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

Bad week for the local Democrats *updates

First, the city controller stepped in it big time. Then his wife, the justice of the peace, showed up in some of the questionable dealings with the same swindler. Then the former head of the HCDP -- who seems to be having a little trouble transitioning into retirement -- filed a complaint against the voters' pick for District Attorney, trying to get him off the November slate. (The fact is that Lloyd Oliver is a jackass... and not just the four-legged variety.) Today my own first-term city councilman seems to be in hot water over a missing million bucks from the non-profit he ran before being elected a year ago.

But the biggest loss is the retirement of Judge Kevin Fine.

State District Judge Kevin Fine, who triggered controversy in 2010 when he said the death penalty was unconstitutional, announced Tuesday he is resigning from the bench effective immediately.

The Democrat elected in 2008 made headlines and earned the scorn of Republicans, including Gov. Rick Perry, when he declared the death penalty unconstitutional during a routine hearing. That ruling was later reversed, and Fine's continued efforts to see the issue re-litigated in his Houston courtroom came to naught.

The judge, a recovering cocaine addict who ran his first campaign touting his experience with addiction, did not seek re-election this year.

Republicans won't ever understand why it was of a great value to have Judge Fine on the bench. They will just look at two things: "anti-death penalty" and "recovering cocaine addict" and close their minds.

Fine represented people who have been rejected by the system having a voice on the bench. The poor, the disadvantaged, the people most of the rest of us don't want to look at or think about. Not the lazy, not the born-into-privilege, not the "boot-strappers", as conservatives like to say. But the unlucky.

That was very much a minority caucus on the Harris County bench. I for one will miss him a great deal. There are some excellent judges and judicial candidates on the Harris County ticket, but none with Fine's life experience.

As for Controller Green and Judge Green, they are heavily damaged by their own hand. I suspect, as with Marc Campos, that they will draw challengers from among the Blue gang the next time they face the voters (for the controller, that's coming up next year).

Not as fast as Lloyd Oliver's, however.

With only a Republican -- former city councilman Mike Anderson, no stranger to scandal himself -- and a James-Cargas-ish Democrat to choose from, my recommendation in this race is likely to be 'neither'. Further, I believe that Murray assigns Oliver too much weight here...

Any candidate who proudly boasts of his three indictments and then advocates for boxing lessons for domestic violence victims adds an anchor to what many political analysts believe is a sinking ship when it comes to the local Dems' chances in Harris County this year.

I doubt it. Harris County voters simply aren't that well-informed. The judicials can disavow Oliver with confidence.

It will be amusing to see if Lloyd finds himself in the position of having to run against both Anderson and the Democrats. The ultimate outsider. Might be a barrel of laughs.

Update: But it ain't gonna happen. For now, anyway.

The Harris County Democratic Party Wednesday took district attorney candidate Lloyd Oliver's name off the ballot, deciding to go forward without a candidate in November's general election.

Chad Dunn, the attorney for the party confirmed the decision by Harris County Democratic Party Chairman Lane Lewis to sustain a complaint filed by Gerry Birnberg, the former party chair, that Oliver endorsed the sitting district attorney, Republican Pat Lykos.

Birnberg said in his complaint that Oliver told the Houston Chronicle in May that Lykos was such a good candidate that she "would have gotten my vote."

Oliver, a perennial candidate in both Republican and Democratic primaries, said he will fight to stay on the ballot, including appealing to state party officials and, if he loses there, suing in federal court to stay on the ballot.

"I can't believe the state party chairman would be in the same boat as those two goobers," Oliver said. "And I guarantee that I'll do what I have to do to get a federal injunction."

My opinion? This is going to turn out badly, and not necessarily for Lloyd Oliver.

Update: And it gets worse for Ronald and Hilary Green.

Houston contractor Dwayne Jordon, a five-time felon, has remained free on bond since 2009 though he's admitted his role in a major Houston real estate scam and appears to have used his court-granted freedom to continue to cheat consumers, businesses and banks in Harris, Montgomery and San Jacinto counties, according to civil suits, criminal records and officials and victims interviewed by the Chronicle.

Brainy endorsements: Barbara Gardner

Like Nile Copeland, Barbara Gardner is running for the the Texas Court of Appeals, but in the Fourteenth, which also serves Harris and other surrounding counties. She will contend in Place 3 against a fresh-faced and very recent Rick Perry appointee. (The local conservatives seem right proud of him.)

I know Gardner for her work as the president of the Harris County chapter of the Texas Democratic Women, as she invited me and several other local bloggers to participate in a lively panel discussion last year.

Excerpting from the Harris County Democratic Party's profile...

Ms. Gardner is a champion of “persons’ rights.” Growing up in East Texas, early on she was somewhat of a front-runner for women’s rights, which she has always vigorously supported. [...] When she learned that the Harris County chapter of the Texas Democratic Women had fallen into an inactive state, Ms. Gardner single-handedly revived the Harris County chapter of this fine organization. The “TDWHarris” chapter is now thriving under Ms. Gardner’s leadership.

When she learned that there were 10 openings on the 1st and 14th Courts of Appeals, and that there is an opportunity in 2012 to have a majority of Democrats on both courts, she decided to run for Hon. John Anderson’s bench, who (retired) from the 14th Court of Appeals. While this is a huge challenge since the race covers 10 counties, most of which are dominated by Republicans, it is the very type of task that motivates Ms. Gardner. There is a great opportunity at stake to create more balance on the courts.

Here's Gardner in her own words.



Gardner takes the "have fun while you kick ass" approach -- in the style of the indomitable Molly Ivins -- as seriously as possible.

"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”

Gardner is hosting a "Fun Fundraiser" on August 31st at the Black Finn; to the left is the flyer with all the details. Earlier this month she hosted a similar event, also with singer/guitarist Clory Martin, at Numbers.

Now how many other judicial candidates can you name that have held campaign events at one of Houston's most famous metal/punk/alternative bars?

That all but itself would be enough to qualify for my endorsement, but Barbara Gardner obviously represents a great deal more than just extraordinary judicial temperament, in the way that progressives might define it.

Go to Gardner's Facebook page to keep up with her campaign, and follow her on Twitter.



The past week's Brainy Endorsements have included...

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

More to come.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is still recuperating from the sales-tax-free weekend as it brings you this week's roundup.

 Off the Kuff has an analysis of the Democratic legislative target list for 2012.  

BossKitty at TruthHugger keeps waiting for any candidate to stop mudslinging long enough to help Americans navigate the stresses caused by natural climate changes. America, the wasteful, can't seem to find a candidate brave enough to do anything but collect rewards from the same industries trashing America's natural resources. America is consumed by Greed, Denial and Bad Water. Our transportation infrastructure is being neglected and will only cost more in the long run.  

WCNews at Eye on Williamson also writes that the cost of neglect keeps rising.

PDiddie at Brains and Eggs began his November endorsements early, with a couple of Democrats -- Nile Copeland and Keith Hampton -- and a few Greens: Alfred and GC Molison and Henry Cooper.

Guess what Tom DeLay is up to?  CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants you to know The Hammer is now lobbying on sex trafficking.

Neil at Texas Liberal took the opportunity offered by the dumb comments about rape made by Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri to remind folks that state-mandated rape is the law of the land in Texas with the forced sonogram legislation, and that three Texas state Senate Democrats played a role in passing the forced sonogram law.

Brainy endorsements: Keith Hampton

Keith Hampton is the Democrat running for Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. His opponent is the most reprehensible Republican serving in the entire judicial system in Texas, Sharon "Killer" Keller. There is no Libertarian or Green on the November ballot. In Hampton's own words, here is one sentence about the incumbent.

(Keller) is the judge who shut the courthouse doors promptly at 5PM to a death-sentenced inmate, and agreed that poor people aren’t entitled to lawyers who remain awake during trial. 

Keller tried to get Hampton removed from the ballot by challenging his petition signatures, but that effort failed. Hampton has outraised Keller over 60 to 1 in the most recent fundraising period. When Hampton ran for the CCA in 2010, he received broad bipartisan support, and that is once again the case in 2012. We have previously seen what happens when Republicans publicly reject Republican judges who betray the public trust.

Here's Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast, outlining the pitch-perfect strategy Hampton must pursue if he is to win.

Judge Keller, the self-styled, "pro-prosecution" judge, has so much baggage coming in it'd be hard to know where to attack first. The findings of facts against her by the Commission on Judicial Conduct were damning and provide ample fodder for campaign attacks. (Her punishment was overturned as illegal but the findings of fact on the merits remained untouched in a circus-like tragi-comedy that embarrassed the court and the state.) Keller was also fined by the Ethics Commission $100,000 for failing to disclose a vast web of financial entanglements. (See the ruling [pdf].)

Even more than those dark moments, though, many of her opinions and dissents contain jaw-dropping pro-government assumptions that could be mined for anti-populist material that would make any good Tea-Party type cringe. Just as Governor Perry's greatest political achievement has been to maximize power over state agencies through appointments of political allies, creating a (relatively) strong executive where Texas historically had a weak one, Judge Keller's principal achievement as the CCA's Presiding Judge has been to oversee (and arguably principally author) an expansionist accumulation of government power by law enforcement and prosecutors over nearly two decades. A comprehensive vetting of her opinions by a campaign researcher would yield lots of attack fodder. But (Hampton) must undertake that work, then use the information to construct and deliver political attacks: That's the piece that I'm not sure is going to happen, though there's still time.

Most recently, the state of Texas executed a man whose IQ of 61 defined him as retarded. Though the United States Supreme Court has ruled that mentally incapacitated people are not to be executed, Sharon Keller -- and Antonin Scalia -- made sure he was put to death anyway.

Keith Hampton is the only sane option for Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and Republicans. Period, end of story.

Hampton has a Facebook page, and here's his Twitter feed. Do what you can: volunteer, donate, advocate. We can't begin to change much in Texas until we rid our government of fiends like Sharon Keller.

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?