; someone who comes a little closer to representing working people and progressives in the Texas House. I hope you get the message he's sending.

Cockblock the Vote

Considering our recent discussions on the topic, The Daily Show's take last night is cogent and wicked.

[...] Jon Stewart tore into Republican-backed voter identification laws in Pennsylvania and Ohio, which he branded as two different attempts at “suppressing Democratic turnout.”

“Voter fraud is an enormous issue with more than exactly 10 documented cases of it in the entire country alone,” Stewart deadpanned, “just since the beginning of the millennium. That’s .000000284% of all votes. So you can see why Pennsylvania would want to enact a voter ID law that one study claims could potentially disenfranchise around 9% of the entire Pennsylvanian electorate. But that’s the price you pay to prevent something that doesn’t happen.”

“Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the last five presidential elections,” Stewart pointed out, “leaning toward Obama in this election. It’s not like voter ID law is blatantly designed to skew that result. Right, State House Republican majority leader that designed it?”

He then played tape of that Pennsylvania legislator, Mike Turzai, saying, “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Done.”

Stewart then went after Ohio Republicans’ attempt to restrict early voting hours on Democratic counties but extending early voting hours in Republican ones. “Are you kidding me?” he exclaimed. “All Americans who want equal access to the vote take two steps forward. Not so fast, people who live on Martin Luther King Boulevard South.”

Stewart then played a clip of an Ohio Republican legislator defending the rules by saying, “We try to make it easy but we can’t, you know. I say we’re not 7-11. We can’t stay open 24/7 and let anybody vote by any rule that they want to.”

“Surely we can’t expect our constitutionally guaranteed voting rights to meet the same high standards as a combination gas station/convenience store,” Stewart mocked.

“Two states, two completely different means of suppressing Democratic turnout,” he concluded. “Here is the one thing they have in common: the mechanism of the vote are in the hands of partisan elected officials.”

There's video of the whole thing at Mediaite.

What I never understand is why nobody even mentions Texas. Like the ultrasound bill and trans-vaginal wands, which was enough to ruin Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's chances to be Mitt Romney's running mate, Texas is like a whole other (fascist) country in the national discussion.

Unlike Pennsylvania and Ohio, Texas' own Photo ID law is so egregious that it is stymied by both the courts and the DOJ, while in Houston we suffer from the Teabagger takeover of our bifurcated election system (registration and elections).  The landslide of Democrats elected via voter fraud in Harris County is, of course, the reason for the birth of the King Street Patriots, now a national organization comprised of Caucasian Christian warriors on a mission to prevent anyone who doesn't look like them -- or think like me -- from voting.

And neither the Republicans in charge of the mess, nor most Democrats, want to change that.

Do you still think voting for either a Democrat or a Republican without considering the other options is going to effect change? It seems to me that would be the textbook definition of insanity.

And they call ME crazy for wishing this was the reality.

Libertarians tour Texas

Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson and US Senate candidate John Jay Myers are taking a Texas swing.

[...] Myers will join Governor Johnson for a meet and greet and breakfast in Dallas (8/15-8/16), a book signing and dinner in Austin (8/17), a meet and greet and VIP reception in San Antonio (8/18), and a reception and open mic night in Houston (8/19). Myers will also be stopping at East Beach in Galveston (8/19), and visiting East Texas for a public  barbecue in Tyler (8/21), and dinner in Mount Pleasant (8/21) during an extended part of the trip.

As Republicans feel the splitting hangover of their Mitt Romney/Ted Cruz rage binge, the Libertarians are going to start looking better and better, particularly to all of those non-TeaBagging conservatives. Myers is fire-branding...

“The Republican primary in Texas was a contest between the banks and the oil companies, and the banks won.” ... “Ted Cruz is not the outsider people think they voted for. Cruz worked for the federal government, and he also advised George W. Bush’s campaign on domestic policy. And how did Bush’s domestic policy of bank bailouts and stimulus work out? Ted Cruz’s government resume does not match his claims to be an establishment outsider.”

Myers questioned Cruz’s commitment to liberty: “Cruz expresses pride in his family’s escape to the U.S., and yet maintains a platform hostile to immigrants. He claims to support freedom and yet wants government to dictate whom you can marry and what substances peaceful people put in their bodies. And he follows the same foreign policy doctrine of entangling alliances our Founding Fathers warned us about.”

Myers condemned the false choice presented to Republican voters: “During the primary, the Republicans were given a choice between a millionaire former CIA officer who runs an oil and gas company, or a rich establishment lawyer who is literally in bed with a vice president of Goldman Sachs, the bank that was by far the largest beneficiary of the Bush-Obama bailouts through its insurer AIG. How do you think the pillow talk will go when Goldman Sachs needs $100 billion more after the next market meltdown?”

You might fall for that tough talk if Myers weren't more devoted to Ayn Rand than even Paul Ryan. Democratic nominee Paul Sadler is hoping he can capture Republican leakage from Cruz, but that has been shown time and again to be a fallacy. But since this post is about the Libs, let's return to Johnson, who articulates the message a little better than Myers.



Now that's damned solid and effective. I don't buy it, of course, but a lot of people will, and lot more should. And there's plenty of additional evidence that the Liberts have an excellent opportunity to put a dent in GOP futures this fall. First, the Austin Chron:

Historically, Libertarians have been perceived as a thorn in the GOP's side, occasionally nudging elections toward the Democrats by pulling away some right-wing voters. In 2008 the GOP actively courted the Libertarian Party of Texas and asked them to pull candidates from the ballot in marginal seats (see "State GOP Fears Libertarian Upset," Aug. 8, 2008). Locally, Libertarians could become a factor in two key House races. Republican Paul Workman survived a bruising primary in House District 47, and Dem Chris Frandsen may be hoping that the addition of Libertarian Nick Tanner – running against Workman for being "pro-Amnesty, anti-free market" – may increase his chances. Next door in HD 48, Democrat Donna Howard narrowly squeaked out a multi-recount victory in 2010 and, while she is still favored over self-proclaimed moderate Republican Robert Thomas, Libertarian Joe Edgar could help her by further splitting the GOP base.

I posted over three months ago about the Libs and the Weed Bloc. Here's a bit more about their electoral chances from the Johnson campaign itself, via Third Party Politics.

Libertarian Presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson is polling at 5.3% nationwide. (JZ Analytics/Washington Times).

But look at the numbers when he’s included in statewide polls against Obama and Romney. 13% in New Mexico. 9% in Arizona. 7% in Colorado. 7% in New Hampshire. 8% in Montana. (PPP and others)

Governor Johnson’s poll numbers – and his votes this November – may be the critical factor in “Tipping Point” or battleground states like North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado – where Obama and Romney are 1% to 6% apart. Mitt Romney needs these 5 states, these 74 Electoral votes to win the White House.

North Carolina and Virginia voted Republican 7 out the last 8 Presidential races. Florida and Colorado voted Republican in 6 out of the last 8. Nevada voted Republican in 5 out of the last 8. All 5 of these battleground states voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

But the one thing that will really make a tremendous difference is if Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein are included in the fall's presidential debates. Here's something provocative to read about that. You will want to read the whole thing -- especially if you're unfamiliar with the 15% polling threshold to qualify to participate -- but here's the last few grafs as moneyshot.

Getting on ballots across the country requires time, organization, support and money. That should be difficult enough to weed out the riff-raff, but if you wanted to make it even harder to get an invite to the debates (but not impossible, which for all intents and purposes, the current system is), why not amend the third criterion to read: 15% of public support --OR-- the candidate is eligible for federal matching funds and has received the nomination of their respective party?

Under this system, the 2012 presidential debates might look like this:

• Barack Obama (Democrat)
• Mitt Romney (Republican)
• Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
• Jill Stein (Green)

Something tells me that this debate would touch on issues more thoughtful than who the real "outsourcer-in-chief" is. And considering that federal tax dollars are, in part, funding the campaigns of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, it would be nice to hear them talk.

It's been 20 years since a third-party candidate has been invited to debate Republican and Democratic presidential nominees; we all know how political discourse has played out since then. Sometimes, it makes sense to look at the system that is in place and ask ourselves: Is this really the best way to do things? I realize that I'm not the first to say this, but I think we can do better.

If you wish to petition the Commission on Presidential Debates to include Gov. Johnson and Dr. Stein in the debates, go here. As John DeFeo notes in his opening...

The U.S. presidential debates are like a "Best Beer in America" contest where only Bud Light and Coors Light are invited. Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with these beers, they satisfy millions of Americans. But to claim one of them is the "best" while ignoring the hundreds of independent American breweries churning out some of the world's most unique and innovative suds -- well, that seems wrong.

Not just 'seems', John.

Four More Beers

I think we finally have proof that President Obama is not Muslim.

Yes, that is a draft beer and a pork chop, according to eyewitness accounts at the Iowa state fair.

 Back in 2008, the slow-sipping Obama found himself on the losing side of the beer-drinking battle, since Hillary Clinton knocked them back with gusto, sometimes with a shot of whiskey. The President was forced to pretend that beer didn’t matter. “Around election time, the candidates can’t do enough. They’ll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer,” he told crowds then, trying to undercut Clinton’s chugging advantage.

Yes, Obama has learned quite a bit since the arugula 'scandal'.

In 2012, however, Obama is determined to win the beer vote, a task made easier by the fact that his opponent, Mitt Romney, never drinks as a matter of religious principle. On his three-day trip through Iowa, beer was Obama’s ubiquitous prop, repeatedly offered up by the president and his aides as proof of his relatability—and more indirectly an attempt at reinforcing the otherness of Romney for regular folks.

The president didn’t just order beer before cameras, which he did at two different stops. He traveled across the state with a bus stocked with White House-brewed beer, and even handed out a bottle to a patron at a coffee shop in Knoxville. His campaign press secretary briefed reporters on the beer consumption of senior staff at the Iowa state fair—two Bud Lights apiece. A press gaggle detailed some of the attributes of the White House brewery. And Obama talked about brews, over and again.

By the time he made it to Waterloo Tuesday night, after another stop at a Cedar Falls pub for a 7 p.m. Bud Light, the strategy bordered on self-parody. “Yesterday, I went to the State Fair and I had a pork chop and a beer. And it was good,” Obama said, by way of introduction. “Today I just had a beer. I didn’t get the pork chop.  But the beer was good, too.”

Even with scant evidence that the president was actually drinking any of the many beers he was seen ordering, holding, and handing out from his home-brewed stash, the optics are still very much in his favor. Especially when Mitt Romney is having a campaign event at a Miami juice bar -- no alcoholic or caffeinated options on the menu -- owned by a convicted cocaine dealer.

I remember a time in the recent past when Republicans were pretty good at these presidential campaigns. Karl Rove must be cringing in agony.

Brainy endorsements: Alfred Molison for HD 131, GC Molison for SBOE

Alas, whatever fences may have been mended with my Democratic friends by yesterday's endorsement may be undone today.

That's the way the Communist cookie crumbles.

HOUSTON – For the first time a Communist Party in the United States has formally endorsed two Green Party members for public office. The Houston Communist Party (www.houstoncommunistparty.com ) formally endorsed and will support Alfred Molison Jr. for Texas House of Representatives, District 131, and G.C. Molison for Texas Board of Education District 6, as Green Party candidates. Both candidates will face Libertarian, Democratic, and Republican opponents on the ballot November 6, 2012.

I join them in this endorsement. Alfred Molison Jr.'s opponent in HD-131 is Democratic incumbent Dr. Alma Allen, who beat back a primary challenge from former Houston city council member Wanda Adams in July. GC Molison is challenging 3 others in SBOE -6, including Democrat Traci Jensen.

“I was surprised and very happy upon hearing the news of their endorsement by the Houston Communist Party. Usually, the CPUSA (www.cpusa.org ) mandates that members support and work for Democrats for public office. As far as I can tell this is the first and only endorsement by a Communist Party club of any Green Party candidates in the entire United States,” said Alfred Molison III, manager of his parents' election campaigns.

“I want to publicly thank the members and leadership of the Houston Communist Party for (their endorsements). We look forward to working together to improve the lives of working class people, better educate all the children of Texas and maintain and improve the entire environment for everyone.”

Molison III has served in the past as co-chair of the Harris County Green Party as well as former co-chair of the Green Party of Texas, and has previously run for municipal office himself in the city elections in 2009 as part of the Progressive Coalition. Both of his parents are retired and have joined the fray as candidates in this cycle in order, in their words, to expand upon the Ten Key Values of the Green Party.

For her part, Dr. Allen entered the statehouse after defeating a thoroughly disgraced Rep. Ron Wilson in 2004, and has met token opposition, if any at all, since that time. Adams' challenge in the primary, won by Allen 60-40, has been the closest contest during that period.

Dr. Allen has done little to distinguish herself during her tenure. In her three four terms in the House, her claim to fame is an anti-spanking bill, as well as her bipartisan efforts to get that bill passed with the help of a Republican colleague. Laudable, if low profile. The Chron's by-now-notorious and disgraced editorial board praised her in their primary endorsement, noting Speaker Joe Straus' appointment of Dr. Allen to the legislature's joint committee to study public school financing.

I just don't know how much more study that topic requires at this point. I believe everybody understands what the problems are, and the Republican-dominated Lege will very likely keep cutting money from the education budget. So Dr. Allen -- with all of her years of education experience and record of bipartisan cooperation -- is probably on that committee for the sole purpose of rubberstamping whatever it is the GOP is going to do in 2013.

Oh, one other thing: Dr. Allen came out early and endorsed the Corporate Democrat in CD-07. She obviously likes her fellow Democrats swimming in marinara sauce. That of course would be the plutocrat variety of rojo, and not the populist-flavored Red.

The candidates whom Mrs. Molison is challenging in November, likewise, are fine people and capable contenders. Marc Campos, the Latino political consultant with all the answers, has Jensen as his client. So we can expect a good push in the Latino community for Jensen.

For my part, I thought that Latino voters would have gone with the Latina and the progressive in the primary, Patty Quintana-Nilsson. So perhaps Campos' vaunted secret-key-to-Latino-turnout was in play, and if we're lucky, will finally be revealed to the benefit of all.

While we wait for the Democratic establishment candidates to reveal themselves as dedicated servants for the working class in their respective districts, we can know that there are already two candidates who are waiting for them.

“We are happy to support and endorse these candidates for public office who will fight for social justice to include economic justice for the working people of their districts”, said James Thompson, Chair of the Houston Communist Party. “This will serve as a good example of cooperation between Reds and Greens in an effort to fight for the interests of working people”, he said.

“I have to admit to having had some prejudice against Communists," Molison III said. "However, when I went to meetings with the Houston Communist Party, I was surprised to find a tremendous amount of genuine freedom of speech, democracy and differences of opinion and procedure. It wasn’t divided. It was respectful and broad. I think most people would enjoy meetings of the Houston Communist Party. They aren’t fighting for the doctrine and theology of Marxism. They’re working together to figure out how to help people and the world. Just like the Greens and the Green Party, they haven’t been bought out by the wealthy and the big corporations.”

And there you have it. I just hope nobody still wonders why I have broken out of the Blue straight-jacket of one-party thinking. I encourage all free thinkers to join me.

Once you have scooped your brains up off the floor and arranged them carefully back into your cranial cavity, that is.

Brainy endorsements: Nile Copeland

The first in a continuing series of endorsements of November candidates for progressive voters.

Nile Copeland is my favorite candidate running for any office in 2012. And when you read this, you'll understand why.

TODAY I see stories in the news like:

• Texas Judge Beats Daughter
• Texas Judge Caught Sleeping in Court
• Federal Judge Sends Racist Email
• Texas Judge on Trial After Execution Plea Refused
• Texas Judge Sentences Honor Student to Jail for Missing School
• Texas Judge Facing Felony Bribery Charges
• Texas Judge Reprimanded for Improperly Jailing Man

 I am running for the Texas First Court of Appeals because I am tired of apologizing for the legal system. It's time to fix a broken judiciary. It's time to put your foot down and say NO MORE BS. Judges have a responsibility to uphold the time honored position and see that the law is fair, impartial and to act professionally and with integrity. We should be proud of our Texas Judges. If you read a story where a judge does something you think is BS, please send it to me.

Here's more about Nile if you need it. I didn't. Truthfully I would be inclined to support nearly anybody whose slogan was "No More BS", but as we know politicians -- certainly judicial candidates -- do not typically use language so blunt in ther campaigns.

Needless to say, I only sat with Copeland a couple of times before I realized he was the man. I just wish he was running for Texas Supreme Court. Or governor. Maybe he will.

But for now we need to elect him to the First Court of Appeals, where currently only Republicans serve with one exception. Because the counties served by the First -- Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Harris, Waller, and Washington -- include a number of rural ones where many voters aren't so discriminating, it is vital that we put the word out that Copeland is the man for the Herculean task of reforming the judicial system in Texas, beginning at the appellate level.

So e-mail this post to your friends using the link below, and to the Democratic chairs in the counties listed above -- here's a list of county chairs with their e-mail addresses -- and make a contribution if you can to Copeland's campaign. You can also like his Facebook page and follow him on Twitter.

He is as good as it gets for Texas progressives.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance would like to thank Mitt Rmoney for clarifying what this election is about -- better than it ever could -- as it brings you this week's roundup.  

BossKitty at TruthHugger is amazed how blind America's elected leaders are to the reality of climate changes. Headlines have described catastrophic climate and weather events, one after another for the past decade. Each year seems to break another record, at least in terms of human recorded history. So 2012 gives Americans a chance to elect responsive and responsible leaders. On Fire, Out of Food, Out of Water, Out of Power shows the reality Americans are facing. Who can we elect that will step up to save our future?

The great equalizer in any society is education, that's why the regressives hate it so much. WCNews at Eye on Williamson points out that the GOP attack on public education will continue next session.

Off the Kuff notes that while Democrats want to talk about solutions in Texas, Republicans want to talk about things that will benefit themselves.

At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw explains how the Texas Tea Party Republicans Bur[ied] the Birther Hatchet. For Ted Cruz.

The stooges running Harris County elections came under the withering scrutiny of PDiddie at Brains and Eggs, and a proposal to appoint an elections administrator was met with moans of objection from Democratic activists. PDiddie reminds the naysayers that if you keep on doing what you've been doing, you're going to keep on getting what you've got.

Rick Perry and his minions lied their asses off about there being money to pay for women's health. CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme isn't the least bit surprised.

 Neil at Texas Liberal has been in Chicago this week. Neil has posted a number of pictures from the City of Broad Shoulders.

Sunday Funnies

Herman and Eddie 2012

Democrats line up against Harris elections administrator

On the 'devil you know' theory. All these come from Whitmarsh's list.

Stan Merriman was first out of the gate yesterday afternoon.

Are our memories that short ?  We've had "expert" election administrators before., working under our County Clerk.   I won't name names unless you insist, but in the late 90's we had a guy alleged to be an expert who led our then County Clerk and both Dem and Repug county chairs down the primrose path to the Hart machines, without any paper trail and we've been stuck with them ever since, now with new "replacements" of this outdated, non-recount technology after the fire. Most of the rest of America has moved to other, more transparent technology with recount capability at least.  Later, when this administrator left to ultimately become an election association lobbyist, we brilliantly hired a guy fresh from the Broward County, Florida recount fiasco of 2000. He continued the advocacy for our black box voting technology and then moved on.  he moved on I think also to become a lobbyist.    So, our track record on these "experts" isn't so good, is it. At least having this position under an elected official gives  we the people the option to remove all incompetents from office. Including the "experts" who screw up.

Gerry Birnberg picked up an echo from John Behrman (who posts occasionally here).

I share Gerry’s reservations about an elections administrator: It is something we could come to regret a lot. But, that is not what Lane Lewis called for.

The Chairman’s position is much more astute, to the point, and practical. The phrase “forensic audit” reported in the Chronicle is not a felicitous phrase: a “forensic examination”, “election audit,” or “IT audit” are things needed at various times, but not the same thing. 

Behrman continued a bit more in high praise of Chairman Lewis. David Patronella fell in behind Merriman.

Stan is absolutely right. An appointed elections administrator is not the answer. In the 1980s Dallas County became the first county to get an appointed elections administrator. She in short time gained notoriety for short changing Democratic strongholds at election time. Officially nonpartisan, she owed her position not to the voters of Dallas County but to Republican officeholders and acted in their interesest. Minority and other Democratic legislators introduced several pieces of legislation to curtail her power some of which were enacted. I would hate to see us go down this path notwithstanding serious concerns with recent serious election problems in our county.

I just left all the typographical errors, sentence fragments, comma splicing, inappropriate capitalization and munged paragraphs in those excerpts because otherwise I would have had to type [sic] about a hundred times.

Several of these men have advanced degrees from institutions more noteworthy than Lamar University, so I suppose we can chalk some of it up to failing eyesight.

Meh. Anybody can make a mistake. Even me.

But nothing anybody has written yet -- not even Charles' skepticism -- convinces me I am wrong about the need for an appointed elections administrator for Harris County, and fast. As in an observatory capacity for November, and a supervisory one after January.

I wonder if Marc Campos is still with me? Guess we'll find out later this morning. I'll update here when he weighs in. In the meantime, let's allow Pokey Anderson to remind us what's at the root of the problem: "the electrons running Harris County elections".

At the risk of harping on something I've (cough cough) researched for years....

Harris County elections are run on non-transparent, all-electronic machines, driven by software that is by its nature non-transparent. Even software in use for years has bugs in it (constant Microsoft updates, anyone?), some important, some not. Software can be changed, by officials, by insiders, by hackers.

Are intrusions into critical computers difficult? Are they rare? 

1) In one year, the Pentagon logged more than 79,000 attempted intrusions; about 1,300 were successful, including the penetration of computers linked to the Army’s 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions and the 4th Infantry Division. (2005)

2) "A government consultant, using computer programs easily found on the Internet, managed to crack the FBI's classified computer system and gain the passwords of 38,000 employees, including that of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III." (2004, reported by the Washington Post)

3) Secret Service operating procedures, 100,000 Social Security numbers, and other "highly sensitive" national security information have gone missing from the National Archives. (2009, reported by Computer World).

4) A computer hacker got into the U.S. agency that guards the country's nuclear weapons stockpile and stole the personal records of at least 1,500 employees and contractors, a senior U.S. lawmaker said. (Reported by Reuters, 2006)

When you combine inherently non-transparent electronic machinery, subject to flaws or fraud, with how much money and power is at stake in an election, you are gambling your democracy.

Certainly, some election chiefs are better than others. But, after a certain basic level of competency, whether you have Mother Teresa or Jeff Skilling running your elections should NOT matter.

Then-County Clerk Beverly Kaufman's PR flack, David Beirne, told a meeting of League of Women Voters that they should not expect transparency in elections.

"They're faith-based elections," he sniffed.

No. It's not about faith. Elections are about transparency.

In 2003, I asked Beirne about the software, the guts of this stuff:

 "No one in our office has the expertise and background to be looking at the source code, the programming for the eSlate system. "

As for an audit trail, watch his language here:

"Right now what we do in the State of Texas and what's considered to be adequate in the state of Texas is that right now we can manufacture an audit trail any time after an election if it's necessary to do a manual recount. "

Manufacture?

(In 2007, Beirne stopped working for the public and accepted a job working for the electronic voting machine organization, Election Technology Council. But, one could argue whether he ever was working for the public.)

The public should be able to tell if elections are being run fairly and accurately, by observing every step of the process. When it happens in a dark box, the public has no way to know. What if your bank told you your account had $50,000 at 10 pm, but only $30,000 the next morning, and you had made no transactions?

If the top election official "explains" losing 800 votes by blaming it on "garbage" phone lines, the public should be able to verify, without doubt, what the actual vote counts are.

You can't do it with the eSlate. Period.

Pokey nails it, and for their part Merriman (including above as well as in an op-ed in the Chronicle some years ago), Behrman (in continuing and official capacity), and I have all studied and written about this issue extensively ourselves.

I was on the conference call with Common Cause and Verified Voting yesterday which had as its topic election machine integrity; read the reports here and here. And be reminded that we all agree on at least this much: that neither partisan elected officials nor election officials appointed by partisans can really address the dilemmas we face in Harris County, Texas, and the nation.

But hey, an elections administrator is a beginning toward improving accountability. One I think we need. As with most of my political endeavors, I'm not concerned about being the minority view.

Update: Then again, maybe the County Clerk's office can just call their PR consultant, Hector Carreno, who also consults the Election Technology Council, and get this all *ahem* "papered" over.

Isn't it simply amazing how Carreno's fat fingers are in every single pie in the county?

The stooges running elections in Harris County *update*

John has been on this since I've been busy offline, and this week HCDP chair Lane Lewis put out the call for a forensic audit of the Harris County elections process in the wake of the recent buffoonery.

Harris County and political leaders Tuesday called for an audit and reforms to improve public confidence in local elections in the wake of problems in last week's primary runoffs that included contests run on the wrong boundaries, delayed results and inaccurate tallies posted online.

Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart said he will ask the Texas Secretary of State's Office to examine his office's election processes after a "human error" in his office caused erroneous primary runoff election results to be posted online for hours last Tuesday. The error made the Democratic runoff for Precinct 2 constable appear to be a blowout for one candidate when, in fact, the correct count had his opponent ahead.

Democratic Party chairman Lane Lewis also called for an audit of election procedures. Lewis referenced delays in the posting of results in May and July, and a Democratic primary race for the Harris County Department of Education run on outdated boundaries. County tax assessor-collector Don Sumners has accepted some blame for the error but says the Department of Education was required to notify him of the change; the department disagrees.

As Charles has documented, County Judge Ed Emmett is mumbling and shuffling his feet and not actually showing any management skills, as usual.

(Emmett) revived his proposal that an elections administrator, an appointed official outside the clerk's office and tax office, be considered. Emmett said 85 Texas counties, including most large ones, use the system.

"I'm not saying we need to go to what they do, but if there are improvements we can make, I think we ought to consider making those improvements," Emmett said. "If there is an error, then at least you have somebody who is a professional election administrator. Nobody reads into it that this is an elected person that's partisan one way or the other."

This is as lame as his leadership on the "rusting ship in the parking lot" that is the Houston Astrodome. If it weren't for so many other incompetents among the county's Republicans, Emmett's worthlessness might draw some scrutiny.

Fortunately for him, there are bigger fuckups of the elected variety spread around town. Thanks, TeaBaggers!

Regarding Stan Stanart, he simply does not need to be by himself anywhere near any more elections. There need to be multiple observers from both parties -- perhaps even Greens and Libertarians as well, maybe even the DOJ -- present in the county ballot cave on Election Night in November.

A non-partisan appointed elections administrator is officially and badly needed NOW in the nation's third-most populous county. At the very least, Commissioners Court should appoint someone without reproach to the position at once to observe Stanart as well as Sumner's activities during the voter registration process, and that person should assume the office and the control of all Harris County elections in January, 2013.

If the King Street Patriots were serious about vote "fraud", they would give up their vile suppression tactics and just concentrate on watching everything Stanart and his clown sidekick Sumners are doing for the next 90 days. But as a district court has ruled, they are ribald partisan flacks themselves.

Those are actually the three greatest threats to an honest election in this county in 2012: KSP, Sumners, and Stanart. Don't expect any Republican to take any serious ethical action against any of them. They all love their power more than they do honesty and transparency in government.

Update: Campos wants to know...

I wonder why local Dem Party leaders won’t come out and support an Election Administrator?

And via Carl W, former HCDP chair Gerry Birnberg tries to set us both -- mostly me -- straight.

The Elections Administrator idea falls into the "better watch out what you ask for, you just might get it" category.. Perry apparently doesn't realize who appoints an Elections Administrator: under Texas law, the Elections Administrator is appointed by a fiver person committee consisting of (1) the County Clerk (yep - Stan Stanart), (2) the County Tax Assessor-Collector/Voter Registrar (currently Tea Party crazy Don Sumner, but after Januayr [sic] 1, hopefuly Ann Bennett, and if not her, then Mike Sullivan), (3) the County Judge (Ed Emmett), (4) the Chair of the Harris County Republican Party (Jarrod [sic] Woodfill), and (5) the Chair of the Harris County Democratic Party (Lane Lewis). Even if you could somehow hop [sic] that Ed Emmett would vote for a reasonable, competent, not-partisan Elections Administrator, do you think Jarrod [sic] Woodfill, Stan Stanart, and Don Sumner would?

And once you appoint an Election Administrator, that person cannot be replaced -- even for cause, unless four of the members of that committee vote to remove him or her. So, as a practical matters, once appointed, it's essentially a lifetime appointment. (Commissioners Court can abolish the position by majority vote, but they cannot fire the Administrator and obtain a replacement).

So until Democrats win at least one of the countywide elected spots on the committee (voter registrar, count clerk, or county judge) and really, two of them, it could be electoral suicide to put the entire elections apparatus (voter registration and elections administration) in the hands of one un-elected, permanent, un-replaceable person selected by Don Sumner, Stan Stanart, and Jarrod Woodfill (to say nothing of Ed Emmett).

The best way to clean up the mess is to elect Ann Bennett voter registrar in November and some other Democrat as county clerk and/or county judge in 2014.

Gerry gets it a little right and a little wrong here.

He's right that I didn't know it was those five who appointed an elections administrator, and wrong that it wouldn't be an improvement. ANYTHING and anybody would be better than leaving things they way they are... until hopefully Harris County voters elect another Democrat in November AND in an off-presidential year two years hence, when Democrats traditionally avoid the polls.

A little too much hope meeting cold hard reality there for me, Gerr.

Way back when Beverly Kaufman retired, she also tried to hand-pick her successor, and I criticized that. Kevin Mauzy looks like a whiz-bang stinkin' genius at this point of course, and might be the perfect fit. Certainly seems competent; might even be from the moderately sane wing of the GOP (since Stanart whipped him in 2010's primary). This would be a fat slice of humble pie for Stanart to eat, that's for sure.

Today's little effort to appear moderate myself, not to mention bipartisan, hopefully won't go overlooked.

Did Gerry answer your question, Marc?

Update: Charles Kuffner has deeper background (but no secrets).