Category: Uncategorized

By Greg Moses

“This is a very closely managed project,” said a well placed source at the Secretary of State’s (SOS) office during our second visit to review the thick contract for the Texas voter database. As an example of the state’s control over the project, the contract with IBM stipulates that any assignments or reassignments of personnel to the project must be approved in writing by the SOS. A “schedule of employees” is one item that was to be hashed out during the planning phase of the project. The initial IBM project manager has already been replaced.

As we reported after the first visit, the project is running a little behind schedule. For example the state and contractors were supposed to agree on a list of “User Acceptance Criteria” (UAC) in mid-January, but the list was not completed until the last week of March. The UAC specifies what the state wants from the contractors before the project will be considered complete. The UAC is one document we’ve asked to review during our third visit coming up this week.

According to a Statement of Work (SOW) filed with the HAVA database contract Oct. 22, 2004, the total contract with IBM and Hart InterCivic is scheduled to cost $12 million as follows:

• $5.3 million in staffing fees
• $29,000 in equipment and supplies
• $224,000 in travel and living expenses
• $4 million to Hart InterCivic in licensing fees for eRegistry software
• $2.4 million to Hart for service and maintenance work at a rate of $600,000 per year for four years after the system is up and running

In addition to the $12 million contract, the state has agreed to purchase $1.2 million in hardware and software.

The $4 million in licensing fees to Hart will be paid in two installments: $975,000 upon release of Hart 2 (scheduled for March 15, see report from our first week review) and the rest upon the state’s acceptance of the project.

Since the project relies on Commercial Off-The-Shelf software (COTS) the state receives the proprietary software from Hart InterCivic via an escrow service. DSI Technology Escrow Services of San Diego will be the escrow service for the Logical Data Model, Entity Relationship Diagram, and the DDL (data definition language) database creation slip.

In addition to Hart InterCivic, there are four other sub-contractors to the IBM-led project. Sub-contractor Geo Decisions of Austin will help with mapping features for $404,000 or five percent of the contract.

Three subcontractors will help with interface development, conversion, and training: Texas Gov Link, Inc. of Austin will be paid $640,000 or eight percent of the total contract; Precision Task Group of Houston will be paid $302,000 or four percent of the contract; and Maximus of Reston, VA will receive $466,000 or six percent of the contract.

GovLink and Precision Task are listed as HUB contractors (Historically Underutilized Businesses) for a total of 12 percent of the project.

On the one hand, the database looks straightforward. It is supposed to enable the state to perform seven basic tasks: register a new voter, cancel a voter, change a voter, search on a voter, create an official voting list, create a mass mailout of certificates, and create lists of registered voters.

But the power of the database is expressed in 18 sub-routines that will be performed each time a new voter is added, listed as follows: assign a voter status; assign a certificate number/unique identifier; assign a precinct number; assign appropriate jurisdictional codes; assign a valid from date; assign an EDR date; track agency code entered for NVRA; deposit an entry into the voter activity window; validate for any missing data on the data entry window; compare DOB to EDR date to ensure voter will be 18 years of age; check for internal duplicates; check of duplication on a statewide basis; verify TDL/ID or SSN information with DPS; verify street against address index standardization; if former county of residence is provided, track information for previous county, generate
letter or electronic notice to former county; typical validation checks on numeric fields vs character fields; create a voter registration certificate; track for Chapter 19 reimbursement.

The contract cost of the project is based on 203 key assumptions such as, “The State will provide the Data Model for the Statewide GIS data layer of street centerlines and
address ranges by procuring the GDT commercial data set.” Should any of the assumptions vary from what actually takes place, then the contract costs may vary as well.

The contract stipulates that public servants have received no offer of employment or anything else of future value in return for granting the contract to IBM and Hart InterCivic.

There is a HAVA mandate that every state have a central database of voter registrations by Jan. 1. We have invited some activists to join in the review, but generally the feedback we get is that “bandwidth” on election activism is already maxxed out. Which is bad news and good. The bad news is that bandwidth is maxxed out. The good news is that our work on the issue expands the available bandwidth. Just the kind of project we look for.

* * * * *

Note: see report from our first week of documentary review.

At the downloads section under “HAVA Texas”, The Texas Civil Rights Review has posted a schedule of the Secretary of State’s tour of counties that began Feb. 23 and continues until at least Apr. 27.

While SOS Roger Williams called it a “Listening Tour,” our research indicates it was more a funding tour in which the SOS passed out poster-sized checks representing money available to the various counties for HAVA (Help American Vote Act) expenses. HAVA requires at least one electronic voting machine at every polling place next year, and counties end up paying the costs.

Williams began the tour shortly after being appointed to the position. He came to the position with a background as car dealer and powerhouse fund raiser. The appearances were lessons in political salesmanship. When I introduced myself to Williams at the Austin appearance, he said simply, “We’re going to make it work.” The man has a message and he’s sticking to it.

Progressive Politics and
the Mainstream Regular Joe

A Texas Civil Rights Weekend Editorial

By Greg Moses

You hear the phrase now and then in political chit chat. We need to appeal to “the mainstream regular Joe.” But what’s in a phrase like this? From a civil rights perspective we’d like to insist that the mainstream regular Joe does not exist.

In chit chat one does not want to to be tiresome, so we keep things casual. In response to someone who mentions the mainstream average Joe we ask: Who would that be?

Well, you know, says our friend T.J. Bubba Bobbs, somebody more or less like ME! Well then okay, we can wink, just askin. And without much political correctness to drag around, we can mosey that conversation along.

Back home in the study, we can ponder a little more at length. Who uses this phrase most often and who the heck are they talkin about?

Isn’t the phrase used most often by Republican-chasing white men who wish Democrats could bag more white men the way Republicans do? And if they’ll just come clean about this, we can take the code for what it signifies and be done with it. A winning coalition will have some of these folks on board.

But if this is true, then the mainstream regular Joe does exist, right? Yes, but he does not exist AS the mainstream regular Joe, because “mainstream regular” indicates something much more pervasive than he can ever be.

The presence of any actual population answering to the identity of mainstream regular Joe negates the alleged universal value of the ideal type, especially when viewed from a civil rights perspective. Or to put it another way, he cannot be the final answer promised by the terms “mainstream regular.”

And the civil rights limitation of the mainstream average Joe is easily tested. Just ask the next person who brings it up whether he thinks the mainstream average Joe gives a darn about civil rights. Well no, the plain answer is that the mainstream average Joe doesn’t think that civil rights have much to do with him.

Is the mainstream average Joe gay? Does he go to Synagogue or to Mosque? Does he belong to the NAACP? Does he eat Sushi? Is he pregnant and in need of pre-natal medical care?

In fact if there is such a thing as a mainstream regular Joe, he exists as a quite specific type that is statistically limited. And while Republicans have crafted a winning model around his middle, Democrats will never win by catering their center toward his existing identity AS the mainstream regular Joe.

The problem with chasing down the mainstream regular Joe as mainstream regular is that it caters to his mis-impression that the world ought to revolve around him. He sees himself as the universal rather than the particular, he demands conformity from others rather than reflection and change from within himself.

By putting forth the mainstream regular Joe as the predominant demographic challenge facing Democrats, the image wipes away the complex demographic playing field upon which progressive politics must be played.

Is the mainstream regular Joe capable of seeing himself as a living participant in a political coalition? NOT so long as he thinks of himself as the mainstream average Joe. For this reason, progressive Democrats should stop egging his image on.

Habits develop lives of their own, and this habit will repeat itself for some time to come. So we recommend the inquisitive reply. Who is this mainstream average Joe? Is he ready to work alongside anybody else? What perceptions does the mainstream average Joe have about people who are not so-called “mainstream average” and what is he willing to do with other folks in his quest for an empowering coalition?

For progressive politics to flourish, we must stop chasing the image of the mainstream regular Joe. Instead we must question that image. And the most important question would paraphrase JFK’s inaugural speech of 1961: ask not what your coalition can win for you, but what you can win for your coalition. Until mainstream regular Joe is ready to answer this question, he can play no part in progressive politics.

Reprinted from the MALDEFian.

APRIL 9, 2008 – It did not take the Federal Bureau of Investigation Hate Crimes Statistics Report to tell us what we already know: attacks against Latinos and immigrants have been increasing at an alarming rate. Fringe border vigilantes along with extreme nativist activists have made violent acts and threats towards Latino and immigrant communities a frightening reality.

MALDEF court victories in two such cases are illustrative of what we are doing about it. Representing two sets of plaintiffs attacked by the same culprit, MALDEF successfully blocked border vigilante Roger Barnett, who attacked two groups of Latinos near his ranch in southern Arizona, from using the courts to shield himself from liability for his violent actions.

The Morales family and Emma English, a family friend, filed suit after Barnett confronted them on state leased land in October 2004, while they were on a family hunting trip. Armed with a semi-automatic military-style assault rifle, Barnett held the family at gunpoint, cursed and screamed racial slurs at them and threatened to kill them all.

The jury heard the testimony of three young girls, all under the age of twelve and U.S. citizens, who vividly described the event and the trauma they suffered at the hands of Barnett. The civil jury ultimately awarded the family $100,000 in damages.

Although Barnett and his attorney appealed the decision, the appellate court recently rejected his appeal and upheld the trial court’s ruling, forcing Barnett to file a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court.

Shortly before Barnett violently attacked the Morales family, he again assaulted a group of unarmed Latinos near a highway in March 2004.

Accompanied by his brother and his wife, Barnett forcibly rounded up the terrified group, including a young girl, and threatened them at gunpoint. During the assault, he kicked one of the women who was laying on the ground.

Barnett requested that the judge dismiss the case and MALDEF urged the federal court in Arizona to continue with a trial. Earlier this month, the court ruled in favor of MALDEF, finding enough evidence to proceed with a jury trial.

“Border vigilantes like Barnett should be tried and forced to compensate families for violations of their basic rights,” said MALDEF Staff Attorney David Urias, the lead counsel in both cases. “Barnett cannot avoid responsibility for his outrageous and offensive actions.”

Founded in 1968, MALDEF, the nation’s leading Latino legal organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships.