Judges deciding TX redistricting feel deadline pressure, pass it down

This just has the air of turning out badly for everybody.

Federal redistricting judges in San Antonio want to see if they can get agreement from the parties on political maps in time for an April 3 primary and said they are "giving serious consideration" to split primaries if no agreement can be reached by the first week of February.

The three federal judges said in an order issued this afternoon that they will meet with the parties on Friday instead of waiting until Feb. 1.

The five-page order is full of dates and deadlines:

• The judges say they will almost certainly move a candidate filing deadline (my emphasis) now set for Feb. 1.
• They said the parties should confer and submit agreed-upon interim maps for legislative and congressional elections by Feb. 6 if they "wish to maintain the current election schedule." If they can't agree, the judges want a list of districts in the Legislature's maps that each party no longer objects to.
• The parties are involved in hearings in Washington, D.C., where a separate panel of three federal judges is deciding whether the Legislature's maps violate preclearance provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act. Ideally, the San Antonio judges would have that court's ruling in hand before it approves redistricting maps. It's asking the lawyers to give the Washington court a nudge: "With high respect for the importance of that proceeding and the prerogatives of that court, this Court hereby requests both sides in the San Antonio proceedings to request, on behalf of this Court, that the D.C. Court attempt to rule on the Section 5 issues in time for this court to incorporate those decisions into its ultimate decision on the redistricting plans for the 2012 elections for the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Senate, and the U.S. Congress."
• The Texas judges say they are giving "serious consideration to whether a so-called 'split primary' will be required" for this year's elections, and asked the lawyers to be ready to talk about it at the end of the week. They also want lawyers for the state to be ready to say whether the state would be prepared to reimburse counties and the political parties for the "substantial additional expense of a split primary."
• The judges asked for comments on the idea of a presidential primary on April 3 with most or all other elections held later. The earlier presidential primary would relieve the Republican and Democratic political parties, which hope to have the primary elections well before their state conventions in June. The Republican Party of Texas has suggested the split primary on several occasions; the Democratic Party, in filings this week, said it would prefer a unified primary if possible.

Hustled-up court decisions, rushed maps, split primaries, new voting requirements ... it all adds up to confused voters and poor turnout.

More from Michael Li. Shorter Michael Li, from Facebook:

BREAKING: Court says to keep unified April 3 primary, parties will need to agree on interim maps by 2/6. Otherwise, court giving 'series consideration' to split primary; wants to know if state will commit to reimburse added costs. Court considering presidential only primary on 4/3 or presidential + countywide/whole county on 4/3.

Election officials from your local precinct all the way to the Secretary of State will be pressured to make decisions -- or wait for decisions to be made. Candidates, potential and incumbent, won't know what the districts they intend to represent will look like -- and neither will the voters, until very late in the process. All while Republicans keep doing their dead-level best to gum up the works, disenfranchising even their own voters as they do.

This is what one-party rule looks like, from the bottom up.

Update:

When the San Antonio court set Feb 1st as the candidate filing deadline for a April 3rd election date organizations representing Texas counties told the court in a pleading that they had “serious reservations and concerns” about their ability to comply with the April 3rd election schedule. The county organizations said that compliance would be “extremely difficult and expensive” if even physically possible...” The counties said the Feb 1st — April 3rd timeline wouldn't leave them enough time to prepare an election that usually takes six to seven weeks to prepare. Today, the Republican Party suggests lopping another week off the April 3rd timeline.

County election officials must have election precincts mapped, voter registration cards printed and mailed, ballots prepared, and voting machines programmed and delivered to polling locations not by April 3rd, but a few days before March 19th, the first day of early voting for the April 3rd election date.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance thanks South Carolina for all the laughs as it brings you this week's blog roundup.

The big story last week was the SCOTUS ruling on interim redistricting maps. Off the Kuff has an initial look.

It turns out that PDiddie and Paula Deen have more in common than just their initials; there's also a morality tale involved. Read "Paula Deen, diabetes, and Novo Nordisk" at Brains and Eggs.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is tired of the media ignoring grossly untrue, inflammatory, and just plain disgusting things Republicans like Rick Perry say.

Perry's run for the presidency is over! WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on it here: Good riddance for now; Perry drops out.

This was a big week of action culminating in the defeat (for the time being) of SOPA, including January 18 when many sites blacked themselves out. Darth Politico refused to go dark, and instead went dork -- with a snark/irony blog supporting SOPA (or "Why Death Stars are a good thing").

At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw mourns for Texas in "Poor Texas: Forrest Homer Simpson is Coming Back". An eloquent requiem for a candidate who brought untold levels of derision to our state when he revealed how truly shallow and narcissistic he is. Give it a read!

Neil at Texas Liberal wrote this week abour how Houston school board member Manuel Rodriguez got away with using anti-gay campaign materials in his recent re-election victory. Everyday citizens, civil rights groups and the Houston GLBT political caucus all gave Mr. Rodriguez a free pass despite his hateful words.

Sunday Funnies

The South Carolina subheadlines: Colbert, Cain, Santorum and Paul

Jason Stanford:

Stephen Colbert might be funny, but his exploratory campaign is no joke. The point he’s been assiduously making on “The Colbert Report” is a smart bomb wrapped inside of an absurd conundrum. Simply put, there is no greater force for campaign finance these days than Colbert. By following the tortured laws and starting his own super PAC, Colbert has unleashed a prank that could embarrass the body politic into real change.

Stephen Colbert is the most talented improvisational comedian of his generation. Only one other person in my lifetime even comes close, and he never tried to stay in a single character 100% of the time. (Sasha Baron Cohen is a solid-finishing third and Pee Wee Herman comes in a fairly distant fourth, mostly because of his tragi-comic offstage altercations.)

... Colbert mocked the reductionist absurdity of the law that danced around limits to corporate influence in politics.

“It’s how much speech they can express, because money comes from speech. … Money equals speech,” said Colbert, who then challenged (ABC's George) Stephanopoulos: “Corporations are people. You won’t weigh in on whether some people are people? That seems kind of racist.”

Is any of this more absurd than Mitt Romney denying culpability for what his super PAC does because, as he claimed in Monday’s debate, he hasn’t talked to those guys in “months”? Or, for that matter, Romney’s contention that corporations are people?

Colbert's rally with fellow clown Herman Cain in Charleston yesterday was the purest poltical irony yet seen in modern times.



"If corporations are people, then I'm a people person. The Lockheed Martin Luther Burger King, if you will."

Chuck Todd sputtered that Colbert was 'making a mockery' of the political process. Dude: you obviously haven't been paying much attention to politics over the years. Google Pat Paulsen. This has been going on since before you were born. Todd did get one thing right, though...

While expressing admiration for how Colbert has exposed a lot of the idiocy involved with the marriage of politics and money, and saying he enjoys his show, Todd went after both Colbert and Jon Stewart for mocking members of the media, then backing off and saying “we’re just comedians” when the members of the media call them out on it. “Actually, no you’re not [comedians] anymore,” Todd said. “You are mocking what we’re doing, and you want a place in this, then you are also going to be held accountable for how you cover and how you do your job.”

Yeah, somebody has mentioned that before. Back to the Palmetto Bug State and the farce of actual Republican politicians.

With the race seemingly between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Republican rival Rick Santorum is bracing for a setback and looking ahead to the next contest: Florida. [...]

Romney and Gingrich were battling for the top spot in South Carolina and Santorum was looking to post an acceptable showing. During campaign stops on Friday, he cast himself as a Goldilocks candidate: just right when compared to Gingrich's "too hot" rhetoric and Romney's "too cold" personality.

Santorum also looked to disqualify the fourth candidate in the race, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Santorum said there were three candidates who could capture the GOP nomination and cast libertarian favorite Paul as a gadfly annoyance.

That might sting a little more if it came from a guy who remembered to pay the fee for his law license. I'm thinking that Santorum's parochial school taunts aren't having as much effect as he is praying for. Still, it's probably enough to burn the bridge between Mr. Frothy Mixture's camp and Dr. No's. Not that they ever had much in common anyway.

Ron Paul finished a strong third in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 and a distant second to Romney in New Hampshire. Although he has not campaigned as much in South Carolina as he did in Iowa, he is likely to at least triple his South Carolina support from 2008 (which was 4%).

The Paul campaign has spent about $1.5 million on television advertising in South Carolina, including a spiffy spot that features a number of federal agencies going up in smoke. Beyond the Palmetto State, the campaign has signaled it will make only a modest effort in Florida because of the high cost of campaigning and because the state is unlikely to field a full slate of delegates. Florida defied Republican Party rules by moving its primary to Jan. 31; as punishment, the party has threatened to strip the state of some of its delegates.

Most observers say Paul is unlikely to get above the 20 percent mark in the upcoming primaries in Florida, Missouri, Arizona and Michigan but should do well in the upcoming caucus states of Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota and Maine. Paul’s fervent believers tend to turn out for caucuses, as they did in Iowa.

The sooner Ron Paul slides back over to the Libertarians, the more fun it will be for everybody. One last snip of brilliance:

“Ron Paul’s expected third-place finish is not that much of a surprise, as Newt Gingrich has now firmly established himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” said Rice University political scientist Mark Jones. “What we have witnessed is less Ron Paul rising to third place and more Rick Santorum dropping to fourth place from the highs he received immediately following his success in Iowa.”

"What we have witnessed". Keep in mind that Rice University's Mark Jones is one of the most massive dumbasses who wears the title 'political scientist' ever. It's not that he gets everything wrong. He actually gets something right once in awhile (acorn/blind hog); it's that he gets paid tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of dollars for dreck like that.

People like Mark Jones are the ones making a mockery of the political process in this country. Him, and this guy:

Fox News ‘A-Team’ Psychologist: Being Married Three Times Could Make Gingrich A Better President

No excerpt. Go read it for yourself; just be prepared to piss yourself laughing.

Update: FTR, this is what 'political science' looks like.

SCOTUS tells lower court: Start over on TX maps

"And this time, make 'em more like the Republicans drew 'em".

The Supreme Court on Friday instructed a lower court in Texas to take a fresh look at election maps it had drawn in place of a competing set of maps from the Texas Legislature. The justices said the lower court had not paid enough deference to the Legislature’s choices and had improperly substituted its own values for those of elected officials.

“To avoid being compelled to make such otherwise standardless decisions,” the Supreme Court’s unsigned decision said, “a district court should take guidance from the state’s recently enacted plan in drafting an interim plan. That plan reflects the state’s policy judgments on where to place new districts and how to shift existing ones in response to massive population growth.”

Adding to the clusterfuck...

The justices acted just 11 days after hearing arguments in the case. Primaries in Texas had already been moved back to April. For those primaries to proceed, officials there said, an answer from the courts was needed by Feb. 1. [...]

One set of maps was drawn by the Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans. Those maps seem to favor Republican candidates. The other set was drawn by a special three-judge federal court in San Antonio, and it increases the voting power of Hispanic voters and seems to help Democratic candidates.

A unanimous ruling. As in 9-0.

So it appears the three-judge panel in San Antonio will go back to the drawing board, under a severe deadline to produce additional maps ... presumably still subject to approval of The Nine. If all that can't happen by February 1 -- 8 business days from today -- then the Texas primaries will get pushed to later in the year, creating still more chaos.

Where's all that wailing from conservatives about "activist judges" now?

Occupy the Courts today

Inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and specifically the civil disobedience of Dr. Cornel West, Move To Amend is planning an action event today to mark the second anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision.

Occupy the Courts will be a one-day occupation of Federal courthouses across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C., on Friday, January 20, 2012.

Move to Amend volunteers across the USA will lead the charge on the judiciary which created — and continues to expand — corporate personhood rights.

In Houston this evening also, a discussion featuring 2006 Democratic candidate for Texas governor Chris Bell:

On Friday evening, January 20, join us for “Corporate Personhood vs. Your Personhood: Who Has More Rights?” This panel discussion commemorates the 2nd anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC, the latest in over a century of Supreme Court decisions establishing the doctrines that corporations are people and money is speech. Panelists include former Houston city councilman and former Congressman Chris Bell, activist Arthur Shaw, and NLG attorney Burke Moore.

7:30- 10 p.m., University of Houston main campus, SEC building room 102. Free parking off Cullen in the stadium lot, across from Entrance 14. Walk across the street into Entrance 14 and you’ll see the SEC building immediately to your left.

RSVP on Facebook here.

Cleaning up the Octagon after the fights

No blood, no teeth, but a nasty mess never-the-less.

The race for the Republican presidential nomination took a turn toward the South Carolina surreal Thursday as Rick Perry dropped out, Newt Gingrich faced stunning allegations from an ex-wife and Mitt Romney struggled to maintain a shaky front-runner's standing.

An aggressive evening debate capped the bewildering day.

"Aggressive" is a word I use when my pit bull sees a squirrel in the back yard. Newt turned rabid on CNN's John King.

Gingrich angrily denounced the news media for putting his ex-wife front and center in the final days of the race. "Let me be clear, the story is false," he said. Santorum, Romney and Paul steered well clear of the controversy. "Let's get onto the real issues, that's all I've got to say," said Romney, although he pointed out that he and his wife, Ann, have been married for 42 years.

The audience gave Gingrich a standing ovation when he assailed the media, a reaction he can only hope is reflected in voter sentiment on Saturday.

And just like that, it was over.

Paul Begala:

Newt Gingrich won the debate in the first minute by casting himself as the victim not of a failed marriage but of a corrupt liberal media that is in bed with Barack Obama.

Lloyd Grove:

The former speaker lashed out like the tough guy he is, as he endured everything from John King’s questions about his ex-wife’s open-marriage allegation to Santorum’s attack on his leadership abilities.

Newt Gingrich was like a giant death star, threatening at any moment to suck into his field of gravity every single molecule of matter—from his rival presidential candidates on the stage beside him to the raucous South Carolina Republicans in the audience in front of him.

Michael Tomaskey:

And that was the only truly dramatic moment of the night. John King started with Marianne, and Newt drew not one standing ovation as he had with Juan Williams, but two. “I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate with a topic that …” You couldn’t even hear the rest in the hall. First standing ovation. “Every person here knows personal pain.” Nice! Blah blah blah, “as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.” Blah blah blah. “I am frankly astounded.” Blah. Then—right at King. “John, don’t try to blame somebody else.” Then—a brilliant opening of the hood, showing the assembled how the machine really functions. “We offered several friends to ABC,” which didn’t want to hear from them. And finally—it took him a while, but he finally hit on where to take this, which was against the media. “I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama and …” Couldn’t hear the rest. Second standing ovation.

Those were turnaround lines that no one else on that stage could have pulled off, which speaks well of Gingrich in a way, but really poorly of him, which is to say that only a person essentially without conscience could do all that with such brio.

Bless his heart, Rick Santorum got in a few punches, kicks, and scratches -- not to mention the best scowls of the evening, seen repeatedly thanks to CNN's split screen. But he is simply no match for Newt. Michelle Cottle:

(Last night), Rick Santorum repeatedly and loudly cried bullshit on the speaker.

“Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich,” Santorum said of his opponent’s shameless self-promotion. “A month ago, he was saying, ‘Oh, I’m inevitable.’ It was, ‘I’m destined to do it.’”

Of Newt’s electoral braggadocio, Santorum charged, “These are not cogent thoughts.”

Spot on, brother. And yet...

I’ll bet $10,000 that none of Santorum’s attacks tonight will make a lasting impression on anyone who doesn’t already share his concerns.

It’s not really Santorum’s fault. The senator was, even more than usual, passionate, cogent, and earnest in his criticisms. Not to mention accurate.

But there is just something about Senator Sweater Vest that doesn’t resonate, no matter how fired up he gets. It is a matter of presentation: He is too plaintive, too beseeching—even when he’s got both barrels blazing. He is begging rather than commanding us to recognize Gingrich’s many absurdities.

It's just his fine Christian upbringing, I suppose. Not even God and His Earthly minions can save Frothy Mixture now. A smaller mess, easily cleaned up by next week.

Meanwhile, on a vast luxury cruise ship off the coast of Italy...

Mitt Romney still looks the most presidential of the foursome, but his claim of electability is wearing thin. In each successive debate, he reminds me more of Robert Redford in The Candidate. He will say and do whatever it takes, including withholding his tax returns until after he secures the nomination. Newt Gingrich is right when he says if there’s something in Romney’s tax returns that could sink his candidacy, it’s better to know now than after he’s the nominee.

Romney knows that too, which must be why he sputters and looks acutely uncomfortable when pressed to say declaratively when he’ll release his returns, and for how many years.

When asked if he would release twelve years of tax returns, as his father George did when he ran for president in 1968, Mitt said "maybe," and promptly got booed by those in the hall.

(Here's where Greg will send me another comment that says, "It was only a few people who booed...")

Ron Paul was, once more, the septuagenarian in comfortable shoes who got mostly ignored.

At one point, as moderator John King was making his rounds with each of the candidates, he inexplicably skipped over Ron Paul. The choice to skip the Texas congressman was odd given that Dr. Paul is a retired obstetrician and gynecologist. Paul, of course, noted this after a hearty round of boos from the audience.

“John, once again, it’s a medical subject. I’m a doctor!” Paul beamed. “No, I do want to make a couple comments because I can remember the very early years studying obstetrics and I was told — it was before the age of abortion. I was told taking care of a woman that’s pregnant, you have two patients. I think that solves a lot of the problem about, you know, when life begins and all.”

Paul went on to explain his experience with the 1960's culture and that "the morality of the country changed" and "the law followed up."

"When morality changed, it reflects on the laws. The law’s very important. We should have these laws. Law will not correct the basic problem. That’s the morality of the people."

That's a nice straddle between pro-life and pro-choice. Plenty of dog whistles to both sides in that answer.

All four candidates failed their history exams, as usual.

Prediction: Gingrich wins on Saturday, Santorum finishes fourth and quits shortly thereafter, and it's a two-horse race to Florida on January 31st. There are five states that caucus in February, but no primaries that count until Arizona and Michigan on February 28.

I hope this means there will be fewer debates...

Update: Santorum third with 17%, Paul fourth with 13%. It's the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse for at least a couple more weeks, maybe longer. "Hello, Costco? How much is a tractor trailer of Orville Redenbacher's?"

Happy Trails

Our long statewide nightmare is over. Governor MoFo is cuttin' and runnin'.

Rick Perry is expected to drop out later this morning at an 11 a.m. press conference, two sources confirmed to POLITICO. He's also expected to endorse Newt Gingrich, the sources confirmed.

But never without some last bit of drama.

The discord in Perryworld was evident even as the candidate prepared to drop out.

Top officials in Texas said they were unaware of his intentions and as late as this morning said they genuinely didn't know whether he was still running.

Gingrich has been assiduously lobbying Perry officials in recent days, POLITICO has learned. The former House speaker has repeatedly texted Perry manager Joe Allbaugh.

Should we tell him to go on and resign the governorship now? While's in a quittin' kinda mood?

Update: Harvey K with some "first-blush thoughts"...

-- Perry is damaged goods, even in Texas. Recent polling had him in low double digits and in third or fourth place among Republicans in his home state. Although he became a much better candidate at the end, he embarrassed supporters with how little he knew about the national arena and how incapable he was of verbalizing.

-- He leadership team is in tatters. What once looked like a formidable and unstoppable juggernaut now looks like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. They can regroup, but rehab will be required. Finger pointing and claims of profiteering are already dominating the Capitol bar talk.

My recommendation remains: 'Go get you a nice lobbyist job with a big fat paycheck'.

Update: Via Progress Texas...

Estimates show Governor Perry owes $2,651,429.14 to Texas taxpayers for security-related travel costs incurred during his 160-day presidential run. With $2.47 million in his state account as of December 31, 2011, Governor Perry can immediately pay back 93% of those taxpayer dollars, leaving him with an outstanding taxpayer debt of $179.949.59.

"Hello, Bob and Doylene? Uh, I need one more favor..."

Update II: Before we say goodbye...

Paula Deen, diabetes, and Novo Nordisk

The celebrity chef famous for bacon and egg burgers with donuts as buns, deep fried bacon-wrapped macaroni and cheese balls, and more butter on all of it is a diabetic ... and has been for three years.

After becoming the face of diabetes-inducing cuisine, Food Network personality Paula Deen confirmed on Tuesday's Today show that she has known about having Type 2 diabetes for three years and used the occasion to start pitching diabetes drugs for Novo Nordisk. "I had to figure things out in my own head," Deen told Al Roker, explaining why she only decided to come clean about her metabolic disease now.

 That's right; she waited until this week to announce it publicly ... the same time she announced her sponsorship with a Dutch pharmaceutical company ... whose product is one of the leading treatments for diabetes.

What's wrong with this picture?

Ed. note: Here's my full disclosure. I have been diabetic for eight years, have been taking Victoza for the past year, have lost 50 lbs. mostly as a result of the medication, and haven't taken a dime for anything related to my diabetes from Novo Nordisk or anyone else.

Deen made in the neighborhood of $10 million from her TV show, endorsements and sponsorships (brands such as Philadelphia Cream Cheese and Smithfield Ham) in 2010; consequently New York magazine estimates she earned as much as $30 million since diagnosis while she 'figured things out in her own head'.

There is no word on exactly how much Novo Nordisk is paying her to say she takes Victoza, but this source indicates it's seven figures. Deen is preaching a message of moderation now, though...

"People see me cooking all these wonderful, Southern, fattening recipes... it's for entertainment. People have to be responsible."

Ohhh that's what it's been all this time. Entertainment. Some reactions were harsh.

Hours after Deen broke the news, (Travel Channel's Anthony) Bourdain posted this message on Twitter: "Thinking of getting into the leg-breaking business, so I can profitably sell crutches later." 

Other reactions were harsher still.

Paolo Lucchesi, the food columnist for Inside Scoop SF was frustrated "that there was not one modicum of regret or culpability for her entire persona and recipe encyclopedia, which is pretty much a butter-lubed bobsled ride to Diabetesville."

Deen has her libertarian 'personal responsibility' defenders, too.

But if Deen’s become rich showing Americans how to consume as much butterfat as possible, is that Deen’s fault? Last time I checked, cooking shows were entertainment -- what social critics call “aspirational” -- not the mandatory curriculum for home ec class. Obesity was a crisis in America long before Deen uttered her first “y’all” before a video camera. How many of Deen’s critics have also spoken out against the cream-enriched legacy of Julia Child, or James Beard -- a man of epic girth who cooked with butter and fistfuls of cheese, and who served as the moon-faced pitchman for Omaha Steaks?

John Birdsall at Chow takes it a step further, too, calling Bourdain's verbal assault not just hypocrisy but class war AND gender war.

Deen, we assume, speaks to a down-market audience who need to be lectured about nutrition and willpower. Bourdain speaks to the well-heeled traveler for whom a foie gras hot dog is an occasional indulgence, not a moral failing. Right? Or is it somehow acceptable for men to engage in extreme eating, while women have an obligation to show restraint?

Is there a moral to this story? Why, yes there is.

"Everything in moderation. Including moderation."

Obama denies KXL's permit; work on pipeline continues

And TransCanada will resubmit their proposal with a new route through Nebraska. Politico:

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people,” Obama said in a statement. “I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

Hours before the announcement, environmental groups that consider Keystone a potential ecological disaster were signaling their glee with the expected decision. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans and GOP presidential candidates accused the administration of placating its green allies ahead of creating U.S. jobs.

I had given up any hope of stopping this calamity until about a month ago, when the House TeaBaggers screwed the pooch by including a provision to force a decision in 60 days as part of their capitulation on the payroll tax cut. Honestly, when I think about how blessed Obama has been with the ineptitude of his opposition, I just have to laugh.

And the pipeline may still come to be, Obama in the White House or no. But today's news has to be cheered for those who fought against the powerful, entrenched interests of the oil companies, and won.

The battle to kill this piece of shit for good goes on, however.