Primary will be April 3 with June 15 runoff

Deal reached, now we just wait for court approval and it's a go.

"Notable details of the agreement submitted to the panel are as follows:

February 1, 2012 - New residency deadline for candidates seeking election to the Texas House and Texas Senate.

February 1, 2012, 6:00pm - New deadline of court-ordered reopened filing period, in which candidates for all offices have the opportunity to amend, withdraw or file a new application for the ballot.

February 3, 2012 - New deadline for County Executive Committees to conduct drawing for candidate order on ballot.

April 3, 2012 - Date of the 2012 General Primary Election.

April 14 or April 21, 2012 - Date of County and Senatorial District Conventions, as determined by the State Chair of each political party.

June 5, 2012 - Date of the 2012 General Primary Runoff Election."

Joint Statement from TDP and RPT on Agreement Regarding 2012 General Primary Election :: TexasGOP - Republican Party of Texas:

'via Blog this'

RPT: Update on Redistricting, Wednesday court order

Sent out from the Republican Party of Texas late this afternoon:

"Dear Texas Republican,

In just the past few minutes, we obtained a signed court order from the three-judge federal panel in San Antonio. Here are the latest updates:

* As we reported last night, the new filing period for all candidates from precinct chair to U.S. President has been extended to 6:00 pm on Monday, December 19th.

* First, the Republican Party of Texas and Republican County Chairmen are now accepting ballot applications for all primary races, including those affected by Friday's Supreme Court Ruling (Texas House, Texas Senate and U.S. Congress.)

* Candidates for the 2012 Primary Election who are seeking to run in one of these affected districts whose lines have not been finalized, can submit their application and designate a district number from either the map passed by the Texas Legislature or the map imposed by the three-judge federal panel. Candidates at the county level who are seeking an office with a precinct designation (i.e., County Commissioner, Justice of the Peace, Precinct Chair, etc.) should also file with their intended district number. In all instances, if that district number or map is later changed, you will have the opportunity to amend or withdraw your application.

This workaround has been made possible by further direction from today's ruling. The ruling has stated that once maps are finalized following the Supreme Court hearing in mid-January, there will be a new filing period for all primary ballot races.

During this new filing period:

* Candidates who have already filed may amend their district designation to match the appropriate district designation for their residence.

* Candidates who wish to withdraw their filing, will be entitled to do so. Withdrawn filings will be entitled to a refund of the filing fee.

* New candidate filings will be accepted for all races. Candidates filing by petition should be cautioned that only the signatures from voters who reside in the districted presented in the FINALIZED map can be applied to their required totals. If you choose this method, you should be prepared to either collect additional signatures or to pay the filing fee should your district change.

On Thursday, representatives from the Texas Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Texas will enter a mediation session to discuss the date for the 2012 Primary Election. This issue was not addressed in today's court order, but we hope to have an update for you soon following that meeting.

Thank you for your interest in this process, and for your continued patience. These are certainly the most interesting and complex election administration decisions that any of your Republican Party of Texas staff can ever recall. We will continue to keep you updated as we receive more specific direction.

Familiarity breeds contempt: Thoughts on a bifurcated primary | Empower Texans

Now, there are a lot of opinions popping up about who benefits from what kind of election cycle. There have been those who think a bifurcated primary would be the worst thing that could happen – it lengthens an already exhausting election schedule, it costs the state and local election authorities more money, that kind of thing. Who benefits from such a thing? Some are saying “ideologues” (code for tea party). And this is where I have to vehemently disagree.

Familiarity breeds contempt: Thoughts on a bifurcated primary | Empower Texans:

'via Blog this'

RPT: Update on Redistricting, Tuesday hearing in San Antonio

The following came from the Republican Party of Texas moments ago. Please note - they're saying that firm decisions on primary dates won't come until Thursday, though we should know on Wednesday some time what the filing deadline will be. The RPT and the Texas Democratic Party had agreed today to extend the deadline to Monday, December 19 (meaning ballot draws will have to take place after that time).

---

Update: Tuesday's Redistricting Hearing in San Antonio
Important News Regarding Candidate Filing Deadlines and More

Dear Texas GOP leadership and candidates:

As we wrap up a very long day from today's redistricting hearing in front of the federal panel in San Antonio, we wanted to again keep you informed of the latest news and where we anticipate going from here.

The majority of the issues that were addressed today related to the immediate and pressing issue of candidate filing. Tomorrow, we expect an order from the panel that will ratify the agreement between the two political parties to extend candidate filing through Monday, December 19th for all races and positions on the ballot. We are instructing candidates to file their applications using the intended district number and designation for the office they are seeking.

There is, of course, the difficulty of how to best proceed without finalized maps. We have asked that the panel provide an opportunity for candidates who have already filed to be able to amend or withdraw their filing, should the need arise.

Under this solution, if a candidate files to run in a State Representative district whose number changes from the current map to a different number on a finalized map - the candidate would be able to either amend the designation on their application or be afforded the option of withdrawing their application if they choose not to run. Importantly, we are asking the panel to order that candidates who choose to withdraw their application will also be entitled to a refund of the filing fee, if they choose not to run based on the new district lines. This will apply to all candidates at every level.

If the court ratifies the proposal, this will also provide the opportunity for new candidates to file for a position once its district lines are finalized. In other words, filing will be re-opened once all court redistricting is finalized. In many cases, this will give an opportunity to a candidate who was running for a different position that is no longer an option to them. In other cases, it may open the race up to a newcomer in the contest who was not previously eligible.

We know this solution is imperfect, but like all of you, we are working to come up with the best possible, workable and fair solutions so the panel can get them approved, and we can quickly get focused back on the administration of these important elections. These proposals, if ratified by the panel, will allow for the quickest and most fulfilling method of handling the vast majority of candidate filings now, instead of creating a bigger problem days or weeks closer to the date of the election.

As to determining that date - we want to inform you that all parties will be in mediation on Thursday to discuss how to proceed with the timing of the election beyond the filing period. But again, a note of caution - with the exception of the court's announcement that they would sign an order on Wednesday which extends the deadlines, all other anticipated actions we have discussed are not a certainty until they are submitted to the court and signed. We do anticipate that occurring tomorrow afternoon. As always, we will keep you informed as soon as we have any news to pass along so that you can keep informed in your campaigns and in your community.

We cannot begin to express how grateful we are for your continued patience, and for the support you have shown in this process. If you have any questions that we have not answered or not considered, please let us know. We will be in contact again soon with more updates.

True the Vote Rally will greet Eric Holder on Tuesday

This should be good!

"True the Vote" is holding a rally to greet US Attorney General Eric Holder when he comes to Austin this Tuesday. Info:

LBJ Library
University of Texas Campus
2313 Red River St., Austin 78705

Meet at Visitors' Parking Lot #38


Featured Speakers to include:

Rev. C.L. Bryant, former NAACP Chapter President
Anita Moncrief, former ACORN activist
Christian Adams, former Dept. of Justice Attorney
Catherine Engelbrecht, True the Vote

RSVP & more info

SCOTUS stay and more on redistricting

I wish I'd had a chance to sit down and write up my own full analysis, but this is the holiday season and a few things had to take priority today.  Last night, I found out about the SCOTUS stay while with friends at a Christmas party; I have to say, you know you're in a room full of nerds when the hottest topic of discussion at a Christmas party is the United States Supreme Court (alright, maybe it wasn't the hottest - but still!).

The basics:

1 - The U.S. Supreme Court plans to rule on the constitutionality of the interim maps drawn by the 5th Circuit Court.  The date for the hearing is January 9, so in the meantime, they've issued a stay on those maps (all three - Texas House, Texas Senate, and Congressional).  Which means the lines in place at this moment are the enacted maps.

2 - January 9 is significantly past the filing deadline that has been set for candidates, December 15.  So right now, county parties are being told to only accept applications for candidates in races other than the Texas House, Texas Senate, and Congress.

3 - In his request, AG Abbott also asked SCOTUS to order the primary for Texas House, Texas Senate, and Congress moved to May 22.  There is no official word yet on whether that will happen.

4 - There is a possible hiccup for those candidates who have already filed; depending on what changes are made, if any, applications for the ballot could be null and void, and the candidate may not be able to re-file.  For example:  Candidate A filed for State House District 151 under the interim map, which was State House District 156 in the enacted map.  SCOTUS throws out the interim map entirely, and Candidate A is not eligible for HD 151 (which due to numbering is actually six counties away from him).  Moreover, the lines for HD 156 are changed and Candidate A now actually lives in HD 167, where there is a same-party incumbent he didn't want to challenge.  BIG PROBLEMS.

There are a lot of things up in the air still and a lot more news will probably trickle out as specifics on the filing deadline and the primary date are firmed up.  But a good portion of this won't be settled at all until the Supreme Court meets on January 9.  So if you're following elections, expect a great deal to change; all those state House and Senate incumbents who have not yet filed may yet get in.  There may also be more announcements of retirements, etc. as the days go on.  We really don't know much yet.

Here is some more info:

SCOTUS Blog:  Texas election maps blocked, for now - "The Supreme Court, working late on a Friday, agreed to rule on the constitutionality of three redistricting plans drawn up by a federal court for the two houses of the Texas legislature and its 36-member U.S. House of Representatives delegation, and put those court-ordered maps on hold temporarily. The Court called for expedited briefing, and set a hearing on the cases for Jan. 9 at 1 p.m."

Texas Tribune:  Supreme Court Freezes Texas Elections - "In its request for a stay, the state suggested the congressional and legislative primaries could be delayed from March 6 to May 22. The other primaries — for president, U.S. Senate and so on — will remain in March. The court didn't rule on that request, leaving the primary dates alone for now."

Republican Party of Texas: RPT Chairman Applauds SCOTUS Action on Redistricting - "We are hopeful that the Attorney General and his team will be able to demonstrate to the Court the necessity of throwing out the panel's maps. Further, we hope the Court will either restore the original district lines of the Legislature, or at the very least, make revisions to the district court panel's maps which are more in tune with the legislative intent. We do not have information at this time as to what effect, if any, the Court's stay will have on the filing period or primary dates."

TXRedistricting:  Abbott to ask San Antonio panel for clarification of candidate filing deadlines

OTC Plan B? Looks like a no go

News came this morning that the FDA was seriously considering making the emergency contraceptive drug known as "Plan B One Step" available over-the-counter and without any kind of age requirement for purchase.

Right now, Plan B is available without a prescription to women aged 17 and older.  The company that manufactures and sells the drug, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, went through an application process that was eventually (today) denied by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Sebelius is now coming under heavy fire from "pro-choice" activists as having a political agenda in making this decision.  Sebelius said that Teva's data was not compelling enough to warrant availability to minors without a doctor's supervision.

I want to leave the pro-life/pro-choice argument out of this for the moment, because I don't really think this discussion is about that.  Sebelius is a well-known pro-choice advocate and I can't imagine what "political" thinking could be at play here.  But there is something that didn't seem to enter any of the news stories I read or listened to about this today - it certainly didn't come up during radio call-ins that I heard this morning.

The huge concern here from advocates for OTC Plan B sales is that a woman may find herself in an unprotected situation where she may become pregnant, and this is meant to prevent that.  Making it OTC and available to minors, they argue, prevents more unwanted pregnancies, the same way that other pharmaceutical birth control does.  There's a huge flaw here right off the bat.  Pharmaceutical birth control - "the Pill" - is not currently, in any form, available over-the-counter.  Yaz, Ortho-Cyclen, Loestrin, Mircette, and the many other brand names all have to be prescribed by a physician, no matter the woman's age.  Different combinations of hormones cause different side effects, some rather severe, depending on the woman in question.  Plan B One Step is a simple levonorgestrel-only "super dose" pill, not meant to terminate a pregnancy, just prevent one.  But it's a chemical that can have side effects, and that alone should mean that a minor should have a doctor's supervision - at the very least - before being able to take it.

The other thing, and this the thing that has bothered me all morning, is what making such a "quick fix" available to younger teenagers could mean.  I would think that even those on the opposite side of the political aisle from me would see this one.  What about STD prevention?  We have to assume that if a young woman feels she should take Plan B, she had unprotected sex.  What about all of the other problems she could have because of that?  Exposure to HPV, HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc. could be just as devastating - more so, in some cases - than the possibility of pregnancy.  For it to be as easy as stopping at WalGreens on the way home from a sexual encounter to acquire and use Plan B could easily eliminate the chances that condoms are used, or more regular birth control utilized (including abstinence).  STDs really should be a concern here, because things like HPV can cause cancer - and younger women are more susceptible to it.

Women, and I would argue especially young women, need to be aware of their sexual safety.  Whether this is knowing when and how to say no, exercising self-restraint, or taking the steps to remain healthy if they are going to be sexually active, it is extremely important.  I wouldn't say young men aren't responsible for their actions as well, because they should be.  But both partners should be aware and prepared, in case the other is not, and I don't believe this is a controversial position to have.  Plan B takes away a lot of the imperative to be  safe, even with the higher cost ($50 per dose).  It would be much wiser for anyone, at any age, to be under a doctor's care and getting birth control, or to use condoms regularly and correctly, or to abstain completely.

Plan B is meant for emergencies, and it absolutely should be reserved for that.

Teen pregnancy prevention isn't going to happen easily or overnight, and there are so many things about it that we could talk about.  But I believe it starts with being honest about safety, and having Plan B there as a back-up available without any accountability - telling an adult, being honest with one's doctor, etc - would not do teenage girls any favors.  I believe Secretary Sebelius made the right call today.

The “Caucus of One” seeks a return | Empower Texans

Conservatives have no reason to “miss” Tommy Merritt, the Caucus of One. Rep. Simpson has done a fine job and voters in HD 7 should keep it in mind; standing on principle is the best possible thing a legislator can do to represent all the people.

The “Caucus of One” seeks a return | Empower Texans:

'via Blog this'

Cost of Occupy Austin begins to take a toll | Empower Texans

As of November 19, the Austin Police Department has had to spend about $412,000 on costs related to the Occupy Austin protest. From October 6 up through last Thursday, the city of Austin spent over $35,000 on power washing, custodial labor, security, supplies and outside security services.

And it doesn’t look as though the end is in sight.

Cost of Occupy Austin begins to take a toll | Empower Texans:

'via Blog this'

DOJ threatening Texas' voter ID law

Voter ID was supposed to go into effect for the 2012 election cycle.  Many of you reading this fought hard to get that law passed, and now your efforts may be totally subverted by the Obama Department of Justice.  And yes, it is important that we speak out against the DOJ.

This came over Representative Ken Paxton's "Capitol Steps" email this last week:

Department of Justice Threatens Texas Voter ID Law

During the 82nd Legislative Session, the Texas Legislature passed the Voter ID Bill (Senate Bill 14), which I proudly co-sponsored with many of my colleagues. As a result of this law, which passed the Texas House overwhelmingly with 68% in favor with bi-partisan support, voters will be required to show a form of photo identification when voting beginning in the 2012 election year.

The Texas Voter ID law will require voters to provide one of the following forms of a photo identification in order to vote:

· A driver's license;

· A personal identification card issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS);

· A U.S. military identification card with a photograph;

· A citizenship certificate with a photograph;

· A U.S. passport; or

· A concealed handgun license issued by DPS.


A photo identification card is currently required by the government for many other legal activities including driving, boarding an airplane, receiving a passport, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, obtaining a marriage license, receiving a medical license, checking out a library book, and purchasing certain over-the-counter drugs including ephedrine. In addition, many retailers require showing photo identification when making a credit card purchase so the cashier can make the determination that the credit card has not been stolen. In June 2011, a Rasmussen Poll showed that 75% of likely United States voters believe that voters should be required to show photo identification before being allowed to vote, which demonstrates the substantial support from citizens who are in favor of strong Voter ID laws such, as Senate Bill 14.

However, Texas is subject to the federal Voting Rights Act which requires the U.S. Department of Justice to pre-clear changes to state election law. The U.S. Attorney General has 60 days to consider a completed pre-clearance submission to the Voting Rights Act, which was submitted by the Texas Secretary of State's office on July 25, 2011. As of November 16, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice is still unwilling to grant Texas clearance to implement the Voter ID bill as the department is still searching for voter registration data for Texas voters, which has stalled the implementation of the Voter ID law in Texas.

The U.S. Department of Justice has not objected to similar Voter ID laws in Arizona, Louisiana, Florida, and South Dakota which have jurisdictions that must also face Department of Justice pre-clearance. The state of Indiana's Voter ID law was upheld by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on January 4, 2007. The United States Supreme Court removed an injunction against the Arizona Voter Identification law in 2006 stating "voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust in our government."

The law and prior pre-clearance actions by the U.S. Department of Justice indicate that Texas has sovereignty to adopt election law provisions that promote integrity of the electoral process and eliminate fraudulent voting. Unfortunately, the recent trend in Washington has been to limit a state's ability to govern itself and balance their own budgets, impose additional federal regulations that are detrimental to job creation and economic growth, ignore border security and changes to immigration laws that will encourage legal immigration while stopping organized crime, and now to delaying the implementation of Texas' Voter ID law which will promote election integrity. Washington's recent message is clearly designed to promote the federal government's micromanaging of policies to fit their current political desires instead of allowing Texans to govern Texas in a way that we can be responsive to the needs of our citizens.

Wabbit Season - I mean, RINO Season

In his G-File today, Jonah Goldberg referred to this phase of the primary season, when friends turn on friends, as the the RINO season.  Apt, especially if you've been 1) on Facebook or 2) reading comments sections at Red State, National Review, etc.

The only time I think the term RINO really applies is when you have an elected official, who has an "R" next to their name, who then votes more than 50% of the time with the Democrats.  I certainly think you're a RINO if you run as a Republican and then caucus with Democrats (looking at you, Tommy Merritt).  And I'm as prone as anyone to call out "Republicans" who champion leftist causes - though, because I'm a cynical establishment hack (yeah, I've been called that - and it was this year, as it happens), I'm willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, to a point.

All of that being said, I think it is really difficult to call someone who doesn't have a voting record you can point to a "RINO" and be serious about it.  Something I've really hated about Republican politics over the years is the pockets of Republicans who point fingers and scream "RINO" when their fellow grassroots travelers don't support "their" candidate.  The ones who call you a socialist if you have on a sticker for the "other guy" running for party vice chairman at the state convention, or who flat out don't speak to you for months because you didn't support their platform plank or their candidate for delegate.  Those people seem to be out in force this year, making some of us a little wary of the conventions in the spring/summer.  Who wants to go do the business of the party (and pay the fees, no less) if they have to risk being cornered, shunned, yelled at, belittled, or otherwise made to feel like an outsider if they choose to wear a t-shirt, button, sticker, whatever supporting THEIR candidate for president?

So here's my thing.  If you've blockwalked for a Republican in 101+ degree weather, or 34-degree weather (and everywhere in between), or if you've been cussed at on the phone by a retired teacher when you were phonebanking for a Republican candidate, you're cool with me.  If you've gotten up at the crack of dawn on election day and held a sign and handed out push cards at polling locations, if you've stood for six hours at a booth at some festival and smiled politely at the people who pulled their kids away when they noticed the "Republican" sign on the table, if you've tried to secure a candidate's 4x8 to a barbed wire fence with rotting polls, if you've missed a day of lazing around watching football to blockwalk in October, if you've woken up to find someone drew a swastika over your "W" sticker or torn your Ted Cruz sticker off your truck ----

Oh, I could go on and on.  My point is, if you've done the work, you aren't a RINO in my book even if we do support different Republicans for the presidency, or whatever office is under discussion.  The people I don't want to hear from are the fly-by-night "Republicans" who have grandiose opinions about the party but who don't show up for things, who can't be arsed to blockwalk because it is "beneath" them and don't give $5 to a struggling candidate despite having it in their pockets because they don't want anyone to know they're backing a Republican (gasp!).  And the people I really don't want to hear from right now?  The ones who might not vote in November if the party nominates __________.  Because we ought to have one ultimate goal here, and that's ousting the current regime next November.

I'm not asking you to not support YOUR candidate with everything you've got - but refrain from making enemies of your fellow Republicans on the basis of nothing more than they like someone else for president than they do.