LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's JournalFight for leadership of Harris County Republican Party
Jared Woodfill is a tea party idiot who has been the chairman of the county party for a while. Woodfill is being challenged for leadership of the Harris County GOP http://texpate.com/2014/01/10/the-harris-county-gop-chairman-race/
The Houston Chronicle reports that County Judge Ed Emmett has endorsed Paul Simpson in his race for chairman of the Harris County GOP, against incumbent Jared Woodfill. Emmett, a Republican, is the highest ranking member of the county party, holding the de facto executive leadership role over Harris County.
The news was broken last night on Quorum Report, where it was also reported that Emmett had donated a generous $10,000.00 to Simpson’s campaign. As the astute may recall, this is Simpson’s –a local attorney– third bid against the incumbent chair. However, unlike a previous race, this year’s election simply features the two candidates, making Woodfill somewhat more vulnerable. Emmett blasted Woodfill as being out of touch and implicit in the recent losing streak of the party. Ronald Reagan would probably not be welcome in today’s Republican Party. I would like to see the base in Harris County to be 400,000, not 150,000,” Emmett says.
Ed Emmett is well respected and this will be a fun race to watch. I have heard that the fight is getting nasty with tea party types backing Woodfill and the business types in the GOP backing Paul Simpson
Mayor Zimmer has been asked by US attorney to cease media interviews
The US attorney has asked Mayor Zimmer to cease media interviews. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/01/after_national_media_appearances_zimmer_says_her_lips_are_sealed.html
This is after one appearance on MSNBC last Saturday, when she first aired her claims, and two on CNN, the last one on Monday night. She declined to speak to Fox News.
But her lips are sealed from now on, Zimmer, a Democrat, said in a statement she issued this morning.
"The U.S. Attorney's Office has asked that we not conduct additional media interviews and we are respecting their request,” the statement reads. “I stand by my previous statements and remain willing to testify under oath about all of the facts in this case."
U.S. Attorney’s Office spokeswoman Rebekah Carmichael said her office doesn't publicly discuss whether or not it has had specific meetings or conversations.
This request for a gag order tells me that that US attorney is seriously investigating this issue. You do not want your star witness out giving media interviews that can be used against that witness at trial.
Texas would be covered under proposed amendment to Voting Rights Act
I personally do not think that this amendment has a chance of passage but last week a bipartisan group of congresspersons proposed an amendment to the Voting Rights Act that would undo the damage inflicted by the SCOTUS in the Shelby County case. http://txredistricting.org/post/73550604374/proposed-vra-amendments-would-return-texas-to The act has some good stuff and some not-so good stuff but one of the key provisions would be that Texas and three other states would automatically be subject to preclearance.
Under the proposed amendments, states and local entities would be required to submit voting changes for preclearance before putting them into effect if they met the conditions of two new statutory triggers.
For states, preclearance coverage would be triggered “if 5 or more voting rights violations occurred in the State during the previous 15 calendar years, at least one of which was committed by the State itself (as opposed to a political subdivision within the State).”
Currently, four states - Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi - would be covered under the new formula.
There is no way that this amendment is going to pass. Remember Greg Abbott is taking the position in the Texas redistricting case that the Texas GOP is discriminating for partisan purposes which is okay in his opinion http://www.nationalmemo.com/texas-attorney-general-texas-didnt-discriminate-against-minorities-only-against-democrats/
Texas’ defense does not deny that Texas engaged in discrimination, but it does deny that it did so on the basis of race.
Greg Abbott backed up Texas, explaining: “In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats.”
In other words: The state’s Republican Party was trying to water down Democratic votes, not those of minorities.
Here is a great quote from the brief filed by Texas
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/texas-struggles-defend-discriminatory
From the brief filed by the state:DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats….The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations, and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary.
Got that? Texas wasn’t trying to discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities; Texas was simply trying to discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities who vote for Democrats.
In other words, Texas’ defense is that state policymakers were trying to crush the Democratic vote, and this led to inadvertent discrimination against African Americans and Latinos. As such, the argument goes, Texas was motivated by crass partisanship, and not racism, so the discrimination doesn’t really count.
I personally do not believe that the GOP will vote to save the Voting Rights Act because the amendment would subject Texas to pre-clearance.
Meetup opportunities for Fort Bend/Houston DUers
The Fort Bend County Democratic Party is having a fundraiser on Friday, January 24, 2014 with Representative Joaquin Castro as the speaker. http://www.fortbenddemocrats.org/fundraiser
I will be there along with Juanita Jean who has promised that she has some new jokes. Chairman Hinojosa will be there and it should be a fun event. We are holding the event at Tom DeLay's country club.
There is also a Ready for Hillary event in Houston the next day (January 25, 2014) in Houston. I also plan to attend this event. Here are the details for the Hillary event:
Doors Open at: 12:45PM
Program Starts at: 1:00PM
CWA Local 6222
1730 Jefferson St.
Houston, TX 77003
PDittie and I saw each other at one of the redistricting hearing. It has been along time since we tried to have a meetup.
Opposition research on Wendy Davis is being released
The GOP opposition researchers are trying to poke holes in Wendy Davis' life story and the details that she got wrong are not significant. The date of her actual divorce is when the paperwork was finalized and not when she was separated from her first husband. Does it make any difference when the divorce became final when the point of the story was that she was a single parent at the time of her separation from her first husband?
As to some of the other details, Wendy's second ex-husband and her father are defending her http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wendy_davis_admits_fudged_facts_in_bio
Jeff Davis said paying for part of his ex-wife's education wasn't a "big deal," and told the Morning News that her past financial struggles were real.
“A lot of what she says is true,” he told the newspaper. “When she was 21, it became a little easier for her. The first 21 years were about working one, two and three jobs, trying to get through, raising a kid, driving an old Toyota pickup truck that was the smallest you could find."
Davis' father, Jerry Russell, also defended his daughter's successes in an October interview with Texas Monthly.
"She is who she is, I promise you that," Russell said. "The whole situation with the mother working at Braum’s--that’s all true."
I have given money to the Davis campaign as well as to Battleground Texas and I plan to continue to make contributions to these campaigns. Nothing in this story has changed my mind.
The fact that the Abbott team is trying to make a big deal of this crap tells me that they are worried.
New case on Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act came out today
This is really major news because there have been few cases involving Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 3 allows the DOJ to have pre-clearance rights over a political jurisdiction if that jurisdiction violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or other laws. http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/01/u-s-district-court-in-alabama-makes-rare-use-of-section-3-of-the-voting-rights-act/
The most obscure part of the federal Voting Rights Act is Section 3, which says that if a jurisdiction persistently demonstrates a disregard of voting rights for ethnic and racial minorities, it is subject to pre-clearance from the U.S. Justice Department. This section applies to the entire nation, but has almost never been used, because between 1965 and 2013, such jurisdictions were virtually always also required to obtain pre-clearance under Section 5.
On January 13, 2014, a U.S. District Court in Alabama used Section 3 to require the city of Evergreen to obtain approval from the Justice Department, if it makes changes to the voting rolls and also if it makes redistricting changes in its city council elections. The city had been placed under Section 5 in 2012. But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made enforcement of Section 5 impossible, because the Court invalidated Section 4, which is linked to Section 5 and contains the formula to determine which parts of the nation are under Section 5.
The decision is Allen v City of Evergreen, southern district, 13-0107.
The DOJ and the private plaintiffs are suing in both the redistricting case and the voter id case to cause Texas to be subject to Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. The fact that the DOJ forced a city to agree to be subject to pre-clearance is a big deal and my indicate that the courts are reacting to the SCOTUS' ruling as to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Alabama Town ordered Bailed in under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act
This is really major news because there have been few cases involving Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 3 allows the DOJ to have pre-clearance rights over a political jurisdiction if that jurisdiction violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or other laws. http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/01/u-s-district-court-in-alabama-makes-rare-use-of-section-3-of-the-voting-rights-act/
The most obscure part of the federal Voting Rights Act is Section 3, which says that if a jurisdiction persistently demonstrates a disregard of voting rights for ethnic and racial minorities, it is subject to pre-clearance from the U.S. Justice Department. This section applies to the entire nation, but has almost never been used, because between 1965 and 2013, such jurisdictions were virtually always also required to obtain pre-clearance under Section 5.
On January 13, 2014, a U.S. District Court in Alabama used Section 3 to require the city of Evergreen to obtain approval from the Justice Department, if it makes changes to the voting rolls and also if it makes redistricting changes in its city council elections. The city had been placed under Section 5 in 2012. But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made enforcement of Section 5 impossible, because the Court invalidated Section 4, which is linked to Section 5 and contains the formula to determine which parts of the nation are under Section 5.
The decision is Allen v City of Evergreen, southern district, 13-0107.
The DOJ and the private plaintiffs are suing in both the redistricting case and the voter id case to cause Texas to be subject to Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. The fact that the DOJ forced a city to agree to be subject to pre-clearance is a big deal and my indicate that the courts are reacting to the SCOTUS' ruling as to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
U.S. District Court in Alabama Makes Rare Use of Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act
Source: Ballot Access News
The most obscure part of the federal Voting Rights Act is Section 3, which says that if a jurisdiction persistently demonstrates a disregard of voting rights for ethnic and racial minorities, it is subject to pre-clearance from the U.S. Justice Department. This section applies to the entire nation, but has almost never been used, because between 1965 and 2013, such jurisdictions were virtually always also required to obtain pre-clearance under Section 5.
On January 13, 2014, a U.S. District Court in Alabama used Section 3 to require the city of Evergreen to obtain approval from the Justice Department, if it makes changes to the voting rolls and also if it makes redistricting changes in its city council elections. The city had been placed under Section 5 in 2012. But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made enforcement of Section 5 impossible, because the Court invalidated Section 4, which is linked to Section 5 and contains the formula to determine which parts of the nation are under Section 5.
The decision is Allen v City of Evergreen, southern district, 13-0107.
Read more: http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/01/u-s-district-court-in-alabama-makes-rare-use-of-section-3-of-the-voting-rights-act/
Texas Democratic Party Vote by Mail program
I just attended a training session held by the Fort Bend and Galveston county Democratic parties that included training on the new Texas Democratic Party vote by mail program. The GOP has been doing a vote by mail program for years and this program is designed to even the playing field and to help older voters with voter id issues.
You can check the program out here http://vbm.txdemocrats.org/
If you are a first time voter who did not provide either drivers license or social security number on your voter registration application, then you still need to vote in person or provide the id required to vote in person before you can vote by mail. http://www.longdistancevoter.org/texas#.UtHBeWeA0Y0 This is one reason why it is critical that voter registrars make sure that they have the last four digits of each voter's social security on the voter registration application.
If you are not a first time voter or if you provided your social security number on your voter registration application, then you can vote by mail without a voter id if you are: (i) over 65, (ii) disabled, (iii) out of the county or (iv) in jail. If the voter is over 65 or disabled then the voter can request vote by mail ballots only once for the primary, the primary runoff and all general elections during that year.
The disability criterion is subjective to the voter and is not subject to second guessing. At the training, it was stated that the Travis County Election Office stated that if one does not have an id and it would be a "pain in the ass" to get an id, then that voter could consider this "pain in the ass" as a sufficient disability to vote by mail. Under the law, no one is suppose to be able to challenge a voter's determination as to that voter's disability.
If you apply for an application yourself, the party will be able to track to make sure that the ballot was issued and check to see you have received the ballot.
You can generate an application to vote by mail for for other people once you are signed off on by the party (any precinct chair will eventually have this authority). The concept is that party leaders can go door to door for all voters in that precinct who are over 65 with copies of pre-printed applications that can be signed and sent to the applicable election office.
This system is going live next week.
Should Christie's aides be granted immunity?
The first Christie aide has invoked and is invoking the 5th amendment. The only way around this right is to grant immunity to the witness so that they have to testify. A witness can not normally be forced to testify if they are not subject to criminal proceedings due to such testimony. There are two types of immunity grants: (i) transactional immunity and (ii) use immunity. A grant of transactional immunity means that the witness could not be prosecuted for the crime or conduct in question. A grant of use immunity means that the testimony and any facts discovered due to the testimony can not be used. Oliver North was granted use immunity but later got off due to the fact that it was impossible to prove that the evidence used against him was not based on his testimony.
If use immunity is used, it can be in effect transactional immunity unless the prosecutor has built a strong case that he can prove is based on facts not derived from the testimony. This is what happen to Oliver North in that he was able to convince the judges that the testimony he have under oath was the basis for some of the evidence used against him.
I expect that the US Attorney and other law enforcement groups investigating this event will have to do their own investigation without the help of these witnesses and then decide if they want to grant use immunity. I personally have no trouble with the grant of use immunity at the right time. It appears from the court records that Congress gave Oliver North use immunity to early and that enabled North to reverse the convictions and to escape prosecution.
This process will take time and the threat of these actions will hang over Christie during any campaign. Why would anyone want to give him the type of money to run a national campaign with this issue remaining open. The New Jersey Democrats can always decide to force testimony at any time if they are willing to let the witness have a get out of jail card due to such testimony. If you were a big donor, would you want to risk your investment based on something that is in the control of the Democrats?
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 145,667