Rep. Ellen Cohen, author of HB1751, which assessed a $5 per-customer surcharge on strip clubs to fund a sex assault prevention fund among other things, sent out the following press release in response to the court ruling that declared the fee unconstitutional:
Representative Ellen Cohen held a press conference today issuing a statement regarding Judge Jenkins' ruling on House Bill 1751 otherwise known as the Adult Entertainment Fee. Joining Representative Cohen was Mica Mosbacher, a survivor and advocate of HB 1751 and Kelly Young a Vice-President of the Houston Area Women's Center."While we are discouraged by Judge Jenkins verdict, we are not disheartened and we are determined to move forward" said Representative Cohen. In the 2007 legislative session, the Governor and the Legislature provided overwhelming support for the Adult Entertainment Fee. Representative Cohen will work with her colleagues, the Attorney General and Comptroller of Public Accounts to refine HB 1751 in the next Legislative session.
In her remarks, Representative Cohen invited sexual assault advocates and hospitals to continue their support of this legislation and extended an invitation to the sexually oriented business industry to step forward and work with her towards a solution to the lack of sexual assault resources across the state. Mrs. Mosbacher pointed out during her remarks that "54 of the 254 counties in Texas or 20% of the state do not have any resources for sexual assault victims." This lack of resources is one of the primary reasons that Representative Cohen will be diligent in her efforts to continue her work on HB 1751 in the next legislative session.
The intention of HB 1751 is to provide funding for rape crisis centers statewide, research at the University of Texas at Austin Institute of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, prevention campaigns and equipment grants for sexual assault nurse examiners. Ms. Young remarked that in her day-to-day work of providing resources for victim survivors of sexual assault that "we can never do enough because every sexual crime is one too many and nearly 2 million adult Texans in our state have been sexually assaulted. This type of funding is critical and gives hope to victim survivors."
Representative Cohen added "what we must keep in mind is that we are talking about people. We need funds to educate, provide medical services and support research. These victim survivors deserve our best efforts and I promise them that we will do nothing less."
The AusChron has more on this. I think it's clear that Rep. Cohen's goal was and is a worthy one, and that it would be best if the Lege recognized that such things are better paid for in a straightforward manner from general revenue rather than this kind of limited fee. I hope this can be fixed in the next session.
Some good news and some not-so-good news for Metro.
The Metropolitan Transit Authority got federal permission last week to move forward with preliminary engineering on its planned North and Southeast lines, work that was halted in November while Metro revised its funding applications to reflect the switch from Bus Rapid Transit back to light rail.
Just a brief interruption to say that this item did not appear to make the news anywhere - not in the Chron, not on Metro's site, nowhere I can find. The last news I'd heard was from a month ago when the FTA met with a bunch of local honchos and said some nice things about the current state of Metro's plans. This is very nice to hear, of course, but seeing it mentioned in an as-you-know kind of way was a bit jarring, and made me think I'd missed something.
That was good news. The bad news was the soaring cost estimates that came with it.The Federal Transit Administration, using data provided by Metro, said in its letters that the estimated cost of the North line, which would run 5.5 miles from north of downtown to Northline Mall, has risen to $677 million, from $276 million. The Southeast Line, 6.8 miles from downtown to Palm Center, has risen to $664 million, from $158 million, the FTA said.
By comparison, the 7.5-mile Main Street line cost $324 million and needs $104 million in new rail cars and improvements.
The FTA also sent a review of Metro's proposals that attributes the increases largely to the higher costs of light rail than BRT, which uses special buses running on guideways. The increases also reflect light rail's higher ridership projections, extended through 2030, which would require 29 new rail cars and other infrastructure.
Then there are the rising costs of fuel, labor and construction materials. Although Metro's estimates assume 3.5 percent annual inflation, the FTA reviews describe this as optimistic and say Metro should "refine and update" its figures.
Letters from FTA regional administrator Robert Patrick advise Metro that the go-ahead on engineering is not a promise to fund final design or construction, and that Metro must still fulfill all federal requirements. Both lines are rated "medium" as candidates for the funding, FTA said.
"We are excited about the positive report," Metro said in a statement. "A 'medium' rating endorses the North and Southeast Projects as competitive for federal New Starts funding."
I think this may look a bit more dramatic than it is. As BRT is less expensive than LRT, which is why Metro fell back to that when FTA funding was unavailable due to insufficient ridership projections, what much of this really represents is a return to square one. A better comparison, if we're trying to make a statement about genuine cost increases, would be to the original estimates for LRT, if we ever had them. I should also note that cost increases due to an expectation that even more people will use this service than we first thought is to my mind a good problem to have.
Bill King, who could be the city's next mayor -- and appoint five of Metro's nine board members -- says he can't see how Metro can afford its ambitious plans, which include three other light rail lines, two or more commuter rail lines, an intermodal terminal on the north side and a major expansion of bus service.Numbers released by Metro varied. In February, the agency said that "by an order of magnitude," not exactly, all five planned light rail lines would cost about $2 billion, shared equally between Metro and the FTA, with the North and Southeast lines accounting for $500 million of that.
A month earlier, King says, Metro told him that the two lines would cost $854 million out of a $2.2 billion total. "A million here, a million there ... ," he quipped.
That's an interesting position for a guy who not too long ago was advocating for Metro to abolish the fare box to take. Obviously, we need to understand why the cost estimates have increased, and we need to fully understand how these costs can be paid, but my argument is that if one of the factors here is heightened demand, then we really need to figure out how to make this work.
One more thing:
But just remember that transit, unlike some toll roads, loses money. Little if any of this would come from profits from transit service itself.
Untolled highways don't make any money, either, and their costs can dramatically increase over time, too. We find a way to pay for them anyway.
Early voting for the primary runoff elections begins today. Unlike the primary itself, there are some rules governing how you can vote.
Voters who participated in a March 4 primary can vote in the second round only in the runoffs for the party they chose in the first round.Voters who did not vote in the March 4 primary can vote in either the Republican or the Democratic runoff contests.
So if you're one of those mythical Rushbots who followed orders to cast a vote in the Democratic primary, you can't now vote in the GOP runoff. I'd say I'm sorry about that, but if such people do exist, then I'm not, so it's just as well.
For the rest of you, if you plan on voting in the Democratic runoff, I hope you'll consider voting for one of these people:
For Railroad Commissioner, Dale Henry.
For 80th District Court (Civil) in Harris County, Larry Weiman.
For Fort Bend County Commissioner, Precinct 1, Richard Morrison.
For Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg.
For CD32 in Dallas County, Eric Roberson.
I also recommend voting early, so you don't forget and so there's no confusion about where to vote. Early voting runs 7 AM to 7 PM from Monday, March 31 to Friday, April 4. Runoff Day itself will be Tuesday, April 8. Happy voting!
It's a little hard to remember amid all the primary excitement that we're going to have a special election sometime this year to replace State Sen. Kyle Janek, who announced his resignation in January. Janek hasn't formally resigned yet, so no special election date is set, but according to The County Seat, there appears to be a serious Republican contender out there, a fellow named Austen Furse. I've never heard of the gentleman, so I'll leave you to peruse that link and this one from Chris Elam to acquaint yourself. No word yet on a Democratic hopeful; State Rep. Scott Hochberg's name has been in the mix, but that's all been speculation as far as I know.
News item: Texas cities on top in population growth.
The Houston metropolitan area ranked fourth in the nation for overall population growth between 2006 and 2007, according to new census data -- an increase demographers attributed largely to the region's economy.The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown area attracted slightly more than 120,500 new residents from July 2006 through July 2007, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released today for geographic regions known as metropolitan statistical areas.
The Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area ranked No. 1 in the nation in terms of raw population growth, and Austin-Round Rock and San Antonio also made the top 10. Karl Eschbach, director of the Texas State Data Center in San Antonio, said the job market and economy are driving the state's population growth.
"It's the combination of international and domestic migration that's pushing Texas cities to the top," Eschbach said.
Back in January, I blogged about the projections by Election Data Services that said Texas was in line for four new Congressional seats in the 2010 reapportionment. I projected that Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Central Texas, and South Texas would be the likely locations for those new seats. Clearly, nothing in this story contradicts that. Feel free to start speculating about who'll be in the best position to become our 33rd through 36th Congresspeople.
By the way, let me add my endorsement to the concept of a bigger Congress, which is a subject I've discussed before as well. Three hundred thousand residents per representative sounds dandy to me.
(Cross-posted from Kuff's World.)
Giving "Made in India" a whole new meaning.
Clinics that provide surrogate mothers for foreigners say they have recently been inundated with requests from the United States and Europe, as word spreads of India's mix of skilled medical professionals, relatively liberal laws and low prices.Commercial surrogacy, which is banned in some states and some European countries, was legalized in India in 2002. The cost comes to about $25,000, roughly a third of the typical price in the United States. That includes the medical procedures; payment to the surrogate mother, which is often, but not always, done through the clinic; plus air tickets and hotels for two trips to India (one for the fertilization and a second to collect the baby).
"People are increasingly exposed to the idea of surrogacy in India; Oprah Winfrey talked about it on her show," said Dr. Kaushal Kadam at the Rotunda clinic in Mumbai. Just an hour earlier she had created an embryo for Gher and his partner with sperm from one of them (they would not say which) and an egg removed from a donor just minutes before in another part of the clinic.
The clinic, known more formally as Rotunda -- The Center for Human Reproduction, does not permit contact between egg donor, surrogate mother or future parents. The donor and surrogate are always different women; doctors say surrogates are less likely to bond with the babies if there is no genetic connection.
There are no firm statistics on how many surrogacies are being arranged in India for foreigners, but anecdotal evidence suggests a sharp increase.
Rudy Rupak, co-founder and president of PlanetHospital, a medical tourism agency with headquarters in California, said he expected to send at least 100 couples to India this year for surrogacy, up from 25 in 2007, the first year he offered the service.
"Every time there is a success story, hundreds of inquiries follow," he said.
If you're okay with the idea of surrogacy, then I don't see any reason to object to this. Why not get the best price? Globalization is changing our lives in so many ways.
The Chron story on the Democrats' Senate conventions yesterday is pretty much in line with what I've heard from folks who attended theirs - some were chaotic, some went smoothly, all had a lot of people and took a long time. I'm just going to link to various reports so you can get a feel for what happened.
- BOR reported real-time results from all the county and Senate conventions. As of midnight, they had Obama leading in delegates 56.05% to 43.95%, with 133 conventions representing 72% of all delegates reporting.
- According to Stace, the SD04 convention was "Smooooth" and featured numerous candidates who were well-received.
- Tammy has some concerns with how the delegates acted in Brazoria County.
- Rep. Aaron Pena reports from Hidalgo County.
- Hal says the SD18 convention was "everything anyone could possibly expect in this singular year of high interest and involvement", which mainly means it was confusing.
- Muse has some iPhone-blogged reports from SD17, including this complaint about a committee chair not following the rules.
- There's loads of through-the-day posts and updates at the various media blogs: Political Junkie, Houston Politics, PoliTex, Postcards, Trail Blazers, and the Observer blog.
So. Those of you who attended a Senate convention, what was your impression? Leave a comment and let me know.
Here's the video from a story Miya Shay did on Thursday:
I'd argue that Jim Henley was a serious challenger to Culberson in 2006, but obviously Henley didn't have Skelly's fundraising capacity. Believe me, that makes a difference.
You can pretty much see Culberson's entire campaign in this story. It's going to be one part "I widened I-10 for you!" and one part "Vote for me or the Democrats will take over Harris County and maybe the world!" Miya commented on this on her blog:
One interesting note about Culberson, he is telling supporters that this is one of the toughest races he'll face. In addition to an interesting letter to supporters online, he told me yesterday that he sees the District 7 race as a "Firewall" for county wide Republicans. "I believe that if we don't get my re-election numbers into the 60s percentage, then every Republican in Harris County could lose." Culberson says that's why the Democratic party is running such a rich guy, basically to beat him down.. and bring the Repub party along. In essence, he says he can still win his seat, while Harris County Repubs lose all of theirs. He also says that if his winning percentage isn't high enough, John Cornyn could lose his Senate seat. So basically, in his view, the survival of the Republican ticket depends on re-electing him... and thus, donating money to make him competitive against Skelly.
That is a pretty neat trick, setting himself up as The Most Important Candidate In The County, which naturally means all good Republicans should give him money and work for his re-election. Note too that Culberson is setting the bar a lot higher for himself than what Jared Woodfill thinks he's going to clear. I'm thinking a little message coordination might be in order here.
One more thing from Miya:
Skelly is expected to report at least $750,000 cash on hand, and Culberson is targeting at least $260,000.
As we know from the February reports, Skelly had a 5-1 cash-on-hand advantage, showing $400K to Culberson's $80K. If both make the numbers Miya mentions - and note that Skelly "expects" $750K while Culberson is "targeting" - hoping for - $260K - that still means Skelly doubled him up ($350,000 to $180,000) for this period, again in COH. I'm liking the trends so far.
The Austin Chronicle makes its runoff recommendations.
Railroad Commissioner: Dale Henry
We endorsed Dale Henry in the initial primary voting, and we're happy to endorse him again, after he finished second to advance to a run-off against Mark Thompson. Either man would bring a breath of fresh air to this commission, whose current and past members are too often beholden to the oil-and-gas industry they're supposed to regulate. Both have vowed to place public safety and the environment above industry needs. Henry is our preferred candidate because of his extensive oil-and-gas experience and his familiarity with how the commission operates. That's the type of knowledge he'll need if he expects to conquer long odds and oust the incumbent Republican chairman, Michael Williams, in November.
Travis Co. District Attorney: Rosemary Lehmberg
Four assistant district attorneys filed to succeed retiring Ronnie Earle in one of the most successful and high-profile prosecutor's offices in Texas. The two left standing after the March 4 primary are Earle's experienced longtime first assistant D.A., Rosemary Lehmberg, and the relatively junior Mindy Montford, who brings the youth and enthusiasm of the next generation of legal professionals, as well as much support from traditional Democratic sources. On balance, we agree with Earle that Lehmberg is the overall most qualified person to carry on his considerable legacy. She has worked in all the units of the office and has been both a practicing prosecutor and (as first assistant) a chief administrator, with the responsibility and long experience in balancing the varying demands on the office: from prosecution to budgets to managing personnel and, beyond that, to the complicated political considerations arising from the Travis Co. D.A.'s jurisdiction over state corruption investigations and prosecutions. We are impressed by Lehmberg's experience in building the office, in developing and expanding innovative and progressive programs, and in her broad sense of the office's wide-ranging responsibilities, as well as the nuances of addressing high-profile political cases. (We do believe the office needs to be more technologically proactive in working with the defense bar, a legal and political mandate as much as a technical one.) The campaign has noticeably strengthened Lehmberg's public profile and her comprehension that the D.A.'s job is not just administrative, not just prosecutorial, but a communitywide engagement. We believe she will be a better public official because of it.
Link via BOR. Given how slow and erratic they were about producing endorsements for the March 4 primary, I'm pleased to note that the Chron has done its duty for the runoff today.
REPUBLICAN RUNOFFS
- U.S. representative, District 22, Pete Olson -- A former aide to U.S. Sens. Phil Gramm and John Cornyn, Olson knows how Congress works. A naval officer, Olson served as an aviator and Navy liaison officer to the Senate. He promises that if elected he will make defense and veterans' care his priorities.
- State representative, District 144, Fred Roberts -- The owner of an insurance agency and industrial inspection company, Roberts says he wants to concentrate on the issues that mean most to Texans, including taxes, education and insurance rates. A trustee of the Pasadena Independent School District, he is active in his church and community.
- Judge, 174th Criminal District Court, Kevin Keating -- A career prosecutor, Keating has a wealth of experience. He has appealed capital murder cases for the state to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is an expert on forensic mental health issues that increasingly affect the course of justice.
- Harris County district attorney, Pat Lykos -- A former state district judge and Houston police officer, Lykos is well-qualified to be the county's chief prosecutor. She promises to seek justice, not convictions regardless of guilt or innocence. An outsider, Lykos is better prepared than her opponent to restore ethics and judgment to the district attorney's office.
- Justice of the peace, Precinct 8, Place 1, Richard Risinger -- An experienced municipal attorney and judge, Risinger is ideally suited to serve as a justice of the peace. A life-long resident of Pasadena, Risinger holds a degree from the University of Houston Law Center.
DEMOCRATIC RUNOFFS
- Railroad commissioner, Dale Henry -- A petroleum engineer, Henry has four decades of experience in the oil and gas industry -- the primary object of the Railroad Commission's interest. Henry also has government experience as Lampasas city manager and Mills County commissioner.
- Judge, 80th Civil District Court, Larry Weiman -- Weiman has 16 years' experience as a civil trial lawyer. A mediator, he can see both sides of the case and rule fairly. Weiman says he wishes to bring balance to Harris County's district courts, which sometimes have failed to correct miscarriages of justice.
- Justice of the peace, Precinct 8, Place 1 -- A lawyer in solo practice, Jeff Heintschel has broad experience in criminal, civil and family law.
On time and good choices - be still my heart. Early voting starts tomorrow.
This may be the last time I beat this particular horse, though I can't promise that.
Texas coach Rick Barnes never has been one to tell 299-pound sophomore center Dexter Pittman to take advantage of his weight.But the UT coach changed his thinking during Friday night's NCAA South Regional semifinal against Stanford's two 7-foot giants. It paid huge returns, as Pittman leaned, pushed and shoved the Cardinal's Lopez twins during a critical second-half stretch that paved the way to the Longhorns' 82-62 Sweet 16 victory in front of a pro-Texas crowd of 32,931 at Reliant Stadium.
In other words, there were ten thousand unsold seats, and all of about 2000 tickets sold since Monday when it was known that the Longhorns would be in town for this. Someone at Reliant Stadium better start rethinking their marketing strategy for 2010 and 2011. I still can't believe they didn't do better than this.
With all their setbacks in court, the local strip clubs are contemplating other options.
Eric Langan says he may respond to the U.S. Supreme Court with pasties.Langan, 39, is the chief executive officer of Houston-based Rick's Cabaret International Inc., owner of four strip clubs in the city. On March 17, he and other club owners lost an 11-year fight to overturn a city ordinance when the country's highest court refused to hear their case.
The regulation, passed in 1997, bans topless dancing clubs and other adult businesses within 1,500 feet (457 meters) of daycare centers, schools and churches, double the previous distance. The idea is to force the clubs to move, if not shut down entirely. An easy fix for ordinance-violating bare breasts may foil the plan, Langan said.
"The City of Houston will win the battle and lose the war because they won't be able to regulate us once we move to latex pasties," said Langan, whose company is the largest publicly traded owner of strip clubs, with a market value of $176 million. Pasties are latex coverings used to conceal nipples.
This subject has come up before. I recall that several clubs went the latex-pasties route in the immediate aftermath of the 1997 ordinance, as a way of getting around the requirement for dancers to get licensed with the city. It won't surprise me if that is the preferred option now, as it would be less costly than relocating. How successful it will be, I couldn't say, but I don't recall any clubs closing down at that time, so perhaps that bodes well for them.
Here's an angle I hadn't considered:
The regulation may have unintended consequences, Langan said. "Any ice house can now compete with us just by throwing a girl on the bar in a bikini or pasties without being subject to any additional regulation," he said, referring to neighborhood taverns. "I think we're going to see a lot more clubs putting dancers on stage."
Well, strictly speaking they could have done that at any time before now. Why they'd think it's a good idea all of a sudden is not clear to me. I mean, I guess that could happen, but this sounds like bluster to me.
And for those of you not in Houston thinking "there but for the grace of God..."
Unlike most city ordinances restricting adult entertainment, Houston's measure doesn't have a grandfather clause that lets existing businesses remain, said defense attorney John Weston, who represented the club owners. The businesses also must pay for their relocation, he said.The Houston ordinance is odd, coming from the only major U.S. city with no zoning laws, said Weston, who filed the Supreme Court petition.
"Politics is a dirtier game than any lap dance I've ever witnessed," said [Angelina] Spencer of the Association of Club Executives. "A bad precedent like this, which is so restrictive, opens up the doors for this to take place across the country."
Keep an eye on your City Councils, that's all I'm gonna say.
In the meantime, the strip clubs did score a victory yesterday, on a different matter.
A Travis County judge ruled Friday that the state's new $5-per-patron strip club fee is an unconstitutional tax, but the state promised to appeal.State District Judge Scott Jenkins' ruling prohibits Texas from assessing or collecting the tax. Clubs were to have made their first quarterly payments next month.
Jenkins said the fee is actually a "content-based tax" that must be strictly scrutinized because it is imposed on a business activity protected by the First Amendment. He said it did not pass constitutional muster because the state failed to link the activity being taxed to the programs being funded.
The Legislature enacted the adult entertainment fee, effective Jan. 1, and dedicated the first $25 million to sexual assault prevention and additional revenue to low-income health care. The fee was expected to raise more than $50 million for health care in its first two years.
It was the dedication of money to health care that caused the tax to be unconstitutional, Jenkins said.
He heard testimony from club owners, state employees and sexual assault prevention officials during a four-day trial earlier this month.
"There is no evidence that combining alcohol with nude erotic dancing causes dancers to be uninsured, that any dancer is in fact uninsured, or that any uninsured dancer could qualify for assistance from the fund," the judge said.
"The programs that were to be funded from this money were worthwhile, but we disagree with the unconstitutional manner in which they were imposed," said Stewart Whitehead, who represented the Texas Entertainment Association and an Amarillo club, which challenged the fee.
The Texas Attorney General's Office said it would "vigorously appeal" Jenkins' ruling.
At the time the suit was filed, I thought the clubs' argument was weak. Clearly, I underestimated them. Vince got it right.
The Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, which was slated to receive money from the fee, said in a statement on its Web site that it was disappointed by the decision."We are hopeful that the attorney general will choose to appeal this decision," said Karen Amacker, a spokeswoman for the group. "In the interim, TAASA intends to continue (to) work with key legislators, the attorney general, the governor, the comptroller and others to ensure we learn from our missteps and pass a dedicated, sustainable funding source for sexual violence-related services in our state."
The statement said the association does not claim that patrons of adult entertainment venues are more or less likely to perpetrate sexual violence.
"It can be reasonably concluded that an industry that flourishes by objectifying women does impact the attitudes and beliefs that support sexual violence," Amacker said. "The fees assessed to adult entertainment venues are a mechanism to mitigate those greater resulting societal ills."
The author of the bill that enacted the fee, Rep. Ellen Cohen, D-Houston, was unavailable for comment. An aide said Cohen would study the ruling and planned a news conference Monday.
Cohen, former head of the Houston Area Women's Center, said when she filed the bill that she was not suggesting that strip club patrons commit sexual assault, but that money generated by sexually oriented businesses should pay for sexually oriented crimes.
I'm more in agreement with Rep. Cohen's justification for the bill than I am with Ms. Amacker's. Despite the win yesterday, I still think the state will have decent odds on appeal.
A federal judge on Friday ordered former Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal to pay $18,900 in sanctions after finding him in contempt of court for deleting more than 2,500 e-mails that had been subpoenaed for a federal civil rights lawsuit.Additionally, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt determined Scott Durfee, general counsel for the district attorney's office, was jointly responsible for paying $5,000 of that, finding Durfee failed to appropriately advise Rosenthal on how to comply with the subpoena.
Both Rosenthal and Durfee have until April 30 to pay their respective fines, according to the judge's order released late Friday afternoon.
[...]
Whether the county pays those sanctions with taxpayers' money is a question to be decided by Commissioners Court. The court must determine whether paying the sanctions would serve a public purpose, said County Attorney Mike Stafford.
"They have to be able to articulate a public purpose and decide that's worth paying it. That's the general rule of law," Stafford said, adding that he does not know what the Commissioners Court will do.
Mark Bennett, president-elect of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, said he cannot see what public purpose would be served by the county paying the sanctions.
"I don't have any reason to think the county's going to do the right thing here, which is to say, 'Look, you got yourself into this mess, you pay it yourself,' " Bennett said.
Bennett noted the county has already approved spending $227,000 to defend Rosenthal in court.
Mark expands on his remarks here. I agree with him completely. I see no reason why Commissioners Court should take Rosenthal off the hook for this fine. Rosenthal has already cost the taxpayers plenty of money. It's time he paid his fair share of it. I'm sympathetic to the Court paying for Durfee's fine, but if they cave and pick up the tab for Rosenthal, I'm going to be pissed.
In blistering and scathing language, Hoyt's court order rebuked Rosenthal for knowingly violating an Oct. 31 subpoena seeking his e-mails.Hoyt criticized Rosenthal for showing "an intentional willfulness" to disobey the law.
"This conduct reveals a man confident in his status, entrenched in his brand of law," Hoyt wrote. "He would not or could not acknowledge an authority beyond himself."
Various contradictions and misrepresentations made Rosenthal's testimony unreliable and incredible, Hoyt said. "The court views his conduct as venomous and hostile to the judicial process," Hoyt wrote.
Rosenthal gave several explanations for why he deleted the
e-mails, Hoyt noted, such as believing his general counsel had printed hard copies of the documents and claiming he thought the documents were preserved on the computer network's backup tapes.
Rosenthal also later testified that he deleted the e-mails to increase his work efficiency and to free memory space on his computer, Hoyt said.
"There is no evidence that Rosenthal's computer memory space was threatened by additional e-mails or that, in fact, it was short of space. Hence, these reasons -- all implausible inconsistencies -- defy the law of common sense," Hoyt wrote.
The judge's comments about Rosenthal, though stinging, were accurate, said Pat McCann, current president of the criminal lawyers association.
"When you get to this point, I don't think the judge had any choice but to make it clear to Harris County officials that they are not beyond the reach of the law," McCann said.
The full contempt order is here (PDF). I think Judge Hoyt hit on all the main points, and I think McCann summed it up accurately. Now it's just a matter of Commissioners Court doing their part.
While Hoyt said there is no evidence Durfee committed obstructive acts, he found the evidence is "abundant and compelling" that Durfee failed to advise Rosenthal as his professional and ethical duties required.Durfee showed a "deliberate indifference" to the court's orders and the subpoena by not advising Rosenthal to preserve the subpoenaed documents and remaining silent when he learned that Rosenthal had deleted the e-mails, Hoyt said.
By failing to bring Rosenthal's actions to light upon becoming aware of them, Durfee violated the rules of professional conduct that apply to all attorneys, Hoyt said.
"In sum, while it is undisputed that Rosenthal deleted the e-mails sought by the subpoenas, it is also apparent that copies of many of these e-mails were belatedly produced and/or lost as a result of Durfee's dereliction of duty," Hoyt wrote.
McCann said he was saddened by Durfee's punishment.
"I think it is, at best, difficult to deal with a client who believes that he is smarter than a federal judge," McCann said, referring to Rosenthal. "When that client is not only a client, but your actual boss who hires and fires you, I think that puts a very different take on your relationship."
I'm sympathetic to the position Durfee was in. It's even made me rethink some of the things I've said about Kelly Siegler's failure to do anything about (as she claims) Rosenthal's impaired judgment. I still think she showed a lack of courage, as she had a lot more freedom to act than Durfee would have had; if nothing else, she could have had a few off-the-record talks with a reporter or two. But I can appreciate the bind someone can be put in when they have a bad boss who's behaving erratically.
On a tangential note, with the arrival of a new interim DA and her reassignment to another division in that office, this is no surprise.
Chuck Rosenthal's former secretary has resigned rather than report to the new job to which she was assigned by his replacement.Kerry Stevens, who became widely known as the object of Rosenthal's desire following the release of hundreds of his private e-mails, told the district attorney's office that she was retiring effective Monday. She has been on authorized leave since she was informed she would be reassigned to the grand jury division.
[...]
Kenneth Magidson, recently appointed to fill the remainder of Rosenthal's term, expressed appreciation to Stevens for her years of public service and wished her well in future endeavors.
Stevens could not be reached for comment.
Stevens, 56, became a character in the drama surrounding Rosenthal's downfall not only through their close relationship but because of questions of possible preferential treatment. At $89,500, her salary was higher than that of executive assistants for most local public officials, including the mayor and county judge, and she also received the use of a county car and free gas. Rosenthal approved an $11,500 raise for her just weeks before he stepped down.
I feel a certain amount of sympathy for Kerry Stevens. While Chuck Rosenthal clearly acted like a jackass, she kept her email behavior on the professional side, at least as I recall from the original leak of all that stuff. She certainly benefitted from his besotted behavior, so my sympathy only goes so far, but I think she deserved better from this embarrassing episode. Here's hoping she can find something quiet and unobtrusive to do so that her name fades from the public memory and she can get on with her life.
This article is about a guilty plea being entered by two of the four former staffers of the Mayor Pro Tem's office who were arrested for improperly giving themselves bonuses, but the most interesting bit in the story to me is this:
The news comes on the heels of Harris County prosecutors' decision to plea out two high-profile cases Wednesday, signifying what some believe is a change of philosophy under newly appointed District Attorney Ken Magidson.Under former District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal, defense lawyers say, it's doubtful that former Texas Southern University President Priscilla Slade and a man who faced the death penalty for gunning down a volunteer firefighter, could have avoided jury trials.
Lewis said he is "striking while the iron is hot." He said antiquated and unreasonable policies Rosenthal put in place hamstrung his prosecutors from making good decisions.
"He had a draconian policy that he had to set the offer, not the prosecutors who handle the case, which I think is idiotic," Lewis said. "Now the powers that be, now that he's not there mucking it up, have started to get on a more reasonable track. It's evidenced by Slade."
Calls to Rosenthal were not returned about the two cases: Slade, who got 10 years probation and restitution to the university of more than $127,000, and Keith Hines, who faced the death penalty for gunning down a volunteer firefighter.
Vivian King, a defense attorney who assisted in the Hines case, agreed with Lewis' strategy to try to get a more lenient deal.
She said she doubts prosecutors under Rosenthal would have allowed Hines to save his life by accepting life in prison without parole.
"I attribute it to the new DA," King said. "I may be wrong, but that's what I attribute it to."
She said she also has the impression that Rosenthal didn't reel in underlings who sought the harshest punishments.
Several assistant district attorneys, including Smyth, disagreed with the analysis of Lewis and King.
Magidson released a statement that said he does not believe anyone should draw any conclusions about him or the office's philosophy on the basis of the plea agreements.
"Those plea agreements were case-specific, reached after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances presented by each matter. Future cases with similar charges may result in completely different outcomes depending on the facts and circumstances."
Well, one could argue that this kind of careful, case-specific consideration is in itself evidence of a change of direction from the Rosenthal days. If the people who deal with the DA's office think things are different now, they're going to act as though it's true. All I know is that whether these are isolated cases or part of an emerging pattern, it's all good to me.
No intro, just random music...
1. "The Rainbow Connection" - Kermit the Frog. From The Muppet Movie, of course, probably the first truly quotable movie I ever saw. "Bear left!" "Right, frog!" "You, you with the banjo, can you help me? I seem to have lost my sense of direction!" "Have you tried Hare Krishna?" "Sparkling Muscatel, one of the finest wines of Idaho." I could go on, but you get the picture.
2. "That Was Your Mother" - Paul Simon. Kind of a bookend piece to "Born At The Right Time", though you'd think the idealistic latter song would be the one to write first.
3. "War" - Bruce Springsteen. From the 1975-1985 live CDs. Remember when the NFL took the Edwin Starr original, cut out all of the "What is it good for?" stuff, and turned it into a glorification of guys hitting each other? That was probably the most flagrant abuse of a song and its meaning till Wrangler Jeans turned Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son" into a backdrop for flag-waving.
4. "This Land Is Your Land" - Bruce Springsteen. Yeah, two from the same CD. I'm fascinated by the idea that this song was written as a response to "God Bless America". I can kinda sorta see that, but if no one had ever told me that fact, it never would have occurred to me.
5. "Romeo and Juliet" - Dire Straits. My favorite song off of my favorite Dire Straits CD. I realize that Douglas Adams preferred Tunnel of Love, not that there's anything wrong with that, but this one's my fave.
6. "Crawlin' King Snake" - John Lee Hooker. Here, have a video.
7. "The Cross" - The Jubilettes. From a CD of Prince covers by Austin artists. As with many of the songs on this CD, if you didn't know it was a Prince song going in, you wouldn't realize it as you were listening to it. I love it when music crosses genres like that.
8. "Love Hurts" - Nazareth. Many moons ago, on Valentine's Day, one of the local DJs - it may even have been Dayna Steele - played a listener-suggested block of songs in honor of the day. (She did a regular feature during her shift, which covered the lunch hour, called Work Force Blocks, which were usually three or four songs from a particular artist, with some variations like this one thrown in.) The playlist was, in order, "Love Stinks" by the J. Geils Band; "Love Hurts"; and "Love Bites" by Def Leppard. Clearly, someone was feeling a bit cynical about the whole enterprise.
9. "Wonderwall" - Oasis. Tiffany attended grad school in Manchester around the time these guys were hitting it big. So yes, she has their stuff in her collection.
10. "52nd Street Theme" - Tommy Flanagan. From a CD tribute to Thelonius Monk. All my playlists have some jazz on them.
What are you listening to these days?
The developers may be moving forward, but the city is saying "not so fast".
City officials have rejected the latest permit applications for the controversial Ashby high-rise, saying the developers must provide more information about traffic impact and take other steps before the project can be approved.In returning the plans for the 23-story building to developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners Inc., city engineer Mark L. Loethen said they must supply more data about anticipated traffic volumes, including figures about traffic generated by similar projects in other parts of Houston.
Loethen also expressed concern that a planned driveway into the project at 1717 Bissonnet might cause problems, including encroachment into the westbound lanes of Bissonnet by large trucks backing into the driveway.
Morgan said he and his partner would work with their traffic consultant to provide the requested information and resubmit the plans, which they first submitted almost a year ago.
Although Mayor Bill White has said publicly that the city will not approve the project in its current form, Morgan said the outcome of the application process is not certain.
"We continue to believe we have followed all the rules and regulations that were in place at the time we submitted our plans," Morgan said. "We have a legal right to build this project as originally designed."
I still believe that in the end, there is nothing the city can do to stop this project. The best outcome is to improve codes and regulations to prevent the next inappropriately located high rise from getting built.
Chris Amandes, a leader of the neighborhood-based Stop Ashby High Rise task force, said he doesn't understand why the developers are continuing a project that the mayor has said the city won't approve."They may be setting themselves up to sue the city, or using this application as a bludgeon" to pressure the neighborhood to agree to proposals that it has so far found unacceptable, Amandes said.
I believe the lawsuit option is indeed what they have in mind, and frankly I think they'd win. I think they know that, and I think the city does, too. The city can bluster all it wants, but I think the developers win now or win later, and it's just a matter of how much it costs.
And freight rail wins, for now.
The Metropolitan Transit Authority may cut six blocks off its planned East End light rail line, leaving passengers short of the Magnolia Transit Center and much of the developing commercial area around Harrisburg and Wayside.Metro board chairman David Wolff said Thursday that the roadblock is the former Houston Belt & Terminal Railway tracks, now owned by Union Pacific Railroad. The crossing, on Harrisburg between 65th and Oldham, is familiar to motorists and pedestrians delayed by freight trains.
Wolff said Metro had considered crossing the double tracks at street level.
"But it doesn't seem the railroad is too enthusiastic about that."
Metro spokeswoman Sandra Salazar later said UP would not agree to share its right of way with Metro trains.
[...]
Metro has been planning the line almost since voters approved it in a 2003 referendum. Asked why the issue is surfacing now, Salazar said Metro initially hoped to obtain permission from the railroad for a street-level crossing.
In 2003, when Metro changed its plans from light rail to Bus Rapid Transit, thinking that was necessary to qualify for federal funding, the issue was moot because the buses would cross the tracks with other street traffic.
"The issue became critical again in 2007 when we changed back to light rail," Salazar said.
A prepared statement from Metro said the agency is "committed to taking the line to the Magnolia Transit Center, even if it may have to be at a later phase. Our long-range plan (to go to Gulfgate and beyond) makes it necessary to resolve this sooner rather than later."
Wolff said he hoped the city of Houston would build an overpass at the tracks. That may enable Metro to extend the line to the transit center within two to four years after its scheduled completion in 2012. Until then, he said, Metro would bridge the gap with a bus shuttle.
[...]
Frank Michel, spokesman for Mayor Bill White, said the city and Metro have not discussed an overpass yet, nor is funding for such a project in the city's current five-year capital improvement plan. "But shortly, we are going to start a major mobility study and we could consider a grade separation at that point," Michel said.
Grade separation makes sense here with or without taking the light rail line into account. There's a lot of freight tracks in the East End, and parts of that neighborhood can be completely cut off when the trains are running. Building an overpass that can handle a light rail train as well will be more expensive, but that cost can be shared by the city and Metro, and it will have a big impact. I hope this happens, and I hope it happens quickly.
UPDATE: Christof has more.
As we know, as of Monday, some 31,000 tickets had been sold for the NCAA Regional Finals at Reliant Stadium, which includes at least one game featuring the UT Longhorns. The presence of the Horns makes this a very desirable matchup for Reliant and ticket brokers. So how are we doing with those ticket sales now, on game day?
The majority of tonight's expected crowd of 32,000-plus likely will be backing [the Horns].
So since Monday, when it was known that UT was coming to play, about 1000 more tickets have been sold. Boy howdy, that's some kind of draw. Imagine how brisk things will be in 2010 when there'll be 72,000 tickets available and maybe not such a strong local attraction. Are we a great sports town or what?
You know, I'm enjoying the GOP DA runoff as much as the next political junkie, but I can't shake the feeling that we've seen the last original episode and are now just watching reruns.
The Harris County District Attorney's Office is in shambles after being shamed around the world. Or, prosecutors are briskly carrying out the job of obtaining guilty verdicts in criminal cases after recovering from the scandals involving former District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.Republican candidates for district attorney Pat Lykos and Kelly Siegler presented those contrasting pictures Wednesday, in that order.
"The office is in disarray," former judge Lykos said. "And it has been discredited nationally and worldwide."
Rosenthal, known nationally as chief of the local law enforcement agency that produces the most death penalty sentences in the nation, resigned after the disclosure of racist and sexist material and campaign communications on his government e-mail, along with romantic messages to his executive secretary.
Lykos, citing Rosenthal's explanations that a mix of prescription drugs had clouded his thinking, said, "So he has had a core group of people running that office, and the culture that it has created has led to the scandals we have now."
Siegler is chief of the agency's special crimes division -- part of the leadership group that Lykos criticized.
"Morale is back up" now that Rosenthal is gone, Siegler said. "Attitudes are good and we are back in the business of prosecuting criminals."
For what it's worth, I agree somewhat with Lykos, and I agree somewhat with Siegler. I don't think there's any question that the Harris County DA's office has a bad reputation around the country and the world, though I think that pre-dates the whole ear-kissing thing; I'd flag Rosenthal's buffoonish performance before the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas as the point where the rest of the world first noticed our DA's office, though of course every time there's an article about the death penalty we get more publicity. On the other hand, I think a lot of this bad press is attributable to Rosenthal himself, and so his departure was an immediate lift. We can of course still have an argument about how much more the office needs to disassociate itself from the man - that's what this runoff, and if Siegler wins the November election is and will be about - but it's fair to say that things are different now than they were in January and early February. At least, they look different, and since we're talking the perceptions of others, that matters.
This is about where Siegler loses me:
Siegler said she is not responsible for Rosenthal's errors in judgment, partly because he wouldn't listen to advice from people such as herself.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Either Kelly Siegler and other members of the leadership group in the DA's office knew that Rosenthal's judgment was seriously impaired and they did nothing about it, or they didn't know there was anything wrong. The former shows a lack of courage, the latter a lack of perceptiveness. I'm sorry, but saying "Rosenthal wouldn't listen to me" isn't good enough. If Siegler knew he was a problem, she needed to put pressure on him to get help or get out. She didn't, and she has to own that.
The recount in HD73 has been completed, and the result is the same.
The unofficial recount results in the Dist. 73 state representative race indicate that Doug Miller will be the Republican nominee on the ballot in November; Miller now leads incumbent Nathan Macias by a 17-vote margin.A canvass will occur within a day or two to confirm recount results.
Miller had a 26-vote lead Tuesday after the recounts in Bandera, Comal and Kendall Counties; Gillespie, the remaining county, held its recount Wednesday.
Macias did not return repeated calls to his cell phone this week, but in a release, he said: "We expect the final canvass will occur within the next day or two, and at this point I am weighing several options with my family, friends and advisors."
There was no change in Bandera's results after that county's recount Monday, according to election officials. But on Tuesday, Macias picked up one vote in Comal County while in Kendall County, Macias picked up three votes, and Miller picked up one.
"The votes were counted and counted and recounted," said Miller. "The people have spoken; I won, and I think it's time to move on."
Miller added, "I'd like to reach out my hand to Representative Macias to make a smooth transition and represent the good people of District 73."
I'm wondering if one of those options is to contest the election in the House. I'm not sure how that would work for a primary, given that Miller will have a Democratic opponent in the general election. Not that it matters that much, in the sense that any Republican will be a heavy favorite to win in the fall, but if such a contest doesn't take place till the Lege actually convenes, then Macias would have to argue that he'd have won in November as well, and it could get messy. Anyway, for now, Miller is in and Macias is out. I don't think this is over yet, but that's where we stand.
I've mentioned before that I lived in Montrose for nearly ten years, before I bought a house in the Heights. From 1993 to 1997, I lived on the northern end of Montrose, near Montrose and West Dallas. There wasn't much there back then - lots of rental housing, empty lots, and a few small businesses. It was a funky, kind of run-down but still interesting urban neighborhood.
Well, a lot has changed since then, and there's a lot more change to come. I've blogged about quite a bit of it, and will keep doing so as the area keeps evolving. I think a lot of good things have happened, along with a few not-so-good things, and I think there's the potential for a lot more good to be done. I also think there's the potential for all the changes to have a lot of negative effects, mostly having to do with overwhelming the infrastructure, and I think it's important to keep an eye on what's happening.
So towards that end, I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to take a bunch of photos of the area; basically, the stretch of Montrose/Studemont from West Gray to Washington Avenue. I did this partly to document what it looks like now - if you used to live there but haven't seen it in awhile, you'll be amazed - and partly to point out what I think can be done to make the eventual finished product better. I've compiled the pictures, along with my comments, into a Flickr photo set, which you can also view as a slideshow - click on Options, then Always Show Title And Description to see my comments if you view it this way.
My thesis is simple. This is already an incredibly densely developed corridor, and it's going to get more so as the new high rise is built and several parcels of now-empty land get sold and turned into something else. It's already fairly pedestrian-friendly, but that needs to be improved. And for all the housing in that mile-long stretch of road, there's not enough to do. Not enough places to eat and drink, to shop and recreate. Midtown has a lot more such options, and I think this area has at least as many people. I think there's an opportunity being missed, and I think with a little vision, this part of Montrose can be a real activity hub.
Anyway, that's how I see it. Take a look at the pictures and let me know what you think.
The collective bargaining agreement that was ratified by HOPE last week has now been officially accepted by City Council.
Houston municipal workers celebrated Wednesday after the City Council approved a union contract that will give 13,200 employees an immediate 3 percent raise.The 13-2 vote made Houston the first city in Texas to sign a pact with employees who are not police officers or firefighters.
"We have made history," said Wanda Sterling, a customer service representative for the municipal courts. "I think it was worth the battle."
The three-year contract will cost the city $5.2 million this fiscal year, but $179 million overall. The pact calls for additional across-the-board 3 percent pay raises in fiscal 2010 and 2011.
The contract also guarantees that all workers will earn at least $10 an hour by September of next year. That will affect about 1,000 workers who currently earn annual wages below $20,400 -- the federal poverty level for a family of four.
[...]
Council members Toni Lawrence and Mike Sullivan voted against the pact.
"It should not have been across the board," Lawrence said. She also said she did not like that workers making six figures would get the 3 percent raise, too.
For example, the mayor's chief of staff, Michael Moore, is paid $115,760 a year. The 3 percent raise will mean an extra $3,473 for him. By contrast, a refuse truck driver who earns $20,958 annually will see an additional $628 from the first raise.
Lawrence wanted a cap on increases for higher pay grades, which would leave more money for the lower-paid employees.
"Our goal for HOPE (the union) was to help the people making minimum wage," Lawrence said.
But [Mayor Bill] White said higher-paid professionals, such as city attorneys, could get poached by the private sector, so the city has to stay competitive at all pay levels.
I can understand Council Member Lawrence's reasoning, but I disagree with it. Inflation affects people at Michael Moore's salary level, too. And Mayor White is correct about the need to pay professional staff a competitive wage. I don't think that's a sufficient reason to reject the agreement.
Sullivan said he opposed the contract as a fiscal conservative."It's just a huge amount of money," he said. "It's the starting point for future costs."
Sullivan said he wanted more time to find out if turnover really was a problem for the city, and if jobs were not getting done because of vacant positions.
"Is it a matter of just giving employees a raise to feel good, or is it necessary to keep the employees that we have?" he asked. "I'm not convinced that being the first city in Texas to have unionized employees is something to be proud of."
I'm sorry, but that's just putting ideology ahead of everything else. By that reasoning, you can reject any raise for city employees. And with all due respect, these negotiations took place over nearly a year. There's been plenty of time to answer those questions about turnover and vacancies.
Be that as it may, I think this is a good day for the city and its workers. Congratulations to all for a job well done.
UPDATE: Stace has more.
I would classify this as good news.
Red-light camera citations have decreased steadily since Houston police boosted their monitoring at intersections six months ago, newly released records show.The number of citations declined by a third, to 17,000 last month from a high of 27,000 in October -- all after police added an extra 20 cameras and began fining motorists for illegal turns.
The rapid decline at the 70 camera locations is a sign, city and police officials say, that more motorists know they are being watched and are more cautious about getting nabbed.
"If a person is going the same route day after day, and then they get a ticket because they ran a red light, they are less likely to run the light," Mayor Bill White said Monday.
For a period of about a year, the eastbound service road for I-10 at Studemont was a regular speed trap. A couple of times a month, you'd see officers with their radar guns, pulling people over for speeding, mostly people who'd just exited the freeway. They caught me the first time I drove through their setup. You bet your ass I was extremely watchful of how fast I was going after that; I may be dumb enough to get nailed once, but I sure as hell wasn't going to be a repeat customer. So yes, I think Mayor White is exactly right here.
And that was the point of the cameras, wasn't it? Not just to catch those who ran red lights, but to discourage everyone else from doing so as well. The data suggests that they're doing a good job of that.
Overall, the cameras have nabbed more than 230,000 vehicles since they went online in September 2006.About 60 percent of those motorists have paid their fines, resulting in more than $11.5 million in revenue. The police department has spent $4 million operating the system, including $2.7 million to its vendor, American Traffic Solutions. Another $2.1 million must be shared with the state, leaving a profit of about $5.4 million, records show.
The information about camera revenue is very interesting. As Grits pointed out last week, the city of Dallas is seeing a similar decline in red light violations being captured by their cameras, but that decline is causing a big drop in revenue, which in turn is forcing Dallas to re-evaluate its usage of the cameras, lest they be operated at a loss. Now maybe Houston signed a better contract than Dallas did. Maybe Houston did a better job of locating the cameras at intersections that had real problems with red light running. And maybe Houston will be in the same position Dallas now finds itself in some day, regardless of how good the contract and camera placement are. I can't really tell if we're smart, lucky, or just not yet at the crossroads. But it's worth thinking about what should be done in the event the cameras don't pay for themselves. If this is about safety, then it's worthwhile for the city to spend some amount of money to keep the cameras running and maintain the gains it has made in reducing red light violations. Obviously, there's a limit to this, but what is that limit? And what do we do when we reach it? Those questions need answers.
While the citation figures show that fewer motorists are breaking the law at monitored intersections, it remains unclear whether the intersections actually are safer."The simple fact that the cameras are giving out more citations at intersections, that doesn't mean that Houston is safer," said lawyer Paul Kubosh, a critic who unsuccessfully sued the city over the legality of the red-light camera program.
Researchers from Rice University and the Texas Transportation Institute are conducting a statistical study on accident trends at the monitored sites, but it was unclear when the results will be released.
Kubosh said that study could show that minor accidents actually increased at the intersections as motorists make abrupt stops to avoid citations -- a dynamic other cities across the country have seen.
"The whole purpose of the cameras is to decrease accidents," he said. "They sold this thing on accident prevention."
Officers who monitor the program say the study should show that accidents have decreased, said Sgt. Darrell Prince, who supervises the program and monitors video.
"Honestly," he said. "I've seen very few accidents."
Yes, it's certainly possible that minor accidents may increase - we'll know for sure when that study is finalized. But an increase in minor accidents may be an acceptable outcome if major accidents, especially accidents that involve injuries, decrease. It's not about decreasing accidents so much as it is about increasing safety. Fender-benders and T-bones are not the same, and they shouldn't be treated the same.
I know, I know, everyone including me bombarded you with Vote Early! messages during the primary. The reason for that as we know was because of the high turnout that we expected, which turned out to be even higher than we thought it would be. The runoff isn't going to be anything like that - you'll be in and out in a couple of minutes no matter when you vote. So why vote early? Because your regular polling place very likely won't be available on Runoff Day.
Forget about returning to a March 4 primary polling place to cast a ballot on April 8 -- unless you live in southeast Harris County and plan to vote Republican.Elsewhere in the county, GOP voters can vote only at a single polling station designated for their precinct -- and the number of locations has been drastically reduced from March 4.
In most cases, the April 4 locations will be the buildings used for early voting. For instance, Bellaire residents will have to vote on election day at Bayland Community Center in southwest Houston.
On the countywide GOP ballot are runoffs for the nominations for district attorney and a felony court bench. Southeast Harris County is the exception because of Republican runoffs there for a U.S. House seat, a state House seat and a justice of the peace position. Most, if not all, of the polling places used March 4 will be open for voting in those areas.
Democrats countywide will have to go on April 8 to the polling stations used in early voting. On the party's runoff ballot are a statewide race for a Railroad Commission seat, a countywide race for a civil court bench and a justice of the peace contest.
On March 4, Democrats used 367 polling places to serve the county's 874 precincts. On April 8 they will use 35, according to party chairman Gerald Birnberg.
Democratic turnout on March 4, with the presidential race on the ballot, exceeded 400,000. Birnberg said the party will be lucky to attract 10,000 for the runoffs. Runoffs were needed in each race where no candidate got a majority of the vote in the first round.
With far fewer voters expected by both parties, polling places have been reduced to save public money. The state subsidy was about $700,000 for the Democratic primary and is expected to be about $100,000 for the runoff, Birnberg said. Republicans are expected to reduce costs by almost as much.
For early voting, which starts next Monday and runs through April 4, voters can cast ballots at any of the 35 locations in the county. They can vote at only one location on election day.
"My advice: Vote early," said County Clerk Beverly Kaufman, whose staff runs the elections.
That's my advice, too. Remember that early voting for the runoff is only five days long - basically, Monday through Friday of next week. There won't be much in the way of reminders to vote - I doubt any of the Democratic candidates will be sending mail or doing robocalls - so mark your calendars now and don't forget.
This Statesman editorial nails it.
Because of an effort five years ago to run part of state government more like a business, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission is struggling to provide food and medical services to some of the state's poorest people. It's a disaster that ought to be remembered every time a legislator or lobbyist starts babbling that "privatization" of this or that state service will boost efficiency, lower costs to taxpayers and cure all fraud and waste.As the American-Statesman's Corrie MacLaggan outlined in a Sunday story, the commission's staff of about 6,500 workers -- down from about 10,400 in 1998 despite the state's population growth -- who determine the eligibility of applicants for aid is heavily overworked and increasingly inexperienced. Since September, the commission has hired 1,010 workers, even as 733, including veterans who know the system, quit.
These employees process applications for food stamps and Medicaid for about 3.7 million people. To do so, they must master both the rules for qualifying and the computer systems to track applicants. Because of the staff's workload and inexperience, many applicants are having to wait too long for help.
Those tempted to shrug off the departures as "good-bye, good riddance" should understand that such turnover hits taxpayers in the pocketbook. It costs $7,500 to train an eligibility worker, so when one leaves, the investment in training is not only lost, more must be spent for the next worker.
[...]
You can argue that the privatization theory is correct but, in this case, was badly carried out; or that the theory is wrong and no amount of competence could have saved it; or that the theory is wrong and it was incompetently carried out.
What's not debatable is that this attempt to run state government more like a business failed. And the price for that failure is being paid by taxpayers, the state workers and poor people who truly need the help.
Amen. Be sure to read that Sunday Statesman article, too. I believe the HHSC fiasco will be one of the biggest components of Rick Perry's legacy when he finally leaves office. In so many ways, it characterizes his tenure as Governor. The Bluebonnet blog has more.
I thought the idea of privatizing the Lottery was pretty much dead after it went over with such a thud last year, but apparently some bad ideas never truly go away.
Texas would have to expand gambling to see the multibillion-dollar profits Gov. Rick Perry promised last year when he proposed selling the state lottery, according to a report an Austin watchdog group plans to release today.
Texans for Public Justice, which monitors money in politics, obtained Texas Lottery sales projections by three private companies compiled for Perry from 2006 through 2007.The Public Justice report indicates that to generate the $14 billion or more Perry said the lottery would yield, Texas would have to allow more gambling and more-addictive games.
"If Texans oppose such a gambling expansion, then these documents suggest what they should play with the Texas Lottery games is Texas Hold 'Em," the report concludes.
The report is here. I think the main point to be aware of is here:
Today, more than a dozen states are studying lottery privatization. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said last year that his state's lottery could be auctioned off for as much as $37 billion. Yet the Associated Press reported this February that seven Wall Street banks privately priced the deal for Schwarzenegger, who publicly touted the most "wildly optimistic" quote. Significantly, to reach its highest valuations, Wall Street said that the state would have to "allow a significant expansion of gambling in California."Lottery privatization is not dead in Austin, either. Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst has directed two interim Senate committees to assess the merits of lottery privatization. Meanwhile, gambling interests continue to ply Governor Perry with lottery-privatization schemes.
As in California, many of the documents that the Texas governor's office has released thus far to Watch Your Assets suggest that the payout that Governor Perry has touted is unrealistic unless Texas aggressively expands into new games and widens the venues in which gambling occurs. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has issued non-binding opinions indicating that many of the new kinds of games that the gambling industry is pushing require a constitutional amendment. Yet the Dallas company Aces Wired now openly operates electronic gaming machines in selected Texas markets that already cross some legal lines drawn by the Attorney General. Aces Wired, which spearheads a business consortium interested in running the Texas Lottery, has flooded the governor's office with advice on how to go about making this happen.
The two Senate committees, according to a footnote, are Finance and State Affairs. May mean nothing, but it doesn't sound like it. Just keep this in mind for when the next Lege convenes.
David Pinto brings the news.
Dale Petroskey stepped down as president of the National Baseball Hall of Fame after the museum's executive committee found his financial and business decisions weren't in the best interests of the organization.Petroskey had been at baseball's Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, since July 1999.
The Hall's board of directors accepted Petroskey's resignation because he "failed to exercise proper fiduciary responsibility,'' the executive committee said in a statement without elaborating.
Jeff Idelson will replace Petroskey as acting president after spending the past nine years as the Hall of Fame's vice president of communications and education.
To which all I can say is Good riddance, and about damn time.
Apparently, some people took the "Texas Two-Step" thing a bit too literally.
Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman will provide the Harris County District Attorney's office today copies of the Democratic and Republican poll books that show 1147 names of individuals that may have voted illegally or unlawfully participated in both primaries in the March 4th Elections."Texas law prohibits individuals from voting twice in an election, as well participating in both the Republican and Democratic primaries during the same election cycle. In most elections, there are less than a handful of such cases. In this election, there appears to be a significant number that may call for further investigation," said Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman, the chief elections officer of the County.
According to the County Clerk, during the Primary Elections 389 individuals may have voted illegally by voting in person during the Early Voting Period and also on Election Day. In those instances, 378 occurred in the Democratic Primary and seven in the Republican Primary. Four voters voted early by mail in the Republican primary and then voted in the Democratic Primary on Election Day. Under section 64.012 of the Texas Election Code on ILLEGAL VOTING, A person commits an offense if the person: knowingly votes or attempts to vote more than once: An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree. A person found to have committed a third degree felony may face 2 to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. In the case a person is convicted of attempting to vote twice, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor. The person may face up to 1 year in the County jail and/or a fine up to $4,000.
Also, according the County Clerk, 758 individuals may have participated in both the Democratic and Republican Primaries. Of those instances, 701 occurred on Election Day and four voted in one Primary during the early voting period and in the other on Election Day. Section 162.014 of the Election Code stipulates that UNLAWFUL PARTICIPATION IN PARTY AFFAIRS occurs if a person knowingly votes or attempts to vote in a primary election or participates or attempts to participate in a convention of a party after having voted in a primary election or participated in a convention of another party during the same voting year. A person found to have committed a Class C misdemeanor may be fined up to $500.
So in an election in which a sizable number of people had never voted before, a bit more than 0.2% of all 580,000+ participants got confused and either voted twice in the same primary, or voted in one and then the other. Forgive me if I'm neither surprised nor impressed by that.
I think you're going to have a real hard time proving that any of these people was something other than unclear on the concept, or given bad information by someone. There was a barrage of ads on the Democratic side exhorting people to "vote twice", meaning once in the primary and once in the precinct convention. That one in a thousand of these voters might have misinterpreted the meaning of that strikes me as a very foreseeable consequence. As for the people who voted in both primaries, I would again ascribe this to ignorance rather than deliberate malfeasance. Even if you could convince me it was a conspiracy of some kind, what exactly could it possibly have accomplished. I'm just not seeing anything sinister here.
In fact, the Chron story provides an illustration of how this kind of double-voting might happen:
Robert Duran Jr. said he walked into the wrong room to vote in the March 4 primary. But he said he should not be indicted for it."It was an innocent mistake," said Duran, who works for an oil services company. "I just failed to read the sign."
[...]
Duran said he rushed to the polls after work, meaning to vote as a Republican. Duran was voting in his first primary, and he unthinkingly went to the same room he always does for general elections. But after Duran signed in the poll book and went to the booth, he saw the ballot had the names of the Democratic candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
"I clicked on it and said, 'Whoa, this is not what I meant to do,' " Duran said.
Duran alerted a poll worker, who redirected him to another room, where Republican balloting was taking place. The poll worker told him the accidental ballot would be canceled out of the system.
"They told me, 'Don't worry about it,' " Duran said.
I'll bet most of the folks who did this will have a similar story to tell. Investigate as you see fit, but I wouldn't expect to find much of anything worth really pursuing.
It's amusing to me that one commenter in that Houston Politics thread brought up voter ID, because I can't see how that would have made any difference. The argument behind voter ID laws is to prevent people from impersonating other voters. It seems to me that if any of these double-dippers had maliciously intended to cast multiple ballots, they would have done exactly that, rather than present themselves as themselves each time they showed up, which when you think about it pretty much guarantees you'll get caught. I mean heck, if the problem here was sloppy record-keeping by an election judge or County Clerk's office employee, then these overzealous participants may well have shown a driver's license each time they voted instead of their voter's reg card. You figure that had they shown their card and gotten it stamped the first time, they'd have been unable to vote again because the evidence of their prior participation would have been right there to see.
Anyway, I see this as much ado about nothing. Surely the DA has better things to do than spend a lot of time chasing this down.
The last time there was an indictment for voting violations was in 1999, according to Scott Durfee, an assistant district attorney in Harris County. The voter was acquitted at trial.The new list has been referred to the district attorney's Public Integrity Division, Durfee said. "We are going to review all the names in due course," he said.
I'll bet. PDiddie and Stace have more.
Lisa Falkenberg keeps the ball rolling on the public defender's office for Harris County idea by asking a few candidates for countywide office where they stand on it.
The Democrats seemed uncharacteristically united and on message."It promotes fairness and justice, period," said former Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford, Democrat for district attorney.
"I would make it a top priority of mine," said businessman David Mincberg, Democrat for county judge.
Republicans, meanwhile, were stammering, indecisive, claiming ignorance or ordering up a task force or some other form of further study.
"It's not something I have thought about," said County Judge Ed Emmett, who faces Mincberg in a race to keep his job. "It's on my plate for reading material."
"It's not really our decision," said chief prosecutor Kelly Siegler, who faces former felony court judge Pat Lykos in the April 8 Republican primary runoff for district attorney.
"It's going to take some considerable thought," said Lykos. "We certainly can't go on the way we are. And I certainly don't have a visceral rejection of it by any stretch."
She paused.
"That doesn't make sense, what I just said, does it?"
It is a tougher question for Republicans, who are wary of any issue that might make them appear soft on crime.
And they acknowledged at some level the merits of proponents' arguments, namely that the current system, in which lawyers are appointed by judges, doesn't always provide indigent defendants a fair shot at justice, either in terms of resources or quality of counsel.
Lykos, the former judge, agreed that "there has to be more resources for indigent defense," and allowed that a public defender office is "worth studying," but she cautioned about some of the pitfalls, as relayed to her by judges in other parts of the country.
"If it's not well-run, then you have the problem of them and the prosecutors kind of getting cozy with one another, if you will, and trading out and not vigorously representing their clients," Lykos said.
Siegler, though she fairly argued that the issue wasn't within the jurisdiction of the DA's office, also said, "You know, if that ultimately turns out to be the way the people in charge decide to go, that's fine with me.
" ... I would say, from the last three months, with all the things that I learned about our system, about our office, about the appointment of defense lawyers, that there are changes that need to be made in all aspects," Siegler said. "And I'll tell you, a year ago, I didn't know all that."
Reading Siegler's response raised a question for me: How would a public defender's office get created in Harris County? Is this something the Lege would have to authorize and/or fund (which was my initial impression), or is it something the Commissioners Court can do? Judge Emmett's comment at the end of the story that no one on the Court has mentioned this and that he himself has no intention of bringing it up makes me think it's the latter, but I'm not sure.
Regardless, wherever the power to create this office rests, it's certainly the case that the opinion of the District Attorney will be taken into account when and if the matter comes to the fore. A DA who strongly opposes a public defender could very well derail it, whereas one who loudly advocates for it can help make it happen. And of course, if this is within the purview of the Commissioners Court, then it seems pretty clear that David Mincberg would pursue this path, while Ed Emmett will not; at least, he won't be an advocate, though he might go along if the other Commissioners say they want it. I don't know how many votes might change based on a candidate's position on this issue, but the distinction is there if it matters to you. I certainly think this is a good idea, and I hope there will continue to be a focus on it. Houtopia has more.
Given the state of the jails, this should not come as a surprise.
Local judges, probation employees and others are operating under a patchwork of sometimes quirky standards for deciding which youths get sent to Harris County's crowded juvenile detention facilities, according to a new study.One juvenile court judge, for example, orders youths with cases in his court into a detention facility if they miss school seven days, a report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found. Other youths who possibly should be detained before trial are released because there is no space to hold them.
"The development of a uniform, objective approach to detention decision-making should be a high priority," the report says.
A committee that will be chaired by County Judge Ed Emmett and include Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt, Commissioner Sylvia Garcia and juvenile court Judge Mike Schneider will hold its initial meeting Wednesday to discuss ways of implementing the report's recommendations.
I've searched around but can't find a copy of the report online. Anyone out there know where it is?
The report said the district attorney's office clogs up the juvenile justice system and takes time away from serious cases by filing charges against all youths accused of Class A and B misdemeanors.Class B misdemeanors include shoplifting, possession of less than two ounces of marijuana and evading arrest. Class A misdemeanors include assaults related to fighting and thefts.
Harvey Hetzel, director of the county Juvenile Probation Department, said the system would be less burdened if the district attorney's office deferred prosecution in some of these cases.
But Bill Hawkins, chief of the District Attorney's juvenile division, said juvenile crime would rise if prosecutors didn't hold youths accountable and bring them to court. In Harris County, too many juvenile cases went the deferred prosecution route until the mid-1990s, and juvenile crime increased, he said.
"We'd be turning back the clock to something that was a disaster before," Hawkins said. "It's important that kids come to court and see some formal level of accountability in court."
Okay, but have we learned anything from that earlier experience that may help us to better decide which cases need full prosecution and which ones can be handled with a lighter touch? Saying "we tried that before and it didn't work" isn't really constructive here, because the opposite approach isn't working, either. If "too many cases" went to deferred prosecution in the 1990s, then maybe there's some number between what we did then and what we're doing now that would represent an improvement. Let's keep an open mind here.
As with related issues like the state of the jails and the public defender's office proposal, this is both about better justice and better management of scarce resources. If you're not looking for ways to improve, you're not being fiscally responsible. Take the report as a starting point and see what can and should be done. This should not be controversial. Grits has more.
The first-ever NCAA Regional Finals in Houston continues to provide me with easy entertainment.
From the moment tickets went on sale March 19, 2007, through the run-up to the 2008 Tournament, upward of 31,000 tickets were sold for this weekend's South Regional at Reliant Stadium.With an estimated capacity of 43,880, that means roughly 13,000 tickets are left for the three games on tap, and since the remaining seats likely are in less-than-desirable areas of the stadium, fans might want to consider their options.
"Less than desirable"? But I thought every seat was a good one!
"Having a facility the size of Reliant, we needed a Texas- or Memphis-type team in there with a large interest or large draw," said Jim Barr of Ticket Attractions. "I don't think this regional could have had any better matchup than it did or got. We were very fortunate."[...]
Reliant Stadium, Ticketmaster and brokers are all still offering tickets. It might take some maneuvering, not to mention patience, to sit where you want for a price you desire, but at least Joe Fan can buy his way into the festivities, which wasn't the case when Reliant hosted Super Bowl XXXVIII four years ago.
"There aren't a lot of opportunities for people in the community to buy tickets to the Super Bowl," said Reliant Park president Shea Guinn said. "And that's how this is different. Anybody can go out there and get a ticket if they want to come."
Like the ticket brokers, Reliant Park officials could not have asked for a more ideal scenario than Texas making its way to Reliant Stadium. A team with strong regional ties virtually guarantees a sellout.
Okay then. Let's get those less-than-desirable seats sold so nobody looks like a fool for predicting a sellout that wasn't.
The proposal by the city of West University Place to ban cellphone use in school zones has been unanimously adopted by their City Council.
The ordinance must be approved a second time to become law.It would go into effect on August 1 and carry a $200 penalty for a first offense and $500 penalty for repeat offenses. All cell phone usage -- including talking on a hand-held or hands-free device, text messaging or viewing images -- would be illegal in the three-block school zone in front of West University Elementary School.
Police Chief Ken Walker said the ordinance is intended to keep drivers alert and children safe.
"It only takes a split second for a child to run out in the street and be injured," Walker said after the meeting.
This ordinance would make West U. the first city in the nation to ban hands-free devices, Mayor Bob Kelly said.
"We would be way out front on that," Kelly said.
While Walker ackowledged that enforcing the ban against hands-free devices will be difficult to enforce, he recommended them in the ordiance.
"Occasionally it will be enforced. I can see officers working on foot in the area might observe something like that," he said.
Councilman Michael Talianchich said he believes including hands-free devices makes the ordinance stronger.
"I think it is important that it sends a message," he said.
Councilwoman Phyllis Cohen said even if it is difficult to enforce that portion, "I think most people are going to comply voluntarily."
Councilman Chuck Guffey said he wanted to be sure the law applies to moving vehicles only.
"As long as (drivers are) sitting still in the carpool line, I don't think they should be given a ticket," he said.
Walker said police would not enforce the law against drivers who were stopped and that language will be added to the ordinance to make that clear.
I think the hands-free ban will be more trouble than it's worth, but it's not that big a deal. I agree with the suggestion to limit it to moving vehicles only. You want to encourage people to wait till they're stopped before using their phones, not ticket them.
The question now, which was raised before but not addressed in this article, is whether Houston will follow suit. I'd guess that it will, but probably not for a few months so our City Council can see how this gets implemented in West U. May as well see what problems arise and how they can be fixed before diving in. Assuming nothing terribly unexpected pops up, I fully expect this to be adopted by Houston in the not-too-distant future.
Excellent news from Sen. Feingold:
I'm proud to announce that the Progressive Patriots community has chosen U.S. Senate candidate of Texas Rick Noriega as our first 'Progressive Patriot' of 2008. Of the thousands of progressives who cast their vote, Rick received the most votes and we'll be sending him a $5,000 contribution today to help his campaign. While I'm sure it was difficult to choose among so many great candidates, we're thrilled to support Rick's campaign for the Senate seat in Texas.Rick has spent his entire career serving this country. Following a 14 month deployment to Afghanistan, Rick returned to his native Houston to coordinate Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. In addition to his military background, Rick was elected to four terms in the Texas House. I urge you to check out Rick's website at www.ricknoriega.com to learn more about his record and to find out how you can help Rick succeed in November.
We're also proud to have made smaller contributions to the other six great Senate candidates that you nominated. With thousands of progressives voting from all 50 states, this round of 'Pick a Progressive Patriot' was exceptionally close and I'm proud the Progressive Patriots Fund is able to financially support all seven in their campaigns for the U.S. Senate.
Thank you for voting and I look forward to more 'Pick a Progressive Patriot' events as we move closer to the election in November.
Awesome. The March 31 finance reporting deadline is this Monday, so now is as good a time as any to throw a few bucks at candidates like Rick to make that next report look good. Michael Skelly is also making a push, for $7000 in seven days, so if you want a choice, or just another place for a few more extra dollars, there you have it.
The DSCC continued their "Road to Victory" series this week with a pretty rockin' look at the Noriega campaign. Having spent a good amount of time at Noriega HQ and having declined invites to their early morning runs, I don't think the campaign or the candidate could have been represented in a 2 1/2 minute video any better. Take a look:
Let's skip over the fact that he messed up the words to "Deep in the Heart of Texas" (please). Watching this video and thinking about the kind of representation we've had in the Senate with John Cornyn (the last Road to Victory video showed the country a little bit about that), it's easy to imagine Noriega winning in November.
Last month, after EarthLink officially defaulted on its contract with the city to provide municipal WiFi and paid a $5 million penalty for doing so, the city announced a pilot project to provide WiFi hotspots in certain neighborhoods, to be paid for with that EarthLink cash. That plan is now moving forward.
On Monday, Mayor Bill White announced the city will use about $3.5 million of that money to build 10 free wireless network "bubbles" in low-income parts of Houston to give residents access they otherwise might do without.The long-term possibility, White said, is that the bubbles could be connected and the areas between them added to the network, providing WiFi access across the city.
"It's a matter of connecting those bubbles," White said.
Monday's announcement launched the first bubble in the densely populated Gulfton area of Southwest Houston. The city is establishing a committee to determine where future networks will be located. Build-out is expected to happen over the next two years.
[...]
To expand the network beyond the first 10 bubbles will require partnerships with other private businesses, said [Craig Settles, an independent municipal wireless consultant and author of two books on city WiFi]. He suggested deals with area hospitals, which tend to be spread throughout the city and might have interest in establishing a network to communicate with ambulances, clinics, doctors and patients citywide.
Last week, the city finished the formal process of requesting information from potential service providers about how it might build out the network, said Richard Lewis, director of the city's information technology department. The city likely will ask for bids to build the remaining nine networks, maintain them, provide technical support for users and create a system for businesses to advertise on the network, potentially building revenue for operational costs, he said.
Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Verizon Wireless and Tropos Networks -- which donated equipment for the Gulfton network -- are pilot sponsors. HP will help develop an "affordable computer purchase plan," according to a news release.
In addition to installing Internet service, the city is working with social service groups to provide computer access and training for users. Each bubble will include about 15 public access points at schools, city facilities and community organizations within the area.
Dwight has more. I liked this plan when I first heard of it, and I like it now. If full coverage isn't in the cards, this sounds like the next best thing.
Easter Lemming has a boatload of information about all of the State Senate district conventions in Harris County, which I recommend you review if you plan on attending yours. If you're going to the SD6 convention, please note that there's delegate chair training tonight at 6:30 PM at the St. Patrick Catholic Church Hall, 4918 Cochran, Houston, Texas, 77009. More information for SD6 can be found here. There's information there about credential challenges as well, which must be received no later than March 26 to be considered. They can be dropped off at 3715 N. Main or emailed to [email protected].
I will not be at this convention - I'm not a delegate, and I just don't have the time to attend this weekend. Those of you who do go, I salute you and wish you good luck in getting all the business you have before you done in a congenial and timely manner.
One of the closest primary elections this year, and one of the few in which a Tom Craddick ally was knocked off by a challenger, is not over yet.
A recount of the nearly 30,000 votes cast earlier this month in four counties in the Republican primary race for House District 73 will begin Monday.It is set for completion Wednesday and a winner may be announced by the end of next week.
The recount was requested and paid for by incumbent Rep. Nathan Macias, R-Bulverde, who is now trailing Doug Miller by a mere 29 votes. The recount cost Macias $5,500. Miller lives in New Braunfels, where he is a former mayor, and owns property in Gillespie County.
Although Macias defeated Miller in Comal, Bandera and Kendall counties after a heated race, he lost by more than 1,000 votes in Gillespie County, Miller's family turf, prompting a rash of complaints to state election officials.
Macias' recount petition was approved late Wednesday by Republican Party officials in Austin who will oversee the recount. Logistics were still being worked out Thursday, said Eric Opiela, executive director of the state GOP.
"We'll announce a winner whenever the recount is finished. I think realistically, we're looking at Thursday or Friday," he said.
Hard to argue with Macias' rationale in calling for the recount. Twenty-nine votes is a tiny margin, and when the difference is in your opponent's home county, it's easy to think there may be something fishy going on. Apparently, there were a lot of complaints on Election Day as well:
A flood of complaints to Texas Secretary of State Phil Wilson followed Macias' apparent hair-thin defeat on March 4. Among the issues raised was the brief involvement of a Miller in-law in handling paper ballots being counted in Gillespie County."We received over 200 different complaints by letter or e-mail about this race. There was enough there to refer them to the attorney general but I can't comment beyond that," said Scott Haywood, a spokesman for Williams.
A spokesman for Attorney General Greg Abbot, however, said Thursday that nothing yet had been received about the District 73 election.
Yes, well, as the complaints don't involve minority Democrats (PDF), don't hold your breath waiting for Abbott to spring into action. Thanks to South Texas Chisme for the link.
I should note that there was a similarly close race in Harris County, for the 190th District Court, in which Andres Pereira nipped Bruce Mosier by a 123,414-123,167 margin. Mosier just sent out an email, which I reproduce below, in which he has decided not to ask for a recount. It was a tough decision, and I commend him for making it. He'll be back in 2010, and I look forward to voting for him again at that time.
To all good Democrats:When one loses an election by 247 votes, out of 246,581 cast, it's natural to consider a recount or some form of election challenge. I did that, and after much consultation and soul searching, I have concluded that it serves very little purpose to continue to ask my family, my good friends and my neighbors to fund a very expensive, time consuming, gut wrenching, and, I believe, hurtful action.
You all know me as a loyal Democrat - a man with deep convictions - who never waivers when it really counts. One of my strongest convictions is that loyal Democrats should do no harm to the Party's ticket. To that end, I concede the nomination and congratulate my opponent on his victory.
However, don't count me out. I may well be asking for your help in 2010, when all four County Civil Courts at Law will be up for election. I have served most of my years of practice in those Courts, trying Eminent Domain and other real estate related cases.
Let us pull together and work hard for victory in November.
Your friend,
Bruce Mosier
I've publicly wondered about the bizarre result of the Railroad Commissioner primary election, as I still can't think of a plausible reason Mark Thompson came away with a near-majority of the vote. To help me try to understand this a little better, the Observer blog attempts to find an answer by asking Thompson what he thinks.
Thompson says that voters responded to his message. "What happened was I was talking about the issues," he said. "Art Hall and Mr. Henry just talked about themselves."Thompson said before the election he did some amateur polling and was told by voters that they were supporting him because of his call for reform -- and, he added, because they didn't want an investment banker (Hall) and they feared Henry was too close to the industry. There's also the fact, which Thompson didn't mention, that Henry first ran for the commission in the Republican primary in 2004.
"None of these candidates are right on the issues," Thompson said. "Those guys... They forgot one thing. They forgot the people... I supposedly had no knowledge, but what did I do? I fought for the people."
Well, okay, but I'm not buying it. I'm just not aware of any voter outreach by Mark Thompson, though to be fair I'm not really aware of any by Hall, and I'm only aware of a little by Henry. As for his stand on the issues, here's his webpage. If you can tell what he was campaigning on, you're more discerning than I.
I'm sure Mark Thompson is a nice guy with his heart in the right place. But there's no way he got his message across to enough voters to nearly win the nomination outright. You can't communicate with two million voters without spending money, and Thompson had (and has) no money. Sorry, but this outcome is as mysterious as it was before Thompson tried to explain it.
Unfortunately, Dale Henry doesn't do any better a job trying to explain it:
Henry proudly talks about his campaign to unseat GOP Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones in 2006 (as a Democrat). Jones beat Henry by 12 percentage points."It just thrills me to death that Mark has done as well as he has," Henry said. But he said that he stopped in Thompson's hometown of Hamilton, Texas, on a recent campaign swing and noted that nobody he talked to seemed to know who Thompson is. "This is back to the Obama phenomenon," Henry said, suggesting that the huge turnout among "young folks" helped Thompson.
Henry is 76, but, he notes, "I look about 55." He said his age should not be a concern to voters and added he could see himself serving two terms. Thompson is 48.
While I agree that the large turnout helped Thompson, it's still not clear why it helped him. As I said before, there's no obvious reason why a voter who had to pick a name at random would choose Thompson. All three candidates had simple names. Thompson did well regardless of whether or not he was the first candidate listed on the ballot. And if youth were somehow a factor, you'd think the 37-year-old Art Hall would now be in Thompson's position. I mean hell, Thompson's web page doesn't even have a photo of him, so why would "young folks" have any reason to be drawn to him? Sorry, but this is nonsense.
Thompson said what matters about Henry is not his age necessarily, but the fact that in two previous elections he has failed to win the office."He's already been beat twice," Thompson told me.
So what? Gene Kelly still gets people to vote for him, and he's a potted plant. Being on the ballot multiple times before (though in Henry's case, it's only once as a Democrat) should be an asset in a low-information election, but here it wasn't. We're right back where we started, with a question that has no visible answers.
The good news is that the runoff should have a much smaller electorate, which in turn should be better acquainted with the candidates. The runoff voters should, and hopefully will, make the right choice and pick Dale Henry as the nominee. Early voting is next week, so get ready to cast that ballot. We need the best slate we can get, and that means having Dale Henry for Railroad Commissioner.
Is your bracket irretrievably busted? Do you find yourself cursing schools you hadn't heard of a week before? Well, I can't do anything about that, but I can point you towards this week's Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup, which might take your mind off the office pool and how badly you're losing for a few minutes. Click on for the highlights.
Off the Kuff takes a look at the primary vote for Democratic candidates in Harris County by State Rep district.
Dwayne Bohac: A Study in Rovian Politics takes a look at an incumbent Republican Rove clone and his basic hypocracy. It uses his public utterances on "clean air" to host him on his own corporate petard.
The Texas Cloverleaf notes that TxDOT is handing out the awards, this time to Denton County Judge Mary Horn, for her "hard work" on building roads. But why do they note the projects that have never been completed?
CouldBeTrue notes that the Texas State Board of Education has 'better' things to do than represent Hispanic children.
Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News tells people Happy Easter! now suck it up. If that rant about economics goes more into hedonics than you ever wanted to know he also offers a link to explaining the credit crisis for kindergarteners.
Over at Doing My Part For The Left takes a look at the bigotry of homophobic Rep. Sally Kern of Oklahoma and wipes tears from his eyes as he reads a letter to Rep Sally Kern from a young man who knows what it is to lose a loved one.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson after reading through the headlines asks Should Texas Be Worried About The Economy?
Hal at Half Empty has a bone to pick with Bush's Presidential Library committee. As planned on the SMU campus, not only will it cause the distruction of student housing and a strip mall, but the obliteration of a La Madeleine cafe boutique. Hal has an alternative suggestion.
For the Democratic primary runoff election (scheduled for April 8, with early voting commencing March 31) PDiddie at Brains and Eggs reiterates his endorsement of Dale Henry for Texas Railroad Commission and Larry Weiman for 80th Ciivl District Court of Harris County.
Vince at Capitol Annex notes that the federal government has asked the state to postpone the roll-out of the state's new troubled food stamp eligibility screening computer program.
McBlogger at McBlogger take a look at the collapse of Bear Stearns and see that JP Morgan Chase may have created the deal of the century.
BossKitty at BlueBloggin reminds us that our war hungry vice president Dick Cheney is on the war path again; Cheney Stalks Middle East One More Time but the Saudi King is playing a different drum.
WhosPlayin talks about what it was like to work at the polls on Primary Election day.
This article about the NCAA South Regional finals coming to Reliant Stadium this week is mostly about the work involved in changing the venue from rodeo to basketball. It's interesting enough, but what caught my eye was this:
At Reliant, giant curtains will block off the end zones, leaving about 43,000 seats. About 31,000 tickets have already been sold.
Twelve thousand unsold tickets? Really? You UT fans, you do know that the Longhorns will be playing in this event, right? How do you expect the
I figure the place will be full before the opening tip, but seriously, I can't believe it isn't so already. And therefore I found this amusing as well:
Reliant is scheduled to play host to the NCAA South Regional again in 2010 and the Final Four championship in 2011, [Shea Guinn, president of SMG-Reliant, the company that operates the stadium,] said.For those events, the curtains won't be used and between 72,000 and 74,000 seats will be available.
"Every seat will be a good one," Guinn said.
Actually, I'm pretty sure some of those seats won't be all that good. At least, not if proximity to the action is part of your criteria for determining what a good seat is. If all you care about is the atmosphere, then as long as they manage to sell the place out, I'd agree. Otherwise, I'd probably advise saving the money and watching on TV, where at least you'll know who has the ball at all times. And why they think they can sell 72,000 seats for another Sweet Sixteen when they haven't sold 43,000 yet for this one is a question I can't answer. I admire the can-do spirit, but if there are empty seats this weekend, I think they might want to give the arrangement for 2010 another thought.
Today is the last day to vote for Rick Noriega in the Progressive Patriots PAC poll. As of last report, Noriega was leading the vote, so let's bring this one home. It just takes a minute, and it's worth $5000 to his campaign. Thanks very much.
After I published the report on primary voting by State Rep district for Harris County, I got a note from Diane Trautman asking me if I could do the same thing for turnout. At first I said no, as the canvass data I had did not include registered voter information for each precinct, but then it occurred to me that the cumulative report did include such totals for each SRD. So, I went back to the original data I had, summed up the vote totals per district, and came up with the report that you will see beneath the fold.
In this report, I give vote totals for the Presidential, Senate, Supreme Court Places 7 and 8, County Judge, Sheriff, and Tax Assessor races. As before, the Presidential vote only counts ballots cast for Obama and Clinton, so the turnout numbers there will be a tad lower than the Ballots Cast number that the County Clerk lists for each district. I then divided each of those totals into the number of Registered Voters, and got a turnout percentage for each district. I only did the 21 SRDs that I could differentiate; I skipped the other four.
The State Rep district that had the highest level of participation across the board was Rep. Alma Allen's HD 131, where over 35% of registered voters cast a ballot in the Presidential primary. Other districts that topped 30% in the Presidential race were HDs 139, 142, 146, and 147, with HD 134 falling just short. HD 131 also had over 28% participation in the Senate race.
On the county level, the Sheriff's race drew the most votes everywhere except HD 127, where the Tax Assessor race had more, and HD 134, where the County Judge race won out. Not too surprisingly, HD 127 is Trautman's home district, while HD 134 is where David Mincberg lives.
Not much else to add here, though I will note that this should provide yet another piece of evidence against the Royal Masset crossover Republican theory, given that even in solid Democratic districts, the dropoff from the Presidential race to the Senate and other downballot races was uniformly steep. There's no pattern I see to indicate different behavior in Republican and Democratic districts.
Click on for the report. Let me know if you have any questions, or if there's something else about the primary vote you'd like me to investigate.
Dist Pres Sen SC7 SC8 Judge Sher Tax Voters Pres % Sen % SC7 % SC8 % Judge% Sher % Tax % HD126 14635 11553 10140 10170 8883 9528 9134 81404 17.98% 14.19% 12.46% 12.49% 10.91% 11.70% 11.22% HD127 16736 12779 11121 11141 9662 10366 10447 100061 16.73% 12.77% 11.11% 11.13% 9.66% 10.36% 10.44% HD129 15933 12259 10282 10413 9230 9502 9262 85972 18.53% 14.26% 11.96% 12.11% 10.74% 11.05% 10.77% HD131 22232 17887 15941 15974 13982 15206 14368 62529 35.55% 28.61% 25.49% 25.55% 22.36% 24.32% 22.98% HD133 12771 9886 8505 8507 7430 7741 7388 62041 20.58% 15.93% 13.71% 13.71% 11.98% 12.48% 11.91% HD134 27170 20306 16220 16047 16029 14965 14585 93338 29.11% 21.76% 17.38% 17.19% 17.17% 16.03% 15.63% HD135 13362 10538 9101 9108 7877 8532 8029 73689 18.13% 14.30% 12.35% 12.36% 10.69% 11.58% 10.90% HD137 6862 5255 4512 4535 3925 4221 3891 34777 19.73% 15.11% 12.97% 13.04% 11.29% 12.14% 11.19% HD138 12065 9698 8253 8281 7279 7996 7294 60837 19.83% 15.94% 13.57% 13.61% 11.96% 13.14% 11.99% HD139 20924 16515 14600 14618 12733 14454 13371 68089 30.73% 24.26% 21.44% 21.47% 18.70% 21.23% 19.64% HD140 9546 7841 6946 7030 5685 7341 5981 43692 21.85% 17.95% 15.90% 16.09% 13.01% 16.80% 13.69% HD141 19288 14303 12459 12512 10372 11714 11000 70639 27.31% 20.25% 17.64% 17.71% 14.68% 16.58% 15.57% HD142 21135 16417 14330 14391 12125 13814 12628 69171 30.55% 23.73% 20.72% 20.80% 17.53% 19.97% 18.26% HD143 9156 7571 6582 6669 5137 6804 5352 43488 21.05% 17.41% 15.14% 15.34% 11.81% 15.65% 12.31% HD144 12172 10207 8974 9066 7773 8596 7978 70135 17.36% 14.55% 12.80% 12.93% 11.08% 12.26% 11.38% HD145 10890 9715 8095 8150 6613 8525 6708 44609 24.41% 21.78% 18.15% 18.27% 14.82% 19.11% 15.04% HD146 27051 21057 18023 17945 16707 17612 16789 79415 34.06% 26.52% 22.69% 22.60% 21.04% 22.18% 21.14% HD147 23322 18531 15781 15759 14008 15511 14322 71799 32.48% 25.81% 21.98% 21.95% 19.51% 21.60% 19.95% HD148 16160 13287 11093 11168 9657 11999 9742 57314 28.20% 23.18% 19.35% 19.49% 16.85% 20.94% 17.00% HD149 15945 12126 10557 10545 9068 9709 9206 72423 22.02% 16.74% 14.58% 14.56% 12.52% 13.41% 12.71% HD150 15489 12405 10977 10987 9479 10206 9769 98069 15.79% 12.65% 11.19% 11.20% 9.67% 10.41% 9.96%
Ever get caught driving behind an old clunker that was spewing enough exhaust it made you cough even with all your windows rolled up? Ever wonder why something couldn't be done about such an obvious detriment to the environment? Well, there is something can be done, and it's been very successful so far.
The North Central Texas Council of Governments, which administers the old vehicle voucher program on behalf of the state, has gotten 12,000 applications from people seeking money to help replace their old cars and trucks.If all 12,000 applications were to be approved, they would exceed the first $30 million that the state has allocated for the program, officials said. No date has been set, but the council will probably need to quit taking applications in a few weeks.
A second phase of the program should begin in September.
"It might be a few weeks before we have to cut it off; it might be a month," said Lara Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for the council of governments. "But it's winding down."
Last week, the council of governments sent an e-mail to area dealers advising them that the program would no longer accept applications after Friday. But officials later determined that 1,300 vouchers that had been approved had expired, and those funds were still available. Consumers have to spend their vouchers within 30 days.
[...]
The program, which began accepting applications in December, is aimed at lower-income residents of the Dallas, Houston and Austin areas who drive vehicles that are at least 10 years old. People who meet income limits - $30,630 for an individual and $72,390 for a family of five - may be eligible for $3,000 vouchers that they can use on new or late-model vehicles. They must buy cars and trucks that cost $25,000 or less.
Dallas, Houston and Austin do not meet federal clean-air standards. Since older vehicles emit up to 30 times as much pollution as newer ones, the areas hope to improve air quality - and get credits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - by getting old vehicles off the road.
About 5,000 vouchers have been granted so far from the 12,000 applications received in the Dallas area. Recipients can take the vouchers - which increase to $3,500 if they're buying a hybrid vehicle - to participating car dealers for a new vehicle or a used one up to three model years old. Their old cars and trucks are supposed to be taken to salvage yards.
There's a lot of interest in the program, officials said.
"Love it, love it, love it," said state Sen. Kip Averitt, R-Waco, who sponsored the bill that created the program. "This is an excellent, excellent start to making a positive difference."
The state has $100 million available for the old car voucher program - the largest amount in the nation, Mr. Averitt said. In December, it allocated half of that money to programs in Dallas, Houston and Austin, and it will give those areas the remaining funds in September, he said.
"The EPA continues to tell us we have the most aggressive and best-funded program in the country," he said. "There's not even a close second - and that includes California."
Very cool, and money well spent in my opinion. By the way, the next time you do find yourself stuck behind a smoking hulk like that, you can report it to the TCEQ by calling 1-800-453-SMOG (7664). Details are at the link. Usually, they try to get whatever is causing the vehicle to spew exhaust fixed, so this is a relatively cheap and effective way to help fight air pollution. Keep that number handy, because you're sure to need it sooner or later.
Missed this over the weekend: The passage of Prop 15 last year meant the creation of an advisory board to determine how $3 billion in funds for cancer research will be spent. That board is being put together now and will start the real work soon.
Six members were named this week to the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute Oversight Committee, which will establish the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute and monitor the $300 million in tax dollars the institute will handle for 10 years straight. The last three committee members are expected to be named any day.Rice University professor Malcolm Gillis, one of the appointees, envisions Texas becoming an international leader in rolling back a disease that this year will kill an estimated 566,000 Americans, including 38,000 Texans.
"Nobody has done what Texas is doing in cancer research," Gillis said. "Nothing could be more forward looking than good research. ... We need to identify the people who are doing really good research and try to fund it."
Gillis said the oversight committee's first meeting is still weeks away. He predicts the first order of business will be choosing a location and a director for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute.
The institute would be in charge of divvying up the grants, which would be distributed beginning in 2009.
I'd guess the location will be here in Houston, though Dallas and San Antonio will probably make a pitch for it as well. After that, who knows? It'll be interesting to watch how this operates.
Swamplot brings the news:
A reader who doesn't sound too happy about the situation sends word that David Adickes has sold his artist-studio building at 2500 Summer St.:
Artists who lease space there have been told they need to leave in less than 6 months. Deborah Colton Gallery resides on his 3rd floor.
Yes, that's David Adickes, sculptor of large presidential heads.
That means that if you have never had the chance to look at or photograph the large presidential heads, you are officially on a deadline to do so. Don't delay, act now.
We're all familiar with the national Do Not Call registry, right? Well, now some people want there to be a similar thing for snail mail.
Vermont legislator Chris Pearson had a sense that the people were with him when he proposed a bill last November to allow residents to block junk mail.He got media attention, radio interview requests and e-mails from constituents eager to stop the credit card offers, furniture catalogs and store fliers that increasingly clog their mailboxes.
Then came the pushback from the postmasters, who told Pearson and other lawmakers that "standard" mail, the post office's name for junk mail, has become the lifeblood of the U.S. Postal Service and that jobs depend on it.
"The post office and the business groups are pretty well-organized," said Pearson, whose bill remains in a committee and has not been scheduled for a vote.
Barred by law from lobbying, the Postal Service is nonetheless trying to make its case before a growing number of state legislatures that are weighing bills to create Do Not Mail registries, similar to the popular National Do Not Call Registry.
The agency has printed 3,000 "information packets" about the economic value of standard mail, with specific data for each of the 18 states that have considered a Do Not Mail Registry. It has sent postmasters to testify before legislative committees across the nation.
"The Postal Service has come in and clobbered legislators," said Todd Paglia, executive director of ForestEthics, an environmental group that has collected 289,000 signatures on an online petition to Congress that calls for a National Do Not Mail Registry. "It's really a people-versus-special interest kind of battle."
I have a modest amount of sympathy for the Postal Service here. If my mail is like most people's, then junk mail really is their biggest part of the business, and I can't blame them for fighting to protect that business. Doesn't mean I want to see them win that fight, but I don't think they're evil for engaging it. I should also point out that as is the case with email spam, the catalog problem would largely solve itself if people simply stopped responding to them. This stuff continues to exist because it works.
Despite the Postal Service's efforts, I do think that we will have a Do Not Mail registry some day. This is an idea that's going to be very popular, and once a few states succeed in passing a law, there will be a lot of pressure on Congress to follow suit. It will likely take several years, but I believe it will happen. In the meantime, I recommend using Catalog Choice to reduce your own personal junk mail burden. And contact your state rep and Congressperson if you want to get the ball rolling on the ultimate goal.
You know those little white-on-black car window stickers that say "W The President"? They were a great achievement in iconography - elegant, eye-catching, and for awhile at least, ubiquitous - whose success is marked by the many imitations (Kinky Friedman's "K The Governor"), parodies ("F The President", "M The Moron"), and variants (Mark Bennett's "V The Amendment" is my favorite so far) it has spawned.
I think we're about to enter a new era for these stickers. I saw the following on a car the other day, and thankfully happened to have my camera with me that day:
I'm not exactly sure what the message is that this is trying to convey, but I don't think it matters. It made me wonder how far from the original image these offshoots will eventually go, and if we'll eventually forget that there was an original image from which these things descended. For now, I just thought it was amusing. What's the most interesting variant on the W sticker you've seen?
Rick Noriega, the Texas Democrats' nominee to take on Sen. John Cornyn this fall, gets to deliver the party's weekly radio address on Saturday -- the rebuttal, as it were, to President Bush's weekly address. Noriega is a state representative from Houston, and more to the point at the 5-year mark of the Iraq war, a lieutenant colonel who spent 14 months on active duty in Afghanistan.His focus: a critique of the war, and what this year's election will mean for its course.
"In choosing the next President, we have a duty to ask, what course will they take in Iraq? Will they commit our soldiers for generation after generation to remain there? Will they spend trillions of dollars more to police a civil war?... Or will they say enough?"
And it's a very direct attack on the GOP's presumptive nominee.
"John McCain is wrong on Iraq.... Five years ago, McCain helped President Bush mislead the American people in the run up to the war and echoed the Bush Administration ever since. Even the President admitted, McCain would not change a thing."
The full text is at the link. I'm not sure what time this is done, or where you can hear it, so reading the text may be your best bet. And if you haven't done so already, remember to vote for Rick Noriega to receive the Progressive Patriots PAC donation. He's currently leading the field, so let's keep it that way.
I hope this is a good sign.
The U.S. government dismissed its border fence condemnation lawsuit against the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College on Wednesday and agreed to explore alternatives to a fence with school officials.The agreement was reached just hours before a hearing was to begin in federal court.
It is no guarantee that the university's golf course and the rest of the threatened 160 acres of campus will not some day be on the Mexican side of a 15-foot fence, but the dismissal order requires the two sides work together.
The government has sued more than 50 South Texas landowners this year for temporary access to survey for the border fence. Many have complained that the access requested was overly broad and sought similar restrictions, but the university is the first to achieve it.
Upon signing the order, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said he hoped the agreement could be a model for other property owners, specifically the Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District, which shared similar concerns about disruptions to its campus and impact on its students during a hearing before Hanen on Monday.
[...]
Outside the courthouse, Juliet Garcia, president of UTB-TSC, said some of her intent in rejecting government access before reaching this agreement was to "plow the field" for other property owners.
Under the agreement, the government wins its long-sought access to the campus for six months. The university gets a promise from the government to explore alternatives "to a physical barrier" with the university and to get school consent before even mowing a blade of grass.
Barry Burgdorf, vice chancellor and general counsel for the University of Texas System, said the university will invest its own resources in developing alternatives to the fence. Neither Burgdorf nor the court order specify what those alternatives might be.
Good for UT-Brownsville. If this can serve as a model for other entities to get improved treatment from the feds, so much the better. South Texas Chisme is cynical about this, but I choose to be optimistic. We could use a little positive news here. I do agree that nothing about this makes the border fence a good idea, but in the event we can't undo the legislation that authorized it, anything we can do to minimize its negative impact is a boon.
Philadelphia shows what it looks like.
There is a proposal afoot to build what would be the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere and the second-tallest building in the world when stacked against existing buildings, at 18th and Arch streets, in Center City. A 2,000-foot-tall condominium building is under construction in Chicago.The American Commerce Center, at a proposed 1,500 feet, would be 525 feet higher than the Comcast Center, now Philly's tallest building at 975 feet, a block away.
It would surpass the Empire State Building's 1,250 feet.
Phillyskyline.com waxed poetic in its description of what's happening:
"Your Philly skyline is about to change. About to incur a growth spurt. About to shatter any notion of Philadelphian reservedness, about to take A New Day A New Way to a whole other level."
Generating this excitement is the proposal to construct what would be a mix of retail, hotel and office space - and even a movie theater - in an $800 million, 2.2-million-square-foot skyscraper on what is now a parking lot.
I believe the proper expression here is "Wow". And in case you're curious, for I know I was:
The proposed building will need zoning adjustments, but it apparently has the backing of Mayor Nutter.Through his press secretary, Doug Oliver, the mayor said he believes the building "would be a spectacular addition to Philadelphia's skyline. Sustainability efforts and building green continue to be hallmarks of this administration and the plans for this particular project are consistent with those goals."
The civic association that covers that neighborhood is watching and waiting.
"Obviously, when you drop something bigger than the World Trade Center into a neighborhood there are bound to be implications," said Rob Stuart, president of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association. "We will identify them and see if they can be mitigated. It is clearly out of scale with a lot of our neighboring buildings."
Stuart said his association was briefed a week ago by the developer and his team and "we are formulating a task force to work on the project."
"There are going to be a lot of discussions. The design might change as a result."
Not knowing a thing about Philly's politics and ordinances, I can only wonder what tools they have at their disposal to push back on whatever they don't like. I'll be curious to see if this thing goes forward. Link via Atrios.
Nothing like an advisory panel report to brighten up the weekend.
A presidential panel Thursday said America's math education system is "broken" and called on schools to focus lessons to ensure children from preschool to middle school master key skills.The National Mathematics Advisory Panel was convened by President Bush in April 2006 to address concerns that many of today's students lack the math know-how needed to become future engineers and scientists.
The 24-member panel of mathematicians and education experts announced recommendations to improve instruction and make better textbooks and even called on researchers to find ways to combat "mathematics anxiety."
Larry Faulkner, panel chairman and former president of the University of Texas at Austin, said the country needs to make changes to stay competitive in an increasingly global economy. He noted that many U.S. companies draw skilled workers from overseas, a pool he said is drying out as opportunities in other countries improve.
"The question is, are we going to be able to get the talent?" Faulkner said in a briefing before the report's release.
"And it's not just a question of economic competitiveness," he said. "In the end, it's a question of whether, as a nation, we have enough technical prowess to assure our own security."
The panel, which released its final report Thursday, examined ways to make sure students have a strong grasp of the building blocks they need to understand algebra, a gateway to higher math.
Students who complete algebra are more likely to attend college and graduate.
The panel found that the math curricula in elementary and middle schools cover too many topics without enough depth. It set out skills students need to know to have a strong foundation in math.
As someone who was born with a gift for numbers, it's hard for me to objectively judge this. My parents transferred me from the parochial school that the family had attended for generations to a new public intermediate school when I was in the sixth grade because I was so bored to tears with arithmetic, and the new school gave me a chance to learn algebra. That was certainly beneficial to me, and I see no reason why all kids can't be exposed to that by the time they enter high school. But again, I wasn't an average kid in that regard, so I don't want to extrapolate from my own experience.
You can read the panel's report and its ancillary documents here. I also found the Math Panel Watch blog, which has some interesting critiques of the panel's approach and conclusions. Check them out.
The new contract that the city agreed on with HOPE has now been ratified by the union and will be taken up by the city next.
The Houston City Council plans to consider the measure during its meeting next week. If the contract is approved, Houston will become the state's first city to sign a union agreement with its civilian employees.Members of the Houston Organization of Public Employees overwhelmingly voted for the contract agreement with 2,563 in favor and six in opposition. More than 50 percent of the union's membership of about 4,040 had to approve the contract for its passage.
"That's the magic number -- we made it," announced Felix Harvey, a union member and a city mechanic to a standing ovation from the dozens of other members awaiting the outcome.
The contract calls for an immediate across-the-board 3 percent pay increase for about 13,000 municipal employees, with similar increases in 2010 and 2011.
It also requires an immediate salary boost for the lowest-paid workers to $9.50 an hour. The federal minimum wage is $5.85 an hour. Officials estimate the package would cost $179 million during the three-year term.
Firefighters and police officers, who have their own contract, are excluded. Elected officials, such as City Council members, are also not included.
"The main thing is it has to do with respect," said Monica Cage, a Public Works employee who voted in favor of the contract.
Well done. A statement from HOPE is beneath the fold. I expect City Council will approve this, probably unanimously.
City employees voted overwhelmingly to ratify the contract between their union, the Houston Organization of Public Employees (HOPE), and the City of Houston. In balloting over the last two weeks, HOPE members voted 3,237 to 7 in favor of the three-year agreement. That result comes after a canvass that added 675 provisional ballots to the total.The ballots were counted Thursday night at the Kelley Solid Waste facility and the tally was overseen by prominent community leaders, including Rev. James Nash of Sunnyside Presbyterian Church and Laura Boston of the Houston Interfaith Workers' Center.
The agreement now goes before the Houston City Council for final approval. If approved by the council, it will be the first-ever union contract between a Texas city and its civilian municipal workers.
"This agreement is great for Houston," said Patricia Mathis, a HOPE bargaining team member and management analyst with the Houston Police Department. "The contract will enhance quality public services for the city and ensure a living wage for every city worker."
The contract would establish a minimum wage of $10 an hour for city workers by September 2009 and immediately create a $9.50 an hour minimum -- a 45 percent raise for the lowest-paid city employees. Other highlights of the agreement include:
- A community action leave pool in which city workers can donate vacation time to be used for volunteering on important community projects. Already, more than 1,200 city workers have donated vacation time into the pool.
- Worker-management consultation committees that will promote idea-sharing and better communication on the job in order to strengthen city services.
The contract will also have a major impact on Houston's struggling neighborhoods, where many city workers live. HOPE estimates that the across-the-board raises in the contract will generate an additional $120 million in economic activity in neighborhoods like the Third Ward and East End over the next three years.
Our new DA is settling into the job.
Comparing the Harris County District Attorney's office to a ship at sea in need of a course correction, the newly sworn in DA said he will make small changes during his expected 9-month tenure."The changes I make today can have long term effects years from now," Ken Magidson said today. Magidson was sworn in Wednesday to replace Chuck Rosenthal, who resigned last month.
Magidson said the changes he expects to make may not immediately be obvious. But, like the task forces he headed as an assistant U.S. attorney, the small changes can pull an organization together for the long run.
"I created a system, a culture of understanding what the purpose of the mission was, of what we're trying to accomplish," Magidson said.
[...]
Of the two changes made on the second day, Magidson promoted Charlene Mrazek to his executive secretary and said Rosenthal's executive secretary, Kerry Stevens, took a job in the grand jury division of the district attorney's office.
I figure as long as everyone keeps their hands and their right ears to themselves, we're off to a good start.
Magidson also changed the policy for telephone conversations and computer use from a stated prohibition to allow employees incidental use."This is consistent with most governmental entities and the corporate world and the county policy," Magidson said. He said additional language in the new rules state that offensive or inappropriate use of computers should be reported to supervisors.
Magidson said he plans to look at other issues in the office as they crop up.
Seems reasonable. It's not realistic in a modern office to forbid the use of equipment like the phone and the computer for any personal use. It's also pretty apparent that this policy was completely ignored by Chuck Rosenthal, so why not get more in line with reality? So far so good for our interim DA.
In the boisterous aftermath of helping his San Diego Toreros clinch an NCAA tournament berth, Rob Jones slapped one of his prominent tattoos, the one with the cross and the name Jones, and pointed to his proud father, Jim Jones Jr., in the stands.The Toreros had just upset Gonzaga to win the West Coast Conference tournament and reach the NCAAs for the fourth time in school history.
Between the freshman forward and his father, though, there was something much deeper going on. Three decades after the mass suicide-murder at Jonestown, it was good to be a Jones.
"The win was great, but when he did that, well, I'm a grumpy 47-year-old man and it brought a tear to my eye," Jim Jones Jr. said. "Rob has just given me the opportunity to enjoy it again."
Rob Jones feels no stigma about being the grandson of cult leader Jim Jones, who 30 years ago this November led more than 900 of his followers in a mass suicide in a South American jungle. When road crowds taunt him about drinking Kool-Aid, he turns it into motivation. He speaks openly about his family's history.
"The reason I do is just to change the Jones name, you know, to keep a good association with the name now," said Jones.
Simply put, Jim Jones Jr. wouldn't be alive, and Rob never would have been born, if it weren't for basketball.
After Jim Jones moved his Peoples Temple from San Francisco to Guyana in the late 1970s, his adopted son and others started a team.
The Jonestown basketball team was playing in a tournament in Georgetown, Guyana, when the cult came to a violent end on Nov. 18, 1978.
[...]
"My father wanted us to return when the congressman came back down there," Jones Jr. said this week from his home in Pacifica, near San Francisco. "In defiance, We said, 'No.' We wanted to play basketball. You can see why there was guilt around basketball."
Jones lost several family members, including his first wife and their unborn child.
"I wouldn't be alive if I wasn't playing basketball," he said. "With Robert playing basketball, it really kind of gave me the ability to enjoy the game again."
I had no idea that Jim Jones had surviving offspring. It's uplifting to see something good come out of that horrible tragedy. I'll be rooting for Robert Jones and his San Diego teammates this year.
Back in January, there was an article about how the State Supreme Court was extremely backlogged, and how that has gotten worse in recent years. How bad is it? Take a look at this report from Texas Watch (PDF) and see:
As has been reported previously by the media, the Court has amassed a record backlog of cases. Our research shows that the backlog of cases left pending each year has increased by more than 300% over the course of this decade. We will discuss the growth of the backlog later in this report, but we believe it is important to determine its root cause. Our research shows that members of the Texas Supreme Court are failing to keep up with the demands of their docket.Over the last three terms, the average number of cases produced by each justice has decreased by 25% while the average length of time to write opinions has increased 31%. In fact, it is not uncommon for justices to write fewer than four signed opinions in a given year, and it is also not uncommon for justices to average more than 18 months to write an opinion. So, the Court as a whole is doing less while taking more time to do it.
In this report, we discovered several startling trends that demonstrate that justice truly is delayed at the Texas Supreme Court:
- The Court took an average of 852 days (2.3 years) to dispose of a case in the 2006-2007 term, an increase of 24% from the 2004-2005 term.
- Justices took an average 416 days to write an opinion after the Court has heard oral arguments. This represents a 31% increase from 04-05 to 06-07.
- Justices Wainwright and Johnson have fallen behind their colleagues' output by routinely taking longer to write fewer opinions.
- The Court's backlog has steadily increased from 14 in fiscal year 2000 to 60 in FY2007, an increase of 328%.
- The Court has left 72 cases pending for more than a year. An additional 31 cases have been pending for more than 2 years.
By the Court's own admission, they are failing to meet the guidelines laid out for them by the Legislature. State budget writers include performance measures by which they gauge the efficient use of taxpayer resources. Lawmakers laid out a 100-day goal for disposing of all matters pending before the Texas Supreme Court. This includes cases, motions, and all other matters. In a report to the Legislature, the Court has admitted it took the Court 209 days to handle pending matters in fiscal year 2007, more than double these budgetary performance measures.
The whole thing is detailed, and pretty devastating. Interestingly enough, two of the bigger slackers in terms of number of opinions written and average length of time to produce them are up for election this year - Justices Dale Wainwright and Phil Johnson. And finally, as noted by Wayne Slater, there's a common thread here:
Remember Bob and Jane Cull and their 10-year battle with Houston homebuilder Bob Perry over their problem-plagued home? Of course you don't. Apparently, the Texas Supreme Court doesn't either.The retirement-age couple from Mansfield took their case to the Supreme Court a year ago, arguing that Perry Homes has refused to pay for defects -- even though the Culls followed the rules and won an $800,000 arbiter's judgment. Perry wants the high court to reverse a string of rulings and force the Culls to start all over.
The case has focused attention on how construction disputes can last for years without resolution and raised questions about possible influence of big-dollar campaign contributions. Bob Perry is the biggest campaign contributor in Texas. He has given money to every member of the Texas Supreme Court, which now sits in judgment on the Cull case.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Read the report for all the details.
The On the Spot Blog gives the second and third entries in its three-part series of what's going on with the Archstone Memorial Heights apartments that are scheduled to meet their doom shortly, to be replaced by something swankier. (Part one is here.) It looks like we can expect some demolition action soon:
Now that the tenants have moved out of the space, some obvious activity is taking place inside the buildings by the maintenance personnel. Interior doors, window blinds and other lightweight items are being moved from the buildings. As far as I can tell, no major interior demolition has begun (no dumpsters for demolition debris is yet on site).I suspect that we will see the activity ramp up in early April, and the buildings gone and the ground cleared by May. I will continue to watch SwampLot's daily demolition reports for clues as to when the heavy machines will be coming to take it down.
I'll have a good view of this as it happens, since I drive past it nearly every day. I haven't heard any updates yet regarding the proposed Court Street abandonment, or if Archstone Memorial has listened to the feedback from Super Neighborhood 22 regarding the orientation of its street-level retail in the new development. I'll let you know when I do. Thanks to Swamplot for the catch.
This feels like a reach to me, but I suppose you never know.
The Republican Party of Texas is calling for an investigation into a December fundraiser for Rep. Hubert Vo hosted by a supporter who may be more used to scrutiny from the fashion police.The GOP is questioning the fundraiser at a trendy Rice Village boutique owned by Chloe Dao, winner of the 2006 Project Runway designer competition on the Bravo TV channel.
The Republican Party Wednesday said the fundraiser amounted to an illegal corporate campaign contribution, and asked the district attorney's public integrity unit and the Texas Ethics Commission to investigate.
The GOP wants to know whether it was legal for the campaign to offer "special discounts" on Lot 8 merchandise to event attendees, who paid $50 to $1,000 for the Dec. 13 event.
Vo, the first Vietnamese-American elected to the Texas Legislature, will face Republican Greg Meyers, a Houston school board member, in November.
GOP political director Hans Klinger said Vo failed to report costs associated with the fundraising event as an in-kind contribution.
Vo did not return a call to his cell phone. His campaign manager, Karen Loper, said in an e-mailed statement that Vo paid for the event.
"No in-kind contribution was made, none was reported, and our campaign report is true and accurate," she said.
I suppose I should be happy that the Republican Party of Texas has come to recognize the pernicious effects of corporate campaign donations. That's quite a change in attitude on their part from 2002, when TAB and TRMPAC were "blowing the doors off" the election that year. It's also kind of amusing to see a small business like this be classified as a "corporation", as if it were somehow in the same class as Sears, Williams Energy, or Bacardi USA. But we'll leave that for the lawyers to sort out.
Lot 8 provided the store and ice, but Vo brought in the food and wine, Sydney Dao said. She said most in the crowd of about 30 to 40 were men, and while several brought their daughters, there was little shopping.Sydney Dao said no one has redeemed the discounts listed on the invitation, which offered a free T-shirt with purchase of $100, 20 percent off Chloe Dao's shoes and handbags and 20 percent off at the salon.
Doesn't quite have the same cachet as getting shaken down for $25 grand by Tom DeLay does it? I'll be surprised if this goes anywhere.
UPDATE: Miya has a great take on this.
Earlier this week, Commissioners Court voted to review all the real estate deals they made with a couple of guys who are now caught up in a federal bribery investigation.
The Commissioners Court voted Tuesday to review all of Harris County's lease-purchase contracts for building space, including three linked to indicted developers Andrew Schatte and Michael Surface.The county's management services office, overseen by director Dick Raycraft, will look at whether the county should exercise an option on the deals with Schatte and Surface to buy the buildings rather than continue leasing them.
County Judge Ed Emmett said the deals with Schatte and Surface's development company, Keystone Group, raise the question of whether the developers submitted winning bids because they learned of the county's needs from employees before bids were sought.
Keystone and the county reached deals on a two-part complex on Murworth Drive near Reliant Park and an annex on Old Spanish Trail.
Emmett said he assumed the FBI has made the county's lease-purchase deals part of its probe of Keystone Group.
[...]
The county will review the lease-purchase contracts even though several county officials, including Emmett, have said the agreements appear to be good deals for the county.
Emmett said the county must look at whether the deals were fair and ethical.
"Everybody should have ample access to the process," he said.
Some background on the probe and the players involved is here and here. Sure seems like this is a no-brainer to do, but is it enough?
Court members on Tuesday initially were to decide whether the county would review the $36 million Murworth Drive deals.But Commissioner Sylvia Garcia said she wanted all lease-option deals examined because the county should not cherry-pick the ones to be scrutinized.
"Let's look at all the lease purchases in any of our departments, in any of our entities," she said.
Of the leases with Keystone, Emmett said, "Most of these deals go back 10 years. Just on the face of it, there is nothing that indicates that they go out of market boundaries."
But how do you know till you look? And given the potential for embarrassment (not to mention conflict of interest) for the county, perhaps we need an outsider to look at this. David Mincberg thinks so. Here's his press release on the subject:
On Thursday, David Mincberg called for an immediate, independent, outside investigation of all Harris County's real estate deals over the last decade. With more revelations involving former County employee Michael Surface and his business partner Andrew Schatte coming out every day there is a need for an outside analysis of every deal the County made over the last decade."The County must change the way it does business. The leadership of Harris County can no longer sweep these problems under the rug by calling for internal investigations. Sweetheart, no-bid contracts, special interest backroom deals must end. Harris County needs an independent investigation to clean up our County."
According to the Chronicle, since 1997, Harris County officials have approved at least eight projects, worth more than $60 million, involving Surface and Schatte. Surface and Schatte were part of an elite group of insiders who participated in most of the county's real estate deals over the last decade.
"Harris County taxpayers deserve a judge who takes his job seriously. I'm not a career politician. I'm a successful businessman who knows how to run things honestly and efficiently. At a time when Harris County government is facing political scandals, indictments, ethics violations, and resignations in disgrace, the last thing we should be doing is looking to those who created the problems to now investigate their own mess."
In case you're curious, this would mean that the November election season is officially underway. I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to call for, and I look forward to Judge Emmett's response.
The lawyer who asked a federal judge to pay his legal team $4.4 million this week for representing two brothers in a civil rights case settled this month wants $132,000 more for past and potential legal work on the related Rosenthal contempt case.Lloyd Kelley filed the request Wednesday asking U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt to approve $31,625 for work performed by him, another lawyer and legal assistants on the dimension of the lawsuit that led to Rosenthal's resignation.
Wednesday's request also notes that county commissioners approved $227,000 to cover legal fees for the defense of Rosenthal and others.
And compared to that, this is a mere trifle. Well, there's still the other fee request the story mentioned, but that's totally separate. Any lawyers out there want to comment on the reasonableness of these numbers? Thanks.
Another skirmish in the battle over wind farms on the Kenedy Ranch.
The legal battle over two large and controversial wind energy projects on the South Texas coast escalated Tuesday when the Coastal Habitat Alliance asked a federal judge in Austin to halt construction.Citing the threat of irreparable environmental harm, lawyers for the alliance, a loose coalition of opponents to the massive projects, asked U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel to issue a preliminary injunction against the developers.
"The wind farms threaten a particularly precious, vulnerable area surrounding the Laguna Madre," reads the motion. "If (construction) is allowed to continue, this will cause one of the most serious environmental disasters ever to occur on the Texas Coast."
The group's 10 members include the King Ranch, the American Bird Conservancy, the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation and the Coastal Bend Audubon Society.
Its lawyer, Jim Blackburn, said another motion seeking swifter action likely will follow.
"Essentially, we are filing this to get it on the record, and I expect we'll come back and file for a temporary restraining order later this week, asking for an immediate hearing to stop everything," he said.
They're going to need quick action, because work is set to begin soon. I still want to see this project go forward. I think we have a real need for energy alternatives, and the more leadership Texas shows in developing wind energy, the better. I do have some concerns about the impact on birds, but I'm not sure we know any more now about what is likely to happen than we did when the CHA first started to push back.
That Caller story notes that the CHA's state lawsuit was dismissed; the federal suit is still ongoing. I missed the news about that and can't find any stories now. Guess the CHA took me off their press release list - I didn't get anything from them about this story, either. Alas.
A lawyer for Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick reversed himself Tuesday, saying the Midland Republican specified that he wanted his $250,000 donation to a political committee to go to several House Democrats who supported him.When Travis County prosecutors began investigating the donations last month, Austin lawyer Roy Minton denied that Craddick had directed how the donation to the committee, Texas Jobs & Opportunity Build a Secure Future, should be spent.
On Tuesday, Minton said Christi Craddick, the speaker's daughter, who runs his political operation, wrote the Texas Jobs committee a letter in January asking it to give $50,000 each to four Democratic incumbents who had opponents in the March 4 primaries.
"Of course, they were happy to do it," Minton said. "Tom knew everything that was going on."
Minton said that his remarks last month were his mistake and that he had turned Christi Craddick's letter over to prosecutors as part of a package of records that had been subpoenaed.
Here's some info on the criminal complaint that TPJ filed last month. You may recall that there has also been a lawsuit filed to overturn the Speaker's race statute.
Austin lawyer Buck Wood said the speaker's statute, which he helped write in the 1970s, is being misconstrued in some quarters.He said the law doesn't prohibit a lawmaker -- even a speaker candidate -- from donating to a colleague's campaign. But he said a jury would have to weigh the facts of each case to determine whether the donations were intended to aid or defeat a speaker's candidate.
He said it would be difficult to convince a jury that a member giving $1,000 was influencing the speaker's election.
In Craddick's instance, Wood said, "It's the totality of the circumstances."
The Texas Jobs political committee had been mostly dormant throughout 2007 before it was renamed and revitalized this winter with the $250,000 from Craddick's campaign account. The size of the donations, plus whether Craddick directed where the money should go, also would be considered, Wood said.
Minton disagreed with Wood, saying there is no prohibition in the law against a donor asking a committee to send the money to a certain candidate.
"He's letting his liberal politics get in the way of what the law is," Minton said.
That sounds like a fact for a jury to decide. Assuming this gets that far, of course.
No, not that OJ. This is about former Rice linebacker OJ Brigance, who had an outstanding career in the Canadian Football League before coming to the NFL and winning a Super Bowl with the Baltimore Ravens, and who was recently diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease.
The body that allowed Brigance to compete at football's highest level is betraying him.Brigance needs to be driven to work because he can't lift his arms. He needs to sit on the bed to put on his pants because he loses his balance. And he needs his wife to button his shirt because he doesn't have the same dexterity with his hands.
"I can see where you can fold up the tent," said Brigance, the Ravens' director of player development. "To be totally honest, I'm not always upbeat. It's tough. But I've always believed that we're able to overcome more than what we think."
Brigance will be honored tomorrow at the Ed Block Courage Awards, receiving the Johnny Unitas Tops in Courage Award for battling the disease with the same willpower he used to fight his way into the NFL. In 1996, he was rejected by 28 of 30 NFL teams when he called for a tryout, but ultimately had a seven-year career.
About 5,600 people in the United States are diagnosed with ALS each year, a disease that generally paralyzes muscles and the lungs, often causing suffocation, but doesn't impair the brain or any of the senses. There is no known cure, and most die within five years of being diagnosed.
Brigance could have chosen to walk away from his job and handle his ordeal privately. A former special teams standout who prided himself on outworking current Ravens in the weight room, Brigance knows he is a shadow of the overachieving player who played on winning teams in the 2001 Super Bowl and the Canadian Football League's 1995 Grey Cup in Baltimore.
His rippled muscles have disintegrated and his arms sag to the side of his body. His fingers can no longer wrap around a football, much less give a firm handshake.
But Brigance has dedicated himself to be a guiding hand to the Ravens' players, preaching to them that adversity makes you stronger.
"No one has beaten this thing, but I am going to be the one who does," Brigance told the players before the season began. "They're going to find a cure."
If anyone can do this, he can. My very best wishes to OJ Brigance and his family as they face this great challenge. More information, and a way you can help, is on the Rice Owls fan forum.
The city of El Paso joins the resistance to the border fence.
The country's largest border city has decided to block efforts by federal authorities to use an access road that cuts across city property to work on existing border fencing.The El Paso City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to block the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque district, from using the access road.
The vote, which City Councilman Steve Ortega described as "symbolic," is the latest salvo by cities and property owners opposed to plans to build several hundred miles of new fencing in Texas.
"They haven't made a case of why we need a new fence," City Councilwoman Susie Byrd said after the vote.
Byrd said she was most concerned by what she described as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's lack of cooperation with local communities.
"The first time we've heard from them was today," Byrd said.
The most likely outcome from this is to be sued by the feds, as they have done with other landowners who have refused to grant access for the fence.
You know what I think is the most amazing thing about the Rockets' just-stopped 22-game winning streak? After all that, and after they moved up to the number one seed in the West, they're still only six games ahead of the Denver Nuggets, who are in ninth place in the West and thus on the outside of the playoff picture. The Western Conference is pretty damn deep. And with their killer schedule remaining, now is not the time to slack off. How about starting another winning streak tonight, fellas? Go Rockets!
Lloyd Kelley, the Houston lawyer who won a $1.7 million civil rights settlement for two brothers who took photos of a 2002 drug raid, has asked a federal judge for $4.4 million in attorney's fees.Harris County leaders voted two weeks ago to pay Sean and Erik Ibarra to get out of the four-year-old case. The settlement calls for the county to hand over the money by early April, or as soon as practical -- and to pay all attorney's fees, costs and expense related to the case.
The Ibarras will not share their lump-sum payout with Kelley, who must get his fees approved by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt.
The brothers initially sought $5 million in damages.
In a lengthy fee application filed Monday, Kelley argues that the county fought an "indefensible" case, by its own expert's 2005 admission, that turned into a landmark blow to the county's legal defense tactics.
Harris County has 15 days to respond to Kelley's filing.
County Attorney Mike Stafford said he expects the county to question Kelley's basis for the fee and dispute many of his other assertions.
His application asks the court to double the $2.2 million in standard fees under a multiplier that accounts for a case's complexity and riskiness. Lawyer compensation in civil rights claims can be enhanced for those factors and because the lawyers who accept such cases often spend thousands up front. Kelley said he personally invested $130,000 because his clients were poor.
The $2.2 million includes: $2 million for Kelley's work, $86,000 for a legal assistant and $54,000 for the help of Houston lawyer Benjamin Hall.
Stafford said he doesn't think Kelley is entitled to the multiplier.
Well of course he doesn't. I actually don't think this is terribly unreasonable given the nature of the case and Kelly's investment in it, though I have no idea what Judge Hoyt will think. On the face of it, the fee request doesn't strike me as being way out of line.
Kelley's request also mentioned that for the past four years, he and a legal assistant, for the most part, have been fighting the county's vast resources. He alleged Tuesday that the county overstaffed the case by using up to 15 lawyers at a time to defend those targeted by the Ibarras' lawsuit."If the government is willing to pay for 15 lawyers, then how much should they be required to pay at the end of the day when they've lost?" Kelley said. "In the last decade, courts have been very punitive about frivolous lawsuits, and they should be equally punitive about frivolous defenses."
[...]
The Ibarras' lawsuit is a historic civil case in which an appeals court, for the first time, denied the Harris County sheriff qualified immunity -- which often shields government officials from being sued when carrying out their duties -- and declared that the actions of county employees violated the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional right that guards against unreasonable search and seizure. Kelley said most of the Ibarras' legal fees were racked up during appeals.
The county settled the lawsuit to "avoid the possibility of a historic multimillion-dollar verdict," Kelley wrote in his request.
He added that $4 million in attorney's fees would deter the county from fighting other legitimate civil rights claims.
"If everything was the way Lloyd Kelley describes it in his motion, there never would have been a trial. A jury was called upon to resolve disputed fact issues," Stafford said. "Neither side won on the issues, but obviously, Lloyd Kelley won on the money."
Again, what Kelly says strikes me as more reasonable than not. I kind of like the idea of the fee as a form of punitive damages. Stafford is doing his best on the PR front, but I think he'll have to come up with a little more than that to impress the judge. I will be very curious to see how this comes out.
Grits reminds me about this wire story from a couple of days ago regarding a case now before the Supreme Court about when the right to an attorney first applies.
Three weeks after Walter Rothgery arrived from Arizona to manage an RV park in the Texas Hill Country, the work offer evaporated. He lost not only his job but the place at the park where he and his wife were to live.Then things got ugly.
The next day, Rothgery was arrested for carrying a gun as a convicted felon, based on a background check that erroneously showed a felony drug conviction in California. His wife used their last $500 to post bail. No lawyer was provided at his initial hearing.
"I grew up kind of being an idealist American" said Rothgery, 57, and a former West Point cadet. "I never thought something like this could happen to me."
Now he will argue before the Supreme Court on Monday that Texas should provide a defense lawyer for indigent clients once they've made a first appearance before a magistrate. Had Rothgery had one, the erroneous report of a previous conviction would have been disproven, eliminating the reason he was arrested in the first place.
Rothgery waived his right to have a lawyer at that first jailhouse court appearance, but said he did only for that appearance so bond could be set and he could be released.
Rothgery spent the next six months in legal limbo: unable to get a full-time job because of the report of a conviction hanging over him and unable to afford a lawyer. He was indicted, re-arrested, had his bail tripled and moved to a county jail more than 100 miles from his home.
A sympathetic warden there helped him find a lawyer, who obtained documentation proving he had no felony record.
Three weeks later, Rothgery was released again on bail, and Gillespie County prosecutors ultimately dropped the charge. He was a free man.
"I guess everybody who gets arrested says they're innocent," Rothgery said. "Sometimes they are."
Rothgery's case caught the attention of Andrea Marsh, a rookie civil liberties lawyer who filed the first lawsuit of her career on his behalf against the county in 2004 alleging his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney was violated.
If a lawyer had been appointed, the mistake underlying his arrest would have been discovered and he wouldn't have been subjected to bond for a lengthy period and wrongfully jailed, she argued.
"I always thought once you ask for a lawyer you get a lawyer," Rothgery said.
Not necessarily so, according to Texas legal procedures upheld by a federal judge who summarily dismissed Rothgery's case. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
The Supreme Court was to hear arguments Monday in Rothgery's suit, with his attorneys insisting the procedure followed by Gillespie County allows defendants to be jailed for long periods without any access to counsel, a situation inconsistent with Sixth Amendment protections.
Can you imagine sitting in jail for three weeks because you didn't have a lawyer who could point out the simple fact that you shouldn't have been arrested in the first place? It's appalling. If nothing else, remember William Rothgery's name the next time you hear someone say we need more jail space in Harris County to hold all those people who can't make bail while they're waiting for their trials. How many tax dollars were spent to keep this poor guy behind bars?
Grits discusses the prosecutors' reactions to this lawsuit:
On the prosecutors' association user forum in December, one of their lobbyists, Shannon Edmonds, lamented that if SCOTUS restricts the ability to hold defendants in jail without appointing a lawyer, it may result in "fewer valid confessions." Moreover, he said, if SCOTUS requires appointment of counsel earlier in the process, "counties will squeal about the costs, leading to a statewide push for the creation of more local public defender offices."More public defender offices, if you ask me, would be a good outcome from this case, if Edmonds' prediction holds true. If Rothgery wins, depending on the contents of the opinion, counties can "squeal" all they want but they still have to pay.
As for fewer confessions, though, let's interrogate this assertion for a second. Why would more people confess under the current system? Because they don't have a lawyer's advice! That certainly won't be an argument SCOTUS accepts (I would hope) for delaying appointment of an attorney. The other reason failing to appoint a lawyer would boost confessions is when the defendant sitting in jail and that's the quickest option to get out - particularly on lower level charges where probation or a short jail sentence is the most likely outcome. But "lock 'em up without a lawyer till they confess" isn't what the American justice system should be about, is it?
I love that they claim to be concerned about costs here. Which do you think would have been cheaper: Paying an attorney to get the charges against William Rothgery dropped immediately, or paying to house and feed him for three weeks? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Grits also has a summary of the oral arguments, which thankfully make it look like Rothgery will prevail. I've seen some pretty weak defenses before, but Gillespie County looks especially pathetic here. Check it out, and check out some of the related commentary links he found; these two from Orin Kerr are particularly interesting.
Dr. Murray takes a look at the GOP primary results in Harris County, beginning with County Judge Ed Emmett's successful defense against Charles Bacarisse.
The first point to note is that while the 170,000 voter turnout in Harris County's Republican Primary was about a third of that on the Democratic side, this was still a record vote for the party. Most of this turnout, Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman notes, was driven by interest in local elections, as opposed to the presidential race on the Democratic side. The top local Republican races were for the nominations for Harris County Judge and District Attorney. Today, let's look at the first contest, where appointed incumbent Ed Emmett beat back a decidedly negative campaign by former County Clerk of Court Charles Bacarisse, winning the Republican nomination against Democrat David Mincberg in the November General Election. My personal take on this race is that Emmett's success reflected five factors:(1) The relatively heavy Republican turnout diluted the social conservative vote Bacarisse had counted on, to Judge Emmett's benefit.
(2) Ed Emmett, enjoying the support of popular former Judge Robert Eckels and the two Republican County Commissioners, all of whom had voted for him last year to replace Mr. Eckels, had most of the county Republican establishment behind him in this race.
(3) That larger base of support enabled Judge Emmett to out-raise and out-spend Mr. Bacarisse and dominate television advertising down the stretch when local Republican voters were focusing in on the contest.
(4) And, the County Judge's ads were clever (especially with his two vacation-seeking daughters) and positive (note the Robert Eckels spot), qualities one would not use to describe his opponent's tv spots.
(5) Finally, as a recent appointee, Ed Emmett could present himself to Republican voters as a credible reformer not tied to recent scandals at the county courthouse. Facing a tough General Election environment with Democrats running against every county wide elected official on the ballot (no Democrats have won an at-large race in Harris County since 1994), the Judge looked like the best bet to hold the office (and a majority on Commissioners Court) in November 4, 2008.
I'm always a bit leery about giving credit to "Republican moderates" for a candidate's primary win. The Harris County GOP has been unabashedly conservative since the Steven Hotze/Gary Polland faction forced Betsy Lake out as Chair in the early 90s. They've promoted their brand as conservative, they've put forth conservative candidates, and they've been pretty successful at it for a long time. It's hard to imagine the primary electorate turning on a dime like that.
Having said that, I do think it's fair to conclude that the high turnout benefited Emmett. I know Bacarisse had a poll in the field in February that showed him leading the race; by ten points, as I recall. How could that have been so far wrong? One explanation for that is a bad assumption about the makeup of the electorate. If Bacarisse's poll was defining "likely voters" as the more hardcore triple-R types, that might have skewed things in his favor. I'm just guessing here - I only heard about this poll, I never saw it, so I could certainly be wrong about its sample and methodology.
Frankly, I think the biggest effect in Emmett's favor was that he had higher name recognition than Bacarisse. I think Bacarisse did make the assumption that this was going to be a lower-turnout election, which would be won by whoever whipped up the faithful more, and that simply wasn't the case. Enough people were interested in the two big local races on the GOP ballot - and that's not counting the high-profile races that only covered part of Harris County, like HD130 and CD22 - to make it a fairly high-turnout affair, and I think more of those people were familiar with Emmett, who was on TV more and was speaking to a broader audience more than Bacarisse.
But here's the thing. I think Emmett did pretty well among the conservative voters, too. I say this because farther down on the ballot, there were two primaries that were about conservative activists aiming to oust insufficiently ideological incumbents, and in those races they succeeded. I'm speaking about the HCDE Board of Trustees, where Michael Wolfe extracted his vengeance on two of his fellow members by getting his hand-picked challengers (Mike Riddle and Stan Stanart) elected in their place. You'd think if Bacarisse was sweeping up the conservative vote in the GOP primary, the precincts where he did well would correlate with where Riddle and Stanart did best. But that's not the case. I went through the canvass data, separated out the precincts where Bacarisse won at least 50% of the vote, and those where he got less, and looked at how Riddle and Stanart did in those same precincts. Here's what I found:
Bacarisse 10977 Bacarisse 50677
Emmett 8782 Emmett 69089
Undervote 3763 Undervote 27571
Bac Pct 55.6 Bac Pct 42.3
Turnout % 84.0 Turnout % 81.3
Riddle 8686 Riddle 58776
Peterson 6021 Peterson 38597
Undervote 8815 Undervote 49964
Riddle % 59.1 Riddle % 60.4
Turnout % 62.5 Turnout % 66.1
Stanart 9934 Stanart 68469
Garcia 4908 Garcia 28753
Undervote 8680 Undervote 50113
Stan % 66.9 Stan % 70.4
Turnout % 63.1 Turnout % 66.0
The numbers on the left represent the 213 precincts in which Bacarisse got 50% or more of the vote; the numbers on the right are the remaining 600+ precincts. As you can see, Riddle and Stanart actually did a little better in the precincts that Ed Emmett won. What that suggests to me is that there wasn't a conservative surge for Bacarisse that was overwhelmed by a bigger wave of less ideological voters. It suggests that Bacarisse and Emmett both had support from conservative voters. Which in turn suggests that perhaps even the more partisan Republicans realize that just having the R next to their candidates' names this year isn't going to be enough to win, so they'd better put their best candidate on the ballot instead of just the most conservative one. At least, it suggests that for the higher-profile race. Farther down the ballot, where the races will be mostly under the radar, it was okay to go for the fellow traveler and hope for the best.
This totally flew under the radar last week - I only heard about the Planning Commission's vote the day it happened when this story appeared in the This Week section of the Chron - but the decision to deny a variance to subdivide a lot beyond the minimum 3000 square foot requirement is a big deal.
The vote to deny Jared Meadors of Medusa Properties' request for his property at 2601 Baylor St. to be exempted from East Sunset Heights' ordinance mandating 3,000-foot minimum lot sizes came March 13in a standing-room-only meeting at the Houston City Hall Annex, 900 Bagby.With one abstention and virtually no opposition from commissioners, the vote reflected the recommendation of the Houston Planning and Development Department.
It followed two previous public hearings on the matter since Feb. 14 and the testimony of residents from East Sunset Heights and other neighborhoods with similar ordinances.
Meadors, who bought the property in August 2006, had sought to re-plat his 5,880-square-foot property into three lots rather than two. He had requested the variance based on money his company had spent, in part to conduct exploratory demolition on a small portion of a former post office built on the site in the 1920s.
He also claimed that he wasn't informed of the lot size ordinance filed by Sunset Heights residents Sept. 26, 2006, and adopted by Houston City Council in October 2007.
[...]
Vicki Davis, the primary East Sunset Heights resident who drove the community's effort for the lot size ordinance, said the commission's decision was received by a grateful community.
It also sets precedence, she said, marking the first time an attempt was made to seek a variance after a prevailing lot size ordinance was in place.
"It was positive to see the neighborhood come together and work hard to fight this, and we are grateful for all the help we received from outside the neighborhood. People from all over the city were watching this," Davis said. "This was our battle, but in the end, it was a much bigger fight than this corner in East Sunset Heights."
As you may recall, previous attempts to enforce a minimum lot size ordinance didn't go so well, which led to a different approach last year. I'm glad to see that this time the outcome was what the neighborhood expected. Inside Central Houston has more.
The last appeal (in federal court, anyway) by the local sexually oriented businesses over the city's ability to enforce the 1997 anti-SOB ordinance has come to an end for the clubs.
The city's long fight to regulate sexually oriented businesses finally may be over, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal by 11 strip clubs in Houston.The move affirms the constitutionality of the city's ordinance, city lawyers said.
"We hope owners of these businesses will now comply with the law," Mayor Bill White said. "People in the neighborhoods have been telling us for a long time they want this kind of enforcement."
The clubs appealed a provision that barred the businesses from being within 1,500 feet of any school, day care center, church or park. Other parts of the city's law, such as a requirement that dancers stay three feet away from clients, already have been upheld by the federal courts.
"Obviously, we're very pleased," said Don Cheatham, a senior assistant city attorney. "We hope that this is the end of a long and costly litigation"
The city has spent more than $1.2 million defending the ordinance.
The appeal was filed by attorneys representing the Colorado Bar & Grill and The Men's Club, and at least five other large businesses helped in the effort, including the Ritz Cabaret, Treasures, Trophy Club, Gold Cup and Centerfolds. Several other businesses, including some bookstores, also joined in the appeal.
[...]
The topless bars appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the city won last August in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Then, the city was able to prove that even if sexually oriented businesses had to move, they still could stay within Houston, according to the lead attorney in the case, Patrick Andrew Zummo.
"We put on evidence that there were hundreds of locations where these businesses could move," Zummo said.
The businesses also have to be at least 1,000 feet away from each other.
The Houston Police Department has not been enforcing the distance requirement, but will begin soon, said Capt. Glenn Yorek, of the vice squad.
"We will be huddling up with the City Attorney's Office and make some sort of plan how to proceed," Yorek said.
[...]
The city remains involved in a lawsuit in state district courts with the 11 clubs that appealed to the Supreme Court. That suit involves "amortization," or the amount of time the owners should get to recoup their investments before having to close or relocate.
That trial is scheduled for April 21. Zummo said he is confident the city will prevail and get those businesses to move.
"We don't see any conceivable way that someone has not recovered their investments since 1997," he said.
Makes you wonder what might have happened had the clubs decided to move instead of fight in 1997. Not that I blame them for trying - I still think they've been screwed by the ordinance - but the path they chose was clearly a loser. We'll see if they get any relief from the state courts now.
Whatever the next step in the Ashby highrise fight is going to be, get ready for it.
The developers of the controversial Ashby high-rise said Monday they are moving forward with their long-delayed permit applications because city officials haven't responded to their compromise offer to build a smaller development.The decision by developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners revives their original 23-story project that has been on hold since November, when the developers agreed to delay seeking permits after an outcry from surrounding neighborhoods led to discussions of new development regulations at City Hall.
Morgan and Kirton said their revised proposal calls for a 22-story building with a smaller footprint and fewer residential units -- changes they said would eliminate any possibility the project would cause unacceptable traffic congestion.
The developers said they submitted this idea to city officials three weeks ago but had received no reply.
"We feel as if we have no choice but to move forward," Morgan said, adding that he and Kirton had instructed a consultant to begin walking the original permit applications through the city's review process.
[...]
Under the latest proposal, Morgan and Kirton said their building would be almost as tall as originally planned but significantly narrower, with a small park on one corner of the property, landscaping and other measures intended to provide a buffer between the building and surrounding single-family neighborhoods.
A document outlining the proposal, however, shows the offer is contingent on significant financial concessions by the city: An immediate refund of about $500,000 for new sewer lines the developers installed to serve the project, along with a payment to the developers of up to $2.15 million, over as long as 10 years, from revenue generated by increased tax values on the site.
Neighborhood leaders said the city would never agree to these payments, which casts doubt on the sincerity of the developers' offer.
"This is a charade," said Ron Kahanek, the president-elect of the Boulevard Oaks Civic Association, a neighborhood just north of the project site at 1717 Bissonnet at Ashby.
That doesn't sound like a sincere offer to me, either. Which suggests that Morgan and Kirton feel very comfortable that there was never any real chance the city could stop them. Hard to blame them for their confidence, I suppose.
Andy Icken, a deputy city public works director, said the pending permit applications for the project would be reviewed under a decades-old driveway ordinance that the city is now applying to certain high-density development projects. These reviews typically take 11 days, Icken said.Mayor Bill White has said repeatedly that the project, as originally proposed, would cause an unacceptable increase in traffic congestion. It is uncertain, however, what changes the city would require under the driveway ordinance.
[...]
The dispute over the Ashby project has led to renewed discussions about how the city can encourage denser development in its core while protecting the character of older neighborhoods where detached single-family housing predominates.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you can't deal with a problem of scale by tweaking traffic regulations. Updating the form-based codes is the way to go. Which was unfortunately never going to be doable in time to help the anti-Ashby folks, but could be in place to deal with the next Ashby, if we get started now. Have we resigned ourselves to this yet so we can get something done? It'd be nice.
Elise Hu had it first, and Postcards has the details about Rick Reed endorsing Mindy Montford in the runoff for Travis County DA.
In a not-so-surprising move, former Travis County district attorney candidate Rick Reed, who finished fourth in the March 4 Democratic primary, said Monday that he supports former foe Mindy Montford in the April runoff.During the run-up to the March 4 vote, Reed several times attacked the judgment of Montford's runoff opponent-- First Assistant District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg.
Lehmberg, who last week won the support of the race's third-place finisher, Gary Cobb, has said she didn't seek Reed's support. Montford did and will announce his endorsement at a press conference today, she said.
Montford also said she has earned the endorsements of Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton and Austin Community College Trustee John Hernandez. Hamilton could not be immediately reached. Hernandez is scheduled to be at today's press conference.
Reed said Montford is "more apt to consider new ideas and try new things." Montford also might be more apt to hire Reed, who has worked as a prosecutor in Dallas and Travis counties for 21 years.
One for Lehmberg, one for Montford. Seems fair. I'm still rooting for Lehmberg, however.
Meanwhile, BOR makes an endorsement as well:
On April 8, Texas Democrats voting in the runoff election have an easy choice to make in the only statewide runoff race on the ballot for Texas Railroad Commission.The clear choice in this race is Dale Henry (D-Lampasas).
Dale Henry is not only the candidate who is most qualified for this position, but the candidate who gives Democrats the best chance for unseating incumbent Michael L. Williams in November.
In case I haven't made myself clear, I endorse Dale Henry as well. Mark Thompson seems like a nice enough guy, but he's pretty clueless about this job, and we don't need that. Dale Henry is far and away the better candidate, and I'll be voting for him in the runoff. I'm guessing we'll see turnout in the 200,000 - 250,000 range statewide for this runoff, so your vote here will make a difference. Let's pick the right candidate and go into November with the best lineup we can get.
Short notice, but if you haven't had a chance to meet Michael Skelly, the man who's giving local Republicans a case of the blues, there's an event for him tonight at 3rd Bar @ Reef, 2600 Travis in Midtown - here's a Google map for you. The event is from 5:30 to 7 PM, and a copy of the official invitation is here (PDF). Skelly's an exciting candidate with a great story to tell, and if you haven't met him yet, you're missing out.
The proposed ban by the city of West University Place on cellphone use in school zones that we heard about last week gets some more coverage in the Chron.
Houston-area officials are watching West University Place as elected officials there consider banning cell phones in the school zone near the community's lone elementary campus.The move would put the affluent suburb on the map as the first Houston-area municipality to take a stand against drivers talking on their phones as children travel to and from school. The community is following in the footsteps of Dallas and several North Texas suburbs that have recently approved bans.
"We'll be watching with interest to see what happens," said Linda Clarke, director of education and special projects for Houston Mayor Bill White. "We'll certainly be looking and wanting to know more about it."
It won't surprise me at all if Houston follows West U's lead on this. It's hard to argue against this kind of ordinance, and if someone else is willing to do the shakedown cruise for you, why not consider it? I give it six months, tops, if West U adopts this.
West University proposed the ban earlier this month after conducting a study to determine how often drivers were spotted chatting on their cell phones in active school zones. Over three weeks in February, police counted 297 drivers on their phones.Six of the drivers violated traffic laws by creeping into intersections while children and crossing guards were present, West University police Lt. Thad Olive said.
Although neither Olive nor HISD police officials could recount an incident when a child was seriously injured in a school zone because of a driver on a cell phone, they said this type of ordinance could prevent tragedy.
"There's been a lot of near misses," Olive said. "It definitely has distracting effects. If I can take one element of risk away from the children in that school zone, then it's a good thing."
I said before that I didn't think West U's numbers were all that eye-opening. The previous report said there were 48 violations, of which six were by cellphone-wielders. That may sound more impressive to you than it did to me, but six violations out of 297 drivers sure does sound puny. Again, I don't think this argues against adopting the ban - it really is a small thing to ask to make a potentially deadly situation even a bit less likely - I'm just saying I don't expect the ordinance to have much impact.
Oh, and what exactly does "creeping into the intersection" mean, at least in terms of moving violations? I seem to recall in Driver's Ed that one was taught to stop at the stop line, then move forward as needed to verify that it was clear to proceed. Am I misinterpreting the law, or are we really talking about roll-stopping here? Just curious.
I think the fact that this story about where Tom DeLay is now is front-page material is proof that we're in a slow news cycle. I mean, it's always nice to be re-acquainted with old friends and all, but there really wasn't much to the story substance-wise. Once you get past the usual DeLay bluster and the back and forth between his adversaries and his former staffers over his relevance, the main bit of news in the story appears to be this:
DeLay also co-founded a new conservative grass-roots organization last year, which he hopes can come to rival the influence of liberal groups like MoveOn.org. His group, the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, DeLay told the Houston Chronicle, is "a statement of where the conservatives are."[...]
As for the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, DeLay is working with chairman Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio secretary of state, to establish chapters of conservative leaders and members in all 50 states, focusing on nine media markets including Houston.
With annual dues of $52, the organization aims to coordinate and direct a range of grass-roots action: phone and e-mail campaigns, letters to the editor, blogs, and meeting requests with members of Congress.
Housed in a brick row house about 10 blocks from the Capitol, along with DeLay's First Principles firm, according to a sign next to the door, the group employs three full-time staff members, an executive director and consultants, spokeswoman Flaherty said. She did not provide details on the board, staff or the number of paid members.
Okay, so DeLay has been working on the conservatives' answer to MoveOn for a year. They have grand plans to do stuff in all fifty states and in various media markets, including right here. They're gonna be Big Players, they're gonna Make Lots Of Noise, and they're gonna Get The Conservative Message Out There whether you like it or not.
And they won't tell us a thing about how far along they are towards accomplishing any of their goals. They won't tell us who's on their board, or even how many actual members they have. Which actually tells us quite a bit about where they are and how they're doing, I think.
Whatever. I look forward to the next update on this story in another year or so, or whenever the criminal case against DeLay finally makes it to the courtroom. Maybe they'll be willing to share some of that information by then. In the meantime, dream big, Tom.
Suffering from a touch of the Irish flu? Well, here's a little hair of the blog for you, in the form of the Texas Progressive Alliance roundup for the week. Click on (quietly) and enjoy.
The leader of McBlogger's crack legal team has an interesting take on Gov. Spitzer's premium taste in hookers.
TXsharon at Bluedaze asks if Texas Railroad Commission malpractice like this will cost you your life or only your health.
WhosPlayin looks at plagiarism by a Republican candidate for city council: John Gorena, of Lewisville who lifted quite a bit of his website from a Democratic judicial candidate.
Off the Kuff takes a look at downballot voting in the Democratic Primary in Harris County.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson shines a light on the latest Texas GOP voucher scam in HD-52, Education Matters.
Hal at Half Empty came across the latest production by the DSCC, and to his surprise and delight, found it was about (or going to be, eventually) our own senatorial candidate, Texas Democratic senatorial nominee Rick Noriega.
Good luck unemployed people of Texas. The Texas Cloverleaf exposes Governor 39%'s recent appointment of GOP idealogue and fellow blogger, Tom Pauken, as the new chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission.
CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme shows how Republicans shaft Texas workers on behalf of their business cronies. Insurance companies are forced to reveal medical data on perspective employees and unemployment insurance premiums are cut to give companies a 'tax break'.
Vince at Capitol Annex takes a look at a number of scorecards ranking Texas' Congressional Delegation in which Texas' Republicans score big, fat "F's" when it comes to children, families, the middle class, the environment, working Americans, and more.
In "Bulletins from the front lines", PDiddie at Brains and Eggs advances some of the challenges the forthcoming Senate District conventions will face, with the expected huge turnout expected to overrun facilities and organizers.
nytexan at BlueBloggin looks at the different delegate counts provided by the media and asks So You Think You Know The Delegate Count.
Fake Consultant takes a shot at predicting a perfect VP for Obama at Texas Kaos.
If you believe Joel Kotkin. He makes a pretty convincing argument in his recent article in The American. He gives the jobs and diversity one-two punch (must have been listening to some of Mayor White's speeches), and thumbs his nose at new urbanism and "superstar cities." The part that hit me hardest comes toward the end of the article:
Another of Houston's advantages is its history of tolerance. In the antebellum period, Houston was home to a large proportion of Texas's "free people of color." For decades after the Civil War, blacks certainly suffered the indignities of segregation, but Houston largely avoided the ugly desegregation battles of the 1950s and '60s (for one reason, business elites realized that such conflict would be bad for economic growth). Perhaps nothing better reflects Houston's openness to minorities than its willingness to accommodate upwards of 150,000 poor, predominately African-American evacuees from the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina. The massive humanitarian undertaking was largely a joint effort of the city's African-American churches and its largely white evangelical congregations.In the future, Houston's culture of tolerance will no doubt be tested by the challenge of assimilating immigrants. Houston's traditional racial mix of blacks, whites, and a much smaller Hispanic population has been upended by an immigrant wave that began in earnest after the oil bust of the 1980s. Attracted by low housing prices and economic opportunities, large numbers of immigrants from Mexico, Vietnam, China, India, Nigeria, Venezuela, and other countries swarmed into the city. In the 1990s, Houston's foreign-born population soared by 94 percent--the biggest increase of any major city. Today the newcomers account for over 21 percent of the population.
Those couple paragraphs really just make me think more about what's still left for the government and individuals to do to make Houston a place where everyone succeeds. Houston has tons of success stories in every demographic, but there are still big numbers of people that are struggling here. Our diversity is a strength, but let's be careful not to take that for granted and make sure that people succeed here because of what Houston (and the county and the state) do and not in spite of what they don't.
Hat tip to Houston's Clear Thinkers. Read the post there and read Kotkin's whole article to find out why Houston is such an American dream city.
Here's an easy opportunity to help Rick Noriega earn a little money. Sen. Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots PAC has five grand burning a hole in its pocket, and he's looking for a Senate candidate to give it to. Need I say more? Just go to this link, give an email address and your state and ZIP code, and vote for Rick to be the beneficiary. I'm told the deadline for this is Monday, March 24, so go now and be sure to beat it. It's quick, painless, and very helpful. Thanks a lot!
This story is a good illustration of why bills like HB1287 should be left to languish in committee rather than get brought to the floor for passage.
Fiercely debated legislation last year to put a Bible course in public schools has landed in the hands of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for an opinion on what it means.And that's hardly a surprise, since state lawmakers couldn't agree on what the wording meant last May when they passed HB 1287, the so-called "Bible bill."
Just about everyone agrees a Bible course cannot be used to endorse, promote or disparage any faith and that the purpose of the class is to help students understand the Bible as literature.
But Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott has called on Abbott to referee one of the bill's most contentious points: Are public high schools required to offer a Bible course if at least 15 students request it?
The bill's author, Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, and Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, who carried the legislation in the Senate, emphatically contend it was intended to obligate school districts to offer the course in high schools if the 15-student threshold is met.
"If a certain number of students request it, yes, they must do it. I don't think if a group gets together and says, 'Yes, we want to do this,' the school system should have to say, 'No, you can't,' " Estes said.
Chisum also referred to a separate State Board of Education rule requiring school districts to offer courses if requested by 10 students.
But Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, an acknowledged expert on public education issues, said the mandatory provisions of the bill were removed before it passed.
"It's totally permissive," Hochberg said. "There is no course requirement. Under the rules of legislative construction, I don't know any other way to read it."
Here's the text of the bill, as enrolled. Feel free to make your own judgment.
House Public Education Chairman Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, circulated a memo last May clarifying several amendments to the bill, including one respecting local control "by giving school boards the right to decide" whether to offer the Bible course."What about 'local control' is confusing here?" said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which fought to keep the bill from being mandatory. "Chairman Eissler's memo makes it clear that the committee's amended bill left the decision to local schools to make.
"With so many priorities competing for education dollars, that would seem to make a lot of sense to most taxpayers," she continued.
That would seem pretty straightforward to me, but perhaps the people who really pushed this bill just aren't happy with that explanation. And so we'll wait six months for the Attorney General to tell us what he thinks. In the meantime, there's another issue to ponder:
Another uncertainty hovering over the Bible bill is the absence of funding for the required teacher training, estimated by the Texas Education Agency to cost $250,000 the first year, $500,000 the second year and $50,000 annually after that."Due to that lack of funding ... the agency is not developing that training," Scott said in his letter to Abbott.
Proper training for a Bible course taught in public schools is imperative, Hochberg said.
"Teaching biblical history separately from preaching the Bible requires thought and planning and knowledge, particularly in an environment where you are attempting to teach to people with very different views on religion," Hochberg said.
The notion that lawmakers did not fund the training requirement baffles Chisum, who is not only the bill's author but also chairs the House Appropriations Committee that writes the state budget.
"We may not have had it specifically named in there for that specific (purpose) because there's no way we'd know how many people were going to need training," Chisum said.
Warren Chisum of all people knows fully well that unless funding is specifically designated for a purpose, it often doesn't get used for that purpose. And given the attitude the Lege has shown towards education funding lately, is it any surprise that the TEA isn't eager to divert a quarter million bucks to this speciality training if it can avoid it? What a mess. Vince has more.
The next thing I did with the canvass data was to sort it all by State Rep district and sum up how the statewide and countywide campaigns did in each of them. Note that there were Democratic State Rep candidates in only 21 of the 25 districts - nobody is running in HDs 128, 130, 132, and 136 - so there was no easy way for me to single them out. Instead, I aggregated them; they show up as "Others" in the totals below.
I've got all the data beneath the fold, as it won't fit on the main index page screen with the sidebar present. I'll give some thoughts on the data here, then you can click on to peruse it yourself.
Reading the data left to right, the columns in the first (statewide) group are: State Rep District, Obama votes (in that district), Clinton votes (HRC), Obama percent, Clinton percent, Noriega votes (RJN), other Senate candidates' votes, Noriega percent, share of the Presidential vote (Pres %), Sam Houston votes, Baltasar Cruz votes, Houston percent, Pres %, Linda Yanez votes, Susan Criss votes, Yanez percent, Pres %.
In the second (countywide) group, the first five columns are the same, then we have: Mincberg votes, Hassan votes, Mincberg percent, Pres %, Adrian Garcia votes, other Sheriff candidates' votes, Garcia percent, Pres %, Diane Trautman votes, John Webb votes, Trautman percent, Pres %.
Some thoughts:
- Rick Noriega won a majority in 16 of the 21 state rep districts, as well as in the four undifferentiated districts. He fell short of 50% in three Republican districts (HDs 126, 127, and 150) and had his worst showing in two African-American districts, HDs 139 and 141; he did carry the other African-American districts - 131, 142, 146, and 147, garnering almost 63% in the latter. I feel pretty confident that if I were to look at the 2006 primary results, Gene Kelly would have had his best showing in the same places as he did here. I agree with Greg - people aren't mistakenly voting for "the dead dancer" - ironically enough, I'd say it was Barbara Radnofsky who put that meme into play - they're voting for a guy who's run for Senate the last four times it was up for election. As we saw in 2002 when there were three serious candidates with money and/or name recognition, Kelly gets no votes. The less information, the more likely people are to say "oh, I know that guy" and push the button for him. I think it's just that simple. And I think that in 2010 if KBH steps down, or 2012 whether she does or she doesn't, there'll be enough interest from enough Democrats with money and/or name recognition to render Kelly moot, if he's still drawing breath and paying filing fees by then.
To get back to Noriega, he unsurprisingly ran strongest in his home district 145, collecting a whopping 84% of the vote there. He topped 70% in HDs 134, 143, and 148, and 60% in 138, 140, and 147. All in all, not too bad.
- Sam Houston beat Baltasar Cruz everywhere except in the four districts that will have Hispanic representatives - HDs 140, 143, 145, and 148, where Houston got a respectable 46%. Linda Yanez, on the other hand, beat Susan Criss everywhere except HD 134, where she got 48%. I confess, I'm amazed at how thoroughly Yanez dominated Criss. I really would have thought that Criss' proximity to Harris County would have been an asset for her - and indeed, if you reverse Criss and Yanez's vote totals for Harris County, Susan Criss would be the nominee today - but it just wasn't. Maybe the Chron's endorsement carried some weight, maybe Criss wasn't so well-known here, maybe something else. I don't know the answer to that.
- If you'd asked me before the primary where I thought David Mincberg would do the best, I'd have guessed his home district, HD 134. Close, but not quite - though he got 80.47% in 134, he got 81.45% in HD 143. He also topped 80% in HDs 140 and 144, and only dipped below 72% once (71.97% in HD141). For a first-time candidate, even one as strong as Mincberg, that's an impressive showing.
- I feel confident that Adrian Garcia had the best name recognition of any candidate on the countywide ballot. He likely needed it to survive the three-way primary under these extreme turnout conditions. Garcia did well across the board, gaining a majority in every State Rep district except for 127 and 141, where he got 48 and 49%, respectively. And he cleaned up in the Hispanic districts, which overlap or are next to his City Council district - HDs 140, 143, 145, and 148. He also broke 60% in HDs 137, 138, and 134, which was a strong district for many of the primary winners.
- I thought Diane Trautman would do well in her home turf of HD127, and I was right - she got 71.90% of the vote there. But that was only her third best performance, as both HDs 134 (79.33) and 148 (74.17) came out more strongly for her. I'm thinking those two districts are going to play a key role in GOTV strategies for the fall.
That's all I've got. Click on to see the data in all its glory, and let me know if you have any questions. Oh, and to answer the question I got before, this data all came from the County Clerk's office. It will be available, though not in such friendly form, on HarrisVotes, if it's not already.
Obama HRC O Pct H Pct RJN Oth RJN % Pres % Hou Cruz Hou % Pres % Yan Crs Yan % Pres % HD126 8841 5794 60.41% 39.59% 5738 5815 49.67% 78.94% 6102 4038 60.18% 69.29% 5627 4543 55.33% 69.49% HD127 8995 7741 53.75% 46.25% 6140 6639 48.05% 76.36% 6916 4205 62.19% 66.45% 5707 5434 51.23% 66.57% HD129 7808 8125 49.01% 50.99% 7194 5065 58.68% 76.94% 6367 3915 61.92% 64.53% 5005 5408 48.06% 65.35% HD131 16756 5476 75.37% 24.63% 9307 8580 52.03% 80.46% 9974 5967 62.57% 71.70% 9320 6654 58.34% 71.85% HD133 7154 5617 56.02% 43.98% 5385 4501 54.47% 77.41% 5081 3424 59.74% 66.60% 4835 3672 56.84% 66.61% HD134 14233 12937 52.38% 47.62% 14471 5835 71.26% 74.74% 10965 5255 67.60% 59.70% 7802 8245 48.62% 59.06% HD135 6925 6437 51.83% 48.17% 5405 5133 51.29% 78.87% 5088 4013 55.91% 68.11% 5332 3776 58.54% 68.16% HD137 3563 3299 51.92% 48.08% 3047 2208 57.98% 76.58% 2481 2031 54.99% 65.75% 2742 1793 60.46% 66.09% HD138 5229 6836 43.34% 56.66% 5979 3719 61.65% 80.38% 4765 3488 57.74% 68.40% 4809 3472 58.07% 68.64% HD139 16111 4813 77.00% 23.00% 7836 8679 47.45% 78.93% 9462 5138 64.81% 69.78% 8552 6066 58.50% 69.86% HD140 2971 6575 31.12% 68.88% 4828 3013 61.57% 82.14% 2764 4182 39.79% 72.76% 5310 1720 75.53% 73.64% HD141 14566 4722 75.52% 24.48% 6359 7944 44.46% 74.15% 7928 4531 63.63% 64.59% 6910 5602 55.23% 64.87% HD142 15198 5937 71.91% 28.09% 8279 8138 50.43% 77.68% 8830 5500 61.62% 67.80% 8155 6236 56.67% 68.09% HD143 1919 7237 20.96% 79.04% 5370 2201 70.93% 82.69% 2184 4398 33.18% 71.89% 5212 1457 78.15% 72.84% HD144 4312 7860 35.43% 64.57% 5994 4213 58.72% 83.86% 4723 4251 52.63% 73.73% 5474 3592 60.38% 74.48% HD145 2546 8344 23.38% 76.62% 8180 1535 84.20% 89.21% 2461 5634 30.40% 74.33% 6685 1465 82.02% 74.84% HD146 19482 7569 72.02% 27.98% 11728 9329 55.70% 77.84% 11926 6097 66.17% 66.63% 9815 8130 54.69% 66.34% HD147 16541 6781 70.92% 29.08% 11656 6875 62.90% 79.46% 9638 6143 61.07% 67.67% 8989 6770 57.04% 67.57% HD148 6272 9888 38.81% 61.19% 9913 3374 74.61% 82.22% 5127 5966 46.22% 68.64% 7439 3729 66.61% 69.11% HD149 8991 6954 56.39% 43.61% 6290 5836 51.87% 76.05% 6120 4437 57.97% 66.21% 6322 4223 59.95% 66.13% HD150 8427 7062 54.41% 45.59% 6141 6264 49.50% 80.09% 6549 4428 59.66% 70.87% 5976 5011 54.39% 70.93% Others 31373 30039 51.09% 48.91% 24063 23026 51.10% 76.68% 24433 16120 60.25% 66.03% 21695 18826 53.54% 65.98%
Obama HRC O Pct H Pct Min Has Min % Pres % Gar Oth Gar % Pres % Tman Webb Tman % Pres % HD126 8841 5794 60.41% 39.59% 6464 2419 72.77% 60.70% 4941 4587 51.86% 65.10% 6298 2836 68.95% 62.41% HD127 8995 7741 53.75% 46.25% 7529 2133 77.92% 57.73% 4972 5394 47.96% 61.94% 7511 2936 71.90% 62.42% HD129 7808 8125 49.01% 50.99% 6802 2428 73.69% 57.93% 5008 4494 52.70% 59.64% 6315 2947 68.18% 58.13% HD131 16756 5476 75.37% 24.63% 9912 4070 70.89% 62.89% 8048 7158 52.93% 68.40% 9678 4690 67.36% 64.63% HD133 7154 5617 56.02% 43.98% 5390 2040 72.54% 58.18% 4207 3534 54.35% 60.61% 5230 2158 70.79% 57.85% HD134 14233 12937 52.38% 47.62% 12899 3130 80.47% 59.00% 9679 5286 64.68% 55.08% 11570 3015 79.33% 53.68% HD135 6925 6437 51.83% 48.17% 5843 2034 74.18% 58.95% 4727 3805 55.40% 63.85% 5476 2553 68.20% 60.09% HD137 3563 3299 51.92% 48.08% 2856 1069 72.76% 57.20% 2539 1682 60.15% 61.51% 2702 1189 69.44% 56.70% HD138 5229 6836 43.34% 56.66% 5808 1471 79.79% 60.33% 5086 2910 63.61% 66.27% 5217 2077 71.52% 60.46% HD139 16111 4813 77.00% 23.00% 9320 3413 73.20% 60.85% 8208 6246 56.79% 69.08% 8614 4757 64.42% 63.90% HD140 2971 6575 31.12% 68.88% 4564 1121 80.28% 59.55% 5727 1614 78.01% 76.90% 3937 2044 65.83% 62.65% HD141 14566 4722 75.52% 24.48% 7465 2907 71.97% 53.77% 5745 5969 49.04% 60.73% 7158 3842 65.07% 57.03% HD142 15198 5937 71.91% 28.09% 8828 3297 72.81% 57.37% 8031 5783 58.14% 65.36% 7973 4655 63.14% 59.75% HD143 1919 7237 20.96% 79.04% 4184 953 81.45% 56.11% 5439 1365 79.94% 74.31% 3571 1781 66.72% 58.45% HD144 4312 7860 35.43% 64.57% 6219 1554 80.01% 63.86% 5130 3466 59.68% 70.62% 5159 2819 64.67% 65.54% HD145 2546 8344 23.38% 76.62% 5288 1325 79.96% 60.73% 7235 1290 84.87% 78.28% 4622 2086 68.90% 61.60% HD146 19482 7569 72.02% 27.98% 12391 4316 74.17% 61.76% 9227 8385 52.39% 65.11% 11693 5096 69.65% 62.06% HD147 16541 6781 70.92% 29.08% 10041 3967 71.68% 60.06% 9201 6310 59.32% 66.51% 9751 4571 68.08% 61.41% HD148 6272 9888 38.81% 61.19% 7581 2076 78.50% 59.76% 9737 2262 81.15% 74.25% 7226 2516 74.17% 60.28% HD149 8991 6954 56.39% 43.61% 6443 2625 71.05% 56.87% 5319 4390 54.78% 60.89% 6198 3008 67.33% 57.74% HD150 8427 7062 54.41% 45.59% 7142 2337 75.35% 61.20% 5379 4827 52.70% 65.89% 6750 3019 69.10% 63.07% Others 31373 30039 51.09% 48.91% 27155 8527 76.10% 58.10% 19311 17855 51.96% 60.52% 24222 11343 68.11% 57.91%
However much value there was for endorsements in the March 4 primary - and in this year's environment, the answer is clearly "not much" - they will be a lot more valuable in the sure-to-be-tiny-turnout runoff. I'm guessing there will be a lot of consensus as well on the candidates. Here are the recommendations of the Tejano Democrats:
- Dale Henry for Texas Railroad Commissioner
- Larry Weiman for Judge of the 80th. Civil District Court
- Re-endorsed Jeff Heintschel for Justice of the Peace Precinct 8 Place 1
And here's the Houston GLBT Political Caucus:
The Houston GLBT Political Caucus PAC is pleased to announce its endorsed candidates for the 2008 April 8 Run-off:Railroad Commissioner - Dale Henry
*will work to protect our Texas environment
*will work to make sure Texas develops alternative forms of energy
*will include the GLBT community in his office
Judge, Civil Dist. 80 - Larry Weiman
*returning candidate from 2006
*representing Clients in Civil Litigation Law all over Texas since 1991
*excellent on GLBT issues and supportive of the community
"We wish to remind everyone that there is a run-off and hope voters will return and elect Dale and Larry, two excellent candidates on our issues," said Jenifer Pool, President of the Caucus, which held its PAC meeting on Wednesday evening, March 5. Early voting for the run-off begins on Monday, March 31 and ends on Friday, April 4. The election itself is scheduled for Tuesday, April 8.
I certainly expect the Dale Henry endorsement to be unanimous, and the other two I think will be nearly so. I base that on who collected what endorsements the first time around. I'll pass along more as they arrive.
One more runoff race I should have mentioned before is for Fort Bend County Commissioner, Precinct 1, in which Richard Morrison was the lead vote-getter on March 4. As I did for the first go-round, I'm happy to recommend a vote for Richard in the runoff as well.
I note this news item about John McCain with some interest.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has promised a serious bid to win California in the fall presidential election, bulked up his dream team of Silicon Valley managers and advisers on Friday by naming California billionaire and outgoing eBay chief executive Meg Whitman co-chair of his national campaign.[...]
[Former California GOP Chairman Duf] Sundheim said California's independent and swing voters -- who make up 1 out of 5 voters in the state -- might consider McCain if they became disenchanted by the fighting between Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in their battle for the party nomination.
OK, McCain thinks he has a shot in California. Dream big, I say. Let's see what the current polls say:
- Mar 14 Rasmussen Obama (D) 53%, McCain (R) 38%
- Mar 14 Rasmussen Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 39%
- Mar 6 SurveyUSA Obama (D) 51%, McCain (R) 40%
- Mar 6 SurveyUSA Clinton (D) 50%, McCain 40%
One not-too-bad result, three double-digits deficits. Now let's check out the Texas matchups:
- Mar 6 SurveyUSA McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 46%
- Mar 6 SurveyUSA McCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 42%
- Mar 3 Public Strategies McCain (R) 51%, Obama (D) 42%
- Mar 3 Public Strategies< McCain (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 46%
- Mar 3 Pub. Strategies McCain (R) 49%, Obama (D) 42%
- Mar 3 Pub. Strategies< McCain (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 46%
With one exception, every single result is at least as favorable to the Dems than the California results were to McCain. And yet I've seen people suggest that the Dems shouldn't bother to contest Texas, because it's just not within reach for them. Go figure.
I know, Abramoff/DeLay news seems so 2006, but still, I wanted to note this.
Greenberg Traurig is in hot water in the tropical U.S. territory of Guam.The ginormous firm - 1,750 lawyers and counting -- was indicted Tuesday in connection with alleged lobbying activities by former employee Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to a conspiracy to bribe public officials.
The indictment was reported [last week] by the ABA Journal, which links to the indictment.
According to the indictment, Abramoff and Greenberg Traurig received $324,000 in lobbying fees from a Guam court administrator in alleged circumvention of Guam procurement rules. Abramoff and the firm were charged with theft by deception, among other charges.
"This indictment involves rogue conducty by Jack Abramoff. We strongly deny these charges and are confident we will prevail when all the facts are known," the firm said in a statement, adding that that the charges will have no impact on its business.
Link via FDL, which reminds us there's still a lot of unfinished business relating to all this stuff.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis makes the case for creating a public defender's office in Harris County.
In Harper Lee's classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, the protagonist Atticus Finch embodies what we hope attorneys, our gatekeepers to justice, to be -- a stoic figure of immeasurable fairness and integrity who protects the rights of the innocent. Finch summarizes the American ideal of justice this way, ''The one place a man ought to get a square deal is the courtroom."The promise of adequate representation -- the promise that our rights as persons are protected and that everyone accused of a crime, rich or poor, stands equal before the law -- is at the root of American democratic ideals of liberty and justice.
Our founding fathers secured that promise in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court, most notably in Gideon v. Wainwright, has consistently affirmed and expanded that promise as essential to ensuring fairness in our justice system.
Unfortunately, as we approach the 45th anniversary of Gideon, any claim to fulfilling that promise in Harris County is as fictitious as Harper Lee's novel. Too many impoverished citizens are processed through our courts with an incompetent or inexperienced lawyer, no lawyer at all or a lawyer who does not have the time, resources or inclination to provide effective representation.
Lisa Falkenberg wrote about this on Wednesday, so it looks like Ellis is putting on a full-court press for this idea. It's definitely worthwhile, and I hope it gets taken up by the Lege next year. There's plenty of good reasons for this, but I'll focus on the one that ought to have the broadest appeal:
Not only will a public defender office improve the quality of legal representation, it also will save money by pooling resources and reducing duplication of services.That's what happened in Dallas County. According to the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense (TFID), Dallas County's split public defender/assigned counsel system shows substantial savings when cases are handled by the public defender office. The 25,000 cases assigned counsel in Dallas last year cost $493 per case. The 41,000 cases assigned to the Dallas County public defender office cost only $214.66 per case.
Other Texas counties that have moved forward with public defender offices have reported satisfaction with the services and cost reduction. Travis, Bexar, El Paso, Colorado, Webb, Wichita, Hidalgo, Cameron and Willacy counties, among others, have established public defender offices. Lubbock is starting an office for capital cases that will cover an 85-county area. Each of these counties is making sure defendants who cannot afford attorneys are able to get quality representation, and they're saving money in the process.
So if you don't care about such fuzzy-headed concepts as justice and equality, maybe you'll like the idea of saving a few bucks. Hey, whatever works.
It's been too long since I've seen one of these stories. It kind of takes me back.
For months there has been a rising chorus of alarm about the surging growth in the amount of data flying across the Internet. The threat, according to some industry groups, analysts and researchers, stems mainly from the increasing visual richness of online communications and entertainment -- video clips and movies, social networks and multiplayer games.Moving images, far more than words or sounds, are hefty rivers of digital bits as they traverse the Internet's pipes and gateways, requiring, in industry parlance, more bandwidth. Last year, by one estimate, the video site YouTube, owned by Google, consumed as much bandwidth as the entire Internet did in 2000.
In a report last November, a research firm projected user demand for the Internet could outpace network capacity by 2011. The title of a debate scheduled next month at a tech conference in Boston sums up the angst: "The End of the Internet?"
I'm thinking there's a song parody opportunity in that debate title. I remember the good old days, when the Internet's imminent demise was predicted roughly once a week. It's good in a way to get back to the basics.
Do you like the color purple? If you do, you'll probably like the new $5 bill.
Abraham Lincoln is getting a little color in his cheeks.New $5 bills bearing the gaunt visage of the nation's 16th president - but with some touches of color added - are making their way to banks and cash registers near you.
The bill goes into circulation Thursday. That's when the Federal Reserve, the supplier of the nation's cash, starts shipping the bills to banks, which send them to businesses and eventually into the hands of people in this country and beyond.
[...]
To the naked eye, the most notable difference is color - splashes of light purple at the center of the bill that blend into gray near the edges.
Small yellow "05" numerals are printed to the left of Lincoln on the front and to the right of the memorial on the back. The Great Seal of the United States, which features an eagle and shield, will appear in purple to the right of the president's portrait. Arcs of purple stars border Lincoln and the seal.
The note also will feature an enlarged "5" printed in high-contrast purple ink in the lower right corner of the back of the bill. It also will have two separate watermarks and a number of other high-tech changes to make it harder for counterfeiters to knock off.
You can get a thorough look at the bill's new design features at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which has the excellent URL of "moneyfactory.gov".
Meet the new temporary District Attorney, Kenneth Magidson.
"My main purpose in being here today is to address the people of Harris County and tell them that I expect, and this office expects us to uphold their trust and faith that they put in us," Magidson said Friday. "We are going to run this office in a professional manner that will seek justice (and) we expect to provide quality legal representation while maintaining the integrity of the judicial system."A federal prosecutor for the past 25 years, Magidson said that he comes in with no agenda and has no particular changes in mind.
"I'm not planning on do anything until I see what's going on," he said. "When I see actions that need to be taken, I will take the appropriate actions. I can't make comments on things I'm not familiar with or facts I don't know. What needs to happen is that people need to take this job seriously and do the job that they're employed to do. We're all here, again, with that trust in our hands."
He said the office would continue to "zealously" pursue the cases brought to it, "but tempered with justice."
"We're going to make sure we're doing the right thing. What's the right thing? Well, the facts and the law are going to determine that," he said.
Magidson, 59, declined to comment on legal issues surrounding or the conduct of his predecessor, Chuck Rosenthal, who resigned last month under pressure amid a controversy over embarrassing and inappropriate e-mails sent and received on his county computer.
He said he had no plans to discuss his new job with Rosenthal.
"I know the people I want to consult, and it doesn't include that gentleman. I have a pretty good idea of what the goals and expectations of this office are, and the people I need to speak to I will. Right now I have no plans to talk to any prior district attorney," Magidson said.
I think those are all the right things to say. Honestly, if we look back in ten months' time and say it's been a quiet year, then Magidson's stewardship will have been very successful. He seems to have the right mindset for what he's getting into, and that's encouraging. Here's hoping it stays that way.
And we have some news on the Rosenthal front, too:
In a related matter, Rosenthal filed an affidavit in federal court Friday saying part of a previous sworn statement he gave in a civil lawsuit -- the same suit that indirectly led to the scandal that forced him from office -- was incorrect.He said he is "unable to rely" on his own memory in testifying about the steps he took in deleting more than 2,500 e-mails after they had been subpoenaed in the civil rights lawsuit.
"While I am seeking treatment to address these matters currently, I am concerned and wish the court to take into account that my prior testimony and Declaration must be considered in this context," Rosenthal wrote in his affidavit.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal would have had zero sympathy for such a declaration from a defendant? I'm trying to keep an open mind, but it's really hard not to think he's being a weasel here.
I'm not terribly interested in the various charges that Pat Lykos and Kelly Siegler are lobbing at each other, though I do have to tip my hat to whoever's doing Lykos' oppo research. They've dug up some pretty interesting things, and forced Siegler to be on the defensive a lot. I don't think the individual items matter all that much - it's the narrative that I think will carry the day one way or the other. Which admittedly the various tidbits that Lykos has unearthed will help to reinforce, so perhaps the weight of the evidence will make a difference.
The way I see it, the choice is pretty basic, and each candidate is very clear about it. Siegler, according to Lykos, is Chuck Rosenthal continued, with all the same questions about judgment, narrow-minded focus on winning over justice, and representing all of the county and its people. Lykos, according to Siegler, is unqualified because she has no prosecutorial experience, and has many questions relating to her own judgment as well. Their case for themselves is mostly that they are what the other is not.
If I were CO Bradford, who would I rather run against? I can make a case for either. Anyone would want to run against Rosenthal-by-proxy, so that argues for Siegler. On the other hand, Lykos would not be able to use what will surely be Siegler's main thrust against Bradford, which is his lack of prosecutorial experience, since she has none herself. Obviously, if the GOP voters pick Lykos over Siegler next month, then having spent time in the DA's office will be discounted as a requirement for the job. For now, I just hope he's taking notes and prepping his talking points for each of them.
I admit this is a surprise. Like many people, I assumed Coach Wilson would get at least one season in the new arena. But that was not to be.
MK Bower rips the Owls for the move, and I certainly understand where he's coming from. This move was years in coming, and probably should have happened years ago. The fans have been unhappy with Wilson for a long time. His teams have had a very hard time winning big games - I don't think they ever won more than one game in a conference tournament - were terrible on the road, and often looked unprepared on the floor. Attendance has been way down, even in the good years. Had Chris Del Conte been the Athletic Director longer, Wilson likely would have been shown the door earlier.
Like a lot of posters on the Rice fan forum, I have genuinely mixed feelings about this. By all accounts, Coach Wilson was and is a fine person, a loyal Rice alumnus, and a squeaky-clean coach who graduated his players. I'm very sad to see him get fired, and I wish him, his family, and his assistant coaches nothing but the best in the future. But it's been time for a change for awhile. Del Conte had a difficult choice to make, and I respect him for making it. I look forward to seeing who he hires to lead the team in the Tudor era.
I confess, I had no idea so many people hated talking on the phone like this. It's a little weird for me, because much of my professional career has involved phone work - tech support for a software company, followed by help desk work elsewhere; I'd say about half my career has been dependent on the phone, with the rest still using it heavily. Needless to say, if I felt this way, I'd be in the wrong line of work. While I can honestly say there have been occasions where the last thing in the world I wanted to do was answer another call, I've never developed any loathing of it.
There really is no replacement for the phone in the IT support business. Sure, an email with a screen shot can be effective. I have colleagues who use chat heavily for certain tasks. With various remote-desktop-sharing technologies, you as the support person can often do most of the work for the customer, without really needing their involvement at all. But I find that in general, a question emailed to me by a customer or colleague often requires several followups, and not infrequently an ultimate phone call, to resolve because they don't know what information is relevant for me to be able to answer them. The most effective way for me to extract that information is a phone call, where I can be sure they understand what I'm asking them for and I can guide them through whatever steps they need to take to give it to me. This sort of thing can be done by email, but not without a lot more effort.
Obviously, your mileage may vary. For another perspective, let me tell you a story about my mother-in-law, who for years was the office manager and legal secretary to my father-in-law, who is a recently retired attorney here in Houston. Some years back, when they were first getting Internet access installed in the office (which is to say, they got a modem), I showed Sharon some goverment forms online that she could download and submit. I told her that doing it that way meant she wouldn't have to spend so much time on the phone. She looked at me with big eyes, and said in all sincerity "But I like to talk on the phone!" I couldn't argue with that.
No cutesy intro this week. Just the music:
1. Fly Robin Fly - Silver Convention. Amazing how much song you can wring out of the lyrics "Fly, robin, fly, high up to the sky".
2. Sneaking Sally Through the Alley - Robert Palmer. It's a little hard to believe that this is the same guy who'd later give us Bad Case of Loving You and Addicted to Love. But that's the difference between the 70s and the 80s.
3. With Plenty of Money and You - Count Basie. Finally, a love song that's truly honest about what makes for a happily-ever-after ending.
4. Excuse Me - Peter Gabriel. Possibly the weirdest song he recorded. Don't get me wrong, it's also one of my favorites. But weird, definitely weird.
5. Let It Ride - BTO. BTO is one of those groups that's kind of like a bag of potato chips - the sort of thing you crave from time to time even if you don't know why, you consume more of it than you know you should, and you feel vaguely guilty about it afterwards. Is that deep or what?
6. Pick Up The Pieces - Average White Band. Another 70s pop song that was arranged for jazz band and duly played by yours truly in high school.
7. Surf's Up - Beach Boys. You'd think with a name like that it'd be one of their staples, but I don't think I've ever heard this one on the radio. It's a lot more mellow than you'd think.
8. I Want To Be Like You - Big Bad Voodoo Daddy. From "The Jungle Book", originally done by the inimitable Louis Prima. I really like an arrangement done by Los Lobos for a Disney music tribute called Stay Awake, which is one of the more eclectic albums in my collection.
9. Planet Claire - The B-52s. My sister Eileen had a friend named Claire when we were kids. She hated this song, just as Eileen hated "Come On Eileen" by Dexy's Midnight Runners, and my friend Rhonda hated the Beach Boys' classic "Help Me Rhonda". I can't say I blame any of them.
10. Guyana Punch - The Judys. Technically not on my iPod yet, but included here in tribute to the local fave's welcome comeback, which included a gig at South by Southwest.
I'm taking a look through the precinct-by-precinct canvass data for the Democratic primary in Harris County to see what I can learn. The first thing I wanted to look at was voting in the downballot elections. Did the supporters of one Presidential candidate or the other vote more heavily for other candidates as well, or did they tend to be one-race voters? And if they voted all the way down the ticket, for whom did they vote? Let's take a look.
I'll note up front that I deleted the sixty or so precincts that had fewer than ten votes in them. I also threw out the tiny handful of votes for Presidential candidates other than Obama and Clinton. Finally, while there were some undervotes in the Presidential race as well, I simply used the sum of Obama and Clinton's vote totals as my "Presidential turnout" base figure. For each downballot contest, I then took the sum of the votes in that race and divided it by the Presidential total to get a percentage of that. In this study, I'm looking for the precincts that had the highest such percentages for each race.
I considered the four contested statewide primaries - Senate, Railroad Commissioner, and Supreme Court - as well as the three contested countywide primaries for non-judicial offices - County Judge, Sheriff, and Tax Assessor. We'll start with the Senate race. For this one case, I took the additional step of filtering out the precincts in Rick Noriega's State Rep District 145, on the grounds that I figured they'd vote heavily in the Senate race regardless. Which they did - every single precinct in HD145 had at least an 80% participation rate in the Senate contest. That left a total of 67 other precincts for which the total vote in the Senate race was at least 85% that of the Presidential. Here's how the vote broke down:
Candidate Votes Pct
==========================
Obama 8284 39.8
Clinton 12545 60.2
Noriega 12098 67.0
Others 5946 33.0
As you can see, the precincts that voted the most in the Senate race favored Hillary Clinton, and gave a solid majority to Rick Noriega.
Next up is Railroad Commissioner, where 53 precincts had at least 75% of the Presidential votes:
Candidate Votes Pct
==========================
Obama 15462 64.0
Clinton 8681 36.0
Noriega 10102 49.5
Others 10287 50.5
Take that for what it's worth. I think very few people knew who they were voting for in the RRC race, and some of those folks weren't too informed about the Senate race, either. I didn't bother breaking down the votes for each RRC candidate, as I didn't think there was anything useful to learn there.
Moving on to the Supreme Court. There were 86 precincts with 75% of the Presidential vote for Place 7, and 104 such precincts for Place 8. Here they are, listing the Place 7 totals first:
Candidate Votes Pct
==========================
Obama 11949 42.3
Clinton 16329 57.7
Noriega 15621 64.3
Others 8686 35.7
Houston 9943 45.8
Cruz 11764 54.2
Yanez 14690 67.5
Criss 7060 32.5Candidate Votes Pct
==========================
Obama 18010 45.4
Clinton 21703 54.6
Noriega 21329 62.8
Others 12610 37.2
Yanez 20624 67.7
Criss 9832 32.3
Houston 14057 46.7
Cruz 16070 53.3
I think the Sam Houston/Baltasar Cruz results interest me the most here. These appear to be mostly Hispanic and Anglo boxes. How much did Sam Houston's name help him? I'd say a fair bit. Perhaps Dale Wainwright ought to be worried.
On to the countywides. Generally speaking, the number of people who voted in the countywide races was less than that of the statewides. For the County Judge race, there were 93 precincts in which the total vote for that race was at least 65% of the Presidential race.
Candidate Votes Pct
==========================
Obama 18563 52.0
Clinton 17243 48.0
Noriega 18490 61.6
Others 11548 38.4
Mincberg 18643 77.8
Hassan 5315 22.2
A slight preference for Obama here, along with a hearteningly solid majority for Noriega. Mincberg ran a bit better in these precincts than he did overall, which is no small thing given the size of his win.
Next up is Sheriff, where the vote total was the highest in any countywide race. There were 88 precincts that voted at 75% or higher of the Presidential level.
Candidate Votes Pct
==========================
Obama 8739 29.1
Clinton 21260 70.9
Noriega 19278 74.6
Others 6555 25.4
Garcia 19545 82.1
Others 4251 17.9
Now that's what I call a strong preference! Adrian Garcia probably had the highest name ID among the countywide candidates, and that definitely helped him in his three-way primary. Many of these precincts are in State Rep districts that overlap or are proximate to Garcia's City Council District H - HDs 140, 143, 145, and 148 in particular.
The last countywide race to look at is Tax Assessor. I wanted to set the cutoff for percentage of the Presidential vote at 70%, but that produced fewer than 40 precincts, so I went to 65%, and wound up with a total of 150 precincts. Better too many than too few, I guess.
Candidate Votes Pct
==========================
Obama 46198 62.5
Clinton 27751 37.5
Noriega 33170 54.2
Others 28036 45.8
Trautman 32986 66.6
Webb 16561 33.4
These precincts were all over the county. I was a little worried going into the primary that Diane Trautman's name wouldn't be as well known as it could be, and that this could cause her problems, but I needn't have fretted. She did just fine.
Can we draw any conclusions from this? Mostly, I don't think you can say that downballot participation was the province of one Presidential candidate's voters or the other, and I think that's reassuring. I think it suggests that whoever tops the ticket in November, we'll do fine on turnout either way. What do you think?
Finally, though it's not directly related to what I'm looking at here, I want to flag this Matt Stiles post about turnout in the Presidential primary. It's good stuff.
Not that it was ever really worth much, but the penny is worth less than it used to be, at least compared to the cost of minting it. The nickel, too.
These days, your thoughts are worth 1.7 cents.That's what it costs the government to forge a penny, thanks to the rising price of metal. A nickel costs 10 cents. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has concluded that's a pretty bad deal.
A House subcommittee led by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) convened a hearing Tuesday on a proposal to change the composition of both coins. Republicans and Democrats like the concept, particularly its promise to save taxpayers $100 million a year by using cheaper metals at the U.S. Mint. If the legislation clears the House and Senate and President Bush signs it, you could be plucking steel pennies off the street before year's end.
[...]
Until recently, Mint officials say, no American coin had ever cost more to produce than it was worth.
Global metal prices began rising in 2003, driven by increased demand for raw materials, particularly in India and China, according to Mint statistics. The price of copper quadrupled in the past five years. Nickel more than tripled, and zinc nearly did the same. The Mint lost $33 million on penny and nickel production in the 2006 fiscal year. In 2007, it lost $99 million.
"There is no indication," Mint Director Edmund Moy told the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology in written testimony, "that copper, nickel and zinc prices will decrease over the short term."
Enter the Coin Modernization and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2008, the subject of Tuesday's hearing. It would give the Treasury authority to set the weight and composition of any coin whose production costs exceed its face value for five consecutive years. It also requires the Mint to start producing a primarily steel penny within 180 days of the bill becoming law, so taxpayers would save money almost right away.
The bill requires any new coin to work in existing vending machines. That's a concession to the National Automatic Merchandising Association, which opposed an earlier version for fear that it could force hundreds of dollars in upgrades to each of the nation's more than 6 million dispensers of soda, snacks and other items. An association lobbyist testified in favor of the revised bill on Tuesday.
Other concerns persist. Moy told the subcommittee that six months isn't nearly enough time to produce a steel penny and that the five-years-of-losses requirement would prevent the Treasury from stepping in early if the dime or quarter -- which currently run 7 and 10 cents to produce, respectively -- suddenly grow more expensive.
Several Republicans worried about Congress giving up coinage control to the executive branch. "It seems to me that the Mint has been the leader in slowing down changes to coin composition," said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), who introduced a bill last year that would have mandated a cheaper penny.
Paul called the current proposal an unconstitutional delegation of power and a symbol of "how far we have fallen" in monetary policy. America, he said, has failed to maintain a gold standard or silver standard for its currency. "Now," he said, "we cannot even maintain a zinc standard."
I realize Paul has this weird fetish with shiny metals, but are we really triggering a Constitutional crisis by changing the ingredients in our coins? I guess maybe if you believe that we can't have a real economy unless every dollar bill has a piece of gold sitting in Fort Knox with its serial number carved into it. Whatever.
Anyway. I don't have a particular problem with this. I had a couple of 1943 steel pennies when I was a kid, and I think it'll be a bit weird to see them return on a wide scale - maybe they can at least put enough copper to make them appear to be the same color. Being able to stick them to magnets again, though, that'll be cool.
Researchers have uncovered another damaging consequence of spanking: risky sexual behaviors, or even sexual deviancy, when the child grows up."This adds one more harmful side effect to spanking," said Murray Straus, a spanking expert who was expected to present the findings of four studies at the American Psychological Association's Summit on Violence and Abuse in Relationships in Bethesda, Md., on Thursday.
"I think that it's pretty powerful," said Elizabeth Gershoff, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan's School of Social Work. "It's across several studies and across different forms of either risky or deviant sexual behavior."
[...]
A meta-analysis of spanking studies conducted by Gershoff found 93 percent agreement among studies that spanking can lead to such problems as delinquent and anti-social behavior in childhood along with aggression, criminal and anti-social behavior and spousal or child abuse as an adult.
"There's probably nothing else in child development that has 93 percent agreement in results," Straus said.
I confess, I've never been particularly tempted to use corporal punishment on Olivia (Audrey is too young for punishment in any meaningful sense; correction, yes, punishment, no). It's not my style (or Tiffany's), and she responds quite well to things like timeouts. But if the temptation ever presents itself, I'm going to think about this article before I act.
Having said that, I found the tone a tad bit off-putting.
The review being presented at the meeting are the first to look at the relationship of spanking to sexual behavior.They found that spanking and other corporal punishment is associated with an increased probability of verbally and physically coercing a dating partner to have sex; risky sex such as premarital sex without using a condom; and masochistic sex such as spanking during sex.
There is a "dose response" at work here. "The more parents spank, the higher the probability of harmful side effects," Straus noted.
Of course, there's a similar dose response for smokers. But if someone reaches the age of 65 without developing lung cancer, it doesn't mean that smoking isn't harmful. It means the person was one of the lucky ones.
It's the same with spanking, Straus said. "If a person says, 'I was spanked, and I don't have any interest in bondage and discipline sex, that's correct, but it's not because spanking is OK, it's because they're one of the lucky ones."
I'm uncomfortable with equating cigarettes with B&D. The former is unquestionably unhealthy; the latter, if consensual, seems perfectly harmless. I'm not sure if this is a careless characterization, or if they really do intend to lump B&D with other, clearly more risky, behaviors, but this strikes me as fearmongering to some degree. I don't think it detracts from the overall conclusion, but a little tightening of the message might be in order here.
We have our first endorsement for the Travis County DA runoff:
Gary Cobb, the third-place finisher in last week's Democratic primary for Travis County district attorney, will announce his support of candidate Rosemary Lehmberg today in the April runoff election, saying she is most receptive to tackling racially tinged issues the office must deal with.The endorsement comes after Cobb met separately this week with Lehmberg, the first assistant district attorney, and her runoff opponent, trial court prosecutor Mindy Montford.
The 45-minute meeting with Montford at her Lavaca Street campaign headquarters Sunday included an exchange about Cobb's future in the office.
"During that meeting, he asked me not once, not twice, but three times would I make him first assistant," Montford said. "I told him that by law, which he knew, I couldn't engage in any quid pro quo scenario."
Cobb, a prosecutor since 1990, said he was not trying to trade his endorsement for a job.
"Here is the context of it," Cobb said. "She indicated to me that I would be at the very top of her administration, to which I said, 'Does that mean ... that you would make me the first assistant?'
"We were both clear on our understanding of the law, and we were in no way trying to get around the law or violate the law."
[...]
Cobb said his endorsement, which potentially brings with it some of his hundreds of supporters, is based on how receptive Lehmberg was to the ideas he put forth during the campaign. Those include hiring more African American and Hispanic lawyers as assistant district attorneys, opening up the lines of communication between prosecutors and the community and minimizing the number of small drug cases pursued by police and prosecutors.
"She (Lehmberg) admits that there have been problems in the past," said Cobb, who is African American and works in the grand jury division. "She talks specifically about things that she would be doing and getting me involved."
For example, Cobb said, Lehmberg asked for his ideas on how to recruit more African American and Hispanic lawyers. Cobb and Lehmberg said no specific job offer was discussed.
As for Montford, Cobb said: "I didn't feel that Mindy was that specific on what kind of changes we would have in the office. And I was not personally comfortable in what she saw was my role."
BOR explains the importance of this endorsement for Lehmberg in the runoff. Will Rick Reed follow suit, or will he take a different path?
What's the point of having data if you don't analyze it?
While presidential hopeful Barack Obama handily won last week's Democratic primary over Hillary Rodham Clinton in Harris County, a review of key precincts exposes a highly polarized electorate in some heavily black and Hispanic neighborhoods.In precincts with the highest percentages of adult blacks, Obama won with 84 percent of the vote, while Clinton saw that same percentage in her favor in precincts with the highest concentration of Hispanics.
"That's where the campaigns were geared toward, and the voters responded appropriately," said Houston political consultant Marc Campos, who supported Clinton but did not work for her campaign.
"Latinos said, 'Hey, she wants us more, and we're going to be there.' And, in the African-American community, they said, 'He's one of us, and we're going to be there for him.' "
These voting patterns emerged in recent days as Harris County officials released an unofficial canvass of the votes cast in more than 800 precincts.
I've got a copy of that unofficial canvass, and I'm working on a couple of reports with it. Look for them starting tomorrow.
Here's today's version of the story from last night that named assistant U.S. attorney in Houston Kenneth Magidson as the acting DA till a replacement is elected. I'm mostly interested in people's reactions to him:
Bert Graham, who has helmed the office since Rosenthal's Feb. 15 resignation, said he is glad Perry found someone "who's willing, able and qualified.""He started out here, like most people do, in the misdemeanor courts, and moved up to be a chief prosecutor in a felony court," Graham said. "He did a really good job here."
Other assistant district attorneys were also optimistic about the appointment as word spread through the courthouse halls Wednesday.
Patrick McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, said he doesn't know Magidson, but that he has a reputation as a man of integrity among defense attorneys.
"He's a solid and fair-minded man," McCann said. He said he looks forward to discussing policies with the interim DA, including the way the office charges minor drug cases, diversity in the office and a possible innocence commission -- all ideas that have been debated in the district attorney's race.
Asked about whether Magidson is more likely to be a caretaker or clean house in the nine months before a new district attorney takes office after November's election, McCann forecast that it would be a mix of both.
"I hope he brings a fresh perspective to the office," McCann said. "And I think a fair and honest man is going to make some changes."
So far so good. You never know what you're going to get with a Perry appointment, but it looks like this one is well qualified. That's a fine start.
Two candidates for district attorney said they don't expect Magidson to make major changes like the reforms that have been suggested in the wake of the Rosenthal scandals.Sweeping improvements "will take more time and energy and effort than this interim (appointee) will have," said Democratic contender C.O. Bradford, the former Houston police chief.
Bradford said he was confident the next district attorney will apply the law evenly to everyone.
Prosecutor Kelly Siegler, who faces former Judge Pat Lykos in the April 8 Republican primary runoff, said of Magidson, "In the capacity of being a caretaker, I am not sure what kind of changes he would be expected to make.
"I think he would have the best interest of the office at heart," Siegler added. "Certainly the governor's office understands that the person they appoint needs to have many years of experience as a prosecutor and someone who is a prosecutor now and understands what it takes to prosecute criminals in the year 2008."
She has emphasized her credentials as a prosecutor in the contest against Lykos, who was a felony court judge through 1994.
Lykos said she was pleased that reforms could begin immediately under a new district attorney "and that the Rosenthal-Siegler era will be ending."
"What's really important is not my candidacy, but the restoration of public trust in the office," she said, adding that she would be available to suggest any reforms or provide any advice sought by Magidson.
What should we expect this guy to do while he's here? I think he should generally resist the urge to make any policy changes, but if there are process issues that can be dealt with, they should be. This isn't his office - in a few months, it's going to be somebody else's. He shouldn't ignore anything that's obviously broken if it can be fixed by him, but neither should he go putting his stamp on the place. I don't think that should be too hard.
Anyway, as I said last night, welcome aboard, Mr. Magidson. It'll be interesting to see what the place looks like in a few months.
UPDATE: Via Grits, some more positive reactions from Mark Bennett and A Harris County Lawyer.
Okay, Postcards and Trail Blazers are blogging about a story that slipped past my attention last year but is back in the news now and which involves Speaker Craddick. Let's go to Postcards for an initial description:
A lawsuit over an Amazon fishing trip, which was canceled in 2006, should be a fish tale and not a political whopper, Speaker Tom Craddick and Bill Messer are arguing in a court document.The lawsuit by the tour operator, Amazon Tours, alleged that Craddick and Messer were acting "as bullies, using the power of the Speaker's office" to get their deposits returned instead of rescheduling their trip, which had been canceled because of high waters. Each had given a $1,900 deposit.
Lawyers for the two politicos are seeking a protective order to limit the topic and duration of their depositions, which are scheduled for later this month, and to ensure that their videotaped testimony isn't leaked to the news media.
The dispute surfaced in May 2007 as Craddick was fighting for his political life.
So, Craddick and his buddy Messer put down a deposit on an Amazon fishing trip that got cancelled, and they demanded their deposits back. That led to a lawsuit being filed against them, claiming that Craddick made threats to the travel agency. Here's the KVUE story from the time:
The suit, filed by Patrick Marsteller of Amazon Tours, Inc., says Craddick and Austin lobbyist Bill Messer paid the company for a fishing trip that was rescheduled. When high water on the Amazon made fishing conditions difficult, the company says it offered to reschedule the trip as a courtesy.The suit goes on to say that many months later, Craddick and Messer refused to go on the trip and demanded a refund. Amazon Tours said contract terms wouldn't allow a refund.
Craddick and Messer then sent a letter threatening embarrassment to the travel agent's reputation.
"There are clearly exceptional circumstances, and therefore we demand a full refund to be made to each of us in order to avoid legal action or embarrassment to your reputation," wrote Craddick and Messer.
"The speaker, I guess, he felt the power given to him by the Speaker of the House (position) gave him the right to do this," said Marsteller.
And here's the DMN story:
Lawyer-lobbyist Bill Messer and Mr. Craddick sent a letter to Amazon demanding a refund for a fishing trip they said the company canceled and couldn't reschedule. The letter was on Mr. Messer's legal letterhead and was signed "Speaker Tom Craddick."State ethics officials said their rules don't govern the use of titles, but Craddick opponents and the travel agent's attorney accused Mr. Craddick of throwing his weight around.
"It's the speaker of the House using the power and prestige of his office to gain an advantage,'" said Dallas lawyer Kevin Buchanan, who filed a lawsuit asking a judge to decide the dispute. "It's not right. It's oppressive."
Mr. Craddick's attorney, Roy Minton, said he saw nothing unusual about the letter or the speaker's use of his title in signing it. Elected officials use their titles all the time in correspondence having nothing to do with state business, he said.
"I've been representing politicians for close to 50 years, and ... they all point out what their title is" in correspondence, he said. "I don't know why, but they all do that."
Normally, this sort of thing would be the kind of minor tiff over a few bucks that no one would much care about. Except that now that depositions are about to be taken, Craddick is asking for his statements to be kept hidden from the public. Here's Karen Brooks, explaining why Craddick's attorney filed this motion:
The reason, he argues, is that the attorney for the Dallas-based Amazon Tours, Kevin Buchanan, filed his case asking to be allowed to keep the deposit "for political reasons" and will probably ask a bunch of questions regarding speaker politics for the sole purpose of making them available to the media for quotes and future filet-ing in the press.Which, who are we kidding, we'd totally quote from that deposition. That's why they're public. So people can read them. So we can report them. It's what we do.
Politically charged questions coming out in a time when the Speaker is fighting to keep his seat would no doubt be something he'd want to avoid.
[...]
The March 7, 2008 filing by Mr. Minton asks the court to seal the deposition and require that the questions be limited to the fishing trip, not the speaker's use of his office in general.
Elise Hu has more on this, including links to all the relevant documents. On the one hand, I can see the rationale for limiting the scope of the questions to Craddick. This is a dispute about a deposit, after all, so politics really isn't a part of it. On the other hand, the tour company says Craddick tried to intimidate them, and it makes sense that they'd want to demonstrate that such behavior is not unusual for Craddick, which means exploring his actions as Speaker. I kind of think Team Craddick has the better argument here, but as I'm not a lawyer and all, don't put too much faith in that judgment. I'll be very interested to see what the judge says.
As you know, Attorney General Greg Abbott has spent a lot of time and energy pursuing voter fraud cases, which as part of the push for voter ID legislation he claims are rampant around the state. Unfortunately for Abbott, while he's been successful at getting indictments, taking the cases to trial is another matter.
Criminal charges against two politiqueras accused of tampering with ballots in the 2005 McAllen mayoral election were dropped Tuesday, the same day their case was scheduled to go to trial.Hidalgo County Court-at-law Judge Jaime Palacios dismissed the case against Maria Helena Belasquez and Alicia Liscano Molina at the request of prosecutors who did not feel they had enough evidence to convince a jury of wrongdoing.
The decision comes five days after a similar case was dismissed against another politiquera, Gloria Barajas.
"They were not our investigations, and I didn't feel they would stand up before a jury," Hidalgo County District Attorney Rene Guerra said.
[...]
Voter fraud cases can be notoriously difficult to prosecute, Guerra said, because the evidence is often circumstantial.
In this case, the investigation was conducted by the Texas attorney general's office but did not produce specific evidence linking the women to any crime, Guerra said.
"There's a very high standard of proof required by jurors (in voter fraud cases)," he said. "You can't just show evidence of irregularities. You have to show that the defendant was responsible."
So far, five of the nine indictments related to the McAllen elections have been dismissed, one of the defendants has pleaded guilty and the remaining three cases have bounced from court to court suffering numerous setbacks and delays.
In 2006, Attorney General Greg Abbott held up the Hidalgo County voter fraud case as an example of a successful voter fraud investigation that produced results.
If by "results" you mean "opportunities for publicity hounds", then I suppose that would be accurate. Perhaps if AG Abbott spent more time pursuing real crimes and less time chasing bogeymen, he'd get more substantive results than that. Thanks to Vince for the tip.
Swamplot has an updated look at the Costco that's coming to the west end of Greenway Plaza, at Weslayan and Richmond. From the description of the parking lot, I'd say it puts to rest any possible notion that it might possibly be accommodating to rail passengers, if any such notion still existed. Seems like a missed opportunity to me, but they didn't ask me. Anyway, check it out.
Looks like we may finally get a replacement DA soon.
Gov. Rick Perry hopes to name an interim Harris County district attorney as early as this week, his office confirmed Tuesday, and the man now running the office says he's not interested in finishing out the term if it's offered.Perry spokeswoman Krista Piferrer said "a whole host" of candidates have been considered for the position since Chuck Rosenthal resigned amid scandal last month.
Perry's staff discussed how they might go about filling the opening with former district attorney John B. Holmes Jr., but did not offer him the interim post, Piferrer said. Holmes wouldn't be eligible for the job because he now lives in Austin County.
Whomever Perry appoints would serve the remainder of Rosenthal's term through the end of the year. Voters will elect a new district attorney in November.
Piferrer did not rule out the possibility that the interim spot could go to one of the three candidates seeking the office. But the Republican Party won't settle on a candidate until the April 8 runoff election between Kelly Siegler and Pat Lykos. And the odds of the Republican governor appointing the Democratic candidate, C.O. Bradford, would seem slim.
Since Rosenthal's resignation, the district attorney's office has been directed by first Assistant District Attorney Bert Graham. Graham on Tuesday said he has not been approached about the temporary job, nor would he accept it if offered.
I'd have considered Bert Graham to be the best choice, but if he doesn't want it, then that's that. It's just as well Johnny Holmes isn't eligible, it'd be too weird having him back. Given that it won't be Siegler, Lykos, or Bradford, I guess whoever it is will be a surprise. Anyone want to speculate?
Meanwhile, the story also has an update on Rosenthal's legal situation.
A hearing set to resume Friday on whether Rosenthal should be held in contempt of court has been canceled, but the federal judge presiding over the matter wants to review sworn statements regarding Rosen- thal's use of prescription drugs. A ruling on the contempt motion is expected shortly after those documents are filed.[...]
An order signed Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt suggests the court will consider whether Rosenthal's use of medication affected his ability to tell the truth or realize the impact of his actions when he deleted documents sought for a civil rights lawsuit.
[...]
Hoyt has given Rosenthal and his physician until 4:30 p.m. Friday to submit sworn statements. The doctor's will be sealed from public view.
Though the doctor was not identified in Hoyt's order, Rosenthal claimed to be a patient of physician Sam Siegler while testifying during a deposition in November. He is Kelly Siegler's husband.
Not exactly sure why the hearing was cancelled - I guess maybe Judge Hoyt figures he can get all the info he needs to make a decision from the sworn statements. That makes this a lot less fun overall, but I suppose we'll cope. I look forward to Judge Hoyt's eventual ruling on this.
UPDATE: We have a name.
Gov. Rick Perry plans to name Kenneth Magidson, an assistant U.S. attorney in Houston, as the new Harris County district attorney, once he gets approval from the U.S. Department of Justice, a source close to the process said today.It wasn't known when that approval would be received.
Magidson was waiting to get an assurance from the Justice Department that he would get his job back after a district attorney is elected in November, the source said.
[...]
Magidson, 59, was a Harris County assistant district attorney in the early 1980s and became an assistant U.S. attorney in Houston by 1985. His wife Anita is a former administrator of a state felony court.
[...]
In 1996, then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno appointed him director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, a set of agencies he started working with from Houston in 1987.
The Justice Department statement on the 1996 appointment said he "has a wide and well-earned reputation as a leading prosecutor, having been responsible for major drug trafficking, RICO (racketeering) and money laundering cases at the federal level (and) capital murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping cases at the state level."
Welcome aboard, sir. Here's hoping you can successfully steer this leaky ship till January. Best of luck to you.
Not a whole lot of runoff action this year. There just weren't that many more-than-two-candidate primaries - having no Democratic-held open-seat State House races was a factor there - and of course the big field Senate race everyone was watching ended with Rick Noriega getting a majority, thus obviating the need for overtime there. There will be two runoffs on my ballot this year, plus three more elsewhere that interest me, so let's take a look at those.
1. Railroad Commissioner If I live to be 100, I'll never understand how Mark Thompson got 48% of the vote in this race. He had no obvious constituency, no money, no campaign organization, no endorsements, and no "simple name" advantage that otherwise might have helped him in a high-turnout, low-information election. I can understand "Mark Thompson" beating out "Waldemar von Zedwitz" and "Belvedere Jehosaphat", but why would someone who felt compelled to pick a name from a hat favor "Mark Thompson" over "Art Hall" or "Dale Henry"? If he'd been first on the ballot everywhere - which was not the case - I could see him finishing first, but not by that much. This is truly one of the most bizarre results I've ever seen, and I hope someone some day comes up with a plausible explanation for it.
Anyway, the conditions that existed in March will not exist in April. It'll be the hardiest of the hardcore turning out for the extra frame, and when they do I hope they'll course correct and pick Dale Henry to be the nominee in November. Henry is easily the most qualified candidate and will give the Democrats their best shot to win. If you plan to vote again next month, please cast that vote for Dale Henry.
2. 80th District Court (Civil) With Adrian Garcia winning his three-way primary outright, this is the one countywide runoff, with contenders Marc Isenberg and Larry Weiman each collecting 35% of the vote. I'm comfortable voting for Larry Weiman in this one, as I think he has the better resume, and he was on the ballot in 2006 before it was cool to run for judge as a Democrat. Unlike the RRC runoff this is a contest between qualified candidates, but I think Weiman is still the better choice.
Not on my ballot, but still of interest:
3. Justice of the Peace, Precinct 8, Place 1 It's Jeff Heintschel versus Dee Wright for this Republican-held open seat. I know nothing about these two except that the Chron endorsed Heintschel. If you can make a case for one or the other, please feel free to do so.
4. District Attorney, Travis County I liked Rosemary Lehmberg before, and I see no reason not to support her now over Mindy Montford.
5. Congressional District 32 I am persuaded by this BOR diary that Eric Roberson is the best candidate here.
There are other races in other places, but these are the ones I know about. The Republican side has some interesting matchups, including those for Harris County DA, CD22, and HDs 52 and 144, but I'll leave that to them to sort out. If there's a race somewhere that you think is important that I've overlooked, please let me know. Thanks.
Last year the Dallas-area city of Highland Park banned the use of handheld cellphones while driving through school zones. Now the city of West University Place is considering the same thing.
Council will consider a draft ordinance at its next regular meeting.The West U. Police Department studied the school zone in the 3700 block of University Boulevard in front of West U. Elementary School Feb. 4-22 to determine the frequency of cell usage and its relation with traffic violations.
Police found an average of 13.5 drivers were on their phones in the active school zone each day and 297 drivers were seen from a single vantage point using their cell phones during the study.
During morning dropoff, there were 48 traffic violations, six of which were attributed to cell phone use. Most of the violations had to do with drivers entering intersections when children and crossing guards were present.
Police also consulted studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, New England Journal of Medicine and AAA Foundation for Traffic and Safety.
"All of the surveys we consulted with had the same result -- cell phone usage does restrict drivers of motor vehicles," [West U. Police Lt. Thad M.] Olive said.
I have to say, six violations of the type described above, out of 48 cellphone users doesn't sound like that big a problem to me. I have no quarrel with the ordinance, I'm just saying that based on these statistics, I don't think it'll have that much effect.
Mayor Bob Kelly said he believes council should consider a possible ordinance."The cell phone usage has just gotten phenomenal in the last few years," he said. "The usage of cell phones is so significant you can't just ignore it."
Kelly said he spoke to the mayor of Highland Park in the Dallas area, which adopted a similar ordinance carrying a $75 fine for citations.
The idea for West U. would be similar in that the ordinance would not be to raise money, but awareness.
"He said the (Highland Park) ordinance has worked beautifully," Kelly said. "They had 10 citations in the first week, 10 in the next month after that and now there are very few citations."
That's about what I'd expect. This is a pretty limited population that will be affected by the law. I'd be surprised if they didn't adapt quickly.
There was some debate on whether an ordinance also should prohibit use of hands-free devices in the school zones."The handless ones are still very distracting," Councilman Michael Talianchich said. "I'm in favor of banning all cell phone usage."
Councilman Chuck Guffey said he agreed with banning hands-free cell phones because he believes most people will comply with the law even if it is hard to enforce.
Olive said that sort of restriction would be difficult to enforce because police cannot necessarily tell whether a person is using a headset or merely singing along with the radio.
"We'll get with the city prosecutor and look at it as far as viability in being able to enforce it," Olive said.
I'd recommend allowing the exception, even though it's about the same from a safety perspective. I think it would be a bit too invasive to include hands-free devices in the ordinance. Again, not that big a deal either way. Link via Jennifer Friedberg.
Missed this from last week.
After a one-month deliberation, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen has issued the most significant decision in the border fence's short judicial history. In a case against Eloisa Tamez, who owns property along the barrier's proposed path in El Calaboz, Hanen found that the federal government is authorized by the Declaration of Taking Act to condemn Tamez's land. But according to the ruling, negotiations must take place between the landowner and the Department of Homeland Security before property is seized.Immediately after the decision was filed on Tamez's case, 25 previously pending cases -- pertaining to land in Cameron Hidalgo and Starr Counties -- were scheduled in Hanen's Brownsville court on March 17 and 19, making him a critical actor in the border fence's construction. Among the defendants in the next batch of cases are the Texas Southmost College District and the Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District.
At a Feb. 7 hearing, Tamez's lawyer, Peter Schey, of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, argued that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had violated federal law by failing to negotiate with her over the value of her property before filing a land condemnation lawsuit.
In his decision issued late Friday, Hanen ruled that "Dr. Tamez correctly asserts that negotiations are a prerequisite to the exercise of the power of eminent domain." The ruling's conclusion also states that "There is contradictory and insufficient evidence before this court as to whether there has been bona fide efforts to negotiate with Dr. Tamez."
Michael Chertoff failed to follow federal law? Shocking, I know.
It is unclear what form the court-ordered negotiation will take. The ruling states only that the government and Tamez, a nursing professor at the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College, must "either partake in negotiations and/or provide this court with any relevant evidence they have concerning the existence of bona fide efforts to negotiate" by March 21.If the parties do not agree upon a fixed price for the property in question, Tamez's land can be condemned under the Declaration of Taking Act.
"We welcome the court-ordered negotiations with the government and once those are concluded, we will demand that consultation take place with Dr. Tamez before any federal agents enter her land," Schey said.
He expects that the same negotiations will be ordered in subsequent border fence suits.
"The reassignment of cases to Hanen avoids the potential for decisions with different interpretations of the law," he said. "If (Hanen) believes that argument we made is right, he will apply it in the other cases."
For now, the court has refused to sign an expedited order allowing DHS to begin its survey of Tamez's land -- a preliminary step in the border fence's construction.
Background on the lawsuit is here. The Observer has more (they also had a cover story that featured Dr. Tamez recently). They quote Dr. Tamez calling this a victory, and in the sense that it forces DHS to follow the law, it is. Unfortunately, I don't see it as a barrier to the fence ultimately getting built, just a bit of a speed bump. The only way this thing doesn't ultimately happen is if Congress de-funds it, and I don't see that as a realistic possibility. So forgive me for not feeling too celebratory about this ruling. Story link via South Texas Chisme.
Always good to hear from the granddaddy of modern sabermetrics. Possibly the most interesting thing he has to say is here:
If you were to be named commissioner of baseball tomorrow, what would be first change you make?Well, the commissioner can't really make changes. He can organize the process leading to change. That's a petty answer. To give you the real answer, I'd try to do something about the game dragging in the late innings. We need to make the games snap along a little better, particularly in the late innings. There are more than six times as many pitching changes in a game now than there were two generations ago. That's a huge change in the game. And it's not a change for the better, in my view. Maybe it's a change for the better in terms of trying to win. But in terms of its impact on the fans, how the fans enjoy the game, I don't see that as a change for the better. So I'd probably try to organize some kind of move to see if we couldn't get an agreement to limit the number of pitching changes in the late innings.
This is the rule that I would adopt. I've thought about this for a long time, and I don't see why this doesn't work. One time per game, you get a free pitching change without restriction. Otherwise, when you put a pitcher on the mound to start an inning, he has to stay in the game until he's charged with a run allowed. In other words, you have a limit on how often you can put a pitcher out there, let him face one batter and "let's bring in somebody else."
I'm okay with this concept, though I think I'd add a proviso that subsequent relievers can be removed any time after they've completed three innings as well. Otherwise, especially in an extra-inning game, you'd be risking injury to someone who may not be equipped to go any longer. But in the interest of speeding up the game, I like the basic premise. I'd also be okay with limiting same-inning pitching changes in some fashion. Those are the ones that really drag things out. What do you think? Link via David Pinto.
Here's something to ponder: On the same day that they ran the story about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and his hooker problem, the Chronical also ran an editorial calling for his resignation. Nothing wrong with that, I'd say it's the consensus opinion, and likely to come true fairly quickly, though given that this was a late-in-the-day story, the speed by which the Chron responded editorially was remarkable to me. They must not have had anything else pressing to opine about today, I figure.
But contrast that to their response to the Chuck Rosenthal saga, which I think we can all agree is of more local interest than the foibles of a Northeastern governor. The story of Rosenthal's racist, sexist, and possibly illegal campaign-related emails hit the news on January 8. As far as I can tell from doing multiple archive searches, the first time the Chron ran an unsigned editorial on the subject was February 16, when they expressed their approval at his long-awaited decision to quit and called on Governor Perry to name a replacement (which he hasn't done yet, by the way). Before that, even as calls for him to step down came from folks like Kelly Siegler, a group of black ministers, various letter writers, and County Judge Ed Emmett, there was nothing from the Chron.
So I've got to ask: Why was it more important for the Chron to comment on the Spitzer situation than the Rosenthal situation? I'll stipulate that Spitzer is headed for an indictment, while Rosenthal may never face charges, but so what? Again, Spitzer is in New York. Rosenthal is here, and his saga dominated the local news for weeks, and is still having an effect on the political scene. Note that I'm not saying the Chron needed to call for Rosenthal to step down, though in the end they did approve of him doing just that. I'm just wondering why it took them so long to express any editorial opinion on the subject when they were lightning quick to judge Spitzer. I don't understand their priorities here.
More news on the federal investigation into the state of Harris County's jails.
Three Harris County Jail inmates died in the first 12 days of this year, and what happened to them is likely a part of a federal investigation announced last week.Last year, 16 prisoners died in the care of the downtown Houston jail, compared with 21 in 2006. During the first two weeks of this year, one woman and two men died in the county's custody, according to records provided Monday by the Harris County Sheriff's Office. A sheriff's spokesman said the list was the most recent information available.
The Justice Department's civil rights division opened the investigation to determine whether the constitutional rights of Harris County detainees have been violated. Federal authorities will focus on the jail's efforts to protect inmates from harm as well as the facility's living conditions and health care.
Failures in all three areas were causes of death for inmates at the Dallas County Jail, an investigation opened by justice officials in November 2005 concluded.
[...]
According to court records, inmate deaths were the primary focus of the Dallas investigation. The government's report about Dallas jail conditions cited 13 areas of inadequate medical care. Investigators were concerned about the jail's slow determination of deadly medical conditions and failure to manage the medical needs of inmates with chronic conditions that could kill them.
Federal authorities will send a team of experts to inspect the Harris County Jail, and more than one visit is likely.
For the Dallas investigation, consultants in the fields of medical care, mental health care, safety and sanitation made two visits in 2006. One lasted five days; the other was four days. The team collected policies, procedures and incident reports from local officials as well as the grievances and health records of inmates. Four months later, Dallas officials reported how they were addressing the "deficient conditions" cited by the consultants.
I fully expect they'll find things that need fixing. It's hard to imagine that so many inmate deaths could be occurring under proper conditions. It's just a question of how difficult - and expensive - it will be to fix the things they point out, and whether any obvious fall guys will be identified. I look forward to seeing the reports.
I don't know that there's anything much left to discuss of the theory that Republican crossover votes had any meaningful effect in the Democratic primary last week, but for completeness' sake, I'll link to Mike Baselice's analysis (Word doc), which - unsurprisingly - concludes there was nothing unusual about the level of Republican participation. See for yourself, and let's let this discussion topic finally die the peaceful death it deserves. Link via Postcards.
And we can add Harvey Kronberg's take, which generally agrees with everything that's been said so far, though with a bit of funny math:
But by any measure the Democrats had the blowout. The Clinton-Obama contest produced nearly 2.9 million primary voters, which doubled their numbers from 2004 and tripled those of the 2000 turnout.
Um, primary turnout in each of those years was in the 800,000 range, so this year was more than triple that. That's an error that should have been caught.
While the Democrats had more than twice as many voters show up as Republicans, pollsters warn that most of these are November voters who were excited by the presidential election and showed up to vote in March.We really won't know until the fall whether or not Republicans still enjoy a 9 point advantage over Democrats in Texas. My own suspicion is that the 9 points is eroding.
Mine, too. Link via EoW.
Stupidity is always a bipartisan trait.
A veteran Capitol staffer resigned Monday over allegations he impersonated both a state representative and a newspaper reporter in the last month - first to sway a state primary race, then to glean information on an ethics complaint against his boss.Todd Gallaher had been on leave from Republican state Sen. Bob Deuell's office since last month, when he used an e-mail address that looked like it belonged to a Democratic lawmaker to send out embarrassing photos of a South Texas sheriff up for re-election.
As recently as Thursday night, however, he was back in Dr. Deuell's Capitol office, apparently identifying himself as a Dallas Morning News reporter in a phone call with a California ethics watchdog.
Mr. Gallaher on Monday said that he led the ethics investigator to believe he was a News reporter and that he made the call without Dr. Deuell's permission or knowledge. He declined to comment about his involvement in the South Texas sheriff's race, though he said he doesn't believe he's done anything criminal.
"It sounds like I've put the senator in a very bad position," said Mr. Gallaher, who has worked at the Capitol for more than a decade. "I'm heartbroken about that."
The pictures from [email protected] hit e-mail inboxes before the Aransas County primary election, showing Republican incumbent Sheriff Mark Gilliam revealing his buttocks, stripping off his shirt and pretending to kiss another man at a house party two decades ago.
But the real state Rep. Juan Garcia, the Corpus Christi Democrat whose district includes Aransas County, didn't send the e-mail - Mr. Gallaher did. Mr. Garcia hasn't ruled out legal action against the man he says impersonated him to try to defame the sheriff.
Dr. Deuell of Greenville said Mr. Gallaher told him he wasn't impersonating Mr. Garcia when he sent out the photos, which Sheriff Gilliam says were taken at a raucous New Year's Eve police party in 1989. Dr. Deuell, who has apologized profusely for his staffer's actions, said Mr. Gallaher told him the personal e-mail address stands for "Republican Jaun Garcia," a super hero-like caricature Mr. Gallaher created long before Mr. Garcia ever took office.
[...]
If the e-mail address on the South Texas sheriff photos was truly just a coincidence, Rep. Garcia said, it's one that's "beyond comprehension." His office has asked for evidence that Mr. Gallaher has used the alter ego before - a request that Dr. Deuell said has produced cartoon sketches from the 1990s. In those sketches, Mr. Gallaher points out, "Juan" is spelled "Jaun," a sign that the character is in no way linked to Mr. Garcia. In the e-mail address, however, it was spelled "juan."
[...]
Rep. Garcia said he found out about the e-mail only when his office started receiving phone calls from friends and constituents who believed he was the sender. His information technology staff traced the e-mail address - first to the Capitol, then to Dr. Deuell's office, and eventually to Mr. Gallaher's state computer.
"Our interest and our concern is with conveying to our local community that neither myself nor my staff generated this e-mail or knew anything about it," Mr. Garcia said.
The "alter ego" explanation is pretty weak, and given how Rep. Garcia is a top target of the Republicans this fall, it's hard to imagine there wasn't a bit of temptation to dirty him up. I hope he does take legal action about this.
So. Governor Spitzer of New York. Prostitution ring. Doesn't look very good, does it?
Now, I think Jane asks some pretty reasonable questions about this business. Given the extreme politicization of the Bush Justice Department, I'm inclined to view this kind of action on their part suspiciously. Not because I think the core facts are doubtful - Spitzer himself has basically copped to the allegations - but because the timing and the circumstances are curious. How is it that Spitzer's name got leaked to the press but David Vitter's didn't? That sort of thing. The Bush Administration has abused the public trust in a million different ways these past seven-plus years, and I see no reason to start taking their word for it on anything, let alone anything politically charged like this.
Having said that, Spitzer is a disgrace, to himself and to those who supported him. As a prosecutor himself, he of all people should know better. He needs to resign - morally and politically, it's the right thing to do.
I think this sums up how a lot of people feel about Gov. Spitzer right now. It's not safe for work, and it's not for those who are offended by strong language, but it's right on.
UPDATE: TPM has an answer to one of Jane's questions, about why the US Attorney was involved in a prostitution bust.
In the aftermath of her close primary win, there was some speculation that State Rep. Dora Olivo, who accepted some late PAC money from Tom Craddick, would owe him a vote to be Speaker - see Paul Burka, for example. I thought this speculation was premature, and said so in a comment on Burka's blog. Well, I never managed to reach Rep. Olivo to ask her myself about this, but fortunately Clay Robison did.
Since some people apparently are still wondering, Rep. Dora Olivo, D-Rosenberg, says she will not support Craddick for another term as speaker, assuming she wins re-election over a Republican opponent in November.Olivo squeezed out a 187-vote victory over Democratic primary challenger Ron Reynolds, raising some eyebrows in the closing days by accepting $2,500 from the Texas Builds Jobs and Opportunity PAC, a committee linked to Craddick.
"I don't intend to support Craddick," Olivo said late last week.
His policies are bad for the state, she said, and "he is so autocratic."
"When people give me money, they're not buying me," she added. "I say, 'Thank you,' and do the work I'm supposed to do."
Her $2,500 was on the low end of the giving scale for the committee. Other candidates received as much as $50,000.
That's good enough for me. One thing to keep in mind, as a friend of Olivo's told me, is that this is likely to be her last session. She was going to retire this time around, but none of the people she had in mind to run for her seat chose to do so, and she apparently didn't like Reynolds as her replacement, so she geared it up once more. Things may be a bit awkward in Austin for the first few weeks, but I doubt it'll be much more than that.
Finally recovered from Super Texas Tuesday? Well, here's this week's Texas Progressive Alliance weekly blog roundup to help you make sense of it all. Click on for the highlights.
Refinish69 joins John McClelland, Democratic nominee for Texas House District 64n in asking "Where's Myra"?
Seems Shrub has a new title to add to his list. Torturer in Chief doesn't seem like one most people would want but then Shrub is a fool.
Eye On Williamson wraps up Tuesday's primary. Dembones points out that Obama won Williamson County and SD 5, as well as the unprecedented turnout for the caucuses. WCNews has initial impressions and more impressions from the primary.
Offt the Kuff has been busy poring through the data from Tuesday's primary, with posts about the blueing on Harris County, and a series on Republican crossover votes.
The Texas Cloverleaf begs the question, who the hell is Mark Thompson? Is another dead dancer in our midst, or did voter apathy give us another odd run off?
Where is Myra? State Rep Crownover is missing, and the Leaf wants you to watch a video to help locate her.
PDiddie at Brains and Eggs wrote the advance story of Election Day in his precinct with "Today's agenda", and the postscript in "244".
McBlogger had an exciting and mostly hateful Primary Week. Things kicked off with Mayor McSleaze's recap of the primary itself, while McBlogger took the time to bitchslap John McCain for taking an endorsement from some weird-o preacher in San Antonio and chastise adults for following the lead of a child. McBlogger finishes up the week with a plea for relief from a devastating force, Rachael Ray.
BossKitty at BlueBloggin asks democrats to unite and explore Make It So! A Clinton-Obama ticket?
WhosPlayin thanks his city's staff for the help in Tuesday's primaries, and wonders why the big deal about the use of the "M" word.
John Coby at Bay Area Houston wonders When Hope turns into Whine.
Vince at Capitol Annex starts taking a look at the March 4 primary, with the first of many Primary Postmortem posts.
Got this last week and forgot to post about it. From SuperNeighborhood 22, an update on the Archstone Memorial Heights situation:
The TIRZ 5 (Memorial/Heights) Board will meet on Tuesday, March 11 at 2:00PM. The meeting location is changed from the Memorial Heights Archstone apartments' Media Room to a larger venue at the United Way Building, room E/F, at 50 Waugh Drive. A new public comment opportunity has been added to the meeting's agenda. Members of the public who wish to speak may sign in prior to the meeting. After being acknowledged by the Chair, the Board will hear individual comments limited to approximately 3 minutes each.Superneighborhood 22 continues to collect input from the community about Archstone's intention to seek abandonment of the Court Street and Spaceway Park rights-of-way.
Please e-mail comments to: [email protected]
Results to date: 90% opposed to the abandonment of Court Street.
It is the opinion of the SN22 Council that attractively landscaped large splitter islands with mature trees add unique character and a sense of place to our urban streetscape - qualities that should be preserved and encouraged along Washington Avenue, and that are consistent with the precedent set by the Washington on Westcott (WOW) Roundabout design. Splitter islands enhance pedestrian mobility in active mixed-use areas by enabling safer pedestrian crossings of the entire intersection.
The Court Street turn lane offers emergency vehicles from HFD Station 6 a shorter southbound path than a standardized intersection at this location would. Drivers are able to make right turns even when a Metro bus is serving passengers at the transit stop. This right turn access works effectively to lessen congestion at the intersection, and the landscaped island provides a shaded refuge for both transit users and pedestrians.
SN22 requested that COH/PWE/Traffic & Transportation evaluate the safety of the Court Street turn lane and install appropriate signage to eliminate confusion and misdirection of traffic. Two communications several weeks apart were received from T&T's Deputy Director, Ray Chong, informing us first; that funds had been allocated to resolve the problems; and second, that a consultant has been engaged to redesign the intersection. As yet we have been unable to determine if Mr. Chong refers to the same consultant engaged by Archstone to provide a redesign for the intersection. If that is the case, the public property will be abandoned and incorporated into Archstone's private 28.10 acre re-development.
At the February TIRZ 5 meeting Archstone stated the intent to move the abandonment request forward for approval by the COH Joint Referral Committee.
I think this abandonment is a bad idea. If you agree, and if you can attend this meeting so as to express that, please do so. Thanks.
UPDATE: See the On the Spot blog for a resident's view of what's happening at Archstone Memorial Heights.
This isn't really news, in the sense that it's happened over and over again in elections across the country, but in case you've forgotten, it's still the case that being an anti-immigrant demagogue isn't an electoral winner.
The cooling down of immigration as a hot election-year issue is backed up by recent polls.Roughly one in 10 Harris County voters identified immigration as the most important issue in determining his or her vote in the general election, according to a recent poll commissioned by the Houston Chronicle. The poll, conducted by Zogby International, found immigration was far more important among GOP voters, with 20 percent of Republicans ranking it as their top issue -- compared with 3 percent of Democrats.
Seems to me you could simply have pointed to the result in the GOP primary for Harris County Judge, where the guy who made getting tuff on immigration a centerpiece of his campaign lost. If it didn't help get Charles Bacarisse elected, I don't see why anyone else would think it's going to help them get elected. Which is not to say I don't expect some of them to keep trying.
In the Chronicle poll, 35 percent of those surveyed name the economy as their most important issue. Fifteen percent named the war in Iraq, and 11 percent said health care.
In the dead-tree version of this story, there was a sidebar that showed significant support for a path to legalization among young voters, and decreasing levels of such support as the voters got older, to the point where the oldest voters opposed it more than they supported it. Which makes it much like the support curve for gay rights, and gives me hope that this is an issue that will permanently fade away over time. I hope so, anyway.
From the "Stuff I bookmarked then totally forgot to blog about because the primary was so crazy" comes this story about more trouble with the TIERS system.
To Texans applying for food stamps, it may not seem to matter whether their application goes through the state's old computer enrollment system or the newer one.But new state data show that fewer than half of Texas food stamp applications processed using the updated computer system, known as TIERS, are completed within the 30 days required by the federal government. TIERS average of 48 percent of applications within 30 days is significantly lower than the 90 percent under the old system, SAVERR.
That 48 percent -- which is from December, the last month available -- represents a steady decline from last summer. The federal standard is 95 percent. See page 26 of this report. Timeliness is also an issue for Medicaid applications.
"If we are that abysmally low on meeting federal timeliness requirements," State Rep. Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs, told state health officials during a Capitol hearing today, "it makes sense to figure out what those kinks are before we begin to expand (TIERS) further."
But TIERS expansion is already under way. About 350,000 cases for programs such as food stamps and Medicaid are in TIERS, compared to about 150,000 a year ago, Rose said.
Timeliness isn't just an issue, it can be the difference between getting your application processed at all and having to do it all over again from scratch. The explanation is a bit complicated, but it goes like this:
Federal law requires HHSC to make a decision on a client's application within 30 days of it being filed. Because the unit of HHSC that is using TIERS is so far behind, it isn't even getting to schedule client interviews before the 40th day in many cases. That's bad (and against federal regulations), but it gets worse. Now if a client is missing anything for his application, he has an extremely small window to furnish it, because if the process is not completed within 60 days, it gets thrown out, and the client has to start all over again from scratch. Which generally means another six weeks or so of waiting for another appointment.
Part of the problem with this, of course, is that in the old days, clients did these applications at local branch offices of HHSC, which meant that any questions about what was needed and what might be missing could be easily and quickly answered, thus ensuring that the applications could get done right the first time. Now, in the consolidated-and-outsourced world, there are only a few of these locations, so a client may show up at an interview a couple hundred miles from home only to learn that some critical piece of information is absent, and there's no time to get it into the application before the deadline. Oops.
So the problems with TIERS, which is the root cause of all this, are causing needless hardships on people, and may be putting the state in violation of federal law. And this system is going to be expanded. Isn't that lovely? I hope that in the event of a Democratic takeover of the State House, that a thorough review and revision to 2003's HB2293 will be high on the priority list, because this is a travesty.
As we see in this blog post by the Chron's Alan Bernstein, Rep. John Culberson is now officially worried about Michael Skelly and his fundraising prowess. But what really caught my eye was this rather amazing admission by Harris County GOP Chair Jared Woodfill at the end of the piece:
U.S. Rep. John Culberson, whose west Harris County district is one of the most Republican in the nation, has become the latest high-profile GOPer to acknowledge that local Republican candidates, including himself, face special challenges this year. (County Judge Ed Emmett, former Rep. Tom DeLay and others have done likewise).The congressman said in a recent campaign fund-raising letter that "a variety of factors will make this election the most difficult I have faced since 2000," which was the first time he ran.
[...]
In presidential elections, George W. Bush carried the district with 69 percent of the vote against Al Gore in 2000 and 64 percent against John Kerry in 2004.
County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill said he thinks Culberson will win by 5 to 10 percentage points and that, as for the "problems" Culberson mentioned, "If he wasn't talking about that I would be surprised."
I can't resist pointing out that strictly speaking, CD07 isn't even one of the most Republican districts in Texas, at least going by the 2006 numbers. According to the RedViewer, here are the most Republican districts based on the Hutchison/Radnofsky numbers:
Dist KBH %
===========
11 77.5
19 76.6
12 76.3
08 71.8
01 70.8
17* 70.5
04 69.4
03 68.4
05 68.3
06 68.0
12 68.0
14 67.8
24 67.1
31 67.1
21 66.8
26 65.8
02 65.7
07 65.1
22* 64.7
32 63.4
10 62.5
Districts with an asterisk are Democrat-held. CD07 is 17th among 19 GOP-held districts in terms of Hutchison's performance. It does better if you take the overall Democratic/Republican performance index:
Dist GOP %
===========
11 73.2
13 70.9
19 70.9
08 68.1
01 66.8
03 65.0
17* 64.6
21 64.4
05 63.7
07 63.7
04 63.6
31 63.0
14 62.9
24 62.9
06 62.8
12 62.3
26 61.5
22* 61.1
32 59.6
10 59.3
A more respectable middle-of-the-pack tie for eighth-most Republican district.
I point all this out for a couple of reasons. One is simply to note that CD07 isn't quite the red monolith it once was. That's partly a result of the 2003 re-redistricting, which made almost all Republican-held districts less red so as to make other Republican-targeted districts more so. CDs 05 and 23 were the two exceptions to this, with CD23 ultimately being mostly undone by the Supreme Court. But it's also partly a result of the same demographic and partisan trends we're seeing across Harris County and the rest of the state. CD07 isn't as Republican as it used to be because Harris and Texas aren't as Republican as they used to be, either.
Even with that, it's amazing to see Jared Woodfill talk in terms of a "five to ten point win" for Culberson this year. That is to say, Woodfill thinks his best case showing is 55-45 over Skelly. Let me ask you a question: How well do you think the Republicans will do in Harris County this year - or statewide - if a generally reliable and high-turnout district like CD07 is only performing at a 55% level for them? How about if it's performing at a 52 or 53% level, which by Woodfill's admission is within the realm of GOP thought? Probably not too well, I'd say. In fact, had CD07 been this purple in 2006, we wouldn't be talking about a judicial breakthrough for Harris County Democrats, because we'd already have achieved it. By my calculation, a 55% showing in 2006 would have swung about 20,000 votes towards the Democrats, enough to put Robert Voigt, Chuck Silverman, Mary Kay Green, and Bill Connolly on the bench, while also electing Andrew Burks to the HCDE (and thus keeping Michael Wolfe out) and Richard Garcia as Harris County Treasurer. And here I'm being generous and using that 55% as the average countywide level instead of statewide, which was friendlier to the Republicans by three points in '06 (in other words, a 58-42 performance for GOP statewides). Think about that.
Now of course, Woodfill may simply think that only Culberson will see his performance drop by that much, while the rest of the Republicans in CD07 do just fine. Seems like an awful lot of ticket-splitting to get Culberson down to almost ten points below average, but that could be what he has in mind. Me, I'd be willing to bet that the Republican performance index drops and that Culberson comes in beneath it. Regardless, if that's how Woodfill sees CD07 this year, I say great. His view coincides with a very robust outlook for the Dems everywhere in the county. I'm glad to hear we see eye to eye on that.
The West U Examiner has more, including a reference to the Skelly poll from earlier. And finally, former independent candidate John Truitt, who dropped out of the race a few weeks ago, has now formally endorsed Skelly.
In a statement on his web site www.truittfortruth.com, Truitt describes Skelly as "one of the most impressive men I've met in quite a while". He goes on to say, "When it comes to creative thinking and finding solutions to the problems that face our country today, Michael Skelly is light-years ahead of the encumbent John Culberson. I think Michael will do a good job for us, and I am urging all my supporters to vote for and do whatever you can to elect him as our US Representative in the Congress from the 7th District."
Nice. And I expect to hear a lot more of that in the coming weeks, too.
It's going to be so much fun going through all this data. Well, for me, anyway. For a lot of people, it's gonna be a boatload of work.
Perhaps one of the lasting effects of the record primary turnout for both parties is newly found enthusiasm for the democratic process. "It just seems kind of like a cool fresh time," [said an early Democratic voter]. "It seems pretty optimistic."But more tangible as a consequence of the primary is the now-expanded voting record that will be used by a variety of political foot soldiers in the war for November votes.
Democrats gleefully counted 405,784 votes for presidential candidates in their Harris County primary. The largest number of votes ever cast in the county for a Democratic presidential nominee in a November election was 475,865 for John Kerry in 2004. (President Bush got more, with total county turnout topping 1 million).
If Democratic operatives were to get all primary voters back to the polls in November through direct contact, it would put them well on the way to a stronger-than-ever showing in the general election.
"That's half the battle right there, figuring out who these people are, and then we can use our resources to pull these people back out," said Amber Moon, Houston-based spokeswoman for the Texas Democratic Party. "I think the people who are excited today will be excited in November -- and we will make sure they are excited."
The Republican primary here attracted 169,178 voters to its less dramatic presidential race, but the number still was a record high. GOP turnout set new marks in Fort Bend and Montgomery counties, too. And from election records, campaigns will be able to find new voters and returning Republicans in that batch.
I am told that the precinct canvass results will be made public this week (a draft version is now available to some lucky folks). We'll see what stories they tell us, and where we go from there.
Fascinating piece in The Atlantic about the subprime mortgage crisis and its longterm effects on the inner cities and far-flung newer developments.
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025--that's roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and '70s--slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.
Link via TAPPED, which adds a few thoughts. I don't have anything to add to this right now, I just thought it was a provocative read and wanted to recommend it. Check it out.
It's depressing, it's not usually sung in Ireland for St. Patrick's Day, and its lyrics were written by an Englishman who never set foot on Irish soil.Those are only some of the reasons why a Manhattan pub owner is banning the song "Danny Boy" for the entire month of March.
"It's overplayed, it's been ranked among the 25 most depressing songs of all time and it's more appropriate for a funeral than for a St. Patrick's Day celebration," said Shaun Clancy, who owns Foley's Pub and Restaurant, across the street from the Empire State Building.
Heh. Back when the group Ceili's Muse was in existence and playing regular gigs in Houston, one of their credos was that they'd never, ever sing "Danny Boy". Nobody ever objected.
The 38-year-old Clancy, who started bartending when he was 12 at his father's pub in County Cavan, Ireland, promised a free Guinness to patrons who sing any other traditional Irish song at the pub's pre-St. Patrick's Day karaoke party on Tuesday.
May I suggest The Rocky Road to Dublin? I've always liked that one.
Last week, Christof sent me a note asking if I would consider revisiting my Richmond Rail Effect concept with the GOP primary for County Judge, since Metro in general and Richmond rail in particular were issues in the race thanks to challenger Charles Bacarisse's stated positions. It wasn't as big an issue - from where I sit, Bacarisse campaigned more about taxes, immigration, and ethics - but it was there. Did Bacarisse do better in the precincts that contain the stretch of Richmond Avenue that will be affected by the light rail construction than he did elsewhere or not?
Thanks to the efforts of Greg Wythe, who got the draft canvass report on Friday and used it to generate a countywide precinct map for that race, I can now answer that question. At my request, Greg also created this Google map of the precincts in question, with their respective votes tallied. Here's how it worked out:
Pcnct Emmett Bacarisse
===========================
39 54 38
60 32 39
123 18 24
139 57 91
177 67 96
178 117 147
233 143 156
569 15 26
802 5 12Total 508 627
The good news for Bacarisse is that he did win these precincts, by a decent margin. The bad news is that there were only a little more than a thousand votes there, and Emmett pretty much kicked hit butt everywhere else. There were unsurprisingly more votes available in the four reliably Republican precincts (177, 178, 233, and 569). The other, reliably Democratic, precincts (plus 139, which is a swing precinct) were voting in the Democratic primary; if there were any crossovers there to support Bacarisse and his anti-Metro stance, they were pretty lonely.
Thus, I think you can reasonably say that Metro-bashing may still play well in this area among Republican primary voters, but the appeal would seem to be limited. I wouldn't draw too much of a conclusion here, since as I said there were more high-profile issues in this race, and perhaps Bacarisse's name ID wasn't as good as he thought it was, but you can say there's nothing in the data here to suggest that this small number of folks have given up this battle.
So there you have it. My thanks again to Greg for the data and the map-drawing.
Everybody remember to set their clocks ahead last night? While I don't care for losing the hour's sleep, I love Daylight Savings Time. I love having that extra sunshine at the end of the day. Darkness at dinnertime is depressing to me. Obviously, the days are getting longer as well, which is also a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Basically, DST says to me that spring is here, and that always makes me happy. How about you?
While the Harris County Sheriff's Office has shown itself to be quite proficient at inappropriately deleting emails, for a real lesson in how it's done you've got to turn to the White House.
For President Bush, who expresses disdain for e-mail, the White House system of electronic record-keeping is a good match.Even if Bush used e-mail, it might get lost in the problem-plagued White House computer system.
"I don't want you reading my personal stuff," the president explained to newspaper editors three years ago on why he doesn't send electronic messages.
On Capitol Hill and in federal court, a congressional committee and two private groups are pushing for information on how the White House has handled its e-mail for the past six years and whether officials there complied with records-retention laws.
The picture emerging from testimony and court filings is one of disregard for fundamental principles that well-run private companies adhere to routinely. By one estimate, over 1,000 days of e-mail are missing from various White House offices.
"I would call this negligence," said Mark Epstein, director of technical services for Cataphora Inc., a California company that specializes in retrieval and analysis of electronic information.
The White House's first mistake, Epstein and other technical experts say, was moving to a new e-mail setup without first setting up an archiving system that would allow speedy, reliable searches and recovery of electronic messages.
"This is the first time I've personally run across this kind of process for archiving; the White House relied on human beings to do specific manual processes on a regular basis and I would not recommend it," said William Tolson, who has consulted on e-mail problems for hundreds of companies and state and local governments.
[...]
The White House e-mail troubles began in 2002 with a decision to upgrade electronic message capabilities and move from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange.
Prior to launching Microsoft Exchange for e-mail, there should have been full-scale testing of an archiving system, e-mail experts said. In addition, both the existing archiving system and a new one should have run at the same time until the new system was fully proven.
[...]
Lawyers say the shortcomings in the White House's system would have prompted major legal problems had the White House been operating in the private sector.
"The penalties for regulated companies that have failed to implement effective e-mail archive solutions have been quite severe, penalties often imposed by branches of the federal government," said James K. Wagner Jr., a lawyer and co-founder of DiscoverReady LLC, a firm that assists companies in gathering and reviewing electronic documents.
So a few things went wrong. Big deal, could have happened to anyone. I mean, sure, in the real world you'd get fired, and maybe sued or arrested, but this is the Bush administration. I figure there's a Presidential Medal of Freedom in it for someone.
Besides, it's not like there was anything important in those three years' worth of emails. Right?
In a sworn declaration, White House official Theresa Payton told the court on Jan. 16 that "substantially all" e-mails from 2003 to 2005 should be contained on back-up computer tapes.However, at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 26, the panel's Democrats released a White House document that called that claim into question.
E-mail was missing from a White House archive for the period of Sept. 30-Oct. 6, 2003 from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, the White House document states. The backup tape covering that seven-day period was not created until Oct. 21, 2003, raising the possibility that e-mail was missing from the earlier period. That time span was in the earliest days of the Justice Department's probe into whether anyone at the White House leaked the CIA identity of Valerie Plame. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was eventually convicted by a jury of four felonies in the leak probe.
See? Nothing to see here, move along. I mean, if we can't trust our elected officials to take care of their secret communications, whom can we trust? AP link via FDL.
Having been dispatched to Pearland a couple of weeks ago, the pioneer Giant Presidential Heads that will be the first ones for their eventual Giant Presidential Heads Park have settled in to their new home. It's, um, still a work in progress. Swamplot has more about what will eventually be there, but go click over now so you can say you knew what it looked like when it all began.
(I really need to get myself over to the four-statue display near I-10 and I-45, known as "Mount Rush Hour", so I can get a picture of it before it disappears. There's just something about Giant Presidential Heads that make life worth living.)
Remember the story of the Harris County Sheriff's Department sudden (and curiously-timed) implementation of a policy to purge all emails older than 14 days from their system? See here, here, here, and here for background. There's now been a hearing on the temporary injunction that KTRK-13 had won to prevent any further destruction of email.
The Sheriff's Office stopped deleting e-mails on Jan. 19 and argued they aren't really gone because they still exist on backup tape. And once that happens, the Harris County Attorney's Office says, they are no longer subject to the Public Information Act."When moved to backup tape, they're no longer public information," said Frank Sanders, the assistant Harris County attorney representing the Sheriff's Office.
At a contempt hearing on Friday, Sanders cited prior letter rulings by the Texas attorney general as the rationale behind his client's assertion that e-mails on backup tape are not public record.
Sanders also said the Sheriff's Office's decision to have all e-mails more than 14 days old deleted from employees' inboxes was a storage issue and had nothing to do with the station's interview two days before about questions involving how much Sheriff Tommy Thomas paid a jail contractor to redesign the sheriff's weekend home. That interview aired Jan. 10.
"The decision (to delete) was just to free up storage space," Sanders said.
The station's attorney argued that the letter rulings cannot be applied in a blanket manner to all cases involving backup tape. He also argued that the Sheriff's Office is circumventing not only the Public Information Act, but also local municipal policy that requires public employees' e-mails to be retained for up to two years.
OK, let's take it one step at a time. Storage space issues can be dealt with in a variety of ways that don't require the complete destruction of the email in question. Hard disks are cheap. Harris County is not in such dire financial straits that it can't afford to buy some computer equipment for Tommy Thomas. It's not in financial straits at all, in fact, given the recent property tax cut, the revenue for which could have solved this space problem many times over. This is just a distraction.
The argument that email which is no longer on the server but which remains on backup tape is no longer public information is so ridiculous to me that I almost don't know how to respond to it. I'd be interested in reading those AG opinions, and I'm going to guess they're tailored to much narrower situations, because such a broad reading leads to this ludicrous conclusion. Among other things, it would incentivize a government agency with something to hide to implement a policy very much like that of the HCSO. There's no possible way this can be good public policy. From an IT perspective, it's all still data. Stuff on backup tape is harder to get to, especially if we're talking Exchange email, but there's nothing fundamentally different about it. And finally, I can say from professional experience that corporate email on backup tape is most certainly subject to discovery in civil actions. There's just no justification for this that I can see.
Thankfully, the judge seems to see it this way as well:
State District Judge David Bernal declined to find the Sheriff's Office in contempt, but said he did not find the department's arguments "meritorious" as to why the e-mails were not of public record.Bernal ordered both sides to submit written briefs by Friday explaining the backup tape issue.
Hopefully, he will give that brief the spanking it deserves.
This ought to be interesting.
Long criticized for its conditions and treatment of inmates, the Harris County Jail is under investigation by the Department of Justice civil rights division.In a letter sent to Harris County Judge Ed Emmett on Friday, the department said the probe would determine whether the jail is operating under unlawful conditions.
Though a spokeswoman at Justice declined to say why the federal authorities are investigating, the jail has been criticized for overcrowding, poor ventilation and sanitation, as well as questionable access to medical treatment and prescription drugs.
Last year, the Chronicle reported that more than 100 inmates died in the jail between January 2001 and December 2006. There were 11 deaths in the first three months of last year, compared with 22 in all of 2006.
The county reduced overcrowding last year by sending inmates to a private Louisiana jail.
If the Justice investigation finds violations, federal officials will suggest ways to improve jail conditions. If those recommendations are not met, federal law allows the attorney general to sue the county.
Friday's letter, written by an acting assistant attorney general, also said the investigation will end if authorities conclude there are no "systemic violations of constitutional or other federal rights."
Here's the letter they sent. As you can see, it says they have "not reached any conclusions", and it sounds more cordial than threatening. I feel confident they'll find problems, it's just a matter of whether or not they're serious, and easily fixable.
The issue of overcrowding in our jails is an old familiar one, so I'll save a little time and refer you to Grits from today and from 2005 for the background. There are two important things to remember here. One is that the jails doesn't have to be overcrowded. Different policies for things like bail and probation revocation could make a huge difference, and save a bunch of money, without adding any substantial risk to public safety. And two:
Last November, Dallas County's sheriff struck a deal that set new policies in those areas.Like Harris County, that jail mostly housed pretrial inmates who had not been convicted of crimes.
That means that a nontrivial number of people who are subjected to this are people who aren't actually criminals. Some of these folks will come out with the same clean record they had going in. Many will come out with at most a misdemeanor plea. How many of them really need to be locked up? It's our choice.
Rick Casey places a phone call to Harris County Tax Assessor Paul Bettencourt, and confirms what some of us have been saying all along:
Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, whose office maintains computerized records of who votes in which primary, said about 8 percent of the Democratic vote here was from people who had some history of voting in Republican primaries.About 2 percent were "hard-core" partisans who voted in every Republican primary, he said.
He pointed out that more Republicans were motivated to vote in their own primary.
"We had a record turnout of 170,000," he said. "The previous record was (George W.) Bush's 160,000 in 2000."
Couple points: One, having "some history of voting in Republican primaries" covers a lot of ground. It's not been uncommon in recent years for some local lawyers who generally vote Democratic to vote in the Republican primary, because that was often the only way to cast a meaningful vote against a bad judge. That has been a point of contention this cycle between those who think that this year's Democratic judicial nominees, who everyone agrees have a good chance of being elected in November, should have pure Democratic primary histories and those who don't.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, some people who have voted in Republican primaries in the past now vote Democratic. Tiffany voted in the GOP primary in 2000 - we got at least a half-dozen Republican robocalls this cycle, all amusingly enough after we'd both voted early, as a result of this - and I can assure you that her vote in the Democratic primary this year was a genuine one. Sometimes a vote means what it says.
Two, Bettencourt is correct to note that the GOP primary had its own record turnout. It's just that, relatively speaking, it wasn't an impressive gain. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the percentage increase in the GOP primary from 2000 (roughly 6%) is no more and possibly less than the increase in the number of registered voters in Harris County from 2000 to now. But hey, pointing out that it was an increase gets people to stop talking about the massive number of Democratic votes that were cast, at least for a moment.
Democratic database guru Leland Beatty crunched similar numbers statewide for the early vote and found 8 percent to 10 percent of the voters in the Democratic primary to be Republicans, he told the Quorum Report.
And as we know, all of those numbers are in line with what exit polling has already told us. Game, set, match, I say.
For what it's worth, I took a look at Hillary Clinton's performance in Early Voting versus Election Day voting. She improved her performance on E-Day relative to EV in about 75% of the counties. The spreadsheet is here (XLS) if you're interested. I think a part of it, at least based on my own observations of the EV turnout patterns in Harris and Fort Bend Counties, was that there was a greater percentage of African-American voters in Early Voting than there were on Election Day, and conversely more Hispanic and Anglo voters on E-Day. I don't have enough data to say that conclusively, it's just my impression. It's also clear to me that Team Clinton made a big push of its own between Friday and Tuesday to get its supporters out, and they succeeded. Finally, as Prof. Murray notes, Clinton won a big share of those who decided late. It may have been a surprise to see how things went on Tuesday, but I don't think it's any mystery.
For the first time, the Houston school district expects that it will have to pay several million dollars to the state under the controversial Robin Hood funding system.The oddity involving the state's largest district is prompting renewed calls for changes to Texas' complex school funding laws, which require property-wealthy districts to share money with poorer ones.
Melinda Garrett, the Houston school district's chief financial officer, announced during a school board workshop Thursday that the district will owe an estimated $3.7 million to the state next year.
The hit won't be crippling -- it's only a sliver of the district's approximately $1.5 billion budget -- but school leaders said the funding system is flawed when a big-city district that serves mostly low-income children is forced to give up money.
"It will start getting worse every year," Garrett told the board.
She explained that the Houston Independent School District is jumping into the wealthy category because property values in the city are rising, but student enrollment is declining. That mix has boosted HISD's property value per student, the measure that the state uses to determine which districts must share their money.
"Our district is getting wealthier because we're a business hub, and that's a good thing," said David Thompson, a school finance expert and an attorney representing HISD and other districts. "But our population still has a growing number of poor and at-risk kids who need additional services. The state cannot have its largest district be unsupported by the state."
Board members agreed that Texas' school funding system is in need of an overhaul.
I think anyone who pays the least bit of attention to this realizes that the school funding system needs an overhaul. Unfortunately, what we've gotten is an illusory property tax cut being paid for in the short term by a cash surplus, a fast-growing school population with rising fixed costs (like electricity and gasoline) they can't control, and a state leadership in place that isn't interested in doing anything about it. Maybe if we get a Democratic Speaker next year, the House at least can take a real step in this direction, but the needed change isn't going to happen until there's a different Governor. If we're lucky, the system won't yet be in crisis by then.
How about a little random music to soothe you through the post-primary letdown? Well okay then...
1. "Eleanor Rigby" - Ray Charles. Sometimes you just don't know what directions a song can go until someone who draws his own maps covers them.
2. "I Can't Turn You Loose" - The Blues Brothers. I am pleased to note that even though the year 2006 has come and gone, it is not the case that the music once known as the blues can now only be found in the classical record section of your local public library. I was worried about that for awhile there, but not any more.
3. "Love Will Keep Us Together" - Captain and Tennille. Am I the only one who remembers their variety show from the 70s? Am I the only one who remembers the phenomenon of variety shows from the 70s?
4. "All Revved Up With No Place To Go" - Meat Loaf. For an album as famous as "Bat Out of Hell" is, it's amazing how little airplay any of its individual songs have gotten. I think I heard "Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad" once on an AM station back in 1984. Since then, I can't recall any instances. What's up with that?
5. "Downtown" - The B-52s. Hey, they have a new album coming out! Don't ask me about the crazy NFL-referee motif in their outfits, but here's a question: Will any radio station that currently plays their best-known song "Love Shack" ever play anything from this new record? I'm guessing the answer will be No. Such is the music business these days.
6. "Blues Power" - Eric Clapton and BB King. Yeah, I'd call that blues power.
7. "You Can Call Me Al" - Paul Simon. Just watch the video. Am I the only one who remembers when Chevy Chase was funny?
8. "Solsbury Hill" - Peter Gabriel. One of two popular songs that get regular rock radio airplay I can think of that are written in 7/4 time. Can you name the other? I'll put it in the extended entry.
9. "Willin'" - Little Feat. Another underrated and terribly under-played band. We have them to thank for "Dixie Chicken", and for that we are grateful.
10. "Les Boys" - Dire Straits. Dedicated to Governor Perry.
Happy Friday!
The other well-known 7/4 song is Pink Floyd's "Money".
If there's one thing I think I can say with complete certainty, it's that the upcoming primary runoffs are not going to set any records for turnout. Not positive ones, anyway.
In Harris County, there are five Republican and three Democratic runoffs set for April 8. The Democrats will choose the nominees for Railroad Commissioner (Mark Thompson and Dale Henry), 80th District Court judge (Larry Weiman and Marc Isenberg), and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 8, Place 1 (Jeff Heintschel and Dee Wright). The Republicans also get JP Precinct 8, Place 1 (Richard Risinger and Holly Williamson), 174th District Court judge (Kevin Keating and Bill Moore), State House District 144 (Ken Legler and Fred Roberts), plus the two highest profile races still left to be decided. First, there's CD22, in which the two finalists are as I predicted, Shelley Sekula Gibbs and Pete Olson.
Sekula Gibbs attracted 30 percent of Tuesday's primary vote; Olson corralled 21 percent. The total vote from parts of four Houston-area counties was 56,124, of which about 45 percent was cast early, according to the secretary of state."The key is that I am a local physician who has represented the district in the past as a council member and briefly as a congresswoman," Sekula Gibbs said, "and I have lived here and raised my children here and paid taxes here."
She served on the City Council of Houston, which covers much of the Harris County portion of the congressional district. The district also includes most of Fort Bend County and parts of Brazoria and Galveston counties.
Sekula Gibbs said she is the exclusive conservative in the race because she took conservative stances on the council and in her seven-week congressional term in late 2006. She served the end of Republican Tom DeLay's term before Lampson took over.
"Clearly, being a conservative doesn't have anything to do with being a local doctor or anything else along those lines," Olson responded. "I have spent my entire adult life in service to our country."
At least with only two of them, the chatter will be more focused. Note the vote totals in there. Here's a press release from Rep. Nick Lampson to help you with the math:
As the results of Tuesday's Primaries in Texas' 22nd congressional district became clear, one fact stood out: Nick Lampson's Republican challengers failed miserably in their attempts to energize the voters. In fact, Nick Lampson, without any Primary opponent, received more votes than all ten Republican candidates combined.The ten Republican challengers spent money reaching into seven figures to drive out voters for their cause. But voters did not respond to their partisan bomb throwing. Even after receiving mail piece after mail piece, phone call after phone call, and seeing TV ads for candidates, the ten Republican candidates could only convince 56,124 to vote in their Primary. Nick Lampson ran unopposed and received 73,761 votes without campaigning or spending a dime.
"I believe this lack of enthusiasm for my opponents is the result of my hard work for the district," Lampson said. "I have been an independent voice for Texas and, whether by authoring middle-class tax cuts or stepping up to promote NASA, I have proven I know how to best represent this district. Voters don't want the same old name calling and dishonesty from their elected officials. And they've said as much by not showing up for this expensive and highly contested Primary."
After each spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, the two top vote getters in the Republican Primary for CD-22 could only manage a combined 28,311 voters to their cause. And neither could gain a mandate from the meager turnout in their Primary. They will continue campaigning and spending valuable resources for an additional month as they head toward a runoff election to be held on April 8th.
Nice to be in the catbird seat. The other runoff of interest will be for District Attorney, and it's popcorn-worthy already.
After finishing third in the Republican primary for Harris County district attorney, defense lawyer and former prosecutor Jim Leitner said Wednesday he will vote for former judge Pat Lykos in the runoff against prosecutor Kelly Siegler.Also, Siegler and Lykos denounced each other Wednesday, signaling that their campaign for the April 8 runoff will be as embraceable as a razor saw.
Leitner, who placed third in the primary for DA eight years ago as well, said in this year's campaign that the agency needed reform by an outsider in the wake of disgraced District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal's resignation. He said backing Siegler, a prosecutor for the last 21 years, would conflict with his reform goals.
"It's going to be the same old, same old" with Siegler as the GOP nominee, Leitner said. "I don't think that will be good enough to beat (C.O.) Bradford."
I met Bradford's campaign manager the other day and asked him why Bradford hadn't been more public lately. He said that they were going to let these two slug it out for awhile before really getting into it. I've been skeptical of that strategy, but perhaps I was hasty in that judgment.
"She is a one-act play," Lykos said Wednesday of Siegler's famously sensational techniques in criminal trials. "For all of her career, she has engaged in theatrics and gotten away with fudging facts, in court and now as a cynical politician."Siegler said Lykos "has a record and a history of being difficult to deal with and of no one wanting to work with her."
Yeah, I can see the logic. As long as someone is taking notes, I'm good for now.
By the way, at what point do you think there'll be a story about Republicans who crossed over to the Democratic to cause mischief there and who now regret being unable to vote in one or more of these runoffs? I bet Rush didn't mention that part.
On the Democratic side, probably the biggest news related to runoffs is that there won't be one for the Senate race.
Rick Noriega, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, was surprised but relieved Wednesday to have narrowly escaped a runoff dance with perennial candidate Gene Kelly."We totally were convinced we were going to be in a runoff," said Noriega, who has represented a district from Houston's East End since 1999. "Mr. Kelly is still able to pull with his name."
Incomplete returns showed Noriega received 51 percent of the vote to Kelly's 27 percent. Ray McMurrey came in third with 12 percent and Rhett Smith had 10 percent.
Here's a little fun fact to put this accomplishment in perspective:
Mr. Noriega, a five-term state representative from Houston, is the first Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas to avoid a primary runoff since former Fort Worth Mayor Hugh Parmer ran virtually unopposed for the party's nod in 1990.
I did not know that. Thanks to Eye on Williamson for the tip.
Back to the Chron:
With his fortunes at least somewhat tied to the top of the ticket, Noriega said he is concerned whether the Democratic presidential nominee will actively campaign in Texas this fall or write off the Republican-leaning state."I have certainly put forth a challenge to the Democratic nominees in terms of Texas. While we're here fighting, you don't leave folks ... you don't leave your buddy in the foxhole," said Noriega, a Texas Army National Guard lieutenant colonel who served in Afghanistan and along the Texas-Mexico border.
Along those lines, SurveyUSA yesterday released the results of a massive, 50-state poll that shows how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do in terms of electoral votes. Some of the results are a little goofy (North Dakota?), and they assign states to one candidate or the other even when the result is well within the margin of error, but it's provocative nonetheless. Though superficially the two Democrats appear to do about as well as each other in their respective matchups, there's more good news for Obama in there (and in this WaPo poll as well). Finally, to tie it back to what Noriega was saying, you might note that both Democrats do pretty well in Texas. With all the money that the Democrats are raising and will continue to raise, I'll say again, a couple weeks' worth of TV ads here would be a good investment for them. And yes, for people like Rick Noriega as well.
I noted in an update to yesterday's post about Republican participation in the Democratic primary that Dave Weigel was reporting that Rush Limbaugh has taken credit for Hillary Clinton's win on Tuesday, as he apparently exhorted his listeners to hold their noses and cross over. Weigel also noted an email sent to The Corner, citing (but not crediting) Royal Masset's analysis based on the dropoff in the Senate vote. I think I've spent enough time on this ridiculous topic, so I'll just note again that exit polling indicated about nine percent of votes (roughly 257,000) in the Democratic primary were cast by Republicans, and that in the days before this Tuesday we were talking about how many Republicans might be voting for Obama, since they thought it would be their only chance to vote against Hillary Clinton in this race. It would be much easier to sort through all this if people would just keep their stories straight.
I think what amuses me the most about this is that even if you accept the full Masset theory, that some 500,000 Republicans were playing in the Dem primary and that the real true turnout numbers are 2.3 million for the Dems and 1.9 million for the GOP, then this was still an awesome result for the Democrats, one that should make the Republicans worry about the fall. 2.3 million is still a record, still almost what the Secretary of State was predicting based on early voting, and still a lot more than what the GOP got. If that's the best case scenario for the Republicans, it's no wonder they're spinning fairy tales to make themselves feel better.
And that's the thing. Even if you accept the highly questionable premise that Republicans were flooding into the Democratic primary to affect the Presidential outcome, the fact remains that there were still a heck of a lot more Democrats out there. As I've shown before, that translated to complete dominance of the vote total by Democratic candidates over their GOP counterparts up and down the ballot. One such candidate, Peter Rene, who is running for Justice of the Peace in heavily Republican Precinct 5, wrote me to add to that post:
I received 46,396 votes in this stronghold while Republican Russ Ridgway received 33,198! And it gets better: Dem Sam Pearson, running for Constable in the precinct, received 48,401 while Rep. Phil Camus received 26,153. Camus had a challenger, Kirk Bailey, who received 12,545. Even their combined total of 38,698 was not even as much as Dem. Sam Pearson received! Then there is Dexter Handy running for County Commissioner in Precinct 3. He received 33,928 and his opponent received 18,638, for a total of 52,566 citizens casting votes for Democrats against Steve Radack. The Commissioner received only 41,450!
You can't explain that by saying there were miscreants crossing over to elect Hillary/vote against Hillary. Democrats, new and classic, came out in force. That's the lesson to take away from all this.
I may never fully understand why exactly it is that some professional sportswriters have such a deep-seated, almost pathological revulsion towards their more statistically-inclined brethren and sistren. But I do enjoy it when someone in the latter group uses that loathing to expose a truly weak argument. Here's a fine example of such, leavened with a heaping dose of sarcasm. Enjoy!
I see that Royal Masset seems to have found a balm for his anxiety about the huge disparity in turnout between the Democrats and the Republicans. He's noted the 700,000 vote dropoff from the Presidential primary to the Senate primary and concluded:
At least 500,000 Republicans voted in the 2008 Texas Democrat Primary.The proof of this is simple and conclusive. In the Democrat Primary (Democrat Primary numbers cited here are with 16 precincts not yet counted. Republican numbers are 100% complete.) 2,856,813 votes were cast in the Presidential race. For the Democrat U. S. Senate race, which was heavily contested by 4 candidates, only 2,163,477 votes were cast. 693,336 fewer votes were cast in the US Senate race than in the Presidential race. A decrease of this magnitude is unprecedented. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that at least 500,000 of that 693,336 vote decrease was caused by Republicans voting in the Democrat primary for the sole purpose of influencing the outcome of the Democrat race to nominate a president.
In the Republican Primary 1,380,907 votes were cast for President. For US Senate, which unlike the Democrat Senate race has no credible competition, 1,216,732 votes were cast, mostly for John Cornyn. This is a much smaller drop off than the Democrats had.
[...]
There is normally a 7-10% drop off between the Presidential and US Senate races on a primary ballot. Some voters just don't like any of the candidates. But the overwhelming majority of voters vote in most races. They like to participate and make their ballot count. In the 2000 Texas Republican Primary, 1,126,753 votes were cast for President (mostly for Governor Bush.) Yet an uncontested Senator Hutchison, despite then not being a favorite of the pro-life wing of the party, received 955,033 votes, almost as many as the 986,416 received by Bush.
Well, I'd simply suggest that the Senate primary was as these things go fairly low-profile, as only Rick Noriega had any money to spend on voter outreach and name ID. I don't think it's crazy to suggest there was a higher than usual of voters who really didn't know anything about any race besides the Presidential. It may be true that the level of undervotes for a Senate race is unprecedented as Masset says, but what about this election, from the caliber of the candidates to the massiveness of the stakes to the vast disparity of the resources between the Presidential campaigns and those of the downballot statewides, isn't unprecedented? The latter, I think is the far more compelling reason.
Put simply, the Presidential campaigns took up all the oxygen. The AP reported on Monday how the rest of the candidates were struggling to get attention. I guarantee, you ask any Democratic consultant or activist for one of those candidates, they'll go on a rant about this. Rick Noriega was the highest profile person running statewide, but he only had so much money, and he was running against nobodies and do-nothings, meaning there was little earned media to be had outside the latest flap over 3 AM phone calls and other trivia. I don't see it as the least bit surprising that the dropoff would be unprecedentedly high in this situation.
Another way of expressing this: Had we gotten the Mikal Watts/Rick Noriega matchup were were originally promised, I guarantee you we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
But let's check some empirical data, since Masset points to a 43% undervote in heavily Republican Denton County. Here's a chart examining the Senate vote as a percentage of the Presidential for all counties with at least 100,000 registered voters (all data courtesy of the SOS):
County Senate Pct
===================
Overall 75.74
HARRIS 78.06
DALLAS 70.52
TARRANT 74.46
BEXAR 81.05
TRAVIS 75.18
COLLIN 57.92
EL PASO 80.91
DENTON 72.67
HIDALGO 74.14
FORT BEND 77.59
MONTGOMERY 71.46
WILLIAMSON 75.73
NUECES 81.47
GALVESTON 73.08
CAMERON 81.87
BRAZORIA 79.44
LUBBOCK 73.93
JEFFERSON 61.87
BELL 75.65
MCLENNAN 72.63
SMITH 66.30
WEBB 89.06
In other words, Collin is an outlier, and however Republican it may be, there ain't enough of them there to make up a half million mischief-makers. The full spreadsheet is here (XLS) for your perusal. You'll note that Collin scores the lowest of all counties other than King, with its 205 registered voters; only Starr at 59.52% joins them in dipping below 60%. I submit to you that there's nothing remarkable about any of this.
If Texas' Democratic turnout blockbuster were unusual on its own, that might be suggestive of shenanigans. But this primary has led to record-setting Democratic performances all over the country, including such strongholds as Alabama and Utah. And if you include caucus states, Idaho, too. Again, given the extreme amount of attention given to the Texas primary, why is this so hard to comprehend?
Finally, I'll note again that the judicial races in Harris County had only slightly higher dropoffs from the Presidential race compared to 2004, when pretty much everyone participating was hardcore. That still gave them all vote totals that swamped their Republican counterparts, and it suggests to me that there were both a lot of new voters, some of whom only knew or cared about the one race, and a lot of others who really were invested in the whole ticket. Which is what we seem to be seeing elsewhere in the state as well.
I see Dr. Murray is discussing this as well.
[Sen. Hillary] Clinton ended up with a victory of just less than 100,000 votes in the Lone Star State. We heard tales Wednesday of many Republicans being asked to vote for Clinton in the primary. Those voters not only secured a win for Clinton, but may have done themselves a disservice in the runoff."Here we had about 400,000 Democratic primary voters, I think about 60,000-80,000 were normally Republican voters, possibly as many as 100,000," said KTRK Political Consultant and blogger, Dr. Richard Murray.
Dr. Richard Murray says surveys taken in the days before the primary indicated Senator Barack Obama would be the one to win votes from self-described independents and Republicans 58% to 39%.
"Something turned the vote from Obama in the early voting to Clinton in the late voting and I think Rush Limbaugh had something to do with that switch," Dr. Murray said.
Do we have exit polling data available? I haven't seen any yet. I can say that Obama still won the Election Day vote in Harris County, albeit by a lesser percentage than he won the early vote. How much of that is Republicans doing Rush's bidding, and how much of that is Team Clinton stepping up its ground game after seeing the way early voting was going? I think the latter notion deserves a little more respect here. It doesn't sound to me like Dr. Murray is claiming all Republicans who voted in the Dem primary did so for the sole purpose of boosting Hillary Clinton. The presence of crossovers has never been in dispute, and again we can tell how many are true-red Republicans from their voting history (has anyone compiled that data yet?), but we still don't know what all of their motives were.
Look, I'm not saying there weren't any Republican infiltrators. I know, logically and anecdotally, that there were. I'm just saying that I can think of other explanations for the downballot dropoff level besides the one Masset has come up with, and I think the one I've presented here is far more likely.
UPDATE: This Chron story, which says rural Texas won the day for Hillary Clinton, includes the following sidebar:
CROSSOVER VOTE?Some Republicans had been urged by radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh to vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary Rodham Clinton to keep the race alive. But there was not evidence of that occurring on a large scale. Network exit polls showed about 9 percent of the Democratic primary turnout was self-identified Republicans, who cast 52 percent of their ballots for Obama.
It also says that a majority cast their ballots for Obama in the Republican suburbs. Let's check that:
Brazoria = 14,632, Clinton, 14,192 Obama
Collin = 31,994 Clinton, 40,000 Obama
Denton = 24,045 Clinton, 30,374 Obama
Fort Bend = 25,670 Clinton, 43,893 Obama
Montgomery = 17,277 Clinton, 13,429 Obama
Williamson = 21,289 Clinton, 27,906 Obama
Brazoria (which is as rural as it is suburban) and Montgomery both went to Clinton, each with a spike on Election Day. The others, not so much, and E-Day totals are not very different from early voting. Make of that what you will.
UPDATE: Dave Weigel and Todd Beeton weigh in. And remember when stories before last week were about how some Republicans were voting in the Dem primary so they'd be sure to get a chance to vote against Hillary Clinton, since they figured she wouldn't be on the ballot in November? Boy, those were the days.
I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky that there haven't been any lawsuits filed yet over this election. Miya reports on one that may come:
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) told me today that it's considering filing a lawsuit against the Texas Democratic Party. LULAC's national general counsel Louis Vera told me that he believes the caucus process disenfranchises the state's Latino voters. Although the caucus numbers between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not final yet, LULAC has been contemplating the lawsuit for a few weeks."We had reports all night long and this morning of many, many people who couldn't stay there anymore," says Vera. "It was 9:30, 10 o'clock and they haven't even begun to vote."
Vera is also concerned that because the Primary allocates delegates based on turnout of the previous election, a vote for delegates in San Antonio or south Texas is actually worth less than a vote out of Houston or Dallas. LULAC isn't officially allowed to endorse anyone, but Vera and a number of high ranking officials within the organization support Clinton.
Vera says a decision will be made about the lawsuit when all the caucus numbers roll in, which could take a few weeks. "What we are considering is whether or not there are violations of the Voting Rights Act, " he says. "I'm not sure if all the changes in the caucus system has been pre-cleared by the Justice Department."
I'm not sure why the first concern specifically discriminates against anyone, except perhaps people who work the night shift. As for the second concern, these aren't new rules. We've done this multiple times before. The rationale is that it's designed to reward and encourage Democratic turnout. I've no idea what the legalities are, I'm just saying none of this was a mystery beforehand. We'll see what happens.
UPDATE: I like Philip's response.
Rats. I was really looking forward to their analysis of the primaries, too. Ah, well, best of luck in the academic world, Professors.
Can we please not lose sight of what the issues are when discussing Dynamo Stadium?
Two MLS championships by the Dynamo, and the professional game is thriving. The Dynamo brand has been ingrained locally in just two short years."Look at the popularity of this team now," said Tim Leiweke, president of AEG, which co-owns the Dynamo with boxer/promoter Oscar De La Hoya and Gabriel Brener. "Look at the people that turn out for rallies. Look at the people that turn out for games. If they get their own stadium, I think you are going to see a dynasty built with this franchise and this sport."
[...]
"It's time to call the question," Lieweke said. " If you look at all the teams in town they all have new facilities. The Dynamo fans have proved they should not be looked past. They deserve a new facility. They've supported us.
"We're prepared to put a lot of private money into this. In fact we'll have a higher share of private money in this facility than any of the other facilities with any of the other owners in this town.
"Oscar [de la Hoya] is going to put a lot more money into the stadium with us. We're intent on trying to get this deal done because I think by 2010 it is important for this team to be in their own facility."
Over the years Houston has been deservedly proud of stadiums built for the Astros, Texans, Rockets and the rodeo. The public sector issued over $1 billion of bonds to build those stadiums.
A new stadium for the Dynamo would give the team an opportunity to become profitable by controlling more revenue streams. The stadium would draw other high-profile soccer events that would bring revenue and people to our city.
The stadium also would be available for other events and sports as stadiums these days are built with more than one sport or attraction in mind.
Hasn't soccer and the Dynamo done enough to deserve a stadium?
That's not the relevant question. I think it's pretty clear there's sufficient support to make Dynamo Stadium happen. It's just a matter of time and details. But it's those details that are the real debate. While I agree that downtown is the right place for Dynamo Stadium, are we sure we've picked the best location downtown? While I agree that a certain amount of public funding may be used as part of this deal, have we agreed on how much that certain amount can be, and what the funding source is? Do we know for sure what the city is getting itself into? These are the questions we need to answer.
And maybe now we'll start to get some of them.
The City Council voted Wednesday to spend $15.5 million to purchase five downtown blocks being eyed for a Houston Dynamo soccer stadium. The council also approved a land swap to obtain an additional block.As he has since the land deal first was announced, Mayor Bill White would not confirm that the six-block rectangle definitely would be used for a professional soccer stadium. If a deal with the team owners fails to materialize, the city could seek other private development for the site, White said.
Anschutz Entertainment Group operates the team but shares ownership with boxing star Oscar De La Hoya and Brener International Group. AEG president and CEO Tim Leiweke said last week that he would like to conclude a deal with the city by April 1, or the team will reconsider sites in the suburbs.
Leiweke was out of the country Wednesday, but AEG spokesman Michael Roth said the company was "very pleased" with the council's decision. He offered no other details on the progress of negotiations.
Well, we're going to need details, and soon. I'm still concerned about the location and the effect on the grid, and the financial aspect remains a mystery. If we're going to do this, and it looks like we are, let's get that out in the open so we can address what can be improved.
So as we know, turnout in the Harris County Democratic Party primary was more than double that of the Republican primary - 409,619 to 170,836. And we also know that there's been a certain amount of trash talk by Republicans who claim that the Democratic numbers were inflated by GOPers crossing over to mess with the Presidential race.
Fine. But let's take a look down the ballot, where presumably those mobs of Republican moles didn't bother to play, as there was little to gain. What you see there is top-to-bottom dominance of Democratic turnout compared to their Republican counterparts. To wit:
- Rick Noriega, in receiving 56% of the ballots cast in the Senate primary in Harris County, got more votes (179,069) than were cast in the GOP primary. John Cornyn (127,802) and Larry Kilgore (22,882) combined for 150,000 votes.
- David Mincberg, in receiving 75% of the ballots cast in the Harris County Judge primary, got more votes (179,875) than were cast in the GOP primary. Ed Emmett (77,858) and Charles Bacarisse (61,643) combined for 139,000 votes.
- Diane Trautman, in receiving 69% of the ballots cast in the Harris County Tax Assessor primary, got more votes (166,592) than the unopposed incumbent, Paul Bettencourt (128,140), and just missed getting more votes than were cast in the GOP primary.
- Adrian Garcia got more votes in the Harris County Sheriff primary (152,756) than all three GOP candidates combined (135,639). Incumbent Tommy Thomas, who won renomination, got 99,341 votes..
- C.O. Bradford, running unopposed for District Attorney, got 227,331 votes. The cast of four on the GOP side, in one of the hottest races over there, combined for 140,695. Bradford's amount is more than double the total garnered by runoff competitors Kelly Siegler (58,141) and Pat Lykos (43,928).
- Loren Jackson received 218,972 votes for District Clerk. The two Republicans running for District Clerk combined for 122,529, with appointed incumbent and winner Theresa Chang getting 74,151. Similarly, Vince Ryan received 218,379 votes for Harris County Attorney. Republican incumbent Mike Stafford got 106,217.
- Every single judicial primary on the Democratic side drew significantly more votes (a minimum of 209,232) than were cast in the entire GOP primary. The highest-drawing judicial primary on the GOP side got 115,858 votes.
- As noted previously, Michael Skelly (55,699) got more votes in his primary for CD07 than John Culberson (44,406) got in his.
- Here are some comparisons for State Rep contests:
Dist Dem candidate Dem votes GOP candidate GOP votes
=========================================================
126 Khan 9,115 Harless(I) 7,879
127 Montemayor 9,757 Three people 13,367
129 Matula 10,033 Two people 10,148
133 Thibaut 7,614 Murphy(I) 4,967
134 Cohen(I) 18,528 Two people 7,796
135 Fleming 8,036 Elkins(I) 5,422
138 McDavid 7,096 Bohac(I) 5,204
143 Hernandez(I) 6,852 Olmos 806
144 Redmond 7,833 Three people 5,741
145 Alvarado 6,791 Rodriguez 911
148 Farrar(I) 9,695 Gano 1,685
149 Vo(I) 10,905 Meyers 3,849
150 Neal 9,675 Riddle 9,742
That's amazing. Look in particular at HDs 129, 133, 138, and 144, which are the top targets for Democrats this fall. In each case, the Democrat outperformed the Republican (John Davis, who won in HD129, got 6,525 votes), even with the CD22 primary drawing out voters in HD129. The point I'm making is that the Democrats will start off with a larger number of identified voters in these districts, and won't be too far behind in even the more heavily Republican areas.
- One last point. In 2004, when I think everyone would agree that the Democrats who turned out for the primary were the true hardcore, the average undervote for the uncontested judicial races (which was all of them that year) was about 35%. This year, with an electorate almost six times as big, full of first-time primary participants, the dropoff rate was about 45%. The point I'm making is that even though Barack Obama (227,886) and Hillary Clinton (175,724) got more votes on their own than were cast in the GOP primary, most of the people who came out to vote for them stayed around to vote for every other Democrat as well. I'm sure there's another poll out of Florida that looks good for John McCain, but I think all these numbers look damned good for the Harris County Democratic Party. I need a good night's sleep, but after that I'm ready for November. Let's keep the enthusiasm going.
A bit of non-primary news for right now while I'm crunching numbers, courtesy of HOPE:
We are pleased to announce that the City of Houston and the Houston Organization of Public Employees (HOPE) have reached a tentative agreement in contract negotiations. This fiscally responsible agreement reflects each party's commitment to delivering quality public services to all Houston residents while ensuring fair compensation for every city worker.When the agreement is ratified by employees and approved by the city council, Houston will be the first Texas city to establish a meet and confer agreement with its civilian employees. Highlights of the three-year agreement include:
- A pay package ensuring that every city employee will make at least $10 an hour by September 2009.
- Additional performance-based compensation based principally on Employee Performance Evaluations.
- The creation of city-wide and departmental labor-management committees that will encourage employees and supervisors to work together to improve city services.
Good to hear. I look forward to this agreement getting formally ratified.
Report card time...
1. President, both parties My guess: Obama by ten points, McCain with about 60%. Turnout of over 2.5 million on the Dem side, less than 1.5 million on the GOP side.
Well, I was wrong about Obama winning, and I overestimated McCain's percentage, but I got the turnout numbers right.
2. US Senate My guess: Despite some public mutterings about a runoff, I think Rick Noriega ekes out a majority. Gene Kelly ends up in the 20s, with the other two sharing the rest.
Nailed that one. Yes!
3. CD10 My guess: Dan Grant, in a win for endorsements over fundraising.
Wrongo.
5. CD22, GOP My guess: Toughest one in the bunch. I think Shelley makes it to the runoff, thus kicking off a wild celebration at Wonkette world headquarters, but who else makes it is a complete tossup. I'm going to go with Pete Olson, and I'll be completely unsurprised to be wrong.
But I'm not wrong, I got it exactly right.
6. Harris County District Attorney, GOP, and Travis County DA, Dem My guess: For Harris, Siegler and Lykos in the runoff. And that sound you'll hear afterwards is the membership of the HCCLA gnashing their teeth and rending their garments. For Travis, I'll be rooting for a Lehmberg-Reed matchup, but I suspect Mindy Montford's money will get her a spot in the playoffs against one of those two.
I was right about Siegler and Lykos, and half right in Travis - it's Lehmberg versus Montford.
7. Harris County Judge, both parties; Sheriff and Tax Assessor, Dems My guess: For the GOP, Charles Bacarisse. I see him as running a more partisan campaign, which strikes me not surprisingly as a better strategy for a primary. And though it won't matter, whoever designed the font on Ed Emmett's yard signs should be flogged. On the Dem side, I see David Mincberg winning easily, and I believe both Adrian Garcia and Diane Trautman will prevail as well, Garcia hopefully avoiding a runoff.
I was wrong about Emmett/Bacarisse, right about everything else.
8. HDs 130 (GOP), 140 and 146 (Dem) My guess: I think Danno's boy Alan Fletcher wins in 130, though I'm not confident about it. I think Armando Walle knocks off Kevin Bailey, and I think Borris Miles survives by the skin of his teeth.
Wrong, alas, about Miles, but right about Fletcher and Walle (woo hoo!).
9. Supreme Court and Railroad Commissioner My guess: For Surpeme Court, Linda Yanez and Sam Houston. I feel more confident about the latter than the former. For RRC, I think Art Hall and Dale Henry end up in a runoff.
I still can't believe Mark Thompson led the field and almost won outright for RRC, but he's in a runoff with Dale Henry, so I'm half right there and right about the Supreme Court races.
10. Harris County judicials (your choice) My guess: Hell if I know. I see them all as tossups. Whatever the final turnout is on the Dem side, barring something like a 75% dropoff from the Presidential race you're looking at 100,000 or more voters who weren't touched by either campaign ultimately picking the nominees. That's got to be giving a lot of people ulcers.
I'm pretty sure I'm right about the ulcers.
Overall, not too shabby a day of prognostication for me. What results surprised you?
And the Republican results:
John McCain is now the official Republican nominee, with Mike Huckabee dropping out but Ron Paul (who also won his CD14 primary easily) carrying on. McCain won a fairly soft 51% of the vote statewide. Turnout was less than half of the Dems' at 1.38 million, a modest 12.3% gain over 2000.
John Cornyn won 81% against his token opponent. The one interesting statewide race turned into a dud as Court of Criminal Appeals judge Paul Womack won with almost 69%.
Congressional incumbents Sam Johnson, Ralph Hall, and as noted Ron Paul all won. John Faulk beat TJ Baker-Holm in CD18. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs and Pete Olson will face off in a CD22 runoff. Bexar County Commissioner Lyle Larsen won the right to challenge Ciro Rodriguez in CD23.
One incumbent who did go down was former HPD Chief Sam Nuchia, who lost his spot on the First Court of Appeals to challenger Ed Hubbard.
State Senators Tommy Williams and Craig Estes both won their races.
Another mixed bag in the State House. Let's break it down:
Craddickite incumbents who won: Betty Brown, Charlie Howard, Doc Anderson, Phil King, Bill Zedler, Frank Corte.
Craddickite incumbents who lost: Nathan Macias, in a replay of his nail-biting, last-boxes-counted win over Carter Casteel from 2006; and Thomas Latham.
Anti-Craddickite incumbents who won: Byron Cook, Delwyn Jones, Charlie Geren.
Anti-Craddickite incumbent who lost: Pat Haggerty.
A net loss of one for Craddick, which will likely become two in the fall, as I expect Democrat Joe Hardy to be the favorite to beat Haggerty's opponent, Dee Margo. I won't be shocked if Haggerty endorses Moody, for that matter. With the wins Craddick scored over Borris Miles, Juan Escobar, and Paul Moreno, that's a net +2 for now, likely +1 in the fall. Not too bad for him, though not enough one way or the other to say what his ultimate fate will be.
Other results from the State House: Jerry Madden held off his challenger in one of the nastier races. Harris County incumbents Joe Crabb and John Davis hung on. And in the marquee race of the day, Allen Fletcher knocked off Corbin Van Arsdale in HD130, winning just over 52% of the vote. Dan Patrick gets himself a minion.
The open HD144 seat will see a runoff between Ken Legler and Fred Roberts. And Joe Agris sent out enough mail to defeat Carlos Obando in HD134.
Moving to Harris County, Ed Emmett wound up with 55% of the vote against Charles Bacarisse. Maybe negative campaigning doesn't always work. As expected, Kelly Siegler and Pat Lykos will duke it out for the DA nomination. Sheriff Tommy Thomas and appointed District Clerk Theresa Chang won easily.
Incumbent District Court Judge Brian Rains won his primary in the 176th. Jeff Shadwick (55th), Patrician Kerrigan (190th), and David Farr (312th) won to fill the unexpired terms of those benches, while the open 174th will see a runoff between Bill Moore and Kevin Keating.
Both incumbent members of the Harris County Department of Education got whupped. That ought to make the April trustees' meeting interesting.
Turnout in Harris County was 170,836 for the GOP, and 344,689 for the Democrats. And just for fun, I'll note that Michael Skelly (46,560) got more votes in his primary for CD07 than John Culberson (44,406) got in his.
Let's check my predictions now...
Some good, some not so good...
Hillary Clinton overcame an early vote deficit to win Texas. Delegate results are here (PDF) - she leads the Senate district delegates 63-62. Caucus results will take some time. Obama won Harris County with 57%.
Over 2.8 million votes were cast, beating the high end estimates as well as John Kerry's 2004 general election total. Wow.
Rick Noriega won outright in that four-way race with 51%. No runoff!
There will be a runoff for Railroad Commissioner, as Mark Thompson came out of nowhere to collect 48% of the vote. He'll go up against Dale Henry for that slot.
Sam Houston won easily, Linda Yanez won a close on for the State Supreme Court.
Larry Joe Doherty cruised to a win over Dan Grant in CD10, with 61% of the vote.
Joe Jaworski took 59% of the vote in the SD11 race.
A very mixed bag in the State House. Good results:
Jessica Farrar, Garnet Coleman, and Carol Alvarado win easily. Armando Walle overcame an absentee vote deficit to win with 57% over Kevin Bailey. Donnie Dippel, the strongest candidate to retain Robbie Cook's seat in HD17, won big.
Bad results:
Al Edwards won his rematch against Borris Miles with 61%. Craddick Ds Dawnna Dukes, Kino Flores, and Aaron Pena hung on. Incumbents Juan Escobar and Paul Moreno lost, the former to a real DINO. In these races, Tom Craddick got a nice return on his investments here. (He didn't do as well on the Republican side, oddly enough.)
And in the closest State House race of the day, Dora Olivo scraped by to hold off Ron Reynolds, with a 200 vote lead out of 29,000 ballots cast.
Moving to Harris County, David Mincberg (75%), Diane Trautman (69%), and Adrian Garcia (59% in a three-way race) all won by wide margins.
There will be one local countywide runoff, for District Court 80, where Marc Isenberg and Larry Weiman nosed out Tanner Garth. Other results:
125th - Kyle Carter won big over Jim Wrotenbery. Carter spent a ton, and got the result to show for it.
152nd - Bob Schaffer beat David Melasky.
174th - Ruben Guerrero beat Lloyd Oliver.
190th - In the closest race of the night, Bruce Mosier edged Andres Pereira, winning with 50.48% of the vote Andres Pereira barely nipped Bruce Mosier, winning by less than 300 votes out of over 200,000 cast. (Note: I had this wrong originally due to differences in the County Clerk's returns pages.)
215th - Steve Kirkland beat Fred Cook.
351st - Mekisha Murray beat Silvia Pubchara.
All incumbent constables and JPs won, including Dale Gorczynski over Harold Landreneau. The one other runoff will be for JP Precinct 8, Place 1, between Dee Wright and Jeff Heintschel.
And finally, Dexter Handy won the County Commissioner, Precinct 3 nomination, while in Fort Bend County, Richard Morrison led the field of five for County Commissioner, Precinct 1, with 37%.
On to the GOP side.
The good so far:
Jessica Farrar at 75% in early voting.
Rick Noriega just barely under 50% in early voting.
Armando Walle wining the early vote and within 100 votes overall.
David Mincberg and Diane Trautman cruising, Adrian Garcia at 56%.
The bad so far:
Al Edwards leading Borris Miles with 62%. Ugh!
The bizarre:
Mark Thompson within a hair of 50% in the RRC race? WTF?
More to come...
I am at my precinct convention (Precinct 003). Maybe 100 people here, with a slight majority for Obama by my reckoning. Very few Republicans. Will call things to order shortly and will post updates as time permits.
UPDATE: Successfully transitioned chair duties to someone else. Everything was done in a spirit of cooperation, and everything went smoothly. I wound up helping count votes. Obama won, and will get 15 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 11 for the SDEC06 convention. I was out of there by 8:30 and am now at Jessica Farrar's HQ, where she led with 75% in early voting. More to come.
I'm not sure why Chron.com still has the same story from yesterday about the settlement of the Ibarra lawsuit against the Harris County Sheriff's office when there's a different and fuller story, with quotes from jurors, in the print edition. All but one of the jurors that spoke expressed some level of outrage at the lack of any investigation by the Sheriff and DA's office into the Ibarra's complaint. Hopefully, that article will make it to the website eventually, but till then, we have Lisa Falkenberg.
Harris County could have avoided legal liability if Sheriff Tommy Thomas' department had simply done its job by investigating the claims of brothers Sean Carlos Ibarra and Erik Adam Ibarra and taking any disciplinary action -- so much as a letter of reprimand -- against the deputies involved."The sheriff could have avoided all this with a letter," Kelley says.
But instead of actually looking into the Ibarras' claims that the deputies stormed into their home without probable cause, drew their guns, arrested them, seized their cameras and confiscated their film, the sheriff's department argued that it couldn't investigate because, technically, the Ibarras' written complaint didn't count.
Why? It wasn't typed onto the right form, or, as one representative of the sheriff's department put it, it wasn't presented on pink paper with a blue ribbon. After all, the sheriff's department can't make it too easy for citizens to file complaints. Then everyone who's had his home invaded, property confiscated and spent a night in jail for no good reason could complain about it.
[County Attorney Michael] Stafford, when asked what lessons had been learned during the ordeal, said communications between his office, the DA's office and sheriff's office could have been better. He said the sheriff's department could have done a better job following its procedures on investigating complaints.
Indeed.
The suit may be settled, but the underlying issue isn't. We'll be hearing a lot more about this between now and November. I'll keep my eyes open for the current Chron story on this.
So this is it, the primary that some people (like, um, me) foolishly wanted to move up to February to ensure a meaningful voice in the Presidential selection process is here at last. Many of us have already voted, but I'm sure quite a few more will be doing it today. Let me remind you again that you need to go to your precinct polling location; some day, perhaps, we'll have early voting-style voting centers on Election Day, so that you can vote wherever you want, but that day is not anywhere close to being here. Not every precinct location is open, and not every precinct that is open is available for whichever party's primary you want to vote in. Don't guess, and don't just show up somewhere - check HarrisVotes.org, the Harris County Democratic Party, or the Harris County GOP and be sure you're at the right place.
And when you get there, I hope you'll feel you know enough about the candidates to make confident choices in each race. If it helps, you can refer to my own endorsements, or to my list of interviews to help you make any last-minutes decisions you may have. For the most part, what is making this primary so difficult is the reason why you can feel good about whatever decisions you do make, even if they're based on subtle things - "intangibles", in sports-speak - and that's the fact that up and down the ballot, we've got a very strong roster of candidates. I do think some judicial candidates are more qualified than others - Jim Wrotenbery over Kyle Carter, and Ruben Guerrero over Lloyd Oliver, to name two - but the slate overall isn't going to be weakened if an inferior choice is made here or there. And that's good to know.
Which is not to say that every race features a contest of equals. Far from it: The races for countywide leadership feature clearcut choices - David Mincberg for County Judge, Adrian Garcia for Sheriff, and Diane Trautman for Tax Assessor. There's a lot of belief that the excitement of the Presidential race plus the local GOP's travails and the changing demographics of Harris County will lead to a Dallas-like sweep for the Dems here. I'll be very pleased to see that happen of course, but the odds of it happening will be significantly better if we have the best people at the top of the local ticket. Candidates will always matter, and these three are the right ones at the right time. Please don't forget about these races once the warm glow of picking your preferred Presidential candidate has worn off.
If the countywide candidates matter, then the statewide candidates matter at least as much. We're blessed to have an abundance of good people running for State Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Railroad Commission. I'm not too worried about the outcome of any of those races. But the most important race in Texas, even in the event that the Dems decide to put up a real fight for our state's electoral votes, is the Senate race, and once again, the choice couldn't be clearer: Rick Noriega is as good a candidate as we've had for a statewide run in a long time. Noriega's got a proven record, he's right on issues ranging from immigration and border security to Iraq to FISA to the economy, he's demonstrated he'll fight back against the slime machine, and he's busting his butt to win the nomination so he can take that fight to the next level. There were two votes this cycle that I was especially proud to cast, and my vote for Rick Noriega for Senate was one of them. Again, I hope that once you've made your choice for President, you'll go on to make the best choice for the US Senate. Whoever your preference is for the Commander in Chief, that person can only benefit (as we all can) by having Rick Noriega on the ticket, and ultimately in the Senate.
The other vote that I cast with an extra helping of pride was for my State Rep, Jessica Farrar. I really can't say it any better than I already have, but let me reiterate that we progressives don't get as many chances as perhaps we'd like to support truly like-minded public officials. Jessica Farrar fights for the things I believe in, and she does the right thing even when weaseling would be expedient. As with Rick Noriega, I couldn't be happier to support her. As much as the idea of winning races makes this an exciting time to be a Democrat, knowing that we can win them with people like Jessica Farrar and Rick Noriega makes it that much more so. It's great to have ideals; it's better to have elected officials who share them. This year, we can truly make that happen, and that's an awesome thing.
OK, that's enough soapbox for now. Happy voting, and please tell me what the experience was like at your polling place. We'll see how it all goes.
And even I'll be ready to not hear those Obama commercials in heavy rotation on 103.7 Jack FM. I'm going to reiterate this post from Friday, for those of you who are voting today:
If you vote today at a precinct location, please note that you must go to the correct one for your precinct. Unlike early voting, where you can pick your spot, your polling place is set. Your voter registration card has your precinct number on it, which you can then use to look up your precinct polling location. If you don't have your card handy, you can look up your precinct number at HarrisVotes.org - click on Voting Information, then either Address or Name and Address to enter your information to search. You can also determine your precinct location there. The bottom line is that you may only vote at your precinct location today. If you go someplace else, you will be turned away. Please know where you're going before you head out, especially if you vote later in the day.
You've probably heard about the "Texas two-step", which is the precinct convention that follows the primary vote. That occurs at your precinct voting location, so if you voted early and you want to participate in that, you'll need to look up your location anyway. Be there by 7:15 to take part. It's a somewhat involved process, which is described in step-by-step detail here. Given the huge number of voters, especially new voters, expect a certain amount of chaos. But this is a big part of the process, so stick with it as best you can, and we'll all get through it together.
Hope that helps. Happy voting, and please leave a comment to describe your experience.
If you're voting tomorrow, my advice is to get there early in hope of avoiding long lines.
The campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama urged supporters to stop in at shopping centers, libraries or county courthouses to cast their ballots early and beat the anticipated primary day rush. Republican presidential contenders John McCain and Mike Huckabee also campaigned in Texas, though voter interest centered on the closer Democratic race.
On the other hand, if everyone is being urged to get there early, maybe it's better strategy to go during the middle of the day. I'd avoid lunchtime, so maybe between 9 and 10, or between 2 and 4. Your guess is as good as mine.
An estimated 60 percent, or 2 million, of the 3.3 million total voters expected in Tuesday's Democratic and Republican primaries voted early, [Secretary of State Phil] Wilson said. He based that estimate on the slightly more than 1.2 million who cast ballots in the 15 most populous counties through Friday's end of early voting.[...]
The Secretary of State's Office tally for the 15 most populous counties showed that 890,188, or 11.39 percent of registered voters in those counties, voted early in the Democratic primary -- more than the Texas Democratic Party has seen in the past two presidential primaries statewide for early and Election Day voting.
Harris, Dallas and Bexar counties had the largest numbers of early Democratic voters, with 403,197 ballots cast in person and by mail in those three counties covering Houston, Dallas and San Antonio.
This projection is the same as the one the SOS made last Wednesday, so the end of early voting stayed in line with that. It still boggles my mind to see these numbers, especially the 890,000-out-of-1.2-million-voted-Democratic numbers. Bear in mind that if the SOS is overestimating how many people voted early - say, if it's 50% instead of 60% - these numbers really start to go through the roof. You know, whenever you go to vote, budget plenty of time for it.
I should note further that we finally have some head-to-head polling for Texas. And guess what? It looks like a pretty not-bad starting point (PDF) from the Democratic perspective. John McCain leads Barack Obama 51-42 and HIllary Clinton 50-46. It's taken, if I'm reading this correctly, from the pool of primary voters they're sampling, with some adjustments made to project for the general election. That sample (pre-weighting) had a partisan identification is 38D-28R-29I, which in itself is interesting. I'm sure there's another poll from Florida or some such place showing everything is peachy-dandy for the Republicans there, but I'll take this as a place to begin.
Forget the Presidential race and the state of Harris County's partisan mix. This is the kind of polling people want.
As the question of whether Roger Clemens or Brian McNamee is telling the truth about Clemens' alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs inches closer to a potential court date, Harris County's court of public opinion rates the matter as a statistical dead heat.Of 604 respondents to a Houston Chronicle poll of Harris County voters conducted by Zogby International, 35.5 percent said they were more likely to believe McNamee, Clemens' former trainer, when he said he injected Clemens with anabolic steroids and human growth hormone. Clemens was supported by 32.8 percent, and 31.7 percent had no response.
Would "Do I look like I care?" count as a no response?
57 percent of respondents to a recent national Gallup Poll said they believed Clemens was lying, while 31 percent said they believed he was telling the truth. Also, 79.3 percent of more than 94,000 respondents to an ESPN.com reader poll believed McNamee.In Boston, where Clemens began his career, only 8.2 percent of respondents to a survey by Boston.com said they believed the pitcher, and in New York, where Clemens played last season, 79 percent of respondents to a Daily News poll said they believed McNamee.
Given the previous numbers, Rusty Hardin, Clemens' attorney, said he was encouraged by the Harris County poll results.
"The fact that it's half and half, I believe, is great," Hardin said. "This side has endured the most frenetic, meanest assault on a public person that I've ever seen, and the fact that a third of the people are willing to believe him and a third haven't formed an opinion is tremendously encouraging."
I'm thinking that some day, Roger Clemens is going to wonder why the hell he testified in front of Congress. It hasn't exactly worked out for him, has it? I have the same problems I've always had with the Mitchell Report and Brian McNamee, and I still believe the whole so-called PED issue is way overblown, but boy howdy was that a bad move on Clemens' part. Too late to worry about it now, I guess.
It's Super Texas Tuesday! Run for your life! Oh, wait, no, run to the voting booth if you haven't already. And while you're waiting in line to cast that vote, here are the highlights from the Texas Progressive Alliance from last week. Click on to read.
This election cycle is all about the change America so desperately needs. TXsharon at Bluedaze implores: Texans, don't settle for more of the same!
Many wonderful things happened at McBlogger this week, from McBlogger's discovery of a scrumptious new foodstuff, to Hillary's decision to co-sponsor a bill turning back the privatization of our military. Finally, we take a look at Cornyn's pathetic attempt to call out his better, Lt.Col. Rick Noriega.
WhosPlayin has photos and man-on-the-street interviews from the Barack Obama rally in Fort Worth on Thursday and his 7 year old son wonders whether Democrats will change the Pledge of Allegiance.
Off the Kuff has been closely following the early voting turnout data in Harris County and statewide. Read all about R versus D ballots in State Rep districts, why some Republicans are voting for Obama, projecting record statewide turnout, and what it all means for November.
For the last time with feeling Viva Obama! Vote or caucus at your precinct Tuesday. Caucus convention starts 15 minutes after voting at the precinct closes. - Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News.
Vince at Capitol Annex notes that there is some right-wing cash coming into some unexpected Democratic campaigns, and notes that Obama has a push card in Texas highlighting faith issues.
Eye On Williamson has been chronicling the Turnout Gone Wild in Williamson County. Dembones wrapped up the early voting with a Final Early Voting Report, and is Fired Up, Ready To Go, for the primary. WCNews has a look at the HD-52 8 Days Out Ethics Filings leading up to the primary.
Refininsh69 from Doing My Part For The Left thinks it is time that supporters of both Obama and Hillary GROW UP! Doing My Part For The Left endorses Glen Maxey for Travis County Assessor-Collector. While listening to both campaigns and watching commercials and interviews, Refinish69 realizes it is 3AM and Hillary Seems Desperate.
The Texas Cloverleaf jumps into the final weekend of primary action. The Leaf meets up with Forest Whitaker, Max Kennedy, and Ron Kirk in Dallas at Obama HQ. After the star studded event, attack mail hits the mailboxes in Texas. Find out what half truths are being spread by the Clinton attack machine before the primary vote comes to a head.
Jaye at Winding Road asks Hillary Clinton to not quit, and take it to the convention.
Comets forward Sheryl Swoopes will sign with the Seattle Storm tonight, according to a spokesperson from the Comets.The team will release this statement tonight:
"Sheryl Swoopes will not return to play with the Houston Comets for the 2008 season. She is a trailblazer and an incomparable contributor to the legacies of the Houston Comets, the WNBA and the game of women's basketball. There is no question that her absence will be felt by the Comets franchise and all the Houston fans who continue to support her career. We're excited for her and wish her well as she embarks on this new opportunity."
I've been a Comets fan for years now, and I've thoroughly enjoyed watching Sheryl Swoopes play ball. She's a great athlete, a tremendous competitor, and a class act. As sorry as I am to see her depart, I join the Comets organization in wishing her continued success. Thanks for everything, Sheryl!
Among the many reasons why I'm hoping that the precinct convention business wraps up early tomorrow night is that I want to attend some parties. For some reason, there are several right in my neighborhood, and I know I'll be craving some beer and fellowship as soon as the first EV numbers hit the streets.
Here's a sample of the action out there.
Borris Miles
Herman Park Golf Course
2155 North MacGregor
Houston, TXArmando Walle
American Legion Post 578
3415 Aldine Mail Rt.
Houston, TX 77039Garnet Coleman and Jessica Farrar
2617 Yale St
Houston, TX 77008Carol Alvarado
Doneraki at Gulfgate
300 Gulfgate
Houston, TX 77082Adrian Garcia
Cadillac Bar
1802 Shepherd Drive, near the Katy Freeway
Houston, TX 77007Rick Noriega
6th Street Bar and Grill
2701 White Oak Drive at Studewood Street
Houston, TX 77009
The Noriega, Garcia, and Coleman/Farrar parties are close to me; in fact, I could walk home from the Noriega event. Which means I may go there last, so as not to worry too much about having that one more beer. If you know of others, leave them in the comments.
This is an unexpected but not terribly unsurprising development.
Harris County commissioners voted unanimously this morning to pay $1.7 million to settle a lawsuit that led to the resignation of District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.After an emergency, closed-door meeting, commissioners agreed to settle with Sean Carlos Ibarra, 37, and Erik Adam Ibarra, 28, two brothers who claim that they were wrongfully arrested by sheriff's deputies, whom they photographed and videotaped during a 2002 drug raid at their neighbor's home. Because of a subpoena filed in that lawsuit, Rosenthal's personal, romantic e-mails to his secretary surfaced.
The settlement comes as the sheriff's deputies were scheduled to testify this week in the Ibarra's civil trial in U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt's court. The Ibarras were seeking $5 million in damages for the alleged civil rights violation.
[...]
The Ibarras' lawyers made the offer over the weekend -- before today's scheduled testimony from deputies involved in the case, said County Judge Ed Emmett.
Commissioner Steve Radack said he voted for the settlement because sheriff's deputies made mistakes on the day of the incident.
"There were some policies that were violated,'' he said. "You had somebody on the street who went beyond what was reasonable.''
Emmett said, "The rational thing to do was to accept this settlement offer. Sometimes you make the best deal you can and move on. It allows the sheriff's office to get back to being the sheriff's office.''
Hoyt will determine whether the county will pay more for the Ibarra brothers' legal fees. Emmett speculated the county may pay as much as $1 million to cover those fees.
Okay, I'm not an attorney, I haven't been in the courtroom to hear the evidence and see the jurors' reactions, I don't know what kind of witnesses these two deputies were going to make, and I surely don't know what else Lloyd Kelley had in his bag of tricks. That said, settling for $1.7 million, plus possibly another million in legal fees, when the amount demanded by the plaintiffs was a sure-to-be-reduced-on-appeal $5 million says to me that the county wasn't all that confident in its defense. I could be misreading this, and I welcome any feedback from actual attorneys on this, but that's my read on the situation.
Another point: Stopping things here also has the extra bonus of keeping the deputies' testimony and whatever other evidence there may be out of the public record. I'm still just speculating - it may well be that all the bad stuff is already out, or will get out anyway. But if the goal is to let the Sheriff's office get back to Sheriffing, ending the trial certainly accomplishes that.
The settlement would end all legal actions against the sheriff's department, the four deputies, Thomas and the county. But it would not end contempt actions brought by Hoyt against Rosenthal, Radack said.
I presume that's still on track for March 14.
The county has spent more than $125,000 on Rosenthal's contempt proceedings and his attempts to keep some e-mails private.
Thanks, Chuck. You're a gift that just keeps on giving, aren't you?
With Super Texas Tuesday finally almost upon us, it's time to have a little fun. This is an open predictions thread. I'm going to list some races, you tell me what you think is going to happen. Be as general or specific as you wish, but please keep it civil - I won't approve direct attacks on candidates. Doesn't mean you can't be snarky (heaven forfend!), just don't be a jerk. I'll set a good example and go first - note that what I'm giving here is what I think will happen, not necessarily what I want to happen. Please don't equate a prediction for an endorsement.
Assume I'm asking about the Democratic primary unless specified otherwise. Fabulous prizes will be available to those who do the best, as soon as someone provides them to me to provide to you. Otherwise, it's all for personal glory. Deadline is 7 PM Tuesday. Ready, set...
1. President, both parties My guess: Obama by ten points, McCain with about 60%. Turnout of over 2.5 million on the Dem side, less than 1.5 million on the GOP side.
2. US Senate My guess: Despite some public mutterings about a runoff, I think Rick Noriega ekes out a majority. Gene Kelly ends up in the 20s, with the other two sharing the rest.
3. CD10 My guess: Dan Grant, in a win for endorsements over fundraising.
5. CD22, GOP My guess: Toughest one in the bunch. I think Shelley makes it to the runoff, thus kicking off a wild celebration at Wonkette world headquarters, but who else makes it is a complete tossup. I'm going to go with Pete Olson, and I'll be completely unsurprised to be wrong.
6. Harris County District Attorney, GOP, and Travis County DA, Dem My guess: For Harris, Siegler and Lykos in the runoff. And that sound you'll hear afterwards is the membership of the HCCLA gnashing their teeth and rending their garments. For Travis, I'll be rooting for a Lehmberg-Reed matchup, but I suspect Mindy Montford's money will get her a spot in the playoffs against one of those two.
7. Harris County Judge, both parties; Sheriff and Tax Assessor, Dems My guess: For the GOP, Charles Bacarisse. I see him as running a more partisan campaign, which strikes me not surprisingly as a better strategy for a primary. And though it won't matter, whoever designed the font on Ed Emmett's yard signs should be flogged. On the Dem side, I see David Mincberg winning easily, and I believe both Adrian Garcia and Diane Trautman will prevail as well, Garcia hopefully avoiding a runoff.
8. HDs 130 (GOP), 140 and 146 (Dem) My guess: I think Danno's boy Alan Fletcher wins in 130, though I'm not confident about it. I think Armando Walle knocks off Kevin Bailey, and I think Borris Miles survives by the skin of his teeth.
9. Supreme Court and Railroad Commissioner My guess: For Surpeme Court, Linda Yanez and Sam Houston. I feel more confident about the latter than the former. For RRC, I think Art Hall and Dale Henry end up in a runoff.
10. Harris County judicials (your choice) My guess: Hell if I know. I see them all as tossups. Whatever the final turnout is on the Dem side, barring something like a 75% dropoff from the Presidential race you're looking at 100,000 or more voters who weren't touched by either campaign ultimately picking the nominees. That's got to be giving a lot of people ulcers.
Extra credit: The races I should have included but didn't. I mostly went with contests where I thought the likely outcome was not obvious, but that's my judgment. I also mostly stuck with Harris County, just to keep this at a respectable length. Feel free to tell me which races I'm overlooking, and how you think they'll wind up.
There you have it. Here's Greg's call on some of these races. Have fun, and predict away!
Longtime GOP strategist Royal Masset looks at the Democratic turnout numbers in the Quorum Report and sees dire things for his party.
Masset now sees the makings of a political tsunami greater than the annus horribilis of 2006. The nearly minute-by-minute coverage of the Democratic presidential primary in Texas has undoubtedly captured the attention of the state's voters. Some argue that such attention is good too for the Republicans, sort of a rising tide lifting all boats argument.Masset, though, is focused on what he said was the telling stat, party primary turnout as percentage of the total number of registered voters. On that score, the GOP is lagging terribly behind the Democratic Party.
The Secretary of State's Office tracks early voting by day in each of the state's 15 most populous counties. Taken together, the 7.8 million registered voters in those counties account for a little more than 60 percent of the state's registered voters.
While most eyes have been focused on staggering Democratic turnout, they have missed the fact that Republican turnout has also surged, generally doubling in the fifteen largest counties.
As of Wednesday, the percentage of registered voters taking part in the Democratic primary has nearly tripled the percentage voting in the Republican primary - 7.7 percent to 2.6 percent.
What gets Masset's attention is the fact that Republican turnout has exceeded 5 percent of registered voters in just one of the 15 most populous counties, Montgomery County. Conversely, Montgomery County is the only place where Democratic turnout has been less then 5 percent.
In the predominately Latino Rio Grande Valley, the disparity is even greater. In Cameron County (Brownsville), 9.75 percent of the registered voters have participated in the Democratic primary. The Republican primary hadn't cracked a single percentage point - 0.97 percent - as of Wednesday. In Hidalgo County (Edinburg), the spread is even larger, 13.10 percent to 0.82 percent.
What worries Masset the most is that he figures upward of 80 percent of those new Democratic voters will return to cast ballots in the fall. "If they're excited now, they'll probably stay excited," he said. In addition, the Democratic Party will have those voters in their database for outreach efforts later this year.
Masset looks at places like Collin County and Williamson County where Republicans hold every local office but Democrats are coming out this primary season in greater numbers than Republicans. The trends are adding up to an even better year for Democrats than in 2006, he said. And with a charismatic Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket and McCain seemingly unable to unite his party, Masset suggested any GOP incumbent who won last time with less than 60 percent of the vote should be concerned. Anyone who won with less than 55 percent of the vote is in trouble, he said.
Pretty provocative. I should note that Masset foresaw the rise of the GOP in the state by tracking GOP versus Democratic primary participation from the 70s through to 2000. That article on QR is here, and I'll quote a little bit of it:
The real problem for the Democratic party is the erosion of their historical base in rural counties. Most county officeholders have a couple of hundred relatives and friends who will vote Democrat to keep them in office. But as support for the Democrat party declines in their counties, the probability greatly increases that they will switch parties or be defeated by a Republican. The largest percent declines in Democratic Party primary turnout from 1996 and 2000 were in these rural counties.Here are several examples. In Speaker Laney's home of Hale County, the Democrat turnout was more than triple the Republican turnout in 1996. In 2000 the Republican turnout was almost triple the Democrat turnout. This sounds like an SAT question. The correct answer is that the Hale County Democrat turnout declined from 3505 to 530.
Nacogdoches County saw a similar flip. Their Republican primary turnout more than tripled to 8,222 from 2672 in 1996. Steve Lilly still lives! The Denton County Republican Primary went from 21,884 to 57,659. In 30 counties the Republican turnout was more than twice that of previous all time high 1996 turnout, including strategically important counties such as Wharton, Henderson, Anderson, and Chambers. Gonzales, Hood and Kaufman counties had 95% increases in Republican turnout.
The Democrat primary turnout declined by more than half in strategically important counties such as Wharton, Walker, Gonzales, Aransas, Cooke, El Paso, Grayson, Hamilton, Howard, Hunt, Jefferson, Kaufman, Madison, Mitchell, McCulloch, Nacogdoches, Scurry, Wichita and Young. It declined by 48% in Gregg, Waller and Mason counties.
These two situations aren't exactly analogous. Masset was documenting a decline in Democratic primary turnout participation (all in Presidential years, I might add) while showing a corresponding increase in same on the GOP side. This year, while GOP turnout declined dramatically from 2000 to 2004, it is up somewhat from 2000. It's just that Democratic participation is through the roof, possibly beyond 1972 levels in absolute terms, and that has to mean something. More on all this later. I included it mostly for reference.
Masset's guess that 80% of the new Democratic voters will come back in the fall to vote Democratic is encouraging. Obviously, some of these people are "November Democrats" who were always going to vote Democratic in the fall, but for whatever the reason never bothered to vote in previous Marches. Some of these are Democratic "swing voters" as defined by Chris Bowers, which is to say people who'll vote Dem if they vote, but need to be persuaded to do so; if they're not inspired to get out and cast a ballot this November, they shouldn't be considered voters in any meaningful sense. And the rest - a third? a half? more? less? who knows? - are people who aren't in the habit, even the unreliable habit, of voting Democratic. I certainly think these people are going to change the basic calculus of a whole host of elections this year, and so does Masset.
But not everybody does:
GOP pollster Mike Baselice has a different take on the early voting numbers. Looking at the raw numbers, GOP participation is running much higher than in the two previous presidential primaries that had Texan George W. Bush at the top of the ticket.More than 35,000 people have cast votes in the GOP primary in Harris County, for instance. That's two-and-a-half times as large a turnout as in 2004 more than twice the number from 2000. The jump in participation is even higher in Dallas and Tarrant Counties. In both places, GOP participation in raw numbers is more than six times the level in 2004.
These numbers are from the first eight days of early voting. Unfortunately, this gives a misleading figure, because while there were only two more days of early voting after that this year, there were six more days after Day Eight in 2000, so the final totals still show increases, but much more modest than what Baselice is suggesting. Here's how everything looked after all of early voting was completed:
County Year Reg Voters Early Vote Pct RVs Change
=========================================================
Harris 2000 1,754,645 41,880 2.38
Harris 2008 1,804,641 51,199 2.84 +19.3%Dallas 2000 1,161,587 23,859 2.05
Dallas 2008 1,114,002 31,874 2.86 +39.5%Tarrant 2000 801,260 19,200 2.40
Tarrant 2008 890,412 35,621 4.00 +66.7%Bexar 2000 824,948 30,203 3.66
Bexas 2008 867,084 33,487 3.86 +5.5%
2008 numbers via Burka; 2000 totals can be found here. I threw in Bexar as well because Burka had it and because it was the third-largest county in terms of registered voters back then. As you can see, there were definitely increases in GOP participation in those counties, but nowhere near twice as much in three of them, and near-flat performance in Bexar. And bear in mind, as a general rule more people vote early now than did in 2000, so the final totals for these counties may well show an even more modest increase in turnout. I'll be sure to check that once the numbers are in.
Including 2004 totals is even more misleading, because there essentially was no GOP primary in most parts of the state that year. President Bush was unopposed on the ballot. There were primaries among statewide officeholders, almost all Supreme Court and CCA jurists, but none of them generated any excitement - on average, the dropoff rate from Bush voters (who were 92% of all GOP primary voters) was between 10 and 20%. There were numerous Congressional primaries that year, thanks to the DeLay re-redistricting, but only six drew more than 30,000 votes, and as a whole they drew less than Bush's total of 635,000. What's driving GOP turnout this year is the same as what's driving Democratic, which is the chance to weigh in on a real race. It's just that the GOP side isn't nearly as strong a draw as the Dem side.
Baselice said that those early voting numbers suggest to him that the GOP could have as many as 1.5 million votes cast in its primary and that 4 million votes could be cast between both parties. He called those numbers unprecedented.
Sure, but not by that much. The total turnout in 2000 on the GOP side was just over 1.126 million, or 15.7% of the 7,179,549 registered voters that year. One point five million votes (if they get that much) out of 7,815,906 registered voters now would be 19.2% participation, a 22.3% increase from then. Nice and all, but compared to the Democrats and their likely tripling or more of the vote from either 2000 or 2004, it's not impressive.
And while that number is sure to be dwarfed by the number of Democratic primary votes, Baselice is not necessarily worried about Republican candidates' chances in the fall. He noted that the state tilts toward Republicans by about nine points. So all things being equal, the GOP candidate starts most races with a 55-45 advantage, he said.
Baselice claimed a partisan ratio in 2006 of 50-35-15. Does he really think the GOP still have that big an advantage to start out, or has he done actual polling? Bear in mind, according to Zogby (for what it's worth; at least this was a phone poll), Harris County is now 46-38-16 in Dems' favor. How much do you think Harris has changed over the past eight years, and what effect do you think that has on the statewide mix?
High turnout on both sides is a good thing for the Republican Party because it helps them rework their voters' lists and better target likely Republican voters, he said.
Yes, I figure they'll be saying "dammit, another Democrat" a lot. Have fun with that, y'all. Thanks to BOR for the tip.
Missed this last week: Swamplot has some more news about the upcoming demo-and-rebuild of the Archstone Memorial Apartments on Washington and Studemont. Basically, Super Neighborhood 22, which encompasses that area, is not happy about the design that's being proposed.
While members of SuperNeighborhood 22 support the redevelopment, they are concerned that the project's suburban design -- which calls for the back of the residential components to face Washington Avenue -- is hurting efforts to transform the avenue into a walkable, pedestrian-friendly destination.Monica Savino, a member of SuperNeighborhood 22, points out that Archstone was one of the first developers to come into the area 12 years ago when the Archstone Memorial Heights complex was built, and she's disappointed that the developer isn't cooperating with the new vision for the Inner-Loop area.
"This is an irresponsible way to develop in an urban area where land prices are so high," Savino says. "It's unfortunate that the project turns its back on a highly trafficked street that is currently undergoing a major revitalization."
Savino says neighborhood groups have encouraged Archstone to include retail on the ground floor facing Washington Avenue. But, she says, Archstone hasn't been receptive to the requests even though the company made a pledge in a public meeting to cooperate with SuperNeighborhood 22 and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone 5 on the project.
The real shame here is that all the dense development going on along Studemont from Washington south to Dallas, and along Washington pretty much everywhere you look makes this project a prime candidate, in a perfect location, for pedestrian-friendly retail. I took some photos a couple of weeks ago along that stretch of Montrose/Studemont to document this trend, which I'll get around to uploading to Flickr and blogging about some day after the primary, to show the massive changes there already, with so much more to come. Especially with the heavily-used park area down by the bayou along Allen Parkway (which as I understand it was originally going to be turned into private property; what a tragedy that would have been), this area is already attracting walkers and joggers, some of whom already live right there. What it lacks is places for these people to go to shop, eat, and otherwise recreate. Archstone would be doing everyone, including themselves, a favor if they provided more of that.
The bottom line is simply that this is an urban area in every way - it's historic, it's dense, it's close to downtown, and it's attracting residents who want to live in that kind of environment - and it deserves urban-centric development that fits it. Archstone, which was a forward-thinking pioneer in the 90s for building this apartment complex in the first place, is perfectly capable, and indeed has a track record elsewhere, of delivering something equally visionary now. I just hope they listen.
There's another looming issue that we touched on before as well:
Meanwhile, Archstone has requested that the city abandon nearby Court Street so the company can incorporate the land into its project. Archstone claims the street is dangerous, confusing and lacks control signage.But some residents are concerned that the abandonment of Court Street will cause increased traffic congestion.
Savino points out that any time a public right-of-way is abandoned and taken private, it limits options for mobility improvements.
Adding to the area's density is a recently approved residential tower, an apartment complex and a parking structure just down the street from the Archstone site.
"It's a shame that such a historic corridor could be turned into a high-speed area," Savino says. "We don't want to be the next Richmond Avenue. Their plans are creating a squandering affect on the neighborhood."
Savino emailed me to say that the TIRZ is supporting the abandonment; see here (PDF) for the details. As I said in my previous post, the neighborhood is still looking for feedback from people who use this Court Street byway, especially folks who are passing through from elsewhere. Please email your comments, along with your ZIP code, to [email protected]. Thanks very much.
As we know, the Dallas Morning News broke with the pack and endorsed Mike Huckabee for the GOP nomination for President. Yesterday, they repeated that endorsement.
Win or lose in November, the GOP is destined to spend the next few years redefining itself. For many reasons, Reaganism, which made the GOP the dominant political party of the last generation, no longer resonates as it once did with the American public. The world has changed since Ronald Reagan's election nearly 30 years ago, and the great man's political heirs will have to adjust the GOP's strategy and tactics to new realities.To that end, Mr. Huckabee, 52, should be a top leader in tomorrow's Republican Party. His good-natured approach to politics - "I'm a conservative; I'm just not mad about it," as he likes to say - is quite appealing after years of scorched-earth tactics from both parties. He's a pragmatist more concerned with effective government than with bowing to ideological litmus tests. For example, he has proven himself willing to violate anti-tax dogma to undertake investment in infrastructure for the sake of long-term prosperity.
Mr. Huckabee also is good on the environment, contending that the future of the conservative movement depends on embracing conservation and stewardship of the natural world. And he's a compassionate conservative especially in tune with middle-class anxieties in a globalizing economy.
Though his social and religious conservatism puts him on the wrong side of abortion, gay rights and other key issues, that same deep-faith commitment inspires his dedication to helping the poor and to racial healing. He truly is representative of the next wave of evangelical chieftains and, if nothing else, will emerge from this primary season the leader of one of the most influential factions in the GOP coalition.
We look forward to having him around to help shape and lead the Republican Party beyond November. That's why we encourage Texas Republicans to mark their ballots for Mr. Huckabee in the GOP primary: to demonstrate to the party's elite that Mr. Huckabee and his vision have a solid constituency.
I doubt it will have any practical effect, but their logic is interesting. We'll see if anyone in Dallas pays attention. Thanks to The Texas Blue for the link.
On a side note, I missed last week that Grits endorsed Rick Reed for Travis County DA. Click over and see what he has to say about that race.
Is it just me, or does anyone else get a wee bit edgy when sci-fi plotlines become news?
A doomsday seed vault on a remote Norwegian island in the Arctic Ocean opened Tuesday, creating a bank of more than 100 million seeds representing every major food crop on Earth.The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is meant to be a Noah's Ark for plant genetics. At 4 degrees below 0 F, it will preserve the thousands of regional and local crop varieties farmers worldwide have bred for thousands of years.
Were war, disease, plague or global warming to wipe out any one species, it could be replenished from the seeds stored deep in the permafrost of the mountain vault.
"Norway is proud to be playing a central role in creating a facility capable of protecting what are not just seeds but the fundamental building blocks of human civilization," Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said in comments relayed by a spokesman.
Numerous seed repositories exist worldwide, but the Svalbard vault is the most comprehensive.
I guess that's a good thing to have, as long as someone remembers it's there in the event it's needed. But I'd prefer to live in a world where this sort of contingency is not seen as needed. Oh, well.
At long last, the Chron finishes its endorsements (more or less). The good news is that in the end, they made the right calls.
Texas Senate, District 4, Republican Tommy Williams -- A legislator with impeccable conservative credentials, Williams is an effective representative for his Woorlands-area district.Texas Senate, District 11, Democrat Joe Jaworski -- A practicing attorney for 18 years, Jaworski served three terms on Galveston's City Council. He believes legislators should craft tax laws that broaden the revenue base to offer fairness to all taxpayers and relief for property owners. Jaworski's priorities in Austin would be transportation, environmental management that would spur job growth and integrity in office.
Texas House, District 127, Republican Martin Basaldua -- Basaldua is a family physician and Kingwood resident who touts his conservative credentials. He promises to go after federal funding to enroll more children in a health insurance plan, tighten border security and examine the high costs of college tuition. Basaldua says the district has suffered from a lack of energetic representation -- a failing he intends to rectify.
Texas House, District 129, Republican John Davis -- Davis, the incumbent since 1998, is a fifth-generation Texan and speaks fluent Spanish. If re-elected, Davis says, he will focus on protecting constituents' property rights against grabby developers, passing a voter ID law, reining in skyrocketing property appraisals and curbing illegal immigration.
Texas House, District 130, Republican Corbin Van Arsdale -- The incumbent, Van Arsdale is serving his third term. He is known for his expertise on House rules, and this skill serves his constituents well, as it increases Van Arsdale's effectiveness in passing legislation. He has worked across party lines to, for example, unanimously pass a law requiring state pensions to divest investments in firms that do business with Sudan. He lists his priorities as curbing illegal immigration, lowering property taxes and stopping the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Texas House, District 134, Republican Joe Agris -- A well-known plastic surgeon, Agris has been active in charity work and civic affairs. He is the more-qualified Republican seeking to challenge Democratic incumbent Rep. Ellen Cohen in November.
Texas House, District 144, Republican John Hughey -- Hughey says he intends to work to expose wrongdoing in government. A pro-life candidate, Hughey says he will work for lower taxes and smaller government. A retired NASA engineer with a military background, Hughey has long been active in local Republican politics.
Texas House, District 145, Democrat Carol Alvarado -- Alvarado racked up a solid record of achievements during three two-year terms as a Houston city councilwoman. Now running for the seat vacated by Rep. Rick Noriega, Alvarado wants to revisit tuition deregulation, which has made college costs prohibitive for many of her prospective constituents. A native Houstonian who has a history of working to strengthen neighborhoods and fighting pollution in the district, Alvarado pledges to work as a legislator for broader health coverage for Texas children.
Texas House, District 146, Democrat Borris Miles -- Miles, though dogged by a lawsuit alleging unseemly conduct, is still the better candidate in this primary contest. Miles' Democratic challenger is Al Edwards, whom Miles defeated in 2006 and who held the seat for almost three decades, a tenure noted for its modest benefit for the district. Miles says he has learned his lesson regarding public deportment. In his short time in Austin, Miles proved that he can be an effective representative.
Texas House, District 147, Democrat Garnet Coleman -- Coleman, the incumbent, says he is frustrated by public school dropout rates, high college tuition and the high rate of uninsured children. He promises to continue fighting for improvements. Clean air is another of Coleman's priorities, as are land banking for affordable housing and sensible stewardship of the environment. Deeply-versed in all the complexities of lawmaking, Coleman is highly competent, well-respected and the best choice for voters in this contest.
Texas House, District 148, Democrat Jessica Farrar -- Running for her eighth term, incumbent Farrar has been an outstanding representative for her district and has played a strong leadership role for her party in Austin. Farrar has been criticized for attending law school while in office, but she makes a strong case that this additional training will be a boon to her constituents.
Nothing remarkable on the GOP side. The Chron seems to like John Davis (they recommended him for re-election in 2006) and to not like Joe Crabb (they've endorsed every opponent he's had), and anyone who's surprised they went with Corbin Van Arsdale over Dan Patrick's minion needs to pay closer attention. The interesting one is HD134, where they went with the self-financing Joe Agris, who has not reported a single campaign contribution but has loaned himself $15,000 to do mailers, over the actively campaigning though still poorly financed Carlos Obando. Agris must come across well in interviews, because there's no evidence I've yet seen that he's doing any real work in this race. Not that I think it matters who wins that nomination, as I think either will be squashed by Rep. Ellen Cohen, I just thought that was an interesting choice by the Chron.
On the Dem side, for all the crap I've given the Chron about their pokiness in doing these endorsements, at least they got them right when they finally got around to it. Between the four Dems here plus their earlier nod to Armando Walle, they batted a thousand on these. Which is not to say they were perfect overall - I agree with the fourth letter-writer in particular - but they eventually did a good job. I just hope there are enough people still to vote who'll consider what they've said.
There are still a couple or races left untouched - the GOP primaries for CD18, and two Harris County Department of Education trustee slots. I can only presume they've been skipped at this point. Perhaps the editorial board was never able to meet with all the candidates.
Finally, while the Houston GLBT Political Caucus gave an endorsement to Barack Obama for President earlier this week, the Houston Area Stonewall Democrats went with Hillary Clinton. Here's what they said (PDF):
Houston Area Stonewall Democrats proudly endorses Senator Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. Representing five of the region's counties, Stonewall Democrats are the largest GLBT Democratic organization in southeast Texas. With their endorsement, Stonewall Democrats join Houston Controller Annise Parker and Vice Mayor Pro Tem Sue Lovell in the community's support of Hillary Clinton. Lovell, a super delegate, is the only Texas GLBT member on the Democratic National Committee.The vote of the Executive Board was decisive with four members voting for Hillary Clinton and one member abstaining.
"For us, the choice was clear, " said Teresa Herrin, Stonewall Democrats president. "Hillary Clinton is the candidate best qualified and most prepared to bring about the changes sought by our community."
"We knew Senator Clinton has been our ally in the fight for our equal rights, but we were genuinely surprised by her passion about us becoming full American citizens under the law," continued Herrin.
"Clinton's absolute indignation about the movement to prevent qualified GLBT couples from adopting showed her long-standing commitment of taking care of America's children," said Pat Gandy, Stonewall Democrats treasurer. "Instead of marginalizing us, Senator Clinton actually asked us to help her create the solutions our country needs. To a 76-year old lesbian in Houston that is very, very powerful."
During the twenty-minute phone conversation, Senator Clinton wholly committed to making immediate priorities of her administration such key issues as passing a completely inclusive ENDA, passing a completely inclusive Hate Crimes bill, and eliminating "Don't Ask, Don't' Tell".
"One of the most important reasons I support Hillary is her length of service with our community," stated Jackie Donovan, Stonewall Democrats Membership Chair. "She is certainly not new to our battles."
Stonewall Democrats are excited to help elect the candidate who is best able to lead all Americans on January 20 - Senator Hillary Clinton.
So there you have it.
Take it for what it's worth. I have no idea how you get a representative sample, but it's better to try than not.
Prosecutor Kelly Siegler and former Judge Pat Lykos lead police Capt. Doug Perry and defense lawyer Jim Leitner in the race for district attorney, but about half of voters likely to participate in Tuesday's primary were undecided last week, the Zogby International poll indicated.If no candidate gets a majority of the vote, the top two finishers will advance to an April 8 runoff that will crown the Republican nominee against Democrat C.O. Bradford, the former Houston police chief.
In the primary for chief of Harris County government, former District Clerk Charles Bacarisse and incumbent Ed Emmett are running evenly, and a third of likely Republican voters are undecided, according to the survey. On the Democratic side, businessman David Mincberg appears headed for the nomination over businessman Ahmad Hassan.
The summary is here (PDF), and the breakdown with crosstabs is here (PDF). I'll summarize the summary:
GOP DACandidate Pct
=========================
Kelly Siegler 20.6
Pat Lykos 14.0
Doug Perry 7.4
Jim Leitner 6.0
Not Sure 52.0
GOP County JudgeCandidate Pct
=========================
Charles Bacarisse 34.3
Ed Emmett 31.3
Other 3.7
Not Sure 30.8
Dem County JudgeCandidate Pct
=========================
David Mincberg 30.5
Ahmad Hassan 11.2
Other 3.5
Not Sure 54.8
GOP PresidentCandidate Pct
=========================
John McCain 64.3
Mike Huckabee 20.6
Ron Paul 4.8
Other 4.0
Not Sure 6.3
Dem PresidentCandidate Pct
=========================
Barack Obama 49.8
Hillary Clinton 41.4
Other 1.1
Not Sure 7.7
"County Leadership"Party Pct
=========================
Democrat 41.9
Republican 40.1
Other 6.0
Not Sure 12.0
"Local Judges"Party Pct
=========================
Democrat 41.1
Republican 37.2
Other 6.8
Not Sure 15.0
Couple points to make: One, I don't know why you bother including an "other" choice for races like DA and County Judge, as there are no other choices than the stated ones. Two, the samples for the GOP DA race came from the subset of people who said they were very or somewhat likely to vote in that race. Oddly, that total of 346 voters is significantly bigger than the total that said they were likely to vote in the GOP primary, which was 192 of the inital 530 (out of 604) who said they were voting in one or the other. 304 people answered Democrat to that one, with 34 "not sure" (it reports 35, but the numbers don't add up that way). As such, the samples for a lot of these races are very small, and should be treated with large measures of salt due to very high margins of error. Honestly, I don't know why you wouldn't simply keep calling till you found enough likely voters in each party before you bothered asking about these other races. In fact, this whole post seems like a waste of effort now. But there you have it anyway. Greg has more.
On a side note, this Pollster.com study of the different sample size and composition assumptions by various outfits polling in Texas is fascinating. Check it out, and remember that this is even more guesswork than usual this time around.
Spotted in my neighborhood the other day, on White Oak at Harvard:
I dropped in for a short chat after I took the picture. They're in donated space and will be out shortly after Tuesday, but everyone inside was confident there would be stuff like this again in the fall. I hope they're right.
City Controller Annise Parker has the following to say about the proposed deal for Dynamo Stadium:
City Controller Annise Parker wants clarity in discussing public funding of the proposed Dynamo soccer stadium.The city is attempting to acquire a six-block tract east of downtown through a combined purchase and land swap. That tract may be offered to the Houston Dynamo as a site for their proposed stadium. The city has previously participated in the downtown baseball and basketball venues so this is not unprecedented. If the city does not complete a Dynamo deal, the tract would be held until a use is determined.
"My first concern is for the land acquisition. While there has been public speculation about the use of the land, the request for council action identifies no specific public purpose. That is backward public policy," the controller stated. "The city is not in the land speculation business. Council should know for what purpose the land will be used."
Mayor Bill White favors using money from the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) located just east of downtown to cover the purchase of five of the six blocks. When a TIRZ is created the city agrees to return to the zone any growth in property taxes resulting from increased development. In turn, the TIRZ can borrow against those dollars for infrastructure improvements or use those dollars for enhanced street lights, sidewalks, landscaping and other public improvements.
"TIRZ dollars are property taxes. This is a legitimate use of TIRZ monies, but to say there will be no public dollars, or tax dollars, used for this purchase is simply inaccurate," she said.
The sixth block will be acquired through a land swap using water and sewer ratepayer dollars. "I am concerned about the use of public utility revenues to help make this deal possible. Our water and sewer customers should not be helping to subsidize a professional sports facility, no matter how much we want it," the controller said.
The deal was delayed again by Council till next week. We'll see what happens next.
The Chron has another batch of endorsements today, which I almost missed since it wasn't linked on the index page for Opinion - I spotted it in the paper version, and then had to look to find it online. Here we go:
Harris County district clerk, Republican Theresa Chang -- Appointed to serve the unexpired term of Charles Bacarisse, who resigned to run for county judge, Chang is superbly qualified for this job. She holds degrees both in law and engineering and is well-suited for a post that requires swift technological innovation. She promises to assist all 59 district courts and 15 county courts-at-law efficiently.Harris County tax assessor/collector, Democrat Diane Trautman -- A professor of ethics and education at Stephen F. Austin State University, Trautman touts 30 years of administrative and leadership experience in academic, business and community affairs. She promises to preside over a fair property appraisal system and to use the voter registration system to encourage voter participation.
Harris County commissioner, Precinct 3, Democrat Dexter Handy -- A retired Air Force officer, Handy is opposed by an unqualified perennial candidate. Should Handy prevail in the primary, he will face a formidable opponent in the well-known Republican incumbent, Commissioner Steve Radack.
Judge, 55th Civil District Court, Republican Jeff Shadwick -- The appointed incumbent, Shadwick distinguished himself while serving on the board of the Houston Independent School District. He is an experienced civil lawyer and promises to rule decisively and to be patient and fair to both sides of every case.
Judge, 152nd Civil District Court, Democrat Robert Schaffer -- A graduate of South Texas College of Law, Schaffer is a mediator with experience in settling disputes. He promises to treat everyone in his court with dignity and respect.
Judge, 174th Criminal District Court, Democrat Ruben Guerrero -- An experienced and respected lawyer and judge, Guerrero has tried every type of case. He promises to work long hours in the service of justice. In his previous tenure as a district judge, Guerrero helped other judges appoint grand juries that were reflective of the community.
Judge, 176th Criminal District Court, Republican Brian Raines -- Appointed to this bench in 1988, Raines was an assistant district attorney under Carol Vance. He is a graduate of the University of Houston Law Center. Raines believes prosecutors are not selective enough in seeking the death penalty. He also recommends that possession of small amounts of crack cocaine be reduced to a misdemeanor, so the felony courts can concentrate on more serious cases.
The choice of Rains, who is possibly the least liked judge out there, at least as far as attorneys are concerned, is sure to chap a few hides. Beyond that, nothing surprising. I know of two legislative candidates whose interviews were done this week, one as recently as Wednesday, so I figure we'll see those tomorrow, and a full recap on Tuesday. Here's the current scoreboard of unendorsed races:
1. President.- Done
2. US Senate.- Done3. CDs 14 and 18
and 22on the GOP sideand CD10 on the Dem side. - Incomplete
4. Railroad Commissioner (Dem) and Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4 (GOP).- Done5. State Senate, Districts 4 (GOP) and 11 (Dem). - Still not done
6. State Rep, Districts
140, 145, 146, 147, and 148 (Dem); and Districts 127, 129, 130, 134, and 144 (GOP). - Incomplete
7. First Court of Appeals, Place 3, and 14th Court of Appeals, Place 6 (both GOP). - Done
8. District Judge in the following District Courts: 80, 125, 152, 174, 190, 215, and 351 (Dem); 55, 174, 176, 190, and 312 (GOP). - Finally all done9.
Harris County Sheriff (both parties), Tax Assessor (Dem), District Clerk (GOP), County School Trustees, Positions 5 and 7 (GOP). - Incomplete
10. County Commissioner, Precinct 3 (Dem).- Done
Tune in tomorrow for what I assume will be the last round.
As predicted, we had over 30,000 more Democratic votes cast on the last day of early voting - 33,100, to be exact, for a grand total of 170,032; 9,787 Republicans showed up to bring their final tally to 51,199 - which as we all know by now is completely unprecedented.
"It's an unprecedented primary turnout," said Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman, referring to the early voting that ended Friday.Kaufman noted that through the years the number of citizens opting to vote early has risen from less than 20 percent to more than 30 percent of the total primary vote.
"That could mean we would vote another 500,000 people on Tuesday," she said.
She added that the office is prepared for "a long night" Tuesday.
"The biggest problem facing workers at the polling places is crowd control," she said.
I'll be very interested to see how big Tuesday's turnout is. I suspect a greater proportion of people than usual shifted to voting early instead of on Election Day, but you'd have to assume it's more than half already for the original high-end estimate of 300,000 total Dems to miss the mark. I think Kaufman's 500,000 upper bound for all voters on Tuesday (which at this pace would mean 375,000 more Dems) is too high, but given what we've seen already, I'm not going to be too insistent about that.
Nick Beaudrot has revised his final statewide turnout estimate back up based on the extra-high numbers from Thursday and Friday:
The range of overall turnout is between 1.85 million at the low end (based on 2006) to 2.85 million at the high end (based on 2004)--more than John Kerry received in 2004--with the most likely figure probably around 2.4 million.
Two point four million is pretty damned impressive. Hell, one point eight is, too. That's higher than I thought it would be before it all began.
Eye on Williamson takes a look at who the voters are in his county.
The results from [Friday] are not yet available, but there's already plenty of data to analyze from the first 10 days of early voting.2,814 voters with Republican voting histories cast ballots in the Democratic primary. They made up 15.66% of the vote. 194 voters with Democratic voting history cast ballots in the Republican primary. They were 1.89% of the R vote.
15,979 voters have no history of ever voting in a primary before 2008. They were 56.59% of the total primary vote. Those wanting to know why turnout in the primary doubled this year can look to this group for an answer. New voters made up substantially more than half the vote. Those new voters broke 74% to 26% for the Democratic primary.
To put that into perspective, consider this: More than 65% of the Democratic primary voters have no prior primary voting history. That is nearly two-thirds!
Williamson is the kind of place where voting in the GOP primary was usually required to have a say in who got elected countywide, so the fact that its level of identifiable Rs voting D is much higher than what we've seen so far in places like Dallas and Harris isn't surprising. These can be voters who have only done this once, years before, as well as those who do it regularly. As with the new-to-the-primary voters, these can be people who are changing their minds about how they identify themselves.
But since that 15% figure has come up, here's Paul Burka to put it in some perspective.
The early vote totals for Democrats continues to be phenomenal. At the end of the day on Thursday, the next to last day of early voting, here were the statewide numbers:Democratic primary voters: 696,696
Republican primary voters: 223,631Some numbers crunchers believe that the Democratic numbers were swelled by Republicans voting in the Democratic primary, accounting for as much as 15% of the total. So, let's subtract 15% of the voters (104,504) from the Democratic total in the state's fifteen largest counties and add them to the Republican side:
D's: 592,192
R's: 328,135This is still a dominant performance. It is reminiscent of what Texas politics used to be like, back in the seventies and eighties. The Democrats always outvoted the Republicans in the primaries, because the contests for local offices kept conservatives in the Democratic primary. Then, in the fall, the conservatives would vote Republican. When the rural areas flipped Republican, due to the emergence of cultural issues and the appeal of Phil Gramm in rural Texas, the Democratic party went into a decline that lasted twenty years. Now the votes are in the big metro counties.
There's no reason to believe that 15% figure is anything close to accurate, of course. The evidence I've heard so far from the two biggest urban counties, Harris and Dallas, suggests that three percent is more likely. But again, having voted in, say, the 1996 GOP primary doesn't mean you're a Republican, though you'd be considered one in an accounting of "people with Republican voting histories who voted Dem this year". By the same token, it's clear that some of these no-primary-history folks are people who vote consistently Republican in the fall. And once again, the question is what their motivations were this time - mischief, Hillary hatred, a genuine change of heart, something else - and what that means for this November. The dropoff from the Presidential race to the rest of the ballot will give a small hint, but the only way to know for sure is to find and ask them. Which I hope someone does.
Burka says he'll return to the what-does-it-mean-for-the-fall question later. Professor Murray gets the jump on him.
Does this huge primary vote swing mean Texas is heading into the Democratic presidential column in 2008 for the first time since 1976? Probably not, because there are many barriers to a Democratic triumph in the Lone Star State on November 4, 2008. To mention just a few, the Democrats will likely have a number of more attractive targets nationally as they analyze the red-blue map of 2000 and 2004 - such as Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, and Nevada. Texas is also a very expensive state to contest, and without a single statewide elected Democrat to help, building a competitive electoral organization will be a daunting challenge. Plus, a goodly number of the swollen Democratic primary voters will likely shift back to their "normal" preference for Republican candidates once the exciting Hillary Clinton - Barack Obama contest is settled.Nevertheless, the huge shift in primary voting has got to cause concern among Republican strategists. In my opinion, the 3-1 Democratic voting edge is another sign of the continuing devaluation of the GOP brand that statewide polls have been measuring since 2004. The issues that worked well for Republicans in their ascendancy to power (God/Guns/Gays) have been overshadowed by unhappiness with the progress of the war in Iraq, economic worries, and the sense that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Reflecting the emergence of issues that have not worked nearly as well for Republicans in recent years has been the declining popularity of the most visible Republican leaders in Texas, President Bush and Governor Perry. They are, of course, not on the ballot in Texas in 2008, but we will get an indirect measure of how deeply this dissatisfaction with the party that has dominated state politics for a dozen years really is in contested Texas House elections across the state this fall. Republican Speaker Tom Craddick has watched his party's 88 - 62 advantage in the House of Representatives drop to 79 - 71, meaning a net shift of five seats would give the minority Democrats a share of state power for the first time since 2002.
I agree that money is the biggest obstacle to Texas being in play in any meaningful sense, and sadly, I agree that neither campaign, despite whatever promises they may be making now, is likely to decide to spend any real cash here later on. I don't agree with those decisions, and I don't think the Democratic nominee will lack the funding to allow for spending in a state like Texas, but I don't see it happening. But I'd still like to see some polling, so a more objective appraisal can be made. We see that both Dems poll better than McCain in Harris County, with the true level of support undoubtedly being shorted by partisans of one candidate being noncommittal when the matchup features the other. Who knows what a statewide survey would reveal?
And finally, the last word goes to Michelle, who recounts her experience voting yesterday:
I hadn't planned on voting [Friday], but I am glad I did (instead of waiting until next Tuesday as I had planned). Jessica Farrar was at the voting site and I got to say hello, shake her hand and thank her. (That's my yard sign showing my support for her.) The line was really long, but it was even long by the time they closed the doors at 7. I waited in line for an hour and a half. I have never waited that long ever, not even close to that. There were all sorts of people there and everyone in line around me was very friendly, and 100% Democrats. I felt really sorry for the poll workers. They all seemed terribly tired.
They'll be tired again on Tuesday, too. Hopefully, we can all get a little sleep after that.
Here's a brief interview with State Rep. Hubert Vo over on the Asian American Action Fund blog that I thought was pretty good. A sample:
I think that your first election certainly reaffirms the motto "Every vote counts," with something like only 16 votes at the end separating you from your opponent. We've certainly seen a lot of new voter turnout, new voter excitement this cycle. What, if any difference, do you see between 04 and 08?What I can tell you now is turnout in 04 in the APA community, my name was on the ballot, then you saw an increase in 2006. The Asian community came out more in 2006, and now people have knowledge when going out to vote, and they have much more confidence than in 2004. So I can see that in the Asian community, and people start paying more attention to the election cycle, candidates, and the issues they stand for. So through the Asian community, the media has played a very important factor in all that since my election. And 'til now you know the media has been mobilizing people to go out and vote every election cycle, also they remind them to register to vote. And they have educated the community in terms of the issues and what the candidates represent. People are very enthusiastic about the process every election cycle now in Houston. And again, in 2008, finally just like how any other community turns out, the primary seems to be a little bit less compared to the general election.
What I can see this year is probably that turnout in the primary of 2008, the percent of voters from the Asian community is going to increase because now they've been through the process of going to vote in many elections already. And they are very excited about these national candidates. There's going to be much more increase and in the general election, I can see a very big surge of the Asians going out to vote in 2008.
[...]
I also have a question about the Vietnamese American community and their relationship to politics. It certainly seems like the older generation was heavily Republican, but now, the younger generation seems to be going more Democratic. What is your perspective?
Your question is true. When the Vietnamese Americans first came to the United States, a majority leaned toward the Republicans because they feel like they are socially conservative people, people who came through the war and understand that we have to fight in order to protect this country. So we felt like we belong to Republican party more but after 30 years here in the US they have a different approach. They can differentiate between the Republican and Democratic parties now. And the new generation coming up, the children, they are more adapted to the system here, and they understand the difference and benefits. . . They have really shared that knowledge with their parents. I can see that slowly now the older generation seems to be more independent; they go for the candidate who will do the best job for the community now. I can say that 9 years ago, if you ask Vietnamese Americans "What party?", the majority would say Republican.
Nowadays, they say independent, or 50-50 Republican-Democrat. I can see that this presidential election especially on the Democratic side excites a lot of Vietnamese Americans to go out and vote with the Democratic party because they understand it's about the economy, and jobs for their kids and the general welfare.
I kind of wish the question had been asked specifically about John McCain and whether the Vietnamese community views him any differently, but it wasn't. Still, some pretty good stuff there, so go check it out.
Remember Michael Wolfe, the Harris County Department of Education trustee who was publicly taken to the woodshed by the County School Supervisor last year? Yesterday wasn't such a good day for him, with two articles in the Chron about his shenanigans. First, there was this story about how all of his (fellow Republican) colleagues on the HCDE Board want to see him gone.
Two trustees reserved a spot on the April meeting agenda to discuss whether to ask for Wolfe's resignation. The board has no real authority to remove him, but it's clear that many fellow trustees are fed up with what they see as disregard for the department and its procedures and disrespect for the board. They are also put out by his support for --and they claim recruitment of -- two candidates running against current board members in next week's GOP primary.[...]
Board president Ray T. Garcia, like most if not all of his colleagues, would love to see Wolfe gone.
"He contributes nothing and detracts quite a bit," said Garcia, who has been a trustee for 14 years. "The guy exhibits no commitment, no concern. I think he sees this as the stepping stone to something else."
Garcia said Wolfe has not attended the last three board meetings and has shown little interest in becoming fluent with the department's programs or budget. His only accomplishment of note was pushing the board to name its administration building after Ronald Reagan, odd given Reagan's antipathy toward education bureaucracies.
"We don't even know how to reach the guy," Garcia said. "He doesn't return calls. His mail is returned. He's totally inaccessible."
He was also until recently a member of the Harris County GOP leadership team (more on that in a bit). You can supply your own joke.
Wolfe, who has worked as a substitute teacher and a clerk in a law office, began his first term in January 2007. He recruited Roy Morales to run for the board with him with an expressed concern that the department served a dubious purpose and wasted money.Once elected, Morales came to a different conclusion -- about the department and the motives of Wolfe.
"I think we provide a great service and we are a great bargain for the taxpayers," Morales said. "He saw this as a way to get the Republican base fired up about him."
Boy howdy, when Roy Morales thinks you've gone off the deep end...
The other piece is a Rick Casey column that references the infamous candidate questionnaires that Paul Bettencourt threw himself on in order to prevent anyone else from knowing what they say.
Many candidates and incumbents gave the questionnaire the respect it deserved: They ignored it.The [candidate screening] committee, however, treated it like a sacred text. They prepared a list of "recommended" candidates based on the answers.
And those that didn't answer it -- including the incumbent county judge, county clerk (*) and two trustees of the Harris County Department of Education -- were shut out.
When Bettencourt got wind that the recommendation list would be made public, he asked to speak to the executive committee. After his speech, in which he argued passionately that party endorsements in the primary were unprecedented and would be divisive, the body voted to bar the action. It was a voice vote, and no opposition was heard.
(Party Chairman Jared Woodfill says party endorsements are rare, but not unprecedented. Two years ago the party in the primary endorsed U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, which may be a lesson.)
But as it turned out, candidates committee Chairman Russell Rush had mailed out the list earlier in the day to hundreds of precinct chairmen, marked "Official Recommendations," according to Woodfill.
Such recommendations, said Woodfill, are "specifically precluded in our bylaws unless the executive committee approves."
Woodfill assembled the party's advisory committee, about 10 officials authorized to act for the party between the quarterly meetings of the much larger executive committee.
They called in Rush. He took responsibility, but it became clear he was a rookie chairman taking direction from his predecessor, Michael Wolfe.
The committee called in Wolfe, [who] had been hired to direct the party's primary election.
His performance in front of the committee was not stellar. The committee was not amused that one person on the recommended list was his father, a candidate for district clerk, or that two others were candidates he had recruited to run against incumbent colleagues on the county school district board.
With the backing of the advisory committee, Woodfill fired Wolfe and had the lock changed on his office. It had become obvious that the party couldn't have a man in charge of running a fair primary who pushed a scheme which endorsed his father and friends.
Sweet. Nice to see such a well-oiled machine over there on Richmond Avenue. And since this is likely to be more coverage of the HCDE than you'll see in six months at the Chron, it's as good a time as any to mention that there are two excellent and well-qualified Democrats running for Trustee positions this fall, Debby Kerner and Jim Henley. I'll be sure to do interviews with them later on as the fall elections gear up.
As a lifelong Yankees fan, it breaks my heart to read this.
Four months ago, [Don] Mattingly was the presumed heir to one of the most prestigious jobs in sports - manager of the Yankees.Today, after a stunning fall from grace, Donnie Baseball finds himself on the outskirts of the game.
Consistently the recipient of the loudest ovations at Old Timer's Day at Yankee Stadium, Mattingly was long known as George Steinbrenner's favorite player. The former first baseman seemed certain to succeed Joe Torre last October.
The Boss and his sons, Hank and Hal, chose to hire Joe Girardi. Once the deal was done, Mattingly told the Yankees he had no interest in coming back as a coach.
He rebounded by landing the coveted position of hitting coach for the Los Angeles Dodgers on Nov. 8. He would, once again, be working for Torre, who had been named Dodgers manager three days earlier. Almost immediately baseball writers speculated that Mattingly could replace Torre after his three-year deal expired.
Then, it all fell apart.
Mattingly resigned his post last month to tend to his growing trouble at home. It may not have been the only time he walked away from the game he loves to protect his three children.
In 1995, just a month after he hit .417 in his first - and only - postseason series, Mattingly quit the game. The same year, his wife was arrested in Indiana for driving a car while intoxicated, court records show.
Though he publicly blamed his bad back for his retirement, Mattingly's friends said his decision was partially fueled by his wife's drinking.
"She drinks, and it's a problem," one friend told the Daily News, requesting anonymity because he remains close to Mattingly and his estranged wife. "Don was worried."
Mattingly alluded to as much earlier this month when he told The News: "This is not the first time we've all had to go through this."
I have nothing but fond memories of Don Mattingly, and I wish him and his family all the best in dealing with these issues. Link via David Pinto.