USDOJ's Civil Rights Division specifically challenged the redistricting maps for Texas congressional Districts 23 and 27, which they say would not provide Hispanic citizens with the ability to elect candidates of their choice to the U.S. House of Representatives.
In papers filed with a special three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday Oct. 25, 2011, the Department of Justice and individual parties sharply criticized the standard the State of Texas wants the D.C. panel to use in evaluating arguments about ‘retrogression’ in the state’s redistricting maps.
There is “ample circumstantial evidence” that the congressional and state representative redistricting maps signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry had not only the effect but the intent of limiting the voting power of Hispanic voters, Justice Department lawyers said in the court filing.
Today is the start of Early Voting for the November 8, 2011 Constitutional Amendment Election. It will run through next Friday, November 4, with Election Day on Tuesday the 8th. You can see details by clicking to this link.
A majority of the voters must approve the amendments before they can be implemented. Several cities have also authorized "special election" ballot propositions for their respective jurisdictions. Check the appropriate sample ballot style for your election precinct to see if your city has a "special election" proposition on your ballot. Don't know your precinct number? Find out how to locate your precinct number by clicking here.
Election Day Vote Centers Coming to Collin Co. Again For This Nov. 8th Election:
Election Day Vote Centers work almost exactly like Early Voting Polling Places. On Election Day any voter registered in the Collin County can vote at any polling place through out the county.
Many people do not remember that the purchase and use of birth control products, even by married couples, was against the law in many states until 1965. There are those who, for the last 46 years, have worked to reverse the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court finding that women have a fundamental "right of privacy" to make family planning decisions, which includes the right to learn about and use contraceptive products for birth control.
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and nearly all the other GOP presidential candidates support the idea that contraceptives should be outlawed though the adoption of a "life begins at conception" constitutional amendment -- even if they don't fully understand the measure will outlaw most common contraceptives.
University of California-Berkeley physicist Richard Muller is well known for believing that climate scientists were wrong in their assessments that earth's climate systems are changing due to global warming. He has said publicly that he had doubts about the accuracy of global temperature reading at temperature recording stations, upon which, most climate change models are based. For that public skepticism Muller had been embraced by the climate science denying crowd.
They define themselves as just plain people; the 99 percent who are getting screwed by the 1 percent. It might be why 99% of the cops are so cheerful and accommodating in so many cities where the Occupy Movement has taken hold.
It is a movement whose time has come, as evidenced by its incredible growth in the last month. As if a lot of folks were waiting for something to start, and when it did, they joined.
OWS and the entire Occupy Together movement has been called unfocused, loud, a mob, unwashed, and far worse by those who feel threatened by something outside of their sphere if influence.
Think Progress: Do you really want you or your colleagues to go to work sick?
Recently, a string of cities and states have passed new ordinances that would require paid sick days for employees at certain employers. Just last week, Philadelphia’s city council passed a second version of a paid sick leave bill after the mayor vetoed the earlier one. Earlier this year, Seattle approved paid sick days legislation, while Connecticut became the first state with a state-wide requirement.
Now, the Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch has published an expose of how the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) — a corporate front group that farms out legislation to almost a third of state legislators nationwide — is drafting legislation on behalf of its wealthy conglomerate funders to repeal these ordinances.
PR Watch obtained documents from ALEC’s 2011 Annual Meeting showing that one of the group’s committees — the Labor and Business Regulation Subcommittee of the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force — focused its entire meeting on the issue of paid sick leave. Task force members, who are legislators, were given copies of a bill that enables state legislatures to override municipal paid sick days laws. The same bill was used in Wisconsinto override Milwaukee’s paid sick days requirement.
A fundamental war has been waged in this nation since its founding, between progressive forces pushing us forward and regressive forces pulling us backward. The Occupy Wall Street Movement is the newest incarnation of progressive forces again pushing forward against the drag of regressive forces.
Progressives believe in openness, equal opportunity, and tolerance. Progressives assume we’re all in it together: We all benefit from public investments in schools and health care and infrastructure. And we all do better with strong safety nets, reasonable constraints on Wall Street and big business, and a truly progressive tax system. Progressives worry when the rich and privileged become powerful enough to undermine democracy.
Republican presidential candidates debated again last night. And once again, Americans heard the standard regressive litany: government is bad, Medicare and Medicaid should be cut, [the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act that the GOP calls] "Obamacare" is killing the economy, undocumented immigrants are taking our jobs, the military should get more money, taxes should be lowered on corporations and the rich, and regulations should be gutted.
Will the Wall Street Occupiers morph into a movement that has as much impact on the Democratic Party as the Tea Party has had on the GOP? Maybe. But there are reasons for doubting it.
Tea Partiers have been a mixed blessing for the GOP establishment – a source of new ground troops and energy but also a pain in the assets with regard to attracting independent voters. As Rick Perry and Mitt Romney square off, that pain will become more evident.
So far the Wall Street Occupiers have helped the Democratic Party. Their inchoate demand that the rich pay their fair share is tailor-made for the Democrats’ new plan for a 5.6 percent tax on millionaires, as well as the President’s push to end the Bush tax cut for people with incomes over $250,000 and to limit deductions at the top.
And the Occupiers give the President a potential campaign theme. “These days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren’t rewarded and a lot of folks who aren’t doing the right thing are rewarded,” he said at his news conference this week, predicting that the frustration fueling the Occupiers will “express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we’re getting back to some old-fashioned American values.”
But if Occupy Wall Street coalesces into something like a real movement, the Democratic Party may have more difficulty digesting it than the GOP has had with the Tea Party.
Last week we looked at the question all of main stream media seemed to be asking - "What Do The Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want?"
Clearly, "Occupy," "The Other 98 Percent," and "The 99 Percent" activists want a fair and balanced playing field that the federal government's system of oversight and regulation provided to American society, before conservatives dismantled it in their fervor for deregulation and elimination of taxes payed by billion dollar corporations and the richest 1 percent of Americans.
We observed that an obvious way to recreate that fair and balanced American field of play would be to reverse the deregulation of Pres. Roosevelt's New Deal protections for the American financial system and middle class Americans, and to reverse the unbalanced and unfair tax cuts given to the richest Americans and multinational multibillion dollar corporations who have used their tax cuts to offshore tens of millions of American jobs.
That question, put forth by one of the original and most iconic posters advertising the occupation of Zuccotti Park, still hasn't been answered. Many veteran occupiers believe that making specific demands would be counterproductive, while others are working hard to craft concrete proposals they think everyone can agree on.
One of the latter is Daniel Lerner, a middle-aged physicist and active member of Occupy Wall Street's Demands Working Group, which on Sunday voted to push for a New Deal-style program...
... "We are talking about direct public employment, where you are working for the government—everything from wielding a shovel to educating engineers," says Lerner, who drew inspiration from the Depression-era Civil Work and Works Progress Administrations.
The 35 members of the Demands Group will vote Tuesday afternoon on how to build support for the plan before taking it up with the General Assembly, the open-ended group that serves as the protest's governing body.
Communicating through a Yahoo Groups site to draft a list of demands, the Demands Working Group did publish a list draft Tuesday afternoon on their Google sites website. Along with the draft list of demands the Working Group also calls for a National Convention to convene next July:
On her MSNBC show Monday night, Rachel Maddow asked Rep. Barney Frank whether the ever-growing Occupy Wall Street movement has "energized Democrats at all."
The Frank said the protesters need to suggest legislative policies to address their grievances and show up at the ballot box the next time the opportunity arises.
The longtime critic of financial system deregulation says he is sympathetic to the movement but also says, "I'm unhappy when people [who] didn't vote last time blame me [congress] for the consequences of their not voting.”
A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that, in the past five months, the American main stream media has given Pres. Obama the most unremittingly negative press of any of the presidential candidates by a wide margin, while giving Republican candidates extremely positive press coverage.
Liberal Media Bias -- You’ve probably heard it used to describe the American main stream media hundreds, if not thousands of times. One of the most often made claims of the right-wing messaging machine is that the mainstream media are composed almost entirely of liberals who work in concert to promote progressive viewpoints and elect Democrats, while portraying conservative viewpoints, Republicans, and the Tea Party AstroTurf movement with contempt.
Liberal Media Bias is a useful red herring, in that it fires up the faithful conservative base and provides a convenient scapegoat for when the American public rejects conservative policies and/or politicians. Right wing political pundits regularly regurgitate the term to bully the main stream media into giving evermore air time and print space to conservative messaging, without ever questioning it’s authenticity or reporting alternative viewpoints
Pew's Excellence in Journalism study found a marked conservative bias in coverage the main stream media has given to the presidential candidates over the past five months. The American press gave Pres. Obama unremittingly negative press by a four to one margin, while giving Republican candidates extremely positive press coverage.
AmericaBlog: The Republican response to the President's radio address was an outright lie. Practically every credible expert, including economists on Wall Street even, agree that the stimulus did save/create jobs, boost GDP, and help cut back on unemployment. Everyone. But the Republicans keep outright lying and claiming the stimulus didn't do a thing. And the media just quotes them diligently and doesn't explain to the reader that it's a lie. WSJ:
Offering the Republican response, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy criticized what he called the continuation of a "stimulation strategy that's led to more debt and fewer jobs."
All this help comes at significant cost. While the fiscal stimulus has been vital, it helped produce a $1.4 trillion budget deficit this past fiscal year and will lead to another $1 trillion-plus deficit in the current one. Yet the cost to taxpayers would have been measurably greater if policymakers had not acted aggressively. The recession would still be in full swing, undermining tax revenues and driving up government spending on Medicaid, welfare, and other income support for distressed families. It is a tragedy that the nation has been forced to spend so much to tame the financial crisis and end the Great Recession. Yet it has been money well spent. The fiscal stimulus is working to ensure that the recent dark economic times will soon be relegated to the history books.
And the lie grew worse over the past few months. As we pointed our previously, the new Republican talking pint, that I first hear on Fox, of course, is that the stimulus actually CAUSED the economy to worsen.
Outright lie. And the media still doesn't sufficiently call them on it. How about a story asking the Republicans why they think lying is an answer to our economic troubles? Why their party so easily, and willingly, embraces lies instead of facts? Reporters should be asking Kevin McCarthy if he's a liar, crazy, or just stupid.
This why our political system is broken. Because the checks and balances are broken too.
What's said is just as important as how it's said when it comes to influencing voters. Just as framing a picture focuses attention on what is enclosed within that frame, framing a message focuses a reader's or listener's attention on the idea within the frame.
Message frames are the shorthand context that set a specific train of thought in motion, communicating why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible for it, and what should be done about it.
Audiences rely on frames to make sense of and discuss an issue; journalists use frames to craft interesting and appealing news reports; policymakers apply frames to define policy options and reach decisions; and experts employ frames to simplify technical details and make them persuasive. The most effective frames touch the emotional, rather than the intellectual, part of our brain.
In his book, "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," Drew Westen says there is overwhelming evidence that three emotional frames determine how people vote, in this order: their feelings toward the parties and their principles, their feelings toward the candidates, and, if they haven't decided by then, their feelings toward the candidates' policy positions.
The "Occupy Wall Street" protests are gaining momentum, having spread from a small park in New York to marches to other cities across the country.
So far, the protests seem fueled by a collective sense that things in our economy are not fair or right. But the protesters have not done a good job of focusing their complaints—and thus have been skewered as malcontents who don't know what they stand for or want.
(An early list of "grievances" included some legitimate beefs, but was otherwise just a vague attack on "corporations." Given that these are the same corporations that employ more than 100 million Americans and make the products we all use every day, this broadside did not resonate with most Americans).
So, what are the protesters so upset about, really?
Do they have legitimate gripes?
To answer the latter question first, yes, they have very legitimate gripes.
And if America cannot figure out a way to address these gripes, the country will likely become increasingly "de-stabilized," as sociologists might say. And in that scenario, the current protests will likely be only the beginning.
The problem in a nutshell is this: Inequality in this country has hit a level that has been seen only once in the nation's history, and unemployment has reached a level that has been seen only once since the Great Depression. And, at the same time, corporate profits are at a record high.
In other words, in the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.
The New Deal physically reshaped the country. To this day, Americans still rely on its works for transportation, electricity, flood control, housing, and community amenities.
The output of one agency alone, the Works Progress Administration, represents a magnificent bequest to later generations. The WPA produced, among many other projects, 1,000 miles of new and rebuilt airport runways, 651,000 miles of highway, 124,000 bridges, 8,000 parks, and 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields; some 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 69,000 highway light standards, and 125,000 public buildings built, rebuilt, or expanded. Among the latter were 41,300 schools.
In recent months, nearly every major Republican candidate has name-checked a popular statistic that 47% of Americans who file taxes paid no income tax in 2009. Given the GOP’s anti-tax zeal you’d think they’d be celebrating. Nope! Republicans now complain that the entire bottom half of taxpayers’ don't pay enough taxes even as they proclaim [rich] Americans are “Taxed Enough Already.”
“Right now we know that 53% of Americans pay income taxes and 47% do not,” Michele Bachmann told Bloomberg TV on Tuesday. “I think we definitely need to change the tax code. We need to get more in line. Everybody benefits from this magnificent country. Everybody pay something.”
Republican presidential candidates are explicitly making the argument that the poor don't pay enough taxes on the same fairness grounds that progressives like Elizabeth Warren have used to demand greater taxes on the rich. The idea isn’t just that tax breaks for the rich trickle down the poor — it’s that they also deserve them more than freeloading Americans. Rick Perry made this moral outrage a key line in his campaign kickoff.
“We’re dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay any income tax,” Perry said in his announcement speech. “And you know the liberals out there are saying that we need to pay more.”
Now the 47% number only tells part of the story: most of those “non-payers” pay payroll taxes, gas taxes, state and local taxes, etc. And in an ironic twist, the phenomenon is almost entirely a result of Republicans’ own enthusiasm for tax cuts. In the 1980s and 1990s, GOP lawmakers demanded that any programs aimed at helping poor and middle-income households be structured as refundable tax credits, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, rather than as direct payments like welfare. President Bush added to the trend by lowering marginal rates across the board. Then Obama structured large chunks of the stimulus as tax breaks in order to garner bipartisan support. The non-payer rate, which had hovered around 20% - 25% since the 1950s, shot over 30% in 2002 and never looked back. And because the tax credits are refundable, many taxpayers aren’t just paying nothing, they’re actually gaining a net positive on their income tax.
But now that Obama is playing hardball on raising revenue, Republicans are rethinking the idea.
Fifty-four percent of likely Republican primary voters agree with the Texas governor that the retirement program resembles a Ponzi scheme, or fraudulent system designed to collect more money than it pays out, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. Forty-one percent of GOP primary voters disagree with that view.
Mr. Perry provoked an outcry from Democrats and Republicans alike during his first presidential debate when he restated his belief that younger Americans have little to gain from Social Security. Mitt Romney immediately seized on Mr. Perry’s rhetoric to attack the Texas governor, who was then soaring in the polls. Mr. Perry’s support has since cratered, following a string of shaky debate performances, but it appears his views on Social Security resonate with most GOP voters.
The same can’t be said for the electorate as a whole. Sixty-four percent of all adults interviewed for the poll said they disagree with Mr. Perry, while only 29% support his view.
Sharon Rowe, Collin County Elections Administrator, sent out a press release last week stating the county has redrawn election precinct boundaries in the wake of the 2010 census driven Congressional, State Senate, State Board of Education, and State House redistricting changes made by the 2011 Texas legislative session. Collin County Commissioner precincts lines have also been redrawn for the 2012 election cycle.
The new plan splits several of the current 179 election precincts into 23 new precincts creating a total of 202 precincts for the 2012 election cycle. (click on the map right to enlarge - precinct split table at bottom of this article)
According to Collin County Elections Administrator Sharon Rowe:
America's character is based on an alliance of rugged individualism and common enterprise -- a fair individual opportunity and the commonwealth of our country. Shared opportunity is shared prosperity, and common wealth is common strength.
As predictable as our revolution was against England's rulers more than two hundred years ago, so were the ones in the Middle East and North Africa in these last several months. Predictable simply because what was good for the powerful and well-connected was not good for the rest of the citizenry.
There emerged competing realities: the reality that the powerful pursued and the reality within which people actually lived. Simply put, the leaders pursued their own interests without thinking about the interests of their people; they thus lost the support of the people. In my 31 years of naval service across the globe, I came to understand that while many in the world may respect the power of America's military and the strength of its economy, they admire the power of our ideals -- it's why the young Egyptian officer commented as he did, and why the uprisings were inevitable. And it is why my political experience convinces me that the reason the people revolted is a lesson that applies not only to leaders overseas, but also to our own leaders here at home.
It is not surprising that conservatives, like GOP candidate Mitt Romney, slam the Buffett Rule as “class warfare” simultaneously benefit from the same sort of preferential treatment.
A new report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service finds that 25 percent of the nation’s millionaires have a lower effective tax rate than 10.4 million middle-class Americans:
About 25 percent of millionaires in the U.S. pay federal taxes at lower effective rates than a significant portion of middle-income taxpayers, according to a legislative analysis.
Preferential treatment of investment income and the reduced impact of payroll taxes on high earners lets about 94,500 millionaires pay taxes at a lower rate than 10.4 million “moderate-income taxpayers,” representing about 10 percent of those making less than $100,000 a year, according to the report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service dated Oct. 7.
In direct conflict with a favorite Republican talking point, the report also found that very few business owners are millionaires and “played down the impact of higher tax rates on job creation.” “The small share of taxpayers with small-business income in the millionaire category suggests that tax reform policies designed to ensure adherence to the Buffett Rule will affect few small businesses,” it said. This bolsters the claims from economists and business owners alike that higher tax rates on the rich make “zero difference” in hiring.
Numerouspolls continually show that Americans support raising the tax rate on millionaires. But rather than raise the rates on those who should pay their fair share, Republicans respond with even more tax increases on the middle class. “Class warfare,” indeed.
“Occupy Wall Street” organizers have called for a global day of action to take place on Saturday, Oct. 15. Events have been planned in 719 cities in 71 countries around the world, coordinated through a special website dedicated to the Oct. 15 actions that helps interested participants find events near them.
A poll by Time released Thursday, which asked participants’ opinions on President Barack Obama’s job performance, the impact of the tea party and views of “Occupy Wall Street,” reveals that the “Occupy” movement has a higher approval rating than President Obama or the Tea Party. The poll also found that a full 86 percent agree that Wall Street and its lobbyists have “too much influence in Washington,” and 68 percent agree that wealthy Americans should pay more in taxes.
Occupy Wall Street enjoys majority backing among men (57 percent) and women (51 percent), young (60 percent of respondents 18 to 34) and old (51 percent). Self-identified Democrats, unsurprisingly, comprise the left-leaning movement's largest bloc, with 66 percent professing support. But more than half of independents (55 percent) harbor favorable views of the protesters, as do a third of Republicans.
Overall, the poll found that 65 percent of respondents believe the tea party had either a “negative impact” (40 percent) or very little impact at all (25 percent). The poll shows that President Obama has an approval rating of just 44 percent, with 50 percent disapproving and six percent not sure. That stands in contrast to the 54 percent who say their opinion of “Occupy Wall Street” is either “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable.”
Comparatively, the tea party, which is essentially Republican Party coordinated campaign committee, largely funded by a few billionaire conservatives, only has a 27 percent approval rating, with just 8% being “very favorable” and 19% being “somewhat favorable.”
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that Americans support the Occupy Wall Street protests by a two-to-one margin (37 percent in favor, 18 percent opposed) while more Americans view the Tea Party negatively (28 percent in favor, 41 percent opposed).
This means the Occupy Wall Street protests have a net favorability of +19 percent while the Tea Party has a net favorability of -13 percent, as the chart at right, produced by ThinkProgress, shows.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) doesn’t want to say who’s responsible for deleting all mentions of climate change from part of a forthcoming scientific report, and that’s got at least one scientist hopping mad.
Dr. John B. Anderson (pictured, left), an oceanographer at Rice University, told Raw Story that his report on the Galveston Bay estuary, and the effects of rising sea levels on its fragile ecosystem, was censored for purely “political” reasons.
“This is a clear-cut case of censorship,” he said in an exclusive interview. “It’s not scientific editing. It was strictly deletion of virtually any information that related to global change.”
“This is the TCEQ’s report which we contracted with Houston Advance Research Center to publish regarding the State of Galveston Bay,” the [TCEQ] agency said in its prepared statement. “It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it. And here, information was included in a report that we disagree with.”
“That chapter that was censored was actually a summary of scientific literature,” Anderson told Raw Story. “There’s no new data that was actually presented in that chapter. [...] One of those statements was even lifted out of Science Magazine, which last I heard was an acceptable scientific journal. So, I was rather shocked that their response was they did not accept some of those viewpoints.”
“To say you don’t accept it, when it’s been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, usually means that you need some kind of a counter argument to say that there’s also evidence published in peer-reviewed literature that would refute that,” he added. “But [they offered] nothing of that sort...."
“We scientists commonly are criticized for not going the extra step in education, and this was my way of doing that outreach, to write an article that is not directed at the scientific community,” Anderson concluded. “To then have those very policymakers turn around and say we refuse to accept any of this… is quite discouraging. I refer to Texas as a state of denial, and I don’t think we’re the only coastal state that’s in denial.”
“These people have a responsibility to look out for, not just the voters, but the future voters,” he said. “There the ones who are going to have to pay the tab. As long as we live in the state of denial, we’re just passing the check to our grandkids to deal with.”
To see what was censored in Anderson’s article, which is no longer part of the TCEQ’s “The State of the Bay 2010″ report, click to the Raw Story article.
Dorian Warren, assistant professor of political science and public affairs at Columbia University, appeared Monday on Democracy Now to discuss the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street” protests in Manhattan and other cities across the United States.
Watch video, courtesy of Democracy Now
“This is an incredibly significant moment, I think, in U.S. history,” he told Amy Goodman. “In fact, it might be a turning point, because this is the first time we’ve seen the emergence of a populist movement on the left since the 1930s.”
“So I think when you think about that long stretch of time, especially in this moment where we’ve been growing more unequal as a country for the last 30, 40 years, the fact that this movement has emerged at this moment, I think, is quite significant.”
Warren explained that starting in the 1950s, conservatives began to co-opt the label of populist and eventually changed the entire political discourse of the United States.
The new sort of populism that has emerged with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement does not only criticize large corporations and powerful banks, but the U.S. political system as well, he said.
The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York City more than three weeks ago have now spread across the country. The choice of Wall Street as the focal point for the protests — as even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said — makes sense due to the big bank malfeasance that led to the Great Recession.
The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.
Here are the seven lies told by those who want to take America backwards:
1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and has dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.
Last Updated on September 9, 2012 @ 7:45am
(This article is updated as events warrant)
Texas' SB 14 photo I.D. law passed by the Texas Legislature in 2011, requiring voters to show photo identification, is currently on hold pending an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Select government issued photo I.D., as specified in SB14, has NOT received federal approval and is therefore NOT required to vote in any Texas county for the November 2012 election.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department or a federal court is required to pre-clear laws affecting voters before they go into effect in jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination -- and that includes Texas. Texas has the burden at trial to prove that its SB14 voter photo I.D. law, signed into law by Gov. Perry last year, does not have the purpose or effect to deny a minority citizen the right to vote. A Washington D.C. Circuit Court three-judge panel, composed of D.C. Circuit Judge David Tatel, and District Court Judges Rosemary Collyer and Robert Wilkins, ruled on August 30, 2012 that Texas did not prove its case. The D.C. Circuit found that SB14 does, in fact, impose strict, unforgiving burdens on poor minority citizens.
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office sought preclearance from the USDOJ on July 25, 2011.
The department’s rejection letter written by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas E. Perez states that Texas did not meet its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of showing that the law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters, and therefore the department objects to the Texas voter identification law.
On Monday, January 23, 2012, the Texas attorney general’s office filed an Expedited Complaint for Declaratory Judgment the U.S. District Court of D.C. against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice asking the court to grant preclearance the state’s controversial voter photo ID law without further delay. The D.C. Court’s three-judge panel empaneled to hear Texas’ voter ID case scheduled preliminary arguments for March 14, 2012, the date after the USDOJ was expected issue its preclearance ruling.
The Washington D.C. Circuit Court three judge panel heard opening arguments in the trial on July 9, 2012. The five day trial concluded with closing arguments on Friday July 9, 2012.
The Washington D.C. Circuit Court three judge panel, composed of D.C. Circuit Judge David Tatel, and District Court Judges Rosemary Collyer and Robert Wilkins, ruled against the Texas SB14 Photo I.D. Law on August 30, 2012. The three-judge panel found that the law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.
While Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he will appeal the DC Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Associated Press reported on August 30, 2012 that Abbott said the appeal process can not be complete in time for the law to be enforced for the November 2012 election.
Select government issued photo I.D., as specified in SB14 legislation passed by the Texas legislature in 2011, has NOT received federal approval and is therefore NOT required to vote in any Texas county for the November 2012 election.
A driver’s license or personal identification card issued to you by the Texas Department of Public Safety. You may also bring a similar document issued to you by an agency of another state, even if the license or card has expired;
A form of identification that contains your photograph and establishes your identity;
A birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person’s identity;
Your United States citizenship papers;
Your United States passport;
Official mail addressed to you by a governmental entity; or
A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows your name and address.
NOTE: A SB14 related statement, as specified by the Texas Secretary of State, on the back of 2012-13 Voter Registration Cards can be misinterpreted to mean that voters must present select government issue photo identification, as specified in SB14, in order to vote. Here is the statement written on the back of new 2012 voter registration cards:
"Upon federal approval of a photo identification law passed by the Texas Legislature in 2011, a voter must show one of the following forms of photo identification at the polling location before the voter may be accepted for voting: Driver's license, election identification certificate, personal identification card or concealed handgun license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety; United States Military identification card that contains the person's photograph; United States citizenship certificate that contains the person's photograph; or a United States passport.
The above identification must be current and not expired, or if expired, then it must have expired no more than 60 days before it is presented for voter qualification at the polling place. Please contact the Secretary of State or your local voter registrar for information concerning when the above photo identification requirement for certain voters with disabilities, or voters with religious objections to being photographed, and voters affected by certain natural disasters.
Please visit the Secretary of State website at www.sos.state.tx.us or call toll free at 1-800-252-8683. If any information on this certificate changes or is incorrect, correct the information in the space provided below, sign and return this certificate to the voter registrar.
Here are the things you need to know about the SB14 law. Frequently Asked Questions: When Will I Receive My New 2012-2013 Voter Registration Card?
If you have not already received your new yellow 2012-13 voter registration card, you may not be registered to vote in the county where you currently reside.
This year, drawn out court battles over the new redistricting maps pushed out Voter Registration Card mailings to late April. If you never received your new yellow voter registration card you should immediately check your registration status. To check your Collin Co. registration status - click here. To check your registration status in another county - click here. If you find you are not registered to vote, you can find the Voter's Registration application by clicking here.
For specific information about voting in Texas, click here to find the Secretary of State’s pamphlet on Texas Voting. Government issued photo ID is not yet required to vote in any Texas county. (see Texas Voter Photo ID FAQ) Description of some of the fields on the voter registration card: Read more »
If The Voter Photo ID law is granted preclearance, what type of ID will I need to vote?
With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, all government issued photo identification must be unexpired or expired no earlier than 60 days before the election. Acceptable identification includes:
A driver’s license, election ID certificate, or personal ID card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety;
U.S. military ID card that contains the person's photograph;
U.S. citizenship certificate issued to the voter with their photograph;
I’m a senior. Am I exempt from the photo ID requirements?
SB 14, as passed by the Texas Legislature, has no exemptions for senior citizens, regardless of age.
What are some exceptions to the photo voter ID requirement?
Exceptions Available
A person may obtain an exemption from the ID requirement on the basis of disability if they produce a statement in a form determined by the SOS that the applicant does not have any of the prescribed forms of identification, and they have an:
U.S.S.S.A. determination of disability, or
U.S.V.A. disability rating of 50%.
Affidavit Alternative
A voter without a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot, which will count if she signs an affidavit attesting to the fact that she:
has a religious objection to being photographed, or
does not have an ID as a result of a natural disaster declared by the U.S. President or Texas’ Governor no earlier than 45 days before the election and that disaster caused the inability to access the voter’s ID.
The affidavit may be signed at the time the provisional ballot is cast or at the time the voter appears before the voter registrar within 6 days following the election to have the provisional ballot counted. Early/Absentee Voting ID Requirements
The photo ID requirement does not apply to absentee voting, including early voting by mail. Photo ID requirements apply to all in-person or curbside early voting.
How do I get a qualified photo ID?
Voters who do not possess any of the above types of ID will be able to obtain a free Election Identification Certificate (EIC) from the Texas Department of Public Safety, if the law is precleared. In order to obtain an EIC, you will need to bring the same type of documentation used to prove your identity that you would need if you were apply for a Driver’s License or Personal Identification card. If you do not already have one of the above listed types of ID you must present one of the following documents at the DPS office:
Original or certified copy of a birth certificate issued by your appropriate birth state's State Bureau of Vital Statistics or equivalent agency from a U.S. state, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia. A birth record issued by a hospital is not acceptable under this category.
Original or certified copy of U.S. Dept. of State Certification of Birth Abroad (issued to U. S. citizens born abroad)
Original or certified copy of court order with name and date of birth (DOB) indicating an official change of name and/or gender from a U.S. state, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia.
If you do not currently have the required documentation to obtain an EIC, now would be a good time to start the process of obtaining the necessary documentation. For the list of acceptable DPS documents, click here. Helpful tip: One of the acceptable pieces of “Supporting Identification” necessary is a Voter Registration Card. If you are not already registered, have moved, or lost your card, you can get a new or updated certificate by going here. Getting a photo ID may require documentation such as a birth certificate and take several weeks. Voters without a qualified photo ID should allow enough time to get the required documents.
If you need to obtain ID documentation needed to obtain an EIC, here are some links you might find helpful:
Except for citizenship papers, the ID must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before voting.
What will the poll worker check at the polls?
Poll workers will check that the photo is of the voter and the names on the ID and voter registration list match.
What if my name changed since the last time I voted?
You can check your registration information by visiting the “Am I Registered?” page of the Texas Secretary of State’s website. There are various ways to change your registration information:
Visit the Texas Secretary of State’s site. Texas does not offer online voter registration, but you can fill out a voter registration form to print and send to your Texas County's Elections office.
Do I need to re-register if my address changed?
If name on your ID and your voter registration match, addresses do not need to match.
What if I don’t have a photo ID when I go to vote?
Voters without a qualified Texas state- or government-issued photo ID can vote a provisional ballot and present a qualified photo ID within 6 days. If you are otherwise eligible and you present ID within six days, your ballot will count.
Can I use a school or university issued ID to vote?
No, students will not be able to use their school IDs to vote in the Texas elections. They will need to obtain one of the acceptable photo IDs issued by the Texas Department of Safety or the U.S. government.
Will State and County Election Officials provide more information, if the voter photo ID law is pre-cleared?
The Secretary of State, and the voter registrar of each county that maintains a website, shall provide notice of the ID requirements for voting in each language in which voter registration materials are available. The Secretary of State shall prescribe the wording of the notice to be included on the websites, and shall also conduct a statewide effort to educate voters regarding the identification requirements for voting. The county clerk of each county shall post in a prominent location at the clerk’s office a physical copy of ID information in each language in which voter registration materials are available.
Since the Occupy movement began on Wall Street we have heard the main stream media's near universal refrain that, "no one knows what they want." To anyone listening, the message of what they want is clearly understood and resonating with a growing number of every day Americans from coast to coast, including North Texas. The truly grassroots Occupy movement now has meetups active in 1,539 cities worldwide.
Over 100 members of Occupy Dallas, which is a part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, set up a 'tent city' in Pioneer Plaza park near downtown Dallas to provide shelter and a place to sleep. (picture right)
The Occupy Dallas group obtained a city permit Monday to remain camped in Pioneer Plaza park until 5 p.m. Friday. Their is potential for conflict between protesters and City Hall as given the liability insurance required as a prevision of the permit is difficult, if not impossible, to buy.
While the Occupy movement has spread to many cities around the U.S. over the last weeks, the movement has also found support on high school and college campuses across the country, as reported by the Student Activism blog. (Thanks to Facebook and Twitter!) In total, students from at least 100 college campuses around the country walked out of class in a show of solidarity and support for the Occupy Wall Street movement on October 5th.
Students are angry about the debt that many of them must obtain to go to college and the fact that they are graduating into the worst job market since the Great Depression. And it's no wonder: Outstanding student loan debt exceeded credit card debt for the first time in 2010 and student loan debt is up 25 percent since 2008. Organizers behind Occupy Colleges have announced this Thursday, October 13 as the date for a second national student action day in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, with students from at least fifty-six campuses pledging support.
What do the occupy Wall Street protesters want?
Occupy Wall Street protesters are clearly saying that individuals, corporations, and special interest groups, armed with the power of wealth, have gained an unfair advantage over 99 percent of "We the People" in every aspect of our society. This "Letter To The Ruling Class," that seems to have gone viral on the Internet among Occupy Wall Street supporters, sums up the movement's complaint:
You control our world. You’ve poisoned the air we breathe, contaminated the water we drink, and copyrighted the food we eat. We fight in your wars, die for your causes, and sacrifice our freedoms to protect you. You’ve liquidated our savings, destroyed our middle class, and used our tax dollars to bailout your unending greed. We are slaves to your corporations, zombies to your airwaves, servants to your decadence. You’ve stolen our elections, assassinated our leaders, and abolished our basic rights as human beings. You own our property, shipped away our jobs, and shredded our unions. You’ve profited off of disaster, destabilized our currencies, and raised our cost of living. You’ve monopolized our freedom, stripped away our education, and have almost extinguished our flame. We are hit… we are bleeding… but we ain’t got time to bleed. We will bring the giants to their knees and you will witness our revolution! -- Attributed to Jesse Ventura by Kos
Occupy activists want the restoration of a fair and balanced playing field for every American. A field of play that is not controlled by the 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans; a field of play where everyone pays their fair share to build and maintain our public education, utility and transportation systems; and a field of play where no one person, corporation, or special interest group, armed with the power of wealth, can gain an unfair advantage over even a single American.
Occupy activists want a fair and balanced playing field that the federal government's system of oversight and regulation provided to American society, before conservatives dismantled it in their fervor for deregulation and elimination of taxes payed by billion dollar corporations and the richest 1 percent of Americans.
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.
Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.”
Between December 2007 and June 2009, when the U.S. economy was in recession, incomes declined 3.2 percent. While during the recovery between June 2009 and June 2011 incomes fell 6.7 percent, the study found. (click on the chart to enlarge)
Slow job growth is likely also exacerbating the feelings of recession and weighing on household incomes. U.S. employers added 103,000 jobs in September, too few jobs drive the unemployment rate below 9.1 percent and barely enough to keep pace with population growth, the Department of Labor reported last week. Those Americans that are employed are continuing to get squeezed by their employers with wage stagnation and benefit cuts, while profits per employee went up for the second year in a row in 2010, according to financial analysis company Sageworks.
While American workers find them selves under increasing pressure, American corporate profits are surging again in 2011 as corporations horde those profits in bank accounts. Corporations were sitting on $2.2 trillion in cash at the end of June, and that number has grown during the last quarter.
If giving tax cuts to corporations and the ultra-wealthy is the most stimulative approach to boosting jobs and wages, as Republicans claim in rejecting Pres. Obama's Jobs Plan, then the economy should already be racing, given the trillions of dollars in tax cuts President Bush and Republicans handed during the eight years of Pres. Bush's administration. Right? Wrong!
If the U.S. continues its sluggish jobs growth pace it could drive incomes even lower. Americans who are jobless for more than 99 weeks lose any unemployment benefits driving their incomes to zero and weighing on the national average, according to 24/7 Wall Street.
Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon thinks Texans should get use to hot dry Texas summers. He says these hot dry conditions could last another five years, or even extend to 2020.
Parts of Texas may get some nice thunderstorms this early October weekend, but the state witnessed a September that continued the trend of above-normal temperatures with exceptional drought conditions during 2011. The daily maximum temperatures were above average across the state by two or more degrees. Every major station but Amarillo, Galveston, and Port Arthur reached 100+ °F at some point during September.
As of the Oct 4th U.S. Drought Monitor, 100% of Texas was suffering under some form of drought conditions, and over 85% of the state was designated as D4 (Exceptional Drought), the worst possible scenario. Indeed, the big story for September was the continuation of the devastating drought. A majority of the state observed only a fraction of their percent averages for rainfall, with Abilene and Austin below 10%.
The back and forth between the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) Civil Rights Division's voting rights section, the Texas Secretary of State's (TXSOS) office, the Texas Democratic Party and various organizations opposed to the legislation continued this week over the strict voting photo identification law signed by Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry last May.
The Republicans instituted the permanent filibuster when Obama took office, and that was the end of that. No more legislation, ever, on anything unless you have 60 votes in the Senate.
Eileen Smith is the editor of the long-running satirical political blog In the Pink Texas, which has won three “Best of Austin” awards from the Austin Chronicle. She’s currently a columnist at the Texas Observer, where she covered the most recent session of the Legislature and now writes a weekly wrap-up of Governor Rick Perry’s road to the White House called “Perryland.” She was the first-ever editor of Texas Monthly’s award-winning website, TexasMonthly.com, and she blogged the 2008 presidential campaign on “Poll Dancing.” Eileen has a Master’s in Journalism from the Medill School at Northwestern University. Originally from Virginia, she has lived in Austin for over ten years. You can follow her on Twitter at @EileenDSmith.
Native Texan and Democratic activist Rachel Farris (@MeanRachel) writes MeanRachel.com, a progressive blog that follows politics, the legislature and how they both are affected by social media. She covered the 2008 Democratic National Convention with The Texas Observer team and has spoken about social media and communications at the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs, Texas State University’s “Mass Communications Week,” and St. Edward’s University. She also writes for The Huffington Post and AlterNet.org, and currently serves on the board of Texas Democratic Women.
This should be an interesting evening of discussion on “Framing the Issues” using social media communication channels on the Internet. In additional to the speakers and dinner, the evening includes a cash bar, silent auction and musical entertainment.
Overall, the poll found that 65 percent of respondents believe the tea party had either a “negative impact” (40 percent) or very little impact at all (25 percent). 
