Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

January, 2014:

Friday random fourteen: Let’s talk about sex, baby

by Charles Kuffner.

2 comments

Paste had a list awhile back of the “Fifty Sexiest Songs Of All Time”. Here’s how they described it:

“Our picks span a variety of eras, genres and styles—and while some are more overtly sexual than others, they all make us weak in the knees. To keep this from being a list of Prince and Al Green songs, we’ve limited ourselves to a maximum two tracks per artist.”

I figured it was time to go through my collection to see how many of those songs I had. Here, in honor of Mike “Uncle Sugar” Huckabee and all those ladies that just can’t control their libidos, here’s my list.

1. Be My Baby – The Ronettes
2. Fever – Julie Murphy (orig. Peggy Lee)
3. You Really Got Me – Van Halen (orig. The Kinks)
4. Crimson and Clover – Joan Jett & The Blackhearts
5. Criminal – Fiona Apple
6. Sugar In My Bowl – Asylum Street Spankers (Nina Simone, orig. Bessie Smith)
7. Night Moves – Bob Seger
8. I Just Want To Make Love To You – Muddy Waters (orig. Etta James)
9. Voodoo Chile – Stevie Ray Vaughan (orig. Jimi Hendrix)
10. Wicked Game – The Model (orig. Chris Isaak)
11. Tell Me Something Good – Rufus and Chaka Khan
12. Darling Nikki – Christina Marrs (orig. Prince)
13. I’m On Fire – Bruce Springsteen
14. Let’s Get It On – Marvin Gaye

I also have “Tom Cat”, by Muddy Waters, but as usual I prefer to limit these to one song per artist. Obviously, we all have our own list of what floats our boat, but I think we can all agree that this would make a pretty good playlist for the next Huckabee speaking engagement. What’s on your list?

January campaign finance reports for Harris County legislative candidates

by Charles Kuffner.

2 comments

This could take awhile, and that’s with me limiting myself to contested races. First, the Senate.

SD04
Brandon Creighton
Steven Toth

SD07
Paul Bettencourt
James Wilson
Jim Davis

SD15
John Whitmire
Damian LaCroix
Ron Hale

SD17
Joan Huffman
Derek Anthony
Rita Lucido

Here’s a summary chart. For the record, Davis, Whitmire, LaCroix, and Lucido are all Dems, the rest are Rs.


Candidate    Office   Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
===================================================
Creighton      SD04  296,267  205,591     1,002,464
Toth           SD04  107,752   48,048       123,116

Bettencourt    SD07  140,100   55,873       103,041
Wilson         SD07    7,675    5,129         3,224
Davis          SD07    1,250    1,250             0

Whitmire       SD15  298,874  148,973     6,978,885
LaCroix        SD15   16,329   33,866             0
Hale           SD15      123    1,441           123

Huffman        SD17  136,600   91,142       701,583
Anthony        SD17        0        0             0
Lucido         SD17   41,625   10,489        29,829

Technically, SD04 is not on the ballot. It’s now a vacant seat due to the resignation in October of Tommy Williams, and the special election to fill it has not been set yet; I presume it will be in May. Reps. Creighton and Toth aren’t the only announced candidates, but they both have the right amount of crazy, and at least in Creighton’s case plenty of money as well. It’s a statement on how far our politics have gone that I find myself sorry to see Tommy Williams depart. He was awful in many ways, but as the last session demonstrated, when push came to shove he was fairly well grounded in reality, and he did a more than creditable job as Senate Finance Chair. I have no real hope for either Creighton or Toth to meet that standard, and the Senate will get that much stupider in 2015.

Paul Bettencourt can go ahead and start measuring the drapes in Dan Patrick’s office. I honestly hadn’t even realized he had a primary opponent till I started doing this post. The only questions is in what ways will he be different than Patrick as Senator. Every once in awhile, Patrick landed on the right side of an issue, and as his tenure as Public Ed chair demonstrated, he was capable of playing well with others and doing collaborative work when he put his mind to it. Doesn’t come remotely close to balancing the scales on him, but one takes what one can. Bettencourt is a smart guy, and based on my own encounters with him he’s personable enough to fit in well in the Senate, likely better than Patrick ever did. If he has it in mind to serve the public and not just a seething little slice of it, he could do some good. The bar I’m setting is basically lying on the ground, and there’s a good chance he’ll fail to clear it. But there is some potential there. It’s all up to him.

I don’t have anything new to add to the SD15 Democratic primary race. I just don’t see anything to suggest that the dynamic of the race has changed.

I hadn’t realized Joan Huffman had a primary challenger until I started this post. Doesn’t look like she has much to worry about. I’m very interested to see how Rita Lucido does with fundraising. Senators don’t usually draw serious November challengers. The district is drawn to be solidly Republican, but Lucido is the first opponent Huffman has had since the 2008 special election runoff. I’m very curious to see if Lucido can at least begin to close the gap.

On to the House:

HD129
Sheryl Berg
Briscoe Cain
Mary Huls
Jeffrey Larson
Chuck Maricle
Dennis Paul
Brent Perry
John Gay

HD131
Alma Allen
Azuwuike Okorafor

HD132
Michael Franks
Ann Hodge
Justin Perryman
Mike Schofield
Luis Lopez

HD133
Jim Murphy
Laura Nicol

HD134
Sarah Davis
Bonnie Parker
Alison Ruff

HD135
Gary Elkins
Moiz Abbas

HD137
Gene Wu
Morad Fiki

HD138
Dwayne Bohac
Fred Vernon

HD144
Mary Ann Perez
Gilbert Pena

HD145
Carol Alvarado
Susan Delgado

HD148
Jessica Farrar
Chris Carmona

HD149
Hubert Vo
Al Hoang
Nghi Ho

HD150
Debbie Riddle
Tony Noun
Amy Perez

HDs 129 and 132 are open. Each has multiple Republicans, all listed first in alphabetical order; the Dem in each race is listed at the end. In all other districts the incumbent is first, followed by any primary opponents, then any November opponents. I will note at this point that the last time I mentioned HD129, I wrote that Democratic candidate John Gay appeared to me to be the same person that had run in CD14 in 2012 as a Republican, based on what I could and could not find on the Internet. Two Democrats in HD129 contacted me after that was published to assure me that I had gotten it wrong, that there were two completely different individuals named John Gay, and that the one running as a Dem in HD129 was truly a Democrat. While I was never able to speak to this John Gay myself to ascertain that with him – I left him two phone messages and never got a call back – other information I found based on what these folks told me convinced me they were right and I was mistaken. That post was corrected, but I’m pointing this out here for those of you who might not have seen that correction.

With that out of the way, here’s the summary:


Candidate    Office   Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
===================================================
Berg - R      HD129   28,101   13,597        29,530
Cain - R      HD129   17,246    9,614         4,131
Huls - R      HD129    1,254    3,784         1,969
Larson - R    HD129      325    1,130         4,226
Maricle - R   HD129    3,520   30,207           879
Paul - R      HD129   14,495   19,436        95,058
Perry - R     HD129   51,297   19,100        52,687
Gay - D       HD129        0    1,221           778

Allen - D     HD131    8,877   13,662        21,573
Okorafor - D  HD131        0    1,689             0

Franks - R    HD132        0    4,604        43,396
Hodge - R     HD132   51,330   19,741        41,925
Perryman - R  HD132   26,550    7,178        30,788
Schofield - R HD132   43,665   15,449        45.454
Lopez - D     HD132

Murphy - R    HD133  102,828   44,004       184,174
Nicol - D     HD133    2,380      750         1,640

Davis - R     HD134  171,990   70,369       145,561
Parker - R    HD134        0   10,213        10,161
Ruff - D      HD134        0      750             0

Elkins - R    HD135   28,150   17,136       331,672
Abbas - D     HD135        0        0             0

Wu - D        HD137   15,390   20,439        11,641
Fiki - R      HD137    2,320      167         2,320

Bohac - R     HD138   35,975   45,797        14,168
Vernon - D    HD138      500        0           500

Perez - D     HD144   18,400   23,705        34,386
Pena - R      HD144        0      750             0

Alvarado - D  HD145   51,915    6,585        54,035
Delgado - D   HD145        0      750             0

Farrar - D    HD148   37,771    6,739        75,861
Carmona - R   HD148      325      883         2,442

Vo - D        HD149    7,739    9,129        20,935
Hoang - R     HD149    4,550   17,550         4,222
Ho - R        HD149    4,198    1,211         3,736

Riddle - R    HD150   23,200   15,327        61,809
Noun - R      HD150   16,879   83,388        43,490
Perez - D     HD150    3,139      452           116

I’m not going to go into much detail here. Several candidates, especially in the GOP primary in HD129, have loaned themselves money or are spending personal funds on campaign expenses. If you see a big disparity between cash on hand and the other totals, that’s usually why. I’m impressed by the amount Debbie Riddle’s primary challenger is spending, though I have no idea whether it will have an effect or not. I’m as impressed in the opposite direction by Bonnie Parker in HD134. Maybe she’s just getting warmed up, I don’t know. I figure her 8 day report will tell a more interesting story. What catches your eye among these names and numbers?

Audit letters

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

There’s a thing called audit letters that I hadn’t known existed. We’ve got them for Houston, but we had not been making them public even though other cities do as a matter of course.

City Controller Ronald Green

Houston officials have blocked the release of letters detailing weaknesses in the city’s financial accounting even though other large Texas cities routinely share such letters as a matter of transparency.

“What are they trying to hide, if anything?” asked Kelley Shannon, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. “The financial business of a government entity is everybody’s business. It’s our money, and it’s our government.”

State law requires public agencies to hire an external auditor to review finances each year, ensuring that governments accurately portray their fiscal health in reports to leaders and the public. When that audit is complete, the full report is accompanied by a management letter that notes any apparent problems with accounting procedures uncovered while testing the accuracy of financial statements.

[…]

Though [City Controller Ronald] Green previously had said he supported the release of the letters, he has deferred to the city attorney’s office, which sought an opinion from the Texas Attorney General’s Office on whether the city was required to release them.

Green last week did not respond to questions emailed to his office seeking further explanation of his stance, instead releasing a two-sentence statement. “Heretofore, Management Letters have not been disclosed based on direction from the City Attorney and Texas Attorney General. The City of Houston will continue, until advised otherwise.”

The attorney general’s office earlier this month issued an opinion saying the city did not have to release the audit letters.

“This is a discretionary section that city may elect to raise. It is not required,” wrote attorney general spokesman Jerry Strickland. “If other cities choose not to raise this exception and would rather release similar information, they have that option.”

[…]

Last October, City Controller Green refused to release the letters from the last 10 years when frequent city critic Bob Lemer and, later the Chronicle, requested them under the Texas Public Information Act.

At the time, Green said he believed the records should be public but deferred to the decision of the city attorney’s office and Texas attorney general. “I do not practice law here,” he said. “When it comes to Bob Lemer, he’s still looking for ways to gain legal standing over the city on Proposition 2.”

Lemer, a retired partner at Ernst & Young, said the refusal to release the letters bolsters his arguments that the city is hiding the extent of its financial troubles.

“They will not let the public know what a horrible mess the entire accounting system is,” he said.

In its letter seeking an opinion from the attorney general, the city attorney’s office cited an exception to the Texas Public Information Act allowing cities to decide whether to release “audit working papers,” generally seen as communications with city employees that auditors use to prepare their reports or incomplete drafts of their reports.

Lemer may well be a crank, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Whether he is or he isn’t, withholding this information does give him an air of authenticity, and a lot more grist for his grievance mill. A followup story in the Chron quoted several Council members who were also mystified by this and who called for the letters to be released. I don’t know what purpose was being served here, but in the end Mayor Parker stepped in and made the right call.

Amid questions from City Council members about the propriety of keeping them secret, the mayor’s office on Wednesday released audit letters detailing weaknesses in the city’s financial accounting.

[…]

The mayor’s office released 10 years of the audit letters, totaling 96 pages but did not include the appendices, which may include more detailed explanations of deficiencies identified by auditors. A spokeswoman said the mayor’s office released what the controller had sent to the city attorney last October and directed the Houston Chronicle to seek the appendices from Green.

[…]

“It sounds like exactly the right decision,” said Kelley Shannon, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said of the letters’ release. “The more the public can review what’s being done with their money, the better.”

The most recent letters sent by outside auditors Deloitte & Touche on Dec. 18, 2012, noted three areas in which projected revenues appeared to be understated. Those three – $2.5 million in Municipal Courts, $2.9 million in “other revenues” and $4 million in construction activities – were deemed by city officials to be immaterial to the overall financial statements, and were corrected in the city’s annual financial report.

An appendix provided by Councilman Jack Christie’s office noted “significant deficiencies,” a term used by auditors to highlight policies or actions that could let inaccurate record-keeping or fraud go undetected.

“While there was significant improvement in the City’s financial reporting process in the current year, the City should enhance this process by requiring responsible financial reporting personnel, at the department level, to perform analytical reviews of financial results on a periodic basis,” the auditors wrote.

The 2003 audit letter listed 35 recommendations; the 2012 letter made only 10.

City finance department officials said in a written statement that they have addressed the findings, noting 2012 was the first time in 10 years that external auditors deemed the city a low risk for accounting errors in federally funded programs.

“There are less complaints than in 2003, and they are not that serious,” said Steven Craig, a University of Houston economics professor. “I’m not sure why they wouldn’t want to release that letter.”

You and me both. Houston Politics has a copy of the audit letters themselves, in case you’re curious. The original story says that the AG’s office issued the opinion in question “earlier this month”, but neither of the two opinions I see for 2014 on the index page have anything to do with Houston. In any event, this appears to be the end of this episode of mountains-from-molehills manufacturing.

Alameel wants a refund

by Charles Kuffner.

6 comments

Good luck with that.

David Alameel

Just like his first run for office in 2012, David Alameel’s second bid for public office is drawing questions about his past campaign donations.

Alameel, the owner of a multimillion-dollar chain of dental clinics that caters to Hispanics, is one of five Democrats vying for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican John Cornyn. In recent years, Alameel has emerged as one of the top donors to Democratic groups and candidates in the country. However, before 2010, his donations were more bipartisan. Over several years, he donated more than $750,000 to Republican candidates and groups, including $8,000 to Cornyn in 2004.

In a phone interview Monday, Alameel said he would not make the same donations to Republicans again.

“I want a refund right now because I believe John Cornyn and his Republican friends in Washington work for Wall Street and not Texans,” Alameel said. When asked if he regretted those earlier donations to Republicans, he reiterated that he wanted “a refund.”

Alameel said that his view of the Republican Party has changed in recent years.

“I used to think that Democrats and Republicans work together, but you know, it’s becoming more and more crystal clear that today’s Republican Party is far too extreme,” Alameel said. “John Cornyn is part of that extreme problem.”

Not clear from this story if he’s just asking for his $8K back from Cornyn or if he’s seeking to recover the whole enchilada. I kind of doubt it’s the latter, but if it is I don’t see how it happens. For that matter, Cornyn isn’t playing ball, either, and he does a nice bit of knife-twisting for good measure. Let this be a lesson about being careful to whom one makes political donations, kids.

There’s been a lot written about Alameel’s past history of political giving, with the Lone Star Project – a recipient of his largesse as well – highlighting his Dem-only track record since 2008, and the Maxer Scherr campaign understandably pushing his GOP donor history. Here’s a Google spreadhseet I’ve put together, based on a query of Alameel as a contributor, from January 1, 2000 forward, sorted chronologically. I’ve helpfully highlighted the Republican recipients, as best as I recognize them, for your convenience. As you can see, there are none after February of 2008, which is consistent with what the Lone Star Project has highlighted, but doesn’t explain the reasons behind the change.

I still haven’t gotten a date from Alameel’s campaign for an interview and at this point I’m not holding out much hope for one, so we’ll all have to decide for ourselves how sincere his apparent conversion is. At least by going from R to D no one can claim he’s doing it for the easier path to victory. Alameel has some other questions to answer as well, and I’m sorry I won’t get the chance to ask them, or to hear his answers for myself. I have no problem believing that Wendy Davis sees something worthwhile in Alameel, but I’m reserving my own judgment on that.

UPDATE: Sen. Leticia Van de Putte has endorsed Alameel, so she sees something in him as well.

New Braunfels can ban gets canned

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Pack your coolers, y’all. The beer can flow again on the Comal River.

Opponents of New Braunfels’ prohibition of large coolers and disposable containers — loosely described as a “can ban” on rivers that can host tens of thousands of tourists on any busy summer weekend — say a judge has confirmed their lawsuit claims that the codes are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

“The effect of this ruling is the court should grant a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of these two ordinances,” Jim Ewbank, the lawyer for water recreation businesses that sued the city, said Monday.

State District Judge Don Burgess for weeks had weighed competing summary judgment motions. On Sunday, he granted the one filed by the plaintiffs, which argued that the city rules were unconstitutionally vague, arbitrary, unreasonable and an overreach of municipal authority.

“We hope that, now that the court has spoken, declaring these ordinances unconstitutional, that we can sit down with the city and try to work out a solution that addresses everybody’s goals and purposes,” Ewbank said.

The city’s attorney, Mick McKamie, said that once Burgess enters a judgment and the City Council is briefed on it, a decision will be made on whether to appeal. City staff declined comment.

The last update I had on this was from June, 2012, when the suit was moved back to Comal County. Voters had ratified the ban in 2011, but that’s out the window now. I get what New Braunfuls was trying to do, and having discussed the issue with a cousin of mine who has lived in New Braunfels for the last fifteen or twenty years, I can see why residents liked the ordinance. It’s possible that a scaled-down and more specific version of this ordinance can pass muster, and maybe won’t be too repellent to the tubing industry. I look forward to seeing what the judgment has to say.

Judicial Q&A: George Barnstone

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to those who plan to vote in March. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates. You can see all of my interviews as well as finance reports and other information on candidates on my 2014 Election page.)

George Barnstone

George Barnstone

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

My name is George Barnstone, and I am running Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 10.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

This court hears A & B misdemeanors.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I am running for this bench because I want to change the pipeline for mentally ill vagrants who are arrested for minor misdemeanor charges and sent to the Harris County Jail. The mentally ill need appropriate treatment, not imprisonment where they don’t receive adequate care.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have been an attorney for twenty years, and I am a member of the College of the State Bar.

5. Why is this race important?

This race is important because it is an opportunity to bring new blood with new ideas on how to treat the mentally ill who are arrested for minor criminal charges. Many of those who live on the street are mentally ill. My opponent is part of the machine that has imprisoned people who need help. The way we treat those who are weakest and can’t defend themselves is a very poor reflection of us as a society and the criminal justice system. Shockingly, the largest mental health facility in the state of Texas is the Harris County Jail.

6. Why should people vote for you in the primary?

People should vote for me in the primary because we cannot afford monetarily or morally to continue the mass incarceration of those who are in need of treatment.

Culberson says he’s killed the University Line

by Charles Kuffner.

4 comments

And maybe he has, though it wasn’t going anywhere at this time anyway.

Residents and business owners along Richmond Avenue are breathing a sigh of relief — at least for now — as U.S. Rep. John Culberson has had his way, quashing federal funding for light-rail along Richmond, west of Shepherd, and on Post Oak Boulevard north of Richmond. Rail proponents on the other hand will be disappointed to hear that Culberson succeeded in getting the key amendment tacked onto the transportation leg of the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill recently passed by the Senate.

“I’m very proud to have been able to protect Richmond and Post Oak from being destroyed as Fannin and Main Street were destroyed,” Culberson told CultureMap following a fundraising luncheon at Tony’s, which not so coincidentally is located on Richmond.

Culberson trumped METRO in his long-running feud with the local transportation agency. He has been threatening and attempting to get his law passed for several years. “It’s a permanent federal statutory law. So it’s a felony if any governmental entities attempt to spend any federal money to push rail on those routes,” he said.

METRO board chairman Gilbert Garcia called the move “very disappointing.” He noted, however, “This is not our focus. We’ve got a full plate right now and we are not taking steps to complete the University Line. First and foremost, we want to complete the other two lines, get time under them.”

The water is muddy on the potential for future federal monies for rail along Richmond and Post Oak Boulevard. Culberson says the federal funding prohibition is permanent. “This is the end of all federal funding on Richmond,” he said.

I’m pretty sure Culberson, who tried this trick before, does not have the power to tell future Congresses what they can and cannot do. Congress will pass other budget and appropriations bills after this one, so some pro-University Line member of Congress, like maybe Rep. Ted Poe, could get an amendment in there to undo what Culberson did. Doing something is certainly harder than stopping something that hasn’t been done, so Culberson has the advantage now, but it’s not the final word. Despite his protestations about the popularity of rail on Richmond, opposing its construction has not been an electoral winner in the precincts along the proposed line. Perhaps this will galvanize rail proponents and they will help defeat Culberson in an election; a future Republican primary is the more likely path for that, but anything could happen. Perhaps Metro and the other stakeholders will get tired of Culberson’s act and find their own funding. The options aren’t great, but they never have been. The point is that the fight isn’t over just because Culberson says it is.

One more thing:

Not completely opposed to rail, Culberson noted that he has already begun working with Congressman Al Green on possible rail connections from Fort Bend County and that he would support the US 90A southwest rail corridor. On another potential east-west light rail route, Culberson said, “West Park would be perfect. They have the right of way.”

That was news to Garcia. “We would welcome him to shift his approach,” Garcia said. “That would be new information to me. If he told you that, that would be great.”

I suspect Culberson is peddling snake oil here, but let’s take him at his word for the sake of argument. Westpark only runs as far east as Kirby, and east of Shepherd you’re literally in people’s backyards. How do you connect the east end of the line at Montrose to the proposed Westpark part of it? That subject came up in 2006 and the non-Richmond options generated a lot of neighborhood opposition as well as some creative but impractically expensive solutions. Even if there is an affordable way to do this that the area residents would support, the simple fact remains that Richmond is where the people are, and Westpark isn’t. Getting to Richmond from Westpark or vice versa means walking under US59, which is not terribly appealing from a pedestrian perspective. Putting it another way, rail on Westpark will have lower ridership and thus be less useful. Why would we want to do that? If the choice truly is “Westpark” or nothing, then “Westpark” is better, warts and all. I see no harm in Gilbert Garcia giving Culberson a call and seeing if he’s willing to put some money where his big mouth is. I don’t think he means it, and even if he does I don’t think it’s the right answer, as I don’t think this fight is over. But let’s go ahead and find out, so we at least know what’s on the table. Link via Swamplot.

How the voter ID law was and was not enforced in Harris County

by Charles Kuffner.

2 comments

Greg does some investigative reporting on how the new voter ID law was actually applied in Harris County in the 2013 election.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

So what percentage of voters ended up signing an affidavit? … and what does it suggest about how the law was administered?

To get that answer, I obtained records from the Harris County Clerk and commenced tabulating the data. I’ll be spelling out some of these results in the days ahead. For now, here’s the big-ticket takeaway: voters in Harris County were qualified to vote by election workers in extremely different ways depending on the location that the voter voted at. In several locations, the law was followed in a manner as close to thorough as might be humanly possible. In others, it didn’t appear that election workers had gotten the figurative memo about the new law. In a plurality of Early Vote locations, the results were mixed.

For introductory purposes, a small sketch of the data: Trini Mendenhall Sosa Community Center in Spring Branch had signed affidavits from 0.43% (as in less than 1%) of its voters. Meanwhile, neighboring West Gray Multi-Service Center saw 15.1% of its voters sign affidavits. In other words: if you wanted to experience “no problem” with the law, then Sosa was the place for you to go vote. If you wish to subject yourself to more scrutiny by election workers, then head to West Gray. Discrepancies like this were rampant in Harris County. And I’m willing to guess that it’s not the way that architects of the law intended it to be administered.

What I find interesting about these results is that, for all intents and purposes, nobody can say for certain that the new law was followed in any kind of meaningful way. It’s that conclusion that makes it impossible to say “there was no problem” with the law since the law effectively wasn’t administered. I have little doubt that election workers knew to ask for a photo ID and that there may, indeed, be only the most minor of problems exhibited with this task during a low-turnout election. But if election workers weren’t checking the names on the ID against the names on the voting rolls, then there should be no assurance that they were doing anything meaningful with those IDs.

Through the remainder of this week, I’ll be rolling out some of the findings, and raw data to demonstrate how this played out in Harris County. Ultimately, I think there are findings that are likely to concern both advocates of the law as well as opponents. And while I’m not a believer in the necessity of the law, I think there are several things to review before the law goes full scale in a Presidential year.

Read the whole thing. Greg was an Election Clerk this year, so he got that training he’s talking about, and he is a staffer for State Rep. Gene Wu, so he’s in a position to help influence any potential changes to this law, assuming it doesn’t eventually get thrown out by the courts. For my own experience, I voted early twice at the West Gray location, once in the November election and once in the December runoff. In November I showed my ID and voted as always, no muss and no fuss. In December, the election clerk at West Gray noticed that my voter reg card has my full middle name and my “III” suffix while my drivers license has just my middle initial and no suffix, and had me sign the affidavit. So even at the same location, there were variations. I look forward to seeing the rest of Greg’s data.

Texas blog roundup for the week of January 27

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

The Texas Progressive Alliance is ready to delete the phrase “polar vortex” from its vocabulary as it brings you this week’s roundup.

You know you’re not supposed to do fundraising activities while in your official capacity, right?

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Shelli Miller

[On Wednesday], the Texas Democratic Party called on Rockwall County Clerk, Republican Shelli Miller, to close down the illegal campaign fundraising operation she is running within her official office to benefit a February 1st event featuring keynote speaker, Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Conducting campaign activities out of an official office is a direct violation of state law, punishable by a fine of up to $4,000 and up to a year in jail.

The Texas Democratic Party also called for an independent investigator to be named to conduct a formal criminal investigation.

Here’s What Happened

Republican Shelli Miller has been using her office and office employees to arrange for the purchase and pickup of tickets to a GOP fundraising event. Greg Abbott is the keynote speaker at the event, which will benefit him and other Republican candidates.

The Lone Star Project has confirmed the illegal activity by obtaining audio recordings of Shelli Miller and at least one other county employee arranging for the purchase and pickup of tickets to the GOP/Abbott event.

The use of official resources for political purposes is a violation of a number of state laws. For instance, it is illegal to accept political donations in certain government buildings under TEX. ELEC. CODE. § 253.039.

It is likely–if not certain–that Greg Abbott and/or someone on his staff was aware of the illegal activity. An independent investigation is required to assure proper enforcement of the laws broken by Rockwall County Republicans and perhaps by the Abbott Campaign itself.

Click over to hear the audio. As I drafted this last night, the only news coverage I saw of this was on the Rockwall Herald Banner and NPR station KETR, both of whom add a bit to the LSP report. We’ll see where it goes from here. BOR has more.

UPDATE: The DMN has a small story that doesn’t add anything new.

Interview with Gayle Mitchell

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Gayle Mitchell

Gayle Mitchell

As previously noted, the Harris County Clerk’s office has had its share of problems in recent years, from incorrectly reporting the winner of a Democratic primary in 2012 to complaints about slow reporting of results overall on Election Day. This year’s election is an opportunity to talk about how these functions of that office can be improved. Gayle Young Mitchell is one of the two Democrats vying for the chance to drive that debate in November against incumbent Stan Stanart. Mitchell worked in the County Clerk’s office for 20 years, in various departments like Probate, Microfilm, Personal Records, and Administration. We talked about her experiences in the office as well as the challenges that it faces going forward in the interview:

You can see all of my interviews as well as finance reports and other information on candidates on my 2014 Election page.

Celia Israel wins HD50 special election runoff

by Charles Kuffner.

2 comments

Congrats, Rep.-elect Celia Israel.

Rep. Celia Israel

In the special runoff election for District 50 in the Texas House, Democrat Celia Israel took the lead after early voting.

Israel, a Realtor, earned 58.8 percent of the early vote, and Republican Mike VanDeWalle, a chiropractor, took 41.1 percent. The total number of ballots cast during the early voting period, which ran four days last week, was 4,541, or 4.67 percent of all register voters in the northern Travis County district.

Polls closed at 8 p.m. Tuesday, and hour later than normal. Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir successfully petitioned a local district judge earlier in the day to grant a request for the additional hour of voting because of inclement weather and the closing of eight of 36 polling places that operated out of schools that were closed due to bad weather.

The special election in District 50 took place to replace former state Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, who resigned last year to lead Google Fiber in Austin.

The final total is here. Israel wound up with ~~60.2%~~ 59.4% of the vote. And yes, turnout was pathetic. The weather obviously played a part of that, but there were other factors, too.

Turnout during early voting was extraordinarily low. Just 4.5 percent of eligible voters cast early ballots in the election — about half as many as in the last special election runoff in Travis County, according to the county clerk’s office.

Supporters of both campaigns have acknowledged the awkward timing of both early voting and election day. Early voting began last Tuesday, one day after the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and ended Friday, when polls opened five hours late because of icy weather.

So there were only four days of early voting instead of the usual five – really, more like three and a half days of early voting. And this runoff occurred during the heat of the primaries, three weeks before early voting for that begins. I think people could be forgiven if they took their eye off the ball a bit on this one. Such downward pressure on turnout can sometimes cause bizarre results, which would have been greatly magnified given the subtext of this election.

[Jeremy] Bird is one of the founders of Battleground Texas, a group dedicated to making this Republican stronghold competitive for Democrats. Celia Israel’s race for an open seat in the state House of Representatives is not expected to be difficult considering the district has historically voted for Democrats.

“It’s nice to have a special election and a little bit of a test,” Bird said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Identifying, engaging and turning out voters will help the Israel campaign now and (gubernatorial candidate) Wendy Davis, (lieutenant governor candidate) Leticia Van de Putte and other Democrats in November. Not only are people more likely to turn out to vote again, but the results will give us a chance to check our voter model and fine tune it for the election.”

[…]

On Saturday, Israel’s volunteers each had a list of homes to visit where Battleground’s research showed a reliably Democratic voter could be found. The volunteers were given a recommended script to follow, including thanking the prospective voter, asking whether the person would be willing to volunteer, and taking down an email address.

The data collected by Battleground staff, combined with publicly available voter records, is critical to the group’s strategy to identify, register and recruit the 2 million Democrats they estimate are not voting in Texas elections.

“Data collected from personal conversations is much more effective for predicting who people will support and at what level they’ll participate,” Bird said.

Israel is running against tea party Republican Mike VanDeWalle, but few voters know about the election, so Battleground’s help in getting out the vote is critical. Battleground Texas volunteers have knocked on over 14,000 doors over two weeks, Bird said.

“Battleground Texas is not just a political slogan, it’s a political muscle, and we’re going to use it in 2014,” Israel said.

The final total in this election was far less than 14,000 votes, but the weather was a big factor in that. That cut both ways, however, and in the end Israel’s vote percentage was quite good. Here’s how she compared to the top scoring Democrat in HD50 going back to 2002:

2012 results
2010 results
2008 results
2006 results
2004 results
2002 results


Year      High D   High D%
==========================
2014SpR   Israel     59.4%
2012       Obama     57.8%
2010       White     55.9%
2008       Obama     60.3%
2006       Moody     58.7%
2004      Molina     51.2%
2002       Sharp     54.3%

Note that Bill White and Bill Moody both outperformed the rest of the Dem ticket in their year by several points, and in all three off years several Republicans carried HD50. If 2008-level performance is the norm in other State Rep districts this fall, I’ll be plenty happy, and so I suspect will Jeremy Bird. For the record, I don’t think this special election runoff is a harbinger of any kind for November. It’s nice, but it’s one little data point. That said, if Israel had struggled to win, or even worse if she had lost, you could have wallpapered Reliant Stadium with the collected writings of every damn pundit, blogger, and assorted loudmouth in the state blathering on about how this portended doom for the Dems and proved Battleground Texas was a sham. I think I’m entitled to point out that Israel and BGTX easily met expectations, at the least. And now Rep.-elect Israel gets to do it again in November, against the same Republican opponent. I’ve made it this far without mentioning that Rep.-elect Israel becomes the second out gay member of the Legislature, joining Rep. Mary Gonzalez of El Paso, so I’ll rectify that here; see Lone Star Q and the Dallas Voice for more on that. Congratulations, Rep.-elect Celia Israel, and best of luck to you in November.

UPDATE: When I wrote this post last night, the Travis County results page had been updated at 9:13 PM, and the cumulative totals page showed 39 of 39 precincts completed, with Israel at 60.2% of the vote. It also showed that all of 700 votes had been cast on Tuesday, but who was I to argue with that? In any event, a 10:23 PM update shows 5807 votes cast on Tuesday, with Celia Israel now receiving 59.42% of the overall total. That’s down a bit from what she had as of the 9:13 update, but still a higher percentage than any other Democrat other than President Obama in 2008 (former Rep. Mark Strama was unopposed in 2012, the only year in which he ran under the new boundaries), so my point about how she and BGTX did in this race remains.

Where BGTX stands today

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

It’s not quite where they thought they’d be when things first started up, but that’s in large part because so much has happened since then.

Jeremy Bird, Barack Obama’s former national field organizer, told The Texas Tribune that nearly a year into the creation of Battleground Texas, it has attracted more than 10,000 volunteers, exceeded the Republican Party of Texas in social media followers and has drawn more interest in field organizer “fellow” positions than it has openings currently available.

Battleground was formed last February to register more Democratic voters and turn them out for the party’s candidates, who haven’t won a statewide race since 1994.

“Those things are happening at a way accelerated pace. It’s because there’s an election that’s competitive,’’ Bird said. “But I didn’t think we’d be where we are today a year ago.”

[…]

Battleground has essentially become Davis’ field operation, and the group’s top staffers work side by side at the senator’s headquarters in Fort Worth.

“You know, just to be in the place where there’s a competitive election, and people are actually going to have a choice,” Bird said. “That’s fantastic for me. I didn’t think that would be happening so soon.”

I skipped over a lot of stuff in the story, so go and read it if you want. Much of it recaps current events. I did like the way Bird dismissively characterized James O’Keefe as the liar and convict that he is. Anyway, fun as that is it’s not what I wanted to talk about. Given that BGTX is basically the ground game for Wendy Davis’ campaign, it’s a little strange to recall that their original intent was to start laying the foundation for Texas to be competitive in Presidential years. It’s not a coincidence that Jeremy Bird is also Team Hillary, after all. 2014 wasn’t really on the radar at that time. Then Wendy happened, and now there was something concrete to work towards this year. The anecdotal evidence – voter registration, messaging, fundraising, activist engagement – is positive, but we won’t truly know how effective they’re being till November. The question is how to judge them afterward. They could facilitate big gains for Democrats but still lose every statewide race. Going from 58-40 losses to 50-48 losses would be a huge step forward and would surely put Texas on the map for 2016, which would exceed BGTX’s own stated timetable, but would still mean another statewide shutout and four years of Governor Abbott and his cadre of crazy. Twelve months ago, when all we had was the promise of a future Castro candidacy, that might have seemed like a great stretch goal. Now I daresay people will have decidedly mixed emotions. I’m sure I’ll be deeply conflicted. The best way to avoid those feelings, of course, is to get involved and do everything you can to maximize Democratic performance this fall. Let’s not have a case of the what-ifs and the if-onlys this November.

The preservation ordinance is a work in progress

by Charles Kuffner.

2 comments

That’s the tl;dr version of this.

Sue Lovell

In October 2010, an emotional Sue Lovell, then a city councilwoman, lauded the passage of a strengthened historic preservation ordinance for Houston after a long, complex and divisive battle she and Mayor Annise Parker had led.

In recent months, however, Lovell has appeared before the commissions tasked with implementing the ordinance to lobby on behalf of builders and homeowners seeking to remodel historic homes.

What changed?

Not her support for preservation or for the ordinance, Lovell said. What has shifted, she and others said, is the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission’s interpretation of the rules.

“I fought for this ordinance,” the former councilwoman said, “and I’m going to continue to fight to improve this ordinance.”

[…]

Parker said the ordinance is working well but acknowledged she has concerns with the law’s implementation, saying she sank a lot of political capital into the fight and wants it to work.

“The disconnect is not with the staff, it’s with the architectural and historical commission, which wants to substitute its judgment, on occasion, for that of the staff,” she said. “There are a couple activist commissioners over there who are hijacking the process.”

Historical Commission Chairman Maverick Welsh said the commission’s interpretations shift naturally as members leave and as city staff turn over, but he pointed to the overall approval rate as evidence of the body’s sound decisions.

“There’s this misconception that we’re this unreasonable bunch of preservationist people, but I think the data supports that we’re reasonable,” Welsh said. “I’ve gotten a lot of pushback from neighborhoods saying we’re too lenient and I’m getting pushback from developers saying we should approve everything. Somewhere in there is a balance, and I think that’s what we’re trying to achieve.”

The path forward, Parker said, is to better educate the historical commission’s members and to tweak language in the ordinance to clarify its intent.

Creating objective standards for something that is inherently subjective is hard. You’re not going to get it right the first time. Hopefully, you create a good foundation that you can work with later. See what works, see what doesn’t, learn from experience, and keep refining. It’s an ongoing process, and it will never be truly finished.

Judicial Q&A: Barbara Stalder

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

(Note: As I have done in past elections, I am running a series of Q&As for judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. This is intended to help introduce the candidates and their experiences to those who plan to vote in March. I am running these responses in the order that I receive them from the candidates. You can see all of my interviews as well as finance reports and other information on candidates on my 2014 Election page.)

Barbara Stalder

1. Who are you and what are you running for?

I am Barbara J. Stalder. I am running for the 280th Judicial District Court.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

The 280th Judicial District Court primarily hears protective orders involving domestic violence. It can also hear (a) original family law cases filed with a protective order, (b) cases involving custody of a minor child if one parent is alleged to have caused the death of another parent and there is a history of domestic violence in the parents’ relationship, (c) divorce and custody cases in which a court has made a finding of family violence involving both parties; or a protective order has been issued, involving both parties.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I have dedicated my entire adult life to improving the lives of children and victims of domestic violence in the Greater Houston community. All Houstonians deserve a voice in their justice system and I decided early in my career to challenge myself to tirelessly represent clients in need of help, regardless of their ability to pay.

Harris County deserves a judge with the training and experience needed to understand the devastating effects domestic violence can have on victims and their children. I know domestic violence because I’ve seen it and experienced it. As a survivor of both childhood and adult domestic violence, I fled an eleven-year abusive relationship in 1989. Since 1990, I have worked with child victims of domestic violence, abuse, and neglect. My work has includes helping women victims fleeing their homes with nothing but the clothing on their backs. I have represented women who have been stabbed, beaten, stalked, held captive, and threatened with harm to their children and/or fraudulent or coercive legal consequences by their abusers. Although the majority of victims were women I also had several cases in which I represented men. However, men do not usually report the violence and rarely come forward asking for help. My work with these victims and children gives me specialized knowledge and understanding of what effective judicial leadership looks like.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have practiced law for over 10 years but have worked closely with domestic violence victims for over 25 years. My legal career has been dedicated to working with victims of domestic violence, child abuse, and child neglect. Several years ago, I founded a children’s legal service program in Houston to train lawyers representing abused and neglected children. The program also represented children in Child Protective Services (CPS) and contested custody cases.

My experience also includes representing women and children at Aid to Victims of Domestic Abuse (AVDA). Some of the most difficult cases I’ve been involved with are those in which I represented children whose mothers had been murdered by their father. Relatives were left to pick up the pieces.

I am currently a clinical professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, where I teach, mentor, and supervise second and third-year law students. Students represent real clients, including many involving domestic violence issues. I have been fortunate to have received numerous awards, including the Texas Young Lawyers Association (TYLA) President’s Award of Merit for co-authoring the publication, “What To Expect In Family Court.” I have worked with the domestic violence community, have a good working relationship with other legal aid organizations and am respected by my peers for my work as a lawyer and advocate for women and children.

I have been practicing law for over 10 years, I recently became Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and I have dedicated my legal career to helping others. My husband, Fred, and I recently celebrated our 22nd wedding anniversary, love exploring our Houston community, and volunteer our time with Houston animal rescue groups.

5. Why is this race important?

Our daughters, nieces, sisters, aunts, cousins and friends need a judge who understands not only the physical aspects of domestic violence, but the emotional, spiritual and economic aspects. We need a judge who has the knowledge and experience to recognize the subtle ways batterers continue their abuse after the victim has left. We need a judge who is willing to work with our domestic violence community in creating programs to move our victims from helplessness to hopefulness. We need a judge who can can be fair, respectful, and give every person the right to have their voice heard.

6. Why should people vote for you in the primary?

I am the most experienced lawyer in this race. I have dedicated my entire adult life to advocating for victims of domestic violence. Not only have I represented hundreds of women and children whose lives were forever changed by domestic violence, I also teach my students how to recognize, understand and advocate for victims of violence. I am objective, open-minded and believe every person who comes into court deserves respect and fairness.

The counties we aren’t going to win are just as important as the counties we will win

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

Collin County is a Republican stronghold. It’s also the kind of place that Democrats need to make gains in order to be competitive. That’s a tough thing to do when there’s little hope for winning the county or taking a legislative seat based in the county. But the needle needs to be moved, and the Democrats there seem to get that, which is good to hear.

“There is a completely different dynamic this time,” said Shawn Stevens, chairman of the Democratic Party of Collin County.

So far, most of the work has been organizing and preparing for next fall. In October, Battleground Texas, a statewide organization devoted to turning Texas into a swing state, hosted house parties to train volunteers.

In November, local party leaders hosted what they described as an unusually energetic crowd at their annual Ann Richards Dinner. And lately, a group has been meeting weekly at the Plano strip mall that houses the county party’s office to call other potential volunteers for 2014.

The hope is to have a large group of supporters ready for the fall who can make personal connections with as many voters as possible. And this time around they will probably have outside help, a rarity for Collin County.

There’s a reason there was a lack of energy in the party in the past. For years, Democrats have failed to even be competitive with the local GOP.

In 2010, Republican Gov. Rick Perry won Collin County with 64 percent of the vote, compared with 33 percent for Democratic former Houston Mayor Bill White. In 2012, more than 133,000 people voted straight-ticket Republican. Only 61,000 voted solely for the Democrats.

It will be next to impossible to turn that around in one election. But one reason for the current effort is the conclusion that Democrats can’t simply ignore the counties they know they won’t win, organizers said.

Battleground Texas has pushed for a new statewide attitude, arguing that the party needs a presence in all 254 counties to win elections. Its leaders say similar efforts are happening in other GOP-dominated counties across the state.

“Collin County is a fantastic example of the excitement we are seeing across the state of Texas,” said Jenn Brown, executive director of the group.

[…]

Republicans remain confident, however. State Rep. Jodie Laubenberg of Parker has drawn a Democratic opponent for the first time in years. But she said she isn’t worried. She knows many suburban women who agree with the GOP’s anti-abortion efforts, she said.

And Collin County is thriving economically and has strong schools, she said, so it’s unlikely that Democrats will find enough people who are unhappy with their state government.

“What they are anticipating is not going to work,” Laubenberg said.

Even many Democrats admit that winning the county or individual races in 2014 is a long shot. But they view the fact that they have already begun a significant effort as a positive sign.

And they argue that even a little progress can help Democrats statewide.

“Our voting numbers might not be 50 percent plus one,” said Stevens, the party chairman, “but if you inch up the vote a little bit, you can affect the election.”

Laubenberg doesn’t have to worry about her own re-election, but Stevens is correct, and his recognition of what needs to be done in Collin is critical. Democrats absolutely need to maximize their vote in big urban counties and South Texas, where the bulk of Democrats live. But places like Collin are where the big overall population growth is. Democrats have to be in there competing for these new voters or they’ll be undoing the work they’re doing elsewhere. Look at these figures from the past three off year elections:


Year  Registered  Turnout  Dem high  Pct Reg  Pct Turn
======================================================
2002     312,606  130,443    37,716   12.07%    28.91%
2006     381,821  138,686    42,514   11.13%    30.65%
2010     424,548  157,849    51,890   12.22%    32.87%

There’s likely to be between 450,000 and 500,000 registered voters in Collin County in 2014. Turnout actually wasn’t that high in Collin in 2010 – about 37%, compared to about 36% in 2006 – so between population growth and general turnout activities, the potential is there to add thousands of Democrats to the tally. As the story notes, there were over 61,000 straight ticket Dem votes in 2012, and just over 101,000 votes for President Obama that year. The voters are there if they can be persuaded to show up. Sure, the same is true for the Republicans, but that’s not our problem. The job for Collin County Dems is to get their people out. The potential is there. The fact that they recognize it and are willing to work for it even if there aren’t likely to be any local prizes to be won is better. We’ll see how it goes.

Perry and pot

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Haul out your blind squirrels and acorns cliches.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday that he favors decriminalizing marijuana use and lessening punishment for minor offenders as the nation moves toward a more moderate approach to pot use and two states have legalized the drug.

Perry’s comments surprised some, since the governor has repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for not stepping up border enforcement to counter the power of Mexican drug trafficking cartels. Perry has also supported legislation that would mandate drug testing for Texans seeking unemployment benefits or public housing.

But each state has the right to choose its path on how to deal with marijuana, he said, while defending Colorado and Washington’s decision to legalize the drug.

“As governor, I have begun to implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization” by introducing alternative “drug courts” that provide treatment and softer penalties for minor offenses, Perry said during an international panel on drug legalization at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

It’s the first time the governor, who’s voiced support for drug courts in the past, took a position on decriminalization in Texas.

Local law enforcement leaders in Houston had differing reactions to Perry’s comments.

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson, who as a judge presided over a drug court, backed Perry’s advocacy of offering rehabilitation and community supervision.

“I echo Governor Perry’s support for drug counseling and lesser sentences for marijuana users in Texas,” according to a statement released by her office. “Our goal is to stop the revolving door process where a drug offender gets out of jail, starts using again, only to go back to jail where he or she will spend even more time.”

Anderson added: “Our hope is to keep people out of jail by getting them help.”

[…]

In the past, Perry has discussed his opposition to legalization of marijuana but voiced his support for the 10th amendment and states’ rights to legalize the drug, which he highlighted at the forum Thursday.

I include that last bit to observe that this is very likely more about poking President Obama with the 10th amendment than anything else. Perry doesn’t have a reformer’s record, to say the least, but a message of “keep your federal laws off my state” is consistent with the Rick Perry we know. That said, whatever the motivation Perry’s words are welcome. While most right-thinking people have evolved on this and on the huge costs of the “war on drugs” in general, having a few wrong-thinking people on board will help move things forward faster. As for Devon Anderson, I’m honestly unclear what she’s saying at this point. Let’s just agree that there’s a lot more that could be done here in Texas and in Harris County to keep pot smokers out of jail and provide better outcomes overall. I’d like to hear more candidates talk about decriminalization, or at least about dialing back punishment for smoking pot. If Rick Perry just gave some otherwise reluctant legislators and legislative candidates permission to do that, it’ll be one of the few genuine accomplishments he’ll be able to claim when he’s finally gone from office. Hair Balls, BOR, and Burka have more.

“Go, Texans” OK’ed

by Charles Kuffner.

2 comments

Well, that‘s a relief.

County Treasurer Orlando Sanchez’s quest to ban “Go Texans” and other messages from Metro’s digital bus marquees has ended unsuccessfully with a pass from the Federal Transportation Administration and a scathing letter from the Metro board chairman.

Last fall, Sanchez asked the federal agency and the Harris County Attorney’s office to determine whether Metro was “misusing federal transit dollars” or somehow breaking the law by displaying certain messages on the destination signs on the fronts and sides of its buses. Sanchez argued that messages like “Go Texans” were not appropriate because they promoted a privately owned company on publicly owned property.

Both entities looked into Sanchez’s inquiry and concluded that Metro’s current policy is legally sound, with the federal agency saying the only applicable prohibitions of marquee messages would be the ones adopted by Metro itself.

In a letter to Sanchez this week, Metro Board Chairman Gilbert Garcia described the inquiry as “unnecessary” and said it jeopardized Metro’s relationship with the federal transportation agency, which he described as “a critical partner that provides crucial funding for projects that help move people throughout the region.”

“We hope to avoid distractions as we continue to keep the Houston area moving,” Garcia wrote. “Rather than pursuing unnecessary inquiries, we hope you will join us to positively address the transit needs in our community.”

Sanchez expressed no regrets, pointing out that “prior to my inquiry, Metro had no policy” on bus marquee messaging.

See here for the background. Sanchez apparently complained to the FTA after the Metro board adopted its policy to allow for these sporting messages plus other generic ones such as “Happy Holidays”, which seems a little petty to me. I just hope we have a football team that’s worthy of the exhortation this fall.

Interview with Ann Harris Bennett

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Ann Harris Bennett

Ann Harris Bennett

In addition to District Attorney, there is another contested countywide primary on the ballot for Democrats. That primary is for Harris County Clerk, for the nomination to run against first term incumbent Stan Stanart, who has had his share of visible failures with election returns. First up is Ann Harris Bennett, who lost to Stanart in the 2010 election although she was one of the top votegetters among Dems in that landslide year. She also ran for Harris County Tax Assessor in 2012, losing a much closer race to Mike Sullivan. Bennett worked for Harris County for a number of years as the Court Coordinator for the 55th and 152nd District Courts. Previous interviews with Bennett are here for 2010, and here for 2012. Here’s this year’s interview:

You can see all of my interviews as well as finance reports and other information on candidates on my 2014 Election page.

January campaign finance reports for Harris County candidates

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

In our previous episode, we looked at the campaign finance reports for Democratic statewide candidates. Today, let’s have a look at the reports for candidates for countywide office in Harris County. I’m not going to get down to the Constable or JP level – I’m not aware of any interesting primaries, those districts tend not to be too competitive, and there are only so many hours in the day. Neither County Commissioner Jack Cagle nor Jack Morman has an opponent, so I’m skipping them as well. The real interest is in the countywide campaigns, so here are those reports.

County Judge

Ed Emmett
Ahmad Hassan
David Collins


Candidate    Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
==========================================
Emmett       28,600  119,244       401,209
Hassan            0    1,250             0
Collins           0        0             0

The only thing Judge Emmett has to fear, I’d say, is a 2010-style Democratic wave. Other than that, he should win without too much trouble. In the meantime, he will have plenty of campaign cash to spend on various things, including a $10K contribution to the campaign of Paul Simpson, who is challenging Jared woodfill to be Chair of the Harris County GOP, and $5K to the New Dome PAC. It’ll be interesting to see how much he spends on other campaigns from here on out.

District Attorney

Friends of Mike Anderson
Friends of Devon Anderson
Kim Ogg
Lloyd Oliver


Candidate    Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
==========================================
Anderson          0   29,730        36,739
Ogg          66,643    8,897        40,771
Oliver            0        0             0

The Friends of Mike Anderson PAC gave a contribution of $66,469.58 to the Friends of Devon Anderson PAC, which closed out the books on it. I presume Devon Anderson will commence fundraising at some point, and will have all the resources she needs. Kim Ogg has done a decent job fundraising so far, but it’s what you do with what you’ve got that ultimately matters. Zack Fertitta had $145K on hand as of his 30 day report in 2012, and we know how that movie ended. Early voting starts in three weeks, you know.

County Clerk

Stan Stanart
Ann Harris Bennett
Gayle Mitchell


Candidate    Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
==========================================
Stanart      16,400   19,398        45,969
Bennett      10,748    7,113         2,442
Mitchell      1,138    2,010             0

Stan Stanart has $20K in outstanding loans, which was the case in July as well. His fundraising came almost entirely from two sources – the campaign of County Commissioner Jack Cagle ($10K), and a Holloway Frost of Texas Memory Systems ($5K).

District Clerk

Chris Daniel
Friends of Chris Daniel
Court Koenning
Judith Snively


Candidate    Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
==========================================
Daniel            0   15,871             0
Daniel SPAC  31,843   24,166        20,859
Koenning     38,165   48,974       112,814
Snively       5,300    3,095         2,204

Still a lot of money in this race. Incumbent Chris Daniel’s PAC and challenger Court Koenning both have the same outstanding loan totals that they had in July – $74,500 for Daniel, and $50K for Koenning. Democrat Judith Snively has loaned herself $4K. I suspect we won’t see as much money raised in this race after the primary as we do before it.

County Treasurer

Orlando Sanchez
Arnold Hinojosa
David Rosen


Candidate    Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
==========================================
Sanchez      23,500    5,577       220,437
Hinojosa          0    1,250             0
Rosen         2,875    2,122           651

Orlando Sanchez’s eye-popping cash on hand total comes from an equally eye-popping $200K loan to himself. This leaves me wondering where he got that kind of money. Did he do really well for himself from 2002 through 2007, when he was in the private sector, or was he just that well off before he was elected Treasurer in 2006? Maybe someone with a journalism degree and some spare time should look into that. Google tells me that his primary challenger Hinojosa is a constable in Precinct 5. Other than paying the filing fee, he had no activity to report.

HCDE Trustee

Debra Kerner
RW Bray
Michael Wolfe – No report

Melissa Noriega
Don Sumners


Candidate    Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
==========================================
Kerner            0      810           329
Bray            135        0           135
Wolfe

Noriega           0    8,690         9,335
Sumners           0      750             0

Neither Michael Wolfe nor Melissa Noriega has filed a report with the County Clerk; Noriega’s report is from the Houston finance reporting system, for her City Council account, which will presumably be transferred at some point. Not a whole lot else to say except that everyone on this list has run for office at least once before, and with the exception of RW Bray has held office at least once. Who knew the HCDE Board of Trustees would be so popular?

113th District Civil Court (D)
311th Family District Court (R)

Steve Kirkland
Lori Gray


Candidate    Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
==========================================
Kirkland     55,065    6,806        35,963
Gray         35,000   30,209         4,791

Denise Pratt
Donna Detamore
Alecia Franklin
Anthont Magdaleno
Philip Placzek


Candidate    Raised    Spent  Cash on hand
==========================================
Pratt       146,020   78,361        67,659
Detamore          0    2,591             0
Franklin     15,555   13,595        47,317
Magdaleno     7,562   11,519           299
Placzek       6,700   25,012           149

I’m not interested in watching all of the contested judicial primaries, but these two are certainly keeping and eye on. The 113th is shaping up as a rerun of the 215th from 2012, in which the candidate running against Steve Kirkland is being financed by one person. In this case, George Fleming and the Texans for Good Leaders PAC he runs gave all of the money that Lori Gray collected. I don’t know Ms. Gray – she has responded to Texpatriate’s Q&A, but as yet has not sent answers to mine; if she has a campaign webpage or Facebook page I haven’t found it – but I don’t care for lawyers with vendettas like Mr. Fleming.

As for Judge Pratt, she may have a gaggle of challengers this March, but she’s not feeling the financial heat at this time. She’s also doing what she can to stay in the good graces of the establishment, with $10K to Gary Polland’s Conservative Media Properties, LLC for advertising and $10K to the Harris County GOP for various things (I’m not counting the $2500 for the filing fee). We’ll see how much good it does her.

Still more state and county finance reports, plus the city reports, to go through, and the federal reports should start being posted on February 1. January is a very busy month.

Clearing the rape kit backlog is producing results

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Very promising results.

Private forensic laboratories hired to clear the Houston Police Department’s untested DNA evidence – including a decades-old rape kit backlog – have identified potential offenders in a third of the cases where sufficient DNA samples were found, according to a HPD report.

[…]

Since the HPD lab resumed operations about six years ago, the city has spent millions to outsource DNA evidence testing to reduce the backlog, including $2.1 million in federal money in 2010 and 2011. That money was used, in part, to study why the kits had not been tested.

Last year’s multimillion-dollar clearance project to bulk outsource the cases came more than a year after HPD officials began an inventory of the sexual assault kits in their property room to determine how many had not been tested.

The two private labs have received 9,500 cases, and completed testing in nearly 6,200, according to the HPD report. Of those completed, sufficient evidence was found in 1,268, about a third of the 3,760 cases that have undergone HPD review to ensure the DNA evidence meets federal standards.

The remaining 2,492 cases reviewed did not find any results useful to investigators, the report states. Another 2,410 of the cases where testing was completed are still in HPD review.

See here and here for the background. If the same ratio of useful results holds true for the 2400 cases still being reviewed by HPD, then Houston will have had a higher success rate than some other cities when they finally cleared their backlogs. That doesn’t mean we should expect a thousand or more arrests – going by prior experience, we may see arrests in ten percent of these cases – but still, every single one will be good news. And of course, there are other possibilities.

Bob Wicoff, with the Harris County public defenders office, said the forensic testing could possibly result in exonerations of people wrongly convicted of a crime, or lead to the apprehension of guilty parties.

“There could be some exonerations out of this, but it’s too early to say,” said Wicoff, who represented two Harris County men who were wrongly convicted and imprisoned for rape. “That’s the whole point of doing the testing – its to identify unknown DNA.”

I’ll be surprised if there isn’t at least one exoneration out of all this. The experience we’ve seen elsewhere strongly suggests that one or more innocent men will be identified as a result of this work. That too is very good news, and it will be doubly so if the real rapist gets caught as well.

Abercia gets probation

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Jack Abercia

Former Harris County Precinct 1 Constable Jack Abercia was sentenced Wednesday to three years probation for conducting illegal criminal background checks to raise money, in part, for an elevator in his home.

Abercia pleaded guilty in August to 11 counts of misusing his authorized computer access.

Federal prosecutors said Abercia and a top staffer performed illegal background checks for private companies for a fee, using a national criminal information database that is restricted to law enforcement purposes.

Abercia, 80, who took office in 1991, was facing up to five years in prison on each count, but pleaded guilty in U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison’s court in exchange for three years probation.

Abercia resigned from the $120,000-a-year job after being arrested in January 2012.

He took the plea in August, and was supposed to have been sentenced on November 26. Not sure why it took almost two more months to happen. Two of his aides were also arrested and pleaded guilty; one got two years’ probation, the other is still pending. Like I said, good riddance.

Weekend link dump for January 26

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

You can now use Bitcoins to buy basketball tickets. In Sacramento, anyway.

Pot legalization is the gay marriage of 2016.

It’s hard out here on an atheist.

“Having somebody to watch your kid(s) during the day opens a lot of additional options– for a second source of income, further education, or just general parental sanity. Whether it encourages the sort of beneficial individual changes in the kids that proponents claim, universal preschool would be an enormous boost to their families.”

The drought in California is going to be especially bad.

Has the concept of falsifiability reached the end of its usefulness?

“The new results […] reveal that dogs do not hail from the same lineage as modern wolves — a big surprise, said Novembre, who was hoping to see evidence for either a single domestication or multiple domestication events, where, for example, the Australian dingo would be most related to the Asian wolf and the African basenji would be most related to the Middle Eastern wolf. Instead, the dogs are all most closely related to each other. The pattern suggests that dogs arose from a now-extinct line of wolves.”

Young baseball teams without much talent usually try to compete, and to sell themselves, as being scrappy, hustling teams that manufacture runs on the basepaths. Even by that standard, the 2013 Houston Astros were a complete failure.

There is no TMI on the Internet. If you don’t want to see/read/hear something, there are tons of ways to avoid it.

Your cough medicine isn’t actually doing anything.

Fewer vaccinations = more disease outbreaks. It’s really that simple.

“And now, 46 years after the accident that left her a quadriplegic and 38 years after publishing the memoir that made her a household name among white evangelicals, Joni Eareckson Tada has become the public face of the very same far-right Christianist groups that have effectively blocked the U.S. from ratifying the international Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.”

“No baseball player, no football player, no cyclist, no one has built more on a base of sports-drug use than has Schwarzenegger.”

Best wishes to Ezra Klein on his new media venture.

Sometimes, the Internet uses its power for good.

“Why do we ask these players (and coaches) questions so soon after they were under fiery hypnosis, so soon after they were smashing into each other and breaking bones, right as the adrenaline is draining and the pain is beginning to surface? And, more, why do we expect their answers to fit our expectations?”

We think we’re going to drive more than we have been lately, in one graph.

The moral argument about Obamacare, and its effect on Mitch McConnell.

Virgin births are more common – or at least, more commonly reported – than you might think.

The NFL has a contingency plan for the Super Bowl in the event of a snowpocalypse.

“There’s an obvious way for Republicans to escape this dilemma: They can stop caring about budget deficits. That is what happened the last time Republicans held the presidency, under George W. Bush.”

Mork and Mindy, together again.

“Have you seen a Sochi Coke-themed commercial in the US? I certainly haven’t.”

From the couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy files.

“Yes, the 1984 ad created an indelible brand image. But it was the wrong image. It was a memorable ad, but it wasn’t a good one.”

Uncle Sugar meets Aunt Flo.

Or to put it another way, please continue, Governor Huckabee.

Charles Sebesta needs to be held accountable

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Amen to this.

Anthony Graves

Former Texas death row inmate Anthony Graves, who spent 18 years behind bars before he was exonerated in the bloody 1992 slaying of a Somerville grandmother, her daughter and four grandchildren, is seeking justice against the man who put him there.

In 2006, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Graves’ capital murder conviction when a three-judge panel said he deserved a new trial after ruling that Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta elicited false statements from two witnesses and withheld two statements that could have changed the minds of jurors.

Graves, who was released from prison in October 2010, is taking advantage of a new state law that allows a grievance against a prosecutor to be filed within four years of a wrongfully imprisoned person’s release.

State Sens. Rodney Ellis, John Whitmire and state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, all Houston Democrats, stood behind Graves on the campus of Texas Southern University on Monday as he and his attorneys urged the Texas State Bar to investigate and discipline Sebesta.

“I am asking prosecutors who operate with the highest integrity to support me,” Graves, 48, told reporters. “I am seeking justice for the man who wrongfully prosecuted me.”

[…]

Graves and his attorney, Bob Bennett, said the new law remedies the statute of limitations rule.

“There’s been no final order,” Bennett said. “Even if it was dismissed, you still have the option of coming back because there’s been no final order.”

Whitmire and Thompson sponsored the bill that was one of several that passed last year as details of Michael Morton’s wrongful murder conviction and exoneration came to light.

Anthony Graves deserves justice in the same way and for the same reasons as Michael Morton. In many ways, the injustice done to Graves was worse. If you’re not familiar with Anthony Graves, read this report by Texas Monthly writer Pamela Colloff, who is the authoritative source on Graves and Morton. That article was published on the day that Graves was freed after the charges against him were dropped.

Not until yesterday morning did Burleson County district attorney Bill Parham and special prosecutor Kelly Siegler explain why they had made such a dramatic about-face. At a press conference at the D.A.’s office in Brenham—just across the street from the courthouse where Graves’s retrial was to have taken place early next year—Parham told reporters that he was “absolutely convinced” of Graves’s innocence after his office conducted a thorough examination of his case. Parham was clear that this was not a matter of having insufficient evidence to take to trial; charges were not dropped because too many witnesses had died over the years or because the evidence had become degraded. “There’s not a single thing that says Anthony Graves was involved in this case,” he said. “There is nothing.”

Former Harris County assistant district attorney Kelly Siegler, who has sent nineteen men to death row in her career, went even further in her statements. Siegler laid the blame for Graves’s wrongful conviction squarely at the feet of former Burleson County D.A. Charles Sebesta. “Charles Sebesta handled this case in a way that would best be described as a criminal justice system’s nightmare,” Siegler said. Over the past month, she explained, she and her investigator, retired Texas Ranger Otto Hanak, reviewed what had happened at Graves’s trial. After talking to witnesses and studying documents, they were appalled by what they found. “It’s a prosecutor’s responsibility to never fabricate evidence or manipulate witnesses or take advantage of victims,” she said. “And unfortunately, what happened in this case is all of these things.” Graves’s trial, she said, was “a travesty.”

So yeah, this is a big deal. You need to read Colloff’s two feature stories to get the full measure of outrage at this horror. Sebesta avoided any repercussions for his abhorrent actions initially because Texas’ law at the time started the clock on the statute of limitations way too soon. Here’s Colloff again with the details.

At first glance, the bar’s lack of action against Sebesta is confounding. Why would the statute of limitations prohibit the agency from taking action against Sebesta, who prosecuted Graves in 1994, but not against Anderson, who prosecuted Morton seven years earlier, in 1987? The answer lies in one simple detail: the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the facts of the offense—such as withholding evidence favorable to the accused—are discovered (or, in legalese, “become discoverable”). In the recent proceedings against Anderson, the bar persuasively argued that the statute of limitations did not begin running until 2011, when the transcript describing Morton’s son’s account of the killer was found in Anderson’s files. Such a strategy was not possible with Sebesta, Acevedo told me, because “the information at issue”—i.e., that he withheld favorable evidence—“was known more than four years before the grievance was filed.”

Bennett, who filed the grievance, takes issue with that, arguing that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling “was the official notice of what had taken place.” And Graves’s attorney, Cásarez, believes that’s key. While it’s true that Graves’s lawyers learned in 1998 that Carter had repeatedly told Sebesta of Graves’s innocence, when they took a deposition from Carter at that time, it was simply a defendant’s word against that of a sitting district attorney. It was not until 2006 that the Fifth Circuit made an official finding that Sebesta had withheld evidence. “Now, how can someone file a grievance and expect to get anywhere until a court finds that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct?” Cásarez wondered.

Thankfully, SB825 took care of that loophole last year. Now maybe Charles Sebesta will finally be held to account for his actions. The Trib and Colloff again have more.

Cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face isn’t a matter of principle

by Charles Kuffner.

4 comments

It’s just stupid and self-destructive.

Louie Gohmert

Lots of conservative lawmakers hate Obamacare. Rep. Louie Gohmert is putting his money where his mouth is.

The Tyler Republican gave up his health insurance for 2014, asserting that the president’s signature health care law, the Affordable Care Act, has made coverage too expensive.

“Other people are going to see what I did when I looked into health insurance for my wife and me: that the deductible rate, it doubled, about $3,000 to $6,000, and our policy was going to go from about $300 to about $1,500 a month,” he said during a recent radio interview with Trey Graham, a pastor at First Melissa Baptist Church in Collin County. “I actually don’t have insurance right now, so thank you very much, Obamacare.”

Gohmert’s salary as a member of Congress is $174,000 a year. And his calculations ignore the hefty employer subsidy for which he is eligible — almost $950 per month. He says he will pay the tax that takes effect this year for those without insurance — 1 percent of his annual income.

Health care experts say Gohmert is taking a big risk. He’s 60. His wife, Kathy Gohmert, is 59. At that stage of life, medical expenses are common and unpredictable.

“By not obtaining insurance, you are just rolling the dice, gambling that you are not going to get sick or going to get hit by a car,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. “Most financial advisers and most independent experts would say it’s a wise move to obtain insurance and basically a no-brainer if you have an employer who is willing to kick in about 70 percent of the cost of your premium.”

That’s the case for Gohmert.

But for months, he’s said he would rather give up his government-supplied insurance than accept any government subsidy. If he did take the subsidy available to federal lawmakers and their aides, he would probably pay a monthly premium of about $600 — far less than the figure he cited on Graham’s show, which aired Sunday.

In a brief interview at the Capitol, Gohmert said that he’s a victim of Obamacare.

“I lost my health care. I liked it OK, but I didn’t get to keep it,” he said, referring to his previous insurance plan. “I couldn’t afford to go up four or five times what I was paying and double my deductible, and so I’m better off with just setting money aside for health care and paying the penalty.

[…]

Members of Congress and their aides represent an unusual category of insurance customers. Before the Affordable Care Act, they were eligible for the same insurance options offered to civilian employees across the federal government.

Under the new law, they get insurance through the Washington, D.C., insurance exchange, which created an unintended problem. Workers at big companies get employee-subsidized insurance through their jobs. Exchanges were meant for people who lacked insurance and didn’t get such subsidies.

To make sure that members of Congress and their aides weren’t penalized, the Obama administration announced that subsidies would carry over for them to the local exchange.

To be clear, the reason why members of Congress and their staffers are required to buy insurance through the exchange is because of a political stunt pulled by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) during the debate over the Affordable Care Act when it was still a bill. Had it not been for Grassley’s failed effort to embarrass Democrats during the debate, Gohmert would still have the same insurance he’d had since he was first elected. Go blame Chuck Grassley if you don’t like your choices, Louie. Or, you know, blame yourself.

Honestly, I don’t even know what principle Gohmert thinks he’s defending here. The right to be sick? The right to be bankrupted by medical misfortune? The right to be stuck in a crappy job because you have a pre-existing condition and need the insurance it provides? I don’t wish for bad things to happen to people, but if the Gohmerts were to suffer adverse consequences as a result of this foolish decision, it would at least serve as a shining example for why people need to have insurance, and why the Affordable Care Act was so vitally necessary for so many Americans. So thanks for that, Louie. Only you could have done this. Hair Balls has more.

Finally doing that front door facelift

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Better late than never.

Renovations started this week on the historic Sunset Coffee Building at Allen’s Landing on the north end of downtown.

The more than 100-year-old structure, now behind a fence as construction begins, is getting a $5.3 million facelift from Houston First Corp. and Buffalo Bayou Partnership. They hope the new design will reconnect the bayou with downtown Houston.

The building sits on a spot often referred to as “Houston’s Plymouth Rock,” according to a joint announcement Friday from the Partnership and Houston First. Brothers August Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen established Houston there in 1836.

[…]

The project should be completed in about one year. At that time the building will have an outdoor plaza with refreshment and rental facilities for runners, canoeists, kayakers and bikers. The first level will be office space for the partnership and the second level and a rooftop terrace will be used as event space.

A walkway will connected the building to Commerce Street. Ultimately, the building will connect to Buffalo Bayou’s trail system that stretches to Shepherd Drive.

We first heard about this almost a year ago. At the time, the plan was for work to begin in April, 2013. I don’t know what caused the delay – this story doesn’t indicate – but at least it’s getting started now. I can’t wait to see what it looks like when it’s finally done.

US-Mexico high speed rail?

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

What goes north can also go south.

Like this but with fewer mountains

A high-speed rail line connecting San Antonio and Monterrey, Mexico, could be less than a decade away from welcoming its first passengers, according to federal and Texas officials who met with Mexican officials in Washington, D.C., on Thursday to discuss the project.

U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-San Antonio, hosted the meeting in which Texas and Mexican officials offered a joint presentation to U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx about the project, and Cuellar said Foxx was receptive. It was the third meeting between U.S. and Mexican officials related to the project, Cuellar said, following a meeting in the summer and another in October.

“From the Mexican side, they are very interested,” Cuellar said. “From the Texas side, they are very interested.”

Supporters say the rail line, if completed, could move passengers from San Antonio to Monterrey in two hours. The trip takes nearly five hours traveling by car.

Cuellar said he became interested in such a project after learning that the Texas Department of Transportation had received $5.6 million in federal funds last year to study possible rail projects between Oklahoma City and South Texas.

[…]

Both Mexican and U.S. officials envision a large portion of the project’s funding coming from the private sector, perhaps from a single company investing in the project in both countries.

We are familiar with one private investor for high speed rail in Texas, and we heard about that FTA grant recently. Obviously, all this is a long way from happening, but if both do happen – I’m reasonably confident about the Houston-Dallas line – then it would make a lot more sense to connect them, since that would have more value than two separate, disconnected lines. That would mean finishing the rest of the so-called Texas Triangle, which would then have offshoots continuing on to Oklahoma City and Monterrey. That would be pretty cool, don’t you think? The Highwayman and the Express News have more.

Saturday video break: Cups

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

Cup-stacking is a thing with the kids these days, and this song from “Pitch Perfect” is the soundtrack for it (music starts about 1:28).

David Letterman was quite impressed by Anna Kendrick’s cup percussion ability:

As someone who finds it hard enough to do one musical thing at a time, color me impressed as well.

Petition problems

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Every election cycle there are fights over who really did or didn’t qualify for the ballot. This one is shaping up to be a doozy.

Three lawsuits over alleged ballot irregularities involving Harris County judicial candidates will be heard by a Beaumont judge, officials said Thursday.

State District Judge Bob Wortham was appointed to preside over the cases a day after the Harris County Attorney’s Office said it is reviewing documents filed by all local judicial candidates.

“We have a reasonable suspicion there are several instances that we need to look into,” said Terry O’Rourke, special assistant to County Attorney Vince Ryan.

O’Rourke and other officials appeared in a Harris County court Thursday for a hearing on a temporary restraining order request by longtime Precinct 2 Place 2 Justice of the Peace George Risner.

[…]

Harris County GOP chair Jared Woodfill said the party was not made aware of the allegations until after the five-day window to investigate inaccuracies that followed the Dec. 9 filing deadline.

Instead of ruling on Risner’s request for a restraining order to stop the county from printing or mailing any more ballots, including absentee ballots, for the March 4 primary, state District Judge Randy Wilson said it would be more appropriate for a judge from outside Harris County.

“This could affect a lot of judges here,” Wilson said. “I’m a candidate on that ballot.”

He noted that Risner’s case is similar to two other recently filed cases involving Republicans and Democrats in judicial races and said administrative Judge Olen Underwood would assign the cases, including the hearing that had been scheduled for Thursday, to Wortham.

Wortham is expected to have a hearing on Risner’s request for a temporary restraining order on Tuesday.

Moving the case to another jurisdiction makes a lot of sense, for the reason noted by Judge Wilson. The Thursday Chron had a preview of what was to come, with some more detail about the instigating case.

The allegation first was raised by longtime Precinct 2 Place 2 Justice of the Peace George Risner, who is suing the Harris County Republican Party, claiming it violated state election law by placing candidate Leonila Olivares-Salazar on its party ballot even after being told her application included hundreds of falsified petition signatures.

[…]

Olivares-Salazar “has publicly admitted to hiring a company to collect the required number of valid signatures (250) to qualify her for the ballot,” the petition states. “There were at least four circulators that gathered signatures for Olivares-Salazar who were employed by the company Olivares-Salazar hired, who falsified signatures on Olivares-Salazar’s petitions.”

Risner, a Democrat first elected to his post in 1987, and Olivares-Salazar are running unopposed in their parties’ respective primaries, meaning they would face each other in the November general election.

Risner said he was suspicious about the validity of the 456 signatures his opponent submitted after some of his “friends and campaign workers looked them over,” and decided to go door-to-door to see whether people whose names appeared on the petitions actually had signed them.

“Ninety-nine point nine percent of them told me no,” he said. The petition claims 380 signatures were falsified.

Anyone who is active in politics has signed judicial petitions. The parties hold events designed to help judicial candidates get the petition signatures they need, and anyplace where candidates and voters gather there will be clipboard-toters seeking signatures. One of the things about signing such a petition is that you promise not to sign any petitions for a candidate from another party, and you promise not to vote in another party’s primary or participate in another party’s candidate selection convention. I suspect that is what may have tipped off Risner – if his Republican opponent’s petition had a bunch of signatures from known Democrats on it, that would be odd. If Risner then got some sworn statements from these folks attesting that they never signed Olivares-Salazar’s petition, that’s pretty strong evidence. Plus, the universe of people who sign these petitions for either party is pretty small, and heavily partisan. Most names are likely to appear many times, for the reasons cited above. Seeing mostly unrecognizable names on the petition, and following up to determine that they mostly have no primary voting history, would also be a clue that something unusual was happening.

Anyway. I can’t wait to see what the Beaumont judge makes of all this. There are also rumors that the County Attorney’s investigation may turn up other instances of invalid signatures. That’ss the party’s job to check, and HCDP Chair Lane Lewis is quoted saying his team did do a thorough review of all their petitions. We’ll see how that goes. The other two lawsuits involved a Republican challenger to a Republican incumbent judge who was denied a spot on the primary ballot, and an allegation by Democrat Julia Maldonado that her opponent, Sandra Peake, did not turn in enough signatures. Campos (twice) and Lisa Falkenberg have more.

Metro names Lambert its next CEO

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

For the second time in a row, the Metro board will make its interim CEO its permanent CEO.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority board on Thursday voted unanimously to open negotiations with Tom Lambert for the permanent president and CEO position.

Lambert, who has led the agency on an interim basis since December 2012, served as Metro’s police chief for more than 28 years and more recently as an executive vice president. He was named interim CEO after George Greanias abruptly resigned.

Lambert, a 35-year Metro employee, initially said he would not be a candidate for the permanent job, and Metro hired a search firm to help it find a new leader. Over time, however, board members grew impressed with the job Lambert was doing and decided he should be considered for the permanent position.

“The chief has done a dynamite job, and his team has done a dynamite job, there is no doubt,” board chairman Gilbert Garcia said, referring to Lambert, during a December meeting with the Houston Chronicle editorial board.

As an earlier story notes, the Metro board hadn’t done much of anything to advance the search for an external candidate, so I guess they are indeed happy with Lambert. I think he’s done a decent job as well, though he does have some big challenges ahead, from reimagining bus routes to dealing with railcar shortages, and hopefully to restart the conversation about more rail lines in the future. I wish him the best of luck with these tasks. The Metro blog has more.

Next stop, Virginia

by Charles Kuffner.

2 comments

More lawsuits coming on same sex marriage.

Almost overnight, Virginia has emerged as a critical state in the nationwide fight to grant gay men and women the right to wed.

This purple state was once perceived as unfriendly and even bordering on hostile to gay rights. That’s changed after a seismic political shift in the top three elected offices, from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats who support gay marriage.

Two federal lawsuits challenging the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage are moving forward, and a hearing on one of the cases is scheduled for Jan. 30.

Along with the recent court rulings in which federal judges struck down gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma, gay rights advocates are heartened by the new mood in Virginia.

[…]

One lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisonburg, involves two couples from the Shenandoah Valley who claim the state’s ban on gay marriage violates the Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses. The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal are representing the plaintiffs.

Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, said Virginia’s “intriguing” history on marriage rights played a role in filing the challenge here. A 1967 Supreme Court decision involving a Virginia couple invalidated laws on miscegenation, or interracial marriage.

The case involved Mildred and Richard Loving. The interracial couple had been living in Virginia when police raided their home in 1958 and charged them with violating the state’s Racial Integrity law. They had been married in Washington, D.C.

The Lovings were convicted before ultimately prevailing before the Supreme Court.

“The narrative in Virginia of how marriage plays into Virginia history, why the state was so important nationally for our struggle, is a very significant one,” Taylor said.

The other lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Norfolk on similar constitutional claims. The legal costs in that case are being paid for by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was behind the effort to overturn California’s gay marriage ban.

David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, the high-profile legal tandem that brought down California’s prohibition on same-sex marriage, lead the legal team in that challenge. Both cited Virginia’s history when they announced their challenge.

Olson also cited Loving v. Virginia in his comments on the case. These lawsuits take place against a backdrop not just of recent wins in court in Utah and Oklahoma, but also of the Democratic sweep in the November 2013 elections. New Attorney General Marc Herring was vocal on the campaign trail in his support of marriage equality, and the job of defending Virginia’s laws now fall to him. That’ll be one thing to watch. As has been the case nationally, opinions towards marriage equality have shifted considerably in Virginia, with a majority now in support. Texas will be up next after Virginia, so the news isn’t going to stop or even slow down any time soon.

Friday random ten: Cold enough for you?

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

I’m pretty sure we’ll all be happy to never hear the words “polar vortex” again.

1. Baby, It’s Cold Outside – The Priestess And The Fool
2. Cold – Annie Lennox
3. Cold Chicago – Humming House
4. Cold Irons Bound – Bob Dylan
5. Cold Shot – Stevie Ray Vaughan
6. Cold Wait – Ian Pooley
7. Cold War Fiasco – team9 vs Stereogum
8. Dark Was The Night, Cold Was The Ground – Asylum Street Spankers
9. Hot N Cold – Katy Perry
10. Truth Gets Colder – Idiot Savant

Stay warm, y’all.

Interview with Rep. Carol Alvarado

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

Rep. Carol Alvarado

Rep. Carol Alvarado

In addition to the contested Democratic primary in HD131, there is also one in HD145, where Rep. Carol Alvarado is in her third term. Rep. Alvarado was of course a three-term City Council member in District I prior to her election to the Legislature, experience that served her on the Urban Affairs, Public Health, and Redistricting committees. She is also serving on the House Select Committee on Transparency in State Agency Operations, which among other things is investigating UT Regent Wallace Hall. Rep. Alvarado has also been a strong defender of reproductive freedom in the House, which is no small task. I was redistricted into HD145 in 2011, and while I was sad to lose Rep. Jessica Farrar as my representative, I was and am quite happy to be represented by Rep. Alvarado. Here’s the interview:

You can see all of my interviews as well as finance reports and other information on candidates on my 2014 Election page.

Federal judge denies Abbott motion to consolidate same sex marriage lawsuits

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

From Lone Star Q:

A key hearing in a federal lawsuit challenging Texas’ same-sex marriage bans will go forward next month in San Antonio.

U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia, of the Western District of Texas, on Wednesday rejected Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s latest effort to transfer the lawsuit from San Antonio to Austin.

Garcia cited key differences between the San Antonio lawsuit, known as DeLeon v. Perry, and two other lawsuits challenging the marriage bans that are pending before U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin. Garcia’s decision to deny Abbott’s motion means a hearing in DeLeon v. Perry will take place as scheduled in February.

“The Court finds that while both lawsuits filed in the Austin court share a common issue with the present lawsuit in that all Plaintiffs challenge he constitutionality of Defendants’ refusal to let them marry their same-sex partners, the three lawsuits differ in important respects,” Garcia wrote.

That hearing will be on February 12. Previously, Abbott had petitioned Judge Sparks to consolidate the lawsuits, which do have some key differences, but Judge Sparks denied the request. Neel McLane, the attorney for the San Antonio plaintiffs, thinks Abbott has been forum shopping.

U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia, who presides over the Western District of Texas’ San Antonio district, is a President Bill Clinton appointee. Garcia also happens to be the brother-in-law of Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a Democrat and marriage-equality supporter who’s running for lieutenant governor in 2014. Legal experts say they believe there’s a good chance Garcia will rule in favor of marriage equality in DeLeon v. Perry, a lawsuit filed in his court in October alleging Texas’ marriage bans are unconstitutional.

[…]

Lane said Abbott’s office wants the cases before Sparks, who gave preliminary indications at [a hearing on January 9] that it won’t be easy to convince him to strike down the state’s marriage amendment.

“He [Sparks] did suggest it was going to be a difficult showing to make,” Lane said.

Of course, from there it would be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, where good things go to die. But it would still be a big step forward.

The state of Texas is sure to fight this every step of the way. At least, that would be the case as long as there is a fanatical enemy of marriage equality infesting the Attorney General’s office. If a proponent of marriage equality were to be elected, we might see what Virginia is seeing, where its newly-elected AG is declining to defend that state’s ban on same sex marriage.

Virginia’s new attorney general has decided to switch sides in an important case that is challenging the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

In an interview with Morning Edition’s Steve Inskeep, Democrat Mark Herring said his office will no longer defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriages.

“As attorney general, I cannot and will not defend laws that violate Virginians’ rights,” Herring said. “The commonwealth will be siding with the plaintiffs in this case and with every other Virginia couple whose right to marry is being denied.”

Herring was sworn in just days ago after a razor-thin win in November, an election that marked big political change in the state and also ushered in Democrat Terry McAuliffe to the governor’s mansion. Herring is taking over for Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican who ran and lost a bid for governor on a Tea Party platform and was a staunch defender of the gay-marriage ban.

Herring said as he came into office, he asked his staff to review Bostic v. Rainey and, after careful consideration, he came to the conclusion that the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

[…]

Herring’s solicitor general will tell a federal judge in Norfolk next week that Virginia is joining the plaintiffs in the case, that the state agrees a ban on gay marriage denies some couples in the state what the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right.

Herring said he’s doing it for Virginians. That’s when Steve reminded him that the amendment to Virginia’s Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and woman was approved by 57 percent of voters in 2006.

Herring said that his job is to defend laws that are constitutional. This one, he said, isn’t. Also, Herring added, he wants his state to be on the right side of history.

“There have been times in some key landmark cases where Virginia was on the wrong side, was on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the law,” Herring said. “And as attorney general, I’m going to make sure that the [people] presenting the state’s legal position on behalf of the people of Virginia are on the right side of history and on the right side of the law.”

Consider that a reason to vote for Sam Houston, if you needed one. Herring is not the first AG to reach this conclusion.

It is not the first time an attorney general has decided to stop defending their state’s gay marriage ban. In Pennsylvania, Attorney General Kathleen Kane said last year that she would stop defending that state’s gay marriage ban, also calling it unconstitutional. An outside law firm was hired to represent the state in a lawsuit over the ban.

And before that, the state of California declined to defend Prop 8, and the federal government declined to defend DOMA. It’s one thing to be dealt a losing hand, it’s another to be dealt a hand you don’t believe should be played at all. The fall of DOMA, the recent court rulings, and the massive shift in public opinion give plenty of cover for these decisions. And as Dave Weigel points out, it’s not like this is a bedrock principle that’s at stake here.

Virginia’s constitutional definition of marriage is not some sacred script handed down from Thomas Jefferson to Patrick Henry to (still sounds weird) Terry McAuliffe. It’s actually younger than the iPod. In 2006, 57 percent of Virginia voters approved the Marshall-Newman Amendment, adding the definition to their Constitution. Since then, lots of Virginians have, like Herring, changed their minds. As of six months ago, only 43 percent of Virginians opposed gay marriage — a 14-point swing.

So Virginia’s one of those states that’s probably ready to wave in gay marriages, but can’t, because an older and more conservative electorate locked and bolted the door. Back in 2006, this was seen as a boon for Republicans. And now it’s left Republicans defending a pretty unpopular position.

Texas passed its amendment in 2005, still years after the iPod hit the scene, though our history of banning gay marriage does go back to the pre-iPod era. The point about locking it in via the Constitution, which I’ve made before, is why this will need to be resolved by the courts. Daily Kos has more.