Friday, December 02, 2011

600,000 Texas voters may not have photo ID

That's the entire population of Vermont. Or Wyoming. That's just one of about a dozen salient points in this piece by Rep. Rafael Anchia at NewsTaco, and it's so good I wish to repost it here in its entirety. Emphasis his.

November has been month full of “oops” moments for Texas Republicans.

Not only were their illegal maps redrawn by a San Antonio Federal court last week, but lost in the redistricting news was the story about the refusal by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pre-clear the strict photo ID legislation that Texas Republicans passed during the 2011 legislative session.  Since July of this year, the DOJ has twice asked the Texas Secretary of State’s office (SOS) for additional information, including the number of registered voters who may be unable to comply with its requirements.  At issue are about 600,000 registered Texas voters who may not have a state-issued license or ID.  If the SOS does not provide the data, implementation of the bill can be halted.

For those not familiar with the term “pre-clearance,” it means that, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, changes to Texas’ election laws must be reviewed to ensure that the laws do not have discriminatory effects.  Immediately following the end of last session, several voting rights advocacy groups sent letters to the DOJ stating that the new law will disenfranchise many Texas voters, including seniors, college students, the disabled, and ethnic and racial minorities.  The restrictive nature of the bill defies common sense.  For example, a college student in Texas who holds an out-of-state driver’s license, but is registered to vote on campus will not be able to use that driver’s license or even their college photo ID to vote.  Even worse, a Korean war veteran who no longer drives and does not have a government-issued photo ID such as a valid passport or concealed handgun license will not be allowed to vote with their voter registration card, despite the fact that his service to his country was supposed to ensure that very right for his fellow Americans.

I have always argued that any photo ID law contain vote-saving provisions ensuring no duly-registered Texas voter is left behind.  In Idaho, among the reddest of red states, the photo ID law allows duly registered citizens without photo ID to issue an affidavit under penalty of perjury in order to vote.  In Florida, the Republican photo ID law allows voters without photo ID to cast a ballot that undergoes a signature match (like we do with mail-in ballots in Texas).  During the debate on the House floor, I offered amendments based on these models, but they were rejected.

At the risk of saying, “I told you so,” it comes as no surprise to those of us who predicted that the DOJ would take issue with the more onerous provisions of this legislation.  During the house debate, I also offered an amendment that would have delayed enactment of the strict photo ID law until the SOS had furnished the very type of data that the DOJ is requesting today.  Disturbingly, no voter impact analysis had been conducted and, during the debate on this bill, I introduced studies suggesting that between 150,000 and 500,000 registered voters in Texas do not have the kind of photo ID that would be required to vote.  As it turns out, I was too conservative in my estimates, and in fact we now know that up to 600,000 Texans may not be able to cast a regular ballot under the new law.

You would think that, before pushing for this legislation, the authors would have asked how the bill adversely affects Texans’ right to vote.  What was their acceptable threshold for disenfranchisement?  Was it 100, 100,000, or 600,000 Texas voters?  To put 600,000 voters in context-that’s about the number of people who live in each of the states of Vermont and Wyoming.   It seemed as though Texas Republicans never really wanted to answer that question.  Despite the studies predicting that the bill would adversely affect the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of Texans, undoubtedly among them thousands of Texas Republicans, the authors of the bill simply ignored these inconvenient data points.

Some have suggested that Texas Republicans knew about the 600,000 voters all along and this is a cynical and manipulative ploy to maintain partisan control of state government.  I have a great deal of respect for many of my colleagues, including the bill authors, and would like to think otherwise, but the restrictive nature of the bill just doesn’t make sense.

What has become clear to me is that this legislation is not intended to deal with voter fraud — in fact, the only kind of voter fraud that regularly occurs, mail-in ballot fraud, is not touched by the photo ID legislation.  A multi-year investigation by the Texas Attorney General has borne out that impersonation of a voter at the ballot box is extremely rare in the state of Texas.  The real problem is not voter impersonation, it’s that too few people are voting.  In the 2010 mid-term general elections, Texas was dead last among the 50 states in registered voter participation.

As legislators, we need to ensure that fundamental individual rights are protected.  If the DOJ does not pre-clear the strict photo-ID bill, we will get another shot at this legislation.  And if we do, we need to act carefully and can’t ignore the 600,000.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Romney's path to the GOP nomination

... seems considerably more difficult today. And perhaps impossible.

He can't win the Iowa caucuses, now just a month away, and he may not win NH by much, or even at all. Then comes SC and FL.

But the larger point has more to do with whomever the Republicans select as their presidential standard-bearer, be it Romney or Newt Gingrich. A vital part of the conservative coalition, the Christian fundamentalists, increasingly have no candidate to turn to. Their Chosen One was Rick Perry, and he was replaced by Herman Cain as Flavor of the Month in October.

Personally my observation of the evangelicals is that they are less prone to bald-faced hypocrisy than the rest of the party. That translates into not 'forgiving a man who has repented his sins'. It seems that some can and some can't; they're divided. Never mind Romney's flip-floppery on every issue, it's Newt's nuanced positions on immigration and abortion that have them flummoxed.

For those who will never go to Mitt -- he's not a Christian, of course -- and who can't support Newt the Adulterer, it's a real quandary. The Tony Perkins/Richard Land caucus and its members have the potential to be the most disillusioned come next November. Just imagine how the Charismatics will react if the eventual nominee picks an anchor baby like Marco Rubio as a running mate.

Two hard-bitten conservatives on the ticket, likewise, alienates the "moderate" wing of the GOP, which has gone on the attack against Gingrich in recent days (note Karl Rove's consistent pimping of Romney on Fox News, to which even the likes of Michael Berry is reacting badly).

Either the Tea P is going to be very unhappy if Romney does stumble to the nom, or the establishment gets sour-pussed with the selection of Gingrich. Romney and a TeaBagger as V-P is nothing but a replay of McCain-Palin. Newt is NOT going to take a Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson ... even though that would be a formidable matchup. He'll take a Latino/a and gamble that his softer immigration stance coupled with a brown token will win him Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, and some other blue-in-'08 states. This political calculus disregards the dampening effect a (for example) Gingrich-Rubio ticket would have in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina ...

And this is exactly the kind of division between conservative factions that not only makes it increasingly likely that Obama wins, and wins easily*, but also helps Democrats down the ballot. And it could present the Democratic Party with electoral opportunities in places they would not normally exist even in a presidential election season ... such as in the South.

Maybe even, heaven forfend, Texas.

* no discounts factored in for worsening economic conditions, terrorist attacks, bad reactions to natural disasters, or fresh scandals

Update: Additional reading.

Can social conservatives forgive Gingrich’s messy personal past? Note this article's focus on the gender gap between evangelical women and men with regard to forgiving the Speaker's sins.

Monday, November 28, 2011

The Weekly First Frost Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance welcomes wearing a coat and gloves, condensing exhalation, and the opening of candidate filing season (SCOTUS willing) as it brings you this week's roundup.

Noted "redistricting analyst" Off the Kuff analyzed the new court-drawn Congressional map.

Lightseeker takes on the question of where OWS is now and what its future might hold. Check it out at Texas Kaos: OWS Meets Mass Democracy - The Need for a Narrative.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the recent failure (or was it?) of the so-called "supercommittee": Failure was a success.

Bay Area Houston wonders about Rep Joe Driver's felony and his $57,000 annual pension.

BossKitty at TruthHugger cannot stomach the ongoing civilian casualty toll in wars America propagates. Money talks, accountability walks. Quit electing politicians who answer to the military-industrial lobby and want to throw the rest of us under the bus: US and NATO Allies too sloppy for war.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is ashamed of the Texas Democratic Party. The only thing going for the party is that they're not Republicans.

Just one year ago, Texas Republicans were laughing all over themselves celebrating their super-majority in the House with the defections of Aaron Pena and Allan Ritter. They're not laughing any longer after two federal judges redrew the maps that erased all of their gains from 2010. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs notes that political fortunes can rise and fall just like the stock market, especially when pigs turn into hogs.

Neil at Texas Liberal noted that Occupy Houston published a newspaper. Occupy Houston and Occupy efforts across the nation are working hard and staying creative to make certain that the movement is here for the long haul.

WhosPlayin wrote about a Tea Party candidate for city council in Lewisville who is running on a platform of "rule of law" and "transparency", but who utterly failed at both in his campaign finance reports. But hey, at least this mistake is not as bad as his $56 million overstatement of the city's debt.