Texas Voter Photo I.D. Federal Trial Opening Arguments Today

The Texas Voter Photo I.D. case currently before the federal Washington D.C. Circuit Court took another step forward today as the three judge panel heard opening arguments in the trial.

The three judge panel will decide whether Texas can enforce its year-old voter photo I.D. law, which the U.S. Department of Justice contends will prevent over 600,000 registered Latino and African-American voters from casting a ballot in the November General Election.

Originally set to go into effect on January 1, 2012, the Texas Photo I.D. law would require voters to present one of a limited selection of government issued photo I.D. to election Judges in order to qualify to vote. The accepted forms of currently dated photo identification are: Department of Public Safety issued Texas driver's license, Texas election I.D., or personal identification card; Texas concealed handgun license; U.S. military I.D. card; U.S. citizenship certificate; or U.S. passport.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department or a federal court is required to pre-clear laws affecting voters before they go into effect in jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination -- and that includes Texas.

In March, the U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights Division refused to clear the Texas law, known as Senate Bill 14 (SB 14), saying Texas officials had failed to prove that it wouldn’t adversely affect minorities. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed suit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice in the Washington D.C. Circuit Court to have the state’s controversial voter photo I.D. law implemented without further delay.

Under federal law, lawsuits seeking so-called “pre-clearance” of changes to voting procedures in all of seven mostly Southern states and parts of nine others, are heard by three-judge panels composed of two district court judges and an appeals court judge. D.C. Circuit Judge David Tatel and District Court Judges Rosemary Collyer and Robert Wilkins were impaneled to hear the Texas photo ID case.

(click here to read a full summary of case through early June 2012.)

As the trial got under way in a packed courtroom, DOJ trial attorney Elizabeth Westfall said in her opening argument that the federal government will show racial motivation in Texas’ passage of the law.

Republicans Raise Your Prices, Bail Out Unprofitable Electricity Companies

By Jack Ternan

Do you think you should pay more for electricity so that large Republican donors can stay in business? Your state government does.

In 2007, TXU was purchased in a $45 billion leveraged buyout by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Goldman Sachs, and other New York investors and was renamed Energy Future Holdings (EFH). EFH bet on coal powering our future. Unfortunately, the company now faces bankruptcy because cheap natural gas has rendered coal power plants unprofitable.

Fortunately for EFH, Republican leaders believe free market discipline only applies to the middle class and the poor. Rather than letting polluting plants close at a loss to Goldman Sachs, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas recently voted to raise the price cap on wholesale electricity by 50 percent. Starting in August, electricity generators will be able to charge $4,500 per megawatt hour instead of $3,000. According to the Texas Industrial Energy Consumers’ assessment, this change will cost consumers an additional $4.5-$4.7 billion per year on electricity costs.

According to PUC Commissioner Kenneth Anderson, who abstained from voting, increasing prices this summer will allow power companies to “cart away money, not in wheelbarrows, but in Mack Trucks.”

EFH knows how to grease the wheels of Republican government. Its affiliated PACs have given more than $6.3 million to lawmakers between October 2007 and May 2012. My opponent, Ken Paxton, has received more than $7,000 from them. Buying politicians is cheap compared to facing the consequences of bad business decisions, and this latest Republican bailout will ensure that Texas’ pay to play politics continues.

So what does this latest outrage mean for you?

It means that fixed contract you’ve signed with your retail electricity provider might not be “fixed.” It means that by 2013, when the price cap is expected to be between $7,500 and $9,000, you’ll be dishing out more money for electricity than you ever have before. And it means that you will be bailing out New York bankers who pollute your air while you do it.

The misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership are evil. Republican officials are willing to fleece you upwards of $4.5 billion ($9 billion over two years) to bail out EFH and its out-of-state owners. At the same time, they claim to be completely unable to find the $5.4 billion (over two years) needed to avoid firing teachers, closing schools, and cutting financial aid to college students. Here in Texas Senate District 8, we need leaders that will stand up for the priorities of all Texans, not out-of-state donors.

Jack Ternan is the Democratic Candidate for Senate District 8. To email Jack - click here.

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4 1776.
The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

NPR: Reading The Declaration Of Independence Aloud

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Happy Birthday America!

Musician Keb Mo visited the White House earlier this year and performed a rendition of "America the Beautiful". Enjoy some great scenes of America and the President set to this classic song - in celebration of Independence Day.

The Terrifying Texas GOP Platform

From Forbes by John T. Harvey

. . . I am so distressed by the 2012 platform released by the Texas Republican Party that I find it impossible not to comment. While I am hardly in agreement with everything forwarded by the Democrats (and have taken aim at President Obama on a number of occasions, especially with respect to his desire to balance the federal budget), it is difficult to believe that what the Republicans put together during their convention in Fort Worth was even written in the 21st century. It is anything but pragmatic.

The GOP Platform (available here) has already made headlines with the portion that opposes the “teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills” and “critical thinking skills.” Although a partial retraction followed, this was in terms of the wording, not the general meaning.

It appears that their fear is that these “focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

. . . Another disturbing feature of the document is that while they “urge the Legislature to direct expenditures to academics as the first priority,” they also contend that “Since data is (sic) clear that additional money does not translate into educational achievement, and higher education costs are out of control, we support reducing taxpayer funding to all levels of education institutions.”

Not only is the second statement inconsistent with the first (not to mention rather frightening), it isn’t true. The implications of the data are far from clear. In point of fact, economists have found that–not surprisingly–it matters how the money is spent (see here for a survey of the relevant literature). For example, reducing class sizes and adding remedial help appear to be particularly cost effective. Thus, contrary to the Texas GOP’s assertion, there are programs that both add to costs AND increase educational achievement.

. . . The economic policies recommended by the document are equally impractical and ill-considered. Bearing in mind that the fundamental problem faced in an advanced capitalist economy is insufficient demand to generate employment for all those willing to work (see Why Do Recessions Happen?), the following recommendations would operate to make this problem even worse:

• We urge state and federal legislators to reduce spending.
• We urge Congress to adopt balanced budgets by cutting spending and not increasing tax rates.
• We recommend repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, with the goal of abolishing the I.R.S and replacing it with a national sales tax collected by the States. In the interim we urge the income tax be changed to a flatter, broader, lower tax with only minimal exemptions such as home mortgage interest deductions.
• We favor abolishing the capital gains tax.
• State Tax Reform – We encourage: Abolishing property taxes…Shifting the tax burden to a consumption-based tax

The first two would directly reduce the demand for goods and services, thus causing contraction and unemployment, while the last three would create a much more regressive tax system that shifted the burden onto the sector of the economy that would otherwise generate the highest level of demand per dollar of income: the poor and middle class (the top 20% of Americans spend 62% of their income, as compared to 87% for the rest).

. . . Note, too, that the second point above (regarding balanced budgets) is based on a false premise, i.e., that the federal government is budget constrained (see The Big Danger in Cutting the Deficit). ...The Texas Republican Party Platform also argues that, in contradiction to my last blog post (The Real Job Creators: Consumers), lower business taxes and deregulation will solve our jobs problem. This is false. What we really need is increased demand, which comes via consumers.

. . . This is not to say that there are not portions of the Texas Republican Party Platform that are perfectly reasonable. There are. But, by and large, it reads as if it were written in another age and in ignorance of the social, economic, and scientific evidence of the past half century. Let there be no mistake about it: the Texas Republican Party Platform is terrifying. Were its recommendations implemented, the US would resemble a third-world country with a cheap, uneducated workforce and a massive gap between rich and poor. Unemployment would be rampant, growth stagnant, and answers few and far between thanks to the systematic repression of higher order and critical thinking.

Read the full story @ Forbes.

Read the Texas Democratic platform and its comparison to the Republican platform after the "more" jump:

Supreme Court Affirms 'Citizens United' Unlimited Billionaire Political Payola

The Washington Post

The Supreme Court has struck down a Montana ban on corporate political money, ruling 5 to 4 that the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling applies to state and local elections.

The court broke in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock along the same lines as in the original Citizens United case, when the court ruled that corporate money is speech and thus corporations can spend unlimited amounts on elections.

“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”

No arguments were heard; it was a summary reversal. “To the extent that there was any doubt from the original Citizens United decision broadly applies to state and local laws, that doubt is now gone,” said Marc Elias, a Democratic campaign lawyer. “To whatever extent that door was open a crack, that door is now closed.”

A 1912 Montana law barred direct corporate contributions to political parties and candidates — a response to the election interference of “copper kings.” Mark Twain wrote of one such mining giant in 1907, Sen. William Clark (D), “He is said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment. By his example he has so excused and so sweetened corruption that in Montana it no longer has an offensive smell.” The state supreme court upheld that ban late last year in spite of Citizens United, saying Montana’s history of “rough contests for political and economic domination” gave the state a “unique and compelling interests” in limiting corporate influence on elections.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer wanted the Montana case heard, arguing that Citizens United should get new scrutiny in the light of its effect on campaign finance. In his original decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that independent campaign expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Ginsberg argued that the Montana case was an opportunity to reconsider “in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance.” But today’s ruling shows that the five justices who supported the original ruling have not budged.

Read the full article @ The Washington Post.

Supreme Court Upholds Key Part Of Arizona Anti-Latino Immigratant Law

The Supreme Court today upheld the "papers please" part of Arizona's illegal immigrant law in a 5-3 decision that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops.

The "papers please" part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, can be immediately enforced in Arizona. Other parts of the law, including a provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the justices affirmed the federal government's supremacy over immigration policy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, wrote the opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially dissented, saying the entire law or most of the law should have been upheld.

In the opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that the federal government's "power to determine immigration policy is well settled." But he also sympathized with Arizona's burden in dealing with illegal immigrants.

"Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful im­migration," he wrote. "Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year."

However, the justices found that Arizona cannot mete out their own state punishments for federal immigration crimes.

"Arizona may have under­standable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Kennedy writes in the opinion's conclusion.

Police immigration checks are allowed, however, only because state police would simply flag federal authorities, when the identify illegal immigrants.

Since the passage of Arizona's "papers, please" law, likely voters in Arizona have shifted their support to Democratic candidates in a "very substantive way," according to analysis by Public Policy Polling. That shift is largely due to energized (and probably angry) Latino voters, say Tom Jensen, PPP's director:

ACLU Press Release:

Obama Courts Hispanic Vote At NALEO Conference

A week after signing an executive order that bars the deportation of young illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before they were 16 and have graduated from high school, President Obama today made a direct appeal to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in Orlando, Florida.

Obama addressed the conference of Latino officials, just a day after the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, addressed the conference. Without mentioning Romney by name, the President drew a sharp distinction with his challenger on immigration, reminding the crowd of Romney’s opposition to the DREAM Act, the legislation derailed by Congressional Republicans that is intended to put many illegal immigrant students and veterans on a path to citizenship:

"Your speaker from yesterday has a different view. In his speech, he said that when he makes a promise to you, he’ll keep it. Well, he has promised to veto the DREAM Act, and we should take him at his word. I'm just saying."

Pres. Obama speaking at the NALEO
Annual Conference
June 22, 2012

Asked by pollsters, Latino voters overwhelmingly support Pres. Obama. So much so, in fact, that if Republicans can't pull some of that support back to their own party, Mitt Romney's chances of winning in November are close to zero.

Republicans' callous and deeply unpopular rhetoric against Latinos has created a serious rift between Latino Americans and the GOP.

This has the potential to be a serious problem for Romney and other Republicans on the Texas ballot this November given the staggering statistic that Hispanics now account for 38 percent of the Texas population -- and nearly 4 million Texas Latinos can vote.

This is probably why Texas Republicans are desperate to have their voter photo I.D. law in effect for the November 2012 Presidential Election. Up to 40 percent of Latino American citizens already registered to vote in some Texas counties do not have one of the limited selection of government issued photo I.D.'s needed to vote under this law. As I personally heard so many Republican voters comment when they checked-in to vote early for the Texas Primary last month, "we need that voter photo I.D. law enforced to keep the wrong people from voting."

Still, Texas Latinos historically have been apathetic about voting. The percentage of Latinos who vote has actually dropped over the past eight years. In 2004, roughly 42 percent of Latinos went to the polls, but that number dropped to 38 percent in 2008, falling to 22 percent in the 2010 election.

The newly elected Texas Democratic Party Chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa, says that the flaw in the party’s strategy over the last several years has been its focus on so-called independent voters, when Democrats should be courting the state’s sleeping Latino demographic giant.

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Hispanic turnout is where we’re getting beat,” Hinojosa says. “Anything you want to look at with regards to the Democratic Party, it comes down to that. We’ve got African-Americans, the LGBT community, Asians, women. The one that’s under-performing in greatest numbers and the one that makes up the greatest number of potential voters is the Hispanic community.”

Texas Democrats could learn, Hinojosa says, from California, Nevada and Colorado Democrats' successes in turning out Latino voters in the 2010 election.

In a year in which the Tea Party was killing everyone else, all three states had big Democratic wins due to Latino support. “Nevada spent a lot of money, but they had a focused strategy, and Harry Reid won because of the large Latino voter turnout.”

California has a similar Latino voting population to Texas, but it consistently turns out higher numbers at the polls. Census Bureau figures show that in California, nearly 60 percent of eligible Latinos turn out to vote. The national average is about 50 percent.

The Texas Democratic Party has already started Hispanic outreach programs, like the Promesa Project, that uses a combination of online and grassroots techniques to recruit young Latinos as the party’s messengers to their families, and social networks to get out the Latino vote this November.

Will the Texas Democratic Party's new Latino outreach emphasis pushed by Hinojosa, combined with Latino voters' overwhelming support of Pres. Obama, on top of Latino antipathy for the GOP boost Latino voter turnout back to 42 percent, or more, of that demographic group? We will find out on Election Day, November 6.

Seaway Pipeline Risk To North Texas Water Supply

by Deborah Angell-Smith

Learn about the proposed Seaway Pipeline and the risk it poses to the North Texas water supply at a Democratic Network Educational Session, 10:45am this Sat. morning, June 23rd, at the John & Judy Gay Library in McKinney. (John & Judy Gay Library - 6861 El Dorado Parkway - Map)

Most of us have heard of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. This past November, a similar plan was announced to operate the Seaway pipeline, an existing 36-year old crude pipeline that passes through Collin, Grayson, Rockwall, and Kaufman counties, and crosses tributaries to Lake Lavon and other water sources supplying the DFW area.

In this plan, tar sands crude will travel 500-miles between Cushing, Oklahoma and refineries on the Gulf Coast. Tar sands is far more toxic, acidic, and corrosive than conventional crude since it has to be liquified with natural gas condensate and other chemicals to dilute it enough to push it through a highly pressurized pipeline.

The Seaway pipeline will be developed by Enbridge Inc., the operator responsible for the largest and most expensive tar sand spill in U.S. history, in a 50/50 partnership with Enterprise Partners. The toxic Enbridge spill on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan was due to a rupture in an aging, 43-year old repurposed pipeline, not unlike Seaway. Now, two years and $720 million later, people along the Kalamazoo are sick and their property is ruined.

DFW's already scarce water supply will be at risk with the transport of tar sands crude through this aging, repurposed pipeline. Join us this Saturday to learn more about Seaway and the actions we can take as citizens on this threat to our DFW water supply at our second Democratic Network Forum.

Our speaker will be Rita Beving, the North Texas organizer for Public Citizen. Her current focus is the Seaway and Keystone pipelines. She has more than 15 years activist experience on air and water issues. Rita also serves as the 391 consultant regarding the Keystone pipeline for the cities of Gallatin/Reklaw/Alto. In addition to her role as an activist, Rita operates a thriving antiques business. She is supported in all of her efforts by her husband, our good friend and former SDEC Committeeman, David Griggs.

We'll meet at the John & Judy Gay Library in McKinney, 6861 El Dorado Parkway, just east of Alma. It's centrally located in the county and a beautiful facility with plenty of room, so please bring interested friends and neighbors. Come for coffee and breakfast goodies at 10:45 am and the program will get started at 11. We'll wrap up by 1 pm and those who care to do so can adjourn to a nearby restaurant for lunch and continue the discussion.

If you're not able to come this Saturday, we hope you'll be able to join us at our next Forum. Our plan is to offer local residents opportunities to learn more about the issues that affect us right here in Collin County, and what we, as Democrats, are doing to make things better. We also hope to foster discussion groups in each of our local communities.

We invite your input on topics, speakers, format and other options - and encourage you to get involved in growing our network. We'll have sign-up and comment sheets at the event, but if you aren't able to attend, please e-mail us at info@collindems.net, or call (469) 713-2031 to leave a voice message.

Social Media Caucus At The Democratic State Convention

by Michael Handley

Last week, at the 2012 Democratic State Convention in Houston, I attended the Social Media Caucus. This well attended panel discussion was chaired by Democratic activist and citizen editorialist, Rachel Farris (@meanrachel) who writes Mean Rachel, a popular progressive blog that covers perspective and satire on Texas and national politics.

Rachel kicked off the caucus by interviewing Texas State Senator Kirk Watson (@kirkpwatson) who explained how as a legislator and candidate he effectively uses Twitter and other social media to open and maintain discussions with his constituents.

Texas State Senator Kirk Watson and Rachel Farris discuss the Senator's #AskKW Twitter chat channel

Sen. Watson writes his own blog/e-newsletter the Watson Wire, and has a large following on both his political and personal Facebook pages.

His website – www.kirkwatson.com – is plugged into his Facebook and Twitter pages and he recently started experimenting with a comment function where, if people log in, they can leave their thoughts and questions, to which Senator Watson can respond.

Senator Watson understands that social media can be used to inform his constituents about the issues. But Sen. Watson is also learning that social media is even more powerful because it can be used as a two-way communication channel to have regular conversations with large numbers of voters at one time. Using Twitter, or other social media platforms, politicians like Senator Watson can have regular conversations with voters that are as effective as phone and door canvassing.

Unfortunately, candidates themselves do not have the time to call or visit many voters at home – one person at a time. And phone and door canvassing contact with individual voters is usually just a one-time conversation per election cycle. Recruiting enough volunteer or paid campaign workers to engage enough voters one by one to swing an election is also difficult – especially for first time novice candidates. Phone and door canvassing can only be done only one voter at a time, but using social media, politicians can converse with many people at a time, as Senator Watson discusses in the video.

Just as a candidate personally knocking on doors and making phone calls to talk to voters wins more votes than interns, volunteers or paid canvassers might win talking to people at those same homes, so a candidate personally engaging people in social media conversation will win more votes than novice volunteers tweeting. Additionally, the increasing prevalence of "cell phone- only" households is making traditional landline-based political canvassing activities obsolete.

When it comes to building relationships with voters, social media services like YouTube, iTunes Podcasts, Blogs, Facebook, and Twitter are communication channels that can be as effective as spending millions of dollars on traditional TV, Radio and Print media market buys. It is just as important to prepare a carefully thought out message communication plan for social media as it is for a multimillion dollar traditional TV, Radio and Print media market buy.

Tweeting is not just for candidates! Party leaders can just as effectively use Twitter, and other social media channels, to regularly engage in conversations with the base of Texas Democrats. Over time these conversations with grassroots Democrats can expand, motivate and empower Democrats to both support the party and vote on election day.

Next on the Social Media Caucus agenda after Senator Watson, Rachel moderated a social media panel discussion among professional and citizen journalists.

The panel (picture above from left) included Rachel Farris, Scott Braddock, (@scottbraddock) a well-known Texas radio journalist and commentator who also writes his Voice of Texas blog, Charles Kuffner (@kuff) who writes his Off the Kuff blog, Michael Li, (@mcpli) a Dallas lawyer who specializes in election law and who writes his Texas Redistricting blog, and Peter Salinas, Vice President of the Hidalgo County Young Democrats organization that uses Social Media for community outreach.