TX-HD-47: Castano Sued For Not Paying His Debts

Republican candidate for HD-47 state representative Alex Castano was apparently sued by three credit card companies for not paying his $35,000+ debts from a commerical real estate deal that fell apart at the last minute. The Austin American-Statesman:

Alex Castano, a Republican House candidate in southwestern Travis County, amassed more than $35,000 in credit card debt before three credit card companies took him to court.

Castano, 34, owner of a commercial real estate firm, has touted "state budget discipline" as one of his campaign issues in the District 47 race.

Citibank N.A., Bank of America N.A. and Seneca Financial Corp. each sued Castano starting in 2004, Travis County court documents show. Judges ordered Castano to pay the overdue balances plus several thousand dollars in court costs and other fees.

In my state house rankings, I've identified HD-47 as the single most vulnerable Republican house seat. (You'll have to take my word that it isn't just because it's my district and I want people to pay attention to it.) With a candidate as flawed as Castano seems to be, I think Democrats have an even better shot. That is, if the Democrats aren't tearing themselves up in their own debates, which I haven't been paying attention to for a little while.

I somehow brought myself to actually listen to a debate between Castano and Bill Welch, the other Republican candidate in the April 11 runoff. Castano basically accused Welch of alerting the Statesman to Castano's skeleton-closet debt issues. Welch denied that his campaign had anything to do with it.

About a third of the way into the debate, Castano actually got choked up. Was he crying? It sounded like it. There's no video though, as far as I know, so I doubt it can become a liability for him. Unlike being sued for not paying your debts.

Oh and get this: according to Bill Welch in the debate, Castano actually lent his own campaign $30,000 at the beginning of the race. Welch asked why Castano didn't pay off his debts instead. Castano didn't really answer that. He probably will need to. Castano did say he has a secret plan to pay off his debts that he will not divulge. That's encouraging, isn't it?

Just for fun, I transcribed a bit from the debate, which as far as I can tell is only around in audio format. Mostly I liked what Welch had to say about this at the beginning, scolding Castano for not disclosing this from the beginning, and I kind of just kept transcribing. Castano's answer seems to be that he decided not to tell us about his credit debt problems because we didn't need to discuss and focus on it. Thanks for only thinking of us, Alex! Here's the partial transcript I did:

Welch: I like Alex and I think Alex has been very very good and forthcoming and willing to talk about a lot of things that are very personal. I think it's very very troubling that when you have the type of financial problems that you had, and you keep that to yourself, you jeopardize the Republican party's ability to hold this seat in November, because I promise you, had the Statesman not discovered this and put it out for people to know, then you would have got killed by it in November by the Democrats, because I promise you they know this stuff, and we cannot afford, we cannot risk, to lose another Republican seat in Travis County.

Selby: So what is your question? You've got to have a question...

Welch: So my question is, why weren't you forthcoming in your personal financial problem earlier on, and do you have others? Are there others that are going to fall on your head in the next few months as.. should you win this election, that will truly lose us this seat it's too valuable, too important a seat for us to risk losing in November and Alex, they're going to go after you and I'm not...

Castano: The reality is, I'm working to pay off the debt. And I think it would work to my advantage to be honest with you, because I am a working man, I'm trying to provide for my family, I'm trying to provide for my business, and people understand that sometimes you get into hard situations and you basically work hard to pay off the debt. So I don't think it's a big issue. I think most, I mean this morning, I already received emails and phone calls of people, Bill, who said they didn't vote in the primary, but they're going to vote for me now because you went after me in providing this material to the Statesman and whoever else you provided it to, so I think it's an issue that I've shown fiscal responsibility, I'm working to pay off the debt and I don't think it will be a big issue.

Selby: And just to make sure to give you a chance to answer his question. His question was why didn't you in some way share this information earlier yourself, just announce, you know, by the way folks, I'm a regular Joe, I've had some credit problems too.

Castano: Well, I mean I'm working to pay off my debt. I mean Bill hasn't discolsed all of his financial background. I mean it's just none of this..

Welch: Yes. Yes I have.

Castano: Well I mean, Bill, you know what I'm saying, we don't go through and say ok what's Bill's financial statement and Rich's, and...

(talking over each other)

Selby: .. at some point that this wasn't a relevant issue. You decided this wasn't something that people needed to know about. In your campaign at least.

Castano: I didn't think that it was something that right now we needed to discuss and focus on.

Welch: I need to address this. My financial report is with the Texas Ethics Commission and it is fully filled out. Alex did not disclose this on his Texas Ethics Commission report. That is one thing that I do know because I've seen the report and there is nothing on it. It's just "not applicable", "not applicable", "not applicable"..

Selby: I'll give you a chance to answer that and we've got to get out of here or our webmaster will kick me. Ok, go.

Castano: The question was.. it said "secure debt". This is unsecured debt, so it's not..

Selby: You're saying it's not required by law to put that on the...

Castano: Right. It's unsecured. It's debt that I'm working to pay off.

The Republican candidates in HD-47 are Alex Castano and Bill Welch.
The Democratic candidates in HD-47 are Valinda Bolton and Jason Earle.
The primary runoffs are April 11. Early voting begins April 3.

Minnesota Is Making Me Nervous

Apparently, Republicans are desperate to get a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage through the Democratic-controlled state senate. 365gay:

Senate Republicans are quickly extinguishing any doubt of their commitment to prohibit same-sex marriage. In recent weeks, members of their caucus have introduced at least eight separate constitutional amendments to do just that.

Despite how it might appear, though, it's not necessarily a case of overkill. Republicans in the DFL-controlled Senate say the tactic was necessary to keep the issue from dropping off the radar screen at the Capitol.

The explanation resides in the arcane byways of the Senate's rules.

Last year, the full Senate rejected an attempt by Sen. Michele Bachmann, chief proponent of the gay marriage ban, to force a floor vote on her amendment. When Bachmann tried to force another vote recently, Senate Democrats invoked a rule they say prohibited a second vote on the same measure.

In response, Senate Republicans introduced a cluster of gay marriage amendments, each with only slight differences in wording. That may allow them to continue forcing votes on the amendment, keeping up pressure on wavering Democrats who oppose gay marriage but are sticking with Democratic leadership in denying Republicans a floor debate.

Yes, it's a Democratic-controlled body, but only narrowly. The good news, I think, is that Democrats have a reasonable chance to increase their majority in November, as well as possibly recapture the state house. So if Democrats can hold Republicans off until then, we may be out of the woods there. And make no mistake, Democrats would be fools to let this amendment be on the ballot. These sorts of things only increase Republican turnout.

Gay Stuff Round-Up

Sing for me, angel of music! McCain flip-flops on the Federal Marriage Amendment for cookies from Jerry Falwell.

Speaking of flippers... Scalia has nothing against gays, just thinks we don't have any rights under the constitution.

Conservatives in Arizona and Maryland are having a tough time with their state marriage amendment campaigns. I expect eventually in Arizona they'll have the Republican-controlled legislature step in though. And I think conservatives have a history of claiming trouble collecting signatures, only to "surprise" everyone with way more than they needed at the deadline.

The Australian federal government is trying to block the civil unions just enacted in the Australian Capitol Territory. I'm having visions of the future of Austin and Texas here...

Texas Round-Up

• DeLay has lost his concealed weapon permit and gained a respectable Libertarian challenger for November. Things just keep getting worse for him, don't they? He thinks it's because he loves Jesus too much. Is he putting us on or are we putting him on?
• From Just Another Matt: Rep. Lamar Smith is on the wrong side of the immigration issue. Is anyone really surprised? His Democratic opponent John Courage takes him on.
• Anyone who tries to explain to me what's wrong with the Texas Democratic Party is now going to have to include an explanation for this. SD-18 voters picked a Democratic candidate who had already dropped out. After winning the primary, Henry Boehm decided he's stil going to pass. This is the only senate district Texas Democrats had to worry about. Is anyone in the party hierarchy paying attention? Where's the Texas version of Chuck Schumer? This seat will now nearly inevitably be lost by Democrats, and I'll have to break my ranking rule preventing races from becoming more competetive than tossup for an incumbent party. Just great. Rawhide at Pink Dome has more.
• Vince at Captiol Annex takes on Perry's tax cut. Apparently, it does nothing to fix the schools, will mostly line the pockets of the rich, is probably unconstitutional, and has been tried before. I'm no expert on the state budget or anything, but apparently we're going to fix schools by partly replacing tax revenue with funds from the surplus. How can that possibly be anything more than a temporary measure? Surpluses don't last forever.
• Burnt Orange Report has all their HD-47 stuff in one place. Thanks Phillip!
• The Lone Star Project thinks Bell will have an easier time of it than Strayhorn in November. Not that either is the favorite or anything though. Charles Kuffner gives his thoughts here. James at Coyote Mercury, meanwhile, explains why he's signed Strayhorn's petition.
  

Texas State House Rankings Update, Mar 28

Now that the primaries are over, here are my new Texas State House district vulnerability rankings:

Likely Democratic Hold
Homer (HD-003)
McReynolds (HD-012)
HD-038 Open (Solis)
Rose (HD-045)
Howard (HD-048)
Leibowitz (HD-117)
Hernandez (HD-143)

Leans Democratic Hold
Hopson (HD-011)
Cook (HD-017)
Toureilles (HD-035)
Strama (HD-050)
Farbee (HD-069)
HD-118 Open (Uresti)

Democratic-Held Tossup
HD-085 Open (Laney)
Vo (HD-149)

Republican-Held Tossup
HD-047 Open (Keel)

Leans Republican Hold
HD-054 Open (Hupp)
Anderson (HD-056)
England (HD-106)
HD-126 Open (Hamnic)

Likely Republican Hold
Seaman (HD-032)
Orr (HD-058)
Phillips (HD-062)
HD-071 Open (Hunter)
HD-091 Open (Griggs)
HD-094 Open (Grusendorf)
Goolsby (HD-102)
HD-133 Open (Nixon)
Wong (HD-134)

Incumbents' vulnerability is calculated as follows: freshmen incumbents, incumbents whose last election was close, and incumbents who represent districts that lean to the opposing party get one point of vulnerability for each category they belong to. I'm using QR's 2002 Dewhurst/Sharp numbers to determine a district's partisan leaning. Incumbents who are not being challenged in November are Safe Holds. Safe Holds are not display -- there are too many, and it would clutter up the display.

So to repeat a past example, Hubert Vo (D-HD-149) is a freshman, who won a close election last time, and occupies a district of opposite partisanship, so he ranks as a tossup.

For open seats, if the party in power has less than 55% in the Dewhurst-Sharp numbers, the seat is a Tossup. Less than 60% puts the seat at Leans Hold, while less than 65% puts the seat at Likely Hold. Any more than that, and the seat is a Safe Hold. The most vulnerable a seat can be is Tossup, as long as both parties are challenging control.

Not much changed over last time. England's win in HD-106 actually did not change the vulnerability level. He's a freshman who won a close race, which leaves the seat at Leans Hold. Grusendorf's primary loss puts his seat in play, but only barely due to its highly Republican character. Uresti's open seat was actually omitted from the previous rankings in error.

Previous State House Rankings: Dec 8, 2005; Jan 18, 2006; Feb 15, 2006
Previous State Senate Rankings: Dec 5, 2006; Jan 17, 2006; Mar 27, 2006

The Travis County Environmental Movement's New Mascot

They really know what they're doing over at Save Our Springs Alliance, don't they? This flash animated commercial they just did is awesome in its splendor, pitting cartoon AMD villain Hector Ruiz against a cute little cartoon Barton Springs salamander, named, appropriately, Sal A. Mander. Here's what he looks like:




I really think this would be able to get people's attention focused on the AMD controversy, if the SOS Alliance folks could get it out as a television commercial. Of course, I realize that's incredibly expensive compared to internet distribution. But people love cartoon animals. And they hate cartoon villains. It would really work, I'm telling you! And I would know. I'm a blogger. I mean, I would have gone a step further and had the cartoon AMD guy slurp down Sal in a jello shot. But that's just me.

Get this guy out there, SOS Alliance. Make sure every kid in central Texas knows who he is. Make them cry when their parents get a job at AMD. And then bigger fish than AMD will tremble in fear of the wrath of Sal A. Mander, mascot to the springs, jester to the children, lover, dreamer, hero...

I only wish they'd named him more prominently. I had to watch a couple times to notice his name written on an envelope. I was busy trying to come up with a name myself and got all disappointed when I found there already was one. Of course, if it had been up to me I might have named him "Aquifer Al", "Squishy McGee", or "The Geico gekko's country cousin Cletus". Thanks goodness it wasn't, huh? Feel free to suggest other names to be avoided in the comments.

Thanks to Harold at Sanity Island for bringing this to my attention. Hmm.. might now be a good time for me to disclose that should AMD go in at the Lantana site as planned, the value of my house will probably skyrocket? Although I suppose that does create a bit of a mixed message with the whole "lover, dreamer, hero" thing...

Texas State Senate Rankings - Mar 27

The primaries (except the runoffs) are over. As such, I thought it might be a good time to update my state legislature rankings. I'll start with the state senate, which ends up being pretty boring:

Solid Democratic Hold
Ellis (SD-13)
Whitmire (SD-15)
Shapleigh (SD-29)
SD-14 Open (Barrientos)

Likely Democratic Hold
SD-19 Open (Madla)

Leans Democratic Hold
(none)

Democratic-Held Tossup
SD-18 Open (Armbrister)

Republican-Held Tossup
(none)

Leans Republican Hold
Eltife (SD-01)

Likely Republican Hold
(none)

Solid Republican Hold
Deuell (SD-02)
SD-03 Open (Staples)
Ogden (SD-05)
SD-07 Open (Lindsay)
Shapiro (SD-08)
Nelson (SD-12)
Janek (SD-17)
Averitt (SD-22)
Wentworth (SD-25)

The rules are this: One point of vulnerability each to incumbents for being a freshman, being held to under 55% of the vote in the last election, and representing a district whose partisanship is opposite to theirs, using the 2002 Sharp/Dewhurst race to distinguish. Open seats start out as tossups. If one party had over 55% in the Sharp/Dewhurst race, the seat moves one slot in that party's direction. 60% moves 2 slots. 65% moves the district all the way to safe. Races where only one party put up a candidate to run, are obviously solid for that party. I mean, I suppose a Libertarian could win... but we'll just pretend there's no chance of that for.. um.. simplicity's sake.

Again, I must emphasize that I am a complete amateur with no insider knowledge of any of these races. If anyone has a better idea how to rank the races, please let me know in comments.

State Senate Rankings: Dec 5, 2006; Jan 17, 2006
State House Rankings: Dec 8, 2005; Jan 18, 2006; Feb 15, 2006

The Immigration Debate

It looks like the Republicans in Congress are about to try and destroy their party with immigration reform. CNN:

The Senate tackles the hot-button election issue of what to do with the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants this week, with President Bush coming down on the side of letting many of them stay if they have jobs.

The House-passed measures would make being an undocumented immigrant a felony and erect a 700-mile fence along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, faced a midnight deadline for completing a similar bill.

I'm not going to post the whole article here, but it makes clear the kinds of contortions Republicans are going through in order to make it appear that they're anti-immigrant to their base, and to make it appear that they're not to everyone else. They're facing a serious problem in that passions are so high that if either side feels betrayed, they're not likely to forgive the Republicans any time soon.

Normally I'd say following the "let Republicans destroy themselves" strategy instead of being more proactive is folly. But on this specific issue, I'm not so sure it isn't best. Democrats are fairly split between labor groups and minorities on immigration. But since we control nothing at the federal level, and aren't the ones moving the debate, the anger will probably, hopefully, be more directed to Republicans, while we keep our coalition together. At least, I'm crossing my fingers.

The Travis County Democratic Convention

I thought seriously about titling this entry, "World's Worst Photographer Sinks to New Lows". I took about 30 pictures, of which exactly four were worthy of posting here. That meant this had to be a text-heavy entry, which meant (theoretically) I needed to actually dedicate some time to writing. Of course instead, I went to a birthday party last night and slept until noon today. So what you get instead is this. Happy day! -- abramcf

Yesterday, I attended the Travis County Democratic Convention at the Palmer Events Center as a delegate from precinct 301. I listened to politicians speak, voted to send delegates to the state party convention in Fort Worth, and voted on resolutions from about 9:30 am to 3:40 pm. My wonderful fellow precinct-301-ers were Casey and Linda, and Melissa -- a full delegation, all present and accounted for.

Some of the speeches were ok, some were great. Of course, I barely remember what any of them were specifically about, but I remember who impressed me:

Lloyd Doggett, who kicked things off with a very good speech, is clearly one of the most-loved Democrats around. He's represented some part of Travis County since Rep. Pickle retired in 1994, and although he only represents part of the county now, we all remember him, love him, and still plan to vote for him despite not being in his district.


Other speakers I was especially impressed with: State Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, who kept reaching for a mysterious drink during his speech (I'm sure it was just water), but otherwise knew how to give a good speech. Congressional candidate John Courage, who has a great stump speech, even though I've heard most of it before. State Rep. Dawnna Dukes, who I had never actually seen in person before yesterday. State Rep. Mark Strama, who knows when a short speech is appropriate, and who is by far the dreamiest Travis County Democrat. (Swoon break.)

Between speeches, I got to meet Bruce Barrick, the SDEC Committeeman for my senate district, SD 25, a very nice man:



At 11:00 am, we broke into our precinct caucuses to elect delegates to the state convention. Our delegation was small, so we were combined with two even smaller precincts. The women in our group who wanted to go put in for at-large delegate. Apparently, if you're a woman or minority, that's the thing to do. Since the Travis County convention wants a delegation that's demographically representative of Travis County, the at-large delegates, selected by the nominations committee, are used to even out the score, so to speak.

I knew that I'll be unable to go this year, because I'm short on vacation. All my friends and family decided 2006 is the year to get married and ruined everything for me. Damn you, friends and family! So since I wasn't able to go, I was able to be my fellow precinct-301-er Casey's stooge and vote for him over the other white male from another precinct who also wanted to go. Casey won, and the other guy put in for an at-large slot. I hope he gets to go -- he really wanted it badly.

After the big name speeches and precinct caucuses, I went up to good old meeting room 3 to watch my resolutions committee in action. Let me just say, I think this committee had the most fun of anyone at the convention. Speeches are great and all, but these lovely people got to sit in this room for most of the convention and debate the merits of a stack of resolutions from the precinct conventions! Apparently, my precinct was single-handedly responsible for the slow pace of the committee. Go 301! In retrospect, I think the hour-and-a-half my 9-person precinct convention took debating resolutions may not have been the norm...


I would love to be on that committee next time. Seriously. It would be so awesome to sit around for a few hours debating serious issues with people who mostly agree with me anyway! Anyone who could arrange that for me for the next convention could be rewarded with a "Most Glorious Person in America" post entirely about them. O the honors bloggers can bestow!

So it turned out that the Travis County Democratic Convention was actually a conglomeration of two conventions. Each Senate District within the county was supposed to get have its own convention. But to save time and space, and to allow for more serious schmoozing, we combined them into one Democratic megaconvention, with the same person elected to preside over both.

But the megaconvention, alas, fell apart. I think it might be partly my fault, so I'd like to take this opportunity to say, "My bad!" See, resolutions that were common to both senate districts were voted on at the convention floor level. But each senate district also had resolutions that were unique to that district and could only be passed by that district. It turned out there were a lot of those resolutions. So we broke into our component conventions in order to approve resolutions in parallel.

By this point, since a lot of people just came to get sent to the state convention and had already left, and the part of Travis County in SD-25 was much smaller than the part in SD-14, there were only about 30 people left for our convention, so we moved it out in the hall. Our convention lasted about an hour longer than the much larger SD-14 convention. Why? And here's where the whole "my fault" thing comes in... we had a ton of resolutions to pass. And as I mentioned above, my precinct sent the convention a denial-of-service attack's worth of resolutions. And 4 of them were mine in particular. So yeah. "My bad."

On the other hand, all 4 of my resolutions, all about gay rights, have progressed on to the state convention. Since I'm not going, I'll have to trust the Texas Democratic Party will approve gay rights measures at its convention. I really don't know whether or not I should be nervous about this. The four resolutions are in support of a state anti-discrimination law, in support of an anti-bullying law, in support of gay adoption and foster care, and (the one I worry most about) in opposition to a federal marriage amendment, and in support of gay marriage.

There were two names I recognized from elsewhere in my convention. One was Dennis Speight, Texas Democratic Party Vice Chair for Finance. The other was Kathi Thomas, candidate for state senate in SD-25. And let me say just how much both of them impressed me. Dennis kept our convention moving and kept us from leaving at midnight or so. Kathi spoke passionately in support of my foster care/adoption resolution, thereby successfully attracting my support.

In this picture, the lady speaking was reporting from the resolutions committee. The guy behind her is Dennis Speight. Casey and Linda are to their left.




Let me just say here that by the end I grew to simultaneously hate Robert's Rules of Order, and covet the understanding required to wield a weapon of such puissance. I think some people came to the convention with the sole purpose of ensuring a long and boring debate on the rules before each resolution. I'm guessing they were secret Republicans. And some people are constantly enforcing the rules just because they have nothing else to contribute and yearn to be the center of attention anyway. (I plan to be in that group for the next such meeting.)

After the convention, I joined some Keep Austin Blue folks at Threadgill's for some fries and hibiscus mint iced tea. I had a great time, and I'm very grateful to Trey for inviting me. I've got to say it was great to hang out in person with a fun group of people with entertaining stories (and who knew more about politics than I did for a change). And I'd love to tell you all more about the delicious gossip I heard, but there were too many times I was informed something was not leave the patio, and I've forgotten which bits were which. By the way, I'm unusually skilled with gossip: when someone tells me a secret, there's a 50% chance I'll forget it, and a 50% chance I'll forget it was a secret. Sounds like the perfect sort of person to have a political blog, huh?

All in all, I had a great time. I was involved. I felt like an insider (though I'm pretty sure that was actually just the tea). And I got to see my resolutions sent on to the state convention. See how easy politics can be?

Quick Note

Back from the convention. More later.. off to the Shakespeare Wench's birthday party! Busy day... No time for complete sentences...

Off to the Convention

The Travis County Democratic Convention is today. 9:30 am to 4:30 pm. Sometime after that, I'll be writing about it. Hopefully with photos.

In the meantime, talk amongst yourselves.

Survey USA 50-State Poll

Survey USA has their March polls all up now, tracking approval ratings for each senator and governor in their home states, as well as President Bush's approval rating in every state.

Senators with approval ratings under 50% and standing for election in 2006:

Bill Nelson (D-FL) 49%
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) 48%
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) 46%
Mike DeWine (R-OH) 46%
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 45%
Rick Santorum (R-PA) 43%
Conrad Burns (R-MT) 38%

Although it looks like it will be a good Democratic year, and the states are where Democrats are given the most opportunities, there are a number of incumbent Democratic governors at risk as well. Governors with approval ratings under 50% and standing for election in 2006:

Ed Rendell (D-PA) 49%
Robert Ehrlich (R-MD) 48%
Rick Perry (R-TX) 48%
Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) 45%
Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) 44%
Jim Doyle (D-WI) 44%
John Baldacci (D-ME) 39%
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) 36%
Frank Murkowski (R-AK) 29%

Bush' approval rating is under 50% in every state except: Utah (55%), Wyoming (52%), Alabama (51%), and Idaho (50%), all the reddest of red states. The only even marginally competetive races in those states I can think of are Rep. Jim Matheson (D) in Utah's 2nd district, and Gov. Bob Riley (R) of Alabama. I suppose we'll see President Bush flying furiously back and forth between Birmingham and Salt Lake City this November...

Out Youth Austin Closes

This is sad news (News 8 Austin):

The doors at the Drop In Center in Central Austin were locked Tuesday.

Out Youth Board Members say the organization is in financial crisis. They've struggled to get grants and had to shut the doors two months ago.

Out Youth is a great organization that provides an important service to young people in the LGBT community. I'm sad to see them close their doors, and I wish them luck in trying to re-open.

As the article points out further down, teens in need can still call Out Youth at (512) 419-1233. Also available is the Texas Youth Hotline at (800) 210-2278.

Pew Poll: Less Opposition to Gay Rights

The Pew Research Center has a new poll on gay rights, among other things:

Gay Marriage

support 39%
oppose 51%

Gay Adoption

support 46%
oppose 48%

Gays in the Military

support 60%
oppose 32%

These results represent a vast improvement in support for gay rights over last year, and even from before the Lawrence v Texas backlash. Even though 51% are opposed to gay marriage in the poll, I think that's the best number I've ever seen on ths issue.

Pictures of Austin Bloggers From Keep Austin Blue

I was at a Keep Austin Blue meeting at Mother Egan's Irish Pub earlier this evening, at which the proprietors of the three largest -- as far as I know -- Texas progressive blogs spoke about how to blog, the importance of bloggers to the Democratic party, the ethics of blogging, and the best drugs to blog on (ok that I only wish they spoke about). The speakers were the bloggers of Pink Dome, In the Pink Texas, and Burnt Orange Report. Everyone should read these sites regularly, and believe everything they say. Seriously. And perhaps worship them as demigods, if so inclined.

I wish I could tell you more about what they had to say, but I was drinking. A lot. So you miss out. But anyway, I thought I'd have some fun and try and disorient them with unexpected bursts of searing, brilliant light from my camera just as they were beginning their speeches, so at least you get the results of that.

First, Tom, the birthday boy, kicked the evening off in his mild-mannered way.



Then, Ted Ankrum, Democratic candidate for U. S. House in district 10 (running against Republican Mike McCaul), attacked his opponent in the Democratic primary runoff for promising to impeach Bush. I agree that's not a helpful promise at this point. I can't remember what it is specifically that I liked about him, but I think I'll endorse Ted Ankrum now. Yes, endorsements come easier after a few beers...



Then this guy from the DNC reminded us that the Travis County Democratic Convention is Saturday, at 8:30 am (which is crazy, and makes me hate the DNC).



Then Karl-Thomas Musselman of Burnt Orange Report got up to say a few words about blogging and about how he was upset he had to wear pants...



And brought up Pink Dome and In the Pink Texas for an attractive and intelligent panel of pure Democratic goodness.







And finally, Trey said something. But at that point I was somewhere between too sloshed to understand and sloshed enough to get up the nerve to talk to anyone else. I think it was about the upcoming desserts.



So after another Harp, some extraordinarily delicious Texas sheet cake that Marguerite made for Tom's 50th birthday...



... and some of Mother Egan's famous bread pudding (mmm...), I finally worked up the nerve to break out of my blogger shell and talk to Karl-Thomas. I thanked him for the link, but forgot to congratulate him on BOR's advancement toward a pair (1,2) of Koufax Awards. I think I owe him a drink... Anyway, it was great to finally meet a fellow Austin blogger. If you read someone's blog long enough, you actually start feeling like you know them, but it's really not the same thing. So if any of you are feeling that way about me, as hard as I find that to imagine, please send me an note at abramcf_casualsoapbox at yahoo (dot com of course). I promise I'll be friendly.

I didn't work up the courage to talk to Pink Dome though. Maybe I was too nervous because my blog has a blog-crush on his blog... And I didn't talk to In the Pink Texas either. She seemed like a very nice lady, and although I haven't read her blog much in the past, I certainly intend to now.

Things I somehow remember through the pink-and-orange-tinted alcoholic haze:

1. Commenters are bloggers' editors. So get to work people!
2. Post every day. Damn I was hoping they wouldn't say that.
3. Other bloggers get press releases. That they didn't ask for.
4. Sometimes that can be a post.
5. And that's how they post every day.
6. This was the most fun I've had at a political event. Probably because of the cake.
7. Somehow, everyone was familiar with commenter "wonk" at Pink Dome. Damn that dude needs to be in P.R.
8. Nobody sang. We were promised singing. One day I will force them all into karaoke.

My apologies to anyone who I actually took a picture of. I have no skill with a camera. I know it, and yet I still take pictures. I can't help it. But I can promise that, despite how it may appear, there is no malice intended. And I'm sure not everything I said tonight was particularly eloquent, but I hope at least I didn't make Karl-Thomas regret linking to me...

I think if there was one thing that I brought away from tonight above all others, it's how easy it is to get involved and start making a difference. Saying nothing about this evening's panel, it doesn't take any money or qualifications to start a blog. Even though you won't be Daily Kos overnight, you can plug in fairly easily to network of like-minded people. (We're building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude... -- Kentucky Fried Movie) I'm not writing about politics and venturing out to Democratic meetings for an ego trip (although that is sort of a bonus...), but because I'm hoping that somehow, I'll be able to change a few minds, and help get good people who share my values elected. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't see it in my reach.

All that it takes, really really really, is effort. Go to your local Democratic party gatherings and conventions, whatever those are. Introduce yourself to people. Start a blog. Volunteer for a candidate or ballot measure you like. And above all, vote, and tell others to vote. You may not be single-handedly responsible for electing the next President, but it does make a difference. And you don't have to be somebody to do it. Just do something, damn you! Whatever you've been thinking about, do it! Don't make me kick your ass. (I'm a lover not a fighter. By choice of course... yeah that's it...)

Isn't it amazing how after a few drinks I flow so easily from cheeky joke-telling to tear-jerking speechifying?

One last thing I have to share. This was my nephew Noah's first trip to a bar. I think he made himself a little too at home, don't you?


His parents are to either side of the picture, and they swore he didn't get to drink any of that.

I love you all! Good night, Blue Austin!

Austin Mayor Apologizes For Kerfuffle

It looks like Mayor Wynn was in a physical confrontation last Friday. KXAN:

This is the statement Wynn released Monday night:

"On Friday evening, I was briefly attending a reception in the courtyard of the apartment buildings where my daughters and I live, when I was verbally confronted by a man I did not know.

"Unfortunately, I let the situation upset me, and after the man refused my requests to leave me alone, I physically escorted him from the property. I apologize for any embarrassment my actions may have caused anyone involved."

I like Mayor Wynn, and in particular I like the way he made use of Austin resources to help Katrina evacuees, and his support for domestic partner benefits for city employees. But I think he did the right thing in apologizing for this. Politicians should avoid physical confrontations, especially with angry constituents. Anyway, this won't change my support for him. It's too bad that as a resident of Sunset Valley, I'm not elligible to vote for him.

Pink Dome has more, suggesting Xanax for Mayor Wynn...

Ode to the Republican Noise Machine

Sweet Rush Limbaugh, Saint of Radio,
The Devil of your trade-io,
The RNC's Handmaid-io,
You brew the best Kool-aid-io!

O Drudge, my dear! My dear, Matt Drudge!
Is there no one you won't smudge
With muck and filth and dirt and sludge?
It's almost like you have a grudge...

Bill O'Reilly! Dear O'Reilly!
Your faux outrage is so wily!
And you read the points so spryly,
While guests challenge you so shyly!

O Hannity! Sean Hannity!
It makes me lose my sanity,
Your braying like a manatee!
Where is the right profanity?

O Heritage Foundation!
Your "Republican Plantation"
Is the blood of this libation,
And the source of our frustration,
And the fruit of your creation
(And your work by implication,)
Yes most duly and most truly,
And most surely and impurely,
Is unseemly and unholy
And a cancer on our nation!


Note: not my best work, surely, but light and quick. Enjoy! --abramcf

1994 v 2006, My Favorite Topic

A couple of great articles about a 1994-2006 comparison out there today. Chris Bowers of MyDD looks at the national mood and declares things look very good. Kos looks at the same data, and thinks that congressional Democrats will find a way to screw it up. Bowers thinks it's eerie that he and Kos were thinking and writing about the same thing simultaneously. Stoller at MyDD warns about the problems Kos notices, and declares 2006 will be a "base election".

The center-right site My Election Analysis look in-depth at the structural issues Democrats will have in defeating incumbents in 2006 as compared to 1994. This article is a followup to an earlier article comparing open seats from 1994 to 2006.

Although obviously mitigating factors can always come along, my opinion here is that we're in for a wave election in favor of Democrats in November. The national mood is in some ways better for Democrats than it was for Republicans in 1994. Bush's low approval rating (33%) is lower than Clinton's was (36%) in 1993-1994. Bush's disapproval is generally higher than Clinton's was in 1993-1994. Voters are also more likely than in 1994 to say they want to turn out their own representative.

And that's important because the structural difficulties mean that a wave stronger than 1994 is going to mean a smaller seat pickup in the House for Democrats in 2006 than the 54 seats Republicans got 12 years ago. The fact that there are less Republican-held Senate seats up for election (15, as opposed to 23 Democrats in 1994), means that there too the Democratic gain is likely to be smaller than the 8-seat pickup Republicans got in 1994. If I had to guess at this early point, I'd say Democrats will pick up 20-25 seats or so in the House (and get control). In the Senate, Democrats will pick up from 4-6 seats which will put the Senate at about 50-50, give or take a seat.

But it's important to remember that House and Senate elections are not the only ones being held in November. Elections are also being held for 36 governorships and 46 state legislatures. Democrats have their best opportunities for pickups there. I wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats pick up 6-8 governorships, and control of a handful more legislatures as well. And adding Democratic trifectas in California, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, and Massachusetts would be excellent for enacting progressive legislation. Not to mention 2010 redistricting...

I do share the concerns of the national bloggers that these gains will only prove to be temporary. But that will depend in large part on how the 2008 presidential campaign goes. If Hillary wins, and I think it's more likely that she will win than any other single person, then there might be a longer life to a Democratic Congress. But if the Republican wins, he'll probably take Congress back with him. Of course, musing about the 2008 election is a bit silly at this point. I'm not a believer in the predestination of elections -- I just like making predictions for fun.

Bloggers to Speak Wednesday at Keep Austin Blue

Keep Austin Blue will be featuring the pre-eminent bloggers of the Texas left at their monthly social hour on Wednesday. Bloggers from Pink Dome, In the Pink Texas, and Burnt Orange Report will all be speaking at Mother Egan's Irish Pub at 6:30 pm. I'm totally looking forward to going, assuming my doctor's visit that morning doesn't interfere.

O'Connor Attacks DeLay and Cornyn

Nina Totenberg at NPR was at an O'Connor speech at Georgetown Univerity, where the former Supreme Court justice complained about Republican leaders' attacks on the judiciary in retaliation for unfavorable opinions. She singled out by quotation Tom DeLay's attack on the courts at Justice Sunday, especially for the Schiavo decision, and Cornyn's connecting violence against judges with decisions that Cornyn doesn't like.

Judicial independence is essential for safeguarding democracy and individual liberty. It's reprehensible and undemocratic for our leaders to attack judges for their opinions. As O'Connor says, "Statutes and constitutions don't protect judicial independence, people do." If those people who should be working to preserve judicial independence are working to undermine it instead, we certainly could lose it. O'Connor says that mass impeachment of judges, stripping courts of jurisdiction, and cutting court budgets, the weapons conservatives threaten the courts with these days, are all acceptable policies in and of themselves, but not in retailiation for court decisions.

What would be the harm of losing an independent judiciary? O'Connor: "We must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dicatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these begininngs."

A Comparison

I don't have a lot of time to post tonight -- my parents are visiting to see their grandson (my nephew, the flying monkey). But I wanted to quickly point something out I was looking at today.

The Cook Political Report updates their House rankings every week or so. Check out the difference in the races they're watching between now (March 17, 2006) and the beginning of the term (Jan 21, 2005). Things look a lot better for Democrats now than they did then, huh? That's what happens when the sitting president and congress have an extended period of low approval ratings. It all started with the Terri Shiavo case early last year, so long ago now. I hope Republicans are aware of how silly it was to expend their political capital on that...

Blue America

The March Survey USA state-by-state Bush approval numbers came out yesterday. In only 3 states is Bush over a 50% approval: Utah, Wyoming, and Alabama. In Massachusetts and New Jersey, Bush has a paltry 26% approval. Here's a handy map from Radical Russ:



The map is animated to show month-by-month what has happened to Bush's approval ratings in each state since the 2004 election. By this month, America looks pretty blue. I guess Bush is going to be spending a lot of time campaigning for the handful of Republicans in Utah, Wyoming, and Alabama. Everywhere else, he's probably more of a drag on the ticket.

Gay Partnerships in the Czech Republic

Via 365gay:

The Czech Parliament on Wednesday overrode a presidential veto and passed a law that recognizes same-sex domestic partnerships.

Prime Minister Jiri Paroubek got 101 of the 177 votes that were cast in the 200 seat parliament - the exact number needed to override President Vaclav Klaus' veto of the bill.

The law will allow couples who register their partnership with authorities to have inheritance and health care rights similar to those granted now to heterosexual married couples. The law, however, does not allow marriage or adoption of children by same-sex partners.

The legislation passed the lower house in December and the upper house in January. Klaus vetoed the legislation last month.

Conditions are improving for gays in every Western country where a center-left government rules. It's just another reason I'm optimistic that the next Democratic Congress will work for positive progressive change on gay rights.

33%

I think the Pew Research Center must be working for the terrorists.

Charles Soechting Resigns

Charles Soechting, outgoing chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, resigned early. The conventional wisdom is that the 63 SDEC members will choose establishment candidate for TDP chairman Boyd Richie. The reason Soechting gave for his resignation in a letter to the State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC):

"As you know, several months ago I announced I would not be seeking re-election as the Chair of the Texas Democratic Party in order to devote more time to both my family and law practice. As it happens, things are changing. I have been given the exciting assignment of heading up a new section at our law firm, an opportunity that will unfortunately, demand a greater portion of my time and energy. Because of this opportunity, coupled with the desire to spend more time with my wife and children, I will be stepping down as Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party effective April 22, 2006..."

But, according to Glen Maxey, that's not the real reason:

On Tuesday, Chairman Soechting announced his resignation for personal reasons relating to family and business. Sadly, that’s not the reason he expressed in the calls over the last weeks.

As I’ve heard the story repeated by many, he is doing this because the insiders have decided that Glen Maxey might be elected at the State Convention. I’m flattered that they believe the delegates would elect me. However, I’m appalled that they think this fast move to give their candidate the “incumbency” advantage won’t be noticed for what it is: a slap in the delegates’ face, yet again.

Dropping out and calling a quick election wasn’t right when Republicans Todd Baxter and Ray Allen resigned from the Legislature and allowed Rick Perry to try to set up a short-lived “incumbency” for their successors. It smelled when Perry did it, and it smells when our Democratic leadership does it.

And smell it does. In mentioning Baxter and Allen's early resignations and special election maneuvering, Maxey picked the perfect comparison. Do we really need a special election by the SDEC just 49 days before the state convention is going to elect a permanent chairman? Maxey believes we should just let the Vice Chair serve out the remainder of Soechting's term. I think that sounds perfectly reasonable.

Yet Another New Low

Bush hits another polling low. This time from Gallup:

Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.

...

Bush's approval rating of 36 percent is the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored in November. The previous CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted February 28-March 1, put his job approval at 38 percent. (View Bush's second term approval ratings)

Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest poll said they disapproved of his performance in office, the same figure as in the last poll.

...

Those figures, along with weakened support for GOP handling of the battle against terrorism, have given Democrats a 16 percentage point lead over Republicans when registered voters are asked which party they will support in November...

Democrats drew the support of 55 percent of the registered voters questioned, while 39 percent said they would be voting Republican in the fall. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

So a 36%/60% Bush approval/disapproval, and a 55%/39% lead for Democrats in the generic congressional ballot. Not bad. Consider that Clinton's low was 36% approval, and his high disapproval only 54%. 1994 reversal, here we come!

Montana Board of Public Education Bans Homophobic Bullying

365gay:

ll Montana school districts must adopt policies against bullying, the Montana Board of Public Education has decided.

The requirement that will take effect with the next school year must be met for districts to satisfy accreditation standards, the board decided unanimously on Friday. Districts are to adopt a policy "designed to address bullying, intimidation and harassment of students and school personnel." The finer points of the policymaking will be left up to local school boards.

They will receive from the state lists of recommended features for their new policies. One recommendation says policies should acknowledge that victims of bullying often are targeted because of their perceived vulnerabilities, which can include sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as race, religion and disabilities.

The issue of sexual orientation has been a particularly controversial aspect of the school bullying debate. Critics have said a bullying policy could be used to advance homosexual rights and causes.

"This is precisely a trap that the board is walking into, by bringing this on line," Harris Himes, pastor at Big Sky Christian Center in Hamilton, said Friday.

I think this is excellent. I'd love to see Texas do something like this. In fact, one of the resolutions I introducted at my precinct convention addressed harassment in schools, especially homophobic harassment. I think it's particularly feeble that conservatives would oppose preventing bullying in schools just out of fear that it might help gay rights. In and of itself, most people, including most conservatives I would hope, think bullying is a bad thing. But then again, if you support the ideology of might makes right, then bullying fits right in with that...

Anyway, later on the article, there's this:

The 2005 Legislature rejected a bill that would have required school districts and the board to "consider ways to address harassment, intimidation and bullying in schools." The bill died on a 50-50, party-line vote in the House of Representatives, with all Democrats voting in favor of the measure and all Republicans opposing it. The Board of Public Education then took up the issue.

Again, this is an example of how party control of legislatures matters for gay rights. Democrats vote for gay rights and Republicans vote against. Democratic-controlled legislatures, in general, will promote progressive legislation, while Republican-controlled legislatures will promote awful conservative legislation. Montana is a red state, people. The latest Survery USA 50-state poll has Bush with a higher approval there than here in Texas. If Montana can handle legislation like this, so can Texas. Democrats just need control. Admittedly that's a tremendous expectation, given where Texas Democrats are right now. But, my realization of that is why I'm working to get state-level Democrats elected more than ever this year.

AP-Ipsos Poll

Sorry for the lack of updates, folks, but I have back-to-back scheduled events until tomorrow. In the meantime, check out the latest AP-Ipsos poll that puts Bush at 37% approve, 60% disapprove. The thing that raises my eyebrows is that 67% say the country is off on the wrong track. That's about as high as I've seen under Bush.

Misc Roundup

• Chris Bowers and Charlie Cook look at House recruiting.
• Jack Abramoff tells Vanity Fair that basically, he plans to eat the Republican Party.
• Media Matters for America shows that Hardball tilts right. Big surprise, I know.
• A Florida gay adoption bill is having trouble getting through the overwhelmingly Republican Florida legislature. Another surprise.
• Pink Dome pleads with Carter Casteel to demand a recount. I'll second that.
  
• Karl-Thomas writes a truly inspiring response to Greg about soldiering on through political losses.
• South Dakota is evenly split on the complete abortion ban their governor just signed.
• Perry has a good quote from the Radnofsky campaign about do-nothing-but-have-a-name candidate Gene Kelly: "The dancer is dead, folks ... please don't let him kill the Party."
• Sara has new pictures of my nephew! Isn't he adorable?
• Check out the Real Life Simpsons video. Looks European to me...
• Dubai Ports World is going to transfer its American operations to an American company.
• Fairleigh-Dickinson NJ-Sen Poll: Menendez (D) 42% Kean (R) 37%
• Former TX Gov. Ann Richards has been diagnosed with cancer. I wish a speedy recovery to one of my political heroes, and my prayers are with her and her family.
• Matt evaluates the Texas post-primary political landscape.
  

Anyone want to add anything?

Pink Dome Rocks

If you haven't been there yet, you should check out Pink Dome, one of the best Texas progressive blogs. Why does PD rock at this particular moment? There are so many reasons, I'll just pick two.

One: Bringing to our attention these two videos. It's always nice to see Aggies make a fool of themselves. (I should know -- I'm married to one!) It's extra nice when they do it shirtless. But lord no, this is not sexual in any way. Just freaking hilarious.

Two: Drunk posting! I'm so glad someone has the courage to write about politics while drinking! And no one does it with the grace and eloquence of Pink Dome. I only wish I had that power. March 7, as you know, was primary night in Texas, and the lefty blogs were in full force from the various victory parties around town. At 12:53 am March 8, an anonymous poster (PD himself?) had this to say, in the most beautiful comment I've ever seen on a political blog:

PD here agaiin> Madla out, d'uh so desservered. Did you pay the f--- attention to that racwe at all??? Grusendorf ... are you f---oing kidding me>?>??? so out. Bu twtf are wtf are wtf l.
.......carter..fucoi wait. i meant to say f--- so f--- you texas district for texas sd whatever fduck you ansd f--- y ou c]=goint to the polls and f--- your d]car that took y ou there and ruck off and f--- that so there,

Fan-freaking-tastic! Because I'm running a pure and wholesome site, I bleeped out the curse words. I know. I suck. But to partially make up for it, I highlighted them, along with words I think might be curses but were too indecipherable to require bleeping. "Grusendorf" means "wedgie" in German, right?

And one more big smooch to Pink Dome. You rock!

An Idea I Really Like

Chuck Todd at National Journal describes a movement to "make the electoral college more responsive" that just might work:

What makes their effort different from ones in the past is that the movement: 1) has a financier (attorney John Koza), and 2) has a way to avoid Congress -- and a constitutional amendment.

Because the Constitution allows states to decide how to administer distributing their electoral votes, Koza and his gang of reformers believe they have found their loophole to make the Electoral College as relevant as the British Crown.

The goal is to pass a state law that does two things:

• binds the state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, and

• doesn't take effect until enough states, equaling 270 electoral votes, pass the same law, thereby creating an interstate compact.

This attempt would technically keep the institution in place, but it would remove the state-by-state election returns as the trigger for awarding electoral votes.

Of all the reform movements we’ve come across, this one seems to be the most viable. The group is first attempting to pass the law in Illinois (where it is more likely to pass than not), and then they will move on to California. Should they find success in those two states, the interstate compact would be just 194 electoral votes short of execution. At that point, we’d imagine many of the Western and New England states would follow suit in a hurry. Politically, we think these reformers will have the hardest time getting their law passed in Southern states, where states’ rights mean everything.

The electoral college is an intentionally undemocratic institution. It should go, and if this is the way it goes, so be it. One thing the movement's backers should be aware of, though, is that the balance of the electoral college is dependant upon the apportionment of seats in Congress, and that changes every 10 years, after every census. It wouldn't do any good at all to have the plan work when 270 electoral votes' worth of states pass the law, only to have the next census and reapportionment reduce the total votes of those states to 269.

The Delegate from Precinct 301

A month ago, I had never heard of precinct conventions, but I went yesterday evening to my convention after the polls closed for the primaries. The precinct captain was there presiding, along with two former Sunset Valley city council members. A total of 8 adults and one minor were present, and we debated resolutions into the night. All four of the resolutions I brought and presented passed unanimously. All four were related to gay rights, and although I did not write them myself -- I got them from Equality Texas, after Glen Maxey sent out links) -- they're all resolutions I believe in strongly. I'm so happy they were approved.

Also, I'm proud to say I was elected a delegate to the Travis County Democratic Convention. Now, we had 4 delegate slots and 4 participants who wanted to go, so it wasn't like there was any heated contest or anything, but I'm still proud, darn it. This is about as involved as I've ever been in politics, and I'm loving it! I'm such a dork...

Anyone else out there going? Readers? Other bloggers? Celebrities? Canadians?

Election Summary

It looks like Chris Bell is our gubernatorial nominee, and Hank Gilbert is our nominee for agriculture commissioner. DeLay survived his primary, and Cuellar's survival once again depends on how suspicious vote counting in Webb County turns out.

Carlos Uresti defeated State Sen. Frank Madla. 5 state house Republicans lost in the primary: Kent Grusendorf, Roy Blake, Carter Casteel, Jesse Jones, and Elvira Reyna. Two of those (Blake and Casteel) were Leininger targets. Grusendorf was a Texas Parent PAC target. The only Democrat was Jesse Jones. In HD-047, Valinda Bolton and Jason Earle are headed for a runoff. On the Republican side, Bill Welch and Alex Castano are headed for a runoff. Boy, I really thought Rich Phillips would be the one to beat, but it looks like I was wrong. Very wrong. Oh well.

In Travis County races of interest, Charlie Baird defeated Buddy Meyer for district judge in the 299th. Eric Shepperd very narrowly defeated Elena Diaz for the open position 2 on the County Court at Law. Sarah Eckhardt defeated incumbent Karen Sonleitner for County Commissioner from precinct 2, and Margaret Gomez defeated Yolanda Montemayor for County Commissioner from precinct 4.

More info: Texas Secretary of State's election returns. Burnt Orange Report's election summary. Travis County election returns.

Election Blogging

I'm headed to my precinct convention tonight, so I won't be liveblogging or anything. But, if you're interested in the high profile congressional primaries, check out the Texas Secretary of State's results for TX-28 (D-Cuellar) and TX-22 (R-DeLay), updated throughout the night no doubt.

Burnt Orange Report is covering the primary results for almost every race. So if you're interested in those other races, you can probably find it pretty quick by scrolling up and down their front page.

Election nights always excite me! Feel the adrenaline? I know you do...

Precinct Convention Participation

After the polls close tonight, if you feel the high so much that you want it more, check out your Democratic party precinct convention. It should be at the same location as your polling place, and it should start 15 minutes after the polls close. I've never been to one, so this should be a new experience for me.

What do you do there? Two things primarily. First, you elect delegates to the next level of conventions: county or senate district. And second, you offer resolutions that, if they pass, will be kicked up to the next level as well, and if they continue to be well-received, can end up in the state party platform.

Glen Maxey has a great document about how to participate in your precinct convention at his Texas Democratic Party Chair campaign website. Check it out.

I plan to offer 4 resolutions that came to me in one of Maxey's emails that were put together by Equality Texas. Those resolutions support equal marriage rights, non-discrimination legislation, foster care and adoption rights, and a ban on discriminatory harrassment in public schools. Gay rights is something I believe strongly in, and I would highly encourage anyone else attending a precinct convention to offer those same resolutions. However, if you have another area of interest, there's nothing stopping you from writing your own. So go at it! Today's the day to have a say in what your party stands for.

"Where Do I Vote?" and Other Questions Answered

Today, Tuesday March 7, 2006, is the day of the Texas primaries. Here are some questions you might have, and the answers thereto:

Where do I vote?

You have a specific polling place near your residence. If you've moved since the last time you've voted, forgot where you went last time, or just plain don't know where to go to vote, here's how you find your polling place. On your voter registration is your precinct number. If you still can't find your precinct number, you can call the Voter Registrar's office (854-9473) or check their website. Once you have your precinct number, you can find your precinct's polling place on the Travis County Clerk's website. Even if you already know your polling place, it might be a good idea to double-check: polling places are subject to change right up until election day.

When do I vote?

Polls are open from 7 am to 7 pm.

What do I need?

According to the Travis County Clerk's Elections Division:

Registered voters can vote with a voter registration card, driver’s license or any official photo ID, birth certificate, United States citizenship papers or passport, a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement or other official document that shows the name and address of the voter.
NOTE TO FIRST-TIME VOTERS: If you are a first-time voter in Travis County who registered to vote by mail and did not previously provide a copy of ID, you must show a form of ID other than a Voter Registration Certificate before voting.

Who's on the ballot?

Today, you can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. It doesn't matter which one you voted in last time, you can vote in either one. A sample ballot for the Democratic primary can be found here. And a sample ballot for the Republican primary can be found here. There are candidates for governor and other Texas statewide offices, candidates for the senate, house of representatives, state legislature, county commissioner, and judges -- all sorts of aspiring and entrenched public servants, desperately needing your vote.

Who do I vote for?

Well, I'm glad you asked. If you're voting in the Democratic primary, my endorsements can be found here. If you're voting in the Republican primary, I'd endorse a change of party. Democrats rule! Woohoo! If you want a less biased opinion, check out the voters guide from the League of Women Voters of Texas for some bios of statewide candidates.

Why should I vote?

First of all, it's your duty as an American citizen. Our democracy doesn't work if people don't vote. Second, it's your way to exert influence on the democratic process, as well as the democratic process within your party. Decisions are made by those who show up. And with turnout sadly expected to be rather low, your influence will be even greater. Finally, it's fun. I swear it is. Honest. Try it drunk, and you'll see.

I hope this was a help to someone out there. Now get out there and make the powers-that-be tremble in fear of your highly motivated participation!

Austin Puts Domestic Partner Benefits on the Ballot

How many ways can 2006 be a mirror of 1994? Well, at least one more. It looks like the Austin City Council approved 6-1 sending domestic partner benefits to the voters in November. The last time they were on the ballot was November 1994, when they were overwhelmingly rejected (62%-38%). But in the wake of Travis County's rejection 60%-40% in 2005 of Proposition 2, writing a ban on gay marriage into the Texas state constitution, the city council obviously thinks minds have changed, and I would agree with that. I expect Austin voters will approve the council's measure this year, and that will be one more way in which the 2006 election will be a mirror reversal of 1994.

I know this news is a couple days old. But hey, this is my darn blog.

Brokeback Mountain Was Robbed!

Now that I've got that off my chest...

Actually, even though that's the way I feel, I don't really think that's true. Weird huh? Here's what I mean. I think Brokeback Mountain did quite well, with 3 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay, 2 of the big ones. And I haven't seen Crash, but it sounds like it has a powerful and important message. But even so, Brokeback Mountain has impacted our culture far more than Crash. And because its message has been conspicuously absent in the films most Americans see, it actually has a chance that Crash doesn't to penetrate our culture in a unique way and change it for the better. Of course this is coming from somone who hasn't seen the competition (yet).

It was certainly gratifying to see characters like me in a mainstream love story. And as I've written here before, I think Brokeback Mountain was a great and emotionally powerful movie, and to many people, it will be new and challenging. But how much of its greatness was just because it was new to a lot of people? I really hope that one day, I'll see an Oscar-winning movie about gay characters, but without the curious novelty of the Oscar-winning movie being about gay characters.

So anyway, I'm not angry. Disappointed, I suppose, maybe a little. But I intend to see Crash before I make up my mind.

Glen Maxey For Chair of the Texas Democratic Party

Glen Maxey is running for Texas Democratic Party Chair. Great job with the draft, Karl-Thomas! Glen Maxey first came to my attention when I was a freshman at the University of Texas. That was 1994, the year when I decided to be a maverick independent voter and voted for Republicans for Congress. I've been regretting it ever since. But even then, I would have voted for Glen Maxey if I could have. He was the only openly gay state legislator in Texas, and he represented the district that included the university campus. I didn't vote in that district though. I voted back in College Station where I helped some more Republicans rack up votes for the state legislature. What was I thinking? At least I had the sense to vote for Ann Richards for governor...

Anyway, since leaving the state legislature, Glen Maxey did something else I greatly appreciated. He ran the No Nonsense in November campaign against Proposition 2, the anti-gay marriage amendment. While the amendment passed, I think the organizing that was done for that campaign, particularly in Travis County, will wind up being very beneficial for Democrats. And as TDP chair, Maxey would be in a position to do more organizing of that sort. Since he is a sort of political hero of mine, I'm endorsing Glen Maxey for Texas Democratic Party Chair. Go get 'em, Glen!

Bush Securely in the Thirties

Bush Job Approval:

Fox: 39%
Gallup: 38%
LA Times 38%
Q-poll: 36%
CBS: 34%

I think he can recover to the lower forties, but no higher until after the November elections. And even then, his recovery would require that a Democratic Congress emerge as a foil. If Republicans hold both houses, Democratic anger will not abate, and Bush's approval rating will remain below 50% for the remainder of his term.

He's in the thirties because of the Dubai ports deal. He can't really fall below 40% without the Republican Noise Machine itself attacking him. On the other hand, he'll have serious problems rising above 45% without making concessions to the center, thereby causing the machine to attack him. Tsk tsk. What a dilemna.

News 8 Austin: Electability the Main Difference in HD-047 Dem Primary

Reporter Allie Rasmus has a story today at New 8 Austin about the Texas House District 47 Democratic candidates. (Well, two of them. Nothing about Eric Beverly or Royce LeMoine.)

Bolton and Earle say public education is the district's top priority and health care problems are a top concern on their platforms.

"The reality is most of the uninsured children in the United States live in Texas," Bolton said.

"Our emergency rooms have become our outpatient clinics. We need to focus on more preventative measures," Earle said.

The two have similar platforms. So for Democratic primary voters heading to the polls, what makes these two candidates different? According to the candidates, it's electability.

"I'm the Democratic candidate who can win this seat in the fall," Bolton said.

"I've already out-raised my primary opponent six to one," Earle said.

I think Rasmus has hit the nail on the head here in pointing out the importance of electability in this primary. I've already given my endorsement to Valinda Bolton, but I think both candidates have acceptable platforms. The main difference to most Democrats will be who can win.

Earle has the advantage of coming from an established Democratic political family, and has name recognition and money. Bolton has the perfect profile of a winning candidate in Travis County next year as a Democratic woman who's worked as a anti- domestic violence advocate, and she has most of the institutional support I think.

Also in the story is what Republicans think about this:

Republican strategists say his father's legal battle with Tom DeLay makes the younger Earle a political liability for Democrats in a swing district. But Earle said he's confident voters will be able to separate his actions from his father's.

Republicans are way off if they think there won't be crossover voters because of Ronnie Earle. I'd be very surprised if he's actually a drag on Jason Earle at all. In the primary, he's probably a help. And if Tom DeLay's trial goes anywhere, Republicans would have to be total idiots to draw attention to it. Especially in Travis County where Democrats are energized and angry.

Texas Un-re-redistricting at the Supreme Court

Well, it looks like the Supreme Court may not be interested in overturning the 2003 redistricting plan after all. It makes me wonder why they took the case exactly. Reuters:

Supreme Court justices appeared unimpressed on Wednesday with arguments that politics was behind a plan engineered by Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's plan to redraw Texas congressional boundaries.

"Wow. That's a surprise," Justice Antonin Scalia said sarcastically as the courtroom erupted in laughter. "Legislatures redraw maps all the time for political purposes."

A high court ruling against the Texas plan could make it harder for the Republican Party led by U.S. President George W.Bush to maintain control of the 435-seat U.S. House of Representatives in November's elections.

I don't know, maybe they'll surprise me. It strikes me as one of the flaws of our system that elected representatives draw district lines. In most democratic nations, that is not the case. Some states have independent commissions draw up the district lines, too. Those commissions are usually made up of or appointed by state majority and minority party leaders in equal numbers, and those leaders agree on a neutral tiebreaker. I think this is a much fairer system than letting elected representatives or their partisan allies choose which voters will elect them to office.

If the 2001 map is restored, Democrats are likely to reclaim 2-4 additional seats in the U. S. House of Representatives, depending on the decisions of certain former representatives (Jim Turner and Max Sandlin) to run again. But Democrats should prepare for the possibility that the Supreme Court will keep the 2003 map.

How should they prepare? Well, I'm sad to say there's probably very little to do in Texas. We'll have to concentrate hard on beating Tom DeLay in TX-22 and defending Chet Edwards in TX-17. And try and get back the Texas House and some statewide races so we can have some representation in the Texas government in 2010 for the next required round of redistricting.

Democrats elsewhere, however, will be presented with an interesting opportunity. 2006 looks likely to be anywhere from mildly good to wildly good for Democrats. The structural difficulties counterbalancing any wave exist primarily at the national level. At the state level, Democratic opportunities abound. If partisan mid-decade redistricting is acceptable, Democrats should strongly consider some partisan redistricting of their own after the 2006 election.

New York already has a 20-9 Democratic tilt to their congressional delegation, but they might be able to squeeze a seat or two if they reclaim the state senate and governorship, as seems likely. Pennsylvania, should Democrats capture a trifecta (governorship and both state houses), would be a perfect opportunity since Republicans now control the congressional delegation 12-17 even though the state is slightly blue. Michigan may be more likely for Democrats to gain a trifecta, and the delegation there is 9-6 Republican. Democrats already have a trifecta in Illinois, where the delegation is 10-9 Democratic. And of course there's California, where the congressional delegation is 33-20 Democratic. If the Democrats can oust Gov. Schwarzenegger, they'll have a trifecta there too.

There are a handful of smaller states where Democrats might pick up a seat or two with some hardball redistricting, too. In Minnesota, Democrats need a single seat to capture the state house and Gov. Pawlenty (R) is trailing his likely Democratic challenger. The congressional delegation there is split 4-4. Democrats may pick up the governorship in Colorado as well, where the delegation is 4-3 Republican. Iowa has a 4-1 Republican delegation, both state houses at near partisan parity, and an open seat governor contest. Democrats might also look at Connecticut (3-2 R) if they haven't already taken every district there by November.

After a generous bout of machiavelling, then Democrats might consider setting up nationwide redistricting standards. One suggestion I would have would be to make independent redistricting commissions mandatory. Another would be to make proportionality an important goal of redistricting. In other words, the number of Democrats and Republicans in a state's delegation should track as closely as possible to the proportion of voters who chose a Democrat to those who chose a Republican. And a third suggestion would be to require that a state pay for and conduct a census before any mid-decade redistricting.

While I'm prattling on about things like this, here are another couple more actions Democrats might consider doing both because they are the right thing to do and because they would help Democrats increase their representation.

Voting representation for Washington D.C. in the House and Senate. (not necessarily statehood.)

End felony disenfranchisement laws for felons who have served their time.

Statehood for U. S. Territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, U. S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands)

Expand the U. S. House to 150%-200% of its current size. This would have the added benefit of reconfiguring the electoral college in Democrats favor. And it would decrease the cost of a seat in the House (and the value of it), which would decrease the influence of money.

Consider implementing the National Popular Vote plan, which would have states collude to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the popular vote in their state, thereby effectively abolishing the inequities of the electoral college without a constitutional amendment.

And while we're here, I also want one billion dollars. And a pony.

For more on the redistricting case, check out Capitol Annex's roundup of the day's events, and Burnt Orange Report's Phillip Martin's roundup of the editorials. BOR's Damon McCullar also has this about the case's effect on the TX-28 Democratic primary:

There's also the SCOTUS factor. CD 28 was created in the 2003 redistricting. If the SCOTUS throws out the current district map, then I would imagine that it would be in the bag for Ciro. And hey, we might get lucky and have Cuellar run against Bonilla. Two Dems for the price of one? I know most of you guys don't care for Cuellar, but if he can unseat a Republican then that's one step closer to having a Democratic majority in The People's House.

I think if Cuellar is ousted in the primary, he'll get enough bad press that he won't be able to beat Bonilla in the old TX-23 any longer. Another Laredo Democrat perhaps though...

P. S. Can we please call it "un-re-redistricting"? I really like that.