The quandary of Lloyd Oliver for Democrats on the ballot

His lawsuit to remain on the ballot has the potential to be destructive for the Harris County Democratic Party's candidates and their November prospects.

On Friday, Houston attorney Lloyd Oliver filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the Harris County Democratic Party's attempts to oust him from the ticket.

"They're not going to put any candidate on the ballot. They just shut the whole thing down," Oliver said.

The lawyer called the move an attempt by party officials to disenfranchise voters.

"They are the elite of the Democratic Party. They trump the voters and that's wrong," Oliver said.

I mentioned earlier in the week that I didn't think this would damage races down ballot, but I have to rethink that. I see no percentage in Democratic candidates, especially judicial candidates, supporting Lewis and Martin Birnberg in this petty vendetta. Unless they -- those on the ballot and not in the backroom -- opt to distance themselves quickly from it.

See, Democrats are obviously one thing, and democracy is another quite different one.

You would like to see the members of the Democratic Party always supporting democratic principles, but the fact is that doesn't always occur. It's part (a small part) of why I cannot call myself a Democrat any longer. I can and will heartily support many Democratic candidates, but I will no longer fall blindly in line behind a party's orthodoxy. It has simply produced too much cognitive dissonance for me.

Most Americans agree with me, by the way. Since about half of all residents of this great nation do not vote in any election, it would stand to reason that they don't hold either major political party in high regard. Since about 40% of the remaining half of our countrymen vote for the Bloods, and about 40% vote for the Crips, that leaves a solid 10% of voters -- or 5% of all Americans -- who report themselves as "undecided" for the two gangs to fight over. That percentage, again very roughly, is approximately the amount of support minor parties like the Greens and Libertarians and Independents have generally shared in presidential elections past (only Ross Perot and George Wallace in my lifetime have been exceptions to this rule).

The daily skirmishes in that battle -- more tit-for-tat in my humble O -- is what the traditional media reports, via several outlets, on a 24-hour basis. Here is today's example.

It gets worse for democracy, as we know. Because of the Electoral College, that 10% of registered/likely uncommitted voters is scattered throughout a dozen or so "battleground" states, which is why the two Corporate Parties must raise and spend vast sums of money to pay for Corporate Media advertising in order to sway this small number of lowly-informed "undecideds".

Most Democrats and Republicans are, at this stage of the cycle -- about 60 days before the start of early voting, and about 75 days before Election Day -- turning their focus away from persuasion and toward mobilization. 'Get Out the Vote', as it is called. 'Let's get more of our people to the polls because there are going to be a lot of those nasty  _______ voting, and we've got to overcome that'.

The methodology of GOTV differs a bit between Republicans and Democrats; the GOP wants to keep their base in a perpetual state of fear and loathing while simultaneously making efforts to ensure that fewer folks get to cast a ballot, particularly those with a little extra pigmentation in their skin. Whereas Democrats want more people to vote, on the theory that many non-voters will vote Democrat... if they can be convinced to get up and go do it. In 2012 this premise is particularly valid.

A digression, but a necessary one to illustrate my point.

Fort Bend and Texas Democratic Party officials have disavowed two-time Congressional nominee Kesha Rogers, but none of them have tried to remove her from the ballot (yet). Way back in 2010 when this uncomfortable situation arose the first time, I assembled a few views in this post, the most eloquent by my friend, occasional co-poster, and former SDEC committeeman John Behrman.

One is left with the supposition that ignoring Rogers' call for Obama's impeachment -- while taking legal action against Oliver's favorable remark about DA Pat Lykos -- is just garden variety hypocrisy and not a decision made on any racial and/or gender considerations of the two candidates.

Ultimately the Dems are going to have to mitigate this away in some fashion (just as they did their legal efforts to keep the Texas Green Party off the ballot in 2010). If they lose it, Oliver has made them look incompetent; if they succeed, they appear wildly and discriminatorily undemocratic. In the short term it grows increasingly likely that this effort will cost them votes... and contests they might otherwise win in an Obama-turnout-swollen year.They cannot afford that.

Many undercurrents have trended in their favor lately: the inept Romney campaign; the choice of the controversial Paul Ryan as running mate; the policy positions of the top of the ticket that motivate seniors, women, and minorities, particularly Latinos, to support the Dems are just a few. The vast extremism of Texas TeaBaggers, from Ted Cruz and throughout the Congressional and statehouses races, has never been more apparent.

But this obnoxious, internecine squabbling turns off voters -- especially voters of the undecided, uncommitted variety -- to a tremendous degree. The Democrats look like childish siblings fighting over a trinket when they do things like this. And for a political party that is already on life support in Texas, it is just plain ridiculous, not to mention foolish.

This is to say nothing of the nonsensical choice to leave the District Attorney's race empty. Since they are meeting in county convention this morning, the assembly of precinct chairs could, if they were in agreement to do so, select another DA nominee.

All of this leaves Harris County Democratic candidates in an unpleasant quandary. Either they publicly disavow the actions of their party's chair and previous chair to arbitrarily remove a duly elected nominee -- one of their ticketmates -- over a technicality, or they try to ignore it (not a good option either, since silence is consent). I don't consider that publicly announcing support for Oliver against local party leaders is really an option.

Unless this matter resolves itself fairly quickly in time to smooth over the unpleasantries, other Democrats are going have to run away, hard, from this ill-conceived legal action on the part of Birnberg, Lewis, and Dunn, or else they stand to be tarred with the same broad brush.

That would be the brush with the oligarchic paint on it. Low-information, low-participation voters get this even when they have no idea what an oligarchy is.

Update: Charles very cautiously -- and maybe only slightly -- agrees. I also checked to see if there was any news made at yesterday's Harris County Democratic convention, but it looks as if the activities were limited to boosting morale.

Brainy endorsements: Don Cook

The people of Congressional District 22 have some powerfully poor options on their ballot (as usual). There's the incumbent, Pete Olson, the heir to the legacy of Tom DeLay. Even the Tea P's are down on him. There's the Democratic nominee for the second consecutive cycle, Kesha Rogers, a legend all by herself.

There's also a Libertarian. You have to register at his webpage in order to read his candidate bio (most of the other pages do not require it). I didn't, because I value my freedom.

And then there's the only rational choice, Don Cook.



Cook has presented himself for public office as a Green candidate a few times over the years. As Charles Kuffner noted in his 2011 interview when Cook ran for an at-large city council position (he gathered 18% of the vote), Cook also ran for Harris County Clerk in 2010 -- don't we wish right about now he was in that office? -- and city council as well in 2009.

Some people use the label "perennial candidate" as a pejorative; I'm not one of them. I think people -- especially people who are not lawyers, not wealthy business people, not born into privilege -- are exactly the kind of people who ought to be running for office. And those who are willing to do so, at great expense to themselves and their families, at a time when almost 50% of Americans cannot be bothered to carry themselves to the polls on Election Day, are to be commended.

Cook's Congressional run focuses on the economy (a national work program in the style of the Green New Deal), terrorism (fewer wars mean less of it), immigration (easing restrictions would result in less of it being illegal), and an emphasis on women's reproductive freedom and pay equality. But as a retired parole officer, he understands the prison-to-poverty cycle better than most. He most recently spoke out against the violence and abuses of power being demonstrated by municipal police departments across the country, and the Houston Police Department specifically. As Cook explains...

The issue of civilian review of police might be questioned as relevant to national politics, but throughout the country police crime is happening.  You could even say it is happening all over the world.  Last week police killed 34 striking mine workers in South Africa, for example.  Everyone needs to be held accountable to the people.  After all, even bankers, when left unaccountable, will lie, cheat, steal, and crash the economy as they did four years ago.  Let's hold the police accountable.

Here is Cook's op-ed on the topic, recently submitted to (but not published by) the Houston Chronicle. 

The story "Shootings by HPD on upswing," (Sunday, July 29, 2012), reports an increase in the number of killings by police through July 25th compared to 2011: Fourteen shootings, eight deaths this year, versus eight shootings, five deaths last year.

It’s worth explaining. The sample size is small, as one HPD apologist noted. Police spokespeople (who are neither scientists or statisticians), however, should not refer to this data as "cyclical." Put more accurately, the incidents might be chance, or random clustering. Time, and a large sampling, will reveal if these incidents represent a disturbing trend in an already disturbing situation.

We would have to look for periodicity over a longer time period to argue the existence of some sort of cycle. And if a cycle of HPD shootings does exist, merely noting it in no way explains it. Cycles indicate the presence of underlying causes, which may or may not be known.

Whether or not these shootings are cyclical or random they are troubling. We must take action to ensure that they are appropriately investigated. We must deal with them to make certain that no self-perpetuating, vicious cycle exists. Houstonians need and demand a culture of transparency.

Because of the built-in lack of transparency in our criminal justice system, many groups and individuals cry out for a civilian review board for HPD, one with subpoena powers. The Black Justice Coalition has been circulating a petition for a ballot initiative to create such a board.

The Mayor has established a 21-member Independent Police Oversight Board, but it lacks subpoena power. Without subpoena power, the IPOB has no teeth. Other cities, including Dallas, have civilian review boards with subpoena power. There is more than sufficient justification for improving civilian oversight of HPD.

Lame-duck DA, and former HPD officer, Pat Lykos notes that in 19 of 24 shootings of civilians by the police, the civilian had some sort of weapon—not necessarily a gun or knife. As civilians we find it disturbing that, upon further investigation, in 5 out of 24 such cases, the victim had no weapon or object that could be considered a weapon. Moreover, we must not forget cases of police officers convicted of excessive use of force, sexual assaults, and other criminal acts.

We do not argue that police authorities in Harris County are especially evil or corrupt, but they are human. And humans are imperfect.

DA Lykos' unsatisfying response to calls for public accountability is a weak counter-accusation of slander, and that misses the point. Expecting blind trust of her office is a mistake. Given the secrecy of grand jury proceedings and the very few police shootings that proceed to trial, concerns that the DA's office and the police might be "working hand-in-hand" is not slander. It is a response to a lack both of public information and public official accountability.

The overwhelming number of "no-bills" of HPD officer shootings of civilians—when the standard joke in this country is that any competent DA can indict a ham sandwich—makes it imperative that the public have access to the sworn facts of each incident. We believe the best way to do this is with a civilian review board with subpoena powers. We are not making accusations against the DA's office; as matters stand, we don't have enough information for accusations.

The DA is correct when she says that attacking police officers attacks society as a whole. But systematically ignoring, denying, or hiding civil-rights violations by police officers is also an attack on society. Let's find out what is going on.  Let's have accountability.

Don Cook is the best reason yet for the citizens of the 22nd Congressional District not to vote a straight Democratic ticket. But I will be offering a few more in the coming days and weeks.

Previous Brainy Endorsements...

Nile Copeland for the First Court of Appeals
Alfred and GC Molison for HD 131 and SBOE, respectively
Henry Cooper for HD 148
Keith Hampton for Presiding Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Barbara Gardner for the Fourteenth Court of Appeals