By Sandra Cason - The Marshall News Messenger - Friday, February 08, 2008
It's all about water, said Dale Henry, Democratic candidate for Texas Railroad Commission.
"My campaign is important for one reason," Henry said, "and that is because the state of Texas is running out of water. It is an abused natural resource and the Railroad Commission has done nothing about it for the past 106 years."
If he is elected in this, his third bid for the seat, Henry said he will be the first commissioner with hands-on experience in oil and gas exploration, the industry for which the commission provides oversight.
Henry faces Art Hall and Mark Thompson in the March 4 Democratic Primary. If he is the party nominee, Henry will face Republican incumbent Michael Williams in the November general election.
A resident of Lampasas, 50 miles west of Austin, and a graduate of University of Texas, Henry is a retired employee of Schlumber J company, having worked in the oil fields of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf.
"I spent a number of years in research and development and I hold several fracturing patents," Henry said.
"I've been out there and seen it all," he added.
While many people may not stop to think about it that way, Henry pointed out that oil and gas drilling operations have a tremendous impact on ground water.
"Oil and gas activity inherently produces a lot of water," Henry said. "Water is what is used to bring it to the surface, but on its way, the water accumulates contaminated materials."
A common disposal method for the liquid is "to put it back in the ground."
Henry said he learned of a DeBerry preacher whose church hasn't had water in a number of years. "One well was drilled too close to his church and all the wells in the area are contaminated with salt water. You can drill a hundred good ones, but it takes just one bad well to create a whole bunch of problems," Henry said.
Good drilling practices are particularly important at this point in time because so many production companies are now using a horizontal approach.
"There's an area called the Barnett Shale," Henry said. "It is a very thick layer of stone and breaking through it has never made the effort worthwhile until horizontal drilling. That's the key."
In this method, the pipeline goes down for a distance, "turns a corner," and goes under the stone, Henry explained.
This type of drilling uses "millions of gallons of water per day. Sometimes it will be as much as 275,000 gallons," Henry added.
With such large quantities to be disposed of, Henry said it is more important than ever that the Railroad Commission check all drilling permit applications thoroughly, a practice he claims is not currently followed.
"This rubber-stamping has to stop," he said.
Use of environmentally safe drilling practices are especially important to this area because of Caddo Lake, Henry said.
"I've done hands-on work for the Railroad Commission in Caddo — the plugging of abandoned wells. Ninety percent of those I plugged had not be plugged by Railroad Commission rules and regulations the first time around.
"I will make protecting our water a priority for the Texas Railroad Commission," Henry said in a promotional brochure.
"In dry West Texas, the ranchers have to work hard at salvaging water to grow grass with which to feed cattle and produce beef. At the ranch my wife and I have operated for years, we cut the number of production acres needed per cow and calf from 25 acres to 2.5 acres by getting our water to the right place.
"Water's my passion. I know how to do it," Henry said.
"I'm not a politician and I shouldn't have to be involved in this, but the oil and gas companies are polluting our water, soil, and air, and the Railroad Commission simply turns its back and lets it happen.
"Instead of regulating these industries, the three commissioners are raking in campaign contributions from their executives and political action committees and are burying their heads in the sand.
"It's time for change," Henry said. "I need to bring the knowledge I have back to the people, if they'd like me to share it.
"I can do the job. I want the job.
"The petroleum industry is a great benefit to our state's economy, but that should not come at the expense of our environment or our fresh water supply," he said.
Read more in the Marshall News Messenger
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Tx RR Commission Candidate - Dale Henry: Protecting State's Water a Priority
By RANDY ROSS - Longview News-Journal - Friday, February 08, 2008
Protecting the waters of Texas is a priority for Dale Henry.
The 76-year-old Democratic candidate for the Texas Railroad Commission said the production of oil and gas in Texas does not matter if the industry destroys Texas' natural water sources.
"We have to stop wasting and contaminating our water," Henry said.
Henry faces Art Hall of San Antonio and Mark Thompson of Hamilton in the Democratic primary election on March 4.
Henry has more than 40 years of experience working in the oil and natural gas fields in the United States and abroad, according to his campaign Web site. He has a bachelor of science degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.
"I've been hands-on from the top to the bottom," Henry said. "I more or less speak the language of the oilfield."
The Railroad Commission is the state agency that regulates the oil and gas industry, gas utilities, pipeline safety, safety in the liquefied petroleum gas industry and the surface mining of coal. Established by the Legislature in 1891, the commission is the state's oldest regulatory agency, according to the agency's Web site.
The self-described environmentalist from Lampasas is a former city manager and county commissioner. He also founded 4 Arrows, the first cementing service company contracted by the railroad commission.
Henry said his experience in the oil and gas industry make him an ideal candidate for the commission. He said he knows the commission's rules and regulations from working as a contractor, and he would be able to begin working on his first day.
The oil and gas industry has a strong economic impact on the state, he said. That impact has come at a cost to the public, he said.
Henry said the commission has for many years considered the economics of the industry more important than public safety. He said that philosophy has changed in recent years, but it needs to continue to change. He said the commission must consider what is in the public's best interest.
"Environmentally, we have a problem," Henry said.
He said companies often cut corners when installing casing in wells to save money. As time erodes sealing and concrete shifts, water begins flowing and drawing out contaminants.
By forcing companies to install casing properly, Henry said companies would save more money in the long-term by avoiding remedial and repair work.
"These are serious matters," Henry said.
Attempts to reach Republican incumbent Michael Williams for comment were unsuccessful Thursday.
Read more in the Longview News-Journal
Protecting the waters of Texas is a priority for Dale Henry.
The 76-year-old Democratic candidate for the Texas Railroad Commission said the production of oil and gas in Texas does not matter if the industry destroys Texas' natural water sources.
"We have to stop wasting and contaminating our water," Henry said.
Henry faces Art Hall of San Antonio and Mark Thompson of Hamilton in the Democratic primary election on March 4.
Henry has more than 40 years of experience working in the oil and natural gas fields in the United States and abroad, according to his campaign Web site. He has a bachelor of science degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.
"I've been hands-on from the top to the bottom," Henry said. "I more or less speak the language of the oilfield."
The Railroad Commission is the state agency that regulates the oil and gas industry, gas utilities, pipeline safety, safety in the liquefied petroleum gas industry and the surface mining of coal. Established by the Legislature in 1891, the commission is the state's oldest regulatory agency, according to the agency's Web site.
The self-described environmentalist from Lampasas is a former city manager and county commissioner. He also founded 4 Arrows, the first cementing service company contracted by the railroad commission.
Henry said his experience in the oil and gas industry make him an ideal candidate for the commission. He said he knows the commission's rules and regulations from working as a contractor, and he would be able to begin working on his first day.
The oil and gas industry has a strong economic impact on the state, he said. That impact has come at a cost to the public, he said.
Henry said the commission has for many years considered the economics of the industry more important than public safety. He said that philosophy has changed in recent years, but it needs to continue to change. He said the commission must consider what is in the public's best interest.
"Environmentally, we have a problem," Henry said.
He said companies often cut corners when installing casing in wells to save money. As time erodes sealing and concrete shifts, water begins flowing and drawing out contaminants.
By forcing companies to install casing properly, Henry said companies would save more money in the long-term by avoiding remedial and repair work.
"These are serious matters," Henry said.
Attempts to reach Republican incumbent Michael Williams for comment were unsuccessful Thursday.
Read more in the Longview News-Journal
Monday, February 11, 2008
Consumer issues likely to play large role in Texas Railroad Commission race
By R.A. DYER - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Mon, Feb. 11, 2008
AUSTIN -- With North Texas residents feeling the economic pinch -- and home energy prices on the rise -- consumer issues could take center stage in the race for the Texas Railroad Commission.
Agency Chairman Michael Williams, 54, a Republican, is seeking re-election. Three Democrats are also running in their party's March 4 primary: former San Antonio Councilman Art Hall, 37; retired chemical engineer Dale Henry, 76; and Mark Thompson, 48, a mobility specialist for the blind. Thompson lives in Hamilton.
Set against the backdrop of the race are several home heating rate increases authorized by the commission. In at least two major North Texas cases, Williams joined with other commissioners in setting rates higher than the agency's own panel of experts had recommended.
Williams said that while he sometimes disagrees with those experts -- they're administrative law judges, and they conduct hearings and consider evidence in rate proceedings -- he nonetheless strives to reject unwarranted requests by utilities.
"But we can have a difference of opinion with regards to policy questions," he said.
The three Democratic candidates say the commission and Williams are too close to the industry they regulate. Each Democrat lambasted the panel for not doing enough to protect consumers.
"Citizens need to get upset -- they need to write the Texas Railroad Commission and talk to them," Thompson said.
The Texas Railroad Commission, an agency little-understood by the public, regulates the oil and gas industry and is charged with ensuring pipeline safety. It also makes environmental decisions regarding oil wells and authorizes cost-of-service rates for natural gas utilities.
Each of the Democrats gave the commission poor marks when it came to protecting ratepayers.
But it's also clear that not all the Democrats are well-versed on commission responsibilities.
For instance, Thompson has claimed that the agency lacks authority to set municipal rates. "When you think about it, they don't control rates in the cities," he said.
Actually, the commission has great authority over cost-of-service rates charged within cities.
Likewise, Hall stated at one time on his Web site that he would make railroad safety an issue in the race. Despite its name, the Texas Railroad Commission has no authority over railroads.
But Hall also said he has received an earful of complaints from North Texas residents about high utility rates. He described the commission as a "rubber stamp" for industry.
"I think it'll definitely be an issue during the general election," he said.
Henry, the retired petroleum engineer, said, "The Railroad Commission of Texas should not sit idly by as energy companies stick bills for hotel rooms and cases of wine to their ratepayers through cost-of-service rate increases" -- a reference to various luxury items put in a recent rate case by Atmos Energy.
The North Texas utility removed the items after reports appeared in the Star-Telegram.
Henry also said the commissioner has not done enough to ensure that Texans pay only the appropriate commodity price of natural gas and has "not done a credible job in reviewing and approving cost-of-service rate increases for natural gas companies."
A recent analysis by the Star-Telegram found that annual home heating bills are about the same now as they were in 2005, even though the commodity price of natural gas has come down dramatically since two hurricanes disrupted supplies that year.
The reason that bills remain high is related, in part, to repeated cost-of-service increases authorized by the commission.
"They need to keep down rates so that they're more reasonable," Thompson said.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
AUSTIN -- With North Texas residents feeling the economic pinch -- and home energy prices on the rise -- consumer issues could take center stage in the race for the Texas Railroad Commission.
Agency Chairman Michael Williams, 54, a Republican, is seeking re-election. Three Democrats are also running in their party's March 4 primary: former San Antonio Councilman Art Hall, 37; retired chemical engineer Dale Henry, 76; and Mark Thompson, 48, a mobility specialist for the blind. Thompson lives in Hamilton.
Set against the backdrop of the race are several home heating rate increases authorized by the commission. In at least two major North Texas cases, Williams joined with other commissioners in setting rates higher than the agency's own panel of experts had recommended.
Williams said that while he sometimes disagrees with those experts -- they're administrative law judges, and they conduct hearings and consider evidence in rate proceedings -- he nonetheless strives to reject unwarranted requests by utilities.
"But we can have a difference of opinion with regards to policy questions," he said.
The three Democratic candidates say the commission and Williams are too close to the industry they regulate. Each Democrat lambasted the panel for not doing enough to protect consumers.
"Citizens need to get upset -- they need to write the Texas Railroad Commission and talk to them," Thompson said.
The Texas Railroad Commission, an agency little-understood by the public, regulates the oil and gas industry and is charged with ensuring pipeline safety. It also makes environmental decisions regarding oil wells and authorizes cost-of-service rates for natural gas utilities.
Each of the Democrats gave the commission poor marks when it came to protecting ratepayers.
But it's also clear that not all the Democrats are well-versed on commission responsibilities.
For instance, Thompson has claimed that the agency lacks authority to set municipal rates. "When you think about it, they don't control rates in the cities," he said.
Actually, the commission has great authority over cost-of-service rates charged within cities.
Likewise, Hall stated at one time on his Web site that he would make railroad safety an issue in the race. Despite its name, the Texas Railroad Commission has no authority over railroads.
But Hall also said he has received an earful of complaints from North Texas residents about high utility rates. He described the commission as a "rubber stamp" for industry.
"I think it'll definitely be an issue during the general election," he said.
Henry, the retired petroleum engineer, said, "The Railroad Commission of Texas should not sit idly by as energy companies stick bills for hotel rooms and cases of wine to their ratepayers through cost-of-service rate increases" -- a reference to various luxury items put in a recent rate case by Atmos Energy.
The North Texas utility removed the items after reports appeared in the Star-Telegram.
Henry also said the commissioner has not done enough to ensure that Texans pay only the appropriate commodity price of natural gas and has "not done a credible job in reviewing and approving cost-of-service rate increases for natural gas companies."
A recent analysis by the Star-Telegram found that annual home heating bills are about the same now as they were in 2005, even though the commodity price of natural gas has come down dramatically since two hurricanes disrupted supplies that year.
The reason that bills remain high is related, in part, to repeated cost-of-service increases authorized by the commission.
"They need to keep down rates so that they're more reasonable," Thompson said.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Congressman Wexler urges support for Cheney Impeachment Hearings
Text of letters to House members and Chairman Colleagues
By Robert Wexler - Jan. 16, 2008
The following members of Congress have joined as signatories to my letter to Chairman Conyers in support of Cheney Impeachment Hearings:
(*= member of the Judiciary Committee)
Clarke, Yvette D., NY, 11th
Clay, Wm. Lacy, MO, 1st
Cohen, Steve, TN, 9th *
Farr, Sam, CA, 17th
Grijalva, Raúl M., AZ, 7th
Moore, Gwen, WI, 4th
Moran, James P., VA, 8th
Towns, Edolphus, NY, 10th
Wynn, Albert Russell, MD, 4th
Baldwin, Tammy, WI, 2nd *
Capuano, Michael E., MA, 8th
Gutierrez, Luis V., IL, 4th *
Thompson, Mike, CA, 1st
Wexler, Robert, FL, 19th *
(LETTER TO CHAIRMAN CONYERS)
January 16, 2008
John Conyers, Jr., Chairman
House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Conyers:
You have been a tireless champion of providing oversight to an Administration that has run roughshod over our constitution, that operates with s no limits on executive branch authority and one that has repeatedly flouted the investigations and oversight the 110th Congress has tried to provide over the past year. We have the greatest respect for the work you have done and believe that impeachment hearings pertaining to Vice President Cheney are the best way to move that work forward.
Impeachment hearings will allow for the exact kind of oversight that you and the Democratic leadership have provided regarding the actions of the Administration but without the opportunity for the Bush Administration to ignore lawful requests for information, refuse subpoenas and effectively limit its own oversight.
Impeachment hearings can provide the opportunity to cut through the executive privilege defenses and force this Administration to answer a Congress it has clearly chosen to ignore. We know you would agree that as Members of Congress, we can not allow legitimate oversight to be thwarted or such a dangerous precedent to stand.
The charges against the Vice President relate to the core actions of this Administration, its unlawful behavior and its abuse of power. We are concerned with alleged crimes that are central to his duties of Vice-President, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. As you know, the charges against Vice President Cheney include providing Congress and the American people false intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
We trust that you will hold a sober investigation and let the facts determine the outcome as you have as Chairman this past year. We sincerely believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step given what we have seen of this Administration. Chairman Conyers, we are respectfully asking you join us and concerned citizens around the country in supporting impeachment hearings.
Sincerely,
Robert Wexler
(LETTER TO HOUSE MEMBERS)
January 16, 2008
Dear Judiciary Colleague:
Over the recess, I began collecting signatures online from citizens across the country in support of beginning impeachment hearings pertaining to Vice President Cheney. I was shocked by the overwhelming response. In just a few weeks, I have received almost 200,000 signatures. What I have learned is that Congress is way behind the American people on this issue. According to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that the Vice President has abused his power in office, and almost half believe he should be removed from office immediately. Now I am asking you to join me in supporting hearings by signing the attached letter to Chairman Conyers.
As I said in my op-ed with Representatives Luis Gutierrez and Tammy Baldwin in the Philadelphia Enquirer (attached), the issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors as provided in our constitution. You do not have to believe that the case has already been made to support hearings. One of the important functions of hearings would be to put all the evidence on the table and let the facts determine where to go from there.
Chairman Conyers has been a leader in holding this Administration to account for its consistent pattern of ignoring the balance of powers set out by our Founding Fathers and baselessly asserting that it is above the law. I hope that you will sign the attached letter to Chairman Conyers asking that now he join us in support of impeachment hearings as well.
Sincerely,
Robert Wexler
By Robert Wexler - Jan. 16, 2008
The following members of Congress have joined as signatories to my letter to Chairman Conyers in support of Cheney Impeachment Hearings:
(*= member of the Judiciary Committee)
Clarke, Yvette D., NY, 11th
Clay, Wm. Lacy, MO, 1st
Cohen, Steve, TN, 9th *
Farr, Sam, CA, 17th
Grijalva, Raúl M., AZ, 7th
Moore, Gwen, WI, 4th
Moran, James P., VA, 8th
Towns, Edolphus, NY, 10th
Wynn, Albert Russell, MD, 4th
Baldwin, Tammy, WI, 2nd *
Capuano, Michael E., MA, 8th
Gutierrez, Luis V., IL, 4th *
Thompson, Mike, CA, 1st
Wexler, Robert, FL, 19th *
(LETTER TO CHAIRMAN CONYERS)
January 16, 2008
John Conyers, Jr., Chairman
House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Conyers:
You have been a tireless champion of providing oversight to an Administration that has run roughshod over our constitution, that operates with s no limits on executive branch authority and one that has repeatedly flouted the investigations and oversight the 110th Congress has tried to provide over the past year. We have the greatest respect for the work you have done and believe that impeachment hearings pertaining to Vice President Cheney are the best way to move that work forward.
Impeachment hearings will allow for the exact kind of oversight that you and the Democratic leadership have provided regarding the actions of the Administration but without the opportunity for the Bush Administration to ignore lawful requests for information, refuse subpoenas and effectively limit its own oversight.
Impeachment hearings can provide the opportunity to cut through the executive privilege defenses and force this Administration to answer a Congress it has clearly chosen to ignore. We know you would agree that as Members of Congress, we can not allow legitimate oversight to be thwarted or such a dangerous precedent to stand.
The charges against the Vice President relate to the core actions of this Administration, its unlawful behavior and its abuse of power. We are concerned with alleged crimes that are central to his duties of Vice-President, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. As you know, the charges against Vice President Cheney include providing Congress and the American people false intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
We trust that you will hold a sober investigation and let the facts determine the outcome as you have as Chairman this past year. We sincerely believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step given what we have seen of this Administration. Chairman Conyers, we are respectfully asking you join us and concerned citizens around the country in supporting impeachment hearings.
Sincerely,
Robert Wexler
(LETTER TO HOUSE MEMBERS)
January 16, 2008
Dear Judiciary Colleague:
Over the recess, I began collecting signatures online from citizens across the country in support of beginning impeachment hearings pertaining to Vice President Cheney. I was shocked by the overwhelming response. In just a few weeks, I have received almost 200,000 signatures. What I have learned is that Congress is way behind the American people on this issue. According to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that the Vice President has abused his power in office, and almost half believe he should be removed from office immediately. Now I am asking you to join me in supporting hearings by signing the attached letter to Chairman Conyers.
As I said in my op-ed with Representatives Luis Gutierrez and Tammy Baldwin in the Philadelphia Enquirer (attached), the issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors as provided in our constitution. You do not have to believe that the case has already been made to support hearings. One of the important functions of hearings would be to put all the evidence on the table and let the facts determine where to go from there.
Chairman Conyers has been a leader in holding this Administration to account for its consistent pattern of ignoring the balance of powers set out by our Founding Fathers and baselessly asserting that it is above the law. I hope that you will sign the attached letter to Chairman Conyers asking that now he join us in support of impeachment hearings as well.
Sincerely,
Robert Wexler
Friday, January 18, 2008
ACTION ALERT: Tx House Committee on Transportation Public Hearing on role of MPO and Rural Planning Authorities within COGs
Texas House of Represenatives Meeting Notice - Jan. 18, 2008
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMITTEE: Transportation
SUBCOMMITTEE: Planning Authorities
TIME & DATE: 10:00 AM, Wednesday, February 06, 2008
PLACE: E2.012
CHAIR: Rep. Fred Hill
The Subcommittee will meet to consider the following:
Charge #5: Examine the role of metropolitan planning authorities in state law, as well as the creation of rural planning authorities to address the planning needs outside of metropolitan planning organizations but within council of government boundaries.
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMITTEE: Transportation
SUBCOMMITTEE: Planning Authorities
TIME & DATE: 10:00 AM, Wednesday, February 06, 2008
PLACE: E2.012
CHAIR: Rep. Fred Hill
The Subcommittee will meet to consider the following:
Charge #5: Examine the role of metropolitan planning authorities in state law, as well as the creation of rural planning authorities to address the planning needs outside of metropolitan planning organizations but within council of government boundaries.
Hearing on Wendy Davis' Candidacy for Sen. Distict 10 Scheduled Monday, Jan. 23
By Tarrant County Democratic Party - Jan. 18, 2008Hearing on Wendy Davis' Candidacy for Sen. Dist. 10
Scheduled for Monday, January 23rd, 11am
The Firefighters' appeal to Chairman Art Brender's decision to declare Wendy Davis eligible as a candidate in the Senate District 10 Primary will be heard by the Court of Appeals on Monday, January 23rd, at 11am.
The Hearing will take place on the 9th Floor of the Tarrant County Justice Center.
Scheduled for Monday, January 23rd, 11am
The Firefighters' appeal to Chairman Art Brender's decision to declare Wendy Davis eligible as a candidate in the Senate District 10 Primary will be heard by the Court of Appeals on Monday, January 23rd, at 11am.
The Hearing will take place on the 9th Floor of the Tarrant County Justice Center.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Congressman Wexler's call for Cheney Impeachment
Text of Kuchinich's Bill: H RES 333
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to... (Introduced in House)
HRES 333 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 333
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 24, 2007
Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:
(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.
(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.
(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.
(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.
(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.
(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.
(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.
(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.
(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.
(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article II
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:
(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.
(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.
(C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa.
(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.
(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:
(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'.
(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'.
(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article III
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:
(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:
(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.
(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.
(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.
(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:
(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.
(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:
(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.
(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.
(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.
(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.
(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.
(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.
(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.
(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.
(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.
The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Read more and
Sign petition.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
TAKS test date moved from Election Day to another date
January 16, 2008
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESSED:
To resolve the conflict created by having Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) assessments scheduled for March 4, 2008, the same day as primary voting in Texas, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has developed a revised testing calendar. Two changes are being made to the original schedule: first, the TAKS exit level social studies retest is being moved from Friday, March 7, to Monday, March 3; and second, the TAKS tests that were scheduled to be administered from March 4 through March 6 are now scheduled to be administered from March 5 through March 7. As a result of these changes, no test administrations will occur on the day of the primary election, Tuesday, March 4.
This new testing schedule will address the following:
Districts will not be burdened with planning the logistics of serving as testing sites and polling places on the same day and at the same location.
Moving the exit level social studies retest from Friday, March 7, to Monday, March 3, affects the fewest number of students, approximately 10,000 statewide.
Three of the four exit level retests––English language arts, mathematics, and science––will be administered one day later but in the same order as originally scheduled.
The grade 10 English language arts primary and make-up administrations are still separated by one day. The primary administration is now scheduled for March 5, and the make-up is scheduled for March 7.
The Student Success Initiative (SSI) reading administrations are now scheduled for March 5, leaving March 6, 7, and 8 for make-up opportunities.
Out-of-school examinees taking an exit level retest in March will not be negatively affected by this schedule change. Students who have already registered for one or more retests will receive a follow-up letter from Pearson with the revised test administration date(s). Out-of-school examinees who plan to register for the retest onsite and arrive at school on the originally scheduled days will be permitted to take the retest needed.
Attached to this letter are the original and revised test administration schedules for the week of March 3; in addition, TEA will update the 2007–2008 testing calendar on the Student Assessment Division website. Pearson is revising the calendar of events to reflect this schedule change and will post the new calendar as soon as possible.
The Student Assessment Division will work with district testing coordinators on a case-by-case basis if there are problems with testing on either Monday, March 3, or Friday, March 7. Districts should submit a request in writing using the Request for Alternate Dates, Modified Scheduling, and Off-site Testing form located on the TEA website at:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/atoz/Guidelines_and_Procedures_for_Changes_to_Test_Schedule.pdf
I apologize for any inconvenience this change may cause; however, I hope that this schedule change will allow your students to demonstrate their best performance on TAKS. I believe it will also demonstrate to your students and community the importance of voting.
Sincerely,
Robert Scott
Commissioner of Education
Attachment
cc: District testing coordinators
ESC directors
ESC testing coordinators
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESSED:
To resolve the conflict created by having Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) assessments scheduled for March 4, 2008, the same day as primary voting in Texas, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has developed a revised testing calendar. Two changes are being made to the original schedule: first, the TAKS exit level social studies retest is being moved from Friday, March 7, to Monday, March 3; and second, the TAKS tests that were scheduled to be administered from March 4 through March 6 are now scheduled to be administered from March 5 through March 7. As a result of these changes, no test administrations will occur on the day of the primary election, Tuesday, March 4.
This new testing schedule will address the following:
Districts will not be burdened with planning the logistics of serving as testing sites and polling places on the same day and at the same location.
Moving the exit level social studies retest from Friday, March 7, to Monday, March 3, affects the fewest number of students, approximately 10,000 statewide.
Three of the four exit level retests––English language arts, mathematics, and science––will be administered one day later but in the same order as originally scheduled.
The grade 10 English language arts primary and make-up administrations are still separated by one day. The primary administration is now scheduled for March 5, and the make-up is scheduled for March 7.
The Student Success Initiative (SSI) reading administrations are now scheduled for March 5, leaving March 6, 7, and 8 for make-up opportunities.
Out-of-school examinees taking an exit level retest in March will not be negatively affected by this schedule change. Students who have already registered for one or more retests will receive a follow-up letter from Pearson with the revised test administration date(s). Out-of-school examinees who plan to register for the retest onsite and arrive at school on the originally scheduled days will be permitted to take the retest needed.
Attached to this letter are the original and revised test administration schedules for the week of March 3; in addition, TEA will update the 2007–2008 testing calendar on the Student Assessment Division website. Pearson is revising the calendar of events to reflect this schedule change and will post the new calendar as soon as possible.
The Student Assessment Division will work with district testing coordinators on a case-by-case basis if there are problems with testing on either Monday, March 3, or Friday, March 7. Districts should submit a request in writing using the Request for Alternate Dates, Modified Scheduling, and Off-site Testing form located on the TEA website at:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/atoz/Guidelines_and_Procedures_for_Changes_to_Test_Schedule.pdf
I apologize for any inconvenience this change may cause; however, I hope that this schedule change will allow your students to demonstrate their best performance on TAKS. I believe it will also demonstrate to your students and community the importance of voting.
Sincerely,
Robert Scott
Commissioner of Education
Attachment
cc: District testing coordinators
ESC directors
ESC testing coordinators
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Supreme Court Weighs Voter ID Requirements
by Nina Totenberg - NPR - January 9, 2008
Morning Edition, January 9, 2008 · Politics is front and center at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as the justices examine the constitutionality of laws requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Although 24 states have enacted such laws in recent years, Democrats contend that they suppress voter turnout.
Since the fateful 2000 election, Republicans in many states have pushed for voter ID laws to stave off what they see as a major problem: voter fraud through voter impersonation at the polls. But studies have shown the problem does not exist.
Tova Wang, a Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation, co-authored research and filed a federally mandated report on the question.
"We found that although there is fraud in the system, it doesn't take place at the polling place," Wang says.
Royal Masset, a consultant who by his own estimate has been involved in some 5,000 Republican campaigns in Texas, agrees.
"My experience is that in-person voter fraud is nonexistent," he says. "It doesn't happen, and if you really analyze it, it makes no sense because who's going to take the risk of going to jail on something so blatant that maybe changes one vote?"
Voter fraud does exist, say the experts, but in more systematic ways, through ballot box stuffing, voter machine manipulation, registration list manipulation and absentee balloting.
Documents Required to Vote
Still, 24 states have passed some sort of voter ID law. Indiana's is the strictest: It requires anyone voting in person to present a current government photo ID.
If you don't have one, you can vote provisionally at the polls, but you must present the required ID at an appropriate government office within 10 days or your vote will not be counted. People who don't have IDs can get them free from the state, but they must have appropriate documents, such as a certified birth certificate, and other secondary proof.
The Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union went to court seeking to block the law, noting that there is not a single recorded case of voter-impersonation fraud in Indiana's history. A federal appeals court acknowledged that the law poses a heavier burden on groups that tend to vote Democratic — minorities, the poor and the elderly. But, the court said, the burden is slight.
'A Preventative Approach'
In the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Indiana will argue that the law is necessary to promote public confidence in the system.
"There is concern about fraud in the future, so it's a preventative approach that hopefully can maintain the integrity of the voting process," Indiana Attorney General Steven Carter says.
Countering that argument will be lawyer Paul Smith.
"Under the Supreme Court's doctrine, the fundamental right to vote is protected from laws which look like legitimate regulations but don't actually serve any purpose while imposing significant burdens," Smith says.
The devil, Smith contends, is in the details of Indiana's law. He cites, for example, the case of a woman who made three trips to the motor vehicle bureau in a vain attempt to get a free voter ID card. Her problem, even after she obtained her birth certificate, was that it was not in her married name. While the state does provide free voter ID cards, Smith observes, voters incur considerable costs in time and money to secure the documents the state requires as a condition for getting the cards.
'I Should Be Able to Have a Voice'
The League of Women Voters has filed a brief with concrete examples. One of those examples is the case of Kim Tillman of Indianapolis, a stay-at-home wife of a janitor and mother of seven children ages 1 to 11. In order to get the free voter ID card, she had to get her birth certificate from out of state, a process that she said would have cost as much as $50. And that was money she needed for household bills. Not being able to vote, she says, made her feel like she wasn't a citizen.
"I believe that I should be able to have a voice ... to say who I would like governing the state that I live in," Tillman says. "But unfortunately because of the state laws I'm unable to do that."
The state contends that Tillman could have voted if she had gone to the state offices within the 29 days before an election and sworn out an affidavit saying she is indigent, a process she would have to repeat before each election. There is no indigency affidavit provided on Election Day at the polls.
In the most recent mayoral election in Indianapolis, the city documented 34 cases of voters who had voted repeatedly and consistently in past years and whose signatures matched their registrations, but who had to cast provisional votes because they did not have the proper ID. Only two of those 34 voters went back within the required 10-day period after the election with the appropriate ID so their votes would be counted.
Carter, the state attorney general, notes that 34 voters out of 160,000 isn't that many.
"So those who didn't have the proper photo identification was really a miniscule number in this urban county," Carter says.
Voting rights lawyers counter that there were likely many more who just turned around and went home instead of taking the time to vote provisionally. In any event, they contend, even 34 votes, when duplicated in other locations throughout the state, can add up to hundreds, even thousands of votes that could decide a closely contested election.
Continued on NPR
Morning Edition, January 9, 2008 · Politics is front and center at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as the justices examine the constitutionality of laws requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Although 24 states have enacted such laws in recent years, Democrats contend that they suppress voter turnout.
Since the fateful 2000 election, Republicans in many states have pushed for voter ID laws to stave off what they see as a major problem: voter fraud through voter impersonation at the polls. But studies have shown the problem does not exist.
Tova Wang, a Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation, co-authored research and filed a federally mandated report on the question.
"We found that although there is fraud in the system, it doesn't take place at the polling place," Wang says.
Royal Masset, a consultant who by his own estimate has been involved in some 5,000 Republican campaigns in Texas, agrees.
"My experience is that in-person voter fraud is nonexistent," he says. "It doesn't happen, and if you really analyze it, it makes no sense because who's going to take the risk of going to jail on something so blatant that maybe changes one vote?"
Voter fraud does exist, say the experts, but in more systematic ways, through ballot box stuffing, voter machine manipulation, registration list manipulation and absentee balloting.
Documents Required to Vote
Still, 24 states have passed some sort of voter ID law. Indiana's is the strictest: It requires anyone voting in person to present a current government photo ID.
If you don't have one, you can vote provisionally at the polls, but you must present the required ID at an appropriate government office within 10 days or your vote will not be counted. People who don't have IDs can get them free from the state, but they must have appropriate documents, such as a certified birth certificate, and other secondary proof.
The Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union went to court seeking to block the law, noting that there is not a single recorded case of voter-impersonation fraud in Indiana's history. A federal appeals court acknowledged that the law poses a heavier burden on groups that tend to vote Democratic — minorities, the poor and the elderly. But, the court said, the burden is slight.
'A Preventative Approach'
In the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Indiana will argue that the law is necessary to promote public confidence in the system.
"There is concern about fraud in the future, so it's a preventative approach that hopefully can maintain the integrity of the voting process," Indiana Attorney General Steven Carter says.
Countering that argument will be lawyer Paul Smith.
"Under the Supreme Court's doctrine, the fundamental right to vote is protected from laws which look like legitimate regulations but don't actually serve any purpose while imposing significant burdens," Smith says.
The devil, Smith contends, is in the details of Indiana's law. He cites, for example, the case of a woman who made three trips to the motor vehicle bureau in a vain attempt to get a free voter ID card. Her problem, even after she obtained her birth certificate, was that it was not in her married name. While the state does provide free voter ID cards, Smith observes, voters incur considerable costs in time and money to secure the documents the state requires as a condition for getting the cards.
'I Should Be Able to Have a Voice'
The League of Women Voters has filed a brief with concrete examples. One of those examples is the case of Kim Tillman of Indianapolis, a stay-at-home wife of a janitor and mother of seven children ages 1 to 11. In order to get the free voter ID card, she had to get her birth certificate from out of state, a process that she said would have cost as much as $50. And that was money she needed for household bills. Not being able to vote, she says, made her feel like she wasn't a citizen.
"I believe that I should be able to have a voice ... to say who I would like governing the state that I live in," Tillman says. "But unfortunately because of the state laws I'm unable to do that."
The state contends that Tillman could have voted if she had gone to the state offices within the 29 days before an election and sworn out an affidavit saying she is indigent, a process she would have to repeat before each election. There is no indigency affidavit provided on Election Day at the polls.
In the most recent mayoral election in Indianapolis, the city documented 34 cases of voters who had voted repeatedly and consistently in past years and whose signatures matched their registrations, but who had to cast provisional votes because they did not have the proper ID. Only two of those 34 voters went back within the required 10-day period after the election with the appropriate ID so their votes would be counted.
Carter, the state attorney general, notes that 34 voters out of 160,000 isn't that many.
"So those who didn't have the proper photo identification was really a miniscule number in this urban county," Carter says.
Voting rights lawyers counter that there were likely many more who just turned around and went home instead of taking the time to vote provisionally. In any event, they contend, even 34 votes, when duplicated in other locations throughout the state, can add up to hundreds, even thousands of votes that could decide a closely contested election.
Continued on NPR
Justices Indicate They May Uphold Voter ID Rules
By LINDA GREENHOUSE - The New York Times - January 10, 2008
WASHINGTON — There are many ways to lose a Supreme Court case, and by the end of an argument that was before the court on Wednesday, the Democrats who were challenging Indiana’s voter-identification law appeared poised to lose theirs in a potentially sweeping way, with implications for many future election cases.
The justices’ questioning indicated that a majority did not accept the challengers’ basic argument — that voter-impersonation fraud is not a problem, so requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.
The tenor of the argument suggested, however, that rather than simply decide the case in favor of the state, a majority of five justices would go further and rule that the challenge to the statute, the strictest voter-identification law in the country, was improperly brought in the first place. Such a ruling could make it much more difficult to challenge any new state election regulations before they go into effect.
The Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the 2005 law before it went into effect, seeking a declaration that it was unconstitutional on its face and could not be enforced even against the majority of Indiana voters who could easily produce the required photo ID. Such an approach, known as a “facial challenge,” is the standard way of attacking election regulations like the poll taxes that the Supreme Court struck down in the 1960s and more recent redistricting and ballot-access cases.
But the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has displayed deep skepticism toward such challenges, most notably on the subject of abortion, on the grounds that they require courts to step outside a limited role of resolving concrete disputes brought by parties with actual injuries.
“You seem to accept that a facial challenge is appropriate here,” Justice Antonin Scalia said with evident disapproval to Thomas M. Fisher, the Indiana solicitor general, who was defending a lower court’s judgment that the law was constitutional.
Indiana, in fact, had not objected to the form in which the case was brought. That argument was introduced by the Bush administration, which entered the case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, after the Supreme Court agreed in September to hear it. In the administration’s brief, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the justices to uphold “principles of judicial restraint” by rejecting the facial challenge.
Joining Mr. Fisher in arguing for the state on Wednesday, Mr. Clement said the court should wait for a case to be brought by someone who was actually barred by the statute from casting a ballot. Such a lawsuit “could focus like a laser beam” on particular problems, Mr. Clement said, adding that if such a case were successful, it would have the virtue of producing a remedy that solved the problem without invalidating the entire law.
Justice David H. Souter countered, “That would be a virtue, but one of the vices would be that it would be after the election, and the entire matter would be academic for another two years.”
Justice Ginsburg’s subtle but unmistakable allusion was to the partisan context in which voter identification laws, recently adopted by a handful of Republican-dominated states, are being debated. Democrats charge that the true purpose of the laws is to deter participation by some predictably Democratic voters, particularly poor people and members of minority groups who are less likely than others to have driver’s licenses or passports.
The Bush administration has raised the suspicions of Democrats by making what they call “voter fraud” a priority for Justice Department enforcement. No prosecution for impersonating a registered voter, the type of fraud that would be prevented by a photo requirement, has ever been brought, however.
“No one has been punished for this kind of fraud in living memory in this country,” Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer arguing for the Democrats, told the justices.
In his opinion last year upholding the Indiana law, Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the Democratic plaintiffs that the law would fall more heavily on Democrats than on Republicans. But that did not make the statute unconstitutional, he said.
On Wednesday, discussion of the law’s justification, and of the extent of the burden it placed on voters, was inconclusive. Mr. Fisher, Indiana’s lawyer, said that because photo identification was “necessary to do so many everyday activities,” the number of those affected was “infinitesimal.” Mr. Smith said the number was more likely in the hundreds of thousands.
Under the Indiana law, voters who are turned away for lack of identification may cast provisional ballots, which are counted only if the voter travels to the county clerk’s office within 10 days to show the required identification or sign a sworn statement that he cannot afford to obtain such an identification. The plaintiffs have argued that this extra step and required travel create an unnecessary burden that other states with identification requirements do not impose; those states do not require voters to make a second trip in order to have a provisional counted.
Chief Justice Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, did not seem to find the burden excessive. “County seats aren’t very far for people in Indiana,” he said.
Mr. Smith replied that the county seat in Lake County was a 17-mile bus ride from the county’s urban center of Gary. “If you’re indigent, that’s a significant burden,” he said. The chief justice also seemed unimpressed by the absence of known voter impersonators. “It’s a type of fraud that, because it’s fraud, it’s hard to detect,” he said to Mr. Smith.
Justice Scalia interrupted the debate over the law’s impact in order to frame his argument against facial challenges.
“I should hope not,” the Indiana solicitor general replied.
Read more in the New York Times
WASHINGTON — There are many ways to lose a Supreme Court case, and by the end of an argument that was before the court on Wednesday, the Democrats who were challenging Indiana’s voter-identification law appeared poised to lose theirs in a potentially sweeping way, with implications for many future election cases.
The justices’ questioning indicated that a majority did not accept the challengers’ basic argument — that voter-impersonation fraud is not a problem, so requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.
The tenor of the argument suggested, however, that rather than simply decide the case in favor of the state, a majority of five justices would go further and rule that the challenge to the statute, the strictest voter-identification law in the country, was improperly brought in the first place. Such a ruling could make it much more difficult to challenge any new state election regulations before they go into effect.
The Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the 2005 law before it went into effect, seeking a declaration that it was unconstitutional on its face and could not be enforced even against the majority of Indiana voters who could easily produce the required photo ID. Such an approach, known as a “facial challenge,” is the standard way of attacking election regulations like the poll taxes that the Supreme Court struck down in the 1960s and more recent redistricting and ballot-access cases.
But the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has displayed deep skepticism toward such challenges, most notably on the subject of abortion, on the grounds that they require courts to step outside a limited role of resolving concrete disputes brought by parties with actual injuries.
“You seem to accept that a facial challenge is appropriate here,” Justice Antonin Scalia said with evident disapproval to Thomas M. Fisher, the Indiana solicitor general, who was defending a lower court’s judgment that the law was constitutional.
Indiana, in fact, had not objected to the form in which the case was brought. That argument was introduced by the Bush administration, which entered the case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, after the Supreme Court agreed in September to hear it. In the administration’s brief, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the justices to uphold “principles of judicial restraint” by rejecting the facial challenge.
Joining Mr. Fisher in arguing for the state on Wednesday, Mr. Clement said the court should wait for a case to be brought by someone who was actually barred by the statute from casting a ballot. Such a lawsuit “could focus like a laser beam” on particular problems, Mr. Clement said, adding that if such a case were successful, it would have the virtue of producing a remedy that solved the problem without invalidating the entire law.
Justice David H. Souter countered, “That would be a virtue, but one of the vices would be that it would be after the election, and the entire matter would be academic for another two years.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg raised a similar objection. “The reason they are bringing a facial challenge is because the horse is going to be out of the barn,” she said. “They will have the election, and just what they are afraid of could happen — that the result will be skewed in favor of the opposite party.”
Justice Ginsburg’s subtle but unmistakable allusion was to the partisan context in which voter identification laws, recently adopted by a handful of Republican-dominated states, are being debated. Democrats charge that the true purpose of the laws is to deter participation by some predictably Democratic voters, particularly poor people and members of minority groups who are less likely than others to have driver’s licenses or passports.
The Bush administration has raised the suspicions of Democrats by making what they call “voter fraud” a priority for Justice Department enforcement. No prosecution for impersonating a registered voter, the type of fraud that would be prevented by a photo requirement, has ever been brought, however.
“No one has been punished for this kind of fraud in living memory in this country,” Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer arguing for the Democrats, told the justices.
In his opinion last year upholding the Indiana law, Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the Democratic plaintiffs that the law would fall more heavily on Democrats than on Republicans. But that did not make the statute unconstitutional, he said.
On Wednesday, discussion of the law’s justification, and of the extent of the burden it placed on voters, was inconclusive. Mr. Fisher, Indiana’s lawyer, said that because photo identification was “necessary to do so many everyday activities,” the number of those affected was “infinitesimal.” Mr. Smith said the number was more likely in the hundreds of thousands.
Under the Indiana law, voters who are turned away for lack of identification may cast provisional ballots, which are counted only if the voter travels to the county clerk’s office within 10 days to show the required identification or sign a sworn statement that he cannot afford to obtain such an identification. The plaintiffs have argued that this extra step and required travel create an unnecessary burden that other states with identification requirements do not impose; those states do not require voters to make a second trip in order to have a provisional counted.
Chief Justice Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, did not seem to find the burden excessive. “County seats aren’t very far for people in Indiana,” he said.
Mr. Smith replied that the county seat in Lake County was a 17-mile bus ride from the county’s urban center of Gary. “If you’re indigent, that’s a significant burden,” he said. The chief justice also seemed unimpressed by the absence of known voter impersonators. “It’s a type of fraud that, because it’s fraud, it’s hard to detect,” he said to Mr. Smith.
Justice Scalia interrupted the debate over the law’s impact in order to frame his argument against facial challenges.
“Why are we arguing about whether there is one-half of one percent of the electorate who may be adversely affected and as to whom it might be unconstitutional?” he asked Mr. Fisher, adding: “This court is sitting back and looking at the ceiling and saying, oh, we can envision not the case before us, but other cases. Maybe it’s one-half of one percent or maybe it’s 45 percent, who knows. But we can imagine cases in which this law could be unconstitutional, and therefore, the whole law is unconstitutional. That’s not ordinarily the way courts behave, is it?”
“I should hope not,” the Indiana solicitor general replied.
Read more in the New York Times
Thursday, January 03, 2008
March 4 primary field is set
By JOHN MORITZ - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Jan. 3, 2008
AUSTIN -- Texas Republicans will head into the March 4 primaries with a field of battle-tested incumbents in nearly all of the statewide races up for contention while the Democrats will hitch their fortunes to a slate of candidates still struggling to gain broad name recognition.
The deadline was Wednesday evening for entering the primaries for selecting the major-party nominees for several statewide offices, including one U.S. senator, one of the three places on the Texas Railroad Commission, three of the nine seats on the state Supreme Court and three of the nine Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seats.
All of those statewide posts carry six-year terms.
It was also the deadline for the presidential candidates in both parties to have their names included on the Texas primary ballot.
Here's a look at the field:
U.S. senator
Incumbent Republican John Cornyn is seeking a second term. He's a former Texas attorney general, state Supreme Court justice and state district judge from San Antonio. Also running is Larry Kilgore of Mansfield, a longtime activist in the anti-abortion movement who two years ago was defeated in the GOP primary for governor and two years before that lost a bid for a state House seat.
On the Democratic side, state Rep. Rick Noriega of Houston, who served in Afghanistan and along the Texas-Mexico border as an Army National Guard officer, has the support of much of the party establishment. Corpus Christi schoolteacher Ray McMurrey will also be on the ballot. Rounding out the field are retired Army officer and perennial candidate Gene Kelly, and Rhett Smith, who two years ago ran for governor as a Republican.
Railroad commissioner
Michael Williams, a Republican who has served on the panel that oversees the energy industry and sets rates for natural gas service, is seeking his second full term. He will be unopposed in the primary.
The Democrats in the race are former San Antonio City Councilman Art Hall; Dale Henry, a former Mills County commissioner who lost a bid for a Railroad Commission seat as a Democrat in 2006 and as a Republican in 2004; and mobility specialist Mark Thompson of Hamilton.
Texas Supreme Court
Republican Wallace Jefferson, who has served on the state's highest civil court since 2001 and as its chief justice since 2004, will seek re-election to the top post without a primary opponent.
State District Judge Jim Jordan of Dallas is the only Democrat in the race for chief justice.
In Place 7, Republican Dale Wainwright will be unopposed in the primary for a second term. Two Democrats -- Houston lawyer Sam Houston and Dallas lawyer Baltasar Cruz -- will face off.
In Place 8, Republican incumbent Phil Johnson, who was appointed in 2005 to fill an unexpired term, will seek his first full term. No one has filed to oppose him in the primary. Democrats Linda Reyna Yañez, a judge on the 13th Court of Appeals in Hidalgo County, and state district Judge Susan Criss of Galveston are seeking the Democratic nomination.
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
The incumbent Republicans judges on the state's top criminal court -- Tom Price, Cathy Cochran and Paul Womack -- will also seek re-election. State District Judge Robert Francis of Dallas will challenge Womack in Place 4.
Democrat Susan Strawn of Houston is running unopposed for Place 3 and El Paso lawyer J.R. Molina is running unopposed in Place 4.
Presidential primaries
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and novice candidates Hoa Tran and Hugh Cort will be on the GOP ballot.
On the Democratic side are Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.
Dennis Kucinich did not qualify for the Democratic primary because he did not check the box on the filing paperwork pledging to support the party's nominee for president, Texas Democratic spokeswoman Amber Moon said. Mike Gravel did not file for the primary.
Of note
At least eight Republicans will compete for the right to challenge U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson for the suburban Houston congressional seat that was vacated in 2006 by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Online: www.texasgop.org; www.txdemocrats.org
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
AUSTIN -- Texas Republicans will head into the March 4 primaries with a field of battle-tested incumbents in nearly all of the statewide races up for contention while the Democrats will hitch their fortunes to a slate of candidates still struggling to gain broad name recognition.
The deadline was Wednesday evening for entering the primaries for selecting the major-party nominees for several statewide offices, including one U.S. senator, one of the three places on the Texas Railroad Commission, three of the nine seats on the state Supreme Court and three of the nine Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seats.
All of those statewide posts carry six-year terms.
It was also the deadline for the presidential candidates in both parties to have their names included on the Texas primary ballot.
Here's a look at the field:
U.S. senator
Incumbent Republican John Cornyn is seeking a second term. He's a former Texas attorney general, state Supreme Court justice and state district judge from San Antonio. Also running is Larry Kilgore of Mansfield, a longtime activist in the anti-abortion movement who two years ago was defeated in the GOP primary for governor and two years before that lost a bid for a state House seat.
On the Democratic side, state Rep. Rick Noriega of Houston, who served in Afghanistan and along the Texas-Mexico border as an Army National Guard officer, has the support of much of the party establishment. Corpus Christi schoolteacher Ray McMurrey will also be on the ballot. Rounding out the field are retired Army officer and perennial candidate Gene Kelly, and Rhett Smith, who two years ago ran for governor as a Republican.
Railroad commissioner
Michael Williams, a Republican who has served on the panel that oversees the energy industry and sets rates for natural gas service, is seeking his second full term. He will be unopposed in the primary.
The Democrats in the race are former San Antonio City Councilman Art Hall; Dale Henry, a former Mills County commissioner who lost a bid for a Railroad Commission seat as a Democrat in 2006 and as a Republican in 2004; and mobility specialist Mark Thompson of Hamilton.
Texas Supreme Court
Republican Wallace Jefferson, who has served on the state's highest civil court since 2001 and as its chief justice since 2004, will seek re-election to the top post without a primary opponent.
State District Judge Jim Jordan of Dallas is the only Democrat in the race for chief justice.
In Place 7, Republican Dale Wainwright will be unopposed in the primary for a second term. Two Democrats -- Houston lawyer Sam Houston and Dallas lawyer Baltasar Cruz -- will face off.
In Place 8, Republican incumbent Phil Johnson, who was appointed in 2005 to fill an unexpired term, will seek his first full term. No one has filed to oppose him in the primary. Democrats Linda Reyna Yañez, a judge on the 13th Court of Appeals in Hidalgo County, and state district Judge Susan Criss of Galveston are seeking the Democratic nomination.
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
The incumbent Republicans judges on the state's top criminal court -- Tom Price, Cathy Cochran and Paul Womack -- will also seek re-election. State District Judge Robert Francis of Dallas will challenge Womack in Place 4.
Democrat Susan Strawn of Houston is running unopposed for Place 3 and El Paso lawyer J.R. Molina is running unopposed in Place 4.
Presidential primaries
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and novice candidates Hoa Tran and Hugh Cort will be on the GOP ballot.
On the Democratic side are Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.
Dennis Kucinich did not qualify for the Democratic primary because he did not check the box on the filing paperwork pledging to support the party's nominee for president, Texas Democratic spokeswoman Amber Moon said. Mike Gravel did not file for the primary.
Of note
At least eight Republicans will compete for the right to challenge U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson for the suburban Houston congressional seat that was vacated in 2006 by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Online: www.texasgop.org; www.txdemocrats.org
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Is $100-a-barrel oil good for Texas? State may get more jobs and business, but gas could reach $3.50 a gallon
By JIM FUQUAY - Fort Worth Star Telegram Staff Writer - Jan. 3, 2008
Surging energy prices create jobs in the Texas oil patch, but are they really good for the state?
Now that crude futures hit the $100 mark Wednesday for the first time, we'll find out.
"Consumers are staring at $3.50 gasoline, if not more," while higher energy prices tend to slow the economy and can especially hurt major industries like the auto business, says the chief economist of Frost National Bank.
A 2005 study by two Dallas Fed economists concluded that a 10 percent increase in oil prices produced a small increase in the state's output and no net job gain. But a 50 percent increase -- that's another matter.
How it happened
Why are oil prices so high?
Strong demand in countries like China and India has strained global supplies. Political unrest, such as recent violence in Nigeria, ia another factor. Wall Street speculators have also pushed prices higher.
How does this affect gas prices?
Every $10 increase in oil prices eventually adds about 25 cents to a gallon of gas.
Will prices go higher?
The Energy Department that predicts gasoline prices nationwide will peak above $3.40 a gallon this spring, and some analysts say they could go as high as $3.75 a gallon.
With rising oil prices come rising gas prices
$50 | Oct. 1, 2004 | Gallon of gas: $1.818
$60 | June 27, 2005 | Gallon of gas: $2.112
$70 | June 21, 2006 | Gallon of gas: $2.828
$80 | Sept. 12 | Gallon of gas: $2.596
$90 | Oct. 18 | Gallon of gas: $2.638
$100 | Wednesday | Gallon of gas: $2.867
Note: The gas prices are averages for reformulated regular grades in Texas. Source: Energy Information Administration
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Surging energy prices create jobs in the Texas oil patch, but are they really good for the state?
Now that crude futures hit the $100 mark Wednesday for the first time, we'll find out.
"Consumers are staring at $3.50 gasoline, if not more," while higher energy prices tend to slow the economy and can especially hurt major industries like the auto business, says the chief economist of Frost National Bank.
A 2005 study by two Dallas Fed economists concluded that a 10 percent increase in oil prices produced a small increase in the state's output and no net job gain. But a 50 percent increase -- that's another matter.
How it happened
Why are oil prices so high?
Strong demand in countries like China and India has strained global supplies. Political unrest, such as recent violence in Nigeria, ia another factor. Wall Street speculators have also pushed prices higher.
How does this affect gas prices?
Every $10 increase in oil prices eventually adds about 25 cents to a gallon of gas.
Will prices go higher?
The Energy Department that predicts gasoline prices nationwide will peak above $3.40 a gallon this spring, and some analysts say they could go as high as $3.75 a gallon.
With rising oil prices come rising gas prices
$50 | Oct. 1, 2004 | Gallon of gas: $1.818
$60 | June 27, 2005 | Gallon of gas: $2.112
$70 | June 21, 2006 | Gallon of gas: $2.828
$80 | Sept. 12 | Gallon of gas: $2.596
$90 | Oct. 18 | Gallon of gas: $2.638
$100 | Wednesday | Gallon of gas: $2.867
Note: The gas prices are averages for reformulated regular grades in Texas. Source: Energy Information Administration
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Tarrant voters have plenty of choices this year
By AMAN BATHEJA - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Jan. 2, 2008
It's going to be a busy election year in Tarrant County.
The deadline for candidates to file for the March 4 primary was Wednesday. At every level of government, incumbents attracted challengers.
Eight of 10 Tarrant County state representatives attracted challengers from the opposing party. Two Republicans, Charlie Geren of Fort Worth and Bill Zedler of Arlington, have primary challengers.
District 97 is a priority for both parties. Democrat Dan Barrett beat Republican Mark Shelton in a special election runoff last month, ending 30 years of Republican representation from southwest Tarrant County. Now three Republicans -- Shelton, former state Rep. Bob Leonard and private equity manager Clint Roberts -- are vying for the nomination.
Democrats fielded slightly more candidates than in 2006 but continued a recent tradition by not offering challengers in most local judicial races.
Other races of note:
No Tarrant County-area U.S. representative received a primary challenger. All will face a general election opponent.
Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson will face Dalworthington Gardens Police Chief Bill Waybourn in the Republican primary. The winner of that race will go against Democrat Hank Pope in the general election.
Six of eight county constables will face primary challengers.
THE CANDIDATES
These candidates have filed to run in Tarrant County primaries March 4. Incumbents are marked with an *.
President
Republicans: Hugh Cort, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Hoa Tran
Democrats: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson
U.S. Senate
Republicans: John Cornyn*, Larry Kilgore
Democrats: Gene Kelly, Ray McMurrey, Rick Noriega, Rhett Smith
U.S. House of Representatives
District 6: Joe Barton (R)*, Steven J. Bush (D), Ludwig Otto (D)
District 12: Kay Granger (R)*, Tracey Smith (D)
District 17: Chet Edwards (D)*, Rob Curnock (R), Tim Kleinschmidt (R)
District 24: Kenny Marchant (R)*, Tom Love (D)
District 26: Michael Burgess (R)*, Ken Leach (D)
Statewide
Texas Railroad Commission: Michael Williams (R)*, Art Hall (D), Mark Thompson (D), Dale Henry (D)
Chief Justice, Texas Supreme Court: Wallace Jefferson (R)*, Jim Jordan (D)
Texas Supreme Court Justice, Place 7: J. Dale Wainwright (R)*, Baltasar D. Cruz (D), Sam Houston (D)
Texas Supreme Court Justice, Place 8: Susan Criss (D), Linda Reyna Yanez (D)
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge, Place 3: Thomas Price (R)*, Susan Strawn (D)
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge, Place 4: Paul Womack (R)*, J.R. Molina (D)
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge, Place 9: Cathy Cochran (R)*
State Board of Education, District 11: Patricia Hardy (R)*, Barney Maddox (R)
State Board of Education, District 13: Cindy Werner (R)
State Senate
District 9: Chris Harris (R)*, Melvin Willms (D)
District 10: Kim Brimer (R)*, Wendy Davis (D)
State House of Representatives
District 58: Rob Orr (R)*
District 61: Phil King (R)*, Charles William Randolph (D), Joe Tison (R)
District 90: Lon Burnam (D)*, Larry Keilberg (R)
District 91: Kelly Hancock (R)*, Chris Utchell (D)
District 92: Todd Smith (R)*, Kalandra N. Wheeler (D)
District 93: Paula Pierson (D)*, Bill Burch (R)
District 94: Diane Patrick (R)*
District 95: Marc Veasey (D)*
District 96: Bill Zedler (R)*, Lee Jackson (R), Chris Turner (D)
District 97: Dan Barrett (D)*, Bob Leonard (R), Clint L. Roberts (R), Mark M. Shelton (R)
District 98: Vicki Truitt (R)*, Nancy Moffat (D)
District 99: Charlie Geren (R)*, Tom Annunziato (R), Sheila Ford-Henderson (D)
District 106: Kirk England (D)*, Karen Wiegman (R)
Tarrant County
2nd Court of Appeals Justice, Place 7: Terrie Livingston (R)*
17th District Judge: Wade Birdwell (R), Mike Hrabal (R), Skip Reynolds (R), Randy Turner (D), Melody Wilkinson (R)
48th District Judge: David Evans (R)*
67th District Judge: Don Cosby (R)*, Warren Gould (D)
96th District Judge: Jeff Walker (R)*
153rd District Judge: Ken Curry (R)*
213th District Judge: Louis Sturns (R)*, Lisa Callaghan (R), Bill Ray (R)
342nd District Judge: Bob McGrath (R)*
348th District Judge: Dana Womack (R)*
352nd District Judge: Bonnie Sudderth (R)*
396th District Judge: George Gallagher (R)*
Criminal District Court No. 2 Judge: Wayne Salvant (R)*, Maureen R. Tolbert (D)
360th Family District Judge: Debra Lehrmann (R)*
Sheriff: Dee Anderson (R)*, Hank Pope (D), Bill Waybourn (R)
Tax Assessor-Collector: Betsy Price (R)*
County Commissioner, Precinct 1: Roy Brooks (D)*, Cora Mosley (D)
County Commissioner, Precinct 3: Gary Fickes (R)*, Jerry Lee Phillips (D)
Constable, Precinct 1: Jerry Crowder (R)*, Andy Bryant (R), Richard Aldridge (R)
Constable, Precinct 2: Antonio Molina Jr. (R), Robert J. McGinty (R)
Constable, Precinct 3: Zane Hilger (R)*, Jason L. McCaffity (R)
Constable, Precinct 4: Dub Bransom (R)*
Constable, Precinct 5: Sergio DeLeon (D)*, Ernesto Magallon (D)
Constable, Precinct 6: Joe Kubes (R)*
Constable, Precinct 7: Clint Burgess (R)*, Mike Arter (R)
Constable, Precinct 8: Chester Luckett (D)*, Michael Campbell (D), Chris Salone (D)
Democratic Party Chair: Steve Maxwell, J. Roddy Turner
Republican Party Chair: Stephanie Klick*
AMAN BATHEJA, 817-390-7695
abatheja@star-telegram.com
It's going to be a busy election year in Tarrant County.
The deadline for candidates to file for the March 4 primary was Wednesday. At every level of government, incumbents attracted challengers.
Eight of 10 Tarrant County state representatives attracted challengers from the opposing party. Two Republicans, Charlie Geren of Fort Worth and Bill Zedler of Arlington, have primary challengers.
District 97 is a priority for both parties. Democrat Dan Barrett beat Republican Mark Shelton in a special election runoff last month, ending 30 years of Republican representation from southwest Tarrant County. Now three Republicans -- Shelton, former state Rep. Bob Leonard and private equity manager Clint Roberts -- are vying for the nomination.
Democrats fielded slightly more candidates than in 2006 but continued a recent tradition by not offering challengers in most local judicial races.
Other races of note:
No Tarrant County-area U.S. representative received a primary challenger. All will face a general election opponent.
Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson will face Dalworthington Gardens Police Chief Bill Waybourn in the Republican primary. The winner of that race will go against Democrat Hank Pope in the general election.
Six of eight county constables will face primary challengers.
THE CANDIDATES
These candidates have filed to run in Tarrant County primaries March 4. Incumbents are marked with an *.
President
Republicans: Hugh Cort, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Hoa Tran
Democrats: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson
U.S. Senate
Republicans: John Cornyn*, Larry Kilgore
Democrats: Gene Kelly, Ray McMurrey, Rick Noriega, Rhett Smith
U.S. House of Representatives
District 6: Joe Barton (R)*, Steven J. Bush (D), Ludwig Otto (D)
District 12: Kay Granger (R)*, Tracey Smith (D)
District 17: Chet Edwards (D)*, Rob Curnock (R), Tim Kleinschmidt (R)
District 24: Kenny Marchant (R)*, Tom Love (D)
District 26: Michael Burgess (R)*, Ken Leach (D)
Statewide
Texas Railroad Commission: Michael Williams (R)*, Art Hall (D), Mark Thompson (D), Dale Henry (D)
Chief Justice, Texas Supreme Court: Wallace Jefferson (R)*, Jim Jordan (D)
Texas Supreme Court Justice, Place 7: J. Dale Wainwright (R)*, Baltasar D. Cruz (D), Sam Houston (D)
Texas Supreme Court Justice, Place 8: Susan Criss (D), Linda Reyna Yanez (D)
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge, Place 3: Thomas Price (R)*, Susan Strawn (D)
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge, Place 4: Paul Womack (R)*, J.R. Molina (D)
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge, Place 9: Cathy Cochran (R)*
State Board of Education, District 11: Patricia Hardy (R)*, Barney Maddox (R)
State Board of Education, District 13: Cindy Werner (R)
State Senate
District 9: Chris Harris (R)*, Melvin Willms (D)
District 10: Kim Brimer (R)*, Wendy Davis (D)
State House of Representatives
District 58: Rob Orr (R)*
District 61: Phil King (R)*, Charles William Randolph (D), Joe Tison (R)
District 90: Lon Burnam (D)*, Larry Keilberg (R)
District 91: Kelly Hancock (R)*, Chris Utchell (D)
District 92: Todd Smith (R)*, Kalandra N. Wheeler (D)
District 93: Paula Pierson (D)*, Bill Burch (R)
District 94: Diane Patrick (R)*
District 95: Marc Veasey (D)*
District 96: Bill Zedler (R)*, Lee Jackson (R), Chris Turner (D)
District 97: Dan Barrett (D)*, Bob Leonard (R), Clint L. Roberts (R), Mark M. Shelton (R)
District 98: Vicki Truitt (R)*, Nancy Moffat (D)
District 99: Charlie Geren (R)*, Tom Annunziato (R), Sheila Ford-Henderson (D)
District 106: Kirk England (D)*, Karen Wiegman (R)
Tarrant County
2nd Court of Appeals Justice, Place 7: Terrie Livingston (R)*
17th District Judge: Wade Birdwell (R), Mike Hrabal (R), Skip Reynolds (R), Randy Turner (D), Melody Wilkinson (R)
48th District Judge: David Evans (R)*
67th District Judge: Don Cosby (R)*, Warren Gould (D)
96th District Judge: Jeff Walker (R)*
153rd District Judge: Ken Curry (R)*
213th District Judge: Louis Sturns (R)*, Lisa Callaghan (R), Bill Ray (R)
342nd District Judge: Bob McGrath (R)*
348th District Judge: Dana Womack (R)*
352nd District Judge: Bonnie Sudderth (R)*
396th District Judge: George Gallagher (R)*
Criminal District Court No. 2 Judge: Wayne Salvant (R)*, Maureen R. Tolbert (D)
360th Family District Judge: Debra Lehrmann (R)*
Sheriff: Dee Anderson (R)*, Hank Pope (D), Bill Waybourn (R)
Tax Assessor-Collector: Betsy Price (R)*
County Commissioner, Precinct 1: Roy Brooks (D)*, Cora Mosley (D)
County Commissioner, Precinct 3: Gary Fickes (R)*, Jerry Lee Phillips (D)
Constable, Precinct 1: Jerry Crowder (R)*, Andy Bryant (R), Richard Aldridge (R)
Constable, Precinct 2: Antonio Molina Jr. (R), Robert J. McGinty (R)
Constable, Precinct 3: Zane Hilger (R)*, Jason L. McCaffity (R)
Constable, Precinct 4: Dub Bransom (R)*
Constable, Precinct 5: Sergio DeLeon (D)*, Ernesto Magallon (D)
Constable, Precinct 6: Joe Kubes (R)*
Constable, Precinct 7: Clint Burgess (R)*, Mike Arter (R)
Constable, Precinct 8: Chester Luckett (D)*, Michael Campbell (D), Chris Salone (D)
Democratic Party Chair: Steve Maxwell, J. Roddy Turner
Republican Party Chair: Stephanie Klick*
AMAN BATHEJA, 817-390-7695
abatheja@star-telegram.com
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Tx 97: With runoff over, race for District 97 begins anew
By AMAN BATHEJA - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Wed, Dec. 26, 2007
For political junkies, the Texas House District 97 race is a dream come true. There's been plenty of drama so far, and the race will still keep on going for months.
Democrat Dan Barrett beat Republican Mark Shelton in last week's runoff, stunning many who saw the southwest Tarrant County district as a Republican stronghold. Some of the same men who unsuccessfully vied for the seat in November are preparing to try again.
Barrett will have to be re-elected in 2008 to represent the district in the next regularly scheduled legislative session, which starts in January 2009.
Candidates have until Jan. 2 to file for the March 4 primary. Here's a look at how the race is shaping up so far:
Democrats
Dan Barrett: Barrett, a lawyer, was elected to the District 97 seat in Dec. 18's runoff, winning 52 percent of the vote after leading the November special election with 32 percent of the vote. Throughout the campaign, he said his priority was removing Tom Craddick as speaker of the Texas House. He is not expected to face a challenger in the March Democratic primary.
Republicans
Bob Leonard: Leonard, a lawyer, represented District 97 from 1977 to 1988, when he resigned to become a lobbyist for Texans for Equity in Workers Compensation. He received 19 percent of the vote in the November special election. Leonard led his five Republican opponents in early voting, but Election Day voting put Shelton into the runoff. An anonymous automated phone call, or robocall, that went out to voters Election Day morning and criticized Leonard may have been a factor. Leonard said he suspects that whoever orchestrated the call was a supporter of House Speaker Tom Craddick, to whom Leonard declined to pledge his support.
James Schull: The Benbrook City Councilman, a lawyer, received 2 percent of the vote in the November special election. Schull declared himself neutral on Craddick during the campaign.
Mark Shelton: The medical director of infectious diseases at Cook Children's Medical Center advanced to the runoff but lost to Barrett. He focused his campaign largely on being tough on illegal immigration and pledged his support to Craddick, who appeared with him at an Austin fundraiser. Shelton repeatedly denied involvement in the Election Day robocall.
Anybody else?
Craig Goldman, a Republican insurance agent who has worked for the political operations of U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, has said he may still enter the race.
Craddick is an issue
Craddick, R-Midland, is now a central issue in the campaign after Barrett's victory. In the wake of the vote, Leonard has changed his tune, asserting that every Republican candidate's decision on whether to pledge support to Craddick will be a deciding factor in the March primary. "I think there's a clear call for new leadership," Leonard said. "If the Republicans don't take back the Republican Party, the Democrats will take over."
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
For political junkies, the Texas House District 97 race is a dream come true. There's been plenty of drama so far, and the race will still keep on going for months.
Democrat Dan Barrett beat Republican Mark Shelton in last week's runoff, stunning many who saw the southwest Tarrant County district as a Republican stronghold. Some of the same men who unsuccessfully vied for the seat in November are preparing to try again.
Barrett will have to be re-elected in 2008 to represent the district in the next regularly scheduled legislative session, which starts in January 2009.
Candidates have until Jan. 2 to file for the March 4 primary. Here's a look at how the race is shaping up so far:
Democrats
Dan Barrett: Barrett, a lawyer, was elected to the District 97 seat in Dec. 18's runoff, winning 52 percent of the vote after leading the November special election with 32 percent of the vote. Throughout the campaign, he said his priority was removing Tom Craddick as speaker of the Texas House. He is not expected to face a challenger in the March Democratic primary.
Republicans
Bob Leonard: Leonard, a lawyer, represented District 97 from 1977 to 1988, when he resigned to become a lobbyist for Texans for Equity in Workers Compensation. He received 19 percent of the vote in the November special election. Leonard led his five Republican opponents in early voting, but Election Day voting put Shelton into the runoff. An anonymous automated phone call, or robocall, that went out to voters Election Day morning and criticized Leonard may have been a factor. Leonard said he suspects that whoever orchestrated the call was a supporter of House Speaker Tom Craddick, to whom Leonard declined to pledge his support.
James Schull: The Benbrook City Councilman, a lawyer, received 2 percent of the vote in the November special election. Schull declared himself neutral on Craddick during the campaign.
Mark Shelton: The medical director of infectious diseases at Cook Children's Medical Center advanced to the runoff but lost to Barrett. He focused his campaign largely on being tough on illegal immigration and pledged his support to Craddick, who appeared with him at an Austin fundraiser. Shelton repeatedly denied involvement in the Election Day robocall.
Anybody else?
Craig Goldman, a Republican insurance agent who has worked for the political operations of U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, has said he may still enter the race.
Craddick is an issue
Craddick, R-Midland, is now a central issue in the campaign after Barrett's victory. In the wake of the vote, Leonard has changed his tune, asserting that every Republican candidate's decision on whether to pledge support to Craddick will be a deciding factor in the March primary. "I think there's a clear call for new leadership," Leonard said. "If the Republicans don't take back the Republican Party, the Democrats will take over."
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Heated Hearing As FCC Approves New Ownership Rules
Radio Ink - Dec. 18, 2007
WASHINGTON -- December 18, 2007: "We generously ask big media to sit on Santa's knee, tell us what it wants for Christmas, and then push through whatever of those wishes are politically and practically feasible," said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps this morning at the FCC's public meeting as the commission prepared to vote on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's proposal to partially relax the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban.
"No test to see if anyone's been naughty or nice," Copps continued, "just a big shiny present for the favored few who already own an FCC license and a lump of coal for the rest of us. Happy holidays."
Copps said Congress and the American public have "done just about everything .. but storm southwest DC" to protest Martin's proposal, adding, "We say we're guided by public comment, yet the majority's decision is overwhelmingly opposed by the public."
The new rules passed Tuesday morning allow newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership in the top 20 markets under certain conditions, with waivers possible in smaller markets, though smaller-market cross-ownership would be presumed not to be in the public interest.
But the waiver provisions were revised overnight to reverse that presumption in smaller markets if a station is "failed" or "failing" under the FCC's definitions and the in-market buyer is the only "reasonably available candidate" or when the proposed transaction results in a new source of local news in a market -- specifically, at least seven hours of new local news on a station that didn't previously air local news.
Copps and fellow Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein aren't happy with the revision, with Copps saying he's not yet clear on the particulars because the changes were made so late but adding, "This much is clear: The new version keeps the old loopholes and includes two new ones."
Adelstein called the vote a "monumental mistake" and said, "That we're moving forward when the voices that matter are asking us to refrain defies the imagination. The FCC has never attempted such a brazen act of defiance against Congress. Like the Titanic, we're steaming ahead at full steam despite repeated warnings of danger. This effort may yet sink. We should have slowed down rather than putting everything at risk."
Copps earlier said the revised proposal circulated Monday night "granted all sorts of permanent new waivers," and Adelstein said there were 42 waivers "adopted in the dead of night on the eve of a vote." Thirty-six of the waivers involve already-grandfathered newspaper-broadcast combinations, he said, and Commissioner Robert McDowell in his opening statement noted that the rest are for companies operating under temporary waivers.
Like Copps, Adelstein is unhappy with the revised waiver conditions for markets below the top 20, calling them a "Chinese menu" of conditions that will ultimately undermine localism, competition, and diversity.
McDowell defended the process that Copps and Adelstein had said was too rushed, saying the FCC has proceeded "like a runaway glacier" -- as, meanwhile, "the private sector has been busy working around the obstacles created by the outdated regulations of yore."
About the permanent waivers, McDowell said, "We will not require divestiture of existing combinations that were grandfathered in conjunction with the 1975 rule, or that were granted permanent waivers of the rule," adding that the FCC "should not reverse course here as we modernize our rule."
Read more in Radio Ink
WASHINGTON -- December 18, 2007: "We generously ask big media to sit on Santa's knee, tell us what it wants for Christmas, and then push through whatever of those wishes are politically and practically feasible," said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps this morning at the FCC's public meeting as the commission prepared to vote on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's proposal to partially relax the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban.
"No test to see if anyone's been naughty or nice," Copps continued, "just a big shiny present for the favored few who already own an FCC license and a lump of coal for the rest of us. Happy holidays."
Copps said Congress and the American public have "done just about everything .. but storm southwest DC" to protest Martin's proposal, adding, "We say we're guided by public comment, yet the majority's decision is overwhelmingly opposed by the public."
The new rules passed Tuesday morning allow newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership in the top 20 markets under certain conditions, with waivers possible in smaller markets, though smaller-market cross-ownership would be presumed not to be in the public interest.
But the waiver provisions were revised overnight to reverse that presumption in smaller markets if a station is "failed" or "failing" under the FCC's definitions and the in-market buyer is the only "reasonably available candidate" or when the proposed transaction results in a new source of local news in a market -- specifically, at least seven hours of new local news on a station that didn't previously air local news.
Copps and fellow Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein aren't happy with the revision, with Copps saying he's not yet clear on the particulars because the changes were made so late but adding, "This much is clear: The new version keeps the old loopholes and includes two new ones."
Adelstein called the vote a "monumental mistake" and said, "That we're moving forward when the voices that matter are asking us to refrain defies the imagination. The FCC has never attempted such a brazen act of defiance against Congress. Like the Titanic, we're steaming ahead at full steam despite repeated warnings of danger. This effort may yet sink. We should have slowed down rather than putting everything at risk."
Copps earlier said the revised proposal circulated Monday night "granted all sorts of permanent new waivers," and Adelstein said there were 42 waivers "adopted in the dead of night on the eve of a vote." Thirty-six of the waivers involve already-grandfathered newspaper-broadcast combinations, he said, and Commissioner Robert McDowell in his opening statement noted that the rest are for companies operating under temporary waivers.
Like Copps, Adelstein is unhappy with the revised waiver conditions for markets below the top 20, calling them a "Chinese menu" of conditions that will ultimately undermine localism, competition, and diversity.
McDowell defended the process that Copps and Adelstein had said was too rushed, saying the FCC has proceeded "like a runaway glacier" -- as, meanwhile, "the private sector has been busy working around the obstacles created by the outdated regulations of yore."
About the permanent waivers, McDowell said, "We will not require divestiture of existing combinations that were grandfathered in conjunction with the 1975 rule, or that were granted permanent waivers of the rule," adding that the FCC "should not reverse course here as we modernize our rule."
Read more in Radio Ink
FCC Tweaks Cross-Ownership Rules
By Radio Ink - Dec. 18, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Despite pressure on Chairman Kevin Martin from Congress to delay the vote, the FCC this morning amended its newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules but made no changes to its local radio ownership and radio-television cross-ownership limits.
Under the new cross-ownership rule, the FCC will consider combinations of either a radio or TV station with a newspaper on a case by case basis, but will face a presumption that any combination will not be in the public interest. "This is a high hurdle," said FCC attorney Jamila-Bess Johnson, who presented the rule at the agency's monthly meeting this morning. "The applicants must prove that merger would create more, relevant voices."
In the nation's top 20 markets, any radio station can combine with a major newspaper, but only television stations outside of the top four according to Nielsen ratings data may merge with a newspaper. Also, any proposed newspaper/TV combo in the top 20 markets must demonstrate that eight independent voices will remain in the market post-merger.
All proposed mergers outside of the top 20 markets will face the case-by-case review. Among the criteria that will be considered include the level of media concentration in the market, and whether the combined entity will bring more local news to the market. The applicants must also demonstrate that the broadcast and newspaper entities will maintain their own staffs, and retain independent editorial standards.
Other criteria to be considered are the financial health of the individual entities. In the case of broadcast outlets, if a station has been dark for at least four months or is in bankruptcy, it will be considered a "failing" or "falied" business by the FCC. The FCC will also consider if the station has posted negative cash flow for the previous three years. A station's ratings data will also be considered.
If a merger applicant can demonstrate that a proposed combination will result in a new source of news, and will generate at least seven hours of new local news programming per week on a broadcast station, the presumption that the combination will not serve the public interest will be reversed.
While considerable time was spent on the details of the new cross-ownership rule, a scant few sentences were dedicated to discussion of the local radio ownership rule. These limits were remanded by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 for further justification by the FCC. In her prepared remarks, Johnson noted simply that the current limits are structured under caps created by Congress, and are being retained.
Commissioner Deborah Taylor-Tate in her remarks, however, stated that the remarks of citizens who spoke out about radio consolidation at the six public hearings on the rule review weighed in the decision, and noted that large radio groups like Clear Channel and CBS are voluntarily divesting some of its radio stations. "This is a sign of the market working," she said, adding that these divestitures may improve minority and small business ownership of broadcast outlets.
Improving ownership among those groups is a hot button issue for Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, who are in the minority on the five-member commission. In prepared comments at today's meeting, both expressed dismay that more isn't being done with today's vote to encourage minority and small business ownership.
The commission also retained its existing radio/television cross-ownership limits. Under these caps, one owner can control up to two television and six radio stations in a market where twenty independent voices will exist post merger, and can control two television and four stations in a market where ten independent voices will exist post-merger.
A handful of representatives from anti-media consolidation group Code Pink charged towards the commission dais just as the five commissioners were preparing to vote, with claims that included, "This vote is a sham," "The public interest is not being served by this commission, and "On behalf of the public we want to stop this vote." The activists were escorted from the room by FCC security.
Read more in Radio Ink
WASHINGTON -- Despite pressure on Chairman Kevin Martin from Congress to delay the vote, the FCC this morning amended its newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules but made no changes to its local radio ownership and radio-television cross-ownership limits.
Under the new cross-ownership rule, the FCC will consider combinations of either a radio or TV station with a newspaper on a case by case basis, but will face a presumption that any combination will not be in the public interest. "This is a high hurdle," said FCC attorney Jamila-Bess Johnson, who presented the rule at the agency's monthly meeting this morning. "The applicants must prove that merger would create more, relevant voices."
In the nation's top 20 markets, any radio station can combine with a major newspaper, but only television stations outside of the top four according to Nielsen ratings data may merge with a newspaper. Also, any proposed newspaper/TV combo in the top 20 markets must demonstrate that eight independent voices will remain in the market post-merger.
All proposed mergers outside of the top 20 markets will face the case-by-case review. Among the criteria that will be considered include the level of media concentration in the market, and whether the combined entity will bring more local news to the market. The applicants must also demonstrate that the broadcast and newspaper entities will maintain their own staffs, and retain independent editorial standards.
Other criteria to be considered are the financial health of the individual entities. In the case of broadcast outlets, if a station has been dark for at least four months or is in bankruptcy, it will be considered a "failing" or "falied" business by the FCC. The FCC will also consider if the station has posted negative cash flow for the previous three years. A station's ratings data will also be considered.
If a merger applicant can demonstrate that a proposed combination will result in a new source of news, and will generate at least seven hours of new local news programming per week on a broadcast station, the presumption that the combination will not serve the public interest will be reversed.
While considerable time was spent on the details of the new cross-ownership rule, a scant few sentences were dedicated to discussion of the local radio ownership rule. These limits were remanded by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 for further justification by the FCC. In her prepared remarks, Johnson noted simply that the current limits are structured under caps created by Congress, and are being retained.
Commissioner Deborah Taylor-Tate in her remarks, however, stated that the remarks of citizens who spoke out about radio consolidation at the six public hearings on the rule review weighed in the decision, and noted that large radio groups like Clear Channel and CBS are voluntarily divesting some of its radio stations. "This is a sign of the market working," she said, adding that these divestitures may improve minority and small business ownership of broadcast outlets.
Improving ownership among those groups is a hot button issue for Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, who are in the minority on the five-member commission. In prepared comments at today's meeting, both expressed dismay that more isn't being done with today's vote to encourage minority and small business ownership.
The commission also retained its existing radio/television cross-ownership limits. Under these caps, one owner can control up to two television and six radio stations in a market where twenty independent voices will exist post merger, and can control two television and four stations in a market where ten independent voices will exist post-merger.
A handful of representatives from anti-media consolidation group Code Pink charged towards the commission dais just as the five commissioners were preparing to vote, with claims that included, "This vote is a sham," "The public interest is not being served by this commission, and "On behalf of the public we want to stop this vote." The activists were escorted from the room by FCC security.
Read more in Radio Ink
Thursday, December 06, 2007
ACTION ALERT - Sunset Review of TxDOT scheduled Jan. 7, 2008
December 5, 2007
Dear Recipient:
The Sunset Advisory Commission would like your help in reviewing and improving the State’s transportation system. The Legislature, through the Texas Sunset Act, has charged our Commission with reviewing the mission and performance of the Texas Department of Transportation.
In general, the Sunset Commission periodically evaluates state agencies to determine if the agency is needed, if it is operating effectively, and if state funds are well spent. Based on the recommendations of the Sunset Commission, the Texas Legislature ultimately decides whether an agency continues to operate into the future. Additional information on the Sunset Commission can be found on our website.
As part of this agency’s review, we seek the input of organizations and individuals who have an interest in the agency. Please take some time to comment on the attached preliminary issues identified by the Sunset Commission staff as potential research areas. Also, let us know of other issues of interest to you or your organization. Feel free to share copies of this e-mail and the attachment with any others who may have an interest in the Texas Department of Transportation. To help ensure the free flow of information, anything submitted to Sunset staff during the review until the staff report is released is confidential, and will not be shared with anyone outside of Sunset staff.
To give the staff time to consider your information during our review of the Texas Department of Transportation, we request you send your response by Monday, January 7, 2008. Please mail, e-mail, or fax your comments to the address or fax number provided in the attached Preliminary Issue List. Also, if you need more information or have questions about our process, please contact Jennifer Jones at (512) 463-1300. We greatly appreciate your assistance and look forward to hearing your ideas.
Sincerely,
Ken Levine
Deputy Director
Sunset Advisory Commission
Dear Recipient:
The Sunset Advisory Commission would like your help in reviewing and improving the State’s transportation system. The Legislature, through the Texas Sunset Act, has charged our Commission with reviewing the mission and performance of the Texas Department of Transportation.
In general, the Sunset Commission periodically evaluates state agencies to determine if the agency is needed, if it is operating effectively, and if state funds are well spent. Based on the recommendations of the Sunset Commission, the Texas Legislature ultimately decides whether an agency continues to operate into the future. Additional information on the Sunset Commission can be found on our website.
As part of this agency’s review, we seek the input of organizations and individuals who have an interest in the agency. Please take some time to comment on the attached preliminary issues identified by the Sunset Commission staff as potential research areas. Also, let us know of other issues of interest to you or your organization. Feel free to share copies of this e-mail and the attachment with any others who may have an interest in the Texas Department of Transportation. To help ensure the free flow of information, anything submitted to Sunset staff during the review until the staff report is released is confidential, and will not be shared with anyone outside of Sunset staff.
To give the staff time to consider your information during our review of the Texas Department of Transportation, we request you send your response by Monday, January 7, 2008. Please mail, e-mail, or fax your comments to the address or fax number provided in the attached Preliminary Issue List. Also, if you need more information or have questions about our process, please contact Jennifer Jones at (512) 463-1300. We greatly appreciate your assistance and look forward to hearing your ideas.
Sincerely,
Ken Levine
Deputy Director
Sunset Advisory Commission
Tribune Appeals Waiver Denial
By Radio INK - December 6, 2007
CHICAGO -Tribune Co. has filed an appeal of the FCC's denial of its request for indefinite waivers of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.
The FCC last week cleared the way for Tribune to complete its $8.2 billion buyout by granting Tribune waivers for two years, or six months after the end of litigation connected to the denial of open-ended waivers (or FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's ownership-rules revision), whichever is longer.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who voted against the Tribune approval, predicted in his dissenting statement that the company would "run to the courthouse door" to trigger an automatic waiver of at least two years. "Presto!" he wrote "Tribune gets at least a two-year waiver plus the ability to go to court immediately and see if they can get the entire rule thrown out."
Tribune has grandfathered cross-ownership waivers in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Hartford that wouldn't ordinarily have passed to its new owners, so it needed new waivers to complete its buyout deal. As part of the FCC's approval last week, Tribune got a permanent waiver of the cross-ownership ban in Chicago, where it owns its lone radio property, WGN-AM
Read more
CHICAGO -Tribune Co. has filed an appeal of the FCC's denial of its request for indefinite waivers of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.
The FCC last week cleared the way for Tribune to complete its $8.2 billion buyout by granting Tribune waivers for two years, or six months after the end of litigation connected to the denial of open-ended waivers (or FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's ownership-rules revision), whichever is longer.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who voted against the Tribune approval, predicted in his dissenting statement that the company would "run to the courthouse door" to trigger an automatic waiver of at least two years. "Presto!" he wrote "Tribune gets at least a two-year waiver plus the ability to go to court immediately and see if they can get the entire rule thrown out."
Tribune has grandfathered cross-ownership waivers in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Hartford that wouldn't ordinarily have passed to its new owners, so it needed new waivers to complete its buyout deal. As part of the FCC's approval last week, Tribune got a permanent waiver of the cross-ownership ban in Chicago, where it owns its lone radio property, WGN-AM
Read more
Media and Energy
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Dec. 6, 2007
Today Media Consolidation and Energy are hot topics in Washington. Congressman John Dingell's assessment that the FCC has been "short-circuiting procedural norms" and failing to communicate appropriately with members, other legislators and the public is circulating through Washington and across America.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin ignited a fire storm when he moved to allow consolidation of media in the same market. See HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE FCC and HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE TO QUESTION FCC ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP
On another front, privacy is a hot button for citizens. Advancements in technology now allow internet providors to track every website visited by their customers. See WATCHING WHAT YOU SEE ON THE WEB.
We continue with the same old leap frog pattern between technological advances, profit driven infringements, citizens outcry as privacy erodes, governmental regulations, lobbyist and citizen activists demands for advantages or remedies. It is prudent for citizens to keep tabs on these developments. What news we have access to through media in our hometowns and who watches what we read and write on the internet and how that information is used is up for grabs.
Today Media Consolidation and Energy are hot topics in Washington. Congressman John Dingell's assessment that the FCC has been "short-circuiting procedural norms" and failing to communicate appropriately with members, other legislators and the public is circulating through Washington and across America.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin ignited a fire storm when he moved to allow consolidation of media in the same market. See HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE FCC and HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE TO QUESTION FCC ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP
On another front, privacy is a hot button for citizens. Advancements in technology now allow internet providors to track every website visited by their customers. See WATCHING WHAT YOU SEE ON THE WEB.
We continue with the same old leap frog pattern between technological advances, profit driven infringements, citizens outcry as privacy erodes, governmental regulations, lobbyist and citizen activists demands for advantages or remedies. It is prudent for citizens to keep tabs on these developments. What news we have access to through media in our hometowns and who watches what we read and write on the internet and how that information is used is up for grabs.
Watching What You See on the Web
New Gear Lets ISPs Track Users and Sell Targeted Ads;
More Players, Privacy Fears
By BOBBY WHITE - The Wall Street Journal - December 6, 2007
CenturyTel Inc., a Monroe, La., phone company that provides Internet access and long-distance calling services, is facing stiff competition from cellphone companies and cable operators. So to diversify, it's getting into the online-advertising business.
And not just any online advertising. The technology it's using could change the way the $16.9 billion Internet ad market works, bringing in a host of new players -- and giving consumers fresh concerns about their privacy.
CenturyTel's system allows it to observe and analyze the online activities of its Internet customers, keeping tabs on every Web site they visit. The equipment is made by a Silicon Valley start-up called NebuAd Inc. and installed right into the phone company's network. NebuAd takes the information it collects and offers advertisers the chance to place online ads targeted to individual consumers. NebuAd and CenturyTel get paid whenever a consumer clicks on an ad.
This technique -- called behavioral targeting -- is far more customized than the current method of selling ads online. Today, it's an imperfect process: companies such as Revenue Science Inc. and Tacoda Inc., which was recently bought by Time Warner Inc., contract with Web sites to monitor which consumers visit them, attaching "cookies," or small pieces of tracking data, to visitors' hard drives so they are recognized when they return. The targeting firms feed the data to Web site owners, who use it to charge premium rates for customized ads. But the information is limited, since the tracking companies can't monitor all of the sites an individual visits.
The newer form of behavioral targeting involves placing gear called "deep-packet inspection boxes" inside an Internet provider's network of pipes and wires. Instead of observing only a select number of Web sites, these boxes can track all of the sites a consumer visits, and deliver far more detailed information to potential advertisers.
Until now, the booming online ad market has been dominated by the likes of Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp. and small techie advertising shops such as Right Media Inc. and AdECN Inc. But new companies are rushing in. Both wireless and wireline Internet-access providers such as CenturyTel, Rochester Telecom Systems Inc. and Embarq Communications Inc., among others, have entered the advertising gold rush. And they've tapped Internet equipment companies like NebuAd, FrontPorch Inc., and Phorm Inc. to provide the gear to help them along.
The technology does raise privacy issues. The Internet-service providers often know other information about consumers, such as their names, locations and age and income ranges, which can be very valuable to potential advertisers, especially when combined with Web browsing habits. "Some of these [Internet equipment] guys are traveling in dangerous territory," says Emily Riley, an advertising analyst with Jupiter Research. "Should one company have all of that data in one place? It's a little troubling."
The idea of matching online and offline information about individual consumers has raised privacy concerns in the past. Many of the major online ad companies have pledged to abide by voluntary standards put forth by the Network Advertising Initiative, an industry group, which call for members to notify consumers that they are being targeted and give them the chance to opt out.
NebuAd says that it isn't a member of the group and that the information provided by the ISPs is fairly standard data that they often make available to third parties. FrontPorch also says it believes it isn't going too far by receiving a small amount of offline user data.
Privacy advocates say transparency is key. "Consumers need to know exactly what is going on and they need to know it at all times," says John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society at Harvard University. "Today they say they are using consumer information for ads, but it could be something completely different tomorrow. The ISPs and the companies they are working with need to share as much information as possible."
Some Internet providers are reworking their privacy policies to pre-empt concerns. Many give customers online fact sheets informing them of their new behavioral targeting service along, and ask if they want to participate. If they opt out, the consumers' Internet address is tagged and their Web activity isn't tracked.
If a consumer doesn't opt out of the service, the equipment companies say they take steps to shield a consumer's privacy. NebuAd, for instance, says it doesn't keep a consumer's personally identifiable information, but only builds a profile of a consumer's interests based on the sites a user frequents. The company also doesn't track traffic to sites related to sex, health or politics.
Internet access providers say they take the privacy concerns seriously. "Privacy is a huge issue that you must get right," says Dan Toomey, chief executive of Anacapa Holdings Ltd., a Dublin, Ireland-based company that provides wireless Internet access. "One mistake could spell big trouble." Anacapa, which began using FrontPorch's equipment in September, operates 2,400 wireless Internet networks at hotels and coffee shops in 18 countries in Europe. The company allows consumers to use their wireless Internet service for free in exchange for viewing ads.
The use of the new networking gear to observe online behavior -- while currently nascent -- is growing. Zachary Britton, FrontPorch's chief executive, says his company's advertising business generated $15 million in the first nine months of the year, up 187% from the year-earlier period. The company has signed up 202 new customers for its deep packet inspection boxes this year. Meanwhile, NebuAd is expecting revenue of $100 million in 2008 based on sales of its advertising equipment. NebuAd Chief Executive Bob Dykes says the company has signed up more than 30 new customers, mostly Internet access providers, since it started.
For CenturyTel, the new business has already turned into a healthy sideline. The company estimates it will see a 5% to 10% boost in average revenue per user for its high-speed Internet business, with extra revenue totaling around $2 million a quarter. "We need new revenue streams to survive," says Chris Mangum, vice president of strategic planning of CenturyTel, which notifies its consumers of the behavioral targeting in an online fact sheet and allows them to opt out.
Having been initially skeptical, Mr. Mangum says, "We're now comfortable with how we approach this," says Mr. Mangum. CenturyTel says it's too early to tell what percentage of customers have opted out.
Read more
More Players, Privacy Fears
By BOBBY WHITE - The Wall Street Journal - December 6, 2007
CenturyTel Inc., a Monroe, La., phone company that provides Internet access and long-distance calling services, is facing stiff competition from cellphone companies and cable operators. So to diversify, it's getting into the online-advertising business.
And not just any online advertising. The technology it's using could change the way the $16.9 billion Internet ad market works, bringing in a host of new players -- and giving consumers fresh concerns about their privacy.
CenturyTel's system allows it to observe and analyze the online activities of its Internet customers, keeping tabs on every Web site they visit. The equipment is made by a Silicon Valley start-up called NebuAd Inc. and installed right into the phone company's network. NebuAd takes the information it collects and offers advertisers the chance to place online ads targeted to individual consumers. NebuAd and CenturyTel get paid whenever a consumer clicks on an ad.
This technique -- called behavioral targeting -- is far more customized than the current method of selling ads online. Today, it's an imperfect process: companies such as Revenue Science Inc. and Tacoda Inc., which was recently bought by Time Warner Inc., contract with Web sites to monitor which consumers visit them, attaching "cookies," or small pieces of tracking data, to visitors' hard drives so they are recognized when they return. The targeting firms feed the data to Web site owners, who use it to charge premium rates for customized ads. But the information is limited, since the tracking companies can't monitor all of the sites an individual visits.
The newer form of behavioral targeting involves placing gear called "deep-packet inspection boxes" inside an Internet provider's network of pipes and wires. Instead of observing only a select number of Web sites, these boxes can track all of the sites a consumer visits, and deliver far more detailed information to potential advertisers.
Until now, the booming online ad market has been dominated by the likes of Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp. and small techie advertising shops such as Right Media Inc. and AdECN Inc. But new companies are rushing in. Both wireless and wireline Internet-access providers such as CenturyTel, Rochester Telecom Systems Inc. and Embarq Communications Inc., among others, have entered the advertising gold rush. And they've tapped Internet equipment companies like NebuAd, FrontPorch Inc., and Phorm Inc. to provide the gear to help them along.
The technology does raise privacy issues. The Internet-service providers often know other information about consumers, such as their names, locations and age and income ranges, which can be very valuable to potential advertisers, especially when combined with Web browsing habits. "Some of these [Internet equipment] guys are traveling in dangerous territory," says Emily Riley, an advertising analyst with Jupiter Research. "Should one company have all of that data in one place? It's a little troubling."
The idea of matching online and offline information about individual consumers has raised privacy concerns in the past. Many of the major online ad companies have pledged to abide by voluntary standards put forth by the Network Advertising Initiative, an industry group, which call for members to notify consumers that they are being targeted and give them the chance to opt out.
NebuAd says that it isn't a member of the group and that the information provided by the ISPs is fairly standard data that they often make available to third parties. FrontPorch also says it believes it isn't going too far by receiving a small amount of offline user data.
Privacy advocates say transparency is key. "Consumers need to know exactly what is going on and they need to know it at all times," says John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society at Harvard University. "Today they say they are using consumer information for ads, but it could be something completely different tomorrow. The ISPs and the companies they are working with need to share as much information as possible."
Some Internet providers are reworking their privacy policies to pre-empt concerns. Many give customers online fact sheets informing them of their new behavioral targeting service along, and ask if they want to participate. If they opt out, the consumers' Internet address is tagged and their Web activity isn't tracked.
If a consumer doesn't opt out of the service, the equipment companies say they take steps to shield a consumer's privacy. NebuAd, for instance, says it doesn't keep a consumer's personally identifiable information, but only builds a profile of a consumer's interests based on the sites a user frequents. The company also doesn't track traffic to sites related to sex, health or politics.
Internet access providers say they take the privacy concerns seriously. "Privacy is a huge issue that you must get right," says Dan Toomey, chief executive of Anacapa Holdings Ltd., a Dublin, Ireland-based company that provides wireless Internet access. "One mistake could spell big trouble." Anacapa, which began using FrontPorch's equipment in September, operates 2,400 wireless Internet networks at hotels and coffee shops in 18 countries in Europe. The company allows consumers to use their wireless Internet service for free in exchange for viewing ads.
The use of the new networking gear to observe online behavior -- while currently nascent -- is growing. Zachary Britton, FrontPorch's chief executive, says his company's advertising business generated $15 million in the first nine months of the year, up 187% from the year-earlier period. The company has signed up 202 new customers for its deep packet inspection boxes this year. Meanwhile, NebuAd is expecting revenue of $100 million in 2008 based on sales of its advertising equipment. NebuAd Chief Executive Bob Dykes says the company has signed up more than 30 new customers, mostly Internet access providers, since it started.
For CenturyTel, the new business has already turned into a healthy sideline. The company estimates it will see a 5% to 10% boost in average revenue per user for its high-speed Internet business, with extra revenue totaling around $2 million a quarter. "We need new revenue streams to survive," says Chris Mangum, vice president of strategic planning of CenturyTel, which notifies its consumers of the behavioral targeting in an online fact sheet and allows them to opt out.
Having been initially skeptical, Mr. Mangum says, "We're now comfortable with how we approach this," says Mr. Mangum. CenturyTel says it's too early to tell what percentage of customers have opted out.
Read more
House Subcommittee To Investigate FCC
By Radio INK - Dec. 6, 2007
WASHINGTON -- December 4, 2007: House Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) told FCC Chairman Kevin Martin in a letter Monday that he's concerned about "procedural breakdowns" at the FCC and that the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation will be conducting a probe into the agency.
"Given several events and proceedings over the past year, I am rapidly losing confidence that the commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner," Dingell wrote to Martin. Though he said it's not true in the case of every proceeding, Dingell said that "a trend appears to be emerging of short-circuiting procedural norms, suggesting a larger breakdown at the agency."
He continued, "For instance, the commission does not put the text of proposed rules out for notice and comment; there is little public notice of certain proposed commission actions; and commissioners are often not informed of the details of draft items until it is too late to provide the necessary scrutiny and analysis that is so important to reasoned decisionmaking."
Martin and the four other FCC commissioners are all on the witness list for a hearing on media ownership by Commerce's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, set for 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.
WASHINGTON -- December 4, 2007: House Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) told FCC Chairman Kevin Martin in a letter Monday that he's concerned about "procedural breakdowns" at the FCC and that the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation will be conducting a probe into the agency.
"Given several events and proceedings over the past year, I am rapidly losing confidence that the commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner," Dingell wrote to Martin. Though he said it's not true in the case of every proceeding, Dingell said that "a trend appears to be emerging of short-circuiting procedural norms, suggesting a larger breakdown at the agency."
He continued, "For instance, the commission does not put the text of proposed rules out for notice and comment; there is little public notice of certain proposed commission actions; and commissioners are often not informed of the details of draft items until it is too late to provide the necessary scrutiny and analysis that is so important to reasoned decisionmaking."
Martin and the four other FCC commissioners are all on the witness list for a hearing on media ownership by Commerce's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, set for 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.
House Subcommittee Questions FCC On Media Ownership
By Radio INK - Dec. 6, 2007
WASHINGTON -- December 5, 2007: The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing Wednesday focusing on media ownership and other issues before the FCC, with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and all four Commissioners in attendance.
Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) in his opening statement reiterated the points he made in his letter to Martin earlier this week, saying he's seen "too much sniping among the Commissioners" and adding, "We've heard too many too many tales of short-circuited decisionmaking processes."
"The FCC appears to be broken," Dingell said. "The victim of this breakdown is a fair, open, and transparent regulatory process." He said it would be "intolerable" to let the situation continue and added, "This is why I've asked the Subcomittee on Oversight & Investigation of this committee to review how the agency is conducting its business."
As Martin began his prepared testimony, he stated that he is committed to "a robust marketplace of ideas" that is focused on "competition, diversity, and localism." He then ran down the FCC's efforts in the current media-ownership proceeding, citing the six public hearings, 10 commissioned studies, and extended public comment periods in the proceeding, then moved on to the rationale behind what he called his "relatively minor" proposal to loosen the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban in the top 20 markets.
Martin cited past and pending personnel cuts at major-market newspapers to support his point that the newspaper industry is struggling and said, "We cannot turn a blind eye to the financial condition in which these companies find themselves." Allowing cross-ownership "may help forestall erosion" in the industry by allowing newsgathering and other costs to be shared.
On ownership diversity, Martin pointed to the FCC's recent revision of the low-power FM rules and said he has circulated an order that is designed to "promote diversity by increasing and expanding broadcast-ownership opportunities for small businesses, including minority- and women-owned businesses."
That order, he said, adopts most of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council's proposals and those of the FCC's own Diversity Committee.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps began his testimony by saying the FCC is "lurching dangerously off-course" and "giving short shift to pressing problems."
He said Martin's proposal is not a "moderate relaxation" of the newspaper-broadcast ban, but an opening for cross-ownership waivers in all markets. The conditions for a waiver, he said, "are as tough as a bowl of Jell-O," then got a laugh when said, "I have about as much confidence that a proposed combination will be turned down as I do that the next commission meeting will start on time."
Copps repeated his oft-stated desire for a new localism proceeding and called Martin's scheduled December 18 vote on his ownership proposal "an unseemly rush to judgment."
Adelstein began, "No issue on our agenda has more far-reaching consequences for the future of our democracy than this one," and cited the "bipartisan chorus of opposition to media consolidation." He echoed Copps' point that the waiver guidelines are too loose, though he said they amount to a "wet noodle" rather than Jell-O.
When the questioning began, Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA), asked whether the waiver requirements for markets below the top 20 is a "high hurdle, or just a speed bump." Martin said he intended the requirements to be a hurdle and said, "I absolutely would be willing to work with [the other Commissioners] on finding language to make them feel more comfortable that this is a high hurdle."
Later, Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS) asked if the waiver conditions constitute a loophole that would "allow someone to drive a truck through." Martin responded, "It's not true that it is a loophole you can drive a truck through." He said the FCC has always allowed waiver filings, though the presumption under the new rules would be that newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership waivers in smaller markets would be against the public interest.
The waiver conditions would also take financial distress into account, he said -- "as we traditionally have in waivers" -- as well as the properties' willingness to "start new news -- if they're willing to create a new local news voice."
Copps, however, said, "This is a loophole. These factors that we are going to consider are so generic, they're so porous -- maybe it's the new media-ownership sponge, I don't know what it is -- but they scare the heck out of me."
Adelstein said that even if a property promises just "10 minutes more of news a year" or "one half-hour special," that would qualify for a waiver, and added, "I can't imagine a more porous standard."
Martin responded, "We did not say that would qualify for a waiver. That's not what the order says. What we said is, you can apply for a waiver, and these are the criteria we would consider. We did not say that you would qualify for it."
But Adelstein insisted, "The waiver standard says 'more news.' That's the only standard -- 'more news.' So what is 'more news'? There's no definition if it's five minutes, 10 minutes, or 50 hours. So theoretically, under that standard, 10 minutes can qualify."
Subcommittee Ranking Member Fred Upton (R-MI), who in his opening statement expressed support for further deregulation of radio ownership, asked why Martin hasn't supported radio deregulation. "The numbers are in," Upton said, "and we know that the [radio] industry is doing far worse today than at any time in the past. Isn't this the same situation you're trying to address for newspapers?"
Martin responded, "The most significant difference in what was occurring in the radio market and the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban is that the radio market and the radio owners received some significant amount of ownership relief in 1996." In contrast, the newspaper-broadcast ban has been in place since 1975.
Reps. Hilda Solis (D-CA) and Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) both addressed ownership diversity, and Gonzalez asked Martin about the biggest obstacles to minority ownership and how the FCC plans to address the issue. "The two biggest obstacles are access to capital and access to new stations," Martin said. The FCC is addressing that, he said, by identifying where new stations are available; opening other broadcast avenues, such as LPFM; and waiving some rules for new entrants to the industry, including allowing expired construction permits to designated entities and changing the equity-plus-debt rule so other broadcasters can help finance new entrants. Martin also noted that the commission has unanimously supported the return of the minority tax certificate.
Solis raised the issue of private equity ownership in media and "transparency on who the owners really are" in those cases. "What steps will you take to make that known?" she asked. Martin said the same rules for ownership attribution apply to private equity owners as to any other, but Copps said, "Private equity is transforming the media-ownership environment."
Copps went on, "Instead of publicly held corporations, which you can at least track, and file 10(K) forms with the SEC, you have these private money funds which don't have to file. I can't find out who owns what." He said, "How can I do my job of protecting the public interest if I can't even find out who owns what?"
WASHINGTON -- December 5, 2007: The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing Wednesday focusing on media ownership and other issues before the FCC, with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and all four Commissioners in attendance.
Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) in his opening statement reiterated the points he made in his letter to Martin earlier this week, saying he's seen "too much sniping among the Commissioners" and adding, "We've heard too many too many tales of short-circuited decisionmaking processes."
"The FCC appears to be broken," Dingell said. "The victim of this breakdown is a fair, open, and transparent regulatory process." He said it would be "intolerable" to let the situation continue and added, "This is why I've asked the Subcomittee on Oversight & Investigation of this committee to review how the agency is conducting its business."
As Martin began his prepared testimony, he stated that he is committed to "a robust marketplace of ideas" that is focused on "competition, diversity, and localism." He then ran down the FCC's efforts in the current media-ownership proceeding, citing the six public hearings, 10 commissioned studies, and extended public comment periods in the proceeding, then moved on to the rationale behind what he called his "relatively minor" proposal to loosen the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban in the top 20 markets.
Martin cited past and pending personnel cuts at major-market newspapers to support his point that the newspaper industry is struggling and said, "We cannot turn a blind eye to the financial condition in which these companies find themselves." Allowing cross-ownership "may help forestall erosion" in the industry by allowing newsgathering and other costs to be shared.
On ownership diversity, Martin pointed to the FCC's recent revision of the low-power FM rules and said he has circulated an order that is designed to "promote diversity by increasing and expanding broadcast-ownership opportunities for small businesses, including minority- and women-owned businesses."
That order, he said, adopts most of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council's proposals and those of the FCC's own Diversity Committee.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps began his testimony by saying the FCC is "lurching dangerously off-course" and "giving short shift to pressing problems."
He said Martin's proposal is not a "moderate relaxation" of the newspaper-broadcast ban, but an opening for cross-ownership waivers in all markets. The conditions for a waiver, he said, "are as tough as a bowl of Jell-O," then got a laugh when said, "I have about as much confidence that a proposed combination will be turned down as I do that the next commission meeting will start on time."
Copps repeated his oft-stated desire for a new localism proceeding and called Martin's scheduled December 18 vote on his ownership proposal "an unseemly rush to judgment."
Adelstein began, "No issue on our agenda has more far-reaching consequences for the future of our democracy than this one," and cited the "bipartisan chorus of opposition to media consolidation." He echoed Copps' point that the waiver guidelines are too loose, though he said they amount to a "wet noodle" rather than Jell-O.
When the questioning began, Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA), asked whether the waiver requirements for markets below the top 20 is a "high hurdle, or just a speed bump." Martin said he intended the requirements to be a hurdle and said, "I absolutely would be willing to work with [the other Commissioners] on finding language to make them feel more comfortable that this is a high hurdle."
Later, Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS) asked if the waiver conditions constitute a loophole that would "allow someone to drive a truck through." Martin responded, "It's not true that it is a loophole you can drive a truck through." He said the FCC has always allowed waiver filings, though the presumption under the new rules would be that newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership waivers in smaller markets would be against the public interest.
The waiver conditions would also take financial distress into account, he said -- "as we traditionally have in waivers" -- as well as the properties' willingness to "start new news -- if they're willing to create a new local news voice."
Copps, however, said, "This is a loophole. These factors that we are going to consider are so generic, they're so porous -- maybe it's the new media-ownership sponge, I don't know what it is -- but they scare the heck out of me."
Adelstein said that even if a property promises just "10 minutes more of news a year" or "one half-hour special," that would qualify for a waiver, and added, "I can't imagine a more porous standard."
Martin responded, "We did not say that would qualify for a waiver. That's not what the order says. What we said is, you can apply for a waiver, and these are the criteria we would consider. We did not say that you would qualify for it."
But Adelstein insisted, "The waiver standard says 'more news.' That's the only standard -- 'more news.' So what is 'more news'? There's no definition if it's five minutes, 10 minutes, or 50 hours. So theoretically, under that standard, 10 minutes can qualify."
Subcommittee Ranking Member Fred Upton (R-MI), who in his opening statement expressed support for further deregulation of radio ownership, asked why Martin hasn't supported radio deregulation. "The numbers are in," Upton said, "and we know that the [radio] industry is doing far worse today than at any time in the past. Isn't this the same situation you're trying to address for newspapers?"
Martin responded, "The most significant difference in what was occurring in the radio market and the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban is that the radio market and the radio owners received some significant amount of ownership relief in 1996." In contrast, the newspaper-broadcast ban has been in place since 1975.
Reps. Hilda Solis (D-CA) and Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) both addressed ownership diversity, and Gonzalez asked Martin about the biggest obstacles to minority ownership and how the FCC plans to address the issue. "The two biggest obstacles are access to capital and access to new stations," Martin said. The FCC is addressing that, he said, by identifying where new stations are available; opening other broadcast avenues, such as LPFM; and waiving some rules for new entrants to the industry, including allowing expired construction permits to designated entities and changing the equity-plus-debt rule so other broadcasters can help finance new entrants. Martin also noted that the commission has unanimously supported the return of the minority tax certificate.
Solis raised the issue of private equity ownership in media and "transparency on who the owners really are" in those cases. "What steps will you take to make that known?" she asked. Martin said the same rules for ownership attribution apply to private equity owners as to any other, but Copps said, "Private equity is transforming the media-ownership environment."
Copps went on, "Instead of publicly held corporations, which you can at least track, and file 10(K) forms with the SEC, you have these private money funds which don't have to file. I can't find out who owns what." He said, "How can I do my job of protecting the public interest if I can't even find out who owns what?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
