September 25, 2013

True the Vote is trying to join the Voter Id case

the True the Vote idiots are trying to intervene into the voter id case brought by the Department of Justice http://txredistricting.org/post/62250385510/true-the-vote-seeks-to-intervene-in-texas-voter-id-case In the motion, the True the Vote people claim that they have a special interest in protecting SB 14 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gRlZuczdCRkYwNWM/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1 If you look on page 8 of the motion, Cathy and True the Vote claim that they have a special interest in protecting election integrity and preventing vote dilution.

The petition is brought by J. Christian Adams. Adams is the idiot who was illegally hired during the bush DOJ years in apparent violation of DOJ rules http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0901/final.pdf and http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/10/03/who-is-j-christian-adams/183411

Schlozman Is Said To Have Picked Attorneys Who "Lacked Relevant Experience" And "Rarely Expressed Any Interest In Civil Rights Enforcement." The IG/OPR report stated that Special Litigation Section Chief Shanetta Cutlar "said that the applicants whose résumés she reviewed after they had been culled from the applicant pool by Schlozman or others in the front office typically reflected membership in conservative organizations. She also said the most striking thing she noticed about the résumés was that the applicants generally lacked relevant experience. She said Schlozman minimized the importance of prior civil rights or human rights work experience." In addition, the report states:

Former Criminal Section Chief [Albert] Moskowitz also said the candidates for career positions chosen by Schlozman had conservative political or ideological affiliations and rarely had any civil rights background, rarely expressed any interest in civil rights enforcement, and had very little or no federal criminal experience. [IG/OPR report, "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division," 7/2/08]

If True the Vote is interested in stopping vote dilution, then they may want to consider the case of Bruce Fleming who lives in the same county as the founder of True the Vote http://www.juanitajean.com/2013/03/28/an-open-letter-to-cathy-engelbrecht-queen-of-true-the-vote/

September 6, 2013

March 2014 Primaries will occur on schedule-2012 maps to be used as Interim Maps

It appears that the March 2014 primaries will occur on time. The San Antonio Court just issued an order that rejected Abbott’s claim that the lawsuits were moot but did adopt the 2012 maps as interim maps for the 2014 election cycle. Here is a link to the order https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gcDV1VEIza2p2a2c/edit?usp=sharing Here is a brief analysis prepared by Michael Li http://txredistricting.org/post/60471213872/breaking-court-enters-order-in-texas-redistricting

The court also said that because “a full, fair and final review of all issues before the Court cannot be completed prior to upcoming deadlines for the 2014 elections,” the court would adopt the 2013 maps as interim maps for the 2014 election cycle, stressing that the maps were being adopted “on an interim basis only.

”

The rejection of Abbott’s mootness claim is a major victor for the plaintiffs. Abbott argued that the lawsuits on the 2011 maps had to be dismissed and the evidence collected showing that racial issues played a part in the formulation of the 2011 maps had to be ignored. The court rejected that claim:

[T]here is no indication or assurance that, in the next redistricting cycle, the Texas Legislature will not engage in the same alleged conduct that Plaintiffs assert violated their rights, including removing economic engines from minority districts, dismantling coalitions, manipulating turnout among Hispanics, or engaging in other conduct that Plaintiffs allege violated their rights in connection with the 2011 plans. While Texas may have voluntarily ceased or diminished the allegedly illegal conduct, it has not conceded the illegality of the conduct and has steadfastly maintained that its actions did not violate Plaintiffs’ rights. The fact that the Legislature has adopted the Court’s interim plans in an attempt to curb this particular litigation is no assurance that it will not engage in the same conduct in the next legislative session or any session thereafter.

It appears for now that we are stuck with the 2012 maps for use on an interim basis and the March 2014 primaries will be held on schedule.

September 4, 2013

Greg Abbott commercial-can you find a non-white face in this ad?

Greg is out with a youtube ad that is really amusing to watch

&feature=player_embedded#t=0


I dare anyone to watch the ad and tell me how many non-white faces you see in this ad.

Juanita Jean has some good comments about the ad http://juanitajean.com/2013/09/03/oh-greg-abbott-you-are-so-i-dunno-weird/

And then come back for a test.

1. Do you see any faces in that commercial that aren’t white and pretty damn old?

2. Whose bright idea was the wall of cuckoo clocks? They need to be fired. I intend on using that wall every time I talk about Greg.

3. German? Really?

One of my customers watched it and was pretty darn sure that they were trying to make Abbott look like a wounded veteran. He was never in the military. A tree feel (more commonly known as fell in non-typo world) on him. He turned it into a multi million dollar judgement.

I am also wondering about the cuckoo clocks.

September 3, 2013

Pete Olson Town Hall and AARP

CD 22 Congresscritter Pete Olson has a town hall today. Here are the details

Sugar Land Town Hall Meeting
Tuesday, September 3rd
6:30pm-8:00 PM
Clements High School - 4200 Elkins Road
Sugar Land, TX 77479

Juanita Jean herself is planning on attending to deal with some crazy comments made by Pete concerning the AARP http://juanitajean.com/2013/09/01/congressvarming-pete-olson-hates-the-aarp/

Pete put out some campaign literature blasting the AARP. I need to be honest and tell you that I am a 10 year member of AARP and I have their supplemental insurance for my Medicare. I have been very happy with them and I even enjoy the little magazine they send me.

Pete Olson is not so happy with AARP. He put a picture on his literature of President Obama wearing an AARP button, which means that now the AARP has cooties.

Pete declares that the AARP “is nothing but a shill organization for the radical left.” ....

Oh Sweet Lord of Delusion, he doubled down and called these old people in tennis shoes patsies of the “Democrat” party.

Well, if the AARP is what Democrats want, then maybe Yvonne and Leon might want to come on over. Yvonne and Leon, we don’t think you’re anybody’s fool. Pete does.

Pete Olson is having a town hall at Clements High School in Sugar Land on Tuesday night at 6:30. You have to submit your questions in writing. The last Olson townhall we went to, a guy threatened to punch Bubba in the nose. Bubba laughed at him. The police had to escort him out while while Bubba continued to grin.

Bubba can’t wait to go again.

This could be a fun meeting to watch. I am hoping to make it.

August 23, 2013

ALEC has requested an opinion from Abbott that they are exempt from Texas open records law

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has requested an opinion from Greg Abbot (the Texas AG and candidate for Governor) that ALEC is exempt from the Texas Open Records law https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/08/19

The Center for Media and Democracy filed a letter with the Texas Attorney General on Thursday refuting efforts by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to declare itself immune from the state's open records law. Texas is the first known state where ALEC has formally asked an Attorney General for an exemption from sunshine-in-government laws, and it marks a new low in the organization's attempts to advance its legislative agenda in secret and avoid public accountability for facilitating special interest influence.

“You cannot just create a special private club between lobbyists and lawmakers and then claim your communications with legislators cannot be disclosed to the public under state sunshine laws,” said Lisa Graves, the Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy/ ALECexposed.org, “Allowing this would only increase the power of special interests to secretly influence officials elected to represent real people."

We need to get the word out about these efforts

August 22, 2013

Department of Justice to sue Texas over Voter ID law

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-ag-952.html

Justice Department to File New Lawsuit Against State of Texas Over Voter I.D. Law
The Department of Justice announced today that it will file a new lawsuit against the State of Texas, the Texas Secretary of State, and the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety over the State’s strict voter photo identification law (SB 14). The United States’ complaint seeks a declaration that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Separately, the Department is filing a motion to intervene as a party and a complaint in intervention against the State of Texas and the Texas Secretary of State in the ongoing case of Perez v. Perry (W.D. Tex.), which concerns the state’s redistricting laws. The United States had already filed a statement of interest in this case last month. Today’s action represents a new step by the Department in this case that will allow the United States to formally present evidence about the purpose and effect of the Texas redistricting plans.

“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights. The Department will take action against jurisdictions that attempt to hinder access to the ballot box, no matter where it occurs. We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement. We are determined to use all available authorities, including remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act, to guard against discrimination and, where appropriate, to ask federal courts to require preclearance of new voting changes. This represents the Department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”

In the voter ID lawsuit, the United States’ complaint contends that SB 14 was adopted with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The complaint asks the court to prohibit Texas from enforcing the requirements of its law, and also requests that the court order bail-in relief under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. If granted, this would subject Texas to a new preclearance requirement.

In the Department’s other filing announced today, the United States seeks a declaration that Texas’s 2011 redistricting plans for the U.S. Congress and the Texas State House of Representatives were adopted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group in violation of Section 2, as well as the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The complaint also requests that the court order bail-in pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, to remedy persistent, intentional discrimination in voting within the State of Texas.

“The Department of Justice will use all the tools it has available to ensure that each citizen can cast a ballot free from impermissible discrimination,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The right to the franchise is one of the most fundamental promises of American democracy.”

If the federal courts in either the redistricting or voter identification cases find that the State of Texas should be covered by Section 3(c), then the State would be required to submit voting changes to the U.S. Attorney General or to the federal court for review prior to implementation to ensure that the changes do not have a discriminatory effect or a discriminatory purpose. The Department has previously participated as amicus in the Perez case, and last month advised the federal court in Texas that the Department believed the imposition of a new preclearance requirement on Texas under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act was appropriate. Today’s filing asks the Court to allow the Department to participate as a party in further proceedings on the question of whether Texas should be made subject to Section 3(c).

A federal court in the District of Columbia has previously held that Texas had failed to meet its burden of proving that its 2011 redistricting plans and its 2011 voter identification law were not discriminatory under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. These decisions were vacated after the Supreme Court’s June decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Supreme Court’s decision left unaffected the non-discrimination requirements of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the bail-in provisions of Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, and today’s filings seek to enforce those important protections.

The filings in the Texas redistricting and Texas voter identification matters will be available on the Civil Rights Division’s website later today. More information about the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws is available on the Department of Justice website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/. Complaints about discriminatory voting practices may be reported to the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931.

August 22, 2013

Department of Justice to sue Texas over Voter ID law

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-ag-952.html

Justice Department to File New Lawsuit Against State of Texas Over Voter I.D. Law
The Department of Justice announced today that it will file a new lawsuit against the State of Texas, the Texas Secretary of State, and the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety over the State’s strict voter photo identification law (SB 14). The United States’ complaint seeks a declaration that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Separately, the Department is filing a motion to intervene as a party and a complaint in intervention against the State of Texas and the Texas Secretary of State in the ongoing case of Perez v. Perry (W.D. Tex.), which concerns the state’s redistricting laws. The United States had already filed a statement of interest in this case last month. Today’s action represents a new step by the Department in this case that will allow the United States to formally present evidence about the purpose and effect of the Texas redistricting plans.

“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights. The Department will take action against jurisdictions that attempt to hinder access to the ballot box, no matter where it occurs. We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement. We are determined to use all available authorities, including remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act, to guard against discrimination and, where appropriate, to ask federal courts to require preclearance of new voting changes. This represents the Department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”

In the voter ID lawsuit, the United States’ complaint contends that SB 14 was adopted with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The complaint asks the court to prohibit Texas from enforcing the requirements of its law, and also requests that the court order bail-in relief under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. If granted, this would subject Texas to a new preclearance requirement.

In the Department’s other filing announced today, the United States seeks a declaration that Texas’s 2011 redistricting plans for the U.S. Congress and the Texas State House of Representatives were adopted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group in violation of Section 2, as well as the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The complaint also requests that the court order bail-in pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, to remedy persistent, intentional discrimination in voting within the State of Texas.

“The Department of Justice will use all the tools it has available to ensure that each citizen can cast a ballot free from impermissible discrimination,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The right to the franchise is one of the most fundamental promises of American democracy.”

If the federal courts in either the redistricting or voter identification cases find that the State of Texas should be covered by Section 3(c), then the State would be required to submit voting changes to the U.S. Attorney General or to the federal court for review prior to implementation to ensure that the changes do not have a discriminatory effect or a discriminatory purpose. The Department has previously participated as amicus in the Perez case, and last month advised the federal court in Texas that the Department believed the imposition of a new preclearance requirement on Texas under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act was appropriate. Today’s filing asks the Court to allow the Department to participate as a party in further proceedings on the question of whether Texas should be made subject to Section 3(c).

A federal court in the District of Columbia has previously held that Texas had failed to meet its burden of proving that its 2011 redistricting plans and its 2011 voter identification law were not discriminatory under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. These decisions were vacated after the Supreme Court’s June decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Supreme Court’s decision left unaffected the non-discrimination requirements of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the bail-in provisions of Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, and today’s filings seek to enforce those important protections.

The filings in the Texas redistricting and Texas voter identification matters will be available on the Civil Rights Division’s website later today. More information about the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws is available on the Department of Justice website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/. Complaints about discriminatory voting practices may be reported to the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931.

July 25, 2013

Attorney General Holder and Section 3 of Voting Rights Act

The announcement by Attorney General Holder that the DOJ is seeking to apply Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act to Texas is a big deal and carries some risk. Section 3 of the voting rights act is the bail in section where courts can force a jurisdiction to submit changes for preclearance. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/25/19678352-holder-justice-dept-will-contest-texas-redistricting?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=4

"This request to 'bail in' the state -- and require it to obtain pre-approval from either the department or a federal court before implementing future voting changes -- is available under the Voting Rights Act when intentional voting discrimination is found," he said.

"We believe that the State of Texas should be required to go through a pre-clearance process whenever it changes its voting laws and practices."

In the filing with the Federal Court, the DOJ raises a number of reasons why preclearance is necessary for Texas http://txredistricting.org/post/56451053952/dojs-court-filing-on-section-3 The pleading and brief filed here is well done and there are good facts to show that Texas needs to be subject to preclearance

I love the fact that Abbott, Goodhair, Senator Box Turtle and others are very upset by this filing. http://txredistricting.org/post/56440055042/reactions-from-texas-members-of-congress-on-the-latest and http://txredistricting.org/post/56436751447/gov-perrys-press-statement-on-dojs-section-3-move

Gov. Rick Perry’s press statement responding to DOJ’s move on section 3:

"Once again, the Obama Administration is demonstrating utter contempt for our country’s system of checks and balances, not to mention the U.S. Constitution. This end-run around the Supreme Court undermines the will of the people of Texas, and casts unfair aspersions on our state’s common-sense efforts to preserve the integrity of our elections process."

The DOJ's use of Section 3 is high risk in that the SCOTUS may review this section but has the potential of stopping the Texas voter id law

The state of Texas has made clear it will fight the DOJ’s efforts, and argues that both Section 3 and Section 5 are unconstitutional. That means they could appeal directly to the Supreme Court if civil rights advocates succeed at “bailing in” Texas. “It would go as a direct appeal to the Supreme Court,” Hasen said. “And I think the Supreme Court would take the case.”

If Texas wins the case, it’s unclear if DOJ would appeal. But if it loses, it’s all but certain Texas will appeal. In a statement Thursday, Gov. Rick Perry (R) slammed Holder’s move as reflecting “utter contempt for our country’s system of checks and balances” and said that an “end run around the Supreme Court undermines the will of the people of Texas.”

The Justice Department sees this as the first step in their efforts to crack down on voter discrimination with the tools they still have under the Voting Rights Act. Officials are closely watching other state-level moves, such as the voter ID push in North Carolina. Part of the aim is to fire a warning shot to states and make clear that they’ll face DOJ pushback if they seek to exploit the Supreme Court decision.

This will be a fun fight to watch.

July 24, 2013

Roast of Juanita Jean

The Fort Bend Silver Democrats are roasting Juanita Jean this Saturday, July 27 http://juanitajean.com/2013/07/24/last-chance/

I will be there and would love to see some other DUers at this event

July 8, 2013

Poem read at Senate Hearings-If my Vagina was a Gun

As a father of two strong Texas women, this poem made me smile http://dailytexanonline.com/blogs/the-update/2013/07/08/liveblog-texas-senate-committee-hears-abortion-legislation

Austinite Katie Heim was one of many to testify before the committee. Unlike the other testifiers, she read a poem she wrote, called "If My Vagina Was a Gun." Read the full poem, below:
"If my vagina was a gun, you would stand for its rights,
You would ride on buses and fight all the fights.
If my vagina was a gun, you would treat it with care,
You wouldn't spill all its secrets because, well, why go there.
If my vaginas was a gun, you'd say what it holds is private
From cold dead hands we could pry, you surely would riot.
If my vagina was a gun, it's rights would all be protected,
no matter the body count or the children effected.
If my vagina was a gun, I could bypass security,
concealed carry laws would ensure I'd have impunity.
If my vagina was a gun, I wouldn't have to beg you,
I could hunt this great land and do all the things men do.
But my vagina is not a gun, it is a mightier thing,
With a voice that rings true making lawmakers ears ring.
Vaginas are not delicate, they are muscular and magic,
So stop messing with mine, with legislation that's tragic.
My vagina's here to demand from the source,
Listen to the voices of thousand or feel their full force."