Officially an "independent leftist" in Texas as well as nationally

Since the Texas Green Party said vote yes on the hugely antienvironmental, and economic boondoggle, Proposition 4, which sadly passed with more than 70 percent, they've officially lost me for 2026. 

All they did was cite the Texas Water Fund, created by the state in 2023 legislation for water projects, which in turn only cites the Trib (neolibs) and the Texas Water Development Board (state agency). That even further settles that I am an independent leftist. 

The hugely antienvironmental, part 1?

[Charles Perry] is proposing investing in desalinating salty Gulf water, cleaning up the chemical-laden fracking water used to coax oil from the ground in the Permian Basin, and injecting fresh water underground for later use.

Yeah. Beyond that being directly antienvironmental, it also gives oil drillers a semi-free pass on their fracking wastewater.

The hugely antienvironmental part 2?

Meanwhile, he is involved in mysterious dealmaking with other states for their reserves. During debate over his legislation in early April, Perry alluded to talks with “one or two” neighbors—probably Louisiana and Arkansas—to contract for water.

Wilder noted this is a recycled 1960s plan. In fact, Marc Reisner talked about shit like this in "Cadillac Desert." One thing he noted, which also applied in the Southwest to the Central Arizona Project and other such things is that water is heavy, and it takes a lot of energy to push it uphill. Guess Texas Greens haven't heard of that seminal environmental book. 

Sierra and other Gang Greeners, I get. But, has nobody in the Texas Green Party read Cactus Ed Abbey's famous dictum that "Growth for growth's sake is the theology of the cancer cell"?

At that, at least the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, while  proving itself to still be Gang Green neoliberals in the environmental organization world, in an official support with no real analysis, did admit voters were being offered a pig in a poke:

At least 50% of the annual allocations must go toward the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT). The New Water Supply for Texas Fund supports various projects - some of which are highly controversial - that add to the total volume of water available to Texans, such as reservoir construction, seawater desalination, reuse of oil and gas wastewater (“produced water”), a statewide water conveyance system, acquisition of water from out of state, water and wastewater reuse, and aquifer storage and recovery. 

The focus of the SWIFT is solely on water infrastructure projects identified in the State Water Plan. This is an important accountability measure because it means there must be some level of support for the project locally for it to appear in the State Water Plan. However, there is no requirement for how this part of the funding must be split between the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and SWIFT.

But still said vote yes.

Despite a former leader saying "Wait a minute":

“There are a lot of parallels” between the ’68 plan and today’s water-grid concept, said Ken Kramer, the former head of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and a veteran environmental advocate at the Capitol. The staggering cost. The lack of robust debate. The vague talk of out-of-state water purchases. The impracticality of it all.

Ugh. 

That said? Texas Greens couldn't even offer caveats. 

So, I can't offer support. 

And, I have removed both the Texas GP, and GP national, which I should have done last year, from my links list.

==

Update, Nov. 13: I've gotten a response from one member of the state executive committee, who first briefly explained the process for endorsement or nonendorsement on each of the 17 propositions, then noted that they originally supported Prop 4 but then voted no.

Discovered environmentalism?

No, not exactly.

This person said they voted no because they felt they couldn't trust state regulators and GOP cronies. Still no acknowledgement that the proposition itself, regardless of who oversees its implementation, is antienvironmentalist.

Back to the original.

== 

Sadly, I now say, you broke 2 percent last year and so have party-line ballot access guaranteed for five election cycles again. 

Sidebar: Per this piece, Texas Greens also couldn't talk about how Prop 4 might increase the number of endangered species. 

Of course, the Party of Socialism and Liberation, as well as other Marxist parties, and even the Socialist Party USA, are unlikely to have any write-in candidates next year.

That's OK.

Nearly 25 years ago, the Dallas Morning News had a "where are they now" about local civil rights activists from the 1960s. About half had dropped out of electoral politics. 

Top blogging for November

Older posts had the lead in most viewed stories for November, some signal-boosted by me, others not.

An old blog post, from the end of Shrub Bush's first term, my blogging about the Dallas Snooze's take on how Shrub could reinvigorate his Cabinet, has been trending for a full month or so and I have no idea why. It doesn't even have a potential Chinese bot launch-triggering comment. (BTW, if you want an example of how stupid the Snooze was then — and pretty much still is now — on its op-ed page, just click that link. It's a short read.)

No. 2 was signal-boosted and is an September post about coronavirus "vaccine losers," namely, we the people of the US not having a non-mRNA booster, among other things, and why people with bigger popguns than me on Twitter weren't talking about that. It got signal-boosted in part because of a quote-tweet back-and-forth with Dr. Peter Hotez, who talked about what his institute is doing globally with non-mRNA vaxxes, but who went radio-silent when I said globally isn't Merikkka.

No. 3? Fresh stuff. My Texas elections post-mortem (for both Democrats and Greens). Related? No. 9, my take that the Texas Green Party, like I said two years ago about the national party, is past its best-by date.

No. 4 was also election-related, but on a national level. That's my call-out of the New York Slimes for attempting to revive Russiagate just in time for midterms.

And, No. 5? Also election related, and also a post-mortem, this time for one Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke, whom I said, in a visual typographic pun, should be called "Beat-0" for his lack of election prowess the last three cycles.

No. 6 was related. After Greg Summerlin appeared to be trying to make Beat-0 into some wild-eyed radical, I summarized his comments, and expanded on my responses, in a separate post calling out his ConservaDem-ness. And, I may not be done yet.

No. 7 was a Texas Progressives non-election roundup, during election week. Not sure what triggered its popularity, whether it was the part about pro-lifer grifting, Xi Jinping supposedly getting ready to meat MBS or something else.

No. 8? Again, election related. This was my take on Axios undermining its credibility over conflating QAnon with all conspiracy theories, then conflating conspiracy theories with the possibility of an actual conspiracy (while using that word loosely) followed by other thought.

No. 10? My take on the XBB coronavirus subvariant. (Background: I think we're at least moving toward endemic, and that big popguns folks like Walker Bragman have one foot, at least, in tribalism on this issue.)

Texas Greens, like the national party, are past their "Best By" date

Nationally, unlike Mark Lause and Brandy Baker, I held out slim hope after the 2016 election for the national party.

The playout of the presidential nomination process, with Dario Hunter playing the race card even while being used by libertarian Green fanbois of Jesse (the still Libertarian Body) Ventura, pretty much eliminated most that hope.

And, when presidential nominee Howie Hawkins, at the instigation (sic) of advisors Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese, started peddling the Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid on China in general and the Uyghurs in particular, that tore it. (Howie's halfway correct or more answer on Putin and the 2016 election makes me think that loving the Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid was NOT a totally unprompted idea on his part.

Now, we move forward two years to Texas Greens.

First of all, just three candidates for office. Libertarians are down as well, but we're not talking about them.

For governor? Delilah Barrios, Second Amendment absolutist, whose muse on this issue is diametrically opposed to her stances on other issues, like national health care. Barrios apparently sees no cognitive dissonance, which means she must be laser-focused on Sameen's stupidity (it is) as a gun nut (he is).

For railroad commissioner? I was not a fan of Green Hunter Crow even before this race; when you're under 30 and already entering perennial candidate territory, that's a good starting point. And, any Green saying gas should be $2 a gallon is a fucking idiot on climate change; that's like writing blank checks. BUT! That's just the starting point. He's ALSO a Texas secessionist! 

Then, for land commissioner? I'd love to give you a link to Alfred Molison. The best I can do is his Twitter; he has no website and not even a Facebook page, unlike our 2014 nutter for governor, Brandon Parmer, who was on Facebook, though but rarely for campaign stuff. And, whether for retweets or his own original tweets, his Twitter has not been used since 2020.

Molison did the best, at 1.6 percent. Makes you wonder how he'd done with an actual online presence. Crow was at an even 1 percent. Barrios was below 0.5 percent, and I hope me calling her out on gunz helped depress the vote.

Greens have one more shot to break 2 percent, in 2024, or it's back to the petition-circulating, signature-gathering drawing board. Two statewide races of prominence: Inflation Warmongering Joe vs. whoever the Rethuglicans nominate, and other third party candidates, in the presidential race, and Havana / Cancun Ted Cruz vs some Rethuglican and other candidates for the Senate. Other than that, it's three state Supreme Court races and three Court of Criminal Appeals seats. And, since Greens, and Libertarians, have been passing up those judicial races more and more? Realistically, it's two races. Really realistically, Greens will need to hope that Democrats nominate a truly crappy ConservaDem to run against Havana Ted, because if it's either Trump the Comeback Kid or DeStan getting the GOP prez nomination, that race will be way too tribal for Texas Greens to hit 2 percent there. (The mind boggles if Hunter Crow turns 30 before that Senate race.)

Note: David Bruce Collins says it's through 2026; I think the state law is "election inclusive," so 2016, 18, 20, 22, 24. Interestingly, Molison "liked" his Twitter response to me.

This is on the state party in another way. If a candidate doesn't have a website and won't create one? You build one. And, you bill the candidate the cost for that, even if it's a cheapie "Google Sites" like Crow's. And, you make a candidate sign an agreement to that end as part of officially being nominated.

I did a search on the GPUS website. Sadly, under its platform page, its subsection on climate change has just one line about a carbon tax, or carbon tax plus carbon tariff. That's re Crow. On Barrios, only three hits, and all of them news releases, about "Second Amendment." On Molinson, since I don't know in detail why he ran, I have no idea if he has any positions at least halfway hinky with GPUS, or issues basically not discussed.

INNNterestingly, per his Twitter, former friend Brains may also be an ex-Green? His profile says only that he's "not a Democrat." BUT? It DOES have the DSA Roseys rose emoji. And, the presumably anarchist blag flag emoji. NO sunflower or other emoji that would be most commonly associated with Greens (I have not seen the four-leaf clover, though green, as Green.)

==

That said, Greens aren't alone. Since the Mises folks took over the Libertarian Party at the national level, many Libertarians have stopped donating, even as a number of state affiliates do battle, even splinter, over whether or not to affiliate with LP National, which in turn is trying to go Xi Jinping on state parties that won't toe the line. Their most recent LP National meeting will shed more light.

The "Gadfly slate" for Texas offices 2022

Unlike other current or former members of Texas Progressives, namely, Kuff, Stace and Brains, I haven't regularly done my set of endorsements. 

And, where I live at now, there's damned little to endorse below statewide races, anyway.

Democraps couldn't challenge Michael Burgess for the House, or Drew Springer for the state Senate, or David Spiller for the state House. Unsurprisingly in this part of the world, there's no Greens running for any of these slots. BUT? Texas Libertarians, who boasted a decade or so ago of having a candidate in every state Senate seat, are also AWOL on both the state races. (Sidebar: I'm wondering when there's going to be some Mises Caucus related showdown within the Texas LP, or TLP vs national.)

That said, here we go. For more info on state races, rather than the Tex-ass Secretary of State, I'll suggest you visit Ballotpedia.

On Congressional District 26? Libertarian Mark Kolls is pretty much in Dan "Taxation is Theft" Behrmann; wants to repeal all laws since 1911. Also claims that it was ONLY by marches, etc., and not marches that led to changes in law, that what we got in civil rights happened. A climate change denialist. In other words, a fucktard. And, a perma-candidate to boot. A clear undervote race.

Governor: Beto hasn't closed the gap enough to get my gun control vote, and his pandering on oil and stuff lost me anyway. (See the pinned post at top right for the Pander Bear stuff.) I'm undervoting the governor's race; see here for my initial mulling of that idea, months ago; Second Amendment absolutist Delilah Barrios, the Green candidate, lost my vote from the start with that. And, she is.

Lite guv? No Green running and Mike Collier is an even bigger pander bear than Beto-Bob. Pass.

Railroad commissioner? Not a fan of Green Hunter Crow even before this race. And, any Green saying gas should be $2 a gallon is a fucking idiot. BUT! That's just the starting point. He's ALSO a Texas secessionist! Luke Warford, the Dem, gets all the basic problems of the RRC correct, but doesn't go beyond that to "climate crisis" and should we even be drilling more at all? He does talk about Texas' "energy leadership," but wind, solar, geothermal and UGH hydrogen are mentioned in neoliberal market value terms.

Comptroller? I used to think Glenn Hegar was the one halfway sane Rethuglican in statewide office, but his antics of the last six months have thoroughly disabused me of that. Dem Janet Dudding may be worth a vote, if for no other reason than talking about how the Comptroller's office could intervene more in environmental issues. She also talks about the Comptroller's role in property taxes, especially vis-a-vis big biz. The Libertarian? Not worth discussion.

Ag Commish? Jeebus Shot Sid Miller did a GOP version of Pander Bear this summer when he suddenly talked about legalizing cannabis.  Susan Hays claims to be the real deal on that. She also talks TDA and rural health. But, for another reason, I won't vote for her. Contra her claim, cannabis IS addictive. That doesn't mean we shouldn't legalize it. It does mean, that for the minority of its users that become addicts, our health system, including our creaky Tex-ass rural health system, needs to be better prepared to help.

Land Commish? Vote Green, vote Alfred Molison to put the party above 2 percent on a statewide race and keep its semi-moribund dying carcass with ballot eligibility for 5 more election cycles, even if it's not deserving. (That said, I'm not going to die if he's below 2 percent.) Jay Kleburg is a ConservaDem former Republican. Sadly, Molison doesn't even have a Hunter Crow-level Google based website. Nor a Facebook. Oh, the independent, Carrie Menger, on gunz in schools and other things, is as much a wingnut as any Rethug. (I don't know if 2nd Amendment absolutist Delilah Barrios wants guns in schools or not.)

AG? Dem Rochelle Mercedes Garza deserves a vote just for not being Paxton. Plus, she favors legalized recreational cannabis. Libertarian Mark Ash is a shade-tree lawyer. Answered no candidate questionnaires. And, a perma-candidate.

Courts? I hate partisan elections for judges, but we have them.

No Greens running for the state Supreme Court. Since we have a bifurcated system here in Tex-ass and the state Supremes are about civil law only, not endorsing any Libertarians. But, if you do want to vote for a Democrat, or against a Rethug, per the Trib, Place 9 is your focus.)

No Libertarians are running for the Court of Criminal Appeals, so move along there, too. (If you do want to vote, one incumbent is unopposed, and one of the other two incumbents isn't necessarily a bad Republican. See here.)

At the same time, note that anything on a candidate info list from the Texas Civil Justice League should be taken with a grain of salt, as it also has a candidate-endorsing PAC, which has for years and years pushed "tort deform."

At the start of next week, I'll discuss those polls at right; feel free to hit them up now.

Judge Pitman just fucked over third-party candidates in Texas

Per the federal lawsuit filed by Texas Libertarians, Texas Greens, and other third parties and independent candidates in 2019, blogged about by me at the time, in depth, here ...

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman officially fucked over the plaintiffs. Summary judgment for Texas Secretary of State (then Ruth Hughs) on all but one item, per the ruling. Via Ballot Access News, and contra the first commenter, allowing petition e-signatures is NOT significant, whether this is the first such ruling or not.

The meat of the ruling starts on page 18 of the 28 page ruling. Pitman says the signature amounts required are not unduly burdensome, first. He then notes Greens have only had to do that once in the past 16 years and not at all since 2002 for Libertarians, therefore claiming, in essence, that this is nugatory. He then says that lesser third parties who were plaintiffs aren't "active," so, in essence, they don't count. 

Starting on page 24, he rejects that the new filing fees are unduly burdensome. He doesn't even wrestle with the issue of minor parties not being convention-nominating parties. Related to that, on 25ff Pitman rejects the idea that the differential ballot access violates the Equal Protection Clause. He says that's because candidates can do the petition route instead. He did allow the e-signatures, yes, but did not strike down the amount required after saying it's not burdensome and insinuating it's nugatory.

As for details of his ruling on e-signatures? The SoS will likely adopt the most restrictive version possible, meaning, we'll be back in court. And, next year's Lege may, with e-sigs being allowed, decide to up the number of signatures required to, say, 1.5 percent or even a full 2 percent. It's got Pitman's blessing, pretty much. Let's also remember that Pitman did nothing about the restrictive time frame for signing such petitions.

And this is why, contra commenter Mark, I don't consider the e-signatures that big of a deal. In my response, I think I said "due process." I meant the Equal Protection Clause. There's no way, unless he was a total hack like Judge Cannon, that Pitman could have ruled any other way on that issue. Everything else, he told the state of Texas to "carry on." So, if it wants to raise signature requirements or something? It will.

Texas roundup: TxDOT cheating, Alex Jones cheating, Three Percenters, Ike Dike

Wylie's Guy Reffert, described as a ringleader of stirring up Jan. 6 insurrectionist, now has his reward. It's seven years in the federal stir. Looks like sentences are getting tougher. Unfortunately, though legally understandable, the judge rejected a terrorism enhancement, and yes, why haven't prosecutors followed that angle before. 

===

The state is being sued for breaking the new Austin I-35 work into segments small enough to try to dodge environmental impact statements. It's by some of the same people who fought the I-45 expansion in Houston, and the story shows just how much TxDOT has used this dodge. This:

The case, filed in U.S. district court, raises larger questions about the federal government’s decision to give TxDOT the authority to approve its own environmental reviews.

is the key, and how it's laughable that the federal government outsources too much work to states. And whose fault is that?

Uh, Dear Leader's, not Shrub Bush and not Trump. Read the words:

In 2012, the Federal Highway Administration, or FHWA — which oversees the construction and maintenance of highways — created a program that would allow state transportation departments to assume federal responsibility to enforce NEPA.

Disgusting.

===

Dan Solomon comments on the lack of free speech implications in the Alex Jones trial. That's because Jones and his attorneys didn't care to pursue First Amendment angles. They DO care to abuse other parts of the legal process, with Jones' parent company filing for bankruptcy last week, and using a part of the bankruptcy code intended for small business.

UPDATE: In a colossal self-own, Jones has now been busted in lies about never using email and not being able to find Sandy Hook info on his smartphone when one of his attorneys accidentally shared some of Jones' cellphone records with attorneys for Sandy Hook people suing Jones for defamation. This of course opens Jones up to perjury charges. It also opens both him AND his attorneys, if they had any inkling that Jones was lying about this, to other legal sanctions or charges.

As for the $45 million punitive damages verdict?

Not only will it likely be legally reduced, but, per Jones' bankruptcy cheating, how much money anybody from Sandy Hook will ever get out of Jones is debatable. Months ago, I blogged that anybody suing Jones needed to ask the judge in the case for an asset freeze order right off the top of the bat, and he's now proven why.

===

The Senate OKed the antienvironmentalist Corps of Engineers to start planning for an Ike Dike that isn't funded yet, but once the Corps has its claws in it, probably will get the bucks, even though it's not only environmentalist but won't do half of what most people think it will do, and even that much is only if it works perfectly. Stuff it on this one, any Houstonians with whom I've argued directly or indirectly. I'm right, and I collected past receipts on this when I called out The Fraud (aka "The Squad") and other allegedly environmentalist House Dems for voting in favor of this a month ago. David Bruce Collins doesn't fully like the Ike Dike but doesn't think it's the end of the world, either. Texas Greens, by webmail and email, as well as Twitter, haven't answered me yet. Maybe they're less environmentalist than even the #GangGreen Sierra Club, which expressed concerns about an Ike Dike when the idea was first broached?

Update? Adding to the fun, the email address cochairs@txgreens.com doesn't work!

I would have searched on the website, but, guess what? The Texas Green Party's website ... doesn't have a search feature. This is 2022, not 2002. Seriously.

Guns, Delilah Barrios and "resisting tyranny" BS

Texas Green Party gubernatorial candidate Delilah Barrios, a Second Amendment absolutist, has this on her platform:

A free people must have the right to bear arms. “Civil Wars happen when the victimized are armed. Genocide happens when they are not.” ― A.E. Samaan

I'm sure it's a sentiment many a Rethuglican would endorse, including for ownership of a deadly AR-15.. Unlikely from a Dem, even a ConservaDem, at least not openly. But an "indigenous" Green? (Sidebar: I'm not here doing blood quantum checks, but is Barrios Hispanic, Indigenous [not the same in my understanding of US ethnic sociology] or whichever one fits the bill at the moment?)

Maybe so. I'll bet former Green, now Libertarian Cynthia McKinney, an African-American, entertains similar ideas, though I'm not hunting. Better things to do in life.

First, I reject absolutism, even on the First Amendment, where I would be closer to that. And, given the starkness of the statement, the fact that it's the ONLY statement about the 2nd Amendment or guns on her platform, her refusal to talk about gun control details (see below) and just who A.E. Samaan is (also see below), I consider this statement, and other things I've seen from her on Twitter, to qualify as Second Amendment absolutism. Also, not a word of praise or comment on the new gun control bill, weak tea as it is?

Second, contra SCOTUS post-Heller, and librul squishes like Laurence Tribe, I continue to affirm that the "corporatist" interpretation of 2A is the correct one.

Third, re "shall not be infringed" nutters, does Barrios want felons to own gunz? The mentally ill? (I take her silence on a direct Twitter question four weeks ago about red flag laws to be opposition. And, after she got butt-hurt over something else this last Sunday, and jumped into an exchange with a "Greens right or wrong" person I asked her twice more, three hours apart, for her stance on red flag laws. Crickets again.)

Here's me referencing the former convo with this tweet, after that "Greens right or wrong" person intervened:

Actually, we WERE having a dialogue here a couple of weeks ago, until I asked you directly, Delilah, your stance on red flag laws and you never answered me.

— TheRealSocraticGadfly (@real_gadfly) June 26, 2022

Then, three hours later, giving her more chance:

To check again, no comment on whether you support .... or oppose ... red flag laws? It was a legit ask 2 weeks ago, as it is today.

— TheRealSocraticGadfly (@real_gadfly) June 27, 2022

Well, there you go. And, no, Barrios, it's not "propping myself up." Gun control is a big issue to me, and your opposition to it is disconcerting. Plus, "Both Parties are Nazis" may not know this. (Or they may, and don't care, for one of several reasons.)

Fourth, is this really true?

There's several problems with the statement. One, it assumes, or seems to, that every society is slouching toward a level of dysfunctionality that will eventually reach civil war or genocide. That comes off as a determinist view of history, which I reject right there.

Second, as Rwanda shows, there can be genocides even when most the mass murderers don't have massive amounts of guns. Much of the Ottoman genocide against Armenians was done at the communal level without massive amount of guns. Yahweh's command to Saul to commit genocide on the Amalekites also shows that.

The real question is, who is A.E. Samaan? By his website, a sort of polymath, even if some of the poly is untrue.

By Goodreads quotes (page three there) someone who appears to lust for violence if citing the guillotine as the cousin of the Second Amendment. Someone who hates socialism in any form. An absolutist on the way he frames MANY actual, or purported, or fabricated, dichotomies, like the one in Barrios' quote.

His full list of Goodreads quotes, starting with page 1, is "interesting." He's also an anti-abortion absolutist, and, in a mastery of psychological projection, comes off as various types of absolutist period, all while claiming to attack absolutisms. If I had to sum him up in one phrase? "Anarcho-libertarian." (On page 2 of the quotes, he specifically identifies as libertarian.)

And, since Barrios says she supports single-payer, here's this tidbit from Samaan:

“Eugenics has always been the escape valve of single payer socialized medicine. Havelock Ellis was writing about them as one and the same prior to the fin-de-siecle. Culling out of control population growth and the economic drain of the incurably sick has always been a part of socialized medicine.”

First, note the absolutist "always." Second, eugenics in medicine has existed without single-payer. The death of King George V immediately comes to mind.

Third? "Resisting tyranny"? Anarcho-libertarianism leaves us even more subject to the tyranny of capitalism.

And, I've wasted enough time.

Man, if that's who Barrios is citing approvingly, I wouldn't touch her or him with a 10-foot pole. Or, to riff on Kinky Friedman, vote for her as dogcatcher of Utopia. This is the primary, but not the only reason when. Her playing footsie with COVID antivaxxers is another.

If Barrios doesn't like being called a "Second Amendment absolutist," it's in her power to change it. If "Greens right or wrong" flunkies don't like her being called that, it's in their power to change that, too.

And, if she doesn't like being associated with the full range of opinions of A.E. Samaan, it's also in her power to change on that.

Libertarians sue Texas again over election law; Greens AWOL

From an edited version of a Libertarian Party of Texas news release:

The Libertarian Party of Texas, along with several individual plaintiffs, represented by Gordon, Arata, Montgomery, Barnett, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, LLC filed suit against the Texas Secretary of State, John B. Scott and Texas Deputy Secretary of State Jose A. Esparaza. The complaint asserts that Section 181.0311 of the Texas Election Code requiring third party candidates to pay a fee, or submit a petition in lieu thereof, in order to be considered for nomination is unconstitutional and infringes on the rights to free speech, free association, and equal protection.

In Texas, filing fees paid by Republican and Democrat candidates are used to offset the cost of primary elections, which are largely paid from the General Fund, utilizing taxpayer dollars. In contrast, ballot-qualified Libertarian Party and Green Party candidates do not participate in primaries, and instead participate in Party-funded nominating conventions. Additionally, fees paid by primary party candidates go to their Parties, while non-primary candidates are required to submit payment to the Secretary of State, thus to the general fund.

“The passage of H.B. 2504 in 2019 began the Texas Legislature's attack on free and fair elections and we are taking the necessary steps to protect voters’ rights. By passing S.B. 2093 this year and continuing their war against competition at the polls, while simultaneously claiming to want real election reform, Republicans and Democrats once again prove they are more than willing to work together so long as it ensures voters only have the two of them to choose between. Electing our representatives is a fundamental practice of liberty and to deny Texas voters a choice at the ballot box is antithetical to representative democracy,” Libertarian Party of Texas Chair Whitney Bilyeu said in conjunction with the filing of the suit.

The state’s claimed legitimate interest in only having candidates who’ve demonstrated a modicum of support appear on the ballot is already met for those applying through a ballot-qualified convention party, Nathan Moxley of the Libertarian Party of Texas said in a news release.

Additionally, third parties may only place one candidate on the ballot for each race, thus eliminating any danger of ballot overcrowding. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and an overturning of this unconstitutional legislation.

OK, my further take.

Given that Bilyeu lives in Harris County, heartland of Texas Greens (the fact that Greens are thin on the ground in Travis County says something both about the Green Party and about environmentalism there), surely some Greens know about this. They may have known when it was filed. It's sad that this isn't a "bipartisan third party" filing. I assume that Greens don't even have a friendly brief of support filed. Of course, as I Tweeted snarkily yesterday, I'm talking about a state party that has had two Tweets in the past month.

The suit is here.

That said, re HB 2504? Living in Drew Springer's district, I'm quite familiar with its ramifications, as well as with the unified Libertarian-Green federal lawsuit over that and related issues, which is part of why I don't like that this one isn't, so far at least, "bipartisan." I also, in relation to my non-snarky snark, and the "two Tweets" (and nothing on the Texas Greens website) blogged a couple of months after the federal suit about the Texas Greens' disorganization at that time, among other things. That old shibboleth/bugaboo of "consensus" (a wrong turn that may or may not be over-extrapolating from the Ten Key Values, which don't mention the idea) continues to bite. I've blogged before about the overinterpretation of the "decentralization" issue. You know who else has required 2/3 supermajorities? The old cloture standard of the U.S. Senate. The Democratic Party on presidential nominations until 1936. In both cases, driven by Southern white racism giving a minority veto power.

Back to the suit itself. It surely will not be heard enough in advance of the March 1 primary date and Libertarian and Green state conventions for candidates of those parties to get judicial relief, if a jury (if jury verdict is being sought) were to rule in favor, and an injunction is unlikely, IMO, given how the state Supreme Court tipped its hand in 2020 re HB 2504 and candidacies then.

Certain Texas Greens could get back on ballot (AND ARE)

A few weeks ago, the Texas Democratic Party got a state appeals court to throw off the ballot three Greens who had refused to pay the extortionate new HB 2504 filing fees. But now, per two updates below, the first an anticipatory and explanatory one, and the second with the actual facts, the Texas Supreme Court has put them back on.

Well, that may have changed, with the Texas Supreme Court ruling against Texas Republicans who made a similar effort against Texas Libertarians, but after the deadline for ballot filings. The ruling was per curiam, with two justices recusing themselves because they have Libertarian opponents Nov. 3.

Contra Kuff, at the end of this piece:

I will say, unless the Libertarians win one of their lawsuits challenging the new statute that mandates a filing fee, which was the basis for all of this legal wrangling, both Rs and Ds will be sure to do this again in 2022, since it is clear that they can knock Libertarians and Greens who don’t pay that fee off the ballot.

Not only are Texas Libertarians in general on the ballot, but Texas Greens who refused to pay filing fees and were cock-blocked by Dems could be back on there themselves, per footnote one in the ruling, which Ballot Access News had referred to, without (weirdly) referencing the actual ruling. I told Kuff this in a comment, including quoting the footnote.

1 This is not to suggest that the court of appeals’ decision to remove the Green Party candidates from the ballot is necessarily beyond review. On September 4, the Attorney General submitted an amicus letter supporting neither party. The Court considered that submission prior to issuing this decision. In its amicus letter, the Attorney General, on behalf of the Secretary of State, represents that “there is still time . . . for the Secretary of State to amend her certification” of the general election ballot. Letter at 8. Thus, there remains the possibility that a party could seek expedited relief in this Court from the court of appeals’ decision to remove Green Party candidates from the ballot.

We'll see if he edits the piece. He probably won't.

I get Kuff being a straight-line party guy, and even a fair bit of a ConservaDem within that. I refuse to accept his past bendings of the truth on some issues, whether by omission or commission.

That said, the Texas Supremes also leave open the idea that in the Dikeman suit, on the main issue, they could rule against the group of Libertarians, like select Greens, who refused to pay the fees. Stay tuned for the appeals court ruling on Dikeman and the inevitable appeal of it.

UPDATE, Sept. 13: Speaking of, the 14th Court of Appeals largely upheld the district court's grant of a TRO in the Dikeman case. Given Footnote 1 from the Supremes above, and the fact that David Bruce Collins et al had indicated that their refusal to pay the fees was based on the district court's Dikeman ruling, as I see it, he, Gruene and Wakely have a good chance of getting back on the ballot. I apparently explained myself to him less than clearly, because he remained doubtful. We'll see if my latest comment shed more light.

And, sadly, as I've said before, the broader federal suit against HB2504 and larger issues won't be heard until next year. 

 

UPDATE, Sept. 15: As I predicted, so the state Supremes have ruled! David Bruce Collins, Kat Gruene and Tom Wakely are back on the ballot.

NOTE: Mainly for the many Greens outside of Texas, but also any inside Tex-ass who think this is a magic button. No. It's ONLY a 2020 ruling. I think. (And, for whatever reason, Richard Winger at Ballot Access News has consistently gotten this wrong from the original state Supremes ruling on, and I'm not the only person to note that he's gotten it wrong.) Well, no, it's an "up to election day every election ruling," per the new update.

UPDATE, Sept. 21: The Supremes' ruling itself is up. Basically, it agrees with what I've said that the Supremes think the law is valid, but, the seven justices go Gov. Strangeabbott in their Jesuitical ruling. They say that Drew Springer didn't say WHEN the fees had to be paid, and THAT is why Greens (and Libertarians, in the earlier ruling) have to be kept on the ballot. It ALSO explains the 14th Appeals Court, in the Dikeman case, removing the "at any time" from the district court's TRO. That, then gets back to the final paragraph in the Supremes' ruling against the Texas GOP, where the high court brings back the "at any time" in another sense, reserving the right to toss any non-fees-paying candidates "at any time."

So, in short, per the Texas Supreme Court? Collins, Gruene and Wakely are "pretend candidates." If any of you all, or Dikeman et al won, Hecht et al would entertain GOP and/or Democratic suits to prevent you from taking office.

That said, it is kind o fun to see Drew Springer getting spanked for not having a date-payable in his bill.

 

Speaking of Springer?

 

Meanwhile, Chuckles Kuffner has officially confirmed himself to be an idiot, from his piece on the ruling.

I had not understood the distinction between mandating that all candidates who compete for the nomination must pay the fee and just mandating that the candidates who actually receive the nomination must pay it.

Uhh, NOMINEES not candidates appears clearly in the first grafs of Springer's bill, HB 2504.

(I)f SCOTX is going to appeal to higher principles in cases like this, which just happen to also align with the desires of the Republican Party, then I’d like to see some evidence that they will err on the side of the voters in a case that doesn’t align with the GOP.

Uhh, the 14th Appeals ruling was in favor of Libertarians and against the GOP. It was partially based on "filed by the GOP too late," but, even if the GOP had filed on time, Hecht et al would have given them the same relief.

 

Try again. Or don't. But, this is all wrong.

NOTE 2: As for that federal suit? While I think the plaintiffs have a puncher's chance on some things, I think they have a snowball's chance in hell on the filing fees.

Fuck the Texas Democratic Party

Kuff gloats over Texas Dems booting three Greens for refusal to pay the new, and sued-over, HB 2504 filing fees. He does note RG Ratcliffe calls it "chickenshit," but Kuff doesn't say WHY he does. Kuff also doesn't discuss the federal suit background, nor the part that it won't actually be heard until next year. Nor does he mention the Dikeman et al state lawsuit, the more specific immediate ground for not paying, nor state Dems' specious claim that because the original injunction issued in that case is on appeal (and what's taking the appellate court so long, Dems?) that it's inoperative.

Here's details of the ruling:

The 14-day temporary restraining order was granted after Democratic Senate candidate MJ Hegar, joined by two national Democratic organizations, argued that her Green Party opponent and a Green candidate opposing Democrat Wendy Davis should not be placed on the ballot because they failed to pay a candidate filing fee as required by a new state law. 

State District Judge Jan Soifer’s order blocked the Texas secretary of state’s office from certifying David Collins, the Green candidate for U.S. Senate, and Tom Wakely, running for the 21st Congressional District, to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. … 

The Green Party acknowledges that its candidates – Collins, Wakely and Katija Gruene for railroad commissioner – did not pay the filing fee or collect the needed number of petition signatures to avoid the fee. … 

A lawsuit by the Libertarian Party and several of its candidates succeeded in winning a temporary injunction blocking the fee in December, but that case is on appeal. Democrats argue that the appeal voided the injunction until a ruling is made. 

The Green Party decided to let the secretary of state’s office determine if the injunction remained valid and its candidates could be certified, Palmer said.

Kat Gruene was separately ballot-blocked. She's the Green Candidate for Railroad Commissioner.

DBC weighs in from his blog. Interestingly, he claims no personal animus at MJ Hegar. Sorry, but if I were running for the Senate as a Green, and not just a Dem, but a former Libertarian and Republican gun nut ConservaDem, hijacked my race, I'd have personal animus.

Kuff doesn't mention the Greens' stance on the issue, either, as noted in the last graf of the pull quote.

Nor does he mention the timing. Last Friday was the last day for ballot challenges.  The Monday before that was the last day to file write-in, per this story. They've been sitting on this since select Greens decided not to pay the fees.

As for the races involved?

Chuckles the Kuffner? Had Greens nominated nobody in the Senate race, I was likely going to undervote that anyway.  Beyond what DBC says about her lack of foreign policy comments, elsewhere, she makes clear that some degree of Zionism gets a blank check from her. Beyond the Intercept piece linked above, Hegar's styling herself as "MJ" rather than "Mary" or "Mary Jennings" is something vaguely offputting to me. Not sure why, but I know that it is. I might have voted Castañeda in the RRC race had Kat Gruene not been running from the start, as she doesn't seem too bad. But now? If Dems succeed in cock-blocking, I'll undervote this race too.

Kuff also has never addressed why Dems have such fear of Greens and Republicans, not just in Texas but nationally, have never had the same degree of fear-mongering about Libertarians, even though they draw even more voters.

I put you on my blogroll in part to cheese Brains. You'll probably go back off soon.

Texas Progressives: Rounding up the nuttery

Plenty of nuttery going around Texas.

A prominent ConservaDem DA going more and more off the rails.

State political magazines talking about a state political climate that, within the two duopoly parties, still doesn't exist.

And, who knows who will vote where, when and how in runoff primaries or the general in November.

With that cheeriness, let's dig in!

Texas politics

ConservaDem Harris County DA Kim Ogg has now become anti-leaks tyrant Kim Ogg. Shock me. Also "shock me" that the two people who talked did so on condition of anonymity.

Texas Monthly recommends "The Pushback" about an allegedly rapidly changing political landscape. Hey, TM, if Biden beats Trump, THEN it's rapidly changing. If ANY Dem wins a statewide race, THEN it's rapidly changing. And NOT before. Gus Bova has more at the Observer, with a more nuaced take, starting with saying it's got "too much Beto."

The Texas Supremes suspended a state appeals court ruling expanding vote by mail. Oral arguments were yesterday. Related: Off the Kuff offers his take on the latest developments in the state lawsuit over voting by mail. Christopher Hooks wonders why Ken Paxton hates vote by mail so much.

Update: A federal district judge has now said coronavirus fears qualify as disability and has opened back up voting by mail expansion. But Rick Hasan, noting how sweeping it is, expects the 5th Circuit to overturn. And a three-judge panel has done a stay; let's see if this becomes permanent.

Grits has a roundup of mostly stupid Texas criminal justice news.

It's nice, and I really mean that without scare quotes, that a blue collar union guy is running for Congress as a Green. That said, no, Hal (name is perfect for the video about to come!), robots will not be the solution to everything. That said, some of the conspiracy thinking ideas there mean you fit well with many, and likely a growing number, of other Greens.



C'mon, didn't you KNOW I was going there?


National

Justin Amash pulled a Jesse Ventura last Friday. Less than a month after announcing an "exploratory committee" for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, he pulled back out. Politicus interruptus. His claimed reasons — political polarization at an all time high, and COVID-related issues — were true three weeks ago, and sound as specious as Ventura's. My thoughts here.

Friendly reminder: If you need Tara Reade's sociopathic-sounding claims against Joe Biden as an excuse or out to not vote for him, beyond older creepiness toward women and FAR beyond his politics, starting with putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court (maybe Anita Hill was too uppity of a woman for him, black or white) you've got a problem.

SocraticGadfly said this year's Democratic vice presidential nomination is the most important since 1944.

Stephen Young highlights that great Obamacare cheerleader, Sen. John Cornyn.

Paradise in Hell turns his Trump Translator Machine on again.

Jeff Balke reminds us that hurricane season is still a thing that happens.


World

Vox reveals the idiocy and grift behind the failed recent coup attempt in Venezuela — with about all the idiocy and grift being Merikan at end.

Texas Progressives have you mesmerized

For yet another week, there's plenty of interesting — good, bad and ugly — news and views in and around the Lone Star State and beyond that caught the eye of Texas Progressives in general and this corner in particular.

So, let's dig in.

Here you are.


Texana

Socratic Gadfly notes that Freedom from Religion Foundation had a lawsuit victory over Gov. Greg Abbott upheld on appeal. As he said at the initial filing, it's a case he wishes both sides could have lost in some way.

Buying a house, but not getting the land? The Observer looks at the big picture on community land trusts, in a longer read. (One thing not mentioned by the Observer: the whole myth of a home as an investment.)

The Observer welcomes Tristan Ahlone as new editor-in-chief. As a long-time reader of High Country News, familiar with his work, I say this is a great add.

Get your art fix online. The Observer has the details.

Angelo State's prez resigned without reason.

The Texas Living Waters Project reminds us that flood planning is still a thing we need to be thinking about.

Early prognostications of this year's Atlantic hurricane season aren't good.


Texas politics

Off the Kuff notes an update to that weird "ghost candidate" story from the HD142 primary.

David Bruce Collins reminds us that the Texas Green Party convention, to be done virtually, is this weekend. Register here.


Criminal justice

Grits has the receipts on "perhaps the junkiest of junk science," forensic hypnosis. When it's worse than bite marks, blood spatter and other Texas forensic pseudoscience, it has to be bad. And it is. And deadly, since we're a death penalty state.

Grits talks about how Abbott has lost round one in his thinly-coronavirus-veiled attack on bail reform.

He also offers an update on his cancer recovery.


National

Bernie wasted no time this time around in starting the sheepdogging.

David Bruce Collins, like me, wonders just how many of the #BernieOrBust folks actually will leave the Dem party Nov. 3. And by "leave," both he and I mean voting Green, not staying home and not voting at all.

Why did Bernie go Bust? Gadfly offers his thoughts, mainly based on Bernie being a bad campaigner.


Global

Turns out baby daddy Julian Assange wasn't quite so isolated, and certainly not so monastic, inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London. And the baby mommy and him have been partners for 9 years, and engaged since 2017, but marriage not on the plate until now. And, if Assange's mom is mad about invasion of privacy, she can tell her kid to start by apologizing for the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.

Texas progressives: The usual sterling idiocy

Beyond the lunacy of too many people in Tex-ass and elsewhere, in Merika and beyond, not taking coronavirus seriously, we've got generalized stupidity floating around out there as well.

Don't be a COVIDIOT. Chillax and read the Roundup instead. Give yourself a laugh, if nothing else, over the GOP's Banana Republic.


Texas politics

Why does the Texas GOP oppose voting by mail as an option for all Texans? Why won't Gov. Abbott and Secretary of State Ruth Hughs respond to Texas counties seeking more detailed elections guidance? Could COVID be a weaponized tool for more voter suppression? (State Dems have now sued over the issue.) I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but Rethuglicans are putting themselves in a bigly bad light. As for claims of vote fraud on mail voting? In Texas, they've mainly happened with nursing home residents, any actual cases, or other senior citizen shut-ins, and been done by Rethuglicans as often as anybody.

Also, why hasn't Abbott tapped the Rainy Day Fund? Or called a special session of the Lege, or done much of anything except be a hypocrite on levels of government control?

That's even as Abbott and Comptroller Glenn Hegar put the squeeze on restaurants, like other businesses, to pay monthly sales taxes on normal deadlines. (Unspoken in all of this, besides the restaurant industry's woes, is state revenue's woes over the oil price collapse.)
Off the Kuff looked at expanded vote by mail possibilities, which became the subject of a lawsuit filed by the TDP later in the week.

David Bruce Collins reports on Green Party district convention news. 2018 left-liberal Democratic gov candidate Tom Wakely is running for Congress as a Green, among other things. DBC says some Greensplaining will be forthcoming from him, sorely needed in a state party that's probably on the low end of state GPs in organization and that has a lot of newbies. In another post, he says SoS (either the obvious or Secretary of Shit / Same old Shit, or the actual) Ruth Hughs continues to oppose online conventions for third parties.

Texana

Kam Franklin tells the origin story for The Suffers.

National

Howie Hawkins is going full Jill Stein, even to the point of offering to stand aside for Bernie. First, Bernie won't do it, even without the commitment agreements he's signed. The fact that he wouldn't attack Biden in the Dem primaries would make him a suspect candidate anyway. And, unless he disavows this, even with the caveats he had on it ... might be time to look for other candidates. He's already got the SPUSA nomination, sooooo ....

World

Denmark is going WELL beyond basic income to "keep most of your current income" even if you lose your job due to COVID.

Texas progressives welcome our potential Green candidate overlords

This corner of the Texas progressives congratulate all Greens running for office, whether provisional based on final rulings on the HB 2504 lawsuit and its injunction about filing fees, or those who will run no matter what. For voters who want to make sure the party keeps ballot access, voting for RRC candidate Kat Gruene, when many Rethugs are already endorsing ConservaDem Castañeda (one of four Doinks in the race) over incumbent Rethug Ryan Sitton means the party can make noise.

And with that, let's dig in.


Texas politics

David Bruce Collins updates us on who all is running as Green candidates for various offices, including himself for U.S. Senate. He does this with a split listing, noting who has, and has not, paid filing fees in light of the lawsuit against HB 2504. That includes noting that his own candidacy is based on whether or not the onerous filing fees of that bill for third-party candidates are finally blocked in court, at least for anybody before Green or Libertarian nominations are made.

Brains takes his 2020 weekly update to the state instead of presidential level this week.

Off the Kuff took a closer look at the Democratic filings for Congress and state offices.

Texas Monthly offers its hot takes on primary filings.

The Trib notes that the plethora of Donkey candidates means a shortage of staffers.

Could the Doinks flip the House side of the Texas Lege? The Trib speculates. My guess is "probably not," but I wouldn't be surprised to see the difference narrowed from the current 83-67 to something like 80-70, which in turn means a Straus (Straus lite) Rethug has a good shot at the speakership. And, it would mean that Abbott, Danny Goeb, and other Rethug wingnuts in the Big House and the Senate would be handcuffed. I'll have more in my own blog post soon.

John Coby salutes Briscoe Cain's primary opponent.

Cities

Sly Turner smoked Tony Buzbee in the Houston mayoral runoff.

Taddy McAllister wants to know what happens to recycling after it's picked up from the curb.

Texana

The Texas Observer turns 65. Founding editor Ronnie Duggar, still alive, reflects on its history.

Nashville is buying Austin City Limits. Sounds like fun.

Texas Monthly pans Brian Kilmeade for his basically all-white (shock me) version of Texas independence.

Dan Solomon informs us that Alex Jones has always known exactly what he is doing.

Downwinders at Risk adds new board members. I hope it stopped the partnership it formed long ago of taking dirty money from the Wyly Brothers.  I remember old Katie Hubener defending that one. Or trying to.

National

In the wake of more nothingness at COP 25, David Bruce Collins asks from Houston how people who really care about climate change continue to vote Democrat rather than the duopoly exit. Reminder: The Paris Accord is little more than Jell-O.

Speaking of, the Observer interviews Katherine Hayhoe. IMO, she's a bit squishy about the severity of climate change, and hasn't made that much of a dent in trying to convince fellow evangelical Christians that even her slightly-squishy level of concern is anything more than socialism, but give it a read, including the spin level. I'll have more.

Trump invited Dallas Jew-hater Robert Jeffress to the White House to fellate his image — at a Hanukkah event no less.

Paradise in Hell fears we are in the Clown Era of world leadership.

World

SocraticGadfly offers a twofer related to world affairs, first saying goodbye to Jeremy Corbyn then calling out Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales for his sliming of Corbyn and other general sliminess.

HB 2504 and lesser third parties in Texas

House Bill 2504, as blogged about by me, greatly lowered the bar for third parties to have statewide party ballot access here in the Pointy Abandoned Object State™.

The real world implications are that the Greens are on the ballot for 2020.

Will they stay on there?

After all, in 2016, Dems cock-blocked Greens on Court of Criminal Appeals Place 5.

And in 2018, they had a statewide CCA race with no Democrat running — and no Green filed.

AND, as I noted in my 2016 post-mortem, the state GP has been kind of struggling, to put it politely. That then said, the 2019 state convention seems to have partially revitalized the party.

On the other hand, per his comment on my 2016 post-mortem, we now no longer have straight-ticket voting in Texas. That means a Dem warm body on a judicial race has less cock-block power.

What if the Greens keep imploding? Or what if either Libertarians or the Dan Patrick / Former Fetus, Forever Fuckwad Jonathan Stickland wing of the GOP aren't Religious Right enough?

Do either the Socialist Party USA or the Constitution Party have a snowball's chance?

Well, maybe a slightly bigger snowball's chance than before. Let's take note that the Constitution Party, along with America's Party of Texas, are plaintiffs in the suit against the state that partially involves HB 2504.

And Dems, if you don't like the bill, go out and fund you some Constitution Party ballot access petition signing. All's fair in love and war, and per Clauswitz, politics is war extended as much as vice versa.

And Republicans, if the Greens implode more? Fund you some Socialists. (Actual Socialists, not DSA Dems.) I'll gladly pull that lever.

In short, to Texas Greens more into party organization than I am? This is a gift. With an expiration date. Candidates must be found for statewide (and lesser) offices in 2020. (Below the state level, if Dems won't primary ConservaDem state Sen. John Whitmire, some Green needs to be there!)

At the same time, this could be affected by national-level events. With Howie Hawkins getting the SPUSA presidential nomination, he's their highest-profile candidate ever. At the same time, in apparent contravention of Green Party rules, he's seeking that nomination as well. And, the more conspiracy-minded don't like his half-right half-wrong stance on All Things Russia and Elections.