Category: Uncategorized

  • Of Fix-It Guys and Their Election Filters

    Why are Top Republican Attorneys in Two States Suddenly Working on Voter Integrity?

    By Greg Moses

    CounterPunch

    In light of our recent interest in the de-registration and criminalization of the voters of West Houston, news from Georgia comes timely. Last Friday, the Democratic Caucus of the Georgia Senate staged a symbolic walkout following that chamber’s passage of a bill that would limit the kinds of ID that can be used to register and vote.

    The Georgia bill eliminates twelve forms of ID previously allowable: employee picture ID; student picture ID; gun license; pilot’s license; birth certificate; social security card; naturalization document; a court paper approving adoption, name change, or sex change; utility bill; bank statement; government check; or other government document. Surviving the purge are five forms of government issued photo 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 Georgia Senate adds to a Repbulican pattern of treating 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 fear that, “we don’t end up with all the lawsuits or all the voter irregularities we’ve heard about.”

    An aide to the Senator explained over the phone that Staton had given no supporting evidence whatsoever in his address on the floor, because there wasn’t enough time. Yet said the aide one example that might be offered was that more than 2,000 “questionable ballots” had been cast in Fulton County during last November’s election. So we asked for his contact source.

    Atlanta attorney Frank Strickland picked up the phone right away. He is the powerhouse Republican attorney who won a Supreme Court reversal of the state’s Democrat redistricting plan, and he now serves on the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections (FULBORE). He wants it known right away that he can’t speak for that board. But he can tell us that Sen. Staton’s aide was probably confused. On election day, “there were very few reports of irregularity” in Fulton County, says Strickland. “The system is not perfect, but we didn’t have a great deal of difficulty at that stage.”

    Strickland suggests that the aide might have intended to cite a case of 2,400 voter registrations that were handed over to FULBORE by the Georgia Secretary of State, because they were “apparently fraudulent.” FULBORE in turn handed the evidence to the local District Attorney and Federal Attorney, but Strickland is not aware of any action taken on the evidence so far. He suggests this would be a bad time to bother the District Attorney about voter registration issues and I decide he’s probably right about that. The story of the Atlanta courthouse shootings is still top news this week.

    Strickland is excitable on the question of photo IDs. He explains that photo IDs are required to rent movies or to “cash welfare checks” so they should be required to vote. But isn’t voting a right, unlike renting movies or cashing checks? And don’t citizens expect to have their rights without barriers? “I agree with that,” says Strickland, “just identify yourself.” Which logically circles us right back around to why this well-placed FULBORE lawyer is so strident on the question of government issued photo ID.

    I tell Strickland that I think fears of widespread voter fraud are over-hyped. In the case of Fulton County, someone may have attempted 2,400 fraudulent registrations, but it wasn’t 2,400 voters. And even he admits that election day ran pretty smoothly among voters. He tells me that protests over photo IDs are what’s over-hyped. There are four million registered voters in Georgia, compared to six million drivers licenses and 600,000 other state- issued IDs. And then he admits that he can’t connect those numbers logically into a complete argument. But he says he doubts that a hundred thousand voters will have trouble producing photo ID and he does not think that narrowing the form of ID constitutes a civil rights violation.

    Strickland goes on to use the analogy of home security. Protecting an election is like protecting your home. Just as you need to be safe in your house, we need to protect the integrity of the voting process in every respect. And your right to vote depends upon your age and registration. You have to register to vote. So it is time to thank the man for his time and hang up. Frankly, I’m nervous when a powerhouse such as Strickland thinks about our public elections the way he thinks about his home security. After all, I do keep my doors locked. But, election day should be an open house affair, unlocked, with windows and doors thrown open. But now that Srickland has my caller ID, I’ll probably have to tell him this via voice mail.

    With only two phone calls to Georgia, troubling parallels to Texas are already laid to view. And this is not good news for America. First there is the eerie coincidence that each of the state’s top Republican attorneys has shifted motion from redistricting to “election integrity.” Like Strickland in Atlanta, Houston’s Andy Taylor spent much of the past year in court, winning redistricting battles for Republicans. Suddenly, in 2005, he’s all about tracking down illegal voters in West Houston and making them repay their miscast ballots for Democrat Hubert Vo (a battle that Taylor finally lost).

    The second parallel is the issue itself, never mind the two lawyers who seem to be square dancing the same call. In Atlanta and Houston alike, a new day of “voter integrity” is upon us. In Atlanta we have the photo ID law churning up bad energy. In Texas we have brand new software that can spit names in wads big as you need of voters gasp who on election day gasp while traveling from home to polling place gasp cross over a county line. About 150 voters were tracked down and subpoenaed for their election day irregularities, and 110 saw their votes subtracted. Whether it’s the “front end” ID fight in Atlanta, or the “back end” ballot fight in Houston, Republicans seem hard at work this year installing brand new election filters.

    And then we have the homeland security fearmongering. Because I’m trying to figure out just what do Strickland and Taylor think that gangs of fraudulent voters are going to do on election day besides vote? When Taylor led the crackdown on West Houston voters, he discovered that one voter in 400 dared to return to an old neighborhood to vote. And Strickland says that on election day in Fulton County, things went pretty well. So in his worst nightmare, I wonder what does Strickland fear could happen? Does he get all sweaty like Taylor at the very idea of a filthy 400 to 1 ratio of voters whose lives outpace their registrations?

    Finally, in Georgia and Texas alike, we have public claims of voter fraud that turn out not to involve voters at all. In Fulton County, somebody may have tried to turn in batches of voter registrations that were not actually filled out by voters (we’ll call the D.A. about that sometime soon). In West Houston, the trick might have been tried on a much smaller scale. In both cases, the number of voters affected should not be confused with the number of voters involved. In addition, the “irony” of West Houston was that whoever pulled that trick, did it in an attempt to export voters out of districts where they lived. Not only was the “fraud” not committed by voters, but it made them ineligible to vote at home. Yet in both cities, high powered Republican attorneys spread fear about illegal voting based on what? Nothing but fear itself. Neither Strickland, Taylor, Staton, nor the aide ha
    ve a
    fact to go on.

    What I forgot to ask Strickland is why Georgia had such a remarkable rate of rejecting provisional ballots during the last election. According to a briefing by ElectionLine.Org, the state rejected 70 percent of nearly 13,000 provisional ballots cast. ElectionLine explains this as a possible consequence of statewide voter registration. A central database might allow election supervisors to more easily check voter registrations. Indeed, at the time of the Election Line report last December only six states had higher rejection rates than Georgia, and four of them (Delaware, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and South Dakota) had statewide registrations. But come January 1, dear reader, all states will be required to have central databases in place.

    The parallels between Texas and Georgia raise questions that can be asked of other states in turn. Are your top Republican lawyers hyping issues of registration integrity, raising specters of nefarious voters planning massive acts of fraud, playing up fears that have no basis in election facts, installing new filters into law that will make voting even less hospitable? And your local election activists? Are they so obsessed with issues of verified counts that they remain blind to all other issues in voting rights?

    Like the peace movement before it, the election movement seems to have gone flat. Comprehensive voter reform bills by Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich) or Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) languish in Congressional committees. You can still find a hot thread about exit polls at your favorite progressive forum, but just as the peace movement crested and dashed itself against hard times, vote reform seems not to know what to do next. Both movements have been hooded and shackled by the one big spin that says America will do anything for democracy. In fact, there’s nothing America won’t do these days so long as so many Americans refuse to be the kinds of citizens that a democracy demands.

  • Irma Muniz: Fighting the Sentencing Guidelines

    Dear Friends:

    The current Supreme Court decision states that it is unconstitutional for a judge to determine a person’s sentence without the jury having knowledge. This violates one’s
    constitutional right to a trial by jury. Ramsey was sentenced by a judge rather than a jury. He will be filing an appeal, but has been advised to wait, as others should do.
    There will be many people filing appeals, and those appeals need to be studied in order to determine which ones will be granted
    by the courts. This information should be shared with others who have hopes of obtaining their freedom.

    Activists need to become involved in this issue, as it will affect many African-Americans and Mexicanos. Decisions made regarding
    the sentencing guidelines should pertain to everyone, rather than being capricious, arbitrary decisions. If the current sentencing
    guidelines are unconstitutional (and they are), then they need to be declared unconstitutional for everyone across the board.

    Thank you for sharing this information with others.

    Sincerely,
    Irma Muniz
    http://www.freeramsey.com
    via email Jan. 15, 2005

  • 4 Million Children Might be News

    Saddle up the Messenger Hoss:
    4 Million Children Might be News

    By

    GREG MOSES

    CounterPunch 9-16-

    2004

    (7 a.m. Central Daylight Time)–The morning after
    Texas district judge John

    Dietz ruled that the state’s
    school system fails to satisfy criteria set forth in
    the Texas

    constitution, I’m browsing some of the “top
    headline” sources on the internet to see how the

    fate
    of 4 million Texas schoolchildren rates on the
    national news scale.

    “More

    than 130 years after Alferd Packer ate his five
    companions to survive a Colorado winter, a

    museum
    curator is making a case that the notorious cannibal
    was innocent of murder,” reads a

    report from the
    Associated Press that I find seven stories from the
    top at Yahoo’s US National

    News. But no news of Texas
    education in the total of twenty stories that are
    either listed as

    “top” or “more.”

    “Three men shot to death in a Willowbrook parking lot
    apparently were

    victims of a planned ‘hit’ that by a
    fluke occurred just as a village police officer drove
    past,

    law enforcement sources said Wednesday,” reads a
    story out of Chicago that gets number seven billing

    at
    Google’s US news page.

    “The Times Fills 2 Editing Posts,” reads headline
    number

    six under New York Times national headlines.
    The Education section also finds other things to

    talk
    about.

    With Hurricane Ivan consuming three of the top dozen
    stories at USA

    Today’s “Nation” page, it’s Southern
    weather that rules the day.

    Maybe we can find the

    headline at CNN US? Nope. But
    if you look under local news from the US Southwest you
    will find

    this number one headline: “Former anchorman
    out of prison.” Or this headline, ranked second:

    “Henna tattoos cause family pain.” The Education page
    leads with a story about college

    affordability.

    As the school buses pass my window here in Texas,
    taking kids to their

    unconstitutional destinations,
    I’m reading parts of the US Supreme Court decision in
    1973 that

    set the precedent for not putting Texas
    education on the national agenda. The Rodriguez

    case,
    which was the first of the “Edgewood” cases to be
    filed—-way back in the summer of ’68—-set

    the Supremes
    to fidgeting over the prospects of “wealth
    equalization.” They said they could

    handle a lawsuit
    where folks were completely deprived of some good
    because of poverty, but the if

    the High Court started
    getting involved in cases where relatively poorer
    people were only

    relatively deprived of such things as
    education, well you know, the great black-robed

    scions
    might have to stop taking summer breaks!

    The dissenting judges in 1973 were

    Thurgood Marshall
    and William O. Douglas, not bad company to keep on a
    morning such as

    this.

    “The Court today decides, in effect, that a State may
    constitutionally vary the

    quality of education which
    it offers its children in accordance with the amount
    of taxable wealth

    located in the school districts
    within which they reside,” wrote Marshall (with
    Douglas

    concurring). “The majority’s decision
    represents an abrupt departure from the mainstream

    of
    recent state and federal court decisions concerning
    the unconstitutionality of state

    educational financing
    schemes dependent upon taxable local wealth. More
    unfortunately, though,

    the majority’s holding can only
    be seen as a retreat from our historic commitment to
    equality of

    educational opportunity and as
    unsupportable acquiescence in a system which deprives
    children in

    their earliest years of the chance to
    reach their full potential as citizens. The Court does
    this

    despite the absence of any substantial
    justification for a scheme which arbitrarily

    channels
    educational resources in accordance with the fortuity
    of the amount of taxable wealth

    within each district.”

    “In my judgment,” continued Marshall, “the right of
    every

    American to an equal start in life, so far as
    the provision of a state service as important

    as
    education is concerned, is far too vital to permit
    state discrimination on grounds as tenuous

    as those
    presented by this record. Nor can I accept the notion
    that it is sufficient to remit

    these appellees to the
    vagaries of the political process which, contrary to
    the majority’s

    suggestion, has proved singularly
    unsuited to the task of providing a remedy for

    this
    discrimination. I, for one, am unsatisfied with the
    hope of an ultimate ‘political’

    solution sometime in
    the indefinite future while, in the meantime,
    countless children

    unjustifiably receive inferior
    educations that ‘may affect their hearts and minds in
    a way

    unlikely ever to be undone.’ Brown v. Board of
    Education, 347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954). I must

    therefore
    respectfully dissent.”

    But it was the refusal of Marshall’s peers that

    sent
    the issue of equalized education back to the Texas
    courts and a series of state-level

    rulings known as
    the Edgewood cases of the early 90s. Texas courts
    today are doing the work that

    national courts refused
    to do thirty years ago, and in the process historical
    contributions are

    being made to the human rights of
    children everywhere.

    For these reasons and others

    that might be given with
    more time and space, can we please ask the editors of
    the national desks

    to dig a little deeper into their
    Associated Press dispatches and post the ones about
    Texas

    education? After all, attention to the human
    rights of 4 million children today will bring you

    so
    many more avid readers tomorrow.

  • Portales: Why Affirmative Action in Admissions

    via email, Feb. 18, 2004

    Texas A&M’s December 2003 Admissions Policy

    Decision

    For the sake of Texas A&M’s reputation among Latinos and blacks of Texas and

    the nation, we hope that “Gains in minority enrollment will come through enhanced outreach, not

    [through] changes in admissions policies, requirements and standards,” as the administration contended

    in December, 2003.

    But if more minorities do not enroll at Texas A&M in the next 2

    years, we will have no choice but to consider race as a criterion, as the Supreme Court allowed on June

    23, 2003 in Grutter. When Hopwood outlawed race as a factor in March 1996, Texas A&M was even then

    enrolling a lamentably low number of freshmen minority students: 230 blacks out of 528 acceptances, 713

    Latinos out of 1,432 acceptances, and 177 Asian Americans out of 510 acceptances. Since then we have

    consistently failed to recoup even these numbers.

    During the 7 years that Hopwood shaped

    admissions policy, Aggie campus administrations repeatedly said that Texas A&M was “hamstrung” and

    “hampered” from considering race. If only they could consider race, they would say by way of

    deflecting criticism, we would have more minorities on campus.

    But, since June 2003 the

    Supreme Court’s Grutter decision at the University of Michigan has allowed colleges to consider race as

    one of several factors. Texans and the nation had all been waiting to see if Texas A&M would consider

    race as Rice and the University of Texas are doing.

    This is not to say that we are

    urging “race-based admissions,” as the media constantly claim and as many people believe. What we are

    saying is that race ought to be taken into account–along with all of the other regularly considered

    college merit admissions factors.

    After all, Latinos and blacks who have earned high

    grades, already have the test scores and can demonstrate a good number of the other merits that Texas

    A&M looks for, thereby having proven themselves. In minority students, as in white students, such

    merits are recognizable accomplishments that speak for themselves. Such applicants can rightfully

    claim being special, to being exceptional applicants. That is why we say that race should be an added

    diversity factor, one, among others, of the actual manifestations of what is variously known as

    diversity.

    In the wake of campus events caused by different attitudes toward race, no

    one can be persuaded any longer that people are “color-blind” or “race neutral,” as some people want to

    believe; and, apparently, neither is the Supreme Court convinced.

    The $40,000 family

    income cut-off qualifying a student for the new $5,000 a year Regents scholarships, we also need to

    point out, is too low. We understand money is tight. And, yes, a student, of any race and background,

    with a monthly family gross income of $3,333 who maintains high grades, takes the right courses and has

    the needed test scores is a walking miracle and deserves financial support. But even a student with

    two custodial parents at Texas A&M are likely earn more than the minimum $40,000 that is required for a

    son or a daughter to earn such a scholarship.

    During the question and answer session of

    the December 3, 2003 meeting with President Gates, one student asked for financially more competitive

    presidential and honors scholarships while another brought out that even families earning $100,000 a

    year are now “struggling” to meet tuition, rent and other college expenses. If this is so, will

    students with the Regents scholarships be able to put together financial packages that will allow them

    to stay in school for 4 or 5 years until they graduate? Again, that would require another miracle.

    For these reasons, it is difficult to believe that minority enrollment can be achieved

    only by enhancing outreach efforts. We have unsuccessfully tried that approach since the early 1980s,

    as former Professor Ruth Schaffer brought out month after month, year after year during the meetings of

    the Minority Conditions Committee of the Faculty Senate.

    Convincing accepted minority

    students now to attend Texas A&M in the face of events that we continue to see and that have

    traditionally kept minorities from enrolling here appears insurmountable. We are, nevertheless,

    willing to be proven wrong. Hopwood has already hurt another wave of minority students and faculty

    recruitment as well as campus diversity efforts for more than 7 long years. After 128 years, the next

    2 years should tell us whether Texas A&M is capable of attracting more minority students without

    including race as an admissions factor.

  • Don't Mess With Texas Voters

    The Republican-led attempt to unseat from the Texas Legislature newly elected Democrat

    Hubert Vo, will require more voter intimidation, says a source close to the Vo campaign. In order to

    prove that Vo does not deserve to keep his narrowly won seat, Republican attorneys will have to produce

    alleged “illegal voters” in west Houston precincts, drag them into public view, and then compel them

    to testify under oath who they voted for.

    “Conceptually speaking,” says our source, “asking

    people who they voted for has a lot of implications. The easy part of voting is knowing that no one

    will ever know who I voted for. If this assurance is violated, then people may never vote against a

    powerful person again. Making people disclose their votes is the ultimate form of

    intimidation.”

    Intimidation before, during, and after elections is the Republican way.

    It is what connects Florida 2000 to Ohio 2004, and now to the Republican-led challenge against Hubert

    Vo. For this reason you may stay tuned to the Texas Civil Rights review for further updates. We will

    not be intimidated out of our civil rights.

    The Texas Civil Rights Review is taking an

    interest in the Republican-led effort to unseat newly elected Democrat Hubert Vo. As argued in a

    recent article on the “Whitewashing of Election Fraud” (see below) we see the struggle to maintain

    Vo’s seat as part of a national civil rights struggle.

    Despite the intensity of the

    Republican challenge so far, our source reports that “things are going well–so far all the signals

    are in our favor.” Yet that seems difficult to believe this week.

    “From the beginning

    the Texas Speaker of the House has been sending signals that he doesn’t want to proceed with this

    challenge,” reports our source. “But the process keeps moving forward. How can the process keep

    moving forward without the Speaker wanting to proceed?”

    So why does the source think

    that signals are good? For one thing, the deadline for producing a complete list of alleged illegal

    voters has been set for early next week. If the Speaker were more sympathetic to the challenge, he

    might be giving the anti-Vo camp more time to collect their case.

    So far, the allegations

    include claims that 14 people voted twice, once via mail, and then again on election day. But our

    source tells us that the 14 people in question happen to live on the same block. This leads our source

    to believe that a “keying error” is a more likely explanation for the double count. (Frankly, we have

    to admit that we don’t know enough about the “keying” process to make an independent assessment

    about this.)

    Here’s the tactical schedule:

    • Dec. 14

      (Tuesday): Deadline for submission to Vo campaign of complete list of alleged “illegal

      voters.”

    • Dec. 15 (Wednesday): Conference call between

      parties.

    • Early January: Completion of discovery

      phase.

    • Early February: Formal hearing on election contest in Texas

      legislature.

    webposted Dec. 11–

    gm