Author: mopress

In Rush to Meet Federal Deadlines
Voter Registration Project

Begins to Show Signs of Stress

By Greg Moses

While the Texas Secretary of State and his office are maintaining an optimistic ‘can do’ attitude toward meeting federal mandates to produce a statewide database and election management system by Jan. 1, a plain reading of documentary evidence indicates that pressures are already building inside the project and that some federal adjustment of the timeline may be in the best interest of voters and voting officials in Texas. An adjustment would also allow project workers to spend more time on quality issues.

A statewide voter database mandated by federal law to be ready by Jan. 1 looks like it will be completed no sooner than Feb. 2 according to project documents made available to the Texas Civil Rights Review this week. While the one month gap may be understandable under the circumstances, it is one of several signs that the ambitious project presents complex and difficult challenges for state officials and private contractors alike. And Texas may very well be ahead of the game compared to other states.

The combination of optimism and concern is summarized in notes concerning a two-day review of the database project conducted in late March. On the one hand state management reports that the review produced “Excellent Results. The system vision is beginning to take shape.” But the next sentence says a mouthful: “Many details remain, though.”

“Counties are concerned” about a “Perfect Storm” of new systems coming on line all at once says one project note from early January. County officials will be training employees to deal with new electronic voting issues while they also try to cope with the new voter registration system and a new election management system that keeps up with candidate registrations and ballots.

“Don’t know if there’s much we can do about this,” says a note from early January. “Fed law drives the dates.” The note goes on to suggest that the SOS office may be able to “assist the counties somewhat” with the electronic voting issues and adjust the schedule for bringing the ballot definition software online. But the issue is not marked for high priority.

If fed law drives the dates, perhaps fed law can be changed?

By early March the SOS staff was complaining that document reviews for the project were too rushed. “SOS staff reviewers are feeling very rushed with the volume of documents requesting review concurrently,” says one report. “They are concerned that they will miss something. Quality is suffering.” In response to the complaint, one manager writes that the project needs “better pacing of deliverables.”

But the stress in the project was also evident from the side of private contractor Hart InterCivic whose “deliverable” software of March 15 came without installation instructions or a users guide.

In late January a focus group of county officials did not much like a Hart InterCivic proposal for a two-step process for registering voters, where data would be entered for later review and approval. A phone call from an SOS staffer to a county worker revealed that the system now used by counties employs a one-step process. Again, it’s not clear how the SOS will resolve the issue between county officials and software developer Hart InterCivic.

One of the first problems faced by project managers was where to host the database servers. Apparently state guidelines encourage computer functions to be centralized at a West Texas facility, so the project needed a waiver from the Legislative Budget Board in order to set up their servers in Austin. While the computers may eventually have to be housed in a West Texas warehouse, the database is being developed in Austin.

Another question came up regarding the use of mapping. Texas officials envisioned a mapping system that would allow counties to make redistricting plans and submit them to the Department of Justice. But the system that mapping contractors were preparing for the state would only be able to designate existing district lines, not “plans.” It’s not yet clear how that issue will be resolved.

Another issue involves the assignment of login IDs and passwords. The current voter database used by the Secretary of State (SOS) allows the state to assign master logins for each county that can be delegated by county officials, but the new system would centralize all login assignments through the SOS.

Will a deluge of public hits to the system block access by county officials during crucial times? How will user roles and passwords be defined? Will counties be able to keep their subsets of data locally? The answer to the last question is “not within scope” say the documents, meaning that the project is not designed to allow it.

Project manager Bob Futrell told the Texas Civil Rights Review during a previous interview that complex projects often have rough going during the early phases, followed by smoother operations later as the initial difficulties get worked through. And Texas SOS Roger Williams promises to make things work. But if Texas is one of the better organized states at this point in the process, and if lower level workers are expressing worries about workflow, project scope, and timing, the wiser course of action may be to encourage a federal review of the parameters that have been imposed upon the states by the mandates from the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Time for Both Parties to Re-Think

By Greg Moses

“Conservatism breeds every kind of prejudice. I am glad to see radicals raising hell”–Melvin B. Tolson

We’re thinking of Tolson today as we receive news that the State Affairs Committee has voted in favor of the bill to Constitutionalize Homophobia in Texas.

I remember a fine old character who served in the Texas lege during the early fifties. His tenure there was short because he tipped his hand toward civil rights. Or rather, as the story went, he gave voters evidence that he was not terribly reliable as an anti-civil rights dogfighter. Profane terms were in common currency to describe his sin and his character. So he lived out his days as a Justice of the Peace.

In the 6-1-2 committee vote to support a homophobic amendment to the state constitution, I see the same template of Texas politics at work. Texas voters still demand from their reps a sign that civil rights will not creep into the priorities of state. In Texas we demand to be taught lessons in civil rights, we never demand to teach them. This time voters will secure a Constitutional warrant.

While the lone hero in the vote is a Democrat, the uniqueness of the stand must be chalked up to personal integrity rather than party principle. Neither party AS a party has anything to congratulate itself about in this sad, sad, sad affair. History will show the early 21st Century in Texas is playing out as the early 20th, only with issues transposed. But the same visceral appetite is being fed. A vulnerable minority is being demeaned in order to assert some kind of willful moral authority among the majority. And history can march backward quite a distance sometimes.

The Texas Political Journal “Politico” sends a very similar warning in response to a Democrat “hit list” that is being circulated. There are four Democrats being targeted for primary challenges, with the explanation from party organizers that these four have been disloyal to the party by aligning with Republican leadership. They are called Craddick Democrats, Craddick-D’s, or CD’s for short, named for the Republican speaker of the house Tom Craddick.

Of the four targets, three are Hispanic and one is African American. Politico does not dispute that these reps have worked with Republican leadership. One of the targets, for example, gave fine arguments against the Bill to Constitutionalize Homophobia in Texas, but on the day of the committee vote, he did not show up. So this is the kind of political behavior we are talking about.

But Politico raises a question of fairness and suggests that in matters of political discipline the Democratic party is also showing signs of retaining an old template of East Texas power when it fails to single out any conservative white Democrats. Based on small samples of evidence in cyberspace it appears that Politico’s concerns have already been brushed aside, even by so-called progressive Democrats. Politico’s failure to be heard counts as evidence toward his claim that old-style opportunism still rules.

It is not an easy mess to untangle. Democrats already “disloyal” are being treated in ways that raise questions about the value of “loyalty” to such a party in the first place. Lots of people who have done wrong things are strictly punished, but strict punishment can also serve to remind us of all the cases of wrongdoing that get overlooked. This is the template of criminalization from top to bottom in Texas. Whether there is consciousness of these dynamics remains doubtful, even among self-styled progressives.

Another tangled knot involves the relationship between Civil Rights and civil rights. I capitalize Civil Rights when referring to post-Civil War amendments 13, 14, and 15 guaranteeing abolition, equal protection, and voting for African Americans. Texas historian David Williams argues that Civil Rights is nothing but the effort to fulfill these amendments.

In the ongoing effort to fulfill these amendments, some very valuable principles of civil rights have been developed and applied to other important problems such as lesbian/gay liberation. And so long as we continue to pursue Civil Rights, we will reap benefits for civil rights, too. But we can’t forget our Civil Rights principles of equal protection, even when we seek to discipline civil rights defectors. Scapegoating by any other name is still the same ugly thing.

* * *

“Then too,” wrote Tolson, “if you are scared to be radical, you can cheer the man who has the guts to speak out for human rights. You can write him a letter of appreciation and tell him to burn it up.”

Or send her an email and tell her to delete it?

Quotes taken from African American Humanism, edited by Norm Allen, Jr. (Buffalo: Pantheon Books. 1991)

DHS Exercises Waiver Authority to Expedite Advancements in Border Security. Release Date: April 1, 2008. For Immediate Release. Office of the Press Secretary. Contact: 202-282-8010

Homeland Security waives laws to finish border fence. By MIMI HALL, USA Today. April 02, 2008

---

[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)]

[Notices]

[Page 19078-19080]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr08ap08-63]

---

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of the Secretary

Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of determination; correction.

---

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to
law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations and other
legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of
barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border of
the United States. The notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on April 3, 2008. Due to a publication error, the
description of the Project Areas was inadvertently omitted from the
April 3 publication. For clarification purposes, this document is a
republication of the April 3 document including the omitted description
of the Project Areas.

DATES: This Notice is effective on April 8, 2008.

Determination and Waiver

I have a mandate to achieve and maintain operational control of the
borders of the United States. Public Law 109-367, 2, 120 Stat. 2638, 8
U.S.C. 1701 note. Congress has provided me with a number of authorities
necessary to accomplish this mandate. One of these authorities is found
at section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104-208, Div. C,
110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554 (Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C 1103 note), as
amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, Div. B, 119
Stat. 231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by
the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, 3, 120 Stat. 2638
(Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E,
Title V, 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In Section 102(a) of
IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical
barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of
illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter
illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United
States. In Section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress has called for the
installation of fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and
sensors on not less than 700 miles of the southwest border, including
priority miles of fencing that must be completed by December 2008.
Finally, in section 102(c) of the IIRIRA, Congress granted to me the
authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole
discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction
of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.

I determine that the following areas in the vicinity of the United
States border, located in the States of California, Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas are areas of high illegal entry (collectively
“Project Areas”):

California

• Starting approximately 1.5 mile east of Border Monument
  (BM) 251 and ends approximately at BM 250.
• Starting approximately 1.1 miles west of BM 245 and runs
  east for approximately 0.8 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.2 mile west of BM 243 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 0.5 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.7 mile east of BM 243 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 0.9 mile.
• Starting approximately 1.0 mile east of BM 243 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 0.9 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.7 mile west of BM 242 and stops
  approximately 0.4 mile west of BM 242.
• Starting approximately 0.8 mile east of BM 242 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 1.1 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.4 mile east of BM 239 and runs
  east for approximately 0.4 mile along the border.
• Starting approximately 1.2 miles east of BM 239 and runs
  east for approximately 0.2 mile along the border.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile west of BM 235 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 1.1 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.8 mile east of BM 235 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 0.1 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.6 mile east of BM 234 and runs
  east for approximately 1.7 miles along the border.
• Starting approximately 0.4 mile east of BM 233 and runs
  east for approximately 2.1 miles along the border.
• Starting approximately 0.05 mile west of BM 232 and runs
  east for approximately 0.1 mile along the border.

[[Page 19079]]

• Starting approximately 0.2 mile east of BM 232 and runs
  east for approximately 1.5 miles along the border.
• Starting 0.6 mile east of Border Monument 229 heading east
  along the border for approximately 11.3 miles to BM 225.
• Starting approximately 0.1 mile east of BM 224 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 2.5 miles.
• Starting approximately 2.3 miles east of BM 220 and runs
  east along the border to BM 207.

Arizona

• Starting approximately 1.0 mile south of BM 206 and runs
  south along the Colorado River for approximately 13.3 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.1 mile north of County 18th
  Street running south along the border for approximately 3.8 miles.
• Starting at the Eastern edge of BMGR and runs east along
  the border to approximately 1.3 miles west of BM 174.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile west of BM 168 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 5.3 miles.
• Starting approximately 1 mile east of BM 160 and runs east
  for approximately 1.6 miles.
• Starting approximately 1.3 miles east of BM 159 and runs
  east along the border to approximately 0.3 mile east of BM 140.
• Starting approximately 2.2 miles west of BM 138 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 2.5 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.2 miles east of BM 136 and runs
  east along the border to approximately 0.2 mile west of BM 102.
• Starting approximately 3 miles west of BM 99 and runs east
  along the border approximately 6.5 miles.
• Starting approximately at BM 97 and runs east along the
  border approximately 6.9 miles.
• Starting approximately at BM 91 and runs east along the
  border to approximately 0.7 miles east of BM 89.
• Starting approximately 1.7 miles west of BM 86 and runs
  east along the border to approximately 0.7 mile west of BM 86.
• Starting approximately 0.2 mile west of BM 83 and runs
  east along the border to approximately 0.2 mile east of BM 73.

New Mexico

• Starting approximately 0.8 mile west of BM 69 and runs
  east along the border to approximately 1.5 miles west of BM 65.
• Starting approximately 2.3 miles east of BM 65 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 6.0 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile east of BM 61 and runs
  east along the border until approximately 1.0 mile west of BM 59.
• Starti
  ng
  approximately 0.1 miles east of BM 39 and runs
  east along the border to approximately 0.3 mile east of BM 33.
• Starting approximately 0.25 mile east of BM 31 and runs
  east along the border for approximately 14.2 miles.
• Starting approximately at BM 22 and runs east along the
  border to approximately 1.0 mile west BM 16.
• Starting at approximately 1.0 mile west of BM 16 and runs
  east along the border to approximately BM 3.

Texas

• Starting approximately 0.4 miles southeast of BM 1 and
  runs southeast along the border for approximately 3.0 miles.
• Starting approximately 1 Mi E of the intersection of
  Interstate 54 and Border Highway and runs southeast approximately 57
  miles in proximity to the IBWC levee to 3.7 miles east of the Ft
  Hancock POE.
• Starting approximately 1.6 miles west of the intersection
  of Esperanza and Quitman Pass Roads and runs along the IBWC levee east
  for approximately 4.6 miles.
• Starting at the Presidio POE and runs west along the
  border to approximately 3.2 miles west of the POE.
• Starting at the Presidio POE and runs east along the
  border to approximately 3.4 miles east of the POE.
• Starting approximately 1.8 miles west of Del Rio POE and
  runs east along the border for approximately 2.5 miles.
• Starting approximately 1.3 Mi north of the Eagle Pass POE
  and runs south approximately 0.8 miles south of the POE.
• Starting approximately 2.1 miles west of Roma POE and runs
  east approximately 1.8 miles east of the Roma POE.
• Starting approximately 3.5 miles west of Rio Grande City
  POE and runs east in proximity to the Rio Grande river for
  approximately 9 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.9 miles west of County Road 41
  and runs east approximately 1.2 miles and then north for approximately
  0.8 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile west of the end of River
  Dr and runs east in proximity to the IBWC levee for approximately 2.5
  miles.
• Starting approximately 0.6 miles east of the intersection
  of Benson Rd and Cannon Rd and runs east in proximity to the IBWC levee
  for approximately 1 mile.
• Starting at the Los Indios POE and runs west in proximity
  to the IBWC levee for approximately 1.7 miles.
• Starting at the Los Indios POE and runs east in proximity
  to the IBWC levee for approximately 3.6 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile west of Main St and J
  Padilla St intersection and runs east in proximity to the IBWC levee
  for approximately 2.0 miles.
• Starting approximately 1.2 miles west of the Intersection
  of U.S. HWY 281 and Los Ranchitos Rd and runs east in proximity to the
  IBWC levee for approximately 2.4 miles.
• Starting approx 0.5 miles southwest of the intersection of
  U.S. 281 and San Pedro Rd and runs east in proximity to the IBWC levee
  for approximately 1.8 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.1 miles southwest of the
  Intersection of Villanueva St and Torres Rd and runs east in proximity
  to the IBWC levee for approximately 3.6 miles.
• Starting approximately south of Palm Blvd and runs east in
  proximity to the City of Brownsville’s levee to approximately the
  Gateway-Brownsville POE where it continues south and then east in
  proximity to the IBWC levee for a total length of approximately 3.5
  miles.
• Starting at the North Eastern Edge of Ft Brown Golf Course
  and runs east in proximity to the IBWC levee for approximately 1 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.3 miles east of Los Tomates-
  Brownsville POE and runs east and then north in proximity to the IBWC
  levee for approximately 13 miles.

In order to deter illegal crossings in the Project Areas, there is
presently a need to construct fixed and mobile barriers (such as
fencing, vehicle barriers, towers, sensors, cameras, and other
surveillance, communication, and detection equipment) and roads in the
vicinity of the border of the United States. In order to ensure the
expeditious construction of the barriers and roads that Congress
prescribed in the IIRIRA in the Project Areas, which are areas of high
illegal entry into the United States, I have determined that it is
necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section
102(c) of the IIRIRA as amended.

Accordingly, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the
construction of roads and fixed and mobile barriers (including, but not
limited to, accessing the project area, creating and using staging
areas, the

[[Page 19080]]

conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and
installation and upkeep of fences, roads, supporting elements,
drainage, erosion controls, safety features, surveillance,
communication, and detection equipment of all types, radar and radio
towers, and lighting) in the Project Areas, all federal, state, or
other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or
related to the subject of, the following laws, as amended: The National
Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970)
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)), the Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93-205,
87 Stat. 884 (Dec. 28, 1973) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)), the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water
Act) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)), the National Historic Preservation Act
(Pub. L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)),
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Archeological Resources Protection
Act (Pub. L. 96-95, 16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water
Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control Act (42 U.S.C. 4901 et
seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation
Act (Pub. L. 86-523, 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Antiquities Act (16
U.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act
(16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90-
542, 16 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.), the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7
U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the Coastal Zone Management Act (Pub. L. 92-583,
16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 88-577, 16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Pub L. 94-
579, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act (Pub. L. 89-669, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Fish
and Wildlife Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84-1024, 16 U.S.C. 742a, et seq.),
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73-121, 16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), the
Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-145), Sections
102(29) and 103 of Title I of the California Desert Protection Act
(Pub. L. 103-433), 50 Stat. 1827, the National Park Service Organic Act
(Pub. L. 64-235, 16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4), the National Park Service General
Authorities Act (Pub. L. 91-383, 16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.), Sections
401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978
(Pub. L. 95-625), Sections 301(a)-(f) of the Arizona Desert Wilderness
Act (Pub. L. 101-628), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.
403), the Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. 2000bb), the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), an

d the
Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531).

This waiver does not supersede, supplement, or in any way modify
the previous waivers published in the Federal Register on September 22,
2005 (70 FR 55622), January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2535), and October 26, 2007
(72 FR 60870).

I reserve the authority to make further waivers from time to time
as I may determine to be necessary to accomplish the provisions of
section 102 of the IIRIRA, as amended.

Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-7451 Filed 4-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

Email from Dr. Asma Salam.

Regardless of uncertain Texas weather, including thunderstorms, snow warnings, ice, sleet, and extreme cold the protest to free Suzi Hazahza and all mistreated immigrants has been going on.
Last Wednesday members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) joined us, and I was invited by them that same evening to their leadership conference at DeSoto City Hall. I spoke about the issue of immigrant mistreatment and spread the awareness among the community leaders including DeSoto Mayor, city manager, and other community leaders.

Last Friday, Sr. Patricia and at least 30 church group members stood with me during their Good Friday parade. Also Mr. Ralph Isenberg spent a few hours last week in protest with us.

Now our signs are reflecting the current information about ICE and inhumane treatment of children and families in immigration detention Centers by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). To my surprise, a lot of people who work at 1100 Commerce street are not even aware of immigration detention centers and ICE.

I am glad that protest signs are contributing in educating the local community about this issue. Several lawyers have shown their support and have shared their dislike of ICE’s inhumane treatment of children and families.

Although I am standing alone for a few hours everyday until my friends show up, it is no doubt worth it in making a difference, and I wish and pray that God help us all in supporting humanity and putting an end to this unacceptable inhumane treatment of children and families at ICE immigration detention centers in our country.

Thanks to my Dallas Peace Center friends, Women in Black (International network of women activists who challenge the reality of violence, military occupation and torture as a viable approach to conflict resolution) and Patricia Juarez. Our friendship, commitment and support have kept us all warm at this cold-front protest against ICE.

I would like to invite everyone to join us at these protest vigils to increase the awareness of these inhumane immigration detention centers inside our American borders and to stop ICE from destroying our national values and integrity in the eyes of world.

Thank you
Best regards
asma