Sunday Freak Out Funnies

Dan Patrick seizes on ISIS-at-border claims in first TV ad

Wheelchair ads

National media seems to have the vapors about Wendy Davis' latest teevee ad.  And if that's what the WaPo and the AP are saying, you can only imagine how offended Breitbart Texas is acting.  Why, even Mother Jones is clutching her pearls.

I just don't think any of these people have been following the race for Texas governor very closely.  Or if they have, they've been doing so from a posh suite of offices inside the Beltway.

Here's a couple of explanations for the out-of-towners about how political campaigns go in the Lone Star State from some of my fellow bloggers who know about these things.  Or you can read the comments on the story at the HouChron, which for the uninitiated is no bastion of Texas liberalism.  You will find several short -- even Tweetably short -- descriptions of precisely what the spot is about.

Specifically, a self-loathing sociopath.

For those who won't click: the ad is about the baldest demonstration of hypocrisy ever performed by any politician anywhere, and not the fact that he was too stupid to get out of the way of a falling tree.  So let's be certain that the corporate media outside Texas regains its focus by repeating the truth about Greg Abbott.

Now if someone wants to scream and cry about those who would make fun of people in wheelchairs, I got your outrage right here.  Swinging.

More Texas voter ID legal developments

-- Greg Abbott asks for some guidance (via Quorum Report).

While it is obvious that the federal court in Corpus Christi has rejected Texas' voter ID law as discriminatory and a de facto poll tax, it failed to issue a judgment instructing the state on required procedures, if any, for the November election.

The Office of the Attorney General has issued a request for guidance on the initiation and scope of the injunction and whether it will be implemented for this election. The request notes "The issuance of an opinion with no injunction or direction regarding the timing of the injunction is already adding to the confusion created by the Court’s decision. Texas respectfully requests that the Court enter the planned injunction and judgment by the close of business today."

The request for guidance can be found here.

Update (10/11): And guidance is supplied.

-- Chad Dunn, the TDP lawyer who makes his living doing this, weighs in (via Lone Star Project):

LSP: Greg Abbott has already announced that he will appeal Judge Ramos’ ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. How long will that process take, and what happens after the 5th Circuit rules?

CD: We expect Judge Ramos to issue an order formally blocking enforcement of the Texas voter ID law within the next few days. Greg Abbott has already announced that he will appeal her ruling and ask the 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals to reverse her order. After the 5th Circuit rules, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the US Supreme Court. It would not surprise me if both the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court issue rulings on this matter in next ten days. (emphasis mine)

I guess some attorneys are going to be working over the weekend.

For want of a stamp, the election was lost

All apologies to James Baldwin William Shakespeare whomever.  The following account is a transcript of the news report shown on the 10 p.m. newscast of Houston's ABC affiliate, KTRK, last night.  They don't have their own video posted to the website yet, so this one from Lane Lewis will have to suffice for now.

Hundreds of mail-in ballots that are being mistakenly held for days at a downtown post office will now be delivered to the Harris County Clerks Office.

The downtown post office was holding the ballots for insufficient postage, something they are not supposed to do.

"We found a glitch. And we're going to expose this," said Harris County Democratic Chairman Lane Lewis.

Lewis found out about the ballots and offered to pay for the postage shortage. Almost all the ballots were short on postage by just pennies.

"These votes whether Republican or Democrat, I don't know, but they need to be counted," said Lewis.

A postal worker told Eyewitness News the shortage was about $57. The worker said for that price, Lewis could take the ballots, put the stamp on himself and return them to the post office. That's against policy and illegal.

"We could have walked out of here with those ballots. But we did not," said Lewis.

"That is totally irresponsible on their part," said Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart.

Eyewitness News learned the county clerk's office has an account with the (Houston) postmaster, so any shortage should be billed to his office. Post office workers said they knew nothing about an account. They were ready to send the ballots back to the voters.

"By procedure and by law, deliver the ballots regardless of the postage on those ballots," said Stanart.

So then... it's not his fault, it's the post office's fault.

Eyewitness News learned Stanart made his own mistake. The return ballot states the postage is 69 cents. But it should have been 70 cents. Some ballots were being held for just a penny. Stanart said he didn't know about the change in postage.

"I personally didn't. I would have to talk to my office if they do know that," said Stanart. 

Uh oh.  So whose fault is it again?  There's no "Buck Stops Here" plate on that man's desk. This is how a person takes personal responsibility for their mistakes.

Dionne Montague, a USPS spokeswoman, released the following statement to Eyewitness News:

"We have policies in place to ensure absentee balloting material, received in the mail, is handled promptly. We do not delay delivering ballot materials even when they are received with insufficient funds or no postage. Our policy is to attempt to collect the postage due from the election office at the time of delivery or at a later date. This policy will be reinforced with all of our employees."

Stanart said the problem has been worked out, and the ballots will be soon delivered to his office.

There might be some chain-of-command issues regarding the way those ballots were handled, just from what I observed in the video.  And Stanart's deer-in-the-headlights, wide-eyed blinking on the videotape are as solid a tell as you'll ever see in any poker game.

It's been well-established for some time now that Stan Stanart is just in over his head.  After four years in office he still can't get the basic things right.  The Houston Chronicle choked in their endorsement of this race, and everyone -- I'm looking at you, Republicans -- needs to fix this mistake in government.

Ann Harris Bennett, everybody.  For the gracious sake of no more embarrassments in the County Clerk's office.  More mailed ballot news from Charles.

Federal judge crushes Texas photo ID law

Christmas came early, y'all.

A federal court has struck down Texas’s voter ID law.  It violates the Voting Rights Act, it violates the constitutional prohibition on poll taxes, it violates the constitutional prohibition of unjustified burdens, it violates the constitutional prohibition on intentional racial discrimination: indeed, in 147 pages of opinion, there’s little that the ID law doesn’t violate.

Also extremely important: the court expressly finds intentional discrimination relevant to bail-in under the Voting Rights Act, and says it will consider a bail-in order in the days to come.  If the court indeed follows up with a bail-in order, Texas could become the first state brought back under a pre-clearance regime since Shelby County.

The judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, destroyed the arguments Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans made that the law was necessary.  It's a wipeout for the conservatives who have staked their claim on suppressing the vote.

It's not over, though.  Expect an emergency appeal by Abbott to the Fifth Circuit, and a possible stay of Judge Gonzales' order, leaving the law intact for the coming election.

Update:  The SCOTUS tonight has also blocked the state of Wisconsin from implementing its photo ID law.  But keep in mind that they have already allowed both Ohio and North Carolina to proceed with their restrictive laws, so there's no telling how we might wind up.  If I had to guess, I would say that should the Fifth Circuit stays the lower court's injunction, then there isn't simply enough time for the Supremes to rule before Texans start voting, eleven days from now.

Update II: A good explainer from Think Progress.

Although the Supreme Court’s order does not explain why the Court halted the (Wisconsin) law, a short dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito provides a window into the Court’s reasoning. Alito begins his dissent by admitting that “[t]here is a colorable basis for the Court’s decision due to the proximity of the upcoming general election.” In a 2006 case called Purcell v. Gonzalez, the Supreme Court explained that judges should be reluctant to issue orders affecting a state’s election law as an election approaches. “Court orders affecting elections,” according to Purcell, “can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” It is likely that the six justices who agreed to halt the Wisconsin law relied on Purcell in reaching this decision.

Only two justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, joined Alito’s dissent. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four more liberal justices in the majority.

Thursday’s order halting the Wisconsin voter ID law may also provide some explanation for why seven justices voted to reinstate a voter suppression law in North Carolina on Wednesday. If Purcell‘s fear of changes to election law close to an election is the rule, then that rule should apply no matter whose ox is gored.

King Street Thugs lose again

From the press release...

(Yesterday), the Texas Democratic Party prevailed in King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party, when the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District confirmed a lower court decision to uphold provisions of Texas campaign finance law. [Campaign Legal Center, 10/8/2014]

The Texas Democratic Party’s suit alleged that the King Street Patriots had made in-kind contributions to the Republican Party of Texas. These donations would have been a violation of the restrictions on corporate political contributions. They also failed to register as a “political committee” and comply with Texas Disclosure Law. In response, the King Street Patriots filed a counterclaim that challenged the constitutionality of parts of Texas’ campaign finance laws. [Houston Chronicle, 3/28/2012]

Update: Quorum Report had  more (including the "blast from the past" link to Hair Balls).

The controversial conservative group King Street Patriots on Wednesday lost its appeal to exempt itself from the Texas Election Code, paving the way for the group to file a writ before the Texas Supreme Court.

The Patriots were a serious source of contention during the 2010 elections in Houston, where they were accused of intimidating voters at the polls. The patriots, who called themselves poll watchers, were well known for their campaign called “True the Vote.”

The Texas Democratic Party sued the King Street Patriots, alleging it needed to register as a political action committee under the Texas Election Code. The King Street Patriots, which refused to participate in discovery, counter-sued the Texas Democratic Party and the party chairs in Harris and Dallas counties, saying they were an independent non-partisan non-profit group exempt from registration.

Even Alex Jones gets it: King Street Patriots/True the Vote is hamstrung -- by the terms of the lawsuit they settled with the Democratic Party two years ago -- from doing those things they do to intimidate voters and suppress voting.  Court-compelled designation as a PAC restricts their special brand of bullshit even further.  But that won't stop them, in fact will barely slow them down.

Some of you may have seen Campos' post (also here) about the surge in D mailed ballots.  Sidebar: it's a credit to Glen Maxey -- someone I have excoriated here in the recent past -- and county chairs like Lane Lewis (Harris) and Don Bankston (Fort Bend) to have executed what appears to be a very successful strategy to increase this level of turnout to nearly presidential-year levels.  It's got the Republicans running scared.  In particular, it's got Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart terrified.

There might be more about that I can blog later, but for now just know that James O'Keefe is in town, and he's looking for trouble.  We already knew that Harris County Republican elected officials and KSP/TTV and yes, the Texas attorney general have a long and corrupt history together.

Update: More on the overall increase in Texas voter registrations from MSNBC, which links to our very own Kuff for the numbers.

US Senate control is too close to call

Nate Silver says Republicans. Jerry Wang -- turning into Silver's archrival, perhaps even nemesis -- says Democrats. At least one person is saying it will be 50-50 (with indys like Angus King and Greg Orman of Kansas caucusing with the Dems).

I can't recall this much polling volatility in so many races this late in the season.  Kay Hagan (NC) appears to be pulling ahead; Mark Begich (Alaska) and Bruce Braley (Iowa) are falling behind.  Alison Lundergan Grimes just got her first good poll in awhile in her effort to topple Mitch "Mr. Turtle" McConnell.  Is it an outlier?

I have no instinct I can place faith in about how things are going to go with 3.5 weeks remaining.  That's unusual.  Some folks are a little more certain, which is to say pessimistic.

I feel pretty confident that Republicans are going to keep doing everything they can to allow as few people as possible to cast a ballot.  And while Democratic governors and gubernatorial candidates around the nation are poised for a big night on the first Tuesday of November... the only outcome I'm sure about, sadly, is Texas.

The Senate, meanwhile, is a coin flip.

Update (10/9): Developments in the 24 hours since this was posted suggest South Dakota is going to be hotly contested.

Caption this photo

Winner so far: "This is the only way I would ever shake Rick Perry's hand."

The P Slate: local judicials

Harris County has a justice system that rivals those of some small countries.  There are 26 state district civil courts, 22 criminal ones and 11 family law courts, and that doesn't count the 18 justices on two state courts of appeal, the 16 justices of the peace, and the judges who serve on the probate and juvenile courts and the county courts at law.  (Recommendations for the highest courts in the state -- the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals -- will appear in a later post.)

If you live in the nation's third most populous county, about half of those various judgeships show up on your ballot every two years.  And in a deep purple, virtually 50-50 county like Harris, that means straight Democratic ticket voters in presidential years tend to wash out the Republicans on the bench, and in off-presidential years they get swept back in by the same straight-ticket voting phenomenon... coupled with the fact that so many Democratic voters sit out the midterms.  This doesn't even take into consideration all the voters who stop voting after the top handful of races, especially when you consider that Harris County has one of the longest ballots in the nation.

So many of the county's judicial races are decided by their party's straight ticket voters.  I personally agree with many others that straight-ticket voting is a pox on the democratic process, and not just because it gives so many participants a somewhat arrogant sense of satisfaction that they have completed their biannual citizenship requirement in thirty seconds or less.  But it's the reality of how we elect judges in Harris County, and in Texas and other states as well.  If you want more evidence besides the numbers, just note that some Republicans think 2014 is going to be a blue year, and some Democrats don't.  It's all about who turns out their voters.

(I don't do endorsements per se; I just take my secret ballot and roll it out online for your perusal.  It's your prerogative, of course, to agree or disagree with my picks.  I offer them to voters who wish to carefully discern which judges might be most inclined to interpret the law with fairness and in a progressive perspective, as opposed to a conservative one.  In the evolution of assessing judges and judicial candidates for suitability, I've gotten to the point where I can no longer vote for Republicans.  I simply don't think that anyone who aligns themselves with the appalling extremism of the Republican Party of Texas has the appropriate temperament and corresponding jurisprudence to merit my consideration.  YMMV.)

Before I run down a few of my favorites on the ballot this year, I wish to acknowledge Judge Al Bennett of the 61st Civil District Court, who has recently been nominated to the federal bench by President Obama.  Judge Bennett is one the most exemplary men I've had the fortune of meeting in politics, and that has only a little to do with his outstanding qualifications to serve.  I first came to know him several years ago, when he ran for House District 146, a contest that also featured current-Rep. Borris Miles and former Rep. Al Edwards.  Bennett made a point of seeking my support, and as I had already committed to Miles, I asked him to run in another race so that I could do so.  Well, he did and I did, and the rest is history.

Now on to my recommendations.

-- Judge Kyle Carter, of the 125th Civil District Court, seeks election to Chief Justice of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.  A no-brainer, as there are NO Democrats serving on the Fourteenth, and five of the nine Republican justices currently serving were first appointed by Rick Perry.  Carter is challenging the incumbent Chief Justice, Kem Frost, who was appointed to the court by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

 This court needs some balance.  Similarly...

-- Justice Jim Sharp of the First Court of Appeals seeks re-election.  He's the only Democrat on that court.  He's also as progressive as they come for a judge.  Yes, he's gotten himself in a little hot water over his conduct in recent years.  And conservatives have gone after him hammer and tong.  Frankly, his eccentricities have endeared him to me.  Sharp gets my vote and my support.

Texpatriate endorses both Carter and Sharp today as well.

-- Barbara Gardner, running for the 234th District Court. In her words, paraphrasing...

I am running for the 234th because I am considerably more qualified than the person Rick Perry appointed to serve one year ago. In observing Governor Perry's judicial appointments, I have noticed that he most often appoints a person who -- in the words of Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willet -- is aligned with the governor's judicial philosophy, which is pro-defendant, anti-consumer, and "unabashedly conservative". This is contrary to our state constitution, which provides for election of judges by citizens, and it is contrary to our concepts of fairness and justice."

That's it in a nutshell.  Kuff has a Q&A with Gardner today.

-- Steven Kirkland, running for Judge, 113th Civil District Court.  Kirkland was ousted from the 215th in 2012 in one of the uglier homophobic demonstrations in Harris County that managed to incorporate a little racism as well.  He's been a fine municipal and state court judge and a friend of the family.

-- Similarly, these three judicials: Tracy Good for the 313th Juvenile Court, Harold Landreneau for County Criminal Court at Law #2, and Tanner Garth for the 281st Civil are acquaintances of mine and come strongly recommended.

-- In addition, Ursula Hall, running for the 189th Civil; Farrah Martinez, running for the 190th Civil, and Scott Dollinger, running for the County Civil Court at Law, #2 get my vote.

And all of the judicial candidates listed here are worthy of yours.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance reminds you that today is the last day to register to vote in Texas.  Here's the roundup of lefty blog posts from last week.

Off the Kuff began his series of interviews with statewide candidates by talking to Sam Houston, the Democratic candidate for Attorney General.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and at Daily Kos, is very pleased that  Wendy Davis hammered Greg Abbott on Austin's pervasive culture of corruption.

From WCNews at Eye on Williamson: The question remains, is something like the Texas Enterprise Fund scandal enough to get voters to change their mind about Greg Abbott and the GOP? If not then what would it take?

William Rivers Pitt wrote "an open letter to his Democratic spammer". PDiddie at Brains and Eggs commiserates.

BlueDaze outs the not-from-Denton Master Debator representing the frackers.

Texpatriate updated the lieutenant governor's race, Texas Leftist reviewed the debate, and Egberto Willies passed along the HouChron's endorsement of Leticia Van de Putte.

Bay Area Houston wonders why Greg Abbott sat in traffic for ten years before deciding he wanted to help.

Neil at All People Have Value wrote an art review of the fish cleaning station at the Texas City Dike. APHV is one of many pages worthy of review at NeilAquino.com.

================

And here are some posts from other Texas blogs.

jobsanger ruefully observes that Wendy Davis is trailing in the governor's race because Texans don't feel that women should be equal to men.  But Socratic Gadfly believes there is no "self-hating woman" meme at work here.

TFN gives us the news that RNC head Reince Priebus believes it's 'compassionate' for Texas Republicans to close women's clinics in Texas.

Trail Blazers has the story of the lesbian couple that that asked the Fifth Circuit to schedule arguments next month in their gay marriage suit ... because they're expecting in March.

Scott Braddock shows the evidence of who's behind some recent wingnut-on-wingnut violence. Be sure your popcorn popper is in good order, this one looks like a gift that will keep on giving.

Lone Star Q is happy to report that Dallas City Council has voted week to ban discrimination against transgender city employees.

The Lunch Tray took a stand for citizen journalism.

Hair Balls explains what pot has to do with the Harris County DA race this year.

Char Miller eulogizes his colleague John Donahue, a "gracious force for good" in San Antonio.

Nancy Sims posits her grand unification theory of Houston Mayoral elections.

The Texas Election Law Blog assesses the GAO report on how long it took to vote in 2012.

Texas Watch wants you to understand the impact of the Texas law that shields the medical industry from accountability.

BOR points to HD94 as a below-the-radar race to watch.

Nonsequiteuse connects the dots from racing for the cure to racing for Governor.