Burnt Orange Report

DC Court Gives Preview of How Texas Voter ID Case Might Play Out

Edward Garris — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:00:00 GMT

Last week, the world received some guidance on how the Texas Voter ID case might play out. Currently, the Texas Voter ID case is set for trial on July 9 in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. Among other things, the state of Texas has challenged the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act (the "Act") which has required Texas to seek preclearance before it can implement the Voter ID law it passed in 2011.

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last week struck down another challenge to the constitutionality of the Act, this one brought by Shelby County, Alabama.
The County claimed that Congress exceeded its enumerated powers when it reauthorized Section 5 of the Act in 2006 - the section that requires that covered jurisdictions obtain preclearance before they can effectuate certain laws pertaining to voting.

In its challenge to the Act's constitutionality, Alabama made two key arguments: 1) the remedy of preclearance imposed by Section 5 of the Act is not congruent and proportional to the harm (i.e.: the current burdens are not justified by the current needs), and 2) the disparate geographic coverage (i.e.: only a few states and counties are required to get preclearance before implementing new voter laws) is not sufficiently related to the problem it targets. The D.C. court was not persuaded.
In a sweeping, historically-minded, soundly-reasoned opinion, the D.C. appeals court rejected the Alabama county's arguments. Tracing the history of the Republic, the division of powers between state and federal government, the opinion explains the tension between federalism as a safeguard against oppression with states' rights as an instrumentality to uphold slavery. It recounts the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, as well as Jim Crow, poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and property qualifications, as well as other disenfranchising devices, setting the ground for the passage of the Act in 1965.

The linchpin of the court's opinion is deference to legislative findings - in short, that Congress is in a better position to decide whether the protections of the Voting Rights Act are still necessary. The court's role, loosely but not technically stated, is to determine if Congress had the appropriate basis to make the finding it did. In this case, the Court held that Congress was well within its authority under the Constitution when it reauthorized the provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 2006.

CONGRESS' MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE

In finding that Congress did not exceed its constitutional authority, the court noted a legislative record "over 15,000 pages in length, and includ[ing] statistics, findings by courts and the Justice Department, and first-hand accounts of discrimination." That evidence regarded "racial disparities in voter registration, voter turnout, and electoral success; the nature and number of section 5 objections; judicial preclearance suits and section 5 enforcement actions; successful section 2 litigation; the use of "more information requests" and federal election observers; racially polarized voting; and section 5's deterrent effect."

In deferring to Congressional authority and findings, the court stated that when Congress legislates against discrimination in voting - "one of the gravest evils that Congress can seek to redress" - it is at the apex of its power. Uniquely:

"Expressly prohibited by the Fifteenth Amendment, racial discrimination in voting is uniquely harmful in several ways: it cannot be remedied by money damages and, as Congress found, lawsuits to enjoin discriminatory voting laws are costly, take years to resolve, and leave those elected under the challenged law with the benefit of incumbency."

The Alabama county argued that Congress still exceeded its powers because the types of disenfranchisement the Act sought to redress are not the types of acts found today. The court roundly turned on this argument:

"Although such methods may be "more subtle than the visible methods used in 1965," Congress concluded that their "effect and results are the same, namely a diminishing of the minority community's ability to fully participate in the electoral process and to elect their preferred candidates of choice."

In short, the rules may have changed, but the game has not.

CONTINUED, PERVASIVE DISCRIMINATION

The court went on to cite various instances of disenfranchisement in the last 25 years, some blatant, some insidious, including: abruptly canceling an election, reducing the black population in various districts, reviving dual-registration systems from 1882, creating a new at-large seat on a county board, threatening to prosecute students near an historically black university for illegal voting. One of those actually happened in Texas in 2004.

Moreover, in reaching its conclusion, Congress relied on evidence of "the tens of thousands of Federal observers that have been dispatched to observe elections in covered jurisdictions"" and had found that many jurisdictions covered by the Act had not sought preclearance for new voting laws, but rather had implemented them anyway, in violation of federal law.

The court summarized Congress' findings thus:

"This brings us, then, to Congress's ultimate conclusion...
• 626 Attorney General objections that blocked discriminatory voting changes;
• 653 successful section 2 cases;
• over 800 proposed voting changes withdrawn or modified in response to MIRs;
• tens of thousands of observers sent to covered jurisdictions;
• 105 successful section 5 enforcement actions;
• 25 unsuccessful judicial preclearance actions;
• and section 5's strong deterrent effect, i.e., "the number of voting changes that have never gone forward as a result of Section 5.""

In short, Section 5 of the Act is still as necessary as ever.

DISPARATE TREATMENT NECESSARY

Are the jurisdictions covered by the Act still the correct ones? Here, the court answered yes. Shelby County, Alabama, targeted the formula in the Voting Rights Act, found in Section 4 of the Act, stating that it, too, was outmoded, and that disparate treatment was unwarranted. Focusing the inquiry on whether the preclearance requirement of the Act covered jurisdictions where unconstitutional voting discrimination was concentrated, the court held that the disparate treatment for certain jurisdictions was still warranted.

The court especially cited the notion of bailing in or bailing out. Under bail-in and bailout, jurisdictions which came under the Act at the time of its original passage in 1965 could bail out if they had a clean record concerning voting rights for ten years in a row. Conversely, jurisdictions whose record had lapsed or had become problematic relative to civil rights could be bailed in and become covered jurisdictions under the Act where they previously had not.

The court cited bail-in and bailout because it emphasized that bail-in and bailout ensured that the Act covered only those jurisdictions which truly required it - those which truly offended voting rights. The statute, on its face, it congruent and proportional and rationally related to the evil it seeks to remedy. Moreover, the court noted that the Alabama county had not sought bailout from the Act. Why? As it happens, Shelby County was, in fact, one of the jurisdictions which had previously passed and implemented changes to its voting laws without first seeking preclearance under the Act, in clear violation of federal law. The county would never have received the bailout had it sought it. Its failure to do so was a tacit admission that it did not, in fact, have a clean voting rights record. The court was able to point this out - that the county's own actions defeated its argument that it should not be covered under the Act and that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Act.

As the Texas Voter ID law goes to court in the jurisdiction where the Alabama challenge failed, it is interesting to note that the Alabama case itself had Texas roots. Shelby County's principal authority was the U.S. Supreme Court case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 2504 (2009). In that case, the Supreme Court had, in fact, cast doubt on the continued necessity of the Voting Rights Act. As the D.C. court put it:

"On appeal, the Supreme Court identified two "serious . . . questions" about section 5's continued constitutionality, namely, whether the "current burdens" it imposes are "justified by current needs," and whether its "disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets." Nw. Austin, 129 S. Ct. at 2512-13."

Shelby County tied its arguments to the dicta in the Supreme Court opinion, hoping that authority would secure its case. In a deft sleight of hand, designed to insulate it from harsh scrutiny and a possible overruling at the U.S. Supreme Court, the panel of D.C. judges also relied on Northwest Austin to entirely undermine the Alabama challenge. Currently, D.C. does not seem receptive to constitutional challenges to the Act. It looks fit to survive all comers.

And, lest we forget, the Supreme Court will soon be weighing in on yet another Texas civil rights case, this one concerning education.

View the opinion here.

See where it all began with the Northwest Austin case.

The case took another turn when Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott dropped his opposition to a number of depositions being taken, as the Austin-American Statesman reported.

Texas Senate Showdown: Four Days to Go

Ben Sherman — Fri, 25 May 2012 15:00:00 GMT

96 hours until we may know which Republican candidate will misrepresent us in the Senate.

Their primary sure is heating up, GOP-style. A week ago, newly released fundraising numbers showed that Dewhurst and Cruz have eached raised the same amount of money - $6.1 million in the latest, giving numerical backing to the obvious: this is getting close.

Polls show a runoff is entirely possible, and even likely. A UT/Texas Tribune poll released May 21 shows the race at Dewhurst 40 - Cruz 31 - Leppert 17 - James 4. A Public Policy Polling survey taken between Tuesday and Wednesday found the race standing at Dewhurst 46 - Cruz 29 - Leppert 15 - James 3. The recent BOR poll shows the race at Dewhurst 43 - Cruz 30 - Leppert 14 - James 5.

Yesterday, Cruz got a piping hot endorsement from Rick Santorum. "Ted Cruz is spellbinding, a tremendous orator and principled," Santorum said on Glenn Beck's radio show. "We need people who can motivate and lead ... Ted has that capability."

Fully disagreed. Nevertheless, let's move on. We know that Cruz has tea bags like Santorum soaking every inch of his public image (for apparently no other reason than he's the most viable candidate to beat an incumbent). What we don't know is whether he can force a runoff against Dewhurst by keeping him under 50%.

My guess is that there will probably be a runoff. While Cruz isn't all that exciting himself, he's unquestionably capturing the vote of the attention-paying "Tea Party" Republicans. And Tom Leppert is siphoning off a sizable chunk of DFW voters and business-minded Republicans. Dewhurst seems to know this is a close fight: "I'm confident that we'll be the top vote-getter," he said Wednesday night. "As long as I'm the top vote-getter I'm happy with the results." In politician-speak, that means he's pretty damn sure there'll be a runoff. And Dewhurst hasn't been sitting on his hands; he's been attacking Cruz for months and recently started going after Tom Leppert.

The Dewhurst campaign made a website, LiberalTomLeppert.com, doing the obvious and attacking the big-city mayor for a "liberal" record. To match the negative with the positive, Dewhurst even has a new ad out featuring Mike Huckabee praising his "conservative" record.

A runoff will be brutal and enjoyable, as such GOP affairs are wont to be. The Republicans might as well save their breath though; any of their candidate would be a perfect nominee to represent their party. Obedient corporate whores and bad Texans. Harsh words. Oh, to live in a world where they weren't dead-on.

Last Day To Early Vote, Plus Map of Travis County Locations and Times

Katherine Haenschen — Fri, 25 May 2012 13:00:00 GMT

Today is the last date to vote early in the 2012 primary. If you haven't voted yet, go today. If you are here in Travis County, check out our map of locations below.

Remember: only the Travis County Clerk's office at 5501 Airport Blvd. is open until 7:00 p.m. tonight. Most other Early Voting locations close at 6:00 p.m.

Check out the full list of early voting sites here or check the map below. You can also see a full list of hours for each location here.

The information displayed on this map is taken directly from the Travis County Clerk's Elections Division. For a list of mobile voting locations, please click here. Election Day precinct polling locations for May 29th are located here.

Share a link to this map: bit.ly/travisearlyvote

View 2012 Travis County Primary Early Vote Locations in a larger map

Two New Ads from the Obama Campaign: The President's Record on Medicare and Veterans

Emily Cadik — Thu, 24 May 2012 17:00:00 GMT

It's game time. With the intra-party Republican battle unfortunately over, the President is starting to ramp up with his own ads. He's been catching flak lately for the Bain ad in which he attacks Romney's record in private equity, using it as part of a larger message about Romney's disregard for the middle and working classes.

But in the most recently released ads from the Obama campaign, the message is much more positive. Focusing on Medicare and veterans, these ads bring attention back to the President's record:

"Personal" highlights the President's commitment to preserving Medicare. It reminds us that he was raised by his grandparents and thus understands the importance of the entitlement and of fighting Medicare fraud - not just on a political level, but on a personal one too. In contrast to Republicans trying to cut spending on the backs of the most vulnerable, the ad draws attention to Obama's crackdown on Medicare fraud, which recovered $4.1 billion (up 50% from 2009) by better screening providers and requiring stronger enrollment requirements. This ad comes in the wake of Romney announcing support for the Ryan budget, which includes major cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

"Sacred Trust" is about the President's commitment to veterans. Though it serves as a gentle reminder that bin Laden was killed under the President's watch, it focuses on Obama's dedication to increasing the resources for veterans once they come home. Though it doesn't go into specifics, things like signing the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act early in his first term, signing a law that provides tax credits to companies that hire unemployed veterans, and strengthening the post-9/11 GI bill to help veterans and their spouses pay for college support his message.

The ads on the recovery of the auto industry, jobs, education and energy are available on the site as well. And presumably some more attack ads will surface again soon. But for today, it's all positivity from the Obama campaign.

More Primary Updates: Super and Not-So-Super PACS, Endorsements, and Do This Thing

Katherine Haenschen — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:00:00 GMT

Well, with election news coming fast and furious, it's time for another update.

Vote for A Texan: Joaquin Castro, Nick Lampson, and Pete Gallego are in a contest with other DCCC candidates to win a fundraising email. Vote for them here. The winner gets a sweet fundraising email.

Ron-Paul-Supporting SuperPAC supporting... Michael Cargill? Yes, the crazy gun nut in the Democratic primary for Travis County Constable in Precinct 2 has picked up support from the "Liberty for All" SuperPAC. The SuperPAC was started by John Ramsey, a 21-year-old college student from Nacogdoches, and apparently has substantial cash in it -- they spent a half-million in a Kentucky Congressional race and won an open primary. Yikes.

CD-21: Some of the Anti-SOPA folks have organized to buy a billboard outside of Internet freedom-hater Lamar Smith's office, which reads "Don't mess with the Internet." There is also a kick-ass tee-shirt.

CD-23: The national League of Conservation Voters is going hard against Ciro Rodriguez in the CD-23 primary. First they spent $95,296 on a mail program, and now they're spending $100,000 on TV. Here's the ad:

Harris County Board of Education: Diane Trautman was endorsed by Democracy for America. Trautman previously ran for Harris County Tax Assessor Collector.

SD-11: Democratic donor Steve Mostyn has donated $275,000 to one of Larry Taylor's Republican primary opponents, Dave Norman, in the open race for SD-11. No surprise, since Larry Taylor's main funders are Texans for Lawsuit Reform, who have given Taylor $800,000. Taylor is basically a wholly paid subsidiary of TLR, as he helps the group their efforts to fight consumer-focused insurance reform, gauge insurance purchasers, and not pay insurance claims. While it may be surprising, remember that given our gerrymandered state and basic lack of competitive general election districts, often the only way to get rid of bad Republicans is to knock them out in the primaries. The Texas Tribune has more.

Do This Thing: Last reminder, go vote in the DCCC contest!

GOP Candidates for Texas Ed Board: Government Not Responsible for Education

Texas Freedom Network — Fri, 18 May 2012 22:10:24 GMT

Cross-posted from TFN Insider

At least 10 out of 27 Republicans seeking election to the State Board of Education (SBOE), which oversees public education across Texas, say they don't agree that "it is the government’s responsibility to be sure children are properly educated." Of 13 Republicans responding to a candidate survey sent out by a collection of religious-right groups, three said they "disagree" with that statement, while another seven said they "strongly disagree."

Eight Republican candidates in the May 29 SBOE primaries didn't respond to the survey. Six candidates who are unopposed in their GOP primaries did not get the questionnaire. Just three Republicans affirmed the importance of public education in Texas. The religious-right groups that sponsored the survey (all of which are nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations) didn't question Democratic candidates.

Here's what Article 7 of the Texas Constitution says about government's role in education (emphasis added):

"A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools."

The candidate survey was part of voter guide put together by three Texas-based religious-right groups and the American Family Association (AFA), a Mississippi-based organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified as a hate group. Texas Gov. Rick Perry asked the AFA to organize his prayer extravaganza in Houston last August, an event that occurred just a week before the governor declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. The Texas groups involved in the voter guide project are Texas Eagle Forum, Heritage Alliance and Liberty Institute (the Texas affiliate of Focus on the Family).

These groups also sent emails to far-right activists around the state, asking for volunteers to "grade" candidates' responses to the survey questions. According to information provided online along with the summaries of candidate responses, candidate "grades" were also based on such things as legislative voting records, campaign donation history, statements on campaign websites and endorsements from "conservative and liberal groups." The graders apparently also took into consideration other candidates a particular candidate's donors gave money to. But much of that additional data isn't included in the online voter guide. You just have to trust the judgment of the graders.

The "voter guides," along with the "grades" given to candidates, are available here.

Of the 13 Republicans who responded to the candidate survey, 12 also said they "agree" or "strongly agree" that "free market competition for education dollars, rather than a government monopoly, would create a better education for all students." (One replied "neutral.") Supporters of school vouchers use that argument to call for diverting tax dollars from public schools to subsidize tuition at private and religious schools.

Among the other statements on which candidates were asked to state their agreement or disagreement:

Human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection at every stage until natural death. Biology textbooks which do not teach both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution should be rejected by the Board. I support school counseling or teaching about homosexuality. I support displaying the Ten Commandments in public school buildings. Any teaching to children on sex education in public schools must include all contraceptive methods, and should not show preference to abstinence.

The summaries of candidate responses comes with the following disclaimer:

Expenses related to grading paid for by Heritage Alliance. Nothing on this site is authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Heritage Alliance does not support or oppose candidates; iVoterGuide.com should not be construed as support for or opposition to candidates.

Yeah. Sure.

All of the eight Republican candidates who didn't respond to the questionnaires got low grades, in most cases either an F or a D.

The following SBOE candidates got the highest grades in their contested GOP primaries:

Veronica Anzaldua, Corpus Christi, District 2 (C)
Ken Mercer, San Antonio, District 5 (incumbent) (A)
David Bradley, Beaumont, District 7 (incumbent) (A+)
Barbara Cargill, The Woodlands, District 8 (incumbent) (A+)
Randy Stevenson, Tyler, District 9 (A)
Jeff Fleece, Liberty Hill, District 10 (A)
Gail Spurlock, Richardson, District 12 (A)
Gail Lowe, Lampasas, District 13 (incumbent) (A)
Marty Rowley, Amarillo, District 15, (B)

That appears to be the religious-right's slate of favored candidates in contested Republican primaries for the State Board of Education in Texas. Rowley was the only candidate from that list who "agreed" with government's responsibility to educate Texas children. Rowley joined most of the other candidates who expressed opposition to abortion; agree that the state board should reject biology textbooks that don't include so-called "weaknesses" of evolution; disagree with "counseling or teaching" about homosexuality; agree with displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools; and oppose teaching about contraception in sex education classes.

You can find a listing of SBOE candidates along with district data and other election news and information at tfn.org/sboe2012.

Roundup of Democratic and Republican Primary News

Katherine Haenschen — Tue, 22 May 2012 20:00:00 GMT

Lots of press releases and news stories coming in with election day only one week away.

Democratic Primary:

CD-33: Tensions have flared in the Metroplex after former State Rep. Domingo Garcia attacked State Rep. Marc Veasey and former Congressman Martin Frost for conducting a press conference with men and women who work at the General Motors assembly plant in Arlington. Garcia accused Veasey of standing with "Wall Street Corporations," while Veasey and other Metroplex media organizations have pushed back against Garcia for attacking a major area employer. Today, Veasey sent out a release asking his opponent to stop mudlinging and focus on educational opportunities:

"Working families in North Texas have neither the time nor the desire to wade through all this mudslinging," said Veasey. "Schools in DFW are literally closing down, the ladders of education opportunity are being pulled out from under our children. I would rather talk about how we reverse course and focus on improving our schools rather than engaging in petty political attacks."

US Senate: In the UT/TT poll released yesterday, Paul Sadler led the field with 29%. Sean Hubbard came in second with 25%. Addie Allen had 19% and Grady Yarborough had 11%. 15% said they don't know. Results here.

HD-90: Lon Burnam's campaign is touting a poll showing him with a 54%-27% lead over challenger Carlos Vasquez. The poll was conducted by Jeff Smith of Opinion Analysts. Vasquez seems to be coming apart on the trail in the last few weeks of campaigning as he has lashed out at Burnam and apparently exhibited some odd behavior at candidate forums.

HCDP: At the Harris County Democratic Party's BBQ event last weekend, attendees participated in a straw poll in a wide range of races, from President to County Chair. Click here to see the results!

SD-14: Not really primary news, but congrats to Preston Watson, son of Senator Kirk Watson, who graduated from UT last weekend with a degree in history.

Additionally, all candidates on the ballot would like to urge you to vote early this week. Early voting ends Friday. Election Day is next Tuesday, but since it's right after the three-day Memorial Day weekend, you might forget. Vote now!

Republican Primary:

There's lots of muck on the other side of the aisle and plenty of money to sling it with.

US Senate: Sarah Palin endorsed Ted Cruz, then apparently sent a robo-call to voters in Florida and Kansas to tell them about it. Ah, it makes me think back to four years ago, when Republicans -- or at least the one they nominated for the Presidency -- wanted her to be one heartbeat from the Oval Office.

Railroad Commissioner: Roland "Don't Pee on the Electric Fence" Sledge claims to have earned the endorsement of primary opponent Beryl Burgess, which should certainly shake up the race. Sledge is also touting a long list of conservative blog endorsements. Pfft. Blog endorsements.

CD-4: The Campaign for Primary Accountability is spending $100K on mail, TV, and radio against Ralph Hall in the 4th district. Hall has two challengers, Steve Clark and Lou Gigliotti. Will it be enough to force a run-off or unseat the incumbent?

HD-19: Republicans James White and Mike "Tuffy" Hamilton were paired together in redistricting and are now fighting a brutal primary against each other. Last Friday, Hamilton released records showing that White was "admonished for inappropriate sexual references" while he was a teacher at Livingston HS. He was reprimanded and later resigned. From Quorum Report:

According to the documents obtained by the Hamilton Campaign through Open Records requests, White was first notified of the student and parent complaints in August of 2006. Both he and the principal of Livingston HS signed a letter documenting their conversation about his behavior that resulted in student complaints including, "What is more intimate... sharing your credit scores or having sexual intercourse." And "other comments such as 'girls are used as a utility for guys.'"
"Further discussion took place in regard to student/parent complaints about comments such as 'after a man and a woman have sex... then their undergarments are mixed together in the same washing machine."

In his response, White called the attacks a "desperate lie."

White, the African-American Tea Partier, is considered the favorite over Hamilton. It kind of cracks me up that Tea Party wackos are about to elect someone who lost their job for making inappropriate sexual comments about large household appliances.

Referendum on Hawaii Statehood: In case you missed it, BOR PAC released a poll of likely Republican primary voters, which asked them if they believe the President was born in the United States. 60% said no. 21% "aren't sure." And these are the folks who are deciding the eventual winners in our statewide races. Yikes.

Miscellaneous:

PACS, Man! The Texas Tribune put together a really handy interactive guide to the various PACs that have endorsed. Scariest is probably the YCT's endorsing in SBOE races. That can't end well. And by "well," I mean "with educated Texans." But hey, all the better for the YCT membership drive, I suppose.

Hector Enriquez, TAB, and Their Fight Against Basic School Standards

Michael Hurta — Tue, 22 May 2012 17:30:00 GMT

The Texas Association of Business (TAB) must really, really like El Paso State House candidate Hector Enriquez. Enriquez is running in the Democratic Primary for an open seat against BOR-endorsed Mary Gonzalez.

Enriquez also holds the dubious distinction as being the only non-incumbent Democrat to be endorsed by TAB. (And even then, TAB only endorsed 2 House incumbents - one who is unopposed). So, they're going out on a limb for this guy. They tend to endorse Republicans, and they definitely don't endorse normal, unsafe Democrats. Not in primaries...except Enriquez.

Perhaps it has to do with their part in the school finance lawsuits. That's what the Texas State Teachers Association believes, who sent this in a press release last week:

El Paso educators today challenged District 75 legislative candidate Hector Enriquez to explain why he apparently is promoting a special interest lawsuit that could devastate public schools in El Paso County.
"Mr. Enriquez is either unaware of the damage this lawsuit could inflict on our schools, or he is joining forces with those who would destroy our public education system," said Glenda Hawthorne, president of the Socorro Education Association.
Enriquez recently re-tweeted news that the Texas Association of Business (TAB) has joined a lawsuit filed by charter and private school advocates, which attempts to strike down education standards and safeguards crucial to maintaining a strong learning environment for students. Enriquez, a candidate for the Texas House District 75 seat in the May 29 Democratic primary, has been endorsed by TAB.
TAB joined the so-called "efficiency" lawsuit, which claims Chapter 21 of the Education Code is unconstitutional. The net effect of striking Chapter 21 would be repealing the 22-to-1 class size cap for elementary students, removing all training and certification requirements for teachers, eliminating critical class-preparation periods for teachers and jeopardizing teacher retirement benefits.

While it is encouraging to see anyone take issue with this Republican Legislature's record on public education, the largest problem is the gigantic slashes to funding, not standards that keep our education from going lower.

It's hard to tell exactly how conservative Enriquez's education ideas are, but between TAB, his Perry donations, and his scant issues page, we can probably connect the dots. You would think that a candidate in a safe Democratic seat would be a prouder progressive.

GottaVote.org: Everything You Need to Know About Voting (En Español También)

Emily Cadik — Tue, 22 May 2012 17:00:00 GMT

With primary season in full swing, Obama for America launched GottaVote.org, a bilingual resource to help navigate voting laws, deadlines and other important details by state.

On the page for Texas, you can see that you need to register 30 days before the election, what to bring to the polls (and the forms that substitute for a voter registration card), find your polling place and hours, learn how to vote early or by mail, and sign up for reminders about voting deadlines and important dates.

Aside from being practically useful, it's interesting (and sometimes disturbing) to compare the voting laws and requirements between states. In the past year alone, Republican legislatures in eight states have passed some form of a law requiring voter ID:

The claim is of course that voter ID laws would protect voter fraud - a thinly veiled excuse for keeping the traditionally disenfranchised groups who vote Democrat from voting. Attorney General Eric Holder tells it like it is:

"Each of these lawsuits claims that we've attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2012 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 [which requires the sixteen states or parts of states with a history of discrimination to receive federal approval before changing their voting laws] is no longer necessary. I wish this were the case. But the reality is that - in jurisdictions across the country - both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common - and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history."

Texas' own version of the voter ID law was blocked by the U.S. Department of Justice for disproportionately targeting Hispanics. Thanks to the Obama Administration, the law did not go into effect for the 2012 primary elections. But it's still a mess, with a court case pending over pronouncements on the back of voter registration cards suggesting the law has actually been approved.

The Obama Administration has blocked other similar laws as well, including one in South Carolina that disproportionately targeted African Americans. And the battle isn't just limited to voter ID - sixteen states are also considering laws that would end voter registration on Election Day.

In the wake of all of the attacks on voting rights, it's nice to see that one party is still interested in allowing - nay, encouraging - everyone to vote.

Travis DA: Charlie Baird Has Disconcerting History of Putting Violent Offenders Back on The Streets

Katherine Haenschen — Tue, 22 May 2012 15:14:06 GMT

As the acrimonious race for Travis County District Attorney heads to the finish line, the campaigns of incumbent Rosemary Lehmberg and challenger Charlie Baird seem determined to illustrate whether or not each candidate possesses the discretion and temperament required for the job as our county's top prosecutor. With the start of early voting last week, Baird's campaign has gone extremely negative with a series of live phone calls that verge on a push poll -- according to the Austin Chronicle, three separate voters reported receiving calls asking what they would think if they knew Lehmberg had taken money from people in return for not prosecuting them, i.e. did she take bribes. Baird claims it wasn't a push poll and that the callers are remembering it incorrectly.

Lehmberg's campaign has pushed back against Baird's accusations in an ad in this week's Chronicle that states, "Charlie Baird has sent out 2 dishonest pieces of mail... Baird has no factual basis for any of the charges he has made. A District Attorney has to make decisions based on real facts, not what serves his political interest. Charlie Baird is rapidly proving he is judgmentally unfit to be District Attorney." Lehmberg's response points to an issue that has long simmered in the DA's race: whether Baird has the temperament and discretion to handle the role of Travis County's top prosecutor.

The role of district attorney is a challenging balance between making sure that county prosecutors have enough to convict violent offenders while also looking for ways to rehabilitate people and prevent recidivism (and hopefully not clogging up our criminal justice system and jails with minor drug offenders). Baird has largely been running on the need to make justice work for "everyone," tied to his reputation as a staunch advocate for defendants' rights.

However, Baird's own record on the 299th District Court, one of Travis County's felony courts, suggests that this advocacy manifested itself into an alarming tendency to put serious, violent offenders back out on the streets via personal bonds.

Before we get into why this matters, some explanation is in order. Defense attorneys can seek a personal bond, or PR (personal recognizance) bond, which gets the defendant out of jail until their trial without paying their bail. Before a judge grants a PR bond, the Pretrial Review Services review department looks at the defendant's past criminal record and recommends whether the judge should grant the PR bond or not. Factors include past criminal history -- a defendant with no prior arrests, no violent offenses, or small drug charges is likely to be recommended for a PR bond. However, a person with a history of arrests or violent crimes is likely to be recommended against.

In his four years on the 299th District Court, Baird led our district courts -- felony and misdemeanor courts alike -- in his granting of PR bonds against the wishes of pre-trail services, by an overwhelming margin. His record amongst felony judges is even more alarming. Several of the people Baird released would go on to commit additional crimes that could have potentially been prevented with a more judicious use of PR bonds by Baird.

*PR Bonds approved by Travis County's state District Court felony benches after initial "no" recommendation by Pretrial Services, FY 2009*
Wilford Flowers:	26
Mike Lynch:	66
Charlie Baird:	408
Bob Perkins:	42
Julie Kocurek:	35
Brenda Kennedy:	11
Melissa Goodwin / Jim Coronado:	61
District Court Magistrate:	76

A study by the Austin American-Statesman of fiscal year 2009 demonstrates the discrepancy between Baird and the rest of our felony benches here in Travis County. The chart reproduced at right accompanied a lengthy article about Baird's use of PR bonds.

There are plenty of folks who would argue that this was the right decision by Baird, that too many people are in jail, it costs us money, etc. But remember that this is a felony bench where judges heard cases involving murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, arson, fraud, grand larceny, and other serious offenses. This isn't Baird putting a bunch of dope smokers or frat boys accused of public intoxication back out on the streets. This is Baird deciding that people who plead guilty to armed bank robbery are perfectly safe to be walking our streets.

A search through the archives of the Austin American-Statesman brings up dozens of cases in which Baird actively chose to personal bond violent felons, many of whom went on to commit further crimes while back on the streets thanks to Baird. He gave other serious criminals -- people charged with sexual assault of a child, armed robbery and homicide -- the lightest sentence allowable by law.

Learn more about several specific cases below the jump.
Personal Bonds and Light Sentences for Violent Criminals

Homicide -- Jonathan Anthony Kelly-Contreras. The 17 year old killed an elderly woman, Jennie Sue McClusky, as part of a gang initiation just one month after he was released on a PR bond by Judge Charlie Baird. McClusky died after she was robbed and injured by Kelly-Contreras and a friend. Kelly-Contreras, "had been released by state District Judge Charlie Baird last month on a personal recognizance bond on the aggravated robbery charge." [Source: Statesman]

Child Abuse -- Emily McDonald. McDonald put feces in her 3-year-old daughter's hospital feeding tube, and Baird let her go free on PR bond. McDonald was later found with another child and returned to jail by another Judge, who said she "would never have released McDonald on personal bond pending trial." McDonald was arrested for smearing fecal matter in her hospitalized infant daughter's feeding tube, after hospital staff became suspicious of the infant's illness and set up a hidden camera. Staff caught McDonald smearing feces on her daughter's IV cap. The mother told hospital authorities that she smeared feces on the IV line five times during the child's six-week hospital stay. Judge Charlie Baird let her go free on personal bond. McDonald was later found with a child, in violation of her release. She was eventually sentenced to 20 years in prison. [Source: Statesman]

Child Sexual Assault -- Jose Gonzalez. Gonzalez was given a PR bond against the wishes of pretrial review after he was arrested for sexual assault of a child. Gonzalez was in the country illegally, on probation, and awaiting deportation. Gonzalez had a record in both juvenile and adult court for various crimes, culminating in the sexual assault of a child. Baird gave Gonzalez a personal bond. [Source: Court Documents]

Repeat Armed Robbery -- Norvin Buggage. Buggage pled guilty to charges of robbing a bank in Austin and accepted a 15 year sentence. Instead, Baird gave him eight years of deferred adjudication -- a form of probation with no jail time -- for a crime punishable by up to life in prison. Only three months later, Buggage was arrested in New Orleans (in violation of his probation, which forbade leaving the county) on another charge of attempted armed robbery with a firearm and battery of a police officer. Baird sentenced him to five years in prison. [Source: Statesman]

Child Sexual Assault -- Stanislaus Smalls. Smalls, a 42 year old man, pled guilty to two counts of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy he met on MySpace. The Statesman writes, "The plea was unnegotiated, manning it was up to state District Judge Charlie Baird to determine the sentence." Baird gave the man 8 years probation -- no jail time -- for a crime that is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. [Source: Statesman 4.20.2007]

Burglary and Robbery -- Maurice York. Baird sentenced York to deferred adjudication for burglary and armed robbery. The Statesman writes, "while on probation, York, 22, went on to commit more than 20 robberies in Austin. Hindsight is 20-20, and York is now serving a 50-year sentence." The victims of those 20 robberies might question why Baird thought it was a good idea to let their attacker avoid jail time. [Source: Statesman]

Murder -- Carlos Mares. Mares pled guilty for a drug charge and was awaiting a seven-month jail sentence. Baird gave Mares a personal bond and sent him to a halfway house. Mares got drunk with the owner of the halfway house and stabbed him several times. The halfway house operator died. [Source: Statesman]

Murder -- Raul Acedo. Acedo was a meth user with a prison record involved in two shootings on the same day. Baird sent Acedo to prison for 15 years for one of the shootings. The Statesman writes, "The sentence was the minimum allowed given Acedo's criminal record ... Acedo could have gotten up to life in prison." Acedo was involved in another shooting the same day, for which he pleaded guilty and received a concurrent 12-year sentence. Acedo pled guilty to murder in a deal that left the sentencing up to Baird. [Source: Statesman]

Homicide and Domestic Violence -- Eric Skeeter Skeeter punched a man, who fell down and later died of his injuries. Baird gave him 10 years probation. A year later, Skeeter was charged with assault for family violence, arrested, and put back in jail. [Source: Statesman]

These are just a few of the cases I found in the Statesman's archive. I am sure there are more. But just this handful of incidents demonstrates a disconcerting pattern by Baird to bond out serious offenders, after which they commit additional serious crimes.

Again, these aren't kids smoking dope, or first-time DWI offenders. These are violent criminals, many with a history of serious crimes, the exact kind of people the District Attorney is responsible for putting and keeping in jail.

Baird has received well-deserved accolades for his willingness to address the root causes of crime. He's absolutely correct to point to wider issues in our society -- such as a lack of access to education, insufficient food stamps and public assistance -- that play a role in causing crime in the first place. But the role of the District Attorney is not to address or solve those issues. The district attorney needs to put the really bad guys in jail and keep them there, something which Baird's own history shows a problematic unwillingness to do.

In his one term on the state's 299th District Court, Charlie Baird demonstrated an extreme tendency to put violent offenders back out on the street via personal bonds. The fact is, there's no one else on the bench even here in liberal Travis County who has this record of letting violent felons go free on probation, during which they commit further crimes.

The District Attorney is essentially the county's top prosecutor, and based solely on his record, it's unclear if Baird actually has the desire and willingness to sufficiently prosecute violent felons. One can joke about the Travis DA's race being about who is "softer on crime," but the reality is, as a judge Charlie Baird put some pretty awful people back on the streets.

BOR POLL: Republican Primary Voters Support Right-Wing Anti-Government Perspective

BOR PAC — Mon, 21 May 2012 21:15:00 GMT

(ICYMI, BOR PAC and People Calling People conducted a survey of likely Republican primary voters. We defined "likely voter" to mean a registered voter who had voted in at least two of the last three Republican Primaries (2006, 2008, 2010). Calls were placed to a random subset of those voters May 15-16, 2012. Read the results of our electoral questions here.)

Rounding out our statewide Republican primary poll, BOR PAC asked Republican primary voters to rate the importance of a range of issue positions and organizations active in their party's primary process. All questions were phrased as follows:

"Now we are going to list some things that voters consider in choosing a candidate. After each one, if it's very important to you, press 1; quite important, press 2; fairly important, press 3; slightly important, press 4; not at all important, press 5.

The results make clear that Republican primary voters are more supportive of right-wing, extremist positions that threaten the very existence of government than they are anything that might lead to functional policy or sanity. But then, we already knew that.

Here are the results:

"The ability to compromise and get things done"
Very Important	40%
Quite Important	24%
Fairly Important	18%
Slightly Important	8%
Not At All Important	9%
TOTAL (MOE 4.7%, 433 responses)	100%

"Commitment to conservative principles"
Very Important	71%
Quite Important	16%
Fairly Important	7%
Slightly Important	1%
Not At All Important	4%
TOTAL (MOE 4.8%, 423 responses)	100%

Want to understand why Republicans keep sending obstructionist Congressmen and Legislators to our national and state capitol? Look no further than these two questions, which demonstrate how Republicans feel more strongly about supporting candidates who will stick with their conservative principles rather than compromise to get things done. This is why the Republican Party keeps bringing the country to the brink of shutting down the government, refusing to raise the debt ceiling, and basically refusing to govern in a responsible manner.

"Closing unfair corporate tax loopholes"
Very Important	45%
Quite Important	23%
Fairly Important	18%
Slightly Important	7%
Not At All Important	6%
TOTAL (MOE 4.8%, 420 responses)	100%

"Keeping business taxes low"
Very Important	65%
Quite Important	21%
Fairly Important	9%
Slightly Important	3%
Not At All Important	2%
TOTAL (MOE 4.8%, 413 responses)	100%

When push comes to shove, Republicans care more about the abstract concept of "keeping business taxes low" than making sure that no one is cheating the system through unfair tax loopholes. The Republican base is clearly drunk on the anti-tax Kool Aid, and apparently even if corporations are getting away without paying their fair share, that's no problem as long as taxes stay low.

Realistically though, given the Republican majority in the Legislature, one can see how this is going to make it difficult on Speaker Straus -- should he survive his primary -- to get enough members of the Republican caucus to go along with efforts to close tax loopholes to do things like fund education and keep even a semblance of the social safety net. Answers like this -- and the survey results above -- demonstrate how difficult it is for Republican legislators to do anything remotely sensible in the house and not risk getting tossed out by a salivating GOP base hungry for red meat, no matter the cost to civilization. Speaking of anti-civilization....

"Endorsement of Texans for Lawsuit Reform"
Very Important	48%
Quite Important	27%
Fairly Important	16%
Slightly Important	4%
Not At All Important	6%
TOTAL (MOE 4.9%, 405 responses)	100%

"Endorsement of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility"
Very Important	63%
Quite Important	20%
Fairly Important	9%
Slightly Important	4%
Not At All Important	5%
TOTAL (MOE 4.8%, 410 responses)	100%

While both TLR and TFR (aka Empower Texans, aka Michael Quinn Sullivan) are Republican organizations, TLR is absolutely the more moderate of the two, in the sense that they're not fully against civilization in all of its forms. These results show that Republican primary voters are consistently more supportive of the extremist, right-wing factions of their party, over anything that tiptoes towards good government.

Democrats and Independents, you wonder why Republicans keep electing crazy right-wingers bent on destroying the state and the nation, who won't stop until the Pink Dome is a smoldering ash heap? These polling results show you exactly why.

But hey, what do you expect from a Republican electorate in which 81% don't know for sure that the President was born in the United States?

Support more polls and more projects like this. Make a donation to the Burnt Orange Polling Fund today!

BOR POLL: 60% of Texas Republicans Think President Not Born in US; 21% "Not Sure"

BOR PAC — Mon, 21 May 2012 17:15:00 GMT

As part of our year-long statewide polling series, BOR PAC and People Calling People conducted a survey of likely Republican primary voters. We defined "likely voter" to mean a registered voter who had voted in at least two of the last three Republican Primaries (2006, 2008, 2010). Calls were placed to a random subset of those voters May 15-16, 2012. Read the results of our electoral questions here.

At the end of the poll, we surveyed Republican primary voters on their attitudes towards President Barack Obama's country of origin. Here are the results:

"Do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?"
No	60%
Not Sure	21%
Yes	18%
TOTAL (MOE 4.9%, 405 Responses)	100%

That's right, 60% of Republican primary voters believe that the President was not born in the United States. Another 21% "aren't sure," which is the response you give if you don't think the President was born in the US but don't want to sound like a totally racist cracker on an IVR poll. Only 18% of Republican primary voters know that the President was indeed born in the United States, because like it or not, Hawaii is part of our country.

Now, to be fair, the Republican primary electorate skews old: 73% of respondents were age 60 or over. Hawaii was only admitted to the union in 1959, so evidently for Texas Republican primary voters, the State of Hawaii is still a new-fangled notion worthy of scrutiny, as is the President born there. We didn't survey whether or not Republicans believe that John McCain was born in the United States -- he wasn't, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone -- because Republicans don't doubt the American heritage of White candidates, now do they? However, if your Republican relatives ascribe to the Birther mentality, you can always buy them a mug reminding them that Barack Obama was indeed made in the USA, with a birth certificate to prove it.

We'll have more results from our Republican primary poll later today.

Support more polls and more projects like this. Make a donation to the Burnt Orange Polling Fund today!

BOR POLL: Republicans Satisfied with Romney, Split on Senate and Railroad Race

BOR PAC — Mon, 21 May 2012 15:35:10 GMT

As part of our year-long statewide polling series, BOR PAC and People Calling People conducted a survey of likely Republican primary voters to determine their sentiments on Mitt Romney's de facto Republican nomination, the Republican primary races for US Senate and Railroad Commissioner, and a hypothetical 2014 Republican primary match-up for Governor. We defined "likely voter" to mean a registered voter who had voted in at least two of the last three Republican Primaries (2006, 2008, 2010). Calls were placed to a random subset of those voters May 15-16, 2012.

Here are the results.

"In the Republican primary for US Senate, the candidates are Glenn Addison, Joe Agris, Kurt Cleaver, Ted Cruz, David Dewhurst, Ben Gambini, Craig James, Tom Leppert, and Lela Pittinger. Who do you plan to vote for in the Republican primary for US Senate?"
David Dewhurst	43%
Ted Cruz	30%
Tom Leppert	14%
Craig James	5%
Lela Pittinger	4%
Glenn Addison	2%
Kurt Cleaver	1%
Joe Agris	0%
Ben Gambini	0%
TOTAL (MOE 4.2%, 557 responses)	100%

The poll confirms what political chatterers had surmised for months: Dewhurst and Cruz look poised to head to a late-July run-off for the Senate seat being vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison. That has to give Cruz hope that he can prevail in a low-turnout hyper-partisan electorate, since the solicitor general has enjoyed more Tea Party and activist support than Dewhurst, whose main constituency seems to be Rick Perry's corporate sugar daddies. A Senate run-off pitting Cruz' grassroots hordes vs. Dewhurst's fat cats has to give serious pause to any moderate Republicans who may be headed to a run-off in down-ballot races, and could play a role in the inevitable run-offs in various Republican Congressional primaries (namely CD-14, CD-25, and CD-36). The only real question is if Dewhurst can spend his way to avoid a run-off, but given the margin he needs to make up to clear 50%, it looks unlikely.

Notably, the results also look a lot like the UT/TT poll released today. Dewhurst is in the low 40's and looks likely to go into a run-off with Cruz. That "internal Dewhurst campaign memo" circulated last week and leaked to Politico claiming that Leppert had pushed past Cruz into second place does indeed appear to be smoke and mirrors.

"In the primary for a full term on the Texas Railroad Commission, the candidates are Becky Berger, Beryl Burgess, Warren Chisum, Joe Cotten, Christi Craddick, and Roland Sledge. Who do you plan to vote for in the Republican primary for Texas Railroad Commissioner?"
Undecided	36%
Christi Craddick	25%
Warren Chisum	24%
Roland Sledge	5%
Becky Berger	4%
Joe Cotten	3%
Beryl Burgess	3%
TOTAL (MOE 4.5%, 479 responses)	100%

In the race to fill the seat vacated by Michael Williams, it's clear that no candidate has managed to break through the crowded field, despite their ridiculous TV ads and escalating anti-EPA rhetoric. Over one third of the electorate is undecided, while Chisum and Craddick are the leaders here, the latter doing well likely based on sheer last-name ID alone. Unfortunately for Roland Sledge, despite his shocking TV ad in which Sledge vows not to pee on an electric fence, he's not making a splash with voters. The Republican electorate isn't trickling down from the undecided column into Sledge's camp. Unless his campaign is willing to leak any more-favorable internal polling, it's unlikely that on May 29th anyone will say to Sledge, "urine a run-off."

"In the 2014 Republican primary for Governor, if Attorney General Greg Abbott decided to challenge Governor Rick Perry, who would you support? "
Rick Perry	42%
Greg Abbott	35%
Someone Else	7%
Not Sure	16%
TOTAL (MOE 4.6%, 462 responses)	100%

It's clear that Abbott is quietly angling to be the next Governor of Texas, what with his sue-the-Feds this and his down-with-women's-rights that. However, Governor Perry is claiming that he plans to run for re-election, either to prevent being the lamest duck next session or because he thinks it will better position him for another failed Presidential bid in 2016. Regardless, the Republican primary voters we polled have Abbott within 10% of Perry in this hypothetical match-up, which bodes well for the hard-charging Attorney General should he tilt at the incumbent Governor.

"How satisfied are you with Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee?"
Very Satisfied	35%
Satisfied	32%
Neither	17%
Dissatisfied	9%
Very Dissatisfied	8%
TOTAL (MOE 3.7%, 718 responses)	100%

We also asked Republican primary voters how they felt about presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. Only two thirds of Republicans are satisfied with the flip-flopping Massachusetts governor, whose healthcare plan was part of the foundation of Obamacare. One third of Republicans surveyed seem unwilling to go along with Romney, and 17% self-report as Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. One wonders about the remaining third of the Republican primary electorate -- are they Ron Paul supporters? Do they want a more conservative candidate? Would a third-party conservative candidate like Rick Santorum or a legitimate Tea Partier like Debra Medina appeal to the 33% of Republican primary voters who are not satisfied with Romney? Most importantly, will they be too dismayed about their Presidential pick that they'll stay home this November?

We'll have more results later today.

Support more polls and more projects like this. Make a donation to the Burnt Orange Polling Fund today!