Saturday, July 31, 2010

New Republican Collin County District Clerk Plus Five Others Indicted For Organized Criminal Activity.

From the Dallas Morning News
by Ed Housewright:
July 31, 2010 - Patricia Crigger, the incoming Collin County district clerk, and five other office supervisors have been indicted on charges of engaging in organized criminal activity.

The indictments stem from a Texas Rangers investigation that alleges Crigger and the others pressured district clerk employees to work on Crigger's spring campaign.

Crigger received about 54 percent of the April 13 Republican primary runoff election vote, defeating law office manager Alma Hays.

She faces no Democratic opposition on the November 2, 2010 election ballot and is therefore due to take office Jan. 1, replacing longtime District Clerk Hannah Kunkle, who is retiring.

The general election is Nov. 2. The deadline to remove a candidate's name is Aug. 20, according to the Texas secretary of state's office.

If Crigger withdraws her name before then, the local Republican Party executive committee can name a replacement to be on the ballot, said Ann McGeehan, elections director for the secretary of state.

The Democratic Party of Collin County Executive Committee also would be allowed to place a name on the ballot, even though the party had no candidate in the primary.

Anyone can file as a write-in candidate through Aug. 24, McGeehan said.

If Crigger doesn't withdraw her name by Aug. 20, she will stay on the ballot. She would win the election if she receives the most votes.

If she is still under indictment, has not been convicted and decides not to take office Jan. 1, the county's state district judges would name her replacement, McGeehan said. The replacement would serve until the November 2012 general election and could seek election for the remaining two years of the term.

A candidate becomes ineligible to serve upon final conviction, McGeehan said. So if Crigger were convicted but appealed her case, she could take office while the appeal is resolved.

The Collin County Commissioners Court sets the budget for the district clerk and other elected officials. But commissioners can't fire an elected official or any of his or her staff.

County Judge Keith Self, who heads Commissioners Court, declined to comment on the indictments.

"Because it's a legal issue, I need to be very careful to make no comment," Self said.

Crigger and the other supervisors could not be reached for comment.

"It's really sad it's come to this," said Fred Moses, chairman of the county Republican Party. "She's worked hard for the party."

A judge issued arrest warrants on Friday and set a $5,000 personal recognizance bond for each. All six defendants appeared voluntarily at the Collin County Jail about 12:30 p.m. to be processed, said sheriff's spokesman John Norton. They left about an hour later, he said.

Under state law, a person can hold office while under indictment but can be removed if convicted.

Engaging in organized criminal activity is a second-degree felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.

The one-page indictments were returned Thursday against Crigger, Sherry Bell, Rebecca Littrell, Amy Mathis, Lorrie Robertson and Marcia Simpson.

The identical indictments say the women tampered with government records and committed theft by falsifying time and attendance records to show employees were working when they were not.

"This is a dark day for Collin County and its taxpayers," Hays said in a statement Friday. "I hope the legal process reveals the truth and that the integrity of the district clerk's office is restored. I am proud to say that I ran an honest campaign and that I had nothing to do with this investigation."

The six women indicted are among nine supervisors in the district clerk's office, which has 63 employees.

A search warrant affidavit from the Texas Rangers investigation says district clerk employees were asked to assist Crigger's campaign in "various ways, such as walking neighborhoods and holding campaign signs at polling places."

They were rewarded with paid time off, the document says.

It mentions five unnamed district clerk employees who talked with the Rangers during their investigation.

Armed with a search warrant, authorities seized computer hard drives, memory cards, Crigger campaign literature, calendars and other items on June 3.

At the time, Kunkle released a written statement on behalf of her and her office, which is responsible for keeping state district court records. She criticized the execution of the search warrant.

"If they would have come to me directly, I would have turned over anything they wanted and would not have had to close down the district clerk's office, disrupt county business and cause inconvenience to the employees and citizens of Collin County," the statement read.

Kunkle couldn't be reached for comment Friday.

Moses said he hadn't talked to Crigger since she was indicted. "We want to let the legal system take its course," he said.

Moses said he would talk to state Republican Party officials and the Texas secretary of state's office to determine how to pick Crigger's replacement if she doesn't take office.

"We need to see what our options are," Moses said. "We want to do what's in the best interests of the party."

Six supervisors in the Collin County district clerk's office each face two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity in identical indictments handed down Thursday.

Indicted: Patricia Crigger, Sherry Bell, Rebecca Littrell, Amy Mathis, Lorrie Robertson and Marcia Simpson

Count 1: Tampering with a governmental record by making false entries in time and attendance records

Count 2: Theft by obtaining money between $1,500 and $20,000 from Collin County by falsifying time and attendance records

Punishment if convicted: Two to 20 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Mother Jones: Serial Butt-Biting GOP Operative Sinks Teeth Into Texas Race

Mother Jones: Charles Hurth has a history of biting women's behinds. Now it's Texas Democrats who have to watch their asses.  (Republican Scheme To Divert Votes From Democrats In November?)
By Suzy Khimm - Mother Jones

Meet Charles Hurth III. The Missouri lawyer has a long history of setting up under-the-radar groups to help Republican operatives game elections.

But the most sordid thing about Hurth's past is not his political scheming. He's also what you might call a serial butt-biter, with a well-publicized track record of sinking his teeth into the rumps of college coeds.

He recently struck again in Texas—not by biting derrieres, but by spearheading an apparent GOP dirty trick to derail a Democrat's gubernatorial bid.

Last month, Hurth and two other GOP operatives—one a former top aide to Texas Gov. Rick Perry—were implicated in a scheme to bankroll a petition drive to put the Green Party on the ballot. It is an apparent ploy to siphon votes away from Perry's Democratic challenger, former Houston Mayor Bill White. He's an appealing target: Tied with Perry in the latest poll, White's the strongest gubernatorial contender that Texas Democrats have seen in years.

But Hurth's first claim to fame was being sued in 1987 for approaching a fellow law student in a bar and biting her on the buttocks so hard that she required medical attention. During the trial, Hurth admitted that he'd used the same toothy overture to approach two other women at fraternity parties—and he said that his latest victim should have taken the gesture as a compliment. The jurors didn't buy it, and Hurth was successfully sued for $27,500. Since then, he has dedicated himself to being a persistent pain in the butt for Democrats, setting up shop in a tiny Missouri town to create a clearinghouse for Republican electoral schemes. The latest came this spring, when Hurth and his allies succeeded in getting the Greens on the 2010 ballot.
In response, the Texas Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in early June against a Hurth-run nonprofit called Take Initiative America, as well as Arizona-based GOP consultant Tim Mooney and "unknown conspirators" for their role in the effort. Mooney has admitted that he funneled money through Hurth's organization to pay Free and Equal Inc., a Chicago-based petition-gathering company that ended up amassing 92,000 signatures for the Texas Green Party's ballot drive. According to a court document, Hurth's group spent $532,500 on the effort.
Mooney has repeatedly refused to say where the money came from—and denies that it was a GOP plot to bring down White. "Take Initiative America is a nonpartisan organization," he told the Dallas Morning News, which first broke the news of his involvement. "They'd like to see everybody have a chance to get on the ballot—the more choices the better."

Especially if those choices draw votes away from Democratic candidates. This isn't the first time that Mooney and Hurth have resorted to such schemes to help Republicans at the polls. In 2004, Hurth set up an organization called Choices for America that furtively solicited help from Republicans to get then-presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in New Hampshire, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, among other states. Mooney assisted with Hurth's 2004 effort, along with Dave Carney, George H.W. Bush's former political director who's now one of Rick Perry's top consultants. At the time, Carney acknowledged to the Dallas Morning News that he was trying to gather signatures for Nader in order to help George W. Bush get reelected. According to the script for the petition drive, canvassers were instructed to tell Bush supporters, "Without Nader, Bush would not be president."

Three years later, Hurth undertook yet another effort to manipulate electoral politics to the Republicans' advantage. In 2007, Take Initiative America funded a California ballot initiative that would have distributed the state's 55 electoral votes by congressional district instead of winner-takes-all. Had it succeeded, the effort would have greatly benefited Republican presidential contenders in the state. Hurth similarly refused to reveal the donor behind the effort, who finally came forward after Democrats accused the group of money-laundering and California officials vowed to investigate. Paul Singer, a hedge-fund manager and major Giuliani fundraiser, admitted that he gave $175,000 to the effort. (Hurth himself contributed $2,000 to Giuliani's presidential bid.) Then-Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean decried the initiative and pointed the finger at the Giuliani campaign, which denied any involvement. The Perry campaign has similarly denied any role in this year's Green Party ploy. But the tentacles of the scandal reach dangerously close to his camp.

It was allegedly Perry's former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, who approached a 22-year-old college student, Garrett Mize, to talk to the Green Party about accepting the outside help, according to Mize's court testimony. (Toomey, who's now a lobbyist, also helped mastermind former Rep. Tom DeLay's scheme to funnel secret corporate money to help the GOP's redistricting effort in 2003.) The Texas Green Party eagerly accepted the offer—even though a court-released email between Green Party officials reveals that party officials were acutely aware the money could be coming from Republican sources. The email also mentions Perry's top political consultant Anthony Holm as being interested in paying for 40 percent of the party's petitioning costs, though he's since denied any role in the schme.

The Texas Green Party has refused to withdraw from the ballot, saying it was "misled" about the kind of money that was used to fund GOP's scheme. "It's not like we intentionally did this," said Kat Swift, statewide coordinator for the Texas Green Party, at a press conference in early July. According to her account, the Texas Greens never knew what Take Initiative America really stood for or who might be involved. But Swift has since embraced the GOP help as a form of realpolitik, arguing that Texas has some of the most stringent requirements for getting on the ballot in the country. "Wherever the money came from doesn't bother me," she told the Dallas Morning News. "People are trying to open the ballot to increase democracy and so, who cares how they vote?"

It's unclear, though whether the Green Party's presence on the ticket will actually hurt White's chances, as the recent controversy has divided Green Party supporters. Some of its closest allies have turned against the party for knowingly accepting the GOP assistance—and refusing to back out even after discovering it was paid for by Hurth's nonprofit corporation (which qualifies, for the purposes of campaign-finance law, as corporate money). The Texas League of Conservation Voters, which has often backed Green Party candidates, said the party's "use of corporate, out-of-state money directed from partisan operatives for a petition drive corrupts and manipulates the electoral process." One local Green Party candidate for Travis County Clerk has already withdrawn his candidacy, citing his opposition to the Green Party's acceptance of corporate-funded help—even though the party itself has called for the end of corporate funding in all elections.

Texas Democrats, for their part, have given up their push to keep the Green Party off the ballot: they dropped part of their lawsuit last week after the (all-Republican) Texas Supreme Court decided to let the Green Party remain on the ballot while it reviewed the case. But the state's Democratic party says it will continue with a legal challenge in a lower court to discover who was funding the GOP-backed petition drive, contending that the source and use of Hurth's funds might have been illegal. If even more incriminating evidence surfaces, the Green Party scheme could really end up biting the Texas GOP in the butt.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Republican Scheme To Divert Votes From Democrats In November?

Updated July 6, 2010 @ 9:10 p.m.
Dallas Morning News - July 6, 2010: A Republican consultant with ties to Rick Perry - and to the governor's biggest campaign contributor -- is cited in court records among a growing number of GOP operatives involved in efforts to put the Green Party on the Texas ballot. At issue is the legality of a GOP-backed petition drive bankrolled with $532,000 through an out-of-state corporation to gather over 90,000 petition signatures to put Green Party candidates on the November general election ballot. Court records include a Green Party email that names Anthony Holm as, "a Republican in Texas [who] wants to give us 40 percent of the cost of petitioning." Holm, who had previously worked as a Perry staff member responsible for "Special Projects," heads a consulting firm that has been paid over $148,000 by the Perry campaign. The Texas Supreme Court has allowed the Green Party to certify its candidates while it reviews the case.

Originally Posted June 24, 2010 @ 5:10 p.m.
Early in June month the Dallas Morning News reported that the Green Party's petition drive to gain ballot access in Texas this November was set up by Arizona-based Republican consultant.

The news broke a week after the Green Party of Texas submitted 90,000 signatures to the Texas Secretary of State. Kat Swift, the state coordinator of the Green Party of Texas admitted, in the DMN story, "If it hadn't been for that donation, we wouldn't have been on the ballot." The Green Party had been struggling to get the required 43,991 petition signatures for its candidates to make the ballot.

A Green Party slate on the November ballot would likely drain votes from Democrat Bill White giving incumbent Republican Rick Perry an electoral advantage in the election for the governor's office.
DMN: Green Party officials said an outside group gathered the 92,000 signatures and gave them as "a gift" to the party, which delivered them to the secretary of state, who oversees Texas elections. If the secretary of state determines that enough of them are valid, the party will be able to field a slate of candidates for statewide offices for the first time since 2002.

"It's good news for Rick Perry, in the sense that the Green Party label draws votes away from White rather than Perry," said Rice University political science professor Mark Jones.
The Texas Democratic Party then filed for a temporary restraining order in State District Court to prevent the certification of Green Party candidates pending a fast track discovery process to gather facts to determine whether out-of-state Republican operatives used money from illegal corporate sources to gather the 92,000 signatures for the Green Party. Texas Democratic Party press release:
The Republicans secretly funded and organized a ballot petition operation that may have been funded by illegal, anonymous contributions, according to reports published this week by the Dallas Morning News. The TDP was forced to take legal action because those involved with this dubious secret Republican-Green Party scheme have refused to be upfront with Texans about the nature of this political contribution, and legal discovery would serve the public interest by shedding light on a murky transaction. As the Dallas Morning News stated in an editorial yesterday, "the legality of the money behind the Green petitions needs to be tested in court."

Texas Tribune interview with
TDP General Counsel Chad Dunn
Today State District Judge John Dietz issued an injunction blocking Green Party candidates from the November ballot after hearing arguments and sworn testimony. Judge Dietz said that restricted corporate money was used to support the signature drive and did not comply with state election law. Dietz said he expected his injunction against the Green Party, disqualifying them for a spot on the November ballot, will be stayed by a higher court. The Green Party, represented by former Republican state Supreme Court Justice Stephen Smith, plans to appeal to the high court on Monday. (Houston Chronicle, June 24, 2010)

A key witness testified under oath today that a top member of Rick Perry’s inner circle paid him about $12,000 to convince Green Party of Texas leaders to participate in an elaborate ballot petition scam. University of Texas student Garrett Mize testified that he was approached in late 2009 by Mike Toomey and Stuart Moss about contacting the Green Party to discuss raising money from wind energy proponents for a signature-gathering effort. Mize said Toomey paid him $2,000 a month but that he quit in April when it became clear there was no money to come from wind-energy advocates and that all money would likely come from Republican donors and "interests that did not want Democrats to do well." (Houston Chronicle, June 24, 2010)
Lone Star Project: Mike Toomey, the former chief of staff for the governor, paid Garrett Mize, a 22-year-old University of Texas student, from his personal checking account to present a formal proposal to Green Party leaders. The proposal suggests using out-of-state funds to gather signatures needed to field candidates [to bleed votes away from Democratic candidates] in the upcoming Texas [November] election. The memo notes that, “many of the donors will be people that simply do not want to see the Democratic Party win.” (The proposal by Mize can be seen here.)

Toomey’s direct involvement elevates the matter to a level of wrongdoing not seen since the Sharpstown scandal of the 1970s. Mike Toomey is a member of Perry’s inner circle and described as “close friends” (Source: Texas Monthly, February 2005). It is irrational to believe that Toomey would have made such an elaborate -- and likely illegal -- effort to field Green Party candidates without the knowledge and approval of the governor.

The morning testimony left it unclear what happened after the original plan proposed by Mize fell apart. A second plan was formulated just two weeks before the deadline to turn in ballot petitions. This second plan funneled $532,500 in corporate money [from Missouri-based Take Initiative America headed by Charles Hurth III, a Republican lawyer. The Missouri-based corporation founder has worked on similar efforts in the past with Perry's chief political strategist. ] to pay for the effort to gather signatures for the Green Party in order to qualify candidates for the Texas ballot. [The $532,000 to gather the signatures is deemed an in-kind contribution to the Texas Green Party.] Documents and testimony in the coming days should reveal whether Toomey masterminded this plan as well. (Source: Austin American-Statesman, June 24, 2010)

The Dallas Morning News broke the story that a secret donor funneled money through a non-profit corporation to finance the Green Party of Texas ballot initiative. The Lone Star Project has detailed the connection between the Republican operatives running the signature gathering effort and Perry’s top campaign consultant, Dave Carney. Today’s revelation connects the Green Party/GOP scam directly to Perry again by exposing his close confidant, Mike Toomey, as the mastermind behind an effort to field Green Party candidates.

This would not be the first time Mike Toomey has used secret corporate donations to illegally help elect Republicans in Texas. Toomey was implicated in the TRMPAC scandal and the Texas Association of Business lawsuit after the 2002 elections. The TRMPAC “indictments …noted that TAB board members Mike Toomey and Eric Glenn, both lobbyists, played prominent roles in soliciting money.” (Austin American-Statesman, September 8, 2005)

Toomey was sued alongside the Texas Association of Business for illegally using corporate money in elections. According to the Statesman, “Although state law generally forbids the spending of corporate money in connection with campaigns, Toomey and the corporations argue that the corporate money at the heart of the litigation was for issue ads - … and that therefore they were not required to tell the public who was paying for them….Other documents confirmed Toomey as a primary fundraiser among the 30 corporations that spent the money under the business association's name without revealing their identities.” (Austin American-Statesman, September 7, 2006)
Recanting earlier statements, Rick Perry chief consultant, Dave Carney, now admits knowing Tim Mooney and the Republicans who orchestrated this plan. Carney initially denied even knowing Mooney to the Dallas Morning News, then later admitted to the Texas Tribune that he did, in fact, know and work with Mooney in the past. (DMN: Perry political chief: May I amend my remarks?)

In legal action to place Green Party candidates on the November ballot, Green Party officials have called on several prominent Republican lawyers. Among them are Andy Taylor, who represented business interests in Republican Tom DeLay's effort to use corporate money to redraw congressional districts; Cleta Mitchell, co-chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association; and David Rogers, a plaintiff in the Hopwood court case over affirmative action at the University of Texas.

Perry became only the third governor in state history to have been elected by a plurality of less than 40 percent of votes cast in the 2006 election. In 2006 Perry faced a six-way race with former Democratic Congressman Chris Bell, Libertarian candidate James Werner; and three independent candidates – outgoing Republican state Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, well-known Texas humorist Kinky Friedman, and write-in candidate James "Patriot" Dillon. Perry won with 38% of the vote.

GOP strategist Royal Masset says of Perry's 2010 opponent, “He (White) is plain-spoken. He is very specific-oriented. He’s kind of our nightmare ..." [The Houston Chronicle]

According to a new poll on the 2010 Texas gubernatorial race released by Public Policy Polling, Democratic challenger Bill White is running neck and neck with incumbent Republican Gov. Rick Perry. They each have 43 percent of the expected vote.

Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner said the governor had "nothing to do with the Green Party efforts" (Houston Chronicle, June 24, 2010)


Bill White campaign video on Mike Toomey & the Green Party

Gallup: Gov't Debt Is Tea Party Supporters' Top Concern

According to a USA Today/Gallup national poll released Monday, 61 percent of self-described Tea Party movement supporters say that the federal government's debt is an extremely serious threat to the country, with only 29 percent of those who do not identify with the Tea Party movement saying that the debt is an extremely serious threat.

Leading conservative economist Bruce Bartlett says that those who blame Democrats and Obama for the huge national debt have it wrong—the person they should be angry with left the White House a year and a half ago.

Forty-nine percent of Tea Party supporters say the size and power of the federal government is an extremely serious threat, with only 12 percent of those who do not identify with the Tea Party movement agreeing.

Tea Party activists say one of the aims of their movement is to reduce the size of the federal government. Eight out of 10 Tea Party supporters questioned say that the government is doing too much that should be left to individuals and business. That drops to 27 percent among those who do not identify with the Tea Party movement. Only 17 percent of Tea Party activists say the government should be doing more to solve the nation's problems. That figure jumps to 64 percent among those who do not identify with the Tea Party movement.

The survey also indicates that the concerns of Tea Party supporters align with the Republican Party. Gallup published another poll last week that found most tea party supporters are right wing Republicans. "Their similar ideological makeup and views suggest that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene," Gallup Poll director Frank Newport wrote in an analysis of the results. Newport adds: "Republican leaders who worry about the Tea Party's impact on their races may in fact (and more simply) be defined as largely worrying about their party's core base."

Gallup Poll Question
Tea Party
Supporter
Republicans
Gov't doing too much that should be left to individuals and businesses 80% 81%
Gov't should be doing more to solve country's problems 17% 13%
Gov't should promote traditional values 57% 63%
Gov't should not favor any set of traditional values 39% 32%

The Daily Beast:
Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama’s inauguration.
Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect.
In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.

I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily.

Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007—long before Obama was even nominated. And the previous recession ended in November 2001, so the current recession cannot be blamed on cyclical forces that Bush inherited.In a larger sense, the extremely poor economic performance of the Bush years really set the stage for the current recession. This is apparent when we compare Bush’s two terms to Bill Clinton’s eight years. Since both took office close to a business cycle trough and left office close to a cyclical peak, this is a reasonable comparison.

the economy performed very, very badly under Bush, and the best efforts of his cheerleaders cannot change that fact because the data don’t lie. Consider these comparisons between Bush and Clinton:
  • Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.

  • Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.

  • Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.

  • During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.

  • Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Annual Ann Richards Dinner- Saturday Aug. 7, 2010

Save the Date - Saturday August 7, 2010

Annual Ann Richards Dinner
Featuring Democratic Nominee for Governor
Bill White
Plus Other Statewide, Regional, & Local Democratic Candidates
The Democratic Party of Collin County
honors legendary
Governor Ann Richards
With Its
Annual Ann Richards Dinner

August 7, 2010
5:30 pm Social
6:30 - 9:00 pm Dinner
Location: Hilton Garden Inn, Allen
---------------------
The Democratic Party of Collin County
2504 K Avenue, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75074
972-578-1483


Comparison Of Texas Democratic and Republican Party Platforms

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have now crafted tangible statements of their governing priorities at their respective state conventions. State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, released a comparison Tuesday between the Democratic and Republican party platforms drafted at each party's convention.
EDUCATION
Texas Democratic Party Platform Republican Party of Texas Platform
Solve the Dropout Crisis: “Proper funding of all our schools to meet the needs of students who are most at risk of dropping out is essential. Specific solutions include:
  • school-community collaboration that brings educational and social services together under one roof to help at-risk students and their families;
  • expanded access to early childhood education, targeting at-risk students;
  • dual-credit and early-college programs that draw at-risk students into college and career paths while still in high school;
  • equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers, to change current practices that too often match the most at-risk students with the least experienced and least prepared teachers;
  • enforce daytime curfew laws to reduce truancy; and
  • providing access to affordable programs for adults who have dropped out of the education process.”
Ignore the Dropout Crisis : [Nothing]
Maintain Class Size Limits: “To make public education our highest priority, we believe the state should…enforce and extend class size limits to allow every student to receive necessary individualized attention.” Eliminate Effective Class-Size Limits: “Create flexibility for school districts under the class size limit mandate.”
SBOE: Put Experts in Charge of Curriculum: “Any substantive changes to curriculum must be reviewed by non-partisan experts, and that review must be made public prior to any changes in curriculum by the State Board.” SBOE: Put Ideologues in Charge of Curriculum: “The SBOE must have sole authority over all curricula content and state adoption of educational materials and ancillaries, (regardless of methods of delivery, including but not limited to textbooks, laptops and electronic delivery systems.”
Support Pre-K & Early Childhood Development: “To make public education our highest priority, we believe the state should provide universal access to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten.” “Proper funding of all our schools to meet the needs of students who are most at risk of dropping out is essential. Specific solutions include…expanded access to early childhood education, targeting at-risk students.” Oppose Pre-K & Early Childhood Development: “We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.”
Provide Necessary Public Education Funding: Texas Democrats believe:
  • the state should establish a 100% equitable school finance system with sufficient state revenue to allow every district to offer an exemplary program;
  • the state should equitably reduce reliance on "Robin Hood" recapture;
  • state funding formulas should fully reflect all student and district cost differences and the impact of inflation and state mandates.
Provisions that Restrict Education Funding: “We urge the Legislature to abolish property taxes for the purpose of funding schools.” “The Party calls upon the Texas Legislature to repeal the revised franchise tax.”
Oppose School Vouchers: “We believe the state should oppose private school vouchers.” Support Tax Dollars for Private Schools: “We encourage the Governor and the Texas Legislature to enact child-centered school funding options – which fund the student, not schools or districts – to allow maximum freedom of choice in public, private or parochial education for all children.”
HEALTH CARE
Texas Democratic Party Platform Republican Party of Texas Platform
Oppose Republican Attempts to Repeal Rights of Health Care Reform: “Texas Democrats:
  • oppose Republican attempts to repeal the ban on preexisting conditions;
  • oppose Republican attempts to repeal sweeping small business tax credits;
  • oppose Republican attempts to repeal the ban on rescissions, where insurance companies shove individuals off their health insurance coverage if they develop a catastrophic illness;
  • oppose Republican attempts to repeal tax breaks for Americans to aid in the purchase of health insurance;
  • oppose Republican attempts to repeal the closure of the Medicare prescription drug donut hole that forced seniors to pay exorbitant prices under the Republican Medicare Part D plan;
  • oppose Republican attempts to repeal the expansion of health insurance to uninsured Americans, including 4 million Texans;
  • oppose Republican attempts to repeal the ability of parents to insure their children up to age 26;
  • oppose Republican attempts to repeal the creation of health insurance marketplaces where consumers can shop for and compare affordable, quality health insurance plans; and
  • oppose Republican attempts to repeal a healthcare system based on prevention and wellness.
Repeal Rights of Health Care Reform: “We urge the Congress to defund, repeal, andreject the national healthcare takeover, also known as “ObamaCare” or any similar legislation.”
JOBS & ECONOMY
Texas Democratic Party Platform Republican Party of Texas Platform
Raise the Minimum Wage: “To improve wages and working conditions, we believe the minimum wage must be raised, enforced, and applied across-the-board meaningfully to restore lost purchasing power of all workers. It must be indexed to keep it from eroding again. Employees should be paid a living wage with provisions for decent health care and retirement benefits.” Repeal the Minimum Wage: “We believe the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed.”
Oppose Sales Tax Extension and Increases: “Enact a constitutional amendment to prevent extending the sales tax to food and medicine and oppose efforts to impose a national sales tax.” Increase & Expand Sales Tax: “We recommend a national sales tax.” “We urge the Legislature to abolish property taxes for the purpose of funding schools and to shift the tax burden to a consumption-based tax while maintaining or reducing the overall tax burden.”
SOCIAL SECURITY
Texas Democratic Party Platform Republican Party of Texas Platform
Protect and Preserve Social Security: “We oppose privatization of the Social Security program as fiscally irresponsible, and consider the use of our tax dollars as capital to invest in the stock market as a threat to the income security of working Americans.” Privatize Social Security: “We support an immediate and orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax.”
INSURANCE
Texas Democratic Party Platform Republican Party of Texas Platform
Reform Insurance Regulation; Roll back Rates: “Texas Democrats support the strict enforcement of policies requiring insurance companies to roll back their rates to provide Texas homeowners, renters and drivers fair and affordable insurance.”

“We support providing the Insurance Commissioner the authority to deny or approve rates.”

Democrats support measures to reduce and eliminate unfair underwriting and rate setting practices, such as the use of credit scoring, redlining and other discriminatory practices. We support the enforcement of penalties when such practices are used. Texans must have access to affordable insurance to protect our homes and businesses from flood and windstorm damage. We also support more thorough oversight and regulation of homeowner’s insurance through greater consumer representation in the form of an official advisory committee or requirements that the Insurance Commission include consumer representatives.”
No Regulation of Insurance Rates, Companies: “Free Market for Utilities and Insurance – We encourage free market solutions for providing utilities whenever possible. We support that all property insurance rates should be set through free-market forces alone. We support efforts to shrink the Texas Insurance Association to reduce the liabilities it imposes on state taxpayers.”
UTILITIES
Texas Democratic Party Platform Republican Party of Texas Platform
Responsible Regulation of Utilities: “Texas Democrats support responsible regulation of utilities to provide a level playing field for regulated industry, through reasonable policy to prevent predatory pricing. Texans should not be expected to become experts on all the factors that determine energy costs in order to pay lower, reasonable prices for utility services.” No Regulation of Utility Rates, Companies: “Free Market for Utilities and Insurance – We encourage free market solutions for providing utilities whenever possible. We support that all property insurance rates should be set through free-market forces alone. We support efforts to shrink the Texas Insurance Association to reduce the liabilities it imposes on state taxpayers.”
IMMIGRATION
Texas Democratic Party Platform Republican Party of Texas Platform
Oppose State Law That Could Deny the Rights or Endanger the Safety of Citizens: “Texas will not become Arizona, and we strongly oppose…any law that would…
  • • through its enforcement, result in discrimination; intimidation or victimization of citizens based on their race, ethnicity or appearance;
  • • force law enforcement agencies to divert limited resources and manpower from their primary duty to protect citizens and prevent crime.”
Create a New State Offense for “Illegal Aliens:” “Create a state offense (Class A misdemeanor) for an illegal alien to intentionally or knowingly be within the State of Texas.” “We support…empowering state and local law enforcement agencies with authority and resources to detain illegal immigrants.”
VOTING RIGHTS
Texas Democratic Party Platform Republican Party of Texas Platform
Protect Voting Rights for All Texans: “We support redistricting standards and practices that demand compliance with the Voting Rights Act, discourage savaging regions and communities for partisan gain, and preserve the constituent-representative relationship to the extent possible to give voters the right to elect their representatives instead of letting representatives pick their voters.” Eliminate Minority Voting Districts: “We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, or creed and oppose use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts.”

Entire 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform - PDF .

Celebrate July 4th in Plano



The Declaration Of Independence, Read Aloud
Start the Independence Day celebration at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, July 3 with a parade. The parade route starts at Plano Senior High School (W Park Blvd.) and stretches north along Independence Parkway to Spring Creek Parkway, ending at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church.

Walk with the Texas Democratic Women of Collin County and other fellow Democrats in the Plano Independence Day Parade. Dress for the weather and expect a leisurely 2 mile walk up to Spring Creek Parkway. Wear red, white, and blue -- Especially blue! Click here for more information, if you are interested in walking in the parade with the Texas Democratic Women of Collin County.

The free Plano Community Band Patriotic Concert begins at 7 p.m. on July 3rd in Haggard Park at 901 E. 15th Street. Bring a blanket or chairs and enjoy the patriotic music.

On Sunday, July 4, enjoy another concert and close the evening with the annual All-American Fourth community fireworks display.

At 3 p.m. on July 4, join the Plano Symphony Orchestra and the Patriotic Pops Chorus for Patriotic Pops at the Eisemann Center. Ticket information is available at
www.planosymphony.org.

The All-American Fourth fireworks begin at 9:30 p.m. This colorful, professional fireworks display will light up Plano’s sky over Oak Point Park and Nature Preserve, east of U.S. 75 on Spring Creek Parkway. Bring a blanket and picnic basket, and enjoy the FREE show. Parking will be available at Plano Centre, Collin College and First United Methodist Church Plano. Listen to simulcast music for the fireworks display on KLAK 97.5 FM.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Conservatives: U.S. Constitution Does Not Explicitly Enumerate Rights of Privacy and Civil Equality

Updated June 28, 2010 @ 5:41 p.m.
Today's opening comments from conservative Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearings shaped up to be a trial in absentia of Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, the court's iconic civil rights Justice of the twentieth century. GOP members of the committee invoked Marshall's name 35 times today.

Republicans, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, sought to discredit Kagan by denouncing Marshall, for whom Kagan clerked, and Marshall's support of equal rights, as emblematic of reckless judicial activism. [Newsweek]

Marshall is revered for his role as the lead lawyer in the landmark "separate but equal" Brown v. Board of Education case, which desegregated the nation’s schools. Marshall expressed the “living constitution” theory of jurisprudence—and if there is an unassailable monument to that theory, it is the Brown decision. As Sen. Sessions put it, Marshall was one of those justices who “don’t deny activism."

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) commented to Salt Lake Tribune's Thomas Burr after the hearings that he wasn't sure he would have voted to confirm Marshall, the first African-American to ever serve on the Supreme Court. (Marshall was an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court from 1967 to 1991.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) reminded Senate Republicans exactly who and what they were labeling as an example of judicial activism:
"The results which Justice Marshall dedicated his life to broke down barriers of racial discrimination that had haunted America for generations. . . . And I might also add that his most famous case, Brown v. Board of Education—if that is an activist mind at work, we should be grateful as a nation that he argued before the Supreme Court, based on discrimination in this society and changed America for the better."
Even as conservatives denounce activist judges, the Roberts Court, which has four of the five most conservative Supreme Court Justices of the last 50 years currently sitting at the bench, is considered a conservative activist court.


GOP members of the committee
invoking Marshall's name



Senator Franken's opening statement
Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) gave this opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:

"...Last year, I used my time during the [Sotomayor confirmation] hearings to highlight what I think is one of the most serious threats to our Constitution and to the rights it guarantees the American people: the activism of the Roberts Court.

I noted that for years, conservatives running for the Senate have made it almost an article of faith that they won't vote for activist judges who make law from the bench. And when asked to name a model justice, they would often cite Justice Thomas, who I noted has voted to overturn more federal laws than Justices Stevens and Breyer combined. In recent cycles, they would name Chief Justice Roberts.

Well, I think we established very convincingly during the Sotomayor hearings that there is such a thing as judicial activism. There is such a thing as legislating from the bench. And it is practiced repeatedly by the Roberts Court, where it has cut in only one direction: in favor of powerful corporate interests, and against the rights of individual Americans. In the next few days, I want to continue this conversation. Because I think things have only gotten worse..."

Originally Posted May 11, 2010 @ 1:11 p.m.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released a statement criticizing President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan for her support of Justice Thurgood Marshall's speech in which he said that the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was "defective."

Had Mr. Steele taken the time to look into the context of Justice Marshall's statements he might have found that Marshall was referring to the Three-Fifths compromise in Article 1 Section 2, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. I don't know about Chairman Steele, but that seems to be a serious "defect" in the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted.

Justice Marshall also said the it took several constitutional amendments and a Civil War to right this wrong. Again, had Chairman Steele taken the time to look at the copy of the Constitution he carries in his pocket he could have read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to find out Marshall was correct.

The RNC then doubled down on Chairman Steel's statement when Doug Heye posted this at gop.com:
"In the same law review article, Kagan endorses the view that the Court's primary role is to "show special solicitude" for people a judge has empathy for.

In the article about her former boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote:

For in Justice Marshall's view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government -- to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.

The majority of Americans want a justice who understands that the Founders intended the Court to serve as a neutral arbiter of disputes. The question for Kagan is whether she believes in a 'modern Constitution' shaped by activist judges pursuing personal political agendas or whether she believes in basing judicial decisions based on the Constitution and the rule of law."
The GOP is on the record as opposing the finding by Supreme Court judges that the language of the constitution defines principles that American citizens have a general right of civil equality and right of privacy to be left alone without government intrusion into their personal or family decisions and lifestyle. Conservatives label judges who find such rights in the constitution as "activist judges." Yet, the activist conservative judges on the Roberts Court have ruled that corporations have the same rights as "We The People" individuals even though the Constitution includes no specific language granting such rights to corporate entities.

Conservatives continue to press their so called strict constructionist constitutional argument, that Americans have no right that is not explicitly enumerated (written) in the Constitution. The right of privacy and right of equality are not explicitly enumerated (written) in the Constitution.
By arguing against the Supreme Court's right to privacy and right of equality findings, conservatives argue against the court's so called "activist" decisions on a broad range of rights that include child rearing, procreation, marriage, contraception, private and home schooling rights and civil rights of equality.
One of the most memorable moments from Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee was the aggressive line of questioning from Sen. (R-S.C.) Lindsey Graham. The South Carolina Republican demanded to know if President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court had a "temperament problem" and even told Sotomayor that she had a reputation as a bully. At another point, the senator asked Sotomayor about her now infamous "wise Latina" comment and her tenure on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, a legal arm for the Hispanic community, with the inference she is a Latina racist. It was all reflective of the line of questioning that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee pushed all day.

Finally, Senator Graham turned to another line of questioning by asking Judge Sotomayor, "Would you be considered a “strict constructionist” in your own mind?
... I'm asking ... Does the Constitution, as written, prohibit a legislative body at state or federal level from defining life or relating the rights of the unborn? ... Is there anything in the [Constitutional] document written about [a woman's right to choose] abortion?" Judge Sotomayor finally answered, "The word "abortion" is not used in the Constitution, but the Constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process..." Cutting Judge Sotomayor off mid-answer Sen. Graham observed, "That's my concern. ...a lot of us feel that the best way to change society is to go to the ballot box, elect someone, and if they are not doing it right, get rid of them through the electoral process. And a lot of us are concerned ... that unelected judges are very quick to change society in a way that's disturbing."

[The full exchange between Judge Sotomayor and Sen. Graham can be found in the transcript here.]
Senator Graham's "strict constructionist" line of questioning exemplifies the GOP's indefensible positions on American's right to privacy and civil right of equality regardless of race, sex or religion. Because the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is based on the courts constitutional "right of privacy" finding in its Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, that overturned laws banning the purchase and use of contraceptives, conservatives always reference Roe to rally support to their "strict constructionist" constitutional argument that Americans have no right of privacy. This right of privacy issue is little more than a stalking horse that strict social conservatives use to attack the Supreme Court's so called liberal "activist" decisions on a broad range rights issues, including the right to purchase and use contraceptive products.

Conservatives argue that the framer's "original intent" can be found only in the exact words written in the constitution rather than an understanding and application of the principles that framers were attempting to define. Conservatives maintain that judges who make decisions based on "constitutional principles" carried in the words, rather than application of the exact words, written in the constitution are liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench.

Of course, the Constitution, as written, does not specifically prohibit a legislative body at the state or federal level from segregating schools as separate but equal "white only" and "black only" institutions, but the Supreme Court did find such laws unconstitutional in the court's 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision. In Brown the court found that the language of the constitution defines principles that segregation deprives segregated citizens of their equal protection under the "due process of law" as granted in the 14th Amendment.
Even the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who held "constructionist" views on constitutional interpretations, opposed Brown v. Board of Education as an unconstitutional decision when he was a Supreme Court clerk. Rehnquist also urged Barry Goldwater to argue that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional.
Nor does the Constitution, as written, specifically prohibit a legislative body at the state or federal level from segregating drinking fountains as "white only" and "black only," from restricting marriage between people of different races, from making the use of birth control pills and condoms a criminal offense, from requiring parents to send their children to public rather than private schools or even from restricting access to the ballot box on election day through poll taxes, literacy tests and other "Jim Crow" related laws.
These and other such rights are not enumerated by specific wording in the U.S. Constitution, but they are rights that most Americans today believe are specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. Even so, Americans were denied these rights by many state and federal laws, particularly among southern states like Texas, until the 1950's and 1960's.
Conservatives continue to maintain that it is wrong to appoint "activist" Supreme Court Judges who believe the constitution grants rights of privacy and civil equality not explicitly enumerated in word.

Conservatives, in fact, want conservative activist Supreme Court Judges
who will overturn more than a hundred years of legal precedent to grant "corporations the rights of individual citizens" as the Roberts Court did this year when it greatly expanded the parameters of Citizens United v. FEC to make its pro-corporate ruling. The constitution does not explicitly enumerated that "corporations shall have rights identical to individual citizens," but Chief Justice Roberts and the other activist conservative Supreme Court Justices, none the less, ruled the constitution guarantees such rights to corporations over laws passed by congress.

Conservatives, in fact, want conservative activist Supreme Court Judges
who will look for opportunities to turn the constitutional clock back to 1950; A time before Brown v. Board of Education and Griswold v. Connecticut.

Texas Democratic Women Candidate's Forum

Candidate's Forum


Dallas Morning News, Frisco – Democratic political rallies are a rare occurrence in Collin County, where Republicans dominate virtually every level of government.
Yet on Monday evening here in the heart of GOP territory, a slate of Democratic candidates rallied in the hopes of breaking the Republican stranglehold on Dallas' northern suburbs.

"We have a tough row to hoe here in Collin County," said Rafael De La Garza, who is running for Collin County district attorney against Republican Greg Willis.
--- Click here for REST OF STORY!... ---

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia Dead

The longest-serving member of the U.S. Congress, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, has died at the age of 92 after serving almost sixty years in public office.

Byrd was sworn into the U.S. House of Representatives on January 3, 1953 and was elected to the U.S Senate six years later in 1958. In November, he broke the record for congressional service that had been set by Democrat Carl Hayden of Arizona, who served in the House and Senate from 1912 to 1969. Byrd was reelected to serve a ninth term in the Senate in 2006.

Byrd was in frail health and had used a wheelchair in recent months to go to the Senate floor to cast crucial votes, including final passage of health-care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Byrd went to the hospital late last week suffering from what was believed to be heat exhaustion and severe dehydration as a result of the hot temperatures in Washington. Over the weekend Byrd's condition was reported as "seriously ill." Spokesman Jesse Jacobs said Byrd died peacefully overnight at about 3:00 a.m. in Inova Fairfax Hospital in suburban Washington.

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, will appoint Byrd's successor on an interim basis pending a special election.

West Virginia State election law states that, if a Senate vacancy occurs more than 2 1/2 years before the term is up, that a special election be held to fill the seat. However, that statute includes language stating the special election shall only occur after a candidate "has been nominated at the primary election next following such timely filing and has thereafter been elected." West Virginia held its 2010 primary almost two months ago, so the statute can be interpreted as the "next" primary in 2012, before the general election in November, 2012. The wording of the statute could open a legal challenge to force a special election this November. Had Byrd lived another 6 days, the wording of the statute would not be an issue, because his passing would then have been less than 2 1/2 years until the end of his term. Democrats currently hold a nominal 59-seat majority in the U.S. Senate, including two Independents who caucus with Democrats.

A good biography on Byrd appears in today's edition of the The Washington Post.