Texas Confederate license plates and other detritus

-- The latest developments (off again, on again, appeal again by Greg Abbott) in the Lone Star State's bid to reject the distribution of a vanity license plate commemorating our, ah, "Southern heritage" made me search the archives for the lively discussion between irregular poster Open Source Dem and conservative former blogger nee gadfly commenter Matt Bramanti.  It includes a rejoinder from former Progress Texas honcho Mark Corcoran, relating to OSD's criticism of them at the time.

As with the ongoing conflagration in the Middle East, I'm not taking any sides here.  I think vanity plates are fallen fruit for the state coffers, with rubes ripe for fleecing giving the state their money for nothing.  It seems to be more stupid than buying a hundred dollars' worth of lottery tickets, but the P.T. Barnum rule is in effect here.

Update: Socratic Gadfly with some related thoughts, and also Constitution Daily.

-- Hillary Clinton thinks that offices with fewer corners would be a good thing.

To the dismay of Jon Stewart, Hillary Clinton did not make her big announcement on "The Daily Show" on Tuesday.

The comedian and talk show host opened his interview with the former secretary of state and possible presidential candidate by praising her memoir, "Hard Choices," before pivoting to the question Clinton is asked everywhere she goes.

"It's an incredibly complex and well-reasoned and eyewitness view," Stewart said of the book. "I think I speak for everybody when I say no one cares. They just want to know if you're running for president. Are you?"

"I was going to make an announcement, but I saw ... you kind of spoiled it," Clinton replied. "So I have to reconsider where I go do it."

Stewart then rephrased his question, and asked if she would like to work in an office that has corners.

"You know, I think that the world is so complicated, the fewer corners that you can have, the better," Clinton said to applause from the studio audience.

So coy.

-- Some Democrats seem determined to push Elizabeth Warren in, despite her specific declinations.  This is silly season for this sort of thing, folks.  And this phase is going to last all the way into the middle of next year -- through the current election cycle, through the holidays, and well into the next session of the Texas Legislature.

This mentality is the reason that there are Irish betting services accepting wagers on the British Open in 2015.  And Las Vegas sports books taking bids on next January's Super Bowl champion.

It's still more pointless than trying to handicap next spring's Kentucky Derby, and the contestants are all less attractive.  If you want to play a game like this AND have some influence on changing the political system as it exists today, then work on convincing Bernie Sanders to run -- as either a Democrat or a Green.  Your choice.  You already have my opinion in this regard.  Sanders is a much better option (we need Warren in the Senate as bank watchdog), with a much greater likelihood of success (in influencing the system, not winning).

-- Speaking of banksters: Citigroup paid a $7 billion fine to the US government, and a few other injured parties, for their 2008 Mortgage Meltdown crimes.  That also bought them the right to say that they did nothing wrong.  They wanted to settle at $5 billion, Uncle Sam said ten, and like a couple of used car salesmen, they met in the middle.  When Citigroup announced higher-than-expected earnings as a result of the better deal they got on the fine, their stock went up dramatically, and so did the rest of the market.

The Corleone family ain't got nothin' on them.

-- One toon (there are so many good ones already this week that I'm having trouble winnowing the field):

Lots of campaign finance reports news today

None of which will be reported in this space.

Money is the root of all political evil, and no one has made that cliche' more obvious in this cycle than Greg Abbott and the brothers Koch.  Even the reporting on who raised how much from whom and how they spent it is insipid.  Here's proof of that from Wayne Slater.

Texas has no limits on political fundraising, and the SCOTUS is doing their dead-level best to see to it that the United States becomes more like us.  The only thing a campaign finance report should tell anyone is who the biggest crooks are.

So if you want to put yourself through your washing machine's spin cycle, knock yourself out.  I'm going to do what I can to keep assisting the Move to Amend folks in wringing the goddamned cash out of the system.

Because if every politician got the same (small) amount of public funds for their campaigns, you'd suddenly see a lot more responsiveness and honesty from your politicians.  Because then they would have to compete in the arena of ideas.  That would be anathema to a charlatan like Greg Abbott.  And Dan Patrick.  And on down the right-hand side.

Perhaps even the media would be able to cover political races in such a way that the candidates' words and deeds would be reported without its own bias and corrosive influence.  Because then the attack ads would be gone from the airwaves.

But until that day comes, they're all just going to keep feeding you vomit.  So the least we can do is not be good dogs and continue to eat it, okay?

Let's break Texas into five states while we're at it

California wants to subdivide itself into six.  Well, not all Californians.

A long-shot effort to break California into six separate states got a boost on Monday, when the billionaire venture capitalist behind the proposal said he had gathered enough signatures to place it on the ballot in two years.

Timothy Draper, a founder of a Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm that has invested in Twitter, Skype and Tesla, among other companies, has been agitating for months for a ballot initiative to chop the most populous U.S. state into smaller entities.

"It’s important because it will help us create a more responsive, more innovative and more local government, and that ultimately will end up being better for all of Californians," said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the campaign. "The idea ... is to create six states with responsive local governments - states that are more representative and accountable to their constituents."

Don't forget those nine or ten extra Democratic US Senators, either.  They might come in handy.

...(T)he plan has raised bipartisan hackles across the state, and opponents say it stands little chance of gaining voter approval. If it does win the support of voters, it must still be passed by Congress, which opponents say is also unlikely.

"This is a colossal and divisive waste of time, energy, and money that will hurt the California brand,” said Steven Maviglio, a Democratic political strategist who has formed the group OneCalifornia with GOP strategist Joe Rodota to fight Draper’s plan. "It has zero chance of passage. But what it does is scare investment away... at a time when the Governor is leading us to an economic comeback.”

Draper's plan would split the world’s eighth-largest economy along geographic lines.

One state, to be called Silicon Valley, would include the tech hub along with the San Francisco Bay Area. Jefferson, named after the third U.S. president, would encompass the northernmost region. The state capital of Sacramento would be in North California, while South California would be made up of San Diego and the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles.

L.A. itself would be part of a state called West California.

Five years ago I blogged about the Texas plan to cut itself into five easy (somewhat conservative) pieces.  My Congresswad, John Culberson, earned "Douchebag of the Week" honors for pushing the idea out on national teevee.  Here's that map again, courtesy Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com.

It's a similar strategy as the one Culberson executed to add a dozen extra lanes to the Katy Freeway, which as we know he succeeded in doing (even as he fought against public transportation, even fighting with Ted Poe about it).  We'll blog more about that another day, though.

Texas divisionism is met with much skepticism itself, mostly from a constitutional perspective, although I suspect this proposal would be as deeply unpopular as California's.  As I mentioned in 2009, that separation might produce four or more Democratic senators -- two in El Norte, minimum one each in New Texas and Gulfland.

This is a fun parlor game, but don't expect to find 10-15 new Democrats in the Senate anytime soon.  As in your children or grandchildren's lifetimes.

TXGOP's anti-Latino redistricting scheme exposed in e-mails

Miriam Rozen at Salon with the gumshoe detective work.

On Nov. 17, 2010, Eric Opiela sent an email to Gerard Interiano. A Texas Republican Party associate general counsel, Opiela served at that time as a campaign adviser to the state’s speaker of the House Joe Straus, R-San Antonio; he was about to become the man who state lawmakers understood spoke “on behalf of the Republican Congressmen from Texas,” according to minority voting-rights plaintiffs, who have sued Texas for discriminating against them.

A few weeks before receiving Opiela’s email, Interiano had started as counsel to Straus’ office. He was preparing to assume top responsibility for redrawing the state’s political maps; he would become the “one person” on whom the state’s redistricting “credibility rests,” according to Texas’ brief in voting-rights litigation.

In the Nov. 17, 2010, email, Opelia asked Interiano to look for specific data about Hispanic populations and voting patterns.

“These metrics would be useful to identify the ‘nudge factor’ by which one can analyze which census blocks, when added to a particular district [they] help pull the district’s Total Hispanic pop … to majority status, but leave the Spanish surname RV [registered voters] and TO [turnout] the lowest,” Opiela writes to the mapmaker.

Interiano responded two days later: “I will gladly help with this Eric but you’re going to have to explain to me in layman’s terms.”

Opiela, you may recall, was also a GOP candidate for Texas agriculture commissioner who failed to clear his primary and make the runoff last spring.

Two years and seven months after that email exchange — and one year ago on June 25, 2013 — the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had allowed the federal government to “pre-clear” redistricting maps proposed by Texas and other states with a history of discriminating against minority voters.

In a follow-up email on Nov. 19, 2010, Opiela explained to Interiano that he called his proposed strategy: “OHRVS” or “Optimal Hispanic Republican Voting Strength.” Opiela defined the acronym-friendly term as, “a measure of how Hispanic, and[,] at the same time[,] Republican we can make a particular census block.”

Lawyers for the African-American and Hispanic voting-rights plaintiffs consider Opiela emails “a smoking gun.” The correspondence will play a starring role at a trial scheduled to start today in a San Antonio federal court in a redistricting case, Perez v. Perry. The litigation pits the plaintiffs, who have been joined by the Obama administration, against Texas and its Republican state leaders, including Gov. Rick Perry in his official capacity.

Did someone mention that the trial began today?

Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in San Antonio, who represents Perez plaintiffs, believes Opiela’s emails show evidence of intentional discrimination and thereby provide the federal government with a spare key to restart Section 5, replacing the one the Shelby decision removed from the ignition.

[...] 

Clare Dyer helped gather that data for Interiano. She serves as a mapping and redistricting researcher for the Texas Legislative Council, a state agency, which provides, according to its website, “nonpartisan research” for all state players in the redistricting process.

When MALDEF’s Perales asked Dyer at her May 15, 2014, deposition about the emails, the state researcher said that Opiela appeared to be asking for “metrics,” which Interiano later sought from her office. Her interpretation of Opiela’s meaning in his emails: “[H]e’s trying to shore up — well, he says that — shore up districts so he can get — have them appear to be high Hispanic, but low Spanish surname registered voters. … You could give the appearance of having a Hispanic majority district, but it wouldn’t have the capability to elect — for the Hispanics in the district -- to elect the person of their choice.”

Sure seems like a lot of trouble to go to in order to try to win an election, doesn't it?

In its list of witnesses filed on June 9, though, the federal government has included Interiano as one it intends to call and Opiela as another it might call. Interiano testified at an earlier redistricting case for Texas — one the state filed in a D.C. federal court before Shelby in July 2011.  In its complaint in that case, Texas sought a declaration that its redistricting plans complied with the Voting Rights Act.  A three-judge panel of the D.C. federal court denied Texas the declaration and found the state in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. After Shelby, the D.C. court had to vacate its ruling. And the court had never ruled on the question of Texas’ alleged intentional discrimination, since prior to Shelby, such a finding was unnecessary to find the state in violation of Section 5.

In its opinion, however, the D.C. court expressed doubts about Interiano’s testimony. “[T]he incredible testimony of the lead House map drawer reinforces evidence suggesting map drawers cracked VTDs [vote tabulating districts] along racial lines to dilute minority voting power. … This and other record evidence may support a finding of discriminatory purpose in enacting the State House Plan. Although we need not reach this issue, at minimum, the full record strongly suggests that the retrogressive effect we have found may not have been accidental,” the D.C. judges concluded.

We should see some restrengthening of the fifty-year-old Voting Rights Act... if there is justice, and not just for Republicans.  More on today's opening arguments from the Dallas News.

Related reading from last week on Greg Abbott's other courtroom losses:

-- Texas Largely Loses Motion to Dismiss Voter ID Claims

-- Texas voter ID law must stand trial, judge rules

Man, Abbott is a really shitty lawyer.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance asks: "Who Would Jesus Deport?" as it brings you the best lefty blog posts from across Texas last week.

Off the Kuff discusses the latest advances in voter ID litigation.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos reports on the busy week in Texas politics: Greg Abbott blames terrorists for his Koch problem. Meanwhile the POTUS pays us a visit.

Horwitz at Texpatriate gives a run-down of the possible Democratic candidates for US president in 2016.

Texas Democrats had much to celebrate last week as former San Antonio mayor Julian Castro cleared Senate confirmation for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. And as Texas Leftist explains, his appointment brings some much needed geographic diversity to the president's cabinet.

From WCNews at Eye on Williamson, the people see the government as an abstract entity they have no control over: Transportation Trouble - Every Issue Comes Down to This.

The most important stories in Texas last week were the border refugee crisis and President Obama's fundraising visits to Dallas and Austin, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs assembled several of the various reactions to both.

Another election questioning the Hidalgo County voting machines. CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders what will be revealed this time.

Neil at All People Have Value posted from Cincinnati, Ohio this past week. Neil offered nice pictures of Cincinnati and wrote about seeing his friends and the passage of time. All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

And here are more great posts from blogs around the Lone Star State.

Greg Wythe analyzes Houston turnout patterns to get a handle on how the attempt to repeal the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance may play out.

Texas Vox believes that US solar manufacturing could make a comeback.

The Texas Election Law blog reviews the lawsuit filed by college students challenging North Carolina's voter ID law.

Unfair Park lauds the Texas Clean Fleet Program, which is designed to get old diesel-powered school buses off the streets.

LGBTQ Insider gives a fond farewell to former Fort Worth City Council member Joel Burns.

Texas Watch reports that workers exposed to cancer-causing asbestos have just had their lives made harder by the state Supreme Court.

Scott Braddock documents the resistance Texas business leaders face on immigration reform.

Socratic Gadfly observes that in the contest between Dallas and Cleveland for the 2016 RNC convention, the Republicks went for the most socialist option.

Lone Star Q has the story of the Grand Saline Methodist minister, an activist in LGBTQ equality, who committed suicide via self-immolation.

jobsanger and the Green Party would just like to remind John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, et.al. that Edward Snowden is never going to receive a fair trial in the United States.

Prairie Weather examines the connection between the coyotes who smuggle cheap labor over the border for the American businesses that demand it, and how that has transformed the Tea Party's stated aims.

Tar Sands Blockade republishes Liana Lopez of t.e.j.a.s. (Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services) and her photo essay of the First Nation's march through Canada's tar sands oilfields.

Paul Kennedy notes the unintended consequences of the Michael Morton Act.