SLAPP suits (and how to counterpunch them)

The author of the following gave me permission to reprint it in its entirety. It's written in the styling of legal briefings, with occasional pauses for footnotes.  Several bloggers in Texas have been SLAPPed in years past, with the occasional unfortunate outcome.

There's a Q&A at the end with respect to the recent defamation suit brought -- and won -- by conservative icon David Barton against two Democrats SBOE who ran for the State Board of Education, Rebecca Bell-Metereau and Judy Jennings.

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

From holiday yard decorations criticizing a neighbor to Internet restaurant reviews, free speech is under attack in the courts in our increasingly litigious society like never before.  Frivolous lawsuits designed to chill expression of criticism have reached such a fever pitch that 28 states have now adopted “anti-SLAPP” statutes designed to protect speakers from such suits, and a new national statute has been proposed in Congress. The relatively new Texas “anti-SLAPP” statute is the most powerful speech protection statute ever adopted in any jurisdiction so far. Whether your business’s revenues dropped because of an Internet attack by a competitor or you were sued by a business whose services you criticized on a blog, the Texas anti-SLAPP statute is something you need to know about.

Defamation in the Internet Age—Have You Been SLAPP-ed?©

In 2006, 83-year-old Alaska Senator Ted Stevens famously described the Internet as “a series of tubes.”1 Although the late senator is still fodder for television comics, warp-speed changes in ubiquitous electronic media have left even members of the Facebook Generation struggling to keep up. Electronic speech in e-mail, blogs, Twitter, and “Yelp!” reviews pervades our lives like a virus. Even in our sleep, Internet speech affects what we wear and eat, what we think, how world leaders make decisions, and even who those leaders are. Barack Obama’s 2008 election is attributed to his superior use of electronic media.2 Disturbingly, the gruesome knife-beheadings of American journalists by taunting ISIS terrorists is also likely attributable to their certainty that viral transmission of the grotesque videos on You-Tube would give them planetary shock value. There always seems to be a serpent in the Garden.

The Dark Side of Free Speech Is Nothing New

Some argue the Founding Fathers would never have condoned First Amendment protection for Hustler Magazine’s ad parody of Jerry Falwell confessing that his first time having sex was with his own mother, drunk in an outhouse.3 They are wrong. The right to speak hurtfully about public figures was used by the Founding Fathers themselves with relish—on each other. In the election of 1800, a political opponent wrote that president John Adams was “old, querulous, bald, blind, crippled, [and] toothless.”4 An operative hired by Adams’ opponent Thomas Jefferson added:

John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force

and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.5

Adams then called Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a halfbreed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

Speech can comfort the afflicted as well as afflict the comfortable. It was ever so. Jerry Falwell was not the first stuffed shirt to be deflated in the media. He will not be the last. Only the media are constantly changing.

1 “[T]he Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck.

It’s a series of tubes. And if you don’t understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled,

when you put your message in, it gets in line and it’s going to be delayed by anyone that puts into

that tube enormous amounts of material.” Singel, Ryan; Poulsen, Kevin (June 29, 2006) “Your

Own Personal Internet,” www.wired.com, last accessed August 31, 2014. [Emphasis added.]

2 See Stirland, Sarah Lai, (November 4, 2008) “Propelled by Internet, Obama Wins the

Presidency,” www.wired.com, last accessed August 31, 2014.

3 The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a jury award in favor of the muchadmired

minister, declaring Hustler’s ad parody to be protected speech about a public figure.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 48 (1988).

4 McCullough, David, John Adams, p. 500, quoting a letter from Abigail Adams.

5 Swint, Kerwin, “Founding Fathers’ Dirty Campaign,” CNN Living, August 22, 2008.

Modern Legal Problems of Free Speech and Defamation

In the 20th century, courts sometimes struggled with the boundaries of First Amendment protection in ways that looked sadly comical even at the time. After Potter Stewart famously wrote that he could not define pornography but, “I know it when I see it,”6 the U.S. Supreme Court met in the basement for awkward movie nights, watching the improbable escapades of Lesbian Nymphomaniacs and other films to decide if they contained “redeeming social value.” Subtly mocking Stewart, law clerks would sometimes cry out in the darkness, “I can see it!” John Marshall Harlan was nearly blind at the time and could not see the films, so Thurgood Marshall gleefully narrated the clips for him.7

In the 21st century, the law of defamation is no longer in flux, but a new species of legal predator has evolved from the Internet’s DNA and now quietly swims the electronic seas in search of prey. The web’s free access, unprecedented reach, and the extraordinary ability of its users to speak anonymously have created a torrential flood of electronic speech on an endless variety of topics. Anonymity removes inhibitions that traditional social standards may impose in other contexts, so Internet rhetoric may be coarser, meaner, and more hyperbolic. However, it is no less constitutionally protected. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:

Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can

become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could

from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders,

and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.8

When an Internet “pamphleteer” reaches millions of people with a single “Tweet” or blog posting, he risks offending far more people than a town crier walking near Boston’s Old North Church in 1776. Like Jerry Falwell after reading that his mother “looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation,” angry targets of vulgar Internet mockery and denunciation may sue the Tweeters and bloggers for it—especially if the targets are wealthy and powerful. Thus, the giant Internet-spawned shark of which free-speechifiers are now a plentiful supply of victims is called a “SLAPP suit,” an acronym for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” It has turned the waters red with blood.

6 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

7 Tribe, Laurence, and Matz, Joshua, “Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the

Constitution,” ch. 4.

8 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).

What is a SLAPP Suit?

A SLAPP suit is brought not because the plaintiff seeks compensation for an injury, but to chill the exercise of free speech—by exploiting the speaker’s fear of having to defend even a frivolous suit. Often no attempt is ever made to serve the defendant with process (which would trigger duties on the plaintiff’s part). Of course, the pleadings are usually sent to the defendant informally so he knows he has been sued. Often “emergency” injunctive relief is sought even before the defendants learn the suit has been filed.9 Sometimes multiple SLAPP-suits are filed simultaneously in different courts—by the same plaintiff making the same allegations against the same defendants.

A typical SLAPP suit alleges that the defendant’s Internet comments have defamed him and intentionally inflicted emotional distress, but angry plaintiffs may also claim business disparagement, tortious interference, fraud, conspiracy, and even “harassment” and “electronic stalking.” The fact that a claim is not a recognized civil cause of action does not deter a SLAPP-suit plaintiff—he desires to create fear, not survive appellate review. And SLAPP suits are not limited to electronic speech. There are even cases based on speech in Halloween decorations—quarreling neighbors who decided to mock each other on fake front yard tombstones literally made a “federal case” out of the free-speech ramifications of their comical public barbs.10 (The speech was protected.) 

  
Plaintiffs often drop their SLAPP suits when a defense lawyer appears, skittling into the woodwork like roaches when a light is turned on. Even though this technically does not purge the offender’s violation of pleading rules, judges hesitate to punish a litigant who appears to have repented his sins and "reformed". Of course, by that time, the damage is done. The defendant has paid a lawyer to defend, but is deprived of his day in court. After the SLAPP-er is sure he has escaped harm, he simply re-files in a different court, and begins the process anew.  Like a Texas 'possum "playing dead", he simply bides his time before calmly resuming his SLAPP-ing ways.

This author’s last SLAPP-suit defense before adoption of the new statute discussed below was a two-year odyssey for the individual bloggers ending in the Texas Supreme Court. Although successful, the victory was Pyrrhic. There was no vehicle for the clients to recover their $250,000.00 in attorney’s fees from the soundly-rebuked plaintiff. See In re Does 1 and 2, 337 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). But all this changed in 2011.

9 Called “ex parte” relief, such injunctions often operate as illegal, content-related prior

restraints on speech, but are granted by busy judges anyway because the other side is not present

in court to argue against them.

10 Purtell v. Mason, 527 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Salama v. Deaton, 10-CA-00310 (Fla.

13th Cir. Ct.).

What You Can Do Now If You Get SLAPP-ed

By 2011 when In re Does 1 and 2 was decided, the use of SLAPP suits to squelch public criticism had reached such a fever pitch in Texas that the Legislature adopted the Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”) by a unanimous vote in both houses. To date, 28 other states and the District of Columbia have also adopted anti-SLAPP statutes. At just over three years old, the TCPA is only a toddler, but it is performing under appellate review like an Olympic gold medal gymnast. Decisions under the TCPA are exploding out of the courts of appeals like popcorn kernels in a microwave—in part because of the statute’s provision allowing immediate, accelerated appeal of any trial court decision that allows a SLAPP suit to continue.

In a brief this firm filed in a TCPA case in August 2014, we cited fifteen TCPA appeals decided within just the previous twelve months—and several of those had come down only weeks before. No other statute or issue has generated this volume of decisional law in so short a period. It appears no appellate court has yet reversed a trial court for dismissing a SLAPP suit—they have all either upheld dismissal or reversed the trial court for failure to dismiss. The Texas statute may be the most powerful anti-SLAPP statute yet enacted in any jurisdiction. Here are seven reasons why. The TCPA:

(i) Requires dismissal of the suit on the defendant’s motion unless the

plaintiff brings forth “clear and specific evidence” of each element

of each cause of action pled—even non-defamation claims.

(ii) Automatically stays discovery—usually the most expensive stage of

a case.

(iii) Requires the court to hold a hearing on the defendant’s motion to

dismiss within 60 days—light-speed by juridical standards.

(iv) Requires the court to rule on the defendant’s motion to dismiss

within 30 days of the hearing—curing the common scourge of a

court’s passively denying relief by simply never making a ruling.

(v) Mandates not only an award of the defendant’s attorney’s fees but

also sanctions “sufficient to deter the filing of similar actions.”

(vi) Flings the doors of the appellate courthouse wide open if the trial

court fails to rule and allows a rare “interlocutory” appeal—which is

also given precedence over all other appeals.

(vii) Requires courts to “liberally construe” the TCPA to “fully

effectuate” its purpose and intent.

In one of this firm’s cases presently on appeal, we are asking for $1 million in sanctions for our client—a higher amount than any court has awarded to date, but one we believe justified under the unique facts of that case. Perhaps more importantly, briefing in that case was completed only in early October, the case was orally argued on October 21, 2014, and the case is now ripe for a decision in the court of appeals.

If you get SLAPP-ed in Texas, look down. Thanks to the TCPA, you are already wearing the ruby slippers that have the power to whisk you away from the land of witches, judges, and legal bills more quickly than you may think. Like Dorothy, you just didn’t know it.

(Jeffrey L. Dorrell is a board-certified civil trial specialist in First Amendment law

who has represented SLAPP-suit defendants in cases from the trial court to the

Texas Supreme Court. He can be contacted at hanszenlaporte.com.)

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

Q.  In light of the recent defamation litigation won by David Barton against two Democratic candidates for the SBOE, would you agree with the lawyer cited in this article that the statute needs to be strengthened?

A.  "Jennings v. Wallbuilders was decided under a version of the Citizens Participation Act that was amended by the Legislature—in direct response to the Wallbuilders case—just four months later to prevent what happened to the SLAPP-suit victims in that case from ever happening again. Unfortunately, the amendment could not help the victims of the Wallbuilders SLAPP suit after the fact. Under the amended version of the statute as it has existed since 2013, the outcome would likely have been much different."

Parking these things for the time being

-- There's a new poll out this morning.

-- Unlike yesterday (and courtesy Charles, last night), there is at least one trend that can be easily detected in this year's slew of numbers, analysis, and prognostication.

At the ballot box, there are two different electorates — and the difference between them makes a big difference for policy outcomes.

“Democrats have become increasingly reliant on precisely the groups most likely to sit out midterms, while Republicans score best among those most likely to show up,” says Ron Brownstein, writing in the Atlantic about the difference between presidential-year electorates and midterm electorates like the one politicians face in two weeks.

Brownstein describes the distorting effect this has on policies at the federal level and, especially, the state level, where most governors are on a midterm cycle. Midterm electorates are older, whiter, and wealthier than Americans as a whole.

This is one of the most important things to understand about American politics. It’s like a football game in which every other quarter is fought between one end zone and the opposite 40-yard-line.

In the short term, Republicans are looking to use this smaller electorate to win a Senate majority and pad their margins in the House and at the state level. Democrats are trying to counter it with aggressive ground campaigns to make “unlikely voters” into actual voters.

Conservatives know that this dynamic is working in their favor. You’d think that doing better the fewer people vote would be a depressing or at least an embarrassing thing, but a lot of voices on the right are just plain bragging about it. They seem to want a lot of their fellow Americans to self-deport from political participation.

There’s a tendency to talk about the right to vote as if it’s a perk for flying first-class — to have too many people get it cheapens it, watering it down for the people who really deserve it. And as Josh Marshall and Ed Kilgore both noted in these pages, the idea that there’s something inherently corrupt in widespread access to voting — for lower-income voters, younger voters and especially single women — runs deep on the right.

“Voting is the most shallow gesture of citizenship there is,” says Kevin Williamson of National Review, trying to convince people that there’s no shame in not coming out to vote.

This theme is a staple of Fox News, of course, with multiple instances over the past month of hosts saying that women are too clueless to vote. 

More.  Be sure and read the entire  Brownstein article at The Atlantic.  Will have some comment on this later.

News I can't opine about and trends I cannot detect

-- As a reminder, news reports such as this one and this one are the kind of things that I won't be blogging about while I'm serving on the EVBB.  Or this one.

-- Accounts of Texas voter turnout are varying, from one end of the spectrum (gloom and doom) to the other (cautious enthusiasm).  The smartest people I know with regard to this are Charles Kuffner and Greg Wythe, and they both say it's still to early to divine an end result.  Maybe by this weekend -- or after -- we'll be able to discern a pattern.

-- So the next time you hear someone say that IDs are "free", show them this.

Does everyone understand now why Judge Gonzales Ramos ruled it an unconstitutional poll tax?

The P Slate: Top down

Got it done just in time... except for today's early voters.  Those people had their minds made up anyway.  First, let's note -- and follow -- the advice of the Waco Herald Tribune's editorial board.

While the Trib has elected not to make candidate endorsements in the 2014 general election, we do have three recommendations: If you’re registered to vote, then do so — but only if you’re informed, which is our second recommendation. If you have not studied the candidates and the issues, take time to learn about both or do this republic a favor and just skip the electoral process.

Finally, only a putz votes straight-ticket. We haven’t seen a slate of party candidates yet, Republican or Democrat, that didn’t have some turkeys on it. And if you think voting straight-ticket ensures that one party’s nominees meet certain qualities, think again. Right here in McLennan County, we’ve seen straight-ticket voting put some absolutely incompetent people into offices of responsibility. When that happens, you’re to blame because you voted for them out of party loyalty, not merit or civic regard.

That is so perfect.  You can find some red and blue in the picks at Texpatriate, a mostly blue slate at Texas Leftist and nonsequiteuse, and a mostly Green one at Socratic Gadfly.

Congress

US Senate: Emily "Spicy Brown" Sanchez, Green.  Sorry Democrats, but I can't vote for a pro-life Catholic who also financially supports pregnancy crisis centers in his hometown.  David Alameel has also admitted that this year is a test run for a bid against Ted Cruz in 2018.  No freaking thanks.

Sanchez spoke via Sype to Harris County Greens at their candidate forum in September and made a surpise appearance at the season's fundraiser for her ticketmates, Kenneth Kendrick (Ag Commissioner) and Martina Salinas (Railroad Commissioner).  She made an instant impression talking to both groups.  She's committed and earnest.  She represents the future of Texas Greens: hard-working middle class people with a sense of justice, which is to say a proper outrage at injustices.  I am delighted to be counted a supporter.

US House of Representatives (in my case, the Seventh Congressional District).  Everybody already knows how I feel about this race.  Nothing has changed.  I think I'm going to vote for the Libertarian as a the best protest to John Culberson that can be mustered.

In other districts in the Houston area, Mark Roberts in CD-2 (G) and Niko Letsos (D) have run low-profile campaigns against the incumbent, Ted Poe.  They're both worthy alternatives.  (Neil and I wrote more extensively about Roberts in his first bid for this office two years ago.)  In CD-18, Green Remington Alessi's campaign against Sheila Jackson Lee, similarly, hasn't reached the level of his bid for Harris County Sheriff two years ago.  Democrat Tawana Cadien's second shot at ousting Rep. Michael McCaul in CD-10 is likewise under the radar.  And in CD-22, Democrat Frank Briscoe tests the Fort Bend County waters to see if they're purple enough yet to wash out the incumbent Repub, Pete Olson.

In Southeast Texas, the race to replace Steve Stockman in CD-36 has Libertarian-turned-Democrat Michael Cole of Orange and Green Hal J. Ridley Jr. of Bridge City bidding to upset the prohibitively favored Republican, Brian Babin of Woodville.  Ridley's been invisible; Cole was interviewed on Daily Kos, here.  In CD-14, incumbent Randy Weber of Pearland, really growing into his Tea Freak clothes, has Democratic challenger Donald Brown of Beaumont to fend off.  Brown has the HLGBT Caucus stamp of approval.

In other urban areas of Texas, there's a Green candidate running where no Democrat is, in CD-21 (Antonio Diaz versus Lamar Smith) and where no Republican is, in CD-28 (Michael Cary against Henry Cuellar).  So progressives in San Antonio and the RGV have options.  And in the Metroplex, Democrat David Cozad has run a spirited campaign against Smokey Joe Barton.

But short of something that is equal parts unforeseeable and miraculous, the only contested Congressional race in the Lone Star State is between Congressman Pete Gallego and GOPer Will Hurd in the far west Texas district that stretches from Big Bend to El Paso.  Gallego was once pretty progressive when in the statehouse in Austin, but he's moderated quite bit to hang on to his Congressional seat.  Still, we need no more Republicans in Congress, and Gallego should be returned to Washington.

The statewide executive offices and high courts

Governor: Wendy Davis.  Big surprise, huh?  I and everyone else have written enough about this race that the choice is as obvious as can be.

Lt. Governor: Leticia Van de Putte.  I wanted to find a reason to support Chandra Courtney; she and her husband David (also a Green candidate running for SD-17) are solid people, but the urgency to avoid having Lonesome Rhodes Dan Patrick elected to the state's most powerful position is just too great.  I'm voting for VDP and hoping enough moderate Republicans have come to their senses that we can avoid an apocalypse.

Attorney General: Sam Houston.  Every newspaper in the state of Texas isn't wrong.

Comptroller of Public Accounts:  Mike Collier.  Though I consider Deb Shafto one of my friends, and as Gadfly has pointed out, Collier says all the wrong things in trying to attract conservatives and moderate independents, it is just too dangerous for Texas to risk electing Jethro Bodine to statewide office.

Agriculture Commissioner: Kenneth Kendrick.  It was easy enough to scratch Sid Miller Archie Bunker and Jim Hogan Junior Samples, but Kendrick would have stood above the crowd even if the Republicans and Democrats had managed to nominate respectable candidates.  As the whistleblower in the Peanut Corporation of America killings, no one has done more for Texans already in the cause of social justice.  And unless you smoke a whole lot of dope, there's no coherent excuse for voting for the Libertarian, either. (Kendrick supports decriminalization as well.)

Kendrick is by far the best reason on the ballot for both Democrats and Republicans to split their straight tickets.

Land Commissioner: John Cook.  Here I also gave serious consideration to Valerie Alessi (married to Remington).  Alessi was nominated at the Green Party's state convention in March to replace another candidate who withdrew.  Except for some good responses to questions posed in the Houston League of Women Voters Guide, Alessi's campaign has been low-profile.  Cook was a progressive mayor of El Paso and gets my support.  Please, no more Bushes.

Texas Railroad Commission: Steve Brown (D) or Martina Salinas (G).  Honestly, I still can't choose between them.  They're both as good as it gets for their respective parties.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 1: Bill Moody (D).  Incumbent Republican Nathan Hecht remains under a cloud of ethical violations.  Republicans: your best choice in this race is the Libertarian, Tom Oxford.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 6: Lawrence Meyers.  The state's longest-serving Court of Criminal Appeals judge, Meyers switched parties and became a Democrat last year to bid for the SCOTX against Rick Perry appointee Jeff Brown.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 7:  Gina Benavides (D).  Serving the 13th Court of Appeals since 2006, Benavides has earned some endorsements over the incumbent Republican, Jeff Boyd.  Charles Waterbury of the Green Party is also well-qualified for this office.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 8: Jim Chisholm (G).  No Democrat ran for this seat on the state's highest court, and Democrats that fail to split their straight tickets will miss an opportunity to vote for this very qualified, progressive jurist.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3:  Bert Richardson (R), John Granberg (D), or Mark Bennett (L).  Richardson, as regular readers here will already know, is the judge who appointed the special prosecutor that brought felony indictments against Rick Perry.  Normally I might vote for the Democrat, Granberg, but he is young and unseasoned.  Bennett is a blogger and local lawyer I have crossed paths with.

I might flip a coin.  Or this might be the only Republican I vote for.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4: Judith Sanders Castro (G).

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9: George Altgelt (G).

There's no Democratic candidate in either of these two races.  If you're voting a straight D ticket, you're leaving a lot of votes blank.  As the WHT said at the top... don't be a putz.

Harris County races to come will have to wait until later.

Early Voting Wrangle

"Voting freshens your breath, whitens your teeth, and improves your sex life." -- Molly Ivins

It may even make you immune to Ebola, I've heard.  But only if you are not a Republican.  In which case... you're catching that shit for sure.  The Texas Progressive Alliance reminds you that EARLY VOTING HAS BEGUN as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff published an interview with John Cook, the Democratic nominee for Land Commissioner.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and Daily Kos is sickened by the "corporations are people" Supreme Court for allowing Greg Abbott to disenfranchise 600,000 Texans of their right to vote: TXGOP, Greg Abbott stand by discrimination and disenfranchisement.

Two special days in the blogosphere last week: Blog Action Day for inequality was a global initiative, and Texas blogs dropped a money bomb for Wendy Davis. PDiddie at Brains Eggs has details on both.

After this week's big announcement, Texas Leftist is left to wonder... Did the Dallas Morning News editorial board incorporate facts into its endorsement process for governor? If so, maybe this week's decision for Greg Abbott would have gone the other way. Clearly the DMN ed board should've taken a few minutes to read their own paper.

Republican racism revealed in TWIA emails about storm damage to Brownsville ISD property. CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme encourages everyone in South Texas to go vote. You can stop the racism. VOTE!

From WCNews at Eye on Williamson had two campaign ads worth checking out: Must See TV - Great Ads from Mike Collier and Sam Houston.

Neil at All People Have Value wrote about things he is doing to make a difference in the 2014 elections in Texas. Neil says you can make a difference as well. APHV is one of many interesting things to see at NeilAquino.com.

Texpatriate mixes it up with their endorsements in statewide races: George P. Bush for land commissioner, Sam Houston for Attorney General, and Mike Collier for Comptroller.

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

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

nonsequiteuse has her voting recommendations, which include a Green for agriculture commissioner.

Dan Solomon speaks from personal experience when he says that the Wendy Davis wheelchair ad shines a long-overdue light on the devastating effect tort "reform" has had on victims of medical malpractice.

The Inanity of Sanity has Part II of 'Abbott Disses the Disabled'.

The Lunch Tray keeps fighting the fight for healthier school lunches and snacks.

Grits for Breakfast calls on Texas jails to opt out of the Secure Communities program.

Texas Vox documents the big heat waves of 2013.

Socratic Gadfly was pleasantly surprised by the SCOTUS ruling that overturned the Fifth Circuit order allowing HB2 to go into effect pending appeals.

Helen Philpot would like for someone to explain to Greg Abbott where babies come from.

LGBTQ Insider compares Wendy Davis and Greg Abbott's positions on LGBTQ issues.

Andrea Grimes has the GIF-based explanation of the HB2 timeline that you've been waiting for.

Sunday Funnies

SCOTUS says use your ID, and other election developments

The last word for now (meaning this election).

The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.

A majority of the justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit the state from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo identification in order to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.

The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold. The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

The Supreme Court's order was unsigned, as it typically is in these situations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left the district court decision in place.

The repercussions will be forthcoming.  Battleground Texas seems to have accomplished its task in adding a few hundred thousand Texans to the voter rolls.  The job now is to turn those folks out.

There will be some polling results to follow shortly, from YouGov directly and indirectly via the TexTrib/UT, perhaps as early as today or tomorrow but more likely Monday.  Unless they show some tightening of the races at the top of the ballot, I can't predict anything but a result that is woefully similar to 2002 and 2006 and 2010.  Harris County Democrats will be grinding out the GOTV efforts to hold onto their seats at the courthouse... and perhaps flip the DA and the County Clerk.

The EVBB for me begins Tuesday; at that time I'll go dark with respect to election commentary on the statewide and county ballot.  I hope to have everything I need to say said by then anyway. I will still be blogging here about politics -- probably have something on that pig castrator from Iowa, along with other US Senate developments -- but I'll take the edge off to remain in compliance with my oath as an election judge.  Same goes for Twitter and Facebook postings.  We'll mellow out with a little pumpkin spice whatever for a few weeks.

May blog about the World Series.  My buddy Gadfly's Cardinals got excused; I was hoping for a full orange and black Fall Classic myself.  That is, after the Angels and Dodgers got eliminated.

-- Greg Abbott's Twitter town hall yesterday blew up in his face, and it was, as Hair Balls accounts, laugh-out-loud hilarious.  Be sure and click on the #AskAbbott hashtag.

-- Wendy Davis lost the Dallas News endorsement but earned the Houston Chronicle's.  These simply don't mean as much as they used to, but let's be quick to point out that we still need newspapers badly in this underinformed and misled media environment.  Oh, and you can't paper-train a puppy with a blog.

Update: Some of my blog hermanos took exception to the DMN's endorsement of Abbott.  It takes a lot to drive Charles to scatological descriptions.  But I thought the Observer had the best takedown.

Elect Davis, and GOPers will be so mad they won’t cooperate on anything, just like what happened when Barack Obama took office. This is a really beautiful encapsulation of some of the most depressing features of American politics right now—a reminder that we do government primarily these days by hostage-taking, in contravention of the ostensible norms of representative government. It’s also an assertion that the hostage-takers should win, and a demonstration of why they will keep winning. It’s monumentally demoralizing. But applied to the Texas context, is it right?

What would a Gov. Davis look like? Well, she would probably have little influence over the Legislature. Assume Davis wins and so does Patrick—Davis would be able to get hardly any of her legislative priorities through. Patrick would be preparing to run against her in 2018, and his Senate would kill or mangle almost anything that bore her personal stamp. But Davis would have a veto which would prevent Patrick’s worst bills and initiatives from getting through.

But the Morning News endorsement anticipates something worse—that the conservative Legislature seizes the levers of state government and goes to war against Davis, refuses to budge on any issue, refuses to put together a budget, refuses to consider new and important legislation, until its demands are met and Davis effectively surrenders. In effect, if the people of the state elect Davis to lead them, conservatives in the Legislature—probably led by Patrick—will take Texas hostage.

So the Morning News’ instinct is to reward the hostage-taker, pay the ransom, and keep the state safely gripped by one-party rule. On the one hand, it feels like a pretty bleak misperception of how small-r republican government is supposed to work. It’s especially odd because the endorsement urges Abbott to be “a moderating influence” for his party—a bit like a liberal urging his radical-left friends to “work inside the system.”

Blogger money bomb for Wendy Davis today

Texas blogs want to make it rain today for Wendy Davis.  I'm in.

No pleading, no "we're doomed" desperation.  I'm as sick of that crap as you are.

Oh, and here's the wheelchair ad to end all wheelchair ads.



On the heels of my full socialist rant yesterday, some are going to see a little hypocrisy in today's ask.  That's okay.  If we had a more progressive option in the governor's race --someone that had not chosen to go into hiding for whatever his reasons are for doing so -- I might be voting for that person.  Or even donating to his campaign, for that matter.  If you've been reading here for very long, you know I'm not a fan of least-worst choices.  Yes, Davis did vote in GOP primaries once upon a time, is partnered in a law practice with a former Rick Perry staffer, has supported legislation for helping frackers with their water problems, did run and win a couple of times in a conservative-leaning Fort Worth Senate district. (It includes Burleson, for Jeebus' sake.)

She's no flaming liberal, despite the caterwauling of the worst elements of the RPT.  What she is, is a fighter.  And I have supported the fighters going back to David Van Os in 2006, when he ran against Traffic for attorney general.

She has had more slime slung at her by the fine, upstanding Christian conservatives occupying the rural and exurban brambles than anyone in Texas anywhere.  This race has made Ann Richards versus Claytie Williams look like a playground tussle.

Hell on Wheels has Ted Nugent, Dr. Charles Murray, Drayton McLane, and Bob McNair on his team.

Wendy Davis has us.  And you.  Which is to say the 99% of hard-working Texans who don't drink Red Koolaid or watch Fox News.  Who don't wake up every single morning angry at Obama, or Ill Eagles, and don't go to church to listen to a nasty pastor spew bigotry from the pulpit.  All we want is for her to be able to keep fighting for all of the Texans who aren't Tony Buzbee, or David Barton, or for the love of Dog, Dave Carney.

So if you've read this far, it's time to click the link and throw some change in the cup.

Making fun of guys in wheelchairs

Thanks to the Pulitzer-worthy Nick Anderson.

"Celebrities use wheelchairs in airports," an attendant in Charleston, S.C., once explained to me, "because people don't look at you if you're in a chair."

He is right. People often avert their eyes, either because they don't want to appear as if they're gawking at someone with a disability or because disabled people simply make them feel uncomfortable. To me, however, a wheelchair has never been a symbol of failure or of "being crippled." It is, instead, a symbol of independence and autonomy. Wheelchairs save people's lives, literally.

Maybe Greg Abbott understands what Lamar White is saying here.  It's obvious Dave Carney, Abbott's political adviser, doesn't get it.

The Abbott campaign went insane after Lamar White Jr., a law student who has cerebral palsy, spoke at a press conference in support of Davis. According to the Austin-American Statesman, ‘After horrendous wheelchair attack ad, Wendy Davis uses disabled people as props,’ David Carney, a top Abbott adviser, tweeted about Monday’s news conference.”

[...]

Beyond the tweet, Abbott’s campaign and supporters have been trying to discredit Mr. White by claiming that he was not disabled enough to speak in support of Davis. The idea of a ranking scale for individuals with disabilities is as insulting as it oppressive. Individuals such as Greg Abbott can still operate a motor vehicle, but many individuals Cerebral Palsy and other neurological conditions can not, because there is more to disability than physical mobility. Just because a person can stand up or move under their power does not mean that they are less disabled than a person in a wheelchair.

Republicans had the media fooled for a few days, but after the Abbott campaign has chosen to humiliate differently abled Americans, there is a backlash brewing. The media are rethinking their criticism of the ad, and examining Abbott’s record of denying disabled individuals their ADA rights. Republicans couldn’t resist. They had to attack a disabled individual, and now Greg Abbott’s record is under scrutiny.

The Abbott campaign has insulted millions of Americans with their dehumanization of individuals with disabilities. As Attorney General, Abbott has stripped disabled Texans of their rights. As a candidate for governor, Abbott is robbing differently-abled individuals and their loved ones of their dignity.

That's your boy, Texas Republicans.

Separate and unequal and built to stay that way

Watch this.

In less than three weeks, the United States will hold national elections to choose a third of US senators, all 435 members of the US House of Representatives, the governors of 36 out of 50 states, and thousands of state legislators.

The elections come at a time of immense crisis, nationally and internationally. The American people are being dragged into yet another war in the Middle East... At home, chronically high unemployment is fueling a growth of poverty, while basic social services — education, health care, housing — are being slashed, along with wages and pensions.

Democratic rights are being shredded, with police-state mobilizations in cities such as Ferguson, Missouri against social protest and the government sweeping up the communications of every American.

Social inequality has reached levels not seen since before the Great Depression of the 1930s. And now an Ebola epidemic in Africa is exposing the criminal neglect of healthcare infrastructure in the US and threatening to spiral into an international catastrophe.

But hey, how 'bout them gas prices?

All of these issues are being ignored in the election campaigns of the two big business parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Instead, what predominate are banal and right-wing platitudes combined with mutual mudslinging. The entire process is dominated by corporate money, with all of the rival candidates on the take.

The Democratic Party is seeking to hold onto its majority in the upper house of Congress, the Senate. This is presented by the media as a momentous issue. In reality, which party ends up in control of Congress makes no difference for working people. The outcome of every election, regardless of which party wins, is a shift of the political system further to the right.

Uh oh, here comes that "both parties are the same" stuff.

The Democrats secured comfortable majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2008. They proceeded to continue the war in Iraq, escalate the war in Afghanistan, expand the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street, implement a health care “reform” that slashes workers’ benefits and increases their costs, impose a 50 percent cut in the pay of newly hired auto workers, and oversee a vast expansion of government spying on the population.

Neither party offers any policies to address the raging social crisis. The Obama administration touts a “recovery” that has brought the share of total household wealth held by the richest 0.5 percent to just under 35 percent and that of the top 0.1 percent to 20 percent. The Republicans, who work hand-in-glove with the Democrats to slash working class living standards, demand even bigger tax cuts for the rich and deeper cuts in social programs.

The basic bipartisan unity extends to a foreign policy of endless war and militarism. The Democrats who postured as opponents of the Iraq war under Bush — and insured that war funds were continued when they gained control of Congress — are avidly backing Obama’s new war in Iraq and Syria.

While my Democratic friends lick their wounds, let's be further reacquainted with the phrase 'neoliberal', and how it applies with respect to the global problem of inequality.

On the domestic front, there is no mention of the bankruptcy of Detroit, imposed by a Republican governor working with a Democratic mayor and backed by the Obama White House. The gutting of Detroit city workers’ pensions and health benefits, in violation of the state constitution and under the dictates of an unelected “emergency manager,” is being used as a precedent for cities across the US. In a debate Sunday night, Mark Schauer, the Democratic challenger to Republican Governor Rick Snyder, made clear that he supported the Detroit bankruptcy as well as the wage-cutting bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler.

War, austerity and the attack on democratic rights are all massively unpopular, but the views and interests of working people, the vast majority of the population, find no expression in the election campaigns of the two parties. The experience of the Obama administration, which came to power by exploiting popular disgust with Bush and his policies of war and social reaction, only to continue and deepen the same policies, has further alienated the masses of Americans from the political system.

Fifty percent or more of Americans -- most certainly that many Texans -- aren't registered to vote.  Another half of the half that are registered won't show up to vote in the 2014 midterms.  That leaves 25% of the populace as the electorate, and that's considered a high number by paid political types.  In 2010, it was 37% of those who were registered that actually voted, so by extrapolating we can see that less than 20% -- fewer than one of every five Americans -- cast a ballot.  In a good year.

Expect to see turnout figures far less than a fifth of we the people in many states.  And we didn't even have to mention photo ID laws suppressing the vote.

They no longer believe that their votes will have any impact on the policies pursued by the government. They try to block out the meaningless debates between the candidates and the mind-numbing attack ads financed by the corporate donors who control both parties and the system as a whole.

The crisis of the American capitalist political system results in an election that is barely being followed by the electorate, the majority of whom feel little commitment but a great deal of anger toward both parties. One would hardly know, from the level of interest shown by the population, that an election is taking place.

[...]

All signs point to a record low turnout on November 4, even lower than the dismal 37 percent of eligible voters who cast ballots in the last non-presidential election, in 2010. Voter turnout in the primary elections earlier this year, in which the Democrats and Republicans chose their candidates, hit new lows, with, in many cases, fewer than 5 percent of eligible voters going to the polls.

The likely participation of younger voters, who turned out in relatively large numbers to elect Obama in 2008, is particularly revealing. In recent polls, only 23 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 said they were definitely going to cast a ballot this year.

When people forgo their civic responsibility, when they say their vote doesn't make any difference, when they grumble about both parties being the same... this is what they're talking about.

The contrast could hardly be starker between the acuteness of the issues the American people confront — war, poverty, dictatorship — and the empty and right-wing character of the campaign and general popular disinterest in the election. This contradiction bespeaks a system that is coming to the end of its rope. The immense growth of social inequality has turned American democratic institutions into hollow shells behind which the corporations, the military brass and the intelligence agencies conspire against the people of the US and the world.

The political system is incapable of responding to the crisis facing the working class because it is an instrument of a plutocracy.

The 2014 election is an expression of the crisis of American capitalism, which is at the center of the breakdown of world capitalism. The abstention is not an expression of either acceptance of the status quo or popular complacency. Social opposition is mounting, but the working masses as of yet see no alternative.

A failure of capitalism.  A crisis of unchecked greed.  And economically speaking, all signs point to things getting a little worse before they get better.  There goes your trickle-down, you poor pathetic 99%-er, you.

But hey, how 'bout them Cowboys?

Supremely surprising

A 6-3 SCOTUS majority finds that the Texas abortion restrictions are too harsh.  For now.

On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court issued an injunction that will allow abortion clinics in Texas to remain open, temporarily blocking a package of harsh abortion restrictions that Texas lawmakers approved last summer. That measure, which was unsuccessfully filibustered by gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, requires that abortion clinics make costly renovations to bring their building codes in line with ambulatory surgical centers and stipulates that abortion doctors must secure admitting privileges from local hospitals.

Socratic Gadfly points out that Davis won the battle staged by her filibuster.  For the time being.

The Supreme Court order noted that Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas disagreed with the Court’s injunction. The decision will now remain in effect until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit “rules on a constitutional challenge to the two measures,” SCOTUS blog reports.

And once more, the fellow who is presumptively the next governor of Texas shows us what a really weak lawyer looks like.

In response, Greg Abbott, Texas’ attorney general and the Republican candidate for governor, told the justices that “it is undisputed that the vast majority of Texas residents (more than 83 percent) still live within a comfortable driving distance (150 miles)” of an abortion clinic in compliance with the law. Others live in parts of the state, he said, that did not have nearby clinics in the first place.

Those in the El Paso area, Mr. Abbott continued, could obtain abortions across the state line in New Mexico.

It's disputed, Wheels, and you lost.  You lost John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.  That is losing.  The only good news for you is that it ain't over just yet.

Last November, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 ruling, rejected a request to intercede in a separate case challenging the law, one that centered on the admitting-privileges requirement. In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he expected the Supreme Court to agree to hear an appeal in that case regardless of how the Fifth Circuit ultimately ruled.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld the admitting-privileges requirement in March. On Thursday, the full Fifth Circuit refused, 12 to 3, to reconsider that ruling. In light of Justice Breyer’s comment, Supreme Court review of the admitting-privileges case appears likely.

I wonder if Ken Paxton can argue this case any worse.  I'm guessing yes.

More from RH Reality Check and the Houston Press.  Charles has a post that also covers the other big court ruling from yesterday, the voter ID decision by the Fifth Circuit, with a good roundup of the various linkage in both cases.

Update: And more also from MSNBC, including the snip from Rachel Maddow's report last evening.

Take your ID with you when you vote, says the Fifth Circuit

Because it's too late to change the rules.

"Based primarily on the extremely fast-approaching election date, we STAY the district court’s judgment pending appeal," 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Edith Clement wrote, in a ruling joined by Judge Catharina Haynes (and posted here). "This is not a run-of-the-mill case; instead, it is a voting case decided on the eve of the election....The judgment below substantially disturbs the election process of the State of Texas just nine days before early voting begins. Thus, the value of preserving the status quo here is much higher than in most other contexts."

The third appeals court judge on the panel, Gregg Costa, agreed with the decision to stay the district court ruling, but did not join their opinion. He said he was troubled about the prospect of an election being held under discriminatory rules.

"We should be extremely reluctant to have an election take place under a law that a district court has found, and that our court may find, is discriminatory," Costa wrote. However, he said it appeared the Supreme Court opposes federal court-ordered changes to election procedures on the eve of elections. "On that limited basis, I agree a stay should issue," he said.

Clement and Haynes are appointees of President George W. Bush. Costa was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Yeah, that's what I thought they were going to do.  More from Lyle Denniston.

Update:  I hope nobody showed the three Fifth Circuit judges any pictures of black people voting.

Update II:  More from Justin Levitt of the Brennan Center, at Election Law Blog (now appearing regularly in the right-hand column here), via Brad Friedman.

"So instead, the court makes it legal for all pollworkers to demand the more restricted set (preventing all individuals without the right ID from voting a valid ballot at all)," he continued. "Or, translated even further: if we let the district court's order stand, some people without the right ID will be able to vote, and some won't. And if we stay the district court, all people without the right ID won't be able to vote. And in elections, 'all' is better than 'some.'"

Levitt derides the ruling as 'foolish consistency'. "It's one thing to stop last-minute changes when the impact is less dire for those affected, another to stop last-minute changes when the change is new and unfamiliar, and still another to stop last-minute changes when the reason for the change isn't clear."

"Responsible procreation"

This is the legal premise Greg Abbott (also known in various lawsuits as "the state of Texas") advances in the case against marriage equality.

In a brief filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, Texas attorney general and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott argued that lifting the state’s ban on same-sex marriage would not encourage opposite-sex couples to procreate within wedlock, and therefore the ban should stay in place. Abbott reiterated the “responsible procreation” argument he has already made in defense of a same-sex marriage ban, saying that the motivation for denying marriage rights is economic, according to the Houston Chronicle.

“The State is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage,” the brief reads. “It is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.”

There's nothing new here.  Supporters of California's Prop 8 gave the postulate a test drive in 2013; Utah employed the argument as well.  What motivates a (supposed) small-government conservative to advance a state interest in procreation in the first fucking place, you might be asking yourself. 

The economic benefits to the state of people having children, it appears.

Texas, represented by Assistant Texas Solicitor General Mike Murphy, countered that the state has a legitimate interest in preserving the "traditional definition of marriage," calling the same-sex kind, which became law in Massachusetts in 2004, "a more recent innovation than Facebook."

[...]

"The purpose of Texas marriage law is not to discriminate against same-sex couples but to promote responsible procreation," Murphy said, according to The Dallas Morning News. Kids, he argued, fare better when they're raised by heterosexual couples.

That premise is false, as scientific data has revealed.

In a 2010 brief filed in a gay-marriage case in California, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy wrote that claims the straight people make better parents or that children of gay couples fare worse "find no support in the scientific research literature."

Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Empirical research over the past two decades has failed to find any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents.

As Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan asked, what about when two heterosexual people over the age of 55 get married?  What about infertile couples of any age?  And I would ask: what about the children produced by women of low socio-economic status who are being compelled to give birth because the state refuses to allow them to end their pregnancies?  Weren't conservatives calling those mothers and their children 'moochers' and 'freeloaders' just the other day?  That's certainly counter to a claim of "economic benefit".

The speciousness of these legal arguments defies common sense.  More from the Chronic from behind the paywall.

"By encouraging the formation of opposite-sex marriages, the State seeks not only to encourage procreation but also to minimize the societal cost that can result from procreation outside of stable, lasting marriages," Abbott's brief read. "Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals."
 
LGBT and pro-gay marriage activists were surprised Abbott led with the "responsible procreation" argument since it has been rejected in the 10th and 4th Circuit Courts.

"It hasn't succeeded very often because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense and it doesn't really comport with what most of us think about marriage," said Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. "(State law) doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be reasonable."

'Reasonable' and Greg Abbott shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath.

But these ridiculous, contorted legal justifications discriminating against people who love each other, wish to share their lives, and not be penalized by society, tax law, probate law, hospital visitation polices, and all the rest are actually not what concerns me most.

What is genuinely disconcerting is that Greg Abbott -- who had a tree fall on him and break his spine at the age of 26, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down -- has apparently been thinking about the sex other people have for a long time now.  And essentially he's reached the conclusion that the only people who should be allowed to have sex are straight married couples who desire children. (Let's overlook his ignorance of the reality of pre-marital and extra-marital sex, as well as recreational sex.  God only knows how wrong he must think masturbation is.  No economic benefit to the state there.  Likewise, Abbott is  probably only interested in the economic benefits of procreation by Caucasian and well-to-do Christian couples... but that's a digression.)

These are considerably more disturbing thoughts than anything I have read recently about wheelchairs and disabled people.  But since Abbott brought it up, it's fair to speculate: what economic benefit to the state has his own marriage produced (his only daughter is an adopted child)?  And if there's no responsible procreation activities going on in the Abbott household.... of what good to the general welfare of Texas has his marriage been?

By Greg Abbott's own logic, why should a paralyzed man be allowed to marry?

Charles has more, less graphic than me.  Update: And so do Margaret and Helen.  The Dallas News, tracking the case developments, notes that it will be several weeks before the Fifth weighs in.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance celebrates the advance of marriage equality...

...and looks forward to the day when it comes to our state as we bring you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff published his interview with Mike Collier, Democratic candidate for Comptroller.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and Daily Kos, wants to make sure Texas women voters remember in November. Greg Abbott’s War on Poor Women is real and it is mean.

So there was this ad about a guy in a wheelchair on teevee last week. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs thinks that people observing Texas politics that don't live in Texas just don't get it.

As crunch time arrives, Texas Leftist wants voters to know just how far out in the political fringe we have to put Republican Dan Patrick. So far out, he started running against Rick Perry. Plus, don't miss the interview with the only sensible candidate in the lietenant governor's race, Democrat Leticia Van de Putte.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson says that of all the bad GOP statewide candidates -- and there are many to choose from -- Ken Paxton may be the worst, in Paxton's legal predicament: will he be indicted?

Vote this November with CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme if you want Latinas treated with dignity, people of African descent given life-saving efforts when ill, and Texas women to have proper health services.

Neil at Blog About Our Failing Money Owned Political System wrote about the two Ebola cases in the United States. BAOFMOPS is one of many worthy pages to review at NeilAquino.com.

jobsanger wonders if the polls even matter in this election.

Texpatriate plays it down the middle in the furor over the wheelchair ad.

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

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Unfair Park tallies the cost of assuaging irrational fears about Ebola.

Mark Phariss, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit seeking to overturn Texas' ban on same sex marriage, urges the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to schedule oral arguments in that case already.

Socratic Gadfly has a take on Bud Kennedy's column regarding Democrats, minorities, and thinking past abortion and gay marriage.

Fascist Dyke Motors wants you to understand that there are rules everybody has to follow.

Hair Balls explains why moving the Houston Pride parade out of the Montrose is a big deal.

Nonsequiteuse reminds us that sneakers are made for blockwalking as well as filibustering. Pink is optional.

Christopher Hooks provides another example of Breitbart Texas being stark raving loony.

The TSTA Blog highlights another education cutter seeking to get back into office.

Greg Wythe teases his return with a promised look at how the early vote is going.

Mustafa Tameez condemns Dan Patrick's "irresponsible" border ad.

Juanita Jean speaks as a person with disabilities about that Wendy Davis ad.

Finally, the TPA congratulates Grits for Breakfast on its tenth anniversary of blogging.