Home » Posts tagged 'current events'
Tag Archives: current events
My wife asked about The Electors Trust, a group of lawyers offering “free and strictly confidential legal support to any Elector who wishes to vote their conscience,” and so at her suggestion, I’m posting the link for its relevance to the Texas electors.
I’m still working through my own thoughts regarding the Electoral College, so-called “faithless electors,” and our oddly structured Presidential elections, and will take some time to unpack them in a (very near) future post.
My apologies for having not posted more frequently lately; I guess the impending collapse of Western Democracy has been leaving me feeling a bit unmotivated. (More about that in a later post). Here are a few quick links to catch up on some Texas election news:
I. TEXAS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS DO THEIR THING
I’ll unpack this story in a separate post because it deserves more scrutiny (what with democracy teetering on the brink and all), but essentially the Standard-Times story repeats the received experiential wisdom of many election experts — that nothing exciting or new is going to happen with the Electoral College, because nothing exciting or new ever happens with the Electoral College.
The story notes in passing that Republican state officials are now considering legislation to punish any future so-called “rogue electors” in response to the defections. The text of the proposed bill (H.B. 543, filed by Representative John Raney) is here, and as currently drafted, the bill imposes a $5,000 fine on electors who fail to vote the party line.
II. IS THE TOWN OF BROCK EVEN REALLY REAL?
From the Palestine Herald-Press, this story about a dispute between the newly incorporated village of Brock and the city of Weatherford, regarding a proposed May 2017 election in Brock to choose a mayor and city council. The problem here is that when Brock incorporated, it did its incorporation election “wrong” by failing to include an initial slate of city officials in the ballot. Oops.
So the Weatherford city attorney is taking the position that the proposed May 2017 municipal general election in Brock is illegal. Meanwhile, the attorney for the putative legal entity (the town of Brock) is arguing in effect, “well, what exactly are we supposed to do? We got a judge to order a make-up election to fix our mistake, and we have to have a city council at some point, right?”
At heart, I suspect this is really a fight driven by the zero-sum game of local property tax revenue — another taxing entity in the county means another governmental competitor for statutorily limited tax dollars (because of the tax rate ceiling cap on local tax assessments).
In effect, the City of Weatherford’s attorney is saying that the town of Brock never really incorporated, because the town’s incorporation election was such an error-strewn screwed-up mess. Those are technical legal terms, by the way.
III. WHAT IS GOING ON IN KAUFMAN COUNTY?
From InForney.com comes this story about a newly elected county commissioner submitting paperwork to decline the oath of office. Greg Starek campaigned actively for the post in the March 2016 Republican Party primary, and (as with most Republican candidates in Kaufman County) was unopposed in the general election. The story gives no indication as to why Mr. Starek is now declining the seat, which will need to be filled by appointment. The lack of details means my curiosity about the circumstances is unsatisfied.
IV. SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS IN THE VALLEY ARE ALWAYS EXCITING!
The losing candidates (who ran together on a slate referred to as the ‘U.S.S. Restore’ team) allege that the winning candidates (who ran together on a slate referred to as the ‘Kid’s Choice’ political team) relied on 200 forged or unsigned mail ballots to carry the election, and also that election workers improperly harassed voters who requested “assistance” from campaign workers in casting their ballots.
Like I said, this is depressingly familiar, even in the weird details of the election’s alleged “wrongness.” There’s the allegation of ballot farming and signature forgery. There’s the partisan factionalism, a feature of Valley politics that we don’t generally see in more settled and sleepy school board elections in other parts of the state. There’s the fight over the legitimacy of the commonplace but fundamentally icky practice of campaign workers “offering assistance” to voters in the polling place.
And the weirdest element of the story for someone not living in the Valley may be the intensity and scorched-earth rhetoric of the criminal allegations in an election where by law (per Section 11.061(d), Texas Education Code) the winners earn no salary or other emolument and have what in most communities is perceived as the largely invisible, dull, and thankless job of running a school district (as an illustrative example of this observation, note the summary descriptions of cancelled unopposed trustee elections and elections with unfilled seats in this October 2016 Waco Tribune story about independent school district elections in and around the Waco area).
As is so often the case, the story “behind the story” is left untold. Again, it’s about money, and not just whatever income the school district can derive from the admittedly limited local property tax base, but also the money redistributed to Rio Grande City CISD by the Texas Education Agency. In a community of limited resources, control of that money is a matter of intense, all-consuming importance, to the point where elections become epic no-holds battles.
Our presumptive President-Elect chose to take time out from his Sunday (November 27) to inform us via Twitter (with no evidence) that millions of people voted illegally, and that but for those illegal votes, he would have won the popular vote nationally. (As of this writing Hillary Clinton is more than 2,200,000 ballots ahead of Trump in the popular vote).
Not to mention that he has in the space of a couple of inflammatory Tweets managed to insult the professionalism and intelligence of every county and state voter registrar, election worker, poll watcher, precinct judge, county elections board member, and state election officer in the country, not to mention every—or at least 3 million—of us voters.
If this is what we have to look forward to for the next four years, the ratings for Trump’s reality TV version of the federal government should be through the roof, right? So at least we have that going for us. It’s obscene—if understandable; this is the PEOTUS, after all— that this story got any traction at all.
But first, given that in my last post I opined that the Clinton campaign would be unlikely to seek recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and given that events have proven my opinion to be wrong, let’s address the decision by the Clinton campaign to piggyback on the Jill Stein campaign’s recount requests.
General counsel to Hillary for America Marc Elias (via a statement posted on Medium, and as quoted extensively in Rick Hasen’s blog) makes it clear that Hillary Clinton is wholly realistic about the likelihood that the recounts will not change the outcome of the election, but that such recounts should prove useful as audits of the accuracy and integrity of the election process and to settle fears regarding the risks of result-changing “hacks.”
Briefly, the Clinton campaign would not have pursued recounts but for the fact that
(1) The Stein campaign raised the money and filed the paperwork to get the ball rolling, and
(2) Voters were collectively so disturbed and agitated by evidence of foreign meddling and interference in the election that it made sense for the Clinton campaign to join in the recount effort in order to bring closure to the election.
So why did Stein’s campaign ask for recounts in the first place?
I don’t know—I guess it’s possible that the Stein campaign coordinated with the Clinton campaign, but that seems unlikely, given that neither campaign will benefit in any direct political way from behind-the-scenes cooperation.
I suspect that the Stein recount was motivated by no more than what it seems to be on its face—a grassroots-driven gift propelled by very real and understandable anxiety on the part of committed Stein supporters who could not have been happy with the idea of a Trump victory, especially if it was the result of some sort of direct interference or manipulation of the vote totals in key precincts.
Finally, Paul Musgrave, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has written a nice summary explanation as to why Russia benefits—at least in the short term—from all this anxiety.
One particular piece of work within this ramshackle edifice of voter suppression and general discouragement of the democratic process is Section 61.033 of the Election Code, which states that in order to serve as an interpreter for a voter who requires language assistance, “a person must be a registered voter of the county in which the voter needing the interpreter resides.”
The law, such as it is, has a long pedigree stretching back to 1918, (Act of March 23, 1918, 35th Leg., 4th C.S. Ch. 30 (H.B. 104), although a requirement that election officials could only communicate via English in the polling place was added by the Act of March 13, 1919, 36th Leg. Ch. 55 (S.B. 244), 1919 Tex. Gen. Laws p. 94), The 1919 law reflected a longstanding nativist fear (pumped up by anti-German sentiment after World War One) that some language other than English might intrude into the polling place; that fear is still reflected in Section 61.031(a) of the Election Code, which more or less tracks the xenophobia of the old 1919 law.
After the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the state law was softened to permit language assistance at the same time that multilingual ballots were provided.
But … while Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act provides that voters should be able to make use of language assistance of their own choosing, the state law still exhibits a weird reluctance to help voters out by imposing that pesky have-to-be-registered-to-vote-in-the-same-county-as-the-voter requirement on interpreters.
That restriction found in the state law was never defensible (given that it directly contradicts federal law), but it’s interesting that it took so long for a group of plaintiffs to find a test case to knock it down.
But … better late than never. On August 12, a federal district court in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas granted a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a group of plaintiffs against the State of Texas, and enjoined the State against enforcement of Section 61.033 of the Texas Election Code. NBC News covers the story here: “Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Law That Violates Voting Rights Act.” And the text of the August 12, 2016 opinion (OCA Houston v. State of Texas, 1:15 CV-00679, Western District of Texas, Austin Division) is here, linked to scribd.com within the NBC online story.
The facts of the case highlight why it was a bad idea for the State of Texas to specify that interpreters had to be registered voters in the same county as the person that they were helping. A voter with limited English proficiency went into a polling place in Williamson County with her son, intending that her son would help her read the ballot. If the voter’s had been deemed to merely be offering “assistance” (i.e., help in marking the ballot), he wouldn’t have been challenged. But he was “interpreting” (i.e., translating the ballot), and the election workers at the polls determined that he could not do so, because he was registered to vote in Travis County, not Williamson County.
That’s a weird, restricting, artificial reason to thwart voter intent.
The smart move on the State’s part would have been to settle and accept an agreed judgment the instant that the lawsuit hit the transom — there is absolutely no upside to fighting this. We’ll see if common sense prevails.