Houston Democrats: Civil Rights Archives

June 20, 2006

This was done openly and shamelessly...

Support your Judicial Candidates and James G. Pierre, candidate for Harris County Clerk.

If you only read one article on the 2004 election, read this one!

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"
"Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House."

Rolling Stone
Issue 1002, June 15, 2006
Article: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
Exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary: http://rollingstone.com/news/story/10463875

Go to Original

Interview: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
PR Week

Monday 19 June 2006

This month, Rolling Stone ran an investigative feature claiming that Republicans used a systematic combination of voter disenfranchisement and fraud, centered in Ohio, to rob John Kerry of a win in the 2004 presidential election.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer and son of liberal icon Bobby Kennedy, wrote the article, available, along with supporting research, at rollingstone.com. Kennedy spoke to PRWeek about the story.

PRWeek: How did you come to write this piece?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: I had not paid much attention to this issue. And then a number of books came out, and I read them because I [wanted to use them] to interview people on my radio show. And then I read the [Rep. John] Conyers report, [a 2005 Congressional inquiry into the election], and started talking with people in Ohio. And at one point, I said, "Holy cow, this is real." And then I talked to [RS editor] Jann Wenner about it. I encouraged him to do a piece, and he said "We'll print one if you write it."

PRWeek: Tell me about the process of putting the story together - it obviously took a while.

Kennedy: I read the literature out there, and read the articles. Then I interviewed voters in Ohio, and public officials, and people who were involved in the election from all over the country.

PRWeek: Why do you think this wasn't covered heavily by major media directly after the election?

Kennedy: I think the mainstream media took up the Republican echo chamber, and just echoed the right-wing talking points.

PRWeek: Why didn't the Democrats themselves pursue this?

Kennedy: Well, there was a lot of complaining; there were a lot of lawsuits. But it got very little traction in the media. But you know, the Democrats on this issue have been abysmal as well.

PRWeek: Your story wasn't based on any secret information, correct?

Kennedy: No, that's the whole thing. This was not a secret conspiracy. This was done openly and shamelessly. Across Ohio, there were people who did everything they could to stop this.

PRWeek: Have you had any indication that the national media will take another look at this issue?

Kennedy: I had a good indication [June 7]. The New York Times, as its lead editorial, did a piece on [Ohio secretary of state] Kenneth Blackwell's current efforts to suppress registration drives in Ohio. And the Republicans are doing the same thing in Florida, and the Times talked about that, as well.

PRWeek: What reaction have you seen from the general public?

Kennedy: There's a huge reaction. Rolling Stone told me that it's gotten two and a half times as many e-mails [about this article] as it's ever gotten for any other story in its history. So there's a huge appetite for this story.

PRWeek: This story didn't have a 'smoking gun'; was there one person coordinating this entire operation?

Kennedy: There's never going to be 100% certitude that the election was stolen, because the only way you could get that is by recounting the ballots, and the recount was illegally derailed by Republican operatives. The mastermind behind the efforts in Ohio was Kenneth Blackwell, along with ... [Toledo elections official] Bernadette Noe. But on a national level, it's [Republican National Committee chairman] Kenneth Mehlman and Karl Rove.

PRWeek: Have you gotten any reaction from the Republican Party on this?

Kennedy: I've gotten, certainly, reaction in the blogosphere. But most of the reaction has been supportive.

PRWeek: Is there a next step?

Kennedy: I've been meeting with attorneys ... to devise a litigation strategy. And I would say that very soon we'll be announcing lawsuits against some of the individuals and companies involved.

PRWeek: Who exactly would that litigation be targeting?

Kennedy: I wouldn't say, right now.

PRWeek: The election is over. Is it too late now?

Kennedy: There's another election soon. And as the Times [just] reported, the same people are up to the same shenanigans.

Posted by Aimee Mobley Turney at 05:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 16, 2006

Security Breaches for 'Sleepover' Voting Machines Used in Busby/Bilbray Race Invalidated, Decertified Their Use in the Election!

Harris County election judges have possession of Hart InterCivic eSlate System Judge's Booth Controllers (JBCs) for up to 72 hours before elections.

Support your Judicial Candidates and James G. Pierre, candidate for Harris County Clerk.

Go to Original
BradBlog.com

Wednesday 14 June 2006

The electronic Diebold voting systems used in the special run-off election last week for California's 50th U.S. House district were effectively 'decertified' and invalidated for use in the election after massive security breaches in the storage of those systems were sanctioned by the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, The BRAD BLOG can now conclude.

Based on the review of several different very specific state and federal requirements, laws and provisions, the unsecured overnight storage of Diebold voting machines and their memory cards in poll workers houses, cars and garages in the days and weeks prior to the closely watched election between Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby violated several federal and state provisions which, if not followed, would revoke the certification of use for the voting systems in any California election.

In the wake of discussions yesterday with SD County Registrar Mikel Haas, who admitted to The BRAD BLOG that storage in poll workers' cars could not be considered secure, it has now become clear that several violations of certified provisions of use for Diebold voting machines - which have been found and confirmed in the past several months to be highly tamperable by dozens of methods and by the company's own admissions - occurred in last week's race...

When it was discovered last December, after a security examination of Diebold optical scan systems in Leon County, FL, that both op-scan and touch-screen systems made by Diebold could be hacked via their memory cards - due to the presence of so-called "interpreted code" which is banned by federal voting systems standards - both federal and California officials instituted new security requirements concerning their use in elections. The violation of those requirements, as has clearly occurred in the CA-50 race, would effectively nullify their certification for use in the state of California.

Adding fuel to the concerns of the incredibly cavalier statements about the security issues related to this matter by Registrar Haas (read on below) is the fact that just last week, two different elections in an Iowa Republican primary revealed that the popular incumbents - who had both apparently "lost" their races after paper ballots were optically-scanned - had in fact won their races after a subsequent manual hand-count revealed the scanners were programmed incorrectly. Those revelations, along with the details of CA-50 that we have been reporting here, have led non-partisan election watchdog organization VoteTrustUSA to join us in demanding that SD County prove their reported results are accurate by carrying out a full manual hand-count of all paper ballots and "paper trails" in the race.

The National Association of State Elections Directors (NASED) the national body responsible for qualifying voting systems for use on the federal level, issued a warning about the severe tamperability of memory cards back on March 22nd, 2006, after the issue came to light during the December Leon County tests which revealed that exploitation of this vulnerability could be used to flip an election on a Diebold optical scan system. If exploited, the tampering would not be visible to vote tabulation witnesses and no trace of the hack would be left behind save for counting the paper ballots themselves for accuracy.

In another examination by computer security professionals in Emery County, Utah in March, it was discovered that Diebold's touch-screen systems could have their entire election software, operating system and even computer firmware ("BIOS") overwritten in less than two minutes time - no password necessary - should a sing malicious user have unfettered phyiscal access to the system. Such access could then affect every voting machine used across the entire county.

The result of all of this would be that if there had been malicious tampering with these voting systems, no amount of observations of the tabulation would reveal the tampering that had occured inside the machines. Unfortunately, candidate Francine Busby's own statement in regard to this matter, seems to reveal that she is wholly unaware of the incidiousness and invisibility of the points in question here and, as we'll show, the fact that the voting machines, as used in her own election, were in clear violation of the law.

As a blood sample taken at a crime scene and then stored in someone's garage for a week before delivery to the crime lab would be considered "contaminated" on its face - even if there had been no actual tampering to the sample - so must the world's most easily-hackable voting machines be considered as contaminated when such a massive breach of security in the chain of custody has taken place such as sending machines home, unprotected, with poll workers.

In light of the recently discovered concerns about the Diebold systems, the security memo issued by NASED in regard to the vulnerability of the memory cards, states requirements for use of these systems which are quite clear [emphasis ours]:

1. Throughout the life of the voting system, the election official shall maintain control of all memory cards and keep a perpetual chain of custody record for all of the memory cards used with the system. Programmed memory cards shall be stored securely at all times with logged accesses and transfers.

Failure to comply with this addendum negates the voting system's status as a NASED-qualified voting system.

Since NASED-qualification is just one of the many conditions for certification of use of voting machines in California, the failure described above would decertify the systems concurrently on both the federal and California state levels.

As well, the so-called "conditional certification" of Diebold touch-screen systems in California, as issued by Sec. of State Bruce McPherson on February 17th, 2006 also speaks to the memory cards issues. It spells out quite clearly that the "additional security measures" in regard to those memory cards are "conditions for use in the state of California."

If violated, the systems would no longer be approved for use here. Says McPherson's certification:

Any breach of control over a memory card shall require that its contents be zeroed, in the presence of two election officials, before it can be used again.

While speaking with Haas yesterday, he confirmed once again that indeed both Diebold touch-screen and optical-scan systems, containing their programmed memory cards, were sent home with poll workers in the days and weeks prior to the election.

When asked if storage in garages or cars could be considered as "secure," the SD County Registar responded directly: "No. If kept in the car it would not be considered secure. We would advise them not to do that. No."

And yet, The BRAD BLOG has received, and reported on, several correspondences from nearly half a dozen poll workers who have admitted that they did precisely that.

After reading the special NASED and CA requirements to Haas, and asking him for comment on whether he would therefore confirm that sending these voting machines home with poll workers had nullified their certification for use in the election, he quickly changed his tune.

So I challenged him: "But you admitted that storage in cars could not be considered as 'stored securely at all times,' as the NASED requirements demand," I said.

"No, I didn't," he said.

"Yes, you did," I replied. And after reading back to him his exact quote, he wished to modify his statement to say instead that storage in cars "may be secure, but it's not the most secure."

There are further provisions in California state Elections Code (EC 19251) which require that all voting systems not just be certified by NASED before approval for use in CA, but that they also meet all federal Voting Systems Standards. According to that statute, systems may only be certified if "The system has been both certified by Federal Authorites and meets or exceeds the voluntary standards set by the Federal Election Commission."

But Section 1, paragraph 4.2.2 [WORD] of the FEC Voting System Standards of 2002 specifically ban certification for machines which contain the type of "interpreted code" which Diebold has now been forced to admit is present in all of their electronic voting machines.

"Self-modifying, dynamically loaded, or interpreted code is prohibited" says the pertinent part of those standards which should have been reason enough, upon discovery, for all Diebold systems to have their federal certification immediately revoked by NASED and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

After initially hiding the code from federal testers, Diebold officials were forced to admit in a letter to the CA Sec. of State, that their voting machines do contain that type of code, making them easily tamperable by hackers who might gain a short time of unsupervised physical access to the machines.

"As part of contemplating the AccuBasic changes to the various voting system components," the Diebold letter admits, "we have internally discussed changes to include removing the interpreters and interpreted code."

We could go on. CA Election Code section 19205 states that the secretary of state must declare in his/her certification that the system being certified is "safe from fraud or manipulation." McPherson was unable to make that declaration in Diebold's touch-screen certification, unlike he has done in certification for other California-qualified voting systems.

When McPherson signed the so-called "conditional certification" for these system, he issued a press release crowing about the security requirements which must be met for use of the Diebold system in the state. (The very security requirements which seem to now have been violated in the CA-50 race.)

The press release quoted Haas himself saying:

"I appreciate Secretary McPherson's leadership in establishing what must be the most comprehensive and rigorous certification process in the nation. To comply with new federal and state laws regarding elections, we need a new and different set of tools and Secretary McPherson made sure we got those tools."

While stating appreciation for those "tools" it seems, based on Haas' actions in carrying out last week's CA-50 election and my subsequent conversations with him yesterday, that he's not all that concerned about actually using those "tools" in his elections.

Without getting too much further into the weeds on this issue for the moment, I'll just mention that Haas confirmed the touch-screen systems themselves were sent out without plastic security seal tape over either the power switch or the secondary external PCMCIA slot. That security breach alone would allow a would-be hacker to completely overwrite the entire system in less than two minutes with any software of their liking - with no password necessary - as revealed by the recent Emery County, UT analysis. (That full report, slightly redacted for security sake, has been published here by BlackBoxVoting.org). We've previously discussed the implications of that report in some detail in relation to the now-questionable CA-50 election.

But not to fear! When I asked Haas if that vulnerability alone might give him reason to be concerned about the integrity of the voting systems he then used in last week's election, he rejected the suggestion.

Since a PCMCIA card can be inserted with the necesssary files into that unsealed slot and the power button turned on (all that's needed to overwrite the software) doesn't that vulnerability trouble you, I asked him.

"I don't know.... I think it's highly improbable," he said.

"Improbable?" I wondered. "I'm not asking if it's probable or not, but if it's possible ..."

His reply blew me away: "I don't think so, because you'd have to want to commit a felony, which knocks out most of our poll workers."

(Pausing here for effect to let you think about that.)

When I mentioned several cases were poll workers recently have been indicted for election fraud, he stated he was unaware of any such cases. I pointed him towards three officials recently indicted in Cuyahoga County, OH and explained the situation to him. He was unphased and seemingly uninterested.

"I'm sure they could stick something in the system ... Whether it's detectable or not, I'm pretty sure that it is. But again, you're tampering with election equipment, so it seems unlikely."

As well, Haas refused to recognize that there are millions, and perhaps billions of dollars, riding on such elections. If you were a poll worker who had a few machines in your garage (and it takes just one to potentially invalidate and/or flip the entire system for an entire county) and you were told, "Hey, why don't you leave your garage door open for a half hour and go get some lunch - could be a million dollars in it for ya." Would you take such an offer?

After explaining how the optical-scan systems can be so easily flipped, without a trace left behind except for actually counting the paper-ballots, Haas flippantly replied, "It's a good thing we're not gonna use optical scan anymore." A cavalier reference to San Diego County's plans to go "all touch-screen" for this November's general election.

His responses during our conversation alone are enough for any sane citizen who gives a damn about democracy to declare "No Confidence" in any election run under such conditions by Registrar of Voters, Mikel Haas.

You can now share your feelings about that with him, and Busby both, via this petition calling for a full manual hand-count of the ballots and paper trails in the CA-50 race.

Posted by Aimee Mobley Turney at 07:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 15, 2006

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?")

Three great articles in the latest issue of Bruce Schneier's Crypto-gram Newsletter:

The Value of Privacy

Diebold Doesn't Understand the Security Threat

Aligning Interest with Capability

Support your Judicial Candidates and James G. Pierre, candidate for Harris County Clerk.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." --John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

Posted by Aimee Mobley Turney at 07:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 22, 2005

The Law He Broke

The actual law the president broke is Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802 of the US Code. The money quote is this:

...the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information if the Attorney General certifies in writing that (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at... means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers... (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party...

But the punchline isn't until you read Section 1809 of that same law.

An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

That's the nub right there. Everything else is fluff. Of course "everything else" is the sort of thing that keeps lawyers well paid and plenty busy. As a social studies teacher I get paid to be an expert on the way things ought to go, not how they really are. But below the fold I've got a few thoughts on how this could all turn out for the better for the president.

Like most people I know, I get all giddy when the word impeachment gets tossed around without any antecedent mention of the word semen. But I'm a poliactive person; I get a thrill out of seeing government in action. I won't pretend that most people feel the same. In general, people--including most people who voted against Bush last time--don't want to see an impeachment happen.

It's a heavy thing and voters don't want to see it used for frivolous purposes. Unless your memory stretches back to before the Love Boat, you don't have a recollection of a presidential impeachment that wasn't frivolous, callous, and motivated by petty partisan tribalism. As a people, we American don't like it and are wary of those who propose using it too quickly.

Before you undo a whole election (and install Dick Cheney in the White House, by the way) there's a number of steps that we ought to go thru first. These including hearings, deliberations, public debate, and sundry other democratic mechanisms designed to prevent us from having such a monumental show down. Avoiding impeachment, on the other hand, would be pretty easy right now. The president could do this:

First, declare his presidency represents an affirmation of the principle of transparent government. He could open all his records on the actions he took for Congressional review and, where appropriate, release to the public such details that let us in on the thinking in the White House that brought them to evesdrop on American citizens without court orders.

Next, he could direct all administration officials to fully cooperate with the Senate and House investigations of these incidents and encourage the nation's lawmakers to have a full debate on the propriety of these actions.

After the Congress affirms, as it must, that the president in his overly zealous pursuit of national security broke the law, the president can come before the people and give a heartfelt apology. He could recognize that, while he believed at the time that he had the right to snoop on the communications of suspected terrorists, he sees now that he was wrong and asks for our forgiveness.

That's what a mensch would do. I won't hold my breath.

There's one other step that we, as a nation, must go thru before we can even begin to consider impeachment a viable option. We have to elect a Congress controlled by lawmakers who love the Constitution more than they love their own party.

Posted by Bucky at 06:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 31, 2005

TDP Statement on Alito Nomination

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Ruben Hernandez
(512) 478-9800
October 31, 2005

The Alito Nomination: A Treat for Extremists
Failed leadership from A Divider, Not a Uniter

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting issued the following statement following the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court:

“For the extreme and divisive elements in the Republican Party, Halloween, 2005, is both trick and treat. Within days of pulling off the trick of scuttling the President’s nomination of his friend and adviser, Harriet Miers, the President rewarded them with a treat: the nomination of Samuel Alito.”

“By caving in to pressure from the extreme right, the President has opened the door to a divisive nomination fight battle and the scary specter of right wing judicial activism at a time when the country desperately needs leadership that brings Americans together.”

“The Miers-Alito fiasco reveals once again that George W. Bush is a divider, not a uniter.”

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 24, 2005

PROPOSITION 2 PUTS ALL MARRIAGE IN TEXAS AT RISK

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             CONTACT: Communications Office 512-916-4114

Monday, October 24, 2005                                      Lauren Rose 512-775-7745 (cell)

                                                                                 Karen Kalergis 512-775-4534 (cell)

PROPOSITION 2 PUTS ALL MARRIAGE IN TEXAS AT RISK

“Save Texas Marriage” to Urge Voters to Protect Marriage and Defeat Prop 2

( Austin , TX ) – Flanked by couples whose marriages would be invalidated, a decorated veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan , Army Captain Trampes C. Crow, announced today that the flawed language in the Texas Marriage Amendment puts all marriage at risk.

“Legislators did such a poor job drafting the amendment that all marriages in the State of Texas are at risk of being invalidated,” said Captain Crow. “In their zeal to use the broad brush of discrimination as a ruse to protect ‘traditional’ marriage, the Legislature threatened marriage as we know it.”



           The Texas Marriage Amendment lacks key words that legislatures in other states used in passing constitutional amendments to clarify that marriage as it is known today would remain intact.

The language that would be written into Article I, Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution if Proposition 2 were to pass reads:

Section 32. (a) MARRIAGE in this state SHALL CONSIST ONLY of the UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

(b) THIS STATE or a political subdivision of this state MAY NOT create or RECOGNIZE ANY LEGAL STATUS IDENTICAL or similar TO MARRIAGE.



The language is clear, part ‘a’ defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and ‘b’ prohibits the recognition of ‘a’, which is marriage between one man and one woman.

“Proponents of this measure are saying that marriage between same-sex couples would some how threaten my marriage,” said Crow. “After reading the language of the Amendment for myself, I see that Proposition 2 is the real threat to my marriage.

“I have spent nearly a third of my life defending my country and now I have to come home from fighting a war and defend my marriage from my state,” said Crow, who is married with two children. “I am ready to fight for my marriage and every marriage in Texas.”

Martha Cotera, a long time Austin resident, stood with Crow and the other married couples and voiced her concerns. She said that the flawed language that will be written into the Constitution is all a judge can consider if the amendment is challenged.

“Just the fact that even one attorney thinks the language in the marriage amendment annuls all marriages, makes me say ‘don’t risk it,” said Cotera. “An activist judge could use this questionable language to end marriage as we know it.”

Crow said that Save Texas Marriage will educate voters about the implications of the flawed language that Proposition 2 would write into the Constitution.
         “There are only two weeks left until this election is over,” said 
Crow.  “Save Texas Marriage has a very simple message, ‘If 
you really want to protect marriage in Texas, you must vote 
against Proposition 2. We cannot risk the consequences.”   
Save Texas Marriage is a Specific Purpose PAC created to educate Texas voters on the Flawed Language of Proposition 2. For more information, visit www.SaveTexasMarriage.com.
-30- 
NOTE: Attached is wording of other constitutional marriage amendments that have passed in other states. In these, key words are included to specify traditional marriage will not be affected.

Wording of Constitutional Amendments

Arkansas

"Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status
for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage."
Kentucky

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage
for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."
Louisiana

"Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union
other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman."
North Dakota

"Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No
other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect."
Ohio

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status
for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Oklahoma

"A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.
B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.

C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

Utah

"(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. (2) No
other domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage."
Wisconsin (proposed)

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage
for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
Texas (proposed)

Article I, Texas Constitution, (The Bill of Rights) is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows: Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 12, 2005

Harris County Democratic Party Opposes Constitutional Amendment Limiting Marriage and Other Relationships

The Steering Committee of the Harris County Democratic Party has adopted the following Declaration concerning Constitutional Amendment No. 2 (the “Marriage Limitation Amendment”) on the general election ballot this November. It constitutes the official position of the Harris County Democratic Party on this issue.

DECLARATION OF HARRIS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY

OPPOSING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 2

ON NOVEMBER 8 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT

Firmly committed to the values of fairness and equality, and unalterably opposed to discrimination in any form, the Harris County Democratic Party urges Democrats and all other voters in Harris County and Texas to vote NO on Proposition 2 on the November 8 ballot, and thereby to reject amending the constitution of the State of Texas in a way which places unnecessary restrictions on marriage and limits civil unions and other relationships.

Adopted by the Steering Committee of the

Harris County Democratic Party,

Gerry Birnberg, Chair

October 12, 2005

Further information about the constitutional amendment can be found at

http://nononsenseinnovember.com/

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Spread the Message - Proposition 2 Must Be Defeated

Guest posted by Murvin Auzenne, Chair of the HCDP Message and Communications Group.

The noise machine is starting its stretch run. Yesterday two letters appeared in the Chronicle which read like something straight from the Republican moral hypocrisy playbook. They informed us that the fate of civilization rested in our hands. If we did not pass Proposition Two, all hell would break loose. Judge for yourself and then ACT. There must not be a monologue on this issue in the LTE.

It is a fact that the Chronicle rations access to the LTE space. It is necessary that many of us write so that some few will be published. Additionally, it is better if fresh voices are heard. They will stand a better chance of being published.

What follows are suggestions on what to write, how to write and what NOT to write. Keep in mind that the letter should get to the point quickly; be direct and no longer than about 250 words.

Don't limit your outreach to the Chronicle. Community papers are also great places to get published. React to radio and TV coverage as well. If they get air and the coverage is unfair, you should say something and quickly.

There is a media contact document on this site under "useful links" at the bottom on the left side.

Now for the good stuff:

First the two letters:

Houston Chronicle | Section: Editorial

/Oct. 9, 2005, 7:22PM/

LETTERS

Marriage and family values

*Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle*

Marriage and family values

Depravity levels?

One only needs to look at the news of a recent marriage between three people in the Netherlands to see that changing the traditional definition of marriage does indeed lead to a slippery slope with no bottom. The Netherlands was one of the first European countries to allow gay marriage, now it's allowing polygamy.

So, those of us who believe that gay marriage is wrong are mean-spirited bigots?

Does that make those who believe polygamy is wrong bigots as well?

To what level of depravity must we sink before someone who stands up for what they believe is right (and says so out loud) is no longer labeled as a mean-spirited bigot?

Marriage to a 10-year-old? Marriage to your dog? Marriage to 10 other people at once?

BRIAN BANKSTON Fort Worth

A clear message

Having been a teacher for more than 33 years, I know that mixed messages never work very well.

The marriage amendment, Proposition 2, will make it very clear that traditional marriage is the standard for our state.

Values voters recognize that we are in a battle for our culture. We know that our society is crumbling under the constant bombardments against the traditional family.

We see the sexualization of our culture and encounter almost daily those people who want to defy healthy lifestyle choices in order to live a rebellious existence.

As reported by the Centers for Disease Control in 2004, homosexual and bisexual men account for a majority of the estimated 850,000 to 950,000 Americans living with HIV.

However, these numbers are actually incomplete because the CDC figures still do not include HIV data from all 50 states.

Many states do not report confidential HIV infection through name-based reporting, so HIV rates are undoubtedly higher than reported.

Not so coincidentally, the states which do not report their HIV data are some of the most homosexual-friendly ones. These include California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Texas voters will have an opportunity on Nov. 8 to send a clear message: We want the bedrock of our society to be based upon the traditional family.

Our future depends on it.

DONNA GARNER Hewitt

Second ---

Your assignment:

* Write letters to the editor, not just of the Chronicle, but also of your community papers (Springbranch Sun, etc. ). Contact the board cast media s as well.

* THIS IS THE FRAMING ANALYSIS. USE SOME OF IT AS YOUR OPENER

* Why? Because unless you say what you are for, unless you give the undecided a reason to like you, they won't care about your talking points.

Voting NO on proposition #2 is about defending families, all families. It is about the children of those families. This amendment attacks the ability of same gender families to care for their families, and for each other. It attacks common-law families. This is why you must vote NO to proposition #2. Why should any family have to pass a religious test to be given the civil rights all other families take for granted? Why should civil rights and privileges not be available to them? When you vote NO on this amendment, nobody's church will be forced to give their religious blessing to any union of which they disapprove. You will simply be saying that fair is fair, that all families matter.

Among these rights: Rights to attend the bedside of your a sick spouse, rights to pass on real property to your companion upon your death without red tape and delay, rights for you and your spouse to have access to your children's records and their bedsides in case of illness, the right to tax and medical benefits that help to make ends meet for most families these days.

* Here are the TALKING POINTS from the No Nonsense website.

* PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT SAME SEX MARRIAGE OR GAY MARRIAGE.

* People will see this and you will lose them. The masses may be wrong, but they are the masses. We must appeal not to just their presently underdeveloped sense of right and wrong, but also to their self-interest and their high regard for their own rights and privileges.

Why is the Marriage Constitutional Amendment Nonsense?

NONSENSE: Instead of real solutions For Texas, the Texas Legislature failed Texans and did not solve real problems, such as school finance, property tax reform and health insurance for all Texas children. Instead, they focused on nonsense like sexy cheerleading and this amendment, which is discriminatory, hateful and divisive.

NONSENSE: The proposed Constitutional Amendment would use the Texas Bill of Rights to deny rights to some Texans. The Bill of Rights is a sacred document that for more than one hundred years was used to afford rights to all Texans. It is nonsense to change it to deny rights to some Texans.

NONSENSE: It is already the law. Civil marriages between same-sex couples are already prohibited in Texas, and civil marriages and civil unions from other states or other countries are not recognized in Texas.

NONSENSE: The language Is overly broad. Even if you oppose civil marriage for same-sex couples, the constitutional amendment also prohibits civil unions and domestic partnerships and may impact common-law marriages.

NONSENSE: It hurts Texas families. By depriving same-sex couples access to civil marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships, some Texas families lose the right to protect their loved ones in many of the important areas of life: medical decisions, inheritance, property, parental rights and more. Protecting your family is a fundamental right. The constitutional amendment is wrong.

Please do this today!

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 08, 2005

HCDP Brown Bag--Gordon Quan

Please join us for:
HCDP Brown Bag Lunch
Featuring Council Member Gordon Quan
Topic: "Immigration Reform"
Date: Tuesday August 9, 2005
Time: 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
Location: HCDP, 1445 North Loop West, #110 (exit Ella Blvd.)

Houston City Council member Gordon Quan will discuss the status of federal immigration legislation and the current City of Houston policy regarding enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Brown Bag Lunch is a monthly, public event of the Harris County Democratic Party.

As always, bring your lunch, we provide the soft drinks.

Posted by Stace Medellin at 06:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 06, 2005

Happy Birthday Voting Rights Act!

Today is the 40th anniversary of Lyndon Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The date was commemorated by a march in Atlanta organized by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Push Coalition. Ambassador Andrew Young (former mayor of Atlanta), Rep. Joe Lewis and Rev. Jesse Jackson were amont the notables participating in the march. The Atlanta Journal Constitution is reporting that there were hundreds of marchers, but it looks like more than that to me. More photos here.

Andrew Young remarked that, "this is not a celebration. We're talking about extending the Voting Rights Act and also wondering if that is enough." This is especially true in Georgia where, unlike Texas, an effort to pass a law requiring voters to present photo identification in order to vote.

Jackson and other march organizers hope the "Keep the Vote Alive" march will increase pressure on Congress and President Bush to extend sections of the law supporters say protect black voters from efforts to keep them from the polls. The provisions are set to expire in 2007...

... After pre-march speeches, the crowd walked a about a mile and a half westward along Martin Luther King Jr. Drive to Morris Brown College's Herndon Stadium at 643 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, between Vine and Sunset streets. Once there, the march became day of speeches and entertainment.

Entertainers scheduled to appear include singers Stevie Wonder, Willie Nelson, John Legend, Roberta Flack, and gospel singer Bobby Jones...

The NAACP explains the facts surrounding the expiration of the act.

Now the real work begins. Visit WhyTuesday.org to join the grassroots effort to make voting more friendly by changing the day of the week elections are held and sign the pledge to work towards making voting more accessible. At the bottom of the home page, you'll find the first question of a very interesting survey where I'm sure you'll learn something you didn't already know.

Visit renewthevra.org and the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act to learn more about the history and activities surrounding renewal of the National Votings Right Act.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 02:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 14, 2005

The Wall of Shame

The following is a list of the 20 senators who refused to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution passed yesterday, and refused a roll-call vote so they would avoid having to put their name on the resolution.

Via Daily Kos:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Robert Bennett (R-UT)

Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Jim Bunning (R-KY)

Conrad Burns (R-MT)

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Thad Cochran (R-MS)

Kent Conrad (D-ND) (Update: Now a co-sponsor)

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Michael Crapo (R-ID)

Michael Enzi (R-WY)

Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Trent Lott (R-MS)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Richard Shelby (R-AL)

John Sununu (R-NH)

Craig Thomas (R-WY)

George Voinovich (R-OH)

19 Republicans and 1 Democrat, a real wall of shame.

Hat tip to Murvin Auzenne. He also had the following to say specifically about our illustrious Senator John Cornyn:

I called the senator, since he "has no email". An assistant gave me the run around:
"He voted for it" lie one - it was by unanimous consent - he never voted for anything.

"He spoke for it on the floor" - so why did he not co-sponsor? - This was the question that they had no answer for. The aide said it was for "technical reasons". The other aide simply said he did not know. The "technical reasons" are a lie. I teach government and politics. I told her I knew better than that.

I am sending the following letter to the Chronicle, and to the Senator's office in Washington.
*********************************************************************************
Senator Cornyn:

The historic resolution apologizing for the historic evil of lynching passed without your signature or apparent support. Why?

I am angry, I am embarrassed. This was not a hard call. This was not a controversial or ideological issue. It was a gesture of simple justice, a gesture of healing for a litany of wrongs of which lynching was simply the most blatant and obviously evil.

You sir, have shown yourself in this matter to be either without ethical compass or crassly in love with power. So much so, that you won't support a simple gesture of justice for fear of losing votes.

You should be ashamed.

Murvin R. Auzenne

I totally agree with Murvin. "Technical reasons" for not voting to apologize for lynchings? Give me a break. There's no way this resolution will ever repay what the victims' families or the victims themselves lost because of racial intolerance, but at least the fact that the lynchings were wrong is acknowledged and that they really did happen, not just some obscure part of history to be forgotten.

Contact John Cornyn and tell him he should be ashamed.
(The contact page has contact information for his Washington, D.C. office and Texas offices, as well as an e-mail form at the bottom of the contact page.)

Posted by at 01:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

June 10, 2005

Patiot Act Hearing Shut Down House by Judiciary Chair

Note that hearings can only be shut down by unanimous consent, but Chairman Sensenbrenner ignored that point of order. His actions against minority members in the House exercising their legitimate right to a hold a hearing under Rule 11, was an unprecedented breach of House rules.

Watch the video here.

From DemBloggers:

This morning Rep. Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee was leading a committee hearing looking into the renewal of Patriot Act.
Mr. Sensenbrenner decided that he didn't like the tone of the meeting and simply got up and left but not before he criticized the witnesses who came and gave their testimony to the committee.

After he left the microphones were switched on and off while the Democratic members of the committee continued to discuss the renewal of the Patriot Act.

From BuzzFlash :

GOP House Judiciary Chair Uses Pinochet Tactics to Abruptly and Unilaterally Shut Down Hearing Into Abuses of the (Un)Patriot Act, Because He Was Afraid the Truth Would Come Out. America: "IT" is Happening Here. Democracy is Being Dismantled by GOP Thugs.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

This morning, House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) unilaterally and arbitrarily shut down committee hearings on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act without comment or issuing a statement. Sensenbrenner gaveled the committee hearings in the middle of witnesses testifying about human and civil rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay, racial profiling of individuals of Middle Eastern descent, prolonged detentions of Americans after September 11th and other abuses.

The suppression of free speech and testimony in the congressional committee in charge of protecting our civil liberties shows the Republican’s power grab has no limits and no decency. The irony was not lost on anyone.

The witnesses appearing before the House Judiciary Committee included, Chip Pitts, Chair of the Board of Amnesty International USA; Dr. James J. Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute; Deborah Pearlstein, Director of the U.S. Law and Security Program “Human Rights First”; and Carlina Tapia Ruano of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The witnesses were called by the indomitable Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) who continues to stand up to the right-wing’s attempt to eviscerate American Constitutional liberties.

“There are few issues that are more important to this Committee or this Congress than the Patriot Act and the war against terror. This not only affects the rights and privacy of every American, but impacts the extent to which our nation is able to hold itself out as a beacon of liberty as we advocate for democracy around the world,” said Congressman Conyers as he opened the committee hearings.

Sixteen provisions in the USA Patriot Act are expiring because Rep. Conyers fought for sunset provisions to keep the erosion of civil liberties from becoming permanent when the Patriot Act was first introduced in the fervor following September 11th. Now the Bush administration is seeking to not only reauthorize but expand the reach and power of the Patriot Act, such as giving the FBI the ability to issue secret wire taps and conduct searches without warrants approved by a federal judge. A policy tantamount to creating a secret police force above the rule of law.

“Rather than making us safer, the abuses and excesses of our war against terrorism are actually tarnishing our nation's reputation and making us less safe,” said Conyers.

Chip Pitts of Amnesty International USA in his written statement to be addressed to the House Judiciary Committee – before Sensenbrenner effectively muzzled him and other witnesses – observed that the Patriot Act has a “chilling affect on freedom.” Pitts added “the law jeopardizes due process and fair trial procedures by encouraging a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. …The Patriot Act is of concern both in itself, and also because it has inspired a significant cascade of similar legislation around the world that weakens the rule of law which is so essential to the protection of human rights.”

The overarching fear with expanding the Patriot Act is the lack of oversight given to judges, the denial of due process to American citizens such as keeping detainees from the right to see a lawyer, and the broad discretion given to police and homeland security officials in the Bush administration. You can be labeled a suspected terrorist, if not presumed guilty, if the Bush administration says you are. The secretive Busheviks appear more interested in obtaining Stalin-like police powers than in protecting Americans from terrorism.

Sensenbrenner's Soviet-style tactic of gaveling a meeting to end it because he didnt like what he heard about the Bushevik abuses of our civil liberties is a horrifying example of what America faces if the GOP one-party state is given expanded police powers to invade the rights of Americans.

“The governments that are most effective in safeguarding human security are those that operate strictly under the rule of law: that is, under a system in which people are governed by public laws that are set in advance, applied equally in all cases,” said Deborah Pearlstein, Director, U.S. Law and Security Program who was called to testify.

The Bush administration has routinely flouted the rule of law since September 11th claiming the need for broad police powers to protect security and prevent terrorism. But the Bush administration as well as Department of Justice and Homeland Security officials have been routinely discredited and rebuked for their actions. They have repeatedly initiated arrests and invasions of privacy for public relations purposes, only to drop charges later.

In short, many Americans and organizations just don’t trust the Bush administration, and rightly so after a systematic pattern of abuse and erosion of the Constitution. The Busheviks are clearly using the fear of terrorism as a means to consolidate dictatorship like powers.

What member of Congress in their right mind could possibly consider giving more power to an Administration that endorses torture and indefinite detentions?

Democracies do not fail overnight. They slowly erode and descend by denying rights to the minority, the takeover of an independent judiciary, suppressing speech and assembly, and the rise of secrecy and repressive police powers in the executive branch.

Sensenbrenner’s belligerent act to shut down dissent and gag witnesses warning about the broad police powers given to the administration should give Americans pause as the Republican Party inches closer and closer to turning American into a one-party state.

The witnesses to the Bushevik violations of our Constitution, civil liberties, and individual rights valiantly continued to speak after Sensenbrenner formally shut down the hearing (probably as a result of a phone call from the White House). But their voices were hardly heard, which was the objective of the Busheviks.

What makes the barbarians in the White House shudder most is a bright light of truth reaching the American public.

They have been unusually successful in intimidating the media into enabling their lies. Now, they are just preemptively breaking laws and the rules of Congress to suppress the truth.

It can happen here, and it is.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Posted by Lyn Wall at 04:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 08, 2005

John Conyers: A Street-Fightin' Example for All of Us

While many men mellow as they age, John Conyers, if anything, has become more militant.

By Jack Lessenberry, Detroit Metro Times

John Conyers Jr. spends a lot of time on airplanes these days, dashing around the nation like an elegant old street fighter, trying to wake people up.

He's been fighting for a long time, for voting rights in the South; standing atop a car with a bullhorn to try and stop Detroiters from burning down their city in 1967; fighting against Nixon and Reagan and the Vietnam War.

Now, he's fighting still, too little noticed by most of us. At an age when most men are content to play golf, he's trying to build a "resurgent people's movement" that will lead to Americans demanding better health care and an end to what he sees as a totally senseless and hopeless war.

What's astonishing is how long he's been at it. Think about this: When Conyers got to Congress there were only a half-dozen blacks there, most of them beholden to big-city political machines who told them to get along and go along.

Malcolm X was still alive and people were still getting lynched for trying to sign up African-Americans to vote. We had vast liberal majorities in Congress and a new president who pledged to end poverty.

That's the nation we had when Conyers first showed up to take his turn at helping to govern it. There was already one black congressman from Detroit when he got there. "I remember Charles Diggs took me around and showed me where the doors were, how to get from Point A to Point B," Conyers says. "At one point I asked him how long he had been there. He told me 10 years.

"And I thought, 'Wow! 10 years.'" Conyers, then the 35-year-old son of a union leader, was awestruck. He never imagined he would be there that long.

Charlie Diggs, who is now dead, left Congress long ago. So has every single other person who was in the U.S. House of Representatives when John Conyers arrived, with one exception -- John Dingell, whose district borders his.

Conyers has been in Congress 40 years now -- longer than any other African-American in history. To say that he has seen vast changes would be a vast understatement. The Congressional Black Caucus, which he helped start in 1970, has 43 members now. Martin Luther King, whom Conyers worked with in the South, has long since ceased to be a man and has become a national holiday.

Yet while many men mellow as they age, Conyers, if anything, has become more militant. That's especially notable, given that the political culture has moved far to the right of where it was when he took office.

Many voters and officeholders were proud to be called "liberal" in 1965. Now that term has become such a dirty word that even the liberals don't use it. If any presidential candidate today proposed trying to wipe out poverty in America, the richest nation in history, they would be laughed out of politics.

Yet it's acceptable to invade and occupy small weak nations whose governments we don't like. Our current government did that, giving a justification (Weapons of Mass Destruction!) that long ago was shown to have been wrong, and which now has been exposed as an intentional lie.

John Conyers has been fighting to wake people up about that too, persuading 88 members of Congress to sign a letter to President Bush, asking him to explain the recently discovered memos proving that the United States and Britain secretly decided in 2002 to go to war in Iraq, evidence or no evidence.

That may not be popular now, though I'm betting that it won't be long before everybody will be pretending to have been against the war in Iraq all along.

Yet Conyers' biggest priority is not the war, but some kind of universal health insurance. He would love to see full coverage for everyone, as they have in Canada. "But that's in a perfect world, and I have to work with the one we've got," he says with a faint grin. If you think U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton must be helping him push health care, you're wrong.

"She's working on moving to the center," he says without bitterness. She may want to run for president. John Conyers thinks the job he has is the best there is. There are those who whisper about his eccentricities, and say they don't think he is focused or sharp any longer. All I know is that last weekend he was sharp, witty, incisive and totally on top of events. Conyers, who turned 76 last month, looks two decades younger than his driver's license says.

Biologically, he's acting still younger than that; his oldest son is 14; the younger one, 9. "They are the joy of my existence," he says.

Two decades ago, he stunned Detroit by running -- twice -- for mayor. He was a bad third the first time, and an embarrassment the second. Today, he's happy it worked out the way it did. "I want to thank my constituents for saving me," he says with a twinkle in his eye.

He isn't ready to endorse a candidate for mayor this time, though he probably will after the August primary. But he notes, "I don't think you can put Kwame's mistakes down to youth." What bothers Conyers most about the mayor's outrages is something telling. "I can't believe he wants to tax poor people 2 cents more for their McDonald's," he says, shaking his head.

How, I wondered, does he keep from getting cynical?

Conyers campaigned hard against the war in Iraq before it started. Last year, he fought hard to defeat the man he thinks is the worst president he has ever seen, only to see Dubya win a record number of popular votes.

This is a man who used to argue with other black leaders when they were reluctant to oppose the Vietnam War. Does Conyers really believe a new anti-war movement will grow and will succeed?

His response was startling.

"I never claimed I was optimistic about this happening." But, he added, "I don't have any other recourse except to do this."

There isn't anything for a street fighter to do but keep fighting. And hoping.

"You know, these things turn on things that aren't always predictable. You can't just say we'll do this, this and this, and the people will rise up. You have to remember that even in the Vietnam era, it took a long time coming. I have to remember that. And so we have to keep pushing along."

Jack Lessenberry opines weekly for Metro Times.

Posted by Stace Medellin at 11:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Perry to Gays: Leave Our State

Everyone has probably heard that Perry signed two bills in a church school gymnasium this past Sunday. However, you probably have not heard about his extremely hateful and prejudiced statement.

Governor Perry signed two bills, one restricting abortions by requiring parental consent, and the other to set a vote on the definition of marriage constitutional amendment.

As if the disregard for the separation of church and state wasn't enough, Perry laid the icing on the cake with his highly controversial quote about what gays and lesbians should do:

Texans have made a decision about marriage and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas then maybe that's a better place for them to live.

First off, this extreme statement comes after he said the following to reporters on Thursday before the Sunday signing:

I hope all Texans will feel welcome Sunday at Calvary Cathedral.

Apparently, if all Texans are to be welcome, then there are some of us who aren't "good" Texans. Otherwise it's just blatant hyprocrisy, but actually I bet it's a combination of the two.

The other thing, Perry says Texans have made a decision. I wasn't aware of that one. I know the "conservatives" (really right wing extremists is more appropriate) of the legislature and Perry have made a decision. If I'm correct Texans don't get to officially make their decision until November. Unfortunately, I doubt the measure will be voted down.

Perry's homophobic statement is an excellent example of why constitutions should only be for protecting a person's rights and not for limiting them. What happened to the idea of freedom of religion and freedom from persecution. The Founding Fathers and the early colonists came to America to escape religious persecution in Europe. In fact, many immigrants still come to America today to escape intolerant governments and discrimination. However, our government is now doing the same thing to certain "undesirable" groups within our society. What does freedom mean if our government infringes upon it at home?

Additionally Perry said:

A nurturing home with a loving mother and loving father is the best way to guide our children down the proper path.

The "proper" path? I'm glad to know that Perry and the Lege are continuing to legislate the "proper" way to live. I always thought Republicans were for limited government, but maybe they meant limited intelligence, limited respect, or limited rights.

I would like to know what "problem" Republicans cite for the growing number of divorces in society. There are plenty of religious conservatives who have gotten divorces. Maybe the Lege should take up a measure to just ban divorces altogether, since clearly having a mother and father is the "best" situation. Obviously, this would logically overlook situations in which children would grow up in a tense and potentially dangerous environment when the parents simply do not wish to stay together any longer, or in more extreme cases when a parent might be abusing children, or have other issues that pose a serious threat to other family members. I fail to see how gays and lesbians are contributing to the divorce rate. Basically one's personal life should be a personal choice.

I would rather see a children have a loving parent(s) or guardian who seeks to provide the best care he/she can for the children. Someone who seeks to educate children in the various views and customs of society, not just ones own. One that says everyone is different, that you may be different from others, but that doesn't make you or them 'wrong.' What happened to tolerance and acceptance?

I am appalled with the implication of Perry's statement. It borders on social cleansing. I may not be gay, but I feel much more threatened by such a discriminatory statement than any gay or lesbian couple could ever pose to me.

If anything, Perry's statement makes me want to leave Texas, if there's going to be this kind of discrimination. If Texas is going to discriminate against homosexuals, what is there to stop the Lege legislating discriminating against other groups? There's already plenty of discrimination based on economic standing.

Write governor Perry and tell him not to promote what amounts to "social cleansing." (In addition to the e-mail form, the page also has phone numbers and a mailing address for Perry.)

Apparently John C. came across Perry's version of the Bible. Here's one of the prayers.

So Kay Bailey Hutchison would you like to run against Perry now? I sure would like to see a Hutchison v. Perry contest in the Republican primary. Perry is giving you lots of ammo to use against him.

Posted by at 01:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 29, 2005

Voter ID Bill Thwarted

Chalk one up for the good guys. The Voter ID amendment was removed on a technicality Friday night. Democrats were prepared to filibuster the bill, but it proved unnecessary when Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, exercised a Senate rule that prevents a bill from carrying unrelated subjects.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 07:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 25, 2005

Gay Marriage "Threatens" National Security

Who knew the two were linked? Maybe this is what the Lege had in mind when it passed HJR 6.

According to Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA):

I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?

I came across the above quote in the Harrisburg Magazine.

I guess he must really be upset by the fact that Elton John and his partner David Furnish have announced plans to marry. Britain will begin allowing civil partnerships between gay couples December 5, and partners will receive the same tax breaks available to married couples.

Oh no! We all better get to an undisclosed location fast. Apparently the "phantom gay menace" is greater than terrorism. I guess that means we will be on "Level Red" for "severe threat of gay marriage attacks." Be vigilant, and get your emergency preparedness kits ready. As always, report any "suspicious marriages" to the Texas Legislature or the US Congress for immediate legislative action and/or constitutional amendments.

I would like to know just how insecure does one's marriage have to be in order to be "threatened" by someone else's marriage?

Personally, I believe if one's marriage is so weak that it will be rent asunder by homosexuals marrying (or having civil unions), then there are probably some other fundamental issues the couple needs to sort out.

I'll get worried when gay marriages start toppling buildings and killing thousands of innocent people. Until then, I think we have much bigger issues to address -- health care, deficits, environment, education, something called international relations, etc.

Posted by at 02:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

May 22, 2005

Who Believes in Freedom?

Not Texas. Bush says freedom is on the march, but it's beating a quick retreat here at home. Yesterday, the Senate passed HJR 6, the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, by a vote of 21 to 8. This bill bans same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Do you believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Do you believe in the freedom of choice?
Do you believe your personal lifestyle is your own choice and that the government shouldn't meddle with your private life?

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you're absolutely wrong in the eyes of Texas. So much for free will when it comes to your personal beliefs and religion, the government apparently knows what's best and which religion is the "right" one.

Senator Juan Hinojosa (D–McAllen) thought Democrats had enough votes to block HJR 6 in the Senate. There was a coalition of 11 Democrats opposing the bill that would have prevented it from reaching the floor because an approval by a two-thirds majority is required for debate. However, two Democrats, Frank Madla (D–San Antonio) and Eddie Lucio (D–Brownsville) changed their minds.

The following is from the San Antonio Express-News:

Madla said he voted for the measure because that's what the people of his district want.
He said he was impressed with the avalanche of e-mails and phone calls from constituents in his sprawling district stretching from southern Bexar County to El Paso, which he said was running 53 percent to 47 percent in favor of the proposal.

Madla said that while he has his own opinion on the issue, "I wasn't sent up here to express my feelings, I was sent here to represent my district."

Two of his Democratic colleagues accused him of being more persuaded to change his position by the approval of $50 million in tuition revenue bonds for the University of Texas at San Antonio and future favorable consideration for the planned development of a Texas A&M Southside campus. Madla denied that was the case.

The lawmakers who voted for HJR 6 also ignored the Texas Constitution. Section 3a of the Texas Bill of Rights guarantees:

Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative. (Added Nov. 7, 1972.)

It sounds to me like the rights of two loving people, who happen to be of the same sex, have been abridged because that goes against the teaching of Christianity.

However, gay marriage and civil unions are already prohibited by Texas' Defense of Marriage Act passed in 2003 and through other legislation. The 2003 law specifically defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. So the Constitutional amendment is really unnecessary. Basically it's redundant legislation to doubly ensure that same-same sex unions don't occur in Texas. Supporters believe that we need this amendment to preempt any attempts to challenge the legality of the 2003 marriage law. HJR 6 goes further by prohibiting the "state or any political subdivision of this state to create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

The amendment sponsor, State Senator Todd Staples (R-Palestine), says

We should protect the institution of marriage as it is defined in law today. We should hold that higher up than any other relationship.

What about the relationship between the state and its citizens to provide health care, education, adequate retirement, and many other social services? I find it appalling that when we are facing so many financial shortfalls in our state that the theocrats in the Texas Legislature waste our time and money banning something that is already banned. Talk about paranoia and outright bigotry. HJR 6 is just a mean spirited distraction from the more important issues of average working families.

Section 6 of the Texas Bill of Rights states:

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

The last line could be construed to support HJR 6, but that still does not come before Article 1 of the US Constitution in order of precedence:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

State Representative Rafael Anchia attempted to alter HJR 6 when it was under debate in the House. He attempted to make a compromise amendment to the bill that would allow same-sex couples to have the benefits of marriage, but to grant them civil unions instead of marriage. He said:

I was hopeful that my colleagues would agree with the comments offered by the President on the subject.
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others." President George W. Bush, October 2004.

I'm kind of surprised to discover that Bush actually made a statement like that above.

While I don't have a problem with allowing gays to actually be married since I don't feel that it would personally degrade me in any way, I could see a compromise along Anchia's lines. While it gays wouldn't get the title of "marriage," they would at least get the same benefits that married couples have, which is only reasonable since they aren't any different from married couples except that they are of the same sex. I like what Representative Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin) said in the Texas House:

I'm single. I'm straight. And I don't think it's right to discriminate.

One of the most stinging charges came from State Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston). He compared HJR 6 to the Jim Crow laws that once discriminated against African-Americans. Ellis called the proposal "trash," and said that the proponents of Jim Crow laws "at least had the good sense to never write their bigotry into the state Constitution."

Staples said he was offended by the accusation and denied that his proposed amendment was anti-gay.

What?!?! Anti-gay, no way. It just prohibits gays in relationships from having the same benefits granted to them that married couples enjoy. Surely that's not anti-gay. It just singles out a specific segment of society, but surely that's not discrimination.

The Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas points out:

Marriage affords hundreds of legal rights, responsibilities and obligations, like the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital, social security benefits, second parent adoptions and many more. These are denied to thousands of loving, committed gay couples across Texas, many of them raising families of their own.

So what is the meaning of discrimination Senator Staples? You honestly believe that this bill is not "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit."

I respect churches to define their definition of marriage, but the state has a legal obligation to ensure the quality of its citizens. I think there are two separate marriages, one legal and one based on an individual's religion. I have no problem with churches defining what marriage means to them, but their particular beliefs should not be legislated for everyone. It's astonishing to think that so many of the troubles of the Middle East are blamed on intolerant religious governments. Yet, I look around and find many parallels to our own government and its steady drift towards theocracy.

Basically HJR 6 is a monumentally and historic discriminatory constitutional amendment. It's a result of people who fear what is different. A constitution should be a document for guaranteeing rights to ensure equality for everyone, not prohibiting certain people from enjoying them. Furthermore, if HJR 6 is approved in November, it will mark the first time a specific minority is targeted and singled out in the Texas Constitution to be denied equal treatment.

Now that HJR 6 has passed the Texas House and Senate, it will go to Governor Perry for his approval, and will appear on the ballot this November. If a majority of Texans vote for it, HJR 6 will become part of the Texas Constitution. When the time comes that people accept gay unions, it will be extremely difficult to remove this provision from the Constitution because it will require a new amendment to repeal it.

Read what the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas has to say about the passage of HJR 6.

Read what State Representative Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) said about HJR 6 in the Texas House. She's right on the issue in her speech.

I know it's after the fact now, but you can still send an e-mail and contact the following senators to let them know how you feel about HJR 6:

State Senator Todd Staples

State Senator Eddie Lucio

State Senator Frank Madla

Update: Off the Kuff has more on the potential consequences of HJR 6 and testimony submitted to the State Affairs Committee of the Texas Senate from the hearing on HJR 6.

Update: The LGRL has more on the unintended consequences of HJR 6.

Posted by at 08:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 09, 2005

They must be having a bad bill contest in the Lege - HB 1212

This one will definitely be a finalist. HB 1212, eupemistically called a "Parents Rights Bill", would make it a felony to coerce a child into having an abortion. Go to the Texas Legislature web site for contact information for your Representative and oppose this bill!

From Come and Take It:

The legislation would make it a crime for anyone to coerce a child into an abortion. If this provision passes, parents could get hauled into court for strongly urging their child to end a pregnancy. How can the state demand that parents be responsible for the choice, and then penalize them if they make a particular choice? That, in effect, coerces teens to bear unwanted children.

The bill has the following provisions (from Daily Kos):

When parents are "hauled into court" for urging their pregnant daughter to consider an abortion, they won't be facing just a minor charge, but a "state jail felony."

If a teenager's parents are aware of her pregnancy and oppose her clearly stated desire to have an abortion, it doesn't matter whether she's a 17 year-old who already has a 6 month-old baby or a gang-raped 14 year-old, because the debate stops right there: she is compelled by law to bear a child she doesn't want to have.

If she applies for a judicial bypass of the parental consent requirement, her hearing can be delayed for 5 days instead of the 2 days permitted by current law. Appeals will be delayed for 10 days - and that can be the difference between a first and a second trimester procedure.

The judge must appoint a guardian ad litem who cannot be the minor's own attorney, but may be a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a member of the clergy, or an "appropriate employee of the Department of Family and Protective Services" - and we all know how well that's worked out in Florida.

Judicial bypass will have venue restrictions. HB 1212 says that a bypass can only be applied for in the county where the minor lives or in the county where her abortion will be performed - which for the average small town teenager without transportation in a state the size of France, means that the option might as well not exist at all.

If a teenager does somehow manage to make it into court, she must meet a burden of proof much heavier than it is now. Instead of a "preponderance of the evidence," she will have to present "clear and convincing evidence" that she is subject to abuse. Legal experts testified in the House committee hearing that this could force her to present witnesses to testify on her behalf, further endangering her confidentiality and safety.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 01:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 26, 2005

Legislating Hate in Texas... Again

On Monday, the Texas House of Representatives lashed out yet again at Texas families. The House approved HJR 6, an anti-family marriage amendment to the Texas Constitution, which besides being discriminatory is totally unnecessary because Texas already amended its consitution last year with the discriminatory "Defense of Marriage Act" to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This resolution is simply an attempt to rally the Republicans' base and further divide Texans.

MARRIAGE ISSUE COMES BEFORE TEXAS HOUSE
Anti-Gay Agenda Hurts Texas Families

April 25, 2005

LGRL of Texas

AUSTIN, TX - One week after passing legislation that would rip children out of loving, stable homes, the Texas House of Representatives took yet another swipe at Texas families today. An anti-family marriage amendment to the Texas Constitution, known as HJR 6, passed the House on a vote of 102 to 29. The Constitutional amendment would mark the first time in history that discriminatory language would appear in the document designed to protect all Texans. (Emphasis added.)

[...]

Texas Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) says the amendment is unfair. "State Law already defines a marriage as between a man and a

Houston Democrats - Civil Rights

June 20, 2006

This was done openly and shamelessly...

June 16, 2006

Security Breaches for 'Sleepover' Voting Machines Used in Busby/Bilbray Race Invalidated, Decertified Their Use in the Election!

June 15, 2006

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?")

December 22, 2005

The Law He Broke

October 31, 2005

TDP Statement on Alito Nomination

October 24, 2005

PROPOSITION 2 PUTS ALL MARRIAGE IN TEXAS AT RISK

October 12, 2005

Harris County Democratic Party Opposes Constitutional Amendment Limiting Marriage and Other Relationships

Spread the Message - Proposition 2 Must Be Defeated

August 08, 2005

HCDP Brown Bag--Gordon Quan

August 06, 2005

Happy Birthday Voting Rights Act!

June 14, 2005

The Wall of Shame

June 10, 2005

Patiot Act Hearing Shut Down House by Judiciary Chair

June 08, 2005

John Conyers: A Street-Fightin' Example for All of Us

Perry to Gays: Leave Our State

May 29, 2005

Voter ID Bill Thwarted

May 25, 2005

Gay Marriage "Threatens" National Security

May 22, 2005

Who Believes in Freedom?

May 09, 2005

They must be having a bad bill contest in the Lege - HB 1212

April 26, 2005

Legislating Hate in Texas... Again