Category: Uncategorized

By Greg Moses

What is Texas competing for when it produces stories like this for international consumption?

By Natalie Gott (AP) Texas could become the only state to bar gays from becoming foster parents under legislation passed Wednesday by the House.

We find it astonishing that the sponsor of the foster care amendment — Rep. Robert Talton of Pasadena — would actually look for one more way to stink up his district. But fhew! Folks are smelling this one coast to coast.

By contrast, consider what a New York Times editorial says about Connecticut:

In the past 15 years, Connecticut has protected gays and lesbians under hate-crime, employment and housing laws, and allowed unmarried couples to raise adopted children. Just as civil union was the next logical step, so may the term marriage be finally extended someday.

The new Connecticut law establishing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples was signed by a Republican Governor who shows signs of belonging to a party worthy of Lincoln.

As we argued in our earlier commentary against the Bill to Constitutionalize Homophobia in Texas state-sponsored homophobia is a dumb thing to advertise if state leaders are serious about attracting and retaining top talent in a competitive world.

But more than this, our homophobic pandering of the 21st Century feels a whole lot like the civil-rights baiting of the 20th. And this means that Texas has failed to tend to vital questions of social health.

Responsibility for this lack of maturity must be widely shared in cowardly leadership across institutions of education, media, and church. For more of our cautionary analysis of these visceral traditions see Texas Templates of Imbalanced Power.

Like a sick puppy at an international fair, Texas homophobia places worst in show. Not only is it embarrassing, but there’s something quasi-criminal in the motive of a groomer who trots out the spectacle on a leash.

Locking or Unlocking Elections?
A Working Draft

Posted as top message for March 14

In light of our recent interest in the registration and criminalization of Texas voters, news from Georgia comes timely.

On Friday, the Democratic Caucus of the Georgia Senate staged a symbolic walkout after the passage of SB 84, a bill that restricts forms of ID that can be used to register and vote.

A text of the bill posted online strikes through twelve forms of ID previously allowable: picture IDs for employees; for students; gun license; pilot’s license; birth certificate; social security card; naturalization document; court papers approving adoption, name change, or sex change; utility bill; bank statement; government check; or other government document.

Surviving the purge are five forms of ID: state driver’s license; government ID; passport; government employee ID; or military ID.

From the point of view of the Texas Civil Rights Review, the law seems to contribute to a Repbulican-led pattern of treating would-be voters more like suspects than citizens.

So we checked with the office of the bill’s sponsor, Georgia State Senator Cecil Staton (R-Macon) to find out what support might be cited for the Senator’s stated concern that the bill is needed so that, “we don’t end up with all the lawsuits or all the voter irregularities we’ve heard about.” An aide for the Senator explained that Staton had given no supporting evidence in his address on the floor, owing to the short time allotted.

The Senator’s aide cited for us one example we might pass along to our readers: more than 2,000 “questionable ballots cast” in Fulton County during last November’s election. But the aide’s suggested contact at the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections (FCBORE) was not able to substantiate the claim.

Instead, FCBORE member Frank Strickland told us by telephone that “there were very few reports of irregularity” on election day in Fulton County. “The system is not perfect, but we didn’t have a great deal of difficulty at that stage.”

Strickland suggested that the aide for Sen. Staton might have intended to cite 2,400 voter registrations that were handed over to the FCBORE by the Georgia Secretary of State, because they were “apparently fraudulent.” The FCBORE turned the evidence over to the local District Attorney and Federal Attorney, but Strickland is not aware of any action taken on the evidence so far.

At this point, we note troubling parallels between Texas and Georgia, beginning with the fact that we are never very far from the lead Republican lawyer in both redistricting cases. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Strickland served as “the Georgia Republican Party’s lead attorney in the legislative redistricting case” for that state, much in the way that Andy Taylor served as the Texas Republican Party’s lead attorney in the Congressional redistricting case here.

But the parallels do not end in the way that both attorneys tend to their party’s redistricting needs. The two advocates also use vocabularies that cast suspicion on Democratic voters despite the evidence. When Taylor led a Republican challenge to unseat elected Houston Democrat Hubert Vo, he based his case on public allegations of widespread illegal voting by Democrats. He made the charges, despite the fact that the only pattern of possible fraud supported by evidence during the legislative hearing was a collection of forged voter registrations that attempted to deported some voters out of the contested district.

So in Georgia and Texas alike, we have public claims of voter fraud that turn out not to involve voters at all. Yet in both states, the claims are used to publicly justify campaigns of suspicion and criminalization against voters.

We give Strickland credit for being accessible and patient in our telephone interview. He seems to be a man of steadfast convictions. And he made it clear that he could not speak for the FCBORE.

When Strickland explained that the evidence of alleged fraud in Fulton County had appeared on the “front end” of the system while voting is more on the “back end,” I recognized a vocabulary that we have used in Texas to describe our concerns with statewide voter registration. Georgia has statewide registration, which would explain why the Secretary of State forwarded questionable registration forms to Fulton County rather than the other way around.

Strickland seems excitable on the question of photo IDs for voters. He explains that if photo IDs are required to rent movies or to cash welfare checks, they should be required to vote.

In response to that argument, I asked Strickland if voting wasn’t more of a right than renting movies or cashing checks. Isn’t voting a right that citizens should expect to have available to them without any barriers?

”I agree with that,” said Strickland, “except identify yourself. Just like we need to be safe in our homes we need to be somewhat assured about the integrity of the voting process in every respect. I am not on the election board to deny the right to vote, everyone has that right if they are the proper age and registered.”

Srickland thinks the new ID requirements will be no problem for a “vast majority.” He thinks cries that voters will be unable to produce the IDs are overstated. There are four million registered voters in Georgia, compared to six million drivers licenses and 600,000 other state- issued IDs. He admits that the facts do not directly address an answer to the central question: will some voters have added difficulty producing ID from the short list? But Strickland does not think that narrowing the form of ID constitutes a civil rights violation.

Strickland’s language of voter integrity uses the analogy of home security, and the analogy seems to draw upon certain imagination of threat. Protecting an election is like protecting your home, and there are people out there waiting to break in. Well, I do keep my doors locked. But I’m not sure how the analogy of my locked doors should fit the case of elections. Shouldn’t elections be unlocked?

Sorry, I can’t let it lie: the Men’s Health rating of Laredo, Corpus Christi, and El Paso as stupid, based on standardized test scores, graduation rates, and achievements registered by the scientific establishment. This is a classic example of standardized measures being used to stigmatize people
rather than to assess predicaments. As a teacher with some experience in Texas, I can tell you who the real idiots are, and they are not the people of South Texas, who as far as I’m concerned continue to produce amazing students for any educator who cares to listen.
Question is: will the legislature convening in Austin today undertake the remedial education necessary to cure its own idiotic pattern of South Texas underdevelopment? It’s not a stupid question, is it? –gm

Documentary Irregularities and Why they Matter

in the Houston Election Challenge

By Greg Moses

Counterpunch / ILCA Online
IndyMedia Austin , Houston
OffTheKuff / GlobalResistanceNetwork

It’s not the first time I’ve occupied a room filled with state documents in Texas, but it is the first time that I’ve been treated to full-time surveillance while I thumb through everything, and actually I’m kind of happy about this. The chaperones have been altogether polite and quiet. And the surveillance itself is the best sign the state could send me that I’m probably taking notes on the right documents Tuesday.

The most significant section of this ten-foot row of notebooks set up in front of me is a group of original depositions taken from Houston-area residents who were accused of stray voting in the November election when they cast ballots in the district that elected Vietnamese immigrant Hubert Vo to the state house.

Page after page of these depositions tell mundane stories of voters who once moved from Houston to Sugar Land but who didn’t keep up with their paperwork, went back to Houston to vote, and then two months later got their doors knocked on by people with pens, carrying threatening documents that said in dandy legal language, you better answer these questions or we’ll throw you in jail: Where do you really live and who did you vote for?

“Told us not to come back,” is the pointed note that one process server makes on threatening documents that were intended for delivery to a voter in Katy, Texas at 4:30 p.m. on New Years Day. Since she told them to get lost, and refused to incriminate herself as a voter who crossed back to her old neighborhood on election day, attorneys went to work on her file. They showed that according to the tax district she owned the home in Katy and that according to Mapquest the home was 6.58 miles away from the elementary school where she voted. And of course they had a copy of her signature at the voting place and a copy of the statement of residence that she was asked to fill out there. Two days before the hearing, they went back and got their deposition from her, too. In the end, she never gave a clear answer about who she voted for.

This is the kind of thing you see over and over again, the kind of thing that put everyone to sleep during two days of public hearings that failed to overturn the election. Time after time, dedicated voters got caught failing to keep their registrations in order, and people just dozed off. So the hearing room was pretty much cleared out by the morning of Jan. 28 when Master of Discovery Will Hartnett (R-Dallas) sat silently looking at the deposition of a citizen from Fresno, Texas.

“Um, I’m just going to point this out, I don’t know what to make of it, but this one has different ink and maybe different handwriting. I’m no handwriting expert but I think the parties should look at this. It definitely has two different pens on it, and I don’t know the handwriting is hard to tell, you all just need to look at this.”

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/legal/elec_contests.html

At which point (1:26:31 into the Friday morning broadcast archived online) Republican attorney Andy* Taylor walks briskly to the Master, retrieves Ms. Wyatt’s deposition, and flips the pages dramatically.

“I’d just suggest contestee look at it to see if there’s any possible irregularities,” says Hartnett, index finger on chin. “The main answer appears to be in the same ink as the person’s name, so that’s my primary interest, but it’s just odd, it looks that the N/As (indicating that a question is not applicable) are in a different pen. But you all can look at that later if you want, I’m just pointing it out.”

By this time, attorney Larry Veselka (representing contestee Hubert Vo) is saying that the N/As are indeed in different ink, different handwriting, and appear to match certain other N/As found on other depositions that have been turned in only days before the hearing. Meanwhile Republican attorney Taylor is huddling with his client, the deposed incumbent, saying something very close to his ear.

My own notes from reviewing the deposition in question on Tuesday suggest that the N/As are not in the flowing cursive style that the voter uses for the rest of her answers. And her signature is written in the same ink that the server of the deposition uses to write his own name.

“We really need a brighter light to look at it,” said Hartnett on the day of the hearing.

“Yeah,” said Veselka, pointing out that the deposition had been signed Jan. 21, less than a week before the hearing, and six days after the close of the discovery period, Jan. 15.

The very next deposition taken up on Jan. 28 by Hartnett also had N/As that Hartnett and Veselka agreed fit a pattern of looking more like each other than the handwriting of the voters in question.

My notes show that there are at least two more depositions with N/A look-alikes submitted into the record on Feb. 1, the Tuesday after the hearing ended, along with another deposition that has two colors of ink.

I also found in the batch of Feb. 1, two returns of service, both dated 9:30 a.m. Jan. 26 and signed by the same voter. The most likely explanation would be that the voter was served with two subpoenas at once. But why was one service receipt printed on a fax machine while another was not? And why were two subpoenas needed?

I ponder the puzzles of these documents, their careful protection, and their lack of public attention as I walk out of the state building past television trucks that are set up for live shots on the evening news. I know what they won’t be reporting again.

For example, they won’t be reporting the deposition of one 49-year-old Houston voter who I will name with the initials MP. Somehow MP’s deposition didn’t make the final list, and my guess is that the case was dropped like a hot potato because MP testified with such clarity that the Republican attorneys did not want to discuss the deposition in public.

But in order to get in the mood for MP’s deposition you have to first read the subpoena that like all the others is signed by Republican attorney Andy Taylor and commands: “HEREIN, FAIL NOT, but have you then and there before me, at said time and place this writ, with your return thereon, showing you have executed the same.”

And next you have to read the Jan. 11 letter from Hartnett that says, “If you do not cooperate, I, working under the jurisdiction of the Select Committee on Election Contests, have the power to cause you to be taken into custody by law enforcement, and held until you answer the requested questions.”

And then you have to read how you are ordered to appear at your own home at 5:00 p.m. on Jan. 15 (the last day of discovery) to submit your answers in writing to the questions that have been handed to you. Now you are ready to read MP:

Question 12: “Has anyone ever tried to intimidate you in any way or accuse you of breaking the law when asking you about voting in the Nov. 2, 2004 general election?”

MP: “Not until I got this notice from Mr. Heflin” (the deposed Republican incumbent who demanded this election contest).

Question 13: “What did they say or do to you?”

MP: “It seems like I’m accused for cheating. I don’t think I did anything wrong on that day. I went to vote as one of my duties as an American to support the country. I feel sad to fill out this paper. Those candidates are not pur
suing their career for the cou
ntry but for their own fame and money? How sad it is!” And just to make clear how she feels about her candidate, she answers elsewhere: “I’m glad I did vote for Mr. Hubert Vo.”

Intimidation is what MP calls the election contest, and that experience of intimidation is what makes irregularities in ink color and handwriting vibrant issues for all of us. If the law is serious about calling voters to account for their irregularities, it should be just as serious about the irregularities that crop up wherever voters are pursued. If we are entitled to fair elections, we are also entitled to fair election contests. Which is why I am pleased to be watched every minute that I handle the sacred depositions of the voters from House District 149. And why I look forward to returning once again to hear the stories they tell…

Note: Frist reference to Andy Taylor corrected 2/17–gm