Overnight developments in voter ID case, polling

-- YouGov, which polled me on September 20 and completed fieldwork on these latest results on October 1, has Greg Abbott at 54% and Wendy Davis at 40%. (John Cornyn leads David Alameel 55-35).  In other words, nothing has changed.

YouGov has already polled me again over the weekend, for Texas statewide races all the way down to Land Commissioner (no judicials) and several hot-button issues.  Those include the National Guard at the border, supporting or opposing deportation of immigrants and the photo ID law, various circumstances under which a woman should be able to have an abortion, whether undocumenteds should receive in-state tuition, and gay marriage.  This sounds like a Texas Tribune/UT profile to me, and thus I would expect results from this polling in a week... just in time for early voting

In their overall US Senate measurements, YouGov has the Democrats losing Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota.   They hold Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado, and Michigan.  Kansas is dead even.  In that scenario, Mitch McConnell becomes Senate Majority Leader (if his caucus will still have him, that is).

-- The Fifth Circuit has ordered all parties in the Texas photo ID case to submit their arguments by 3 p.m. today.  Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS blog reiterates what was posted here previously.

If this dispute moves on to the Supreme Court, which seems quite likely, it will be the fourth time in recent days that the Justices have been drawn into the widespread controversy in this election season over new restrictions on voting rights.

In three separate actions, the Justices blocked a voter ID law in Wisconsin, but permitted limitations on early voting in Ohio and limits on same-day registration and voting as well as some limits on vote counting in North Carolina.

The differing treatment has not been explained, but it appears that the Court has been less willing to permit changes in voting procedures to be changed close to elections.  That is a principle the Court appeared to establish in a late October 2006 decision, Purcell v. Gonzalez, involving an Arizona proof-of-citizenship requirement, which the Justices allowed to remain in effect, citing “the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes.”

In the Texas dispute, the Fifth Circuit is expected to act quickly after the challengers and the Justice Department offer their views on the postponement request.  Those filings were limited to ten pages.

Texas conducted elections in 2013 using photo IDs.  Not requiring them for voting beginning a week from tomorrow could be considered a material enough revision by the SCOTUS for them to dodge an appeal from the plaintiffs if/when the Fifth Circuit rules against them.   If I were a betting man -- and I am -- my guess is that the Fifth overturns Judge Ramos' decision tomorrow evening or Tuesday morning, there is an immediate appeal to the SC which they decline to consider, and photo IDs go back into effect for the Texas election.

I'd be delighted to be wrong somewhere in there.

Updates: This report in the DMN details the hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions that Fulbright & Jaworski and Vinson & Elkins, two of the largest law firms in Texas, have made to Greg Abbott in exchange for even larger-dollar contracts for legal work from the state of Texas.  Thirty-nine million dollars to F&J, $13 million to V&E.  It's more of the same old quid pro quo from Abbott.

And via e-mail, the two major party state Comptroller candidates, Mike Collier and Glenn Hegar, will hold a debate on October 29, to be televised by Time Warner Cable.

Sunday Freak Out Funnies

Dan Patrick seizes on ISIS-at-border claims in first TV ad

Wheelchair ads

National media seems to have the vapors about Wendy Davis' latest teevee ad.  And if that's what the WaPo and the AP are saying, you can only imagine how offended Breitbart Texas is acting.  Why, even Mother Jones is clutching her pearls.

I just don't think any of these people have been following the race for Texas governor very closely.  Or if they have, they've been doing so from a posh suite of offices inside the Beltway.

Here's a couple of explanations for the out-of-towners about how political campaigns go in the Lone Star State from some of my fellow bloggers who know about these things.  Or you can read the comments on the story at the HouChron, which for the uninitiated is no bastion of Texas liberalism.  You will find several short -- even Tweetably short -- descriptions of precisely what the spot is about.

Specifically, a self-loathing sociopath.

For those who won't click: the ad is about the baldest demonstration of hypocrisy ever performed by any politician anywhere, and not the fact that he was too stupid to get out of the way of a falling tree.  So let's be certain that the corporate media outside Texas regains its focus by repeating the truth about Greg Abbott.

Now if someone wants to scream and cry about those who would make fun of people in wheelchairs, I got your outrage right here.  Swinging.

More Texas voter ID legal developments

-- Greg Abbott asks for some guidance (via Quorum Report).

While it is obvious that the federal court in Corpus Christi has rejected Texas' voter ID law as discriminatory and a de facto poll tax, it failed to issue a judgment instructing the state on required procedures, if any, for the November election.

The Office of the Attorney General has issued a request for guidance on the initiation and scope of the injunction and whether it will be implemented for this election. The request notes "The issuance of an opinion with no injunction or direction regarding the timing of the injunction is already adding to the confusion created by the Court’s decision. Texas respectfully requests that the Court enter the planned injunction and judgment by the close of business today."

The request for guidance can be found here.

Update (10/11): And guidance is supplied.

-- Chad Dunn, the TDP lawyer who makes his living doing this, weighs in (via Lone Star Project):

LSP: Greg Abbott has already announced that he will appeal Judge Ramos’ ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. How long will that process take, and what happens after the 5th Circuit rules?

CD: We expect Judge Ramos to issue an order formally blocking enforcement of the Texas voter ID law within the next few days. Greg Abbott has already announced that he will appeal her ruling and ask the 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals to reverse her order. After the 5th Circuit rules, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the US Supreme Court. It would not surprise me if both the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court issue rulings on this matter in next ten days. (emphasis mine)

I guess some attorneys are going to be working over the weekend.

For want of a stamp, the election was lost

All apologies to James Baldwin William Shakespeare whomever.  The following account is a transcript of the news report shown on the 10 p.m. newscast of Houston's ABC affiliate, KTRK, last night.  They don't have their own video posted to the website yet, so this one from Lane Lewis will have to suffice for now.

Hundreds of mail-in ballots that are being mistakenly held for days at a downtown post office will now be delivered to the Harris County Clerks Office.

The downtown post office was holding the ballots for insufficient postage, something they are not supposed to do.

"We found a glitch. And we're going to expose this," said Harris County Democratic Chairman Lane Lewis.

Lewis found out about the ballots and offered to pay for the postage shortage. Almost all the ballots were short on postage by just pennies.

"These votes whether Republican or Democrat, I don't know, but they need to be counted," said Lewis.

A postal worker told Eyewitness News the shortage was about $57. The worker said for that price, Lewis could take the ballots, put the stamp on himself and return them to the post office. That's against policy and illegal.

"We could have walked out of here with those ballots. But we did not," said Lewis.

"That is totally irresponsible on their part," said Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart.

Eyewitness News learned the county clerk's office has an account with the (Houston) postmaster, so any shortage should be billed to his office. Post office workers said they knew nothing about an account. They were ready to send the ballots back to the voters.

"By procedure and by law, deliver the ballots regardless of the postage on those ballots," said Stanart.

So then... it's not his fault, it's the post office's fault.

Eyewitness News learned Stanart made his own mistake. The return ballot states the postage is 69 cents. But it should have been 70 cents. Some ballots were being held for just a penny. Stanart said he didn't know about the change in postage.

"I personally didn't. I would have to talk to my office if they do know that," said Stanart. 

Uh oh.  So whose fault is it again?  There's no "Buck Stops Here" plate on that man's desk. This is how a person takes personal responsibility for their mistakes.

Dionne Montague, a USPS spokeswoman, released the following statement to Eyewitness News:

"We have policies in place to ensure absentee balloting material, received in the mail, is handled promptly. We do not delay delivering ballot materials even when they are received with insufficient funds or no postage. Our policy is to attempt to collect the postage due from the election office at the time of delivery or at a later date. This policy will be reinforced with all of our employees."

Stanart said the problem has been worked out, and the ballots will be soon delivered to his office.

There might be some chain-of-command issues regarding the way those ballots were handled, just from what I observed in the video.  And Stanart's deer-in-the-headlights, wide-eyed blinking on the videotape are as solid a tell as you'll ever see in any poker game.

It's been well-established for some time now that Stan Stanart is just in over his head.  After four years in office he still can't get the basic things right.  The Houston Chronicle choked in their endorsement of this race, and everyone -- I'm looking at you, Republicans -- needs to fix this mistake in government.

Ann Harris Bennett, everybody.  For the gracious sake of no more embarrassments in the County Clerk's office.  More mailed ballot news from Charles.

Federal judge crushes Texas photo ID law

Christmas came early, y'all.

A federal court has struck down Texas’s voter ID law.  It violates the Voting Rights Act, it violates the constitutional prohibition on poll taxes, it violates the constitutional prohibition of unjustified burdens, it violates the constitutional prohibition on intentional racial discrimination: indeed, in 147 pages of opinion, there’s little that the ID law doesn’t violate.

Also extremely important: the court expressly finds intentional discrimination relevant to bail-in under the Voting Rights Act, and says it will consider a bail-in order in the days to come.  If the court indeed follows up with a bail-in order, Texas could become the first state brought back under a pre-clearance regime since Shelby County.

The judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, destroyed the arguments Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans made that the law was necessary.  It's a wipeout for the conservatives who have staked their claim on suppressing the vote.

It's not over, though.  Expect an emergency appeal by Abbott to the Fifth Circuit, and a possible stay of Judge Gonzales' order, leaving the law intact for the coming election.

Update:  The SCOTUS tonight has also blocked the state of Wisconsin from implementing its photo ID law.  But keep in mind that they have already allowed both Ohio and North Carolina to proceed with their restrictive laws, so there's no telling how we might wind up.  If I had to guess, I would say that should the Fifth Circuit stays the lower court's injunction, then there isn't simply enough time for the Supremes to rule before Texans start voting, eleven days from now.

Update II: A good explainer from Think Progress.

Although the Supreme Court’s order does not explain why the Court halted the (Wisconsin) law, a short dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito provides a window into the Court’s reasoning. Alito begins his dissent by admitting that “[t]here is a colorable basis for the Court’s decision due to the proximity of the upcoming general election.” In a 2006 case called Purcell v. Gonzalez, the Supreme Court explained that judges should be reluctant to issue orders affecting a state’s election law as an election approaches. “Court orders affecting elections,” according to Purcell, “can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” It is likely that the six justices who agreed to halt the Wisconsin law relied on Purcell in reaching this decision.

Only two justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, joined Alito’s dissent. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four more liberal justices in the majority.

Thursday’s order halting the Wisconsin voter ID law may also provide some explanation for why seven justices voted to reinstate a voter suppression law in North Carolina on Wednesday. If Purcell‘s fear of changes to election law close to an election is the rule, then that rule should apply no matter whose ox is gored.

King Street Thugs lose again

From the press release...

(Yesterday), the Texas Democratic Party prevailed in King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party, when the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District confirmed a lower court decision to uphold provisions of Texas campaign finance law. [Campaign Legal Center, 10/8/2014]

The Texas Democratic Party’s suit alleged that the King Street Patriots had made in-kind contributions to the Republican Party of Texas. These donations would have been a violation of the restrictions on corporate political contributions. They also failed to register as a “political committee” and comply with Texas Disclosure Law. In response, the King Street Patriots filed a counterclaim that challenged the constitutionality of parts of Texas’ campaign finance laws. [Houston Chronicle, 3/28/2012]

Update: Quorum Report had  more (including the "blast from the past" link to Hair Balls).

The controversial conservative group King Street Patriots on Wednesday lost its appeal to exempt itself from the Texas Election Code, paving the way for the group to file a writ before the Texas Supreme Court.

The Patriots were a serious source of contention during the 2010 elections in Houston, where they were accused of intimidating voters at the polls. The patriots, who called themselves poll watchers, were well known for their campaign called “True the Vote.”

The Texas Democratic Party sued the King Street Patriots, alleging it needed to register as a political action committee under the Texas Election Code. The King Street Patriots, which refused to participate in discovery, counter-sued the Texas Democratic Party and the party chairs in Harris and Dallas counties, saying they were an independent non-partisan non-profit group exempt from registration.

Even Alex Jones gets it: King Street Patriots/True the Vote is hamstrung -- by the terms of the lawsuit they settled with the Democratic Party two years ago -- from doing those things they do to intimidate voters and suppress voting.  Court-compelled designation as a PAC restricts their special brand of bullshit even further.  But that won't stop them, in fact will barely slow them down.

Some of you may have seen Campos' post (also here) about the surge in D mailed ballots.  Sidebar: it's a credit to Glen Maxey -- someone I have excoriated here in the recent past -- and county chairs like Lane Lewis (Harris) and Don Bankston (Fort Bend) to have executed what appears to be a very successful strategy to increase this level of turnout to nearly presidential-year levels.  It's got the Republicans running scared.  In particular, it's got Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart terrified.

There might be more about that I can blog later, but for now just know that James O'Keefe is in town, and he's looking for trouble.  We already knew that Harris County Republican elected officials and KSP/TTV and yes, the Texas attorney general have a long and corrupt history together.

Update: More on the overall increase in Texas voter registrations from MSNBC, which links to our very own Kuff for the numbers.