Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Laura Ewing

Filing season opens today

It’s supposed to open today, anyway. It may get pushed back a day or two until the remaining legal actions get sorted out. As we know, after being turned down by the San Antonio federal Court, AG Greg Abbott is filing a request for a stay of the election with the Supreme Court. If it gets denied, things will proceed quickly; if it gets referred to the full Court it could take a bit longer, perhaps a week or so; if it gets granted, God only knows what happens next. Basically, at this point we’re still in limbo. Oh, if things are allowed to go forward, Plan C220 was approved by the three-court panel for the Congressional map.

Assuming things are allowed to go forward, I expect we’ll be buried under an avalanche of candidate filing announcements. I’ll try to keep track of them as best I can. Among the races I’ll be looking for:

CD06 – Chet Edwards, anyone? Ol’ Smokey Joe Barton is in a fairly competitive district, all things considered, but he has a boatload of money. Someone with experience and fundraising chops would need to get in to make this worth watching.

CD10 – Former candidate Dan Grant has expressed some interest.

CD14 – Everyone is still waiting for former Rep. Nick Lampson to say something. Here’s an alternate suggestion in the event Lampson declines to get in. Take a look at the 2008 electoral data for the new CD14. In particular, have a gander at this result:


SBOE 7

Bradley - R 105,472 47.5 %
Ewing   - D 110,265 49.7 %
Johnson - L   6,339  2.9 %

Based on the vote totals, I think there was a small piece of CD14 that did not overlap this SBOE district, but probably 95% of CD14 was covered. Laura Ewing was the one Democrat to get more votes than the Republican in any comparable race. Maybe we should be drafting Laura Ewing to run here.

HDs 26, 33, 34, 35, 40, 45, 54, 78, 105, 106, 107, 108, 113, 117, 134, and 144: These are all of the Dem-favored and Dem-attainable districts for which I am not currently aware of a candidate. (HD93 in Tarrant County has former Reps. Paula Pierson and Chris Turner already in.) Every last one of these had better have a good candidate in it.

SD09: The one Democratic State Senate district that can be remotely seen as a pickup opportunity. Sam Houston got 45.1% of the vote in 2008 for the Dem high water mark. It’s an uphill battle, but it’s an open seat, and those don’t come around very often.

Harris County Tax Assessor: Sylvia Garcia isn’t interested despite my best efforts, and Diane Trautman is running for HCDE Trustee. Someone needs to step up and run against the buffoonish Don Sumners.

Harris County District Attorney: Pat Lykos has made herself more vulnerable with the BAT van stuff. Surely someone senses an opportunity.

I’m pleased to note that there is apparently a candidate for SBOE in my District 6. I saw and signed a petition for someone at an event last week. I don’t remember the candidate’s name because he or she was not there, but I saw the name of the office. I also saw a number of petitions for positions on Appeals Courts #1 and 14. I have no idea if anyone is gearing up for a Supreme Court or CCA run yet, however.

In the meantime, we wait for SCOTUS. What filings are you eagerly awaiting? The Trib has more.

UPDATE: Further analysis from Michael Li.

Chron coverage of yesterday’s SBOE actions

Here’s the Chron story about yesterday’s happenings at the State Board of Education, in which the good news was that the anti-science “strengths and weaknesses” language had been removed from the curriculum, and the bad news was that a subsequent attempt to back-door similar nonsense made it in for now.

The “strengths and weaknesses” standard has been a staple in the curriculum for about 20 years.

On Friday, however, the board looked again at the issue and decided students should have to evaluate a variety of fossil types and assess the arguments against universal common descent, which serves as a main principle of evolution — that all organisms have a common ancestor.

The board’s effort to undermine “universal common descent” in public schools will make the state’s science standards “an object of ridicule,” said Steve Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science.

“It’s really unscientific. It promotes creationism. It says that students will be required to learn arguments against common descent or ancestral connections,” Schafersman said. “The only alternative to common descent is creationism in their minds.”

Scientists vowed to fight the plan before the board takes final action in March. New science curriculum standards will influence new science textbooks for the state’s 4.7 million public school children beginning in the 2010-11 school year.

One board member who pushed for the change said that fossil records create scientific evidence against universal common descent — and students should be allowed to study the possibility.

“There are many, many gaps that don’t link species changing and evolving into another species, so we want our students to get all of the science, and we want them to have great, open discussions and learning to respect each other’s opinions,” said Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, a former science teacher.

[…]

They are asking students to explain something that does not exist, said David Hillis, a biology professor at the University of Texas at Austin and MacArthur Foundation “genius award” winner.

“This new proposed language is absurd. It shows very clearly why the board should not be rewriting the science standards, especially when they introduce new language that has not even been reviewed by a single science expert,” Hillis said.

Yeah. I mean, you wouldn’t want someone who doesn’t use the Internet setting standards for broadband, would you? The “fossil gap” argument is an old, longdiscredited one that keeps getting trotted out anyway. As Daniel Davies posited in The D-Squared Digest One Minute MBA – Avoiding Projects Pursued By Morons 101, good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance. Not that this would stop the zealots on the SBOE.

The good news is that there should be time between now and March to get the same votes as before to reject this absurdity. That’s the hope, anyway. Martha has more. I’ve also got some testimony by 2008 candidate for SBOE Laura Ewing beneath the fold. We wouldn’t be going through this nonsense if Ewing had been elected, as there would then have been a clear majority for maintaining scientific standards, but sadly that was not to be. All the more reason to make sure we take out Cynthia Dunbar next year, that’s for sure. Click on for her account.

(more…)