Thursday, August 06, 2015

On 50th anniversary of Voting Rights Act, 5th Circuit strikes down Texas photo ID law

It's not quite the full victory those of us who support voting rights wanted, but it's probably the best we can get from the Fifth Circuit.  Headlines first and then some expert analysis.


Texas’ four-year-old voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act but is not a “poll tax” barred under the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled that the Texas voter ID law has a “discriminatory effect” that violates the federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting, but it is not an unconstitutional “poll tax.” 

The ruling, which came one day before the Voting Rights Act turned 50 years old, was a narrow victory for critics of the Texas law. It prolonged a long-winding legal battle over legislation that some called the strictest in the nation.

The three-judge panel's unanimous decision sent the case back to a lower court, which will decide how Texas should fix its problems. But for now, the law stands as is.

Remanding the 'discriminatory' question back to Judge Ramos isn't a bad thing either, though that decision will likely be appealed by whoever is going to be filing lawsuits against Obama and the feds while Ken Paxton sits in jail.

In October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi ruled that Texas' voter ID law “constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.” The state appealed the ruling to the 5th Circuit, arguing that the law improves ballot security and prevents election fraud. The 5th Circuit heard arguments in April.

Ramos found clear racial disparities between those who have IDs under SB 14 and those who do not, and she said the law continued a legacy of state-sponsored discrimination in Texas.

Wednesday’s opinion upheld those findings.

But -- and it's a big butt -- for the moment, the ID law remains in effect.

“It did not 'impose a material requirement solely on those who refuse[d]' to pay a poll tax, as proscribed by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment,” Haynes wrote in the ruling. “Rather, it drew from the State’s power to set voter qualifications by requiring all voters to present a valid form of photo identification at the polls.”

Citing that finding — and the fact that the law remains in effect for now — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling a victory for the state’s right to protect the integrity of its elections.

"To protect the integrity of our elections".  With the same stubborn determination accorded the denial of climate science, the state of Texas has yet to acknowledge the Fifth Circuit's ruling.  From Joseph B. Kulhavy at the Texas Election Law blog, yesterday...

I find it troubling that the 5th Circuit remanded on the question as to whether the Texas picture I.D. law had a racially discriminatory purpose. Still, it’s at least a nail in the coffin of one of the worst voter suppression laws in the country.

Notice anything strange about these websites?

http://www.votetexas.gov/

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/index.shtml

That’s right – there’s not the slightest mention of the 5th Circuit’s decision. That’s quite a contrast from back when Shelby County v. Holder came out; (within two hours of that decision two years ago, there were notices plastered all over the Secretary of State’s website announcing that the State was doubling down on its special brand of violating voter’s rights and instantly applying the discredited voter ID law).

If a voter relied on the Texas Secretary of State’s website for information, they would think that it was all business as usual; http://www.votetexas.gov informs voters that a “picture I.D. is now required to vote.”
But you say, “Well, Joe, that’s kind of unfair. I mean … there’s all that HTML coding to do, and it’s after business hours, and …”

The decision came out at lunchtime. That’s six hours ago.

After all, the Texas Attorney General had time to put something up on that agency’s website.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-paxton-statement-on-voter-id-ruling

What the … ? “Texas Voter ID Law to Remain In Effect”

Oh my god.

That’s embarrassing.

That’s really embarrassing.

I guess the A.G. takes the position that because the 5th Circuit remanded on the issue of intentional discrimination, the fact that the court upheld the trial court determination that the law is freakin’ illegal and unenforceable is somehow sprinkled with magic appellate fairy dust.

Then again, the following disclaimer should be prominently displayed and attached to all press statements made by the Texas Attorney General.

“Please note that the opinions of the Attorney General are those of an individual currently under indictment for three felonies involving acts of intentional fraud. Therefore, proceed with caution.”

So what next?

How Texas will respond to the decision is unclear. It has several options, Rick Hasen, an elections expert at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, wrote Wednesday in (his Election Law) blog post.

The state could ask that the 5th Circuit rehear the case "en banc," which means with the entire court present as opposed to a three-judge panel. Or it could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps less likely, Texas could see how the case plays out again in the district court.

If the district court reviews the case once more, it could still rule that Texas intentionally discriminated in enacting law, but it must find new grounds for saying so.

Hasen wrote that the decision seemed written “as narrowly as possible to still give a victory to the plaintiffs,” but still called it a "significant victory for Voting Rights plaintiffs and the Department of Justice."

Still too early to celebrate; this will drag out a while longer, perhaps even to the presidential election next year.  But we take our victories where can find them here in Texas, and this is one, no matter what Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, or Paxton may think.

Update:

Texas’ statement on Wednesday's decision offered no hint of its next move other than that the state would "continue to fight" for the law. The state could appeal en banc, meaning to the all the justices on the 5th Circuit, or it could skip straight to the Supreme Court.

(University of Kentucky College of Law professor Joshua) Douglas, who previously clerked for the 5th Circuit, says it’s more likely Texas will chose the latter, as the unanimous three-judge decision was written by Justice Catharina Haynes, a moderate conservative who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

“The fact that she wrote the opinion -- which means she would almost definitely not vote to take it en banc -- makes the en banc vote in the 5th Circuit harder,” Douglas said.

Despite its narrow tailoring, the decision was notable as being first time a federal appeals court ruled against a voter ID law on its merits (rather than for procedural reasons) since the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, as Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog noted. Since that 2008 decision, voter ID laws implemented by states have become stricter in both the types of IDs allowed and the remedial protocols when someone lacks the proper ID.

Paxton's week goes from bad to worse

As John has noted, he picked the wrong one to stop sniffing glue.

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton and another official to a contempt hearing over the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages following the June Supreme Court ruling, according to Dallas television station WFAA.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued the order in response to a legal action filed by Texas resident John Stone-Hoskins, who asked the court to hold Paxton in contempt after the state would not amend his spouse's death certificate to reflect that the two were married, according to the Houston Chronicle.

According to Cole, when he asked the state to amend his spouse's death certificate, the state cashed his check but refused to complete the paperwork. A Department of State Health Services official wrote, "Until the ruling is fully reviewed, we will not be able to know the impact, if any, on the process to file or amend death certificates. We will keep your documentation in a pending file and will advise you once a determination is made," according to the Chronicle.

Garcia also ordered Kirk Cole, the state's interim director at the Department of State Health Services, to issued an amended death certificate for Stone-Hoskin's spouse, James Stone-Hoskins, according to the Chronicle.

Paxton and Cole must appear in court next week so that Garcia can determine whether the two officials violated his July ruling prohibiting the the state from restricting same-sex marriage.

Don't forget to bring your toothbrush, fellas.

Wednesday, August 05, 2015

Sign the petition: The NFL should relocate the 2017 Super Bowl if Houston turns down HERO

Let's start separating the pro-business Republicans from the social conservatives extremists.


Charles' good ideas, worth repeating:

The good news about that is that I don’t think a lot of people have yet given much thought to this issue. Oh, they’re vaguely aware of it, in the way that most people are vaguely aware of most local issues, but it’s not locked in their consciousness yet. For these folks, a different kind of outreach is needed. They will need to hear, from voices they like and trust, why voting the right way on the HERO referendum is something they should do. For that, HERO defenders – and here I’m looking at Mayor Parker, who needs to be the one to make most if not all of the requests I’m about to suggest – should reach out to high-profile Houstonians in sports, music, business, and religion to deliver a message about Houston being the kind of place where everyone is treated equally and respectfully. Given the support of the major sports leagues and the individual teams for equality and non-discrimination ordinances, I’d move heaven and earth to get JJ Watt, James Harden, Jose Altuve, and Carli Lloyd to do a PSA-style ad in which they say something like “My league supports equality. So does my team, and so do I. The Houston we love is open and accepting to all. That’s why I’m [voting the right way] on [whatever the ballot proposition is called], and I ask you to do so, too.” I can’t think of anything the haters could do to counter a message like that, coming from people like that.

There are plenty of other people that could be plugged in to a spot like that, with the script modified to fit them. Bill Lawson. George and Barbara Bush. Beyonce. The members of ZZ Top. Former newscasters Ron Stone (sic, RIP) and Dave Ward. UH President Renu Khator and Rice President David Leebron. You get the idea. Sure, some may say No for whatever the reason, but I bet many would say Yes, especially if Mayor Parker asked them personally. The key here is to get those spots out quickly, before the haters get their mail and whatever else going. You don’t have to spend much on TV for this – buy a few slots during the evening news and stuff like that, but the real value will be in having them on YouTube. This is about good will, coming from good people. It’s worth a lot, and we should take full advantage of it, because the other side can’t touch it.

Let's get all of this done.  Let's turn back this tide of fear and hate and show the world what kind of city Houston is.  World class.  Sign my petition, show up at City Hall, wear your red, do what you have to do.

We can't let the haters win this time.

Update:

Kent Friedman, board chair of the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, warned that if HERO is scuttled, it could cost the city the 2016 NCCA Men's Final Four and 2017 Super Bowl. The NFL title game brings an economic impact "north of $800 million" to the city, he said.

"It would be pretty consistent for those institutions to react the same way if Houston were perceived" similarly to Arizona and Indiana during debates over anti-gay "religious freedom" legislation, Friedman said.

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

Ninety days from Election Day: assessing the Houston mayor's race

That poll from six weeks ago (there's more polling happening right now, though we may not see it before Labor Day), the negation of the city's equal rights ordinance by the Texas Supreme Court, and a dozen or so candidate fora now under our belts should give us a clearer picture of where the contest to be the next mayor of Houston stands today.

Except none of them really do.  So let's try to get a better handle on things, starting with a couple of Rebecca Elliott's recent articles from the Chron, the first one being the HGLBT Caucus' divided loyalties this time around.

As Houston's first openly gay mayor enters her sunset months in office, the city council campaign between two GLBT candidates is gearing up, and all of this year's progressive mayoral hopefuls are actively seeking the support of the gay community.

The once-marginalized group at the heart of the city's fight for gay rights, the GLBT Political Caucus, is now facing an unexpected test of its establishment appeal.

Last week, three months after the city began enforcing its equal rights ordinance, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that City Council must repeal the law or put it on the November ballot.

Should City Council place it before voters, the equal rights ordinance known as HERO widely is expected to boost turnout and draw in national money, setting the stage for a bitter campaign between the city's progressives and social conservatives.

Sylvester Turner and Chris Bell probably share the lead in terms of earning the Caucus' endorsement, to be voted on by members this Saturday, August 8.  Dr. Richard Murray's assessment -- I have questioned his premises before, and even bet against his prediction once and lost, it should be noted -- is unusually harsh with respect to the prospects for Bell's campaign should he not get it.

The issue is particularly acute for Bell, a longtime ally of the gay community -- one of the few that consistently votes in Houston's municipal races -- as he currently has less money in the bank than any of the top-tier candidates. 

"If he doesn't get the endorsement, that may cause a reassessment of his campaign," said Richard Murray, a political science professor at the University of Houston. 

I'm going to bet against Dr. Murray here again, and not just because he's evaluating candidate viability based on fundraising prowess.  I'm confident Bell will be in the race all the way to the end.  Without a Green or Socialist mayoral candidate filed in the race, he stands as the most progressive choice, and that's in spite of Ray Hill's vituperation.  Turner gets touted as such by his supporters, but those folks think the same thing about Hillary Clinton.  As mentioned before, Sylvester arrived a little late to the straight-but-not-narrow coming-out party.

But the gist of the story here is not so much about who wins the Caucus endorsement as it is whether or not they can mobilize the larger community of supporters of their cause to turn out and vote to uphold HERO.  And it's not just the electoral strength of the HGLBTC at stake; it's also Mayor Annise Parker's legacy.  To that end, she is going to pour all of her resources into saving the ordinance and forgo efforts to lift the revenue cap or change term limits.  Just three weeks ago, those were at the top of her last to-do list.  Not any more.

"It was my full expectation that I'd be spending my remaining campaign funds and my personal time advocating for these two good-government items, but because of the presence of HERO (the Houston equal rights ordinance) on the ballot, I'm going to be having to split my energy over there," she said. "There is no -- at this point -- group willing to step up and advocate for the other two. I'm not going to put some things out there just to fail. It may be more timely to bring the charter amendments to next November's electorate, and I can leave that decision to the next mayor."

So... who's going to be the conservative choice for the anti-HERO faction?  As Elliott suggests, Ben Hall is moving fast to capture that vote.

From Twitter to television, Hall is using his criticism of HERO to set himself apart from the largely progressive mayoral field.

"There's only one candidate in this race who has consistently for the last two years opposed HERO and supported the right of voters to vote," Hall said in a Fox 26 segment that aired Tuesday. "When the pastors wanted to fight in the court system, none of the other candidates was present. I was."

Most of Hall's competitors have remained out of the HERO limelight, issuing a single press release about the Supreme Court's decision or staying silent.

Five of them -- former Congressman Chris Bell, City Councilman Stephen Costello, former Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia, state Rep. Sylvester Turner and businessman Marty McVey -- have said they support the ordinance, while former Kemah mayor Bill King has tried to straddle the fence.

"I do not see the empirical need for a discrimination ordinance," King said last Saturday, after previously saying he would not have put the item on City Council's agenda.

Like Costello, King is seeking the support of Houston's conservative west side.

Through a spokesman, King declined to comment Thursday on whether he would vote to repeal HERO.

"He's between a rock and a hard place," said University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray. "The right conservative base doesn't like HERO, but the people who write big checks are more moderate on this issue."

Dr. Murray is correct here, and King has made a fairly strategic blunder, IMHO, by ceding the haters to Hall.  King and Costello -- still under fire for his 'rain tax', despite the fact that we're practically in a drought again -- are simply indistinguishable from one another as the least obnoxious conservative option.  Even Big Jolly agrees.  And despite his past shout-outs to Republicans to moderate their stances on tolerance for gays, Jolly seems to be going in the other direction now.  Perhaps he senses the same opportunity to capture the mayor's office that Hall does.

Is it possible that Hall -- still calling himself a Democrat despite all actions to the contrary -- and Turner split the vote between socially conservative black Democrats and socially liberal ones?

The only person who hasn't been mentioned yet is Adrian Garcia.  He seems to be ambling toward the runoff as the most likeable -- or least offensive -- dimwit in the race.  So far he is Teflon-coated.  Almost nobody has mentioned his lack of college degree, a la Scott Walker -- whose campaign manager is helping Costello -- nor Garcia's failing the HPD sergeant's exam more than once, never having been promoted in his 23 years in the city's police department.  I have called him out numerous times: on his ugly record on deportations, his no-bid consultant scandal, his lousy responses to the county jail disaster, and even his whining about the personnel changes his Republican successor at the Sheriff's Office made after Garcia quit that job.

But I would say that of all of Garcia's shortcomings, probably the most serious is the unflagging support, financial and otherwise, of Rick Perry's lawyer of record, Tony Buzbee (scroll all the way to the end of the article).  It's also come to my attention that former mayor Bill White -- a longtime ally of Garcia's, and an enemy to progressive Democrats himself -- and several Battleground Texas field activists are hard at work for the former sheriff.  (Frankly I thought BGTX was Steve Mostyn's turf.  Mostyn, as we have known for a long time now, is supporting Turner.)

Nobody seems to be noticing these things.  Maybe they don't care.  Garcia doesn't respond to my questions, so maybe someone of greater prominence in the media can get some straight answers.

I sure would hate to see Garcia and Hall in a runoff, that's for certain.  That just seems far too much like San Antonio's mayoral runoff earlier this year for my comfort level.  Hopefully there is something several of us can do -- beyond what Mayor Parker and the HGLBT Caucus will be doing, I'm saying -- to avoid that outcome.

Charles has some good ideas, and I have one I'm going to advance in a coming post.

Monday, August 03, 2015

Paxton updates

-- The Texas attorney general was arrested, booked, fingerprinted, and his mug shot taken this morning at the Collin County courthouse, after a grand jury unsealed indictments against him on three felony counts of securities laws violations.  He pleaded not guilty and asked for a jury trial.  He also posted personal-recognizance bonds totaling $35,000 and walked out of the courthouse twenty minutes after entering, through a side door to avoid press and protestors.

-- QR:

Attorney General Ken Paxton’s likely immediate successor if he were to resign, (First Assistant AG) Chip Roy, on Monday sent out a personal note to agency staff after Paxton was booked into the Collin County Jail on three securities-related charges.

“The Attorney General emphasized to me that he hoped this wouldn’t in any way harm any of the good people who work at the agency, whom, he has come to know and respect tremendously,” Roy wrote to agency staff. “But as you all know, life brings us lots of curve balls.”

-- Also from Harvey Kronberg: "Paxton jeopardy fundamentally different and has possibility of metastasizing":

Allegations not about political chicanery but instead swindling innocent civilians, the same kind of financial corruption that spawned the Tea Party after the Lehman Brothers collapse

Among the dozen or so statewide officeholders indicted over the last couple of decades, few have ever been convicted or served time. In many cases, the prosecution case was weak as when a state district judge directed the acquittal of Kay Bailey Hutchison because, as he told the jury, “the prosecution apparently has no theory of its case.”

With the exception of the Tom DeLay case, which was needlessly dragged out because an all-Republican appellate court ignored then-prosecutor Ronnie Earle’s request for an expedited review of the challenge to the finding of guilt, and let the case languish for four years.

In others, the high-priced defense lawyers simply out-lawyered the public sector prosecutor. Nevertheless, jurors have generally leaned sympathetically to political chicanery.

-- The eighteen other Texans (besides Ken Paxton) who have been indicted over the long history of the Lone Star State.

-- "Abbott and Patrick both issue terse statements on Paxton indictment":

Here’s Gov. Greg Abbott’s full statement:

"Everyone is entitled to due process under the law. As a former judge, I recognize this is the first step in a lengthy process and will respect that process as it moves forward."

The statement from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in full:

"It is important to recognize that an indictment is not a conviction. Under our Constitution, every person is innocent until proven guilty. I am confident our judicial system will weigh all the facts and applicable law with a blind eye for justice and Ken Paxton, like anyone else, will be afforded his day in court." 

Prior to these, Texas Republican leaders were deathly silent.

--  Here's more about the judge, the special prosecutors, and his defense attorney.  And here's more about those Republicans scrambling behind the scenes to replace him if/when he resigns.  They include two Texas Supreme Court justices.

Conspiracy theories have already emerged as to why “God’s Lawyer” is facing persecution – err, a prosecution that is partially based on Paxton's own admission to state regulators last year that he violated securities law.

Some might argue it is premature to speculate about how Abbott might handle the appointment of a successor to the Attorney General hand-picked by Ted Cruz and Tim Dunn. After all, the indictment is closer to the beginning of due process than the end and does not force his resignation.

But believe us at Buzz Central when we tell you that some of those who wish to step into the role have been working overtime behind the scenes to jockey for position. And unlike Paxton, none of the names we have heard so far would necessarily have the full-throated support of Sen. Cruz or midland oilman Dunn’s Empower Texans and allied organizations.

-- Yeah, about that Cruz connection.

For anyone asking the question: "How did a candidate like Paxton who already had a long record of unethical practices get elected?", the best answer is "Ted Cruz."

The race for the Republican nomination for Texas Attorney General was wide open in 2014. Paxton faced two other major candidates in the race, and none of the three were considered to be a favorite. The dead-heat nature of the race changed when Ted Cruz backed his close political ally, state Sen. Ken Paxton.

Cruz's support of Paxton was a signal to the extreme Tea Party activists who now control the Texas Republican Party. Paxton easily led the field in the first round primary and then stomped a more mainstream Republican candidate in the run-off.

Ted Cruz has called for the resignation of at least three Obama officials over policy disagreements and even said members of the U.S. Supreme Court who disagree with him should resign.

However, now that Ken Paxton has been indicted and is fighting to stay out of prison, Ted Cruz is laying low and refusing to make any public statements about the indictments. Clearly, Cruz’s support for Paxton has put him in a jam. If he speaks out in support of Paxton, he must explain how he can continue to back a politician facing evidence that he committed felony crimes. If he backs off of Paxton, he will anger Tea Party activists whose support he needs to compete in the Republican presidential primary.

More as it develops.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance prefers attorneys general who aren't themselves lawbreakers as it brings you this week's roundup.


Off the Kuff is dismayed but not surprised by the business community's apathy about the coming effects of climate change in Texas.

Ken Paxton's indictments broke news on Saturday afternoon, about 24 hours later than PDiddie at Brains and Eggs predicted. The one remaining question is: how long does our lazy-eyed attorney general twist in the wind before Gov. Greg Abbott cuts down his stinking carcass?

Nonsequiteuse is concerned we may never get back through the looking glass. She realizes that facts are a quaint vestige of simpler times, but cannot resist offering not one but five of them, plus a conclusion, an opinion, and even a bonus prediction about Ken Paxton's pending felony indictment, words that give her great delight to type over and over and over again.

South Texas Chisme reports that the city of McAllen has embraced the humanitarian aspects of border immigration, and Dos Centavos makes the observation that Cesar Chavez ain't got nothin' on Bernie Sanders.

Texas Leftist follows the developing story of the Astrodome's latest funding-for-rehabilitation proposal.

Socratic Gadfly talks about the initial rollout of Congress' "new" energy plan and how so little of it is new.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston exposes the latest WART on the GOP: the Oklahoma Federation of Republican Women.

TXsharon at Bluedaze has a recent fracking news roundup.

McBlogger breaks down whatever dumbass thing was said by Michael Bloomberg about raising the minimum wage.

Neil at All People Have Value made note of former President Jimmy Carter referring to the U.S. as an oligarchy. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.


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

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

Scott Braddock analyzes the Donald Trump-inspired proxy war between Rick Perry and Ted Cruz.

Somervell County Salon posts about not wanting to see certain content on one's Facebook timelines, Twitter feeds, and blog comments.

Grits for Breakfast recounts the coverage of the emotional and confrontational Texas House committee inquiry into the death of Sandra Bland.

State Impact Texas reports that as crude oil rides the rails to Houston, Texas firefighters are preparing for the worst-case scenarios.

Lone Star Ma prays for peace and justice.

David Ortez explains what the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is and why it matters.

Street Smart shows how sacrificing the local street grid for highways can be devastating to the surrounding area.

The Texas Election Law Blog has some hope for restoring regulatory balance to the voting rights process.

Yellow Doggerel Democratic Views notes the passing of Firedoglake and the birth of Shadowproof.

And Fascist Dyke Motors uses a Buzzfeed-style click bait headline, which has nothing to do with Part One of her story, which unfortunately has no Part Two.

Friday, July 31, 2015

Paxton may learn his fate today *update*

*UpdateMissed it by 24 hours.

Attorney General Ken Paxton is expected to surrender to authorities Monday following an indictment on multiple felony charges stemming from his involvement with a North Texas technology company accused of defrauding investors, according to multiple sources close to the case.

A Collin County grand jury issued the indictment against the first-term attorney general on Tuesday, two sources who had been briefed on the proceedings told the Chronicle on Saturday.


Original post: So if I were a betting man -- which I am -- I'm gambling there's going to be a document dump and a press conference in Collin County late this (Friday) afternoon.  I can't bet on whether it will contain good news or more bad news for our lazy-eyed attorney general, though.  Via Charles, who put his post up on Wednesday, the TO.

Is this the beginning of the end for Attorney General Ken Paxton? (Tuesday)’s confirmation by Dallas local news station WFAA that a grand jury was meeting at the Collin County Courthouse to hear evidence related to Paxton’s alleged violations of securities law marks a milestone in his legal troubles. The development has been anticipated by Paxton-watchers for nearly a year and a half, ever since Paxton admitted in writing to violating the state securities code by failing to disclose that he was being paid to route his legal clients into the hands of an investment manager with a troubled track record.

It’s unclear whether this was the first day the jury heard the Paxton case, or how long they’ll continue to meet. But the stakes are high for Paxton. Special prosecutors Brian Wice and Kent Schaffer recently won an order expanding their case from already-disclosed improprieties to a first-degree felony case. That means the amount of money involved exceeds $100,000, and it makes the episode that Paxton already disclosed look like peanuts.

You can read more there for the particulars about how the case was enlarged to a first-degree felony, though there aren't many since the prosecutors aren't telling the media, only the GJ for now.

It's been a long and winding road to this point, and that doesn't include last summer's political season, when Paxton's criminal admission was known but impacted his electoral prospects not at all.  He ultimately defeated his Democratic challenger last November, Sam Houston, by twenty percentage points.  For some additional background, Juanita Jean points out that Wice was one of the guys who helped Tom DeLay, back in the day.  So you could be excused for thinking that, like Rick Perry's one remaining indictment, the fix might be in.

That Paxton is in legal trouble can be attributed in part to the efforts of a watchdog group, and the determination of a local lawyer.

The public integrity unit within the Travis County district attorney’s office said it lacked jurisdiction and forwarded information to Dallas and Collin counties for lack of jurisdiction. Dallas County District Attorney Susan Hawk didn’t touch the case either, saying she was not aware of any alleged crimes being committed in the county.

That left Collin County, where Paxton’s friend and business partner, Greg Willis, is district attorney.

After receiving a complaint from Texans for Public Justice, Willis stepped aside and said that “appropriate investigation agencies, including the Texas Rangers,” should handle the allegations against Paxton.

“As soon as we saw what he signed with the State Securities Board, it was obvious that he was admitting to felony conduct,” said Craig McDonald, executive director for Texans for Public Justice. “If Greg Willis hadn’t stepped aside, this thing would have died.”

Meanwhile, Dallas lawyer and blogger Ty Clevenger took the extraordinary step of sending information about Paxton to members of a Collin County grand jury, including three from the same church. He said he also dropped off information to a grand jury member’s home. He got their names from Collin County officials by asking; in Dallas, Hawk declined to release the grand jury’s names.

Following that, sniping between Paxton's spokesman, Anthony Holm, and special prosecutors Wice and Schaffer.  I'll leave to you to click and read it.

It's been three weeks since nonsequiteuse asked the question.  Let's move on to the follow-up question, for no greater purpose than parlor game speculation.  If Paxton gets indicted, does Greg Abbott finally force him out in order to replace him with a hand-picked stooge?  And if so, who?

I'd like to hear more about this behind-the-scenes jockeying, but so far as I can tell, nothing's being said out loud.  For the record, Paxton crushed Dan Branch in the runoff last spring, and the fellow who came in third, Barry Smitherman, is extremist and dishonest enough himself to be a perfect fit after Paxton.  Smitherman's bloc of votes moved directly over to Paxton after the general election, so if Abbott needs to appease Tea Party animals, there's some red meat he could throw them.  But that's as far as I can go in terms of prognostication.

First we need to see Paxton shown the door, and that will only stand a chance if the Collin County grand jury returns an indictment or two.  And frankly I find that unlikely, despite the desperate screeching of Paxton's mouthpiece/flack, Holm.

Today could be the day we know something, either way.

Master Blaster runs Bartertown


At the start of his career, not long after he helped Richard Nixon win the 1968 election, Roger Ailes boasted to a reporter that television would one day replace the political party as the most powerful force in American politics. If there is any doubt that the Fox News founder has largely made that prediction come true, it should be erased by the panic that next week’s Fox debate is stoking inside the GOP.
In a year that features the largest primary field in modern history — not to mention Donald Trump as a front-runner — campaign strategists worry that Ailes's debate, which is likely to attract the biggest audience in cable-news history, could define the race more than five months before the first votes are cast.


Ailes has now made the the circus free to all comers.

Fox News is opening its 5 p.m. debate to all the announced Republican candidates who fail to make the cut for the Aug. 6 prime-time event, removing a requirement that participants reach at least 1 percent in polling.

The change amounts to an insurance policy for candidates who were in danger of being disqualified from the vital first debate based on low polls – Carly Fiorina, former New York Gov. George Pataki and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The announcement by Michael Clemente, Fox News Executive Vice President, News, means that all 16 announced candidates will qualify for Cleveland — either the 5 p.m. undercard, or the 9 p.m. main event.

The 9 p.m. debate will include the 10 candidates with the highest average in national polls, as determined by Fox News. The 5 p.m. forum will now include all the rest.

I'm already scheduled for a watch party next Thursday.  We're talking Super Bowl here, except nobody is waiting for the commercials.

Oh, and the people who run Fox News are geniuses. What did they get by instituting these caps (that they have now removed)? Not just constant appearances from the candidates themselves in their desperate quests for exposure, but now feedback in the form of actual money, too. Chris Christie is forking over 250-large to Fox News in ad revenue, for the purpose of securing a dais onstage during Donald Trump’s 90-minute monologue in Cleveland. He probably will not be the last candidate to make the last such purchase, and there will be more and more capped debates forthcoming.

More broadly, though, consider what’s happening here. A candidate who will not have that much official campaign money is having to make a national ad buy on Fox News in the middle of summer 2015. What are his other options? He could play with power tools like another oxygen-deprived candidate, Rand Paul, has been doing. He could subject himself to embarrassing questions with any media outlet who’ll take him, like Rick Santorum. He could deploy the famous campaign move of pretending to stop campaigning, as Bobby Jindal has done. He could pick a fight with Donald Trump, or make a point of not picking a fight with Donald Trump.

Live television at its most riveting.

Even inside Fox, some are awed that a presidential race is being influenced by a television channel. “Crazy stuff,” another personality told me, “you have a TV executive deciding who is in — and out — of a debate!”

A train wreck, crashing into a 17-car freeway pileup.  I hope we have plenty of snacks.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Did Nazi that coming

Is there any Republican anywhere that understands what Godwin's Law means?

The Iran nuclear deal does NOT portend 1930s Germany, and Obama is not Neville Chamberlain.  Mike Huckabee's "ovens" comment is, truly, both ridiculous and sad.  (Even the Israeli ambassador to the US says so.)  Planned Parenthood's health services for women are not like the Holocaust.  But it is accurate to say that the Republican primary voting electorate is torn between those who believe Obama is Hitler, and actual fans of Hitler.

WARNING: This is about to get really gross, really fast.

Genuine conservatives are fending off attacks from Trump’s very pro-white fans who label their opponents “cuckservatives,” which Buzzfeed‘s Joseph Bernstein describes as “portmanteau” of “cuckold,” a hard core porn genre in which “passive white husbands watch their wives have sex with black men,” and “conservative,” a soft core porn genre where people vote against their own interests.

I don't know if those links are SFW or not, because I did not click on them.  At all.

Republicans have long trafficked in color-blind tropes that seek to reverse the gains of the civil rights movements and label all government good as welfare that only helps “them.” Being confronted by the dredges of the Internet and the flies Trump’s sort of rhetoric attracts terrifies even them — especially because they see Trump as a leftist in disguise.

The Gross Old Patriarchs like to think they're turning the tables on Democrats when they say it was a Republican who freed the slaves, that Robert Byrd was a Klucker, and so on like that.  This indicates a misunderstanding and a conflation with what was acknowledged to be the party of conservatives and the party of liberals 150 years ago, and how they switched places over the decades.

Republicans like to point out that their representatives voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in larger percentages than Democrats, who delivered most of the votes along with the signature of president. This is because the vote was largely regional. Southerners generally opposed civil rights the way they opposed Reconstruction. And just as Republicans paid a cost for being identified as the party of black people in the late 19th century, Democrats saw the end of their national majority before the conclusion of the 20th century.

From Reagan Democrats to Republicans to the Tea Party, all in one generation.  If you take it in context, it's a remarkably swift transformation.

Trump’s rhetoric only differs from most Republicans in degrees. While he suggests all undocumented immigrants are criminals, Rick Perry offers a more conservative 80 percent. And the party at large now backs mass deportations of 11 million people, because nothing says smaller government like round-ups and trains filled with human cargo.

The Confederate flag, the swastika, and now even the Gadsden flag and the Holy Bible are the symbols of the continuing devolution of predominantly Southern white -- and, let's tell the truth, some black -- conservatives.  When a wealthy African American pastor aligns himself with the meanest homophobes he can find while running to be the mayor of the nation's fourth largest city, it's difficult to believe he's got any love in his heart for strangers in a strange land, or the poor.  In case you need a refresher course, this article at Media Matters details what we're in for over the next 90 or so days, and the national implications.


This isn't going to be mitigated, or smoothed over, or negotiated away any time soon.  Either compassion, justice, and tolerance will win, or they will lose.  The battle happens every first Tuesday in November, every single year.

Gird up.

Update: On and on it goes.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Those Planned Parenthood videos

Their purpose is to gross you out.

Many people get sickened and disgusted when they sneeze out a blood clot, or when the doctor pulls a hairy orange pebble from their ear, or when the orthopedist starts explaining the process by which he will attach a cadaver's ligament to your knee to replace the one you snapped.  Forget a vivid description of removing a tumor from your bowel or the cardiac surgeon's process of tearing out a blood vessel from your thigh to reroute the clogged ones around your heart.

For years, abortion opponents have relied on graphic descriptions and bloody imagery to make their case against legal abortion. By focusing on the fetuses, rather than on the women who seek to end a pregnancy for their own personal or financial reasons, the anti-choice movement can successfully stoke outrage over the moral implications of a medical procedure that falls squarely in a gray area for most Americans.

[...]

It makes sense that this works. Despite the anti-choice movement’s characterization of abortion as a black-and-white issue, it’s quite possible to both support legal abortion rights and believe that pregnant women are carrying unborn children. Even Americans who believe that abortion should be legal may be squeamish about the nature of the medical procedure, and feel uncomfortable with graphic depictions of fetal tissue.  

As far as I am concerned, this is the only news being made.

On Monday evening, Planned Parenthood announced that they had notified, separately, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of a recent hack into their information systems by an allegedly separate pro-life activist group has announced the hack and its intention to post internal email from the non-profit women’s healthcare provider.

On Friday, California state attorney general, and senatorial candidate, Kamala Harris also announced her preliminary investigation into whether the Center for Medical Progress has broken any state laws in its work against Planned Parenthood.

The Center for Medical Progress has yet to release its tax filings, so details remain unclear as to from where and whom the Center for Medical Progress, which has non-profit status, has received its funding and the way in which it has allocated those funds. 
New polling released today from Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) found that 64 percent of voters — and 72 percent of Independents — do not agree with Congressional action to immediately end all government funding for Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, 58 percent of voters say that they would support a candidate who favors continued funding for Planned Parenthood over one who wishes to defund the women’s healthcare provider and 57 percent of voters say they are skeptical of Republican motivations behind the Congressional investigations of Planned Parenthood, believing the investigations are being used to further a specific political agenda.

In a statement, Cecile Richards, President, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said, “Today’s poll shows much of what we already knew: that defunding Planned Parenthood is a losing proposition not just for the millions of men and women who come through Planned Parenthood’s doors every day, but also with voters who don’t want to see their politicians focused on restricting lifesaving care….The anti-abortion extremists behind these videos don’t have any credibility with the American people, and neither do the politicians behind these political attacks against women’s health and the care Planned Parenthood provides.”

And then there's Texas.

Buoyed by the release of undercover Planned Parenthood videos, a few dozen anti-abortion activists gathered Tuesday at the Texas Capitol called on Texas lawmakers to defund Planned Parenthood.

Dubbed the #WomenBetrayed rally, supporters cheered as Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, read statements from Texas officials, including Governor Greg Abbott and Senator Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, who have called for an investigation into Planned Parenthood. The rally preceded a Senate Health and Human Services Committee meeting on Wednesday, which Republican lawmakers called to investigate the fetal donation practices of the group’s Texas abortion facilities.

I stand with Planned ParenthoodJoin me.  Tell your Senators and Congressmen AND your state representatives as well to stop the witchhunt.  After all, birth control and sex education prevents many more abortions than smear campaigns and gotcha videos.


More from Andrea Grimes at RH Reality Check.

Update:

An investigative hearing that many Capitol observers described as bizarre ended with a bang Wednesday when members of the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee called state officials back to the witness stand to ask whether they’d lied during testimony given just hours before.

Specifically, Department of State Health Services assistant commissioner Kathy Perkins was asked to respond to Abby Johnson, a former employee of Planned Parenthood and current full-time anti-abortion activist who claimed under oath that HHSC always gave abortion clinics advance notice of inspections, which would be a felony.

The answer was “no.”

It was perhaps a fittingly strange close to the tense and wandering four-and-a-half hour hearing which had a specific goal that remained unclear throughout.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Hillary Clinton's climate goals

They're getting raked over the coals.

Brad Friedman:

"It's so polarized between the parties that Hillary can say anything she wants," (environmental journalist David) Roberts tells me about her plan to add half a billion solar panels to the nation's grid by 2021. "But, as long as the House is in Republican hands they are foursquare against any of this --- any clean energy, any efficiency, anything that restrains fossil fuel in any way...If we're being honest with ourselves, what she's capable of doing is what the Presidency can do without legislative help."

CAF:

If you want a presidential candidate who supports a carbon tax and vociferously opposes the Keystone pipeline, you should vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders.

If you want a presidential candidate who has thought through how to best communicate to swing voters how a clean energy-fueled America will help, not hurt, economic growth, Hillary Clinton is probably your best bet.

In conjunction with an announcement of her renewable energy strategy, Clinton released the three-minute climate ad “Stand for Reality.”



We can’t fully analyze her program because what she has unveiled so far is only a portion of her overall plan. Vox’s Brad Plumer says, “We’ll need to see more detail” before knowing if her policies are sufficient to meet her goals. The New Republic’s Rebecca Leber notes Clinton still avoids taking clear stands on matters that have divided Democrats: “Keystone XL pipeline, tar sands oil extraction, natural gas, fracking, and Arctic drilling.”

Those who dislike the evasion and want firm pledges to keep as much fossil fuel in the ground as possible will naturally gravitate toward Sanders. Those who don’t mind clever politicking when navigating sticky subjects will be more partial to Clinton.

Among my many issues with the future Madam President is that she will simply not ever be the change we need to have in order to save us from ourselves.  Hers will be a caretaker administration, not a transforming one.  This was among the reasons she was defeated for the nomination seven years ago. (The difference -- and the problem -- is that Barack Obama turned out to be a minimalist transformer himself.)

But her refusal to abnegate KXL, her Wall Street coziness, her perpetual dissembling on her e-mail, and even the botched NYT story about her e-mail are together not as objectionable as one of the very few things she is unequivocal about: her stated preference for war on Iran.

As a presidential candidate you simply do not use the words "if I am president, we will attack Iran" in 2008, and in 2015 soften your rhetoric with words like "existential threat", and not be forced to back those words up at some point.  I say that point will occur sometime in 2017.

And if you think that's progressive, I have a used dictionary to give you.  Post your mailing address in the comments.