State loses redistricting case; Abbott plans appeal
The outcome of this case was predestined. For months, the D.C. court warned that Texas’s failure to provide Hispanic opportunity districts when there were huge Hispanic population gains could be construed as evidence of intentional discrimination. There was no way a fair court could ignore the facts in the case: that Texas qualified for four new congressional seats due almost entirely to Hispanic growth, and yet the Legislature provided no new Hispanic congressional seats. The same could be said for state House districts.
The failure must be laid entirely at Greg Abbott’s door. It was Abbott who tried to make an end run around the Department of Justice by choosing to take his case to the D.C. district court. It was Abbott who kept insisting that the Texas maps were legal. The D.C. court also sniffed out the shenanigans the state was employing to weaken districts where minorities were concentrated by moving out the most active voters and replacing them with less active voting populations–with the connivance of the Speaker of the House, in CD-23. I am sorry to report that I never had a moment’s doubt that Abbott, and Texas, would lose the case.
This is a permanent black mark on Abbott’s record: guilty of intentional discrimination. That won’t soon be forgotten. It is possible, of course, that the Supreme Court could rule in his favor on appeal, but to do so they would have to ignore the finding of intentional discrimination by the D.C. Court of Appeals, one of the most respected courts in the federal system.
It is going to be interesting to see what Abbott and Perry do next. Will they seek to redistrict in the 2013 session, as there were rumblings they might do? The problem for the Republicans is that they cannot draw maps that don’t betray discriminatory intent. They can redistrict, but they can’t get a court to bless their work.
UPDATE: Several readers have raised the issue that it was unfair of me to claim that Abbott is himself guilty of intentional discrimination and to place the blame for the maps solely at his feet. They are right, which I acknowledge below in the comments. I certainly understand what the attorney general’s role and duties are in moving the maps through the preclearance process and defending them under Section V of the Voting Rights Act. But overall, the ruling from the D.C. court does claim that the maps, as drawn by the state’s leaders and subsequently defended in the D.C. court, discriminated against minority voters, which was my main point.
Tagged: greg abbott, redistricting
retrocon says:
I’d place the blame on the legislature, who no matter which party is in control can never seem to keep a lid on the clawing and grabbing for “favorable territory” by those with the most clout. This methodology for drawing districts results in the monstrosities we are accustomed to. From as far back as I can recall, almost no legislative redistricting plan has survived the courts unscathed.
Reply »
jpt51 says:
While deserved, the black mark is the least significant issue. Someone needs to total Abbott’s legal expenses on his “War on Feds.” Money wasted on these battles could have gone to save teacher jobs this school year or insured thousands of kids without health insurance.
It was a year ago when Perry held his Day of Prayer, claiming to be an Evangelical but doing the bidding for billionaires while taking money away from the kid’s education and health care reflect poorly on the Republican party – more like worshiping false gods if you ask me.
Reply »
FLPD Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:09 am
And this on suing the federal government from the mouth of Susan Combs according to the Dallas Morning News:“I’m tired of the lizard issues. I’m tired of Planned Parenthood. I’m tired of Obamacare,” said Combs, who years ago supported abortion rights.
She also praised Texas for suing the federal government 24 times — over federal health care, environmental regulations, voting rights and other issues.
“Sue baby sue, I want to say let’s just keep suing those guys,” she said.
“By the way, we tort reformers still do like to sue the fed. It’s very different,” Combs said.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
That reads like a story from The Onion.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:12 am
Rick Perry: “Like all of you, I love this country deeply. Thank you all for being here. Indeed, the only thing that you love more is the living Christ.”
Google “Rick Perry hilarious Craigslist adventures.”
HOUSTON — Standing on a stage surrounded by more than 30,000 Christians on Saturday morning, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas called on Jesus Christ to bless and guide the nation’s military and political leaders and “those who cannot see the light in the midst of all the darkness,” in a brief but rousing sermon-style spiritual address at the controversial prayer rally that he sponsored at the same time that he is weighing whether to run for president.
“Lord, you are the source of every good thing,” Mr. Perry said, as he bowed his head, closed his eyes and leaned into a microphone at Reliant Stadium. “You are our only hope and we stand before you today in awe of your power and in gratitude for your blessings, and humility for our sins. Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government, and as a nation we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us and for that we cry out for your forgiveness.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/prayer-rally-draws-thousands-in-houston/
Reply »
Kimmy says:
Abbott is the attorney general. Abbott is the state’s lawyer.
I think you walk a fine line — that needs to be further clarified — when you lay out the blame in Voter ID. You can blame Abbott on botched strategy… and there are two camps on that… but I think your broader comments drift into blaming Abbott for the map itself.
Are you saying Abbott’s shop counseled the Lege during the creation of this map that it was going to be constitutional when it clearly was not? Okay. I haven’t talked to everyone involved, but I presume there were a lot of lawyers involved, including those sitting over under the Dome, who thought this map would work.
Thoughts?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
It was always clear to me that the map involved intentional discrimination. How could the lawyers think that it was OK to ignore 800,000+ Latinos? I guess because Abbott told them he could win. I do think that the House Republicans thought it was a legal map, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Some of these comments reflect the idea that the Lege drew the maps, then — and only then — showed them to Abbott and said, “OK, defend them.” Abbott’s lawyers were in the room the entire time and, apparently, did nothing to curb the illegal behavior.
Reply »
Pri-ista says:
Here’s the reason why John Roberts ruled Obamacare constitutional. Roberts’ real target is this.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
the votes are already lined up, as they should be. Goodbye VRA sec 5, and democrats.
Reply »
Mark says:
Paul,
You are showing your ignorance in saying the attorney general was making an “end run” around the Justice Department. Federal law requires redistricting plans to be submitted to either the DC court or to the Justice Department for preclearance. Justice has no priority over the court, so there was no end run, no matter what you think in your blissful benightedness.
Your comments also reflect your ignorance in another way. You say the attorney general is guilty of intentional discrimination, although the redistricting plans were crafted by the Legislature, not the attorney general. If you want to point a finger, the Legislature should be your target.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:17 am
The typical route is to go to the Justice Department. As we now know too well, going to the court takes a lot more time and money.
Also, the AG’s office consulted with the Lege throughout the process and signed off on the maps. Putting the blame solely on Abbott is probably not fair, but he sure gets to share.
Reply »
JeffCrosbyHasNoBalls Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Wtf Crosby??? Your still around?
Reply »
Jeff Crosby Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 10:15 am
Yes, I am. And, I can still spell.
paulburka Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
I grant you that it is imprecise to say that the AG was guilty of intentional discrimination. But the Court said that the state is guilty of intentional discrimination, and Abbott was certainly denying that there was intentional discrimination (although he had every reason to know how the court felt).
Reply »
Mark Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Paul.
The attorney general is supposed to defend the Legislature’s plan, regardless of whether it has legal shortcomings. It’s not his job to acknowledge imperfections in the plan. That’s the court’s job to determine whether the plan complies with the law.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Breaking News: I don’t know if Burka had already gotten the news about Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (R)’s political future, but according to KRIV-TV Fox 26 Houston, Dewhurst plans on seeking re-election to a 4th term as LG in 2014.
Good luck to the Dew on that one because he’s likely going to have lots of primary challengers from Patterson, Combs (if she makes the jump this time) and Staples.
Reply »
#halftrue says:
“This is a permanent black mark on Abbott’s record: guilty of intentional discrimination. That won’t soon be forgotten.”
Paul, are you referring to voters or members, i.e., the Dems, not forgetting? The latter, for sure, will make it a campaign and session issue as long as humanly possible – and with good reason.
But – and I hate thinking this way – voters are so fickle. The Hispanic population that is most effected by the maps, and could have the most sway in elections, doesn’t turnout. White Dems will continue to be white Dems, but their numbers are dwindling. The conservative base will just claim the fed court was usurping the will of the people (via their elected officials)…
*SIGH*
Reply »
houtopia says:
I think it is important to note that both federal court panels that objected to the maps — in DC and San Antonio — are majority Republican panels. Rosemary Collier, who headed the DC panel, is a George W. Bush appointee, and was openly skeptical of the state’s case during the trial.
In other words, while the Democratic Holder Justice Department pursued the cases, they convinced two GOP-controlled panels to find for them.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Yep.
Reply »
South Texas White Boy says:
This doesn’t really impact anything. Burka doesn’t understand that witg the 2006 VRA standards, the state was required to prove a double negative – that it does not discriminate. In other words, “prove to us that you’re beating your wife.”
I have little doubt that the SCOTUS will take up the case and reverse this on a 5-4 vote and Greg Abbott will be vindicated.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:32 am
I’m going to predict Chief Roberts decision:
“The VRA as implemented in Section 5 holds that a Hispanic who was elected as a Republican does not count as a candidate of choice for minorities. As implemented, then, VRA Section 5 is not a method to assure minority representation but rather minority representation from a particular party. That is an impermissible equal protection violation because it does not apply to all states. Accordingly, we strike down Section 5 and reverse the District Court ruling.”
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:36 am
South Texas White Boy, if the Supreme Court destroys Dr. King’s legacy by killing the Voting Rights Act, you will see one of the biggest minority turnouts in the history of any US presidential election and Obama will win by double digits.
If one of the conservative judges die off, Obama will appoint someone to change the order in the SC.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
The Supreme Court won’t rule on this case before Nov, so quit dreaming, especially when it comes to wishing for the death of one of the conservative justices. Have you no shame, sir?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
They won’t kill the Voting Rights Act before an election.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:38 am
You might read the actual opinion. The court found plenty to suggest discriminatory intent.
They even said the Republican map-drawer was “not credible” when he claimed to have drawn lines without looking at Hispanic numbers. Not credible is legalese for liar.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:41 am
Yeah, they also said that “moving district offices” was evident of racist intent because it didn’t happen to Anglos.
Under that logic they were looking after ol’ Lloyd Doggett!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Isn’t the more likely scenario that SCOTUS declares the VRA unconstitutional, rendering this entire proceeding moot?
Reply »
John Johnson says:
How many people on Abbott’s staff? How many attorneys? How much has been spent on outside attorneys to fight this, and the voter i.d. battles?
Reply »
Blue says:
Oh come on. The courts opinion is absolutely laughable. Using whether district offices had to be moved as evidence of illegal racial animus? Really? Or regarding Republican Hispanic elections as “retrogression” because somehow a Hispanic Republican cannot represent “prefered candidates of choice” (CD23)? Creating out of whole-cloth the notion that retrogression requires the addition of minority districts commensurate with population growth?
The only good news is that the opinion is so ridiculous that it is a good, clean shot for the Robert Court to invalidate Section 5 in its entirety.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Blue, ever since Obama was elected in 2008, there has been states pushing for Voter IDs and other manuevers to block voting to minorities and elderly folks.
I’m predicting that affirmative action will DIE and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 11:36 am
I don’t think they’ll invalidate VRA, only Section 5 on equal protection grounds.
Reply »
Redistricting Insider says:
Blame former President Bush and the Congressional Republicans who extended the Voting Rights Act until 2031. It was Republicans who extended the Section 5 provisions to Texas under a new, difficult standard in 2006.
Respect for the Rule of Law includes those laws passed by Republicans. Greg Abbott will not prevail. The Supremes will apply the principle of constitutional avoidance and decide the case on other grounds.
P.S. Paul, it was the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that issued the decision.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
exactly and thats why republicans have to stop appeasing. Appeal tomSCOTUS who will strike down VRA sec 5 and move on.
Win in Nov and continue to persue the only Atty Gen censured by Congress. Then President Obama can take his rightful place in history as the worst president in history replacing Carter.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Absolutely correct, Redistricting Insider.
In 2006, when (to borrow the words of former Texas State Rep. Fred Hill) “the hoe was in their hands” to “kill the snake” a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican in the White House could easily have ended the VRA completely but, for whatever reason(s) they chose to extend its life.
So, now, six years later, the GOP foolishly complains about the VRA?
Pretty dumb.
Reply »
longleaf says:
Perry’s prayer (under truth serum):
“Father, our fart breaks in the general direction of Obama.”
Reply »
Anonymous says:
2 of the 3 DC circuit court judges are Bush 43 appointees.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
It will be interesting to see the opinion striking down Section 5 of the Voting Rights under the “equal protection grounds” of the 14th Amendment since doing that may require that the SCOTUS ignore the 15th Amendment. The Congress adopted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the specific authority given it by the 15th Amendment to enact legislation to guarantee that voting rights “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Unfortunately for the State, in this case we have two federal courts (in DC and San Antonio) both with a majority of Republican judges ruling in effect that the redistricting bills did just that. Before it could consider an equal protection argument the SCOTUS will have to first revrse that finding. Only then would it be able to consider whether the situation today is such that the VRA is no longer needed.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
The equal protection argument is that Section 5 does not apply to all states.
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I fully understand that, but the problem with that arugment is that The Congress, under the 15th Amendment, found a specific need to adopt Section 5 because certain states, Texas included as of 1975, had a long-standing practice of actions that violated the 15th Amendment. Thus, it was justified in treating them differently than other states. Abbott will have to show that we no longer do that and thus should be treated like everyone else. The sad fact is that two federal courts, with Republican majorities, have found that we still violate the 15th Amendment.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
“Hispanic Opportunity Districts” is the politically correct term for “Districts that will elect a liberal Hispanic Democrat.” Anything else is pure spin.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Or Doggett. He counts as a candidate of choice for Hispanics. But the Hispanic who will be elected in 23 doesn’t.
Complete madness.
Reply »
retrocon Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 8:58 am
Don’t forget Gene Green. Hispanic groups in Houston tried to beat Green for years until they gave up and then started saying he was the Hispanic candidate of choice.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The 2013 Texas Legislature will take up redistricting. There will be about 56 house members who are dems, and 11 dem senate members. Neither chamber will be able to stop Republican redistricting attempts, and no one will be running off to another state this time. So the new 2013 maps will be sent to the new Romney Justice Department, where they will be precleared. Oh, lawsuits will follow, but it isn’t the same thing as preclearance. And no one will touch Section 5. That would be political overkill.
And finally, why would this be a black mark on Abbott? With who? Republican primary voters? Uh huh. Right.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Sure it’s a black mark with Burka. He’s the same guy that thought there was no way in HELL that Cruz could ever beat Dewhurst.
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
The more reasonable thing for the Legislature to do would be to ask the San Antonio federal court to make the interim plans permanent. Texas has done this in the past. This would leave the districts as there will be on the November ballot. The benefit is that it lets the Legislature move on to other important matters. Of course, this assumes that the current State leadership is “reasonable” and that is more than debatable.
Reply »
Blue says:
Here’s the problem with Section 5 in a nutshell:
The ENTIRE Massachusetts Congressional delegation to be white–all nine of them–even though 8 percent of the population is Black and 10 percent is Hispanic.
In New York, 7 out of 27 representatives are black or Hispanic or Asian (26 percent) while the White/Non-Hispanic population of the state is 58 percent.
But because these are non-covered jurisdictions, the writ of DOJ doesn’t extend. As a result, across the entire Northeast, minority voting strength is diminished to elect more Democrats.
If that is allowable in the Northeast then the reverse must be allowable in the South.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Blue, you nailed it. Roberts very explicitly set forth in NW Austin MUD that Section 5 was out-of-date because the congressional findings from the 1960s were moldy. The reality is that modern discrimination is far more invidious, if less overt, than its predecessors. If struck down, the only way you get the proper congressional findings to re-enact Section 5 is with an overwhelmingly Democratic congress and president, and to withstand Court scrutiny a second time.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
You are wrong in suggesting that the Voting Rights Act violates equal protection because it does not apply to all 50 states. While Section 5 for preclearance does apply to only a few, but the protections provided by the law apply to every state. Any state may be sued under the VRA for violating the requirements of the act that a state not discriminate in voting. In fact, there have been a number of law cases brought against non-Section 5 states under the VRA–some of them successful. The Congress, as I noted above, justified treating the Section 5 states differently because they had a clear record of such discrimination.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Right, but that justification is what Roberts attacked in NW Austin MUD. Given the opportunity, the Court’s conservatives are going to make it extremely difficult to re-enact preclearance going forward.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Yes, but non-Section 5 states don’t have to prove they didn’t discriminate. Section 5 states do.
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
August 29th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
True…but the Congress justified that by citing those state’s past history of discrimination…and according to the two sets of federal judges in this case–we still do.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
If the court only strikes down Section 5 we would still be covered under the other sections of the Voting Rights Act. Without preclearnce it will be more difficult, but his would still allow law suits attacking the State’s actions…and based on the decisions by these two Republican majority courts this year…Texas would still probably lose. The only way Texas can escape is for the court to strike down the complete VRA–which it will not do–or for the Congress to repeal it…which even the current GOP bunch might find something they would rather ignore.
Reply »
South Texas White Boy says:
The lines for 2102 will probably be the lines for 2014 and on. The Repubs in the Lege are not going to pass maps that are any less Republican. But by then the preclearance should be dead. This is much ado about nothing.
Reply »
JANET says:
You certainly have a baseless complaint against the attorney general when you say he’s at fault for a redistricting plan that the court found was discriminatory. How many votes did the attorney general cast for the redistricting bill in the Legislature? NONE, BURKA! HE DIDN’T HAVE A VOTE.
You complain that he did his job as required by law by defending the Legislature’s redistricting plan. What should he have done, Burka? SIT BACK AND NOT DONE THE JOB HE’S PAID TO DO?
You imply that the attorney general had a responsibility to publicly recognize the redistricting plan’s failings. But that’s what what the plan’s opponents were doing. Are you suggesting the attorney general pull up a chair and join the opponents?
YOU REALLY NEED TO RETHINK THIS WHOLE ISSUE.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
The Attorney General has the legal responsibility to represent the State of Texas. BUT, that duty does not require him to defend a law which he believes is incorrect or invalid. If Abbott did not agree with what the Legislature did he should have told it so and defended only those portions of the law which he felt were valid. He is not paid to play kamakize in the courts simply becuase the Legislature and the governor passed a law. Under your view, if the Legislature passed a law making it a crime to be a Mormon (which some states did years ago), Abbott would be forced to defend that law in the courts. No one—other than you—would expect him to do so.
Some of us remember when John Hill was told by a judge that he could not oppose a State agency in court for violating the law since he was its attorney. Hill’s response was to move over to the table of the defendant agency, taking on the duty of representing it. At which point, he notified the court that the agency changed it plea to guilty. That was doing his job.
Reply »
JANET says:
I understanf your thinking, WUSRPH, but state law says the attorney general is required to defend all actions in which the state is interested. State law doesn’t give the attorney general the option to walk away from defending the state’s actions.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
The VRA was implemented to allow democrats to keep their foot on Southern States neck’s, it’s time to remove this oppressive democrat tool.
The IRS was implemented to help share the wealth it’s time to remove this oppressive democrat tool.
The EPA was implemented to destroy jobs.
Obama care was simply the “Largest tax increase in history”
It’s time for these oppressive democrat achievements to go and btw democrats are being ushered out also. Yo time is up.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 8:29 am
Now that is a lot of B.S. for one post.
Reply »
Willie James Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Agreed. Total BS.
Reply »
Grandpa Johnson Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 10:42 am
I think my dear friend JBB makes a very compelling argument.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
nixon created the EPA to destroy jobs??
Reply »
donuthin says:
Poor Abbott, he has a horrible client to manage. That would be difficult enough even if he did not have political aspirations. I agree, he is damaged goods, but in the current Texas, who knows where it will lead.
Reply »
Tom says:
From today’s Dallas Morning News:
Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office represented Texas, immediately said he would appeal to the Supreme Court. That he would do so after federal judges found the state’s case so lacking in merit reveals the true intent: a reassessment by the high court and its conservative majority of the entire Voting Rights Act.
The irony is that Texas, in passing a redistricting plan that is now officially declared to be discriminatory, may have effectively made the case against itself. And in doing so, it unintentionally reaffirmed the lasting importance of the Voting Rights Act.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Maureen Dowd: “On the convention floor Tuesday night, Rick Perry told Chuck Todd of NBC News that he would “absolutely” consider running in 2016.”
pretending to be relevant.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
and laying all his bets on romney losing.
Reply »
Willie James says:
Time wounds all heels. This sort of political discrimination(including voter ID) that the GOP does to disenfranchise minorities is short sided and damaging to their party. The GOP is losing tohe one thing that could have saved them: Latinos.
Reply »
South Texas White Boy says:
This panel in DC has a cast of Judges that have been overruled before. One of theses Judges Scalia has particular contempt for and considers unworthy of wearing the robes due to her incompetences and shallowness.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Sorry to highjack this thread. Just wanted to report back to Anita the response I got from Ms. Olige who is director of our state school feeding program.
“Thank you for your inquiry into the concerns expressed through Burka Blog.
The federally funded School Lunch and School Breakfast programs have strict eligibility standards that determine the amount of federal funding a school district receives. It is based solely on the number of lunch or breakfast meals a school serves to children who meet those
eligibility standards. Some schools choose to fund from their own local funding sources any additional costs of providing reduced-price or free meals to more students than meet those eligibility standards. Again, that is a school district’s decision and is not funded by the dollars administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture. TDA ensures that
schools are not reimbursed for any reduced-price or free meals they serve unless the student meets federal eligibility standards and guidance.”
Angela Olige
Chief Administrator
I was told that Weslaco, for instance serves free meals and supplies free school supplies to all there students. Don’t know if this is true or not, but have asked their superintendent via email if this is true, and, if so, who pays for those receiving meals and supplies that do not qualify.
Reply »
anita Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 11:30 am
And so what if the folks of Weslaco want to use local funds to expand these programs — why do you have a problem with that? If I remember correctly, you referred to this as massive fraud or corruption. Seriously? If local taxpayers want to do this, what’s the problem?
Reply »
buy a clue Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 11:49 am
good question anita, I hope you get an answer. but then again gramps has a tendency to see what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
I don’t have a problem with local funding, Anita. I don’t have a problem will 100% of kids getting fed and handed school supplies. I do have a problem with ineligible kids getting in on a program that is funded by federal or state tax dollars. That’s why I asked Mr. Alejandro, the Superintendant in Weslaco, to explain if what I was told was true, and, if so, how the program is funded over and above what the feds/state cover.
Reply »
anita says:
There was a time in our history when we thought discrimination was wrong. Judging from the comments above, apparently now some must think discrimination is acceptable. Remember, if a political subdivision is not discriminating in enacting election procedures, they will be pre-cleared and the enactment will occur. So isn’t the remedy just to not enact discriminatory procedures?
And as I type, I hear that a federal court has blocked Texas’ voter suppression legislation. Why do we race for the Constitutional floor? It’s shameful.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
There was a time when “Sheets” Byrd wore the KKK robes and democrats saw nothing wrong with it.
But republicans changed that mindset and we’ll win once again. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. We will slowly drag the democrats into the 21st century.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
August 30th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
youre right. now you guys are the ones wearing the hoods.
Reply »
hooah! says:
And now the state loses Voter ID. Abbott’s gonna be a busy, busy, boy! Yep, it’s tough keepin’ folks down on the farm and out of the booth.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
The state won’t lose voter Id as it is already the law of the land. SCOTUS will affirm it and void VRA sec 5. All in due time.
The best democrats and Obama can hope for is to try to steal one more before they fade into the mist.
Reply »
South Texas White Boy says:
Anita wants to keep minorities as her slaves on her plantation of white liberal rhetoric. Won’t work they are waking up and no longer want to puppets of the white liberal minority.
And SCOTUS will reverse and reaffirm the Texas Voter ID Voter Integrity law.
Reply »
anita Reply:
August 31st, 2012 at 3:04 pm
This is one of the most bizarre comments I’ve ever seen.
Reply »
SZ in SA says:
South Texas White Boy:
You are delusional. Every action taken by Tx Republicans telegraphs their intent to supress the minority vote and gerrymander minority districts out of existence. People are not blind and not as stupid as you think they are. Voting has not been a priority for many Tx hispanics and African Americans but it will be soon and I am sure minority voters will not be eager to reward Republicans for their conduct.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
There sure have been lots of Hispanics in front of the microphone at the Republican convention. I don’t think the Democrats could muster up the same type of line-up. Think about it.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
August 31st, 2012 at 1:59 pm
have a look out in the crowd at the convention and youll realize that these are probably the only minority delagates there are in the GOP
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Seriously, would you hire Greg Abbott as your attorney with his recent track record? “Yah, I lost all of my last few cases, spent a whole bunch of my client’s money, but what can you do.” Maybe advise your client not to violate the law in the first place. Psssh. Its politics. Do whatever you want. The taxpayers will write a check, and we’ll fill in the amount. What jokers.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Weslaco does feed 100% of their student body a free lunch and breakfast. Here’s how the explain it. Someone want to decipher for me? I’m not as smart as I thought I was. The form of English I was taught did not encourage this type of gibberish.
“Special Assistance Provision 2 is an alternative to standard methods of counting and claiming meals for reimbursement used in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program. (SBP) In the first year or Base Year of Provision 2, applications are distributed to all enrolled students and collected by the Child Nutrition Programs department in the school food authority (SFA). All students are fed lunch and breakfast at no charge. An SFA establishes percentages for numbers of free, reduced‐price and paid students, by campus, by month, for lunch and for breakfast, in the first or Base Year of Provision 2. In subsequent years, only total meal counts are taken for reimbursable meals served. The Base Year percentages for free, reduced‐price and paid students for each campus, for each month,for lunch and breakfast are multiplied times the corresponding total monthly counts of reimbursable meals served, for each campus, for each month, for lunch and breakfast. This calculation will be the basis for reimbursement claims filed in years after the Base Year of Provision 2.”
Reply »
anita Reply:
August 31st, 2012 at 3:13 pm
This is your show, JJ — when are you going to show us the massive fraud and corruption in this program? And as corruption goes, so what if someone gets some extra fish sticks and tater tots?
It’s best to do the research first, then pass judgment.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 31st, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Did I say “massive fraud and corruption”, Anita? I thought I asked the question about how 100% of students in any given school system could qualify for free meals and school supplies. After all, teachers kids, the mayor’s kids, the banker’s kids, etc. are not going to be below the poverty level. I asked the question. I still don’t understand the answers I’ve received. “It’s just a couple of fish sticks” is ok with you. I understand this about you. We simply disagree on almost everything. I just have a gut feeling that you are one of those, like Biden, who wants to give gov freebies to everyone but gives less than 1% of your Income to charitable organizations.
It seems that every federal program is rife with fraud and corruption as are the departments that are supposed to be regulating them. Why should we think that school feeding is any different. Part of Obama’s plan to keep Medicare and Medicade solvent is to curb fraud and waste. Raise your hand if you believe this is going to happen. If there is a way to stop this, why isn’t it being implemented now?
Reply »
buy a clue Reply:
September 1st, 2012 at 8:58 am
Here is your exact quote on the school lunch program that you made without any facts gramps.
There is no accountability. There is no policing.
Fraud is rampant in every giveaway program the
Feds create and run
John Johnson Reply:
September 1st, 2012 at 10:14 am
I stand by my statement. Medicare, Medicaid, Iraq and Afganistan infrastructure funding; Defense Dept. purchases; GSA spending; Fannie/Freddie Mac; Food Stamp program; millions to the Solyndra’s, and, and, and….
I still haven’t gotten all the answers on the school feeding, kid. More to follow after I figure out what the gibberish means.
John Johnson Reply:
September 1st, 2012 at 10:21 am
Another thing…are you just trying to rub my nose in it, or do you actually believe that fraud and corruption is not rampant, and, for the most part, not policed properly in most, if not all, of our federal programs and departments?
This answer is going to help me determine if you are just being hateful, or if you’re also ignorant and allergic to the facts.
anita Reply:
September 1st, 2012 at 10:37 am
Apparently you said it both as “John Johnson” and as “Anonymous” — exactly how many nome de plumes are you commenting under? We may have underestimated you. You do seem to know a little something personally about fraud.
anita Reply:
September 1st, 2012 at 10:46 am
Produce some facts and we can discuss it — until then, if some kids get an extra slice of lunch lady pizza on Friday, no worries on my part.
If you want to see some real fraud, look into outside counsel on Abbott’s unending and unsuccessful political litigation. You could buy every Texan a filet mignon dinner on that. He hires every hack Republican lawyer as outside counsel (Andy Taylor, I’m talking about you) while we pay hundreds of lawyers as state employees. Disgusting.
buy a clue Reply:
September 1st, 2012 at 12:01 pm
gramps, you alleged the federal school lunch program was affected by massive fraud without one lick of data. you got an answer back that said it was local taxpayers that were filling in the gaps to provide 100% coverage. you still allege rampant fraud in this particular school lunch program. Sounds like you won’t accept reality because it doesn’t fit into your ossified mindset.
do you think there is no fraud in state government? do you think there is no fraud in private industry? what is your point about this rambling on and on about fraud? no program should exist if anyone can game the system? what about fraud and dishonesty in the local prosecutors office? i.e. michael morton. should we disband all law enforcement because fraud and corruption exist among cops and prosecutors?
the reason you know about fraud and waste in SS or military spending is because federal investigators are exposing it and fighting it. go take your hate filled rants to JBB’s basement, that’s where you belong.
John Johnson Reply:
September 1st, 2012 at 12:18 pm
I wasn’t using my computer, Anita, and failed to fill in the name slot. If you noticed, I responded as “I “, not “he”. It has happened before and will happen again, I feel certain.
As far as Abbott is concerned, I’ve pounded on him for using private firms to do the job he and his massive staff should be handling. My last post to this affect was just a couple of days ago. You just see what you want to see. Some of us are critical of perceived shortcomings no matter the person or party. No so with you. If they are democrats they are God’s gift and can do know wrong. That’s why your comments don’t hold much water. In some areas, you are just blind to the obvious.
John Johnson Reply:
September 1st, 2012 at 1:58 pm
kid, I got an answer back from the state on how it is supposed to work, not how it is working . I have no idea yet how Weslaco is paying for those not eligible, but will let you know when I know.
As far as my “hate filled rants”, it is the Feds who have a proclivity for squandering hundreds of millions, so that is where my focus is. Dishonestly and ineptitude are not exclusive to federal programs but the level is higher because oversight established to monitor them is inadequate.
Eventually after millions have been stolen, lost or squandered a whistle blower or lucky investigator stumbles over something and reports it, but the few that are prosecuted don’t replace the missing funds, and others just take over where they have left off. Pull your head out, Junior. This isn’t a Repub vs. Dem issue. The Federal government has grown too large and lazy. It needs to be put on a diet.
You can take up for them all you want to, but it won’t change the truth.
Your turn…launch another retort wrapped up in a little ball of hate.
buy a clue Reply:
September 1st, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Ah, John Johnson, the 3rd Hardy Boy is hot on the trail in “The case of the missing fish stick“. Good luck with that. If you get stuck you can always ask Fenton for help.
Hey, weren’t you the 5th Beatle too??
SZ in SA says:
Anonymous says:
There sure have been lots of Hispanics in front of the microphone at the Republican convention. I don’t think the Democrats could muster up the same type of line-up. Think about it.
You are joking right?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
No. No joke. These Hispanics weren’t just delegates, they were very successful politicians and business people. Who could the Democrats put up there with the same bona fidies?
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
A fellow named Julian Castro, the Mayor of one our nation’s largest cities and the keynote speaker at the Dem convention.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
That’s it? One young mayor ?
Reply »
institutionalized Reply:
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Here you go Chuck:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/according-to-chuck-todd-dems-are.html
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Hey, there are some sharp Hispanic democrats on this list, but very few of these are as dynamic or accomplished as those that got up on the stage at the Republican convention. I think a few that you named might vote for Romney. Besides, what’s so special about being an elected rep from a predominately Hispanic district?
Reply »
institutionalized says:
Hey, Anonymous, I think I heard something like that before:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-takes-on-ann-coulter-for-her-our-blacks-are-better-than-their-blacks-comment/
Reply »