Hall Previously Claimed Valero Told Him His Wife's Position With The Firm Constituted No Conflict Of Interest
Vince Leibowitz - February 28, 2008
AUSTIN--Former San Antonio City Councilman Art Hall has accepted more than $5,000 in contributions from Valero Energy's political action committee and several of its employees, according to records from the Texas Ethics Commission.
On February 8, Hall received a $5,000 contribution from the Valero Political Action Committee, a PAC notorious for giving thousands of dollars to Texas' most conservative Republicans-- and Railroad Commissioner Michael L. Williams, the man Hall and Dale Henry (D-Lampasas) seek to replace in the November general election.
In addition to the $5,000 from Valero's PAC, Hall also took more than $2,000 from Valero employees and attorneys in late January and February. According to Hall's most recent filing with the Texas Ethics Commission, he received the following contributions from Valero employees and attorneys:
Robert Bower, Valero Attorney, $500 2/23
Theodore Guidry, Valero employee, $500, 1/26
Diane Hirsch, Valero Attorney, $300, 2/23
Martin Loeber, Valero Attorney, $500, 2/23
Rich Walsh, Valero Attorney, $1,500, 2/23
Parker Wilson, Valero Attorney, $500, 2/23
"The money that Art Hall has accepted from Valero's PAC and its employees is especially troubling given the fact that he is very connected to Valero through the fact that his wife is an attorney for Valero," said Vince Leibowitz, campaign director for Dale Henry, Hall's principal opponent.
According to Hall's Personal Financial Statement on file with the Texas Ethics Commission, Hall's wife owns between 5,000 and 9,999 shares of stock in Valero which, if sold, would represent a net gain of $10,000 to $24,999.
"All of this is especially disturbing given the fact that Art Hall is actually getting advice from Valero on what constitutes a conflict of interest for his campaign," said Leibowitz.
At a forum in Decatur on January 29, Hall was asked if he believed it constituted a conflict of interest that his wife, Stephanie Hall, is an attorney for Valero considering the Railroad Commission regulates the oil and gas industry. Hall told the audience that he had contacted Valero and that he was advised by the company that her work would not constitute a conflict of interest for him.
"Art Hall is getting ethics advice and money from Valero energy. What else is he getting from them? Are they advising him on energy policy as well? Art Hall represents no departure from the current rubber-stamp culture at the Texas Railroad Commission where Commissioners take thousands of dollars from oil company PACs and their employees and then give them whatever they want without regard for the best interest of Texas consumers or the environment," Leibowitz said.
"Valero's PAC is notorious for giving large sums of money to Republicans and pet conservative causes," Leibowitz said. "Valero has given Railroad Commissioner Michael L. Williams $20,000. Now Art Hall is taking Valero's money and telling Texans that he will bring 'balance' to the Texas Railroad Commission. What kind of 'balance' is that, exactly? The kind of 'balance' where Hall will simply be another hand out taking money from the oil industry? That's not 'balance,' that is merely more of the same," Leibowitz continued.
Valero has given incumbent Railroad Commissioner Michael L. Williams $10,000 on two occasions: once less than a year ago on June 28, 2007, and once on June 7, 2002. Valero has also contributed to some of Texans most anti-consumer, counter-progressive Republicans and Republican causes.
The company's PAC gave $15,000 to Tom Craddick's "Stars Over Texas" Leadership PAC ($10,000 on 10/11/06 and $5,000 on 10/25/04), and $30,000 to Speaker Craddick's personal campaign account since 2004 ($10,000 on 11/08/05 and $10,000 on 11/5/07, and $10,000 on 11/10/04). A small sampling of Valero's contributions to Republicans include:
Texas Conservative Coalition ($2,500 on 9/10/07)
Former State Rep. Joe Nixon ($1,000 on 3/5/04)
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst ($10,000 on 11/6/03)
Attorney General Greg Abbott ($10,000 on 7/11/03)
Railroad Commissioner Victor Carrillo ($5,000 on 1/29/04)
U.S. Senator John Cornyn ($2,500 while Cornyn was Texas' AG on 11/7/2000)
State Rep. Phil King ($2,500 on 10/23/07)
Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples ($5,000 on 11/27/07)
Former State Rep. Talmadge Heflin ($1,000 on 11/9/04)
The Valero-tied contributions aren't the only suspect contributions Hall has received as a candidate. While on the San Antonio City Council, Hall accepted money from executives and employees of the HB Zachry company, a San Antonio-based company which has paired with Spanish company Cintra and, in March 2005, signed a comprehensive development agreement authorizing $3.5 million in planning for the first phase of the controversial Trans-Texas Corridor. Hall accepted a $500 contribution from HB Zachry on April 26, 2005 and a $250 contribution from J.P. Zachry on August 8, 2005. As a San Antonio City Councilman, Hall also took money from Valero's PAC on May 3, 2005 ($500).
At the January 29 forum in Decatur, Hall also failed to state a position on a question that asked whether or not he favored continued development of the Trans-Texas Corridor, which will include "designated utility zones" which will facilitate the transport of oil and natural gas and could have a significant negative impact on Texas' environment and groundwater.
Henry faces Art Hall of San Antonio and Mark Thompson of Hamilton in the March 4 Democratic Primary. The winner of the March 4 Democratic Primary will face Commissioner Michael L. Williams in the general election.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
More Democrats turn out all of first five days of early voting in Arlington and Tarrant County
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Feb. 24, 2008
In Arlington, Democratic voters outnumbered Republican voters at all five polling places for each of the first five days of Early Voting. Countywide, over twice the number of Democrats voted early or by mail than Republicans.
In Arlington this year, larger numbers of Democrats are voting than Republicans. Democratic turnout at the five Arlington early voting sites exceeded Republican turnout for the first time in decades. In Arlington, known as a "Republican stronghold", 1033 votes were cast the first day of Early Voting in the Democratic primary while only 496 Republican votes were cast.
County wide, 5,733 Democrats voted early the first day; 2,606 Republicans voted early in Tarrant County on Tuesday.
On Wednesday Feb. 20, in Arlington, 1112 Democrats voted early; 463 Republicans voted early at the five early voting sites in Arlington.
On Thursday, Feb. 21, in Arlington, 846 Democrats voted early; 421 Republicans voted Thursday in Arlington.
On Friday, Feb. 22, in Arlington, 1,164 Democrats voted early; 557 Republicans voted early Friday in Arlington.
On Saturday, Feb. 23, in Arlington, 1,259 Democrats voted early; 431 Republicans voted early Friday in Arlington.
During the first five days of early voting in Arlington, 2,423 Democrats voted early and 988 Republicans voted early in Arlington during the first five days of early voting.
TARRANT COUNTY
County Wide on Tuesday Feb. 19, 5,732 Democrats voted and 2,607 Republicans voted.
County Wide on Wednedsay Feb. 20, 5,602 Democrats voted and 2,583 Republicans voted.
County Wide on Thursday, Feb. 21, 4,554 Democrats voted and 2,204 Republicans voted.
Wednesday. 5603 Democrats voted early and 2583 Republicans cast early ballots.
County Wide on Friday, Feb. 22, 5,992 Democrats voted and 2,985 Republicans voted early.
County Wide on Saturday, Feb. 23, 6,979 Democrats cast early ballots and 2,514 Republicans voted early.
During the first three days of Early Voting this year in Tarrant County 15,888 Democrats voted early and 7,394 Republicans voted early.
MAIL BALLOTS
By the second day of early voting, Tarrant County Elections reported a total of 2,146Democratic Primary mail ballots had been received and 1,982 Democratic Primary Vote by Mail ballots were still unvoted; 536 Republican Primary voters have returned Vote by Mail Ballots; 849 Republican Vote by Mail ballots remained to be voted at the close of the second day of Early Voting.
By Saturday, Feb. 23rd, 2,579 Democratic Vote by Mail Ballots had been returned and 893 Democratic Vote By Mail Ballots remained unvoted; 714 Republican Vote By Mail Ballots had been returned by Thursday and 888 Republican Vote By Mail Ballots remianed out and unvoted.
Democrats outpaced Republicans at the polls in Tarrant County on each of the first five days of Early Voting. Arlington, formerly thought of my many as a Red city, and discounted by most national Democratic campaigns as too expensive to work and too Republican to merit expenditure of resources, continues to turn out over two Democratic voters for every Republican. Democratic turnout has attracted the Presidential Campaigns. Chelsea Clinton appeared at UTA earlier this month. Her father, President Bill Clinton, will be 'stumpin'' for his wife at a rally this morning, (Sunday, Feb. 24) from 9:30-noon at Vandergriff Park. Arlington, noted as a city with a large number of Republican donors, has attracted Republican Presidential candidates in past years and some statewide Democratic candidates. This year, instead of fundraisers, the campaigns are holding rallies open to the public. Retail politics has arrived in Arlington
COMPARISON OF TARRANT COUNTY EARLY VOTERS BY DAY
FOR LAST THREE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
DAY 1 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 372 - Republican Voters: 1,558
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 396 - Republican Voters: 286
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,732 - Republican Voters: 2,607
DAY 2 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 558 - Republican Voters:2,518
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 464 - Republican Voters: 387
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,602 - Republican Voters: 2,583
DAY 3 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 713 - Republican Voters: 3,319
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 591 - Republican Voters: 496
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 4,554 - Republican Voters: 2,204
DAY 4 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 983 - Republican Voters: 4,665
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 610 - Republican Voters: 538
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,992 - Republican Voters: 2,985
DAY 5 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 1,205 - Republican Voters: 5,788
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 542 - Republican Voters: 372
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 6,979 - Republican Voters: 2,514
SOURCE: Tarrant County Election 3-4-2008 Primary Elections Combined Early Voting posted Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008
In Arlington, Democratic voters outnumbered Republican voters at all five polling places for each of the first five days of Early Voting. Countywide, over twice the number of Democrats voted early or by mail than Republicans.
In Arlington this year, larger numbers of Democrats are voting than Republicans. Democratic turnout at the five Arlington early voting sites exceeded Republican turnout for the first time in decades. In Arlington, known as a "Republican stronghold", 1033 votes were cast the first day of Early Voting in the Democratic primary while only 496 Republican votes were cast.
County wide, 5,733 Democrats voted early the first day; 2,606 Republicans voted early in Tarrant County on Tuesday.
On Wednesday Feb. 20, in Arlington, 1112 Democrats voted early; 463 Republicans voted early at the five early voting sites in Arlington.
On Thursday, Feb. 21, in Arlington, 846 Democrats voted early; 421 Republicans voted Thursday in Arlington.
On Friday, Feb. 22, in Arlington, 1,164 Democrats voted early; 557 Republicans voted early Friday in Arlington.
On Saturday, Feb. 23, in Arlington, 1,259 Democrats voted early; 431 Republicans voted early Friday in Arlington.
During the first five days of early voting in Arlington, 2,423 Democrats voted early and 988 Republicans voted early in Arlington during the first five days of early voting.
TARRANT COUNTY
County Wide on Tuesday Feb. 19, 5,732 Democrats voted and 2,607 Republicans voted.
County Wide on Wednedsay Feb. 20, 5,602 Democrats voted and 2,583 Republicans voted.
County Wide on Thursday, Feb. 21, 4,554 Democrats voted and 2,204 Republicans voted.
Wednesday. 5603 Democrats voted early and 2583 Republicans cast early ballots.
County Wide on Friday, Feb. 22, 5,992 Democrats voted and 2,985 Republicans voted early.
County Wide on Saturday, Feb. 23, 6,979 Democrats cast early ballots and 2,514 Republicans voted early.
During the first three days of Early Voting this year in Tarrant County 15,888 Democrats voted early and 7,394 Republicans voted early.
MAIL BALLOTS
By the second day of early voting, Tarrant County Elections reported a total of 2,146Democratic Primary mail ballots had been received and 1,982 Democratic Primary Vote by Mail ballots were still unvoted; 536 Republican Primary voters have returned Vote by Mail Ballots; 849 Republican Vote by Mail ballots remained to be voted at the close of the second day of Early Voting.
By Saturday, Feb. 23rd, 2,579 Democratic Vote by Mail Ballots had been returned and 893 Democratic Vote By Mail Ballots remained unvoted; 714 Republican Vote By Mail Ballots had been returned by Thursday and 888 Republican Vote By Mail Ballots remianed out and unvoted.
Democrats outpaced Republicans at the polls in Tarrant County on each of the first five days of Early Voting. Arlington, formerly thought of my many as a Red city, and discounted by most national Democratic campaigns as too expensive to work and too Republican to merit expenditure of resources, continues to turn out over two Democratic voters for every Republican. Democratic turnout has attracted the Presidential Campaigns. Chelsea Clinton appeared at UTA earlier this month. Her father, President Bill Clinton, will be 'stumpin'' for his wife at a rally this morning, (Sunday, Feb. 24) from 9:30-noon at Vandergriff Park. Arlington, noted as a city with a large number of Republican donors, has attracted Republican Presidential candidates in past years and some statewide Democratic candidates. This year, instead of fundraisers, the campaigns are holding rallies open to the public. Retail politics has arrived in Arlington
COMPARISON OF TARRANT COUNTY EARLY VOTERS BY DAY
FOR LAST THREE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
DAY 1 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 372 - Republican Voters: 1,558
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 396 - Republican Voters: 286
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,732 - Republican Voters: 2,607
DAY 2 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 558 - Republican Voters:2,518
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 464 - Republican Voters: 387
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,602 - Republican Voters: 2,583
DAY 3 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 713 - Republican Voters: 3,319
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 591 - Republican Voters: 496
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 4,554 - Republican Voters: 2,204
DAY 4 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 983 - Republican Voters: 4,665
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 610 - Republican Voters: 538
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,992 - Republican Voters: 2,985
DAY 5 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 1,205 - Republican Voters: 5,788
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 542 - Republican Voters: 372
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 6,979 - Republican Voters: 2,514
SOURCE: Tarrant County Election 3-4-2008 Primary Elections Combined Early Voting posted Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Tarrant County Democrats outnumber Republicans at Early Voting
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Feb. 22, 2008
On the third day of Early Voting, all Tarrant County voting sites except two reported more Democratic Voters than Republican Primary Voters.
At Benbrook City Hall 104 Republicans voted early on Thursday and 98 Democrats voted early. At Nance Elementary 16 Republicans voted early and 10 Democrats voted early. A significant number more Democrats than Republicans voted Thursday at all other Tarrant County Early Voting sites.
County wide, 5,733 Democrats voted early on Tuesday while only 2,605 Repubicans voted early. This year both parties in Tarrant County have exceeded the number of voters participating in their primaries during the first and second days of early voting in the 2000 and 2004 Primaries. On the third day, Republican turn-out was less than in 2000; Democratic turnout on the Third Day in Tarrant County this year is over 6 1/2 times greater than 2000 Day three turnout and over 7 1/2 times greater than in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Primary.
In Arlington this year, larger numbers of Democrats are voting than Republicans. Democratic turnout at the five Arlington early voting sites exceeded Republican turnout for the first time in decades. In Arlington, known as a "Republican stronghold", 1033 votes were cast the first day of Early Voting in the Democratic primary while only 496 Republican votes were cast.
County wide, 5,733 Democrats voted early the first day; 2,606 Republicans voted early in Tarrant County on Tuesday.
On Wednesday Feb. 20, in Arlington, 1112 Democrats voted early; 463 Republicans voted early at the five early voting sites in Arlington.
On Thursday, Feb. 21, in Arlington, 846 Democrats voted early; 421 Republicans voted Thursday in Arlington.
County Wide on Tuesday Feb. 19, 5,732 Democrats voted and 2,607 Republicans voted.
County Wide on Wednedsay Feb. 20, 5,602 Democrats voted and 2,583 Republicans voted.
County Wide on Thursday, Feb. 21, 4,554 Democrats voted and 2,204 Republicans voted.
Wednesday. 5603 Democrats voted early; 2583 Republicans cast early ballots.
During the first three days of Early Voting this year in Tarrant County 15,888 Democrats voted early and 7,394 Republicans voted early.
MAIL BALLOTS
By the second day of early voting, Tarrant County Elections reported a total of 2,146Democratic Primary mail ballots had been received and 1,982 Democratic Primary Vote by Mail ballots were still unvoted; 536 Republican Primary voters have returned Vote by Mail Ballots; 849 Republican Vote by Mail ballots remained to be voted at the close of the second day of Early Voting.
By Thursday, Feb. 21st, 2,324 Democratic Vote by Mail Ballots had been returned and 1,935 Democratic Vote By Mail Ballots remained unvoted; 584 Republican Vote By Mail Ballots had been returned by Thursday and 856 Republican Vote By Mail Ballots remianed out and unvoted.
At the close of the third day of early voting 15,888 Democrats had voted early (in person and by mail) and 7,394 Republicans had voted early. In Tarrant County on each of the first three days of early voting, over twice the number of Democrats cast early votes than Republicans.
In 2000 in Tarrant County more Republicans voted early than Democrats during the first three days of Early Voting; In 2004 more Democrats voted early during the first three days of early voting than Republicans. However, this year a much higher percentage of Democrats are voting early than in 2004.
DAY 1 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 372 - Republican Voters: 1,558
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 396 - Republican Voters: 286
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,732 - Republican Voters: 2,607
DAY 2 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 558 - Republican Voters:2,518
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 464 - Republican Voters: 387
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,602 - Republican Voters: 2,583
DAY 3 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 713 - Republican Voters: 3,319
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 591 - Republican Voters: 496
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 4,554 - Republican Voters: 2,204
SOURCE: Tarrant County Election 3-4-2008 Primary Elections Combined Early Voting posted Friday, Feb. 22, 2008
On the third day of Early Voting, all Tarrant County voting sites except two reported more Democratic Voters than Republican Primary Voters.
At Benbrook City Hall 104 Republicans voted early on Thursday and 98 Democrats voted early. At Nance Elementary 16 Republicans voted early and 10 Democrats voted early. A significant number more Democrats than Republicans voted Thursday at all other Tarrant County Early Voting sites.
County wide, 5,733 Democrats voted early on Tuesday while only 2,605 Repubicans voted early. This year both parties in Tarrant County have exceeded the number of voters participating in their primaries during the first and second days of early voting in the 2000 and 2004 Primaries. On the third day, Republican turn-out was less than in 2000; Democratic turnout on the Third Day in Tarrant County this year is over 6 1/2 times greater than 2000 Day three turnout and over 7 1/2 times greater than in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Primary.
In Arlington this year, larger numbers of Democrats are voting than Republicans. Democratic turnout at the five Arlington early voting sites exceeded Republican turnout for the first time in decades. In Arlington, known as a "Republican stronghold", 1033 votes were cast the first day of Early Voting in the Democratic primary while only 496 Republican votes were cast.
County wide, 5,733 Democrats voted early the first day; 2,606 Republicans voted early in Tarrant County on Tuesday.
On Wednesday Feb. 20, in Arlington, 1112 Democrats voted early; 463 Republicans voted early at the five early voting sites in Arlington.
On Thursday, Feb. 21, in Arlington, 846 Democrats voted early; 421 Republicans voted Thursday in Arlington.
County Wide on Tuesday Feb. 19, 5,732 Democrats voted and 2,607 Republicans voted.
County Wide on Wednedsay Feb. 20, 5,602 Democrats voted and 2,583 Republicans voted.
County Wide on Thursday, Feb. 21, 4,554 Democrats voted and 2,204 Republicans voted.
Wednesday. 5603 Democrats voted early; 2583 Republicans cast early ballots.
During the first three days of Early Voting this year in Tarrant County 15,888 Democrats voted early and 7,394 Republicans voted early.
MAIL BALLOTS
By the second day of early voting, Tarrant County Elections reported a total of 2,146Democratic Primary mail ballots had been received and 1,982 Democratic Primary Vote by Mail ballots were still unvoted; 536 Republican Primary voters have returned Vote by Mail Ballots; 849 Republican Vote by Mail ballots remained to be voted at the close of the second day of Early Voting.
By Thursday, Feb. 21st, 2,324 Democratic Vote by Mail Ballots had been returned and 1,935 Democratic Vote By Mail Ballots remained unvoted; 584 Republican Vote By Mail Ballots had been returned by Thursday and 856 Republican Vote By Mail Ballots remianed out and unvoted.
At the close of the third day of early voting 15,888 Democrats had voted early (in person and by mail) and 7,394 Republicans had voted early. In Tarrant County on each of the first three days of early voting, over twice the number of Democrats cast early votes than Republicans.
In 2000 in Tarrant County more Republicans voted early than Democrats during the first three days of Early Voting; In 2004 more Democrats voted early during the first three days of early voting than Republicans. However, this year a much higher percentage of Democrats are voting early than in 2004.
DAY 1 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 372 - Republican Voters: 1,558
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 396 - Republican Voters: 286
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,732 - Republican Voters: 2,607
DAY 2 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 558 - Republican Voters:2,518
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 464 - Republican Voters: 387
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 5,602 - Republican Voters: 2,583
DAY 3 EARLY VOTING
Tarrant County - 2000:
Democratic Voters: 713 - Republican Voters: 3,319
Tarrant County - 2004:
Democratic Voters: 591 - Republican Voters: 496
Tarrant County - 2008:
Democratic Voters: 4,554 - Republican Voters: 2,204
SOURCE: Tarrant County Election 3-4-2008 Primary Elections Combined Early Voting posted Friday, Feb. 22, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Senate limits CIA interrogation
By BBC News - Thursday, 14 February 2008
The US Senate has voted to bar the CIA from using harsh interrogation techniques such as simulated drowning, widely known as water-boarding.
The ban was contained in a broader intelligence bill that passed 51-45.
The Senate vote follows a similar move by the House of Representatives in December, despite a threat by President George W Bush to veto such legislation.
A senior justice department official is set to testify later in the day that water-boarding is now not legal.
"The set of interrogation methods authorised for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include water-boarding," says Steven Bradbury, the acting head of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel.
His remarks, obtained by the Associated Press, were prepared for an appearance before the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee later on Thursday.
He goes on: "There has been no determination by the justice department that the use of water-boarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under the current law."
Water-boarding, condemned as torture by rights groups and many governments, is an interrogation method that puts the detainee in fear of drowning.
Army manual
In a vote that split largely along party lines, the Democratic-led Congress on Wednesday passed a bill that would restrict the CIA to using the 19 interrogation techniques outlined by the US Army field manual.
The legislation would ban the CIA from using not only water-boarding but sensory deprivation and other harsh coercive methods on prisoners.
Senator John McCain, who is the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination and who has previously brought anti-torture legislation, voted against the overall bill.
Crucial information
Last week, the CIA publicly admitted for the first time using water-boarding on terror suspects.
The CIA director, General Michael Hayden, told the House Intelligence Committee the technique had only been used on three people, including high-profile al-Qaeda detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and not for the past five years.
He said that water-boarding may no longer be legal given changes in US legislation and that the CIA would respect limits passed by Congress even if it meant failing to get crucial information.
Gen Hayden has argued that the CIA has different interrogation needs than the army and requires more latitude to be effective.
The Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto, which Mr Bush has threatened to use.
CIA 'ENHANCED INTERROGATION' TECHNIQUES
- Water boarding: prisoner bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning
- Cold cell: prisoner made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water
- Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor
- Belly slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury
Source: Described to ABC News by un-named CIA agents in 2005
Read more on BBC News
The US Senate has voted to bar the CIA from using harsh interrogation techniques such as simulated drowning, widely known as water-boarding.
The ban was contained in a broader intelligence bill that passed 51-45.
The Senate vote follows a similar move by the House of Representatives in December, despite a threat by President George W Bush to veto such legislation.
A senior justice department official is set to testify later in the day that water-boarding is now not legal.
"The set of interrogation methods authorised for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include water-boarding," says Steven Bradbury, the acting head of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel.
His remarks, obtained by the Associated Press, were prepared for an appearance before the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee later on Thursday.
He goes on: "There has been no determination by the justice department that the use of water-boarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under the current law."
Water-boarding, condemned as torture by rights groups and many governments, is an interrogation method that puts the detainee in fear of drowning.
Army manual
In a vote that split largely along party lines, the Democratic-led Congress on Wednesday passed a bill that would restrict the CIA to using the 19 interrogation techniques outlined by the US Army field manual.
The legislation would ban the CIA from using not only water-boarding but sensory deprivation and other harsh coercive methods on prisoners.
"There must be no doubt in the world that this great nation does not torture," said Senator Chuck Hagel, one of the bill's main sponsors.
Senator John McCain, who is the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination and who has previously brought anti-torture legislation, voted against the overall bill.
"I made it very clear that I think that water-boarding is torture and illegal, but I will not restrict the CIA to only the Army field manual," he said.
Crucial information
Last week, the CIA publicly admitted for the first time using water-boarding on terror suspects.
The CIA director, General Michael Hayden, told the House Intelligence Committee the technique had only been used on three people, including high-profile al-Qaeda detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and not for the past five years.
He said that water-boarding may no longer be legal given changes in US legislation and that the CIA would respect limits passed by Congress even if it meant failing to get crucial information.
Gen Hayden has argued that the CIA has different interrogation needs than the army and requires more latitude to be effective.
The Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto, which Mr Bush has threatened to use.
"Part of this bill are inconsistent with the effective conduct of intelligence gathering," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
CIA 'ENHANCED INTERROGATION' TECHNIQUES
- Water boarding: prisoner bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning
- Cold cell: prisoner made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water
- Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor
- Belly slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury
Source: Described to ABC News by un-named CIA agents in 2005
Read more on BBC News
US annual trade deficit narrows
By BBC News - Thursday, 14 February 2008
The US trade deficit narrowed in 2007, official figures show, as a rise in exports offset the country's large growth in oil imports.
The deficit reached $711.6bn (£361.1bn) last year, down from $758.5bn in 2006, the Commerce Department said.
Strong demand for oil from overseas had seen the trade gap set records for five consecutive years.
December's trade deficit fell to $58.8bn from $63.1bn in November - a bigger decline than expected.
China gap widens
The decline in the dollar helped to spur exports, analysts said, as this made US products cheaper abroad and therefore more competitive.
President George W Bush's administration has said that its free trade policies have also bolstered sales overseas.
However, critics point to a deficit that is almost double the level of 2001 when President Bush came office.
As analysts had expected, the trade deficit with China grew in 2007 despite the string of recalls of Chinese-made products during the year.
The trade gap with China jumped by 10.2% to $256.3bn - the biggest the US has had with a single country.
The next largest deficits were with the European Union at $107.4bn, and Japan at $82.8bn.
Commerce Department figures showed that exports, which were helped by farm products and car and vehicle parts, totalled $1.62 trillion, while imports, led by oil, rose to $2.33 trillion.
Read more in BBC News
The US trade deficit narrowed in 2007, official figures show, as a rise in exports offset the country's large growth in oil imports.
The deficit reached $711.6bn (£361.1bn) last year, down from $758.5bn in 2006, the Commerce Department said.
Strong demand for oil from overseas had seen the trade gap set records for five consecutive years.
December's trade deficit fell to $58.8bn from $63.1bn in November - a bigger decline than expected.
China gap widens
The decline in the dollar helped to spur exports, analysts said, as this made US products cheaper abroad and therefore more competitive.
President George W Bush's administration has said that its free trade policies have also bolstered sales overseas.
However, critics point to a deficit that is almost double the level of 2001 when President Bush came office.
As analysts had expected, the trade deficit with China grew in 2007 despite the string of recalls of Chinese-made products during the year.
The trade gap with China jumped by 10.2% to $256.3bn - the biggest the US has had with a single country.
The next largest deficits were with the European Union at $107.4bn, and Japan at $82.8bn.
Commerce Department figures showed that exports, which were helped by farm products and car and vehicle parts, totalled $1.62 trillion, while imports, led by oil, rose to $2.33 trillion.
Read more in BBC News
Sharp jump in China trade surplus
By BBC News - Friday, 15 February 2008China's trade surplus soared 19.5% in January as the economy continued to boom despite efforts to cool the rate of growth, official figures have shown.
The surplus - the gap between what China exports and what it imports - grew to $22.7bn (£11.5bn) last month, compared with $15.9bn a year earlier.
China's exports in January increased 26.7% to $109.7bn, the biggest year-on-year rise in six months.
Imports rose 27.6% to $90.2bn, the biggest increase in almost two years.
Yuan dispute
The latest trade surplus figure was bigger than market estimates and is likely to renew criticism from the US and European Union, who have accused China of undervaluing the yuan to make its exports artificially cheap.
While Beijing still does not allow the yuan to float freely against other currencies, it counters that the currency's value has increased by 13% since 2005.
The Chinese government also argues that it cannot move any faster on liberalising the yuan for fear it could destabilise the country's export-led economic boom.
China has instead moved to cool both exports and its overall breakneck economic growth through policies such as increased taxation, interest rate rises and limits on how much money banks can lend to businesses.
Analysts said it would now be interesting to see how China's exports were affected by continuing recession fears in the US.
"The first point is that we haven't really seen any significant softening of the growth numbers in terms of both exports and imports," said Yiping Huang, chief China economist with Citigroup in Hong Kong.
"The trade surplus figure is a bit lower than in the previous months, but still very strong."
The International Monetary Fund said on Friday that the Chinese economy is likely to grow by 10% this year, down slightly from 11.4% in 2007.
Read more in BBC NEWS
The surplus - the gap between what China exports and what it imports - grew to $22.7bn (£11.5bn) last month, compared with $15.9bn a year earlier.
China's exports in January increased 26.7% to $109.7bn, the biggest year-on-year rise in six months.
Imports rose 27.6% to $90.2bn, the biggest increase in almost two years.
Yuan dispute
The latest trade surplus figure was bigger than market estimates and is likely to renew criticism from the US and European Union, who have accused China of undervaluing the yuan to make its exports artificially cheap.
While Beijing still does not allow the yuan to float freely against other currencies, it counters that the currency's value has increased by 13% since 2005.
The Chinese government also argues that it cannot move any faster on liberalising the yuan for fear it could destabilise the country's export-led economic boom.
China has instead moved to cool both exports and its overall breakneck economic growth through policies such as increased taxation, interest rate rises and limits on how much money banks can lend to businesses.
Analysts said it would now be interesting to see how China's exports were affected by continuing recession fears in the US.
"The first point is that we haven't really seen any significant softening of the growth numbers in terms of both exports and imports," said Yiping Huang, chief China economist with Citigroup in Hong Kong.
"The trade surplus figure is a bit lower than in the previous months, but still very strong."
The International Monetary Fund said on Friday that the Chinese economy is likely to grow by 10% this year, down slightly from 11.4% in 2007.
Read more in BBC NEWS
Bush, House Democrats Face Off on Wiretapping Bill
By David Welna and Melissa Block - NPR - All Things Considered, February 14, 2008
President Bush says the House needs to finish a bill governing U.S. eavesdropping on the phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists. The current law, the Protect America Act, expires this weekend, and the president says he won't approve another extension of it.
The president is insisting that Congress send him legislation expanding wiretapping powers before the temporary law expires Saturday.
The Senate passed such legislation this week that's at odds with what the House passed three months ago, and House Democrats now want three more weeks to settle those differences.
At the White House on Thursday, President Bush said no to that:
Bush, Congress in Spy Bill Standoff
By The Associated Press - WASHINGTON -February 15, 2008
With a deadline looming, President Bush and congressional Democrats are locked in a standoff over the government's authority to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.
A temporary law that makes it easier to carry out that spying expires Saturday night at midnight, and Bush and his top intelligence officials say the consequences are dire. Al-Qaida, Bush says, is "thinking about hurting the American people again," and would be helped if U.S. eavesdropping is hampered.
The Democrats are equally adamant. Bush has all the authority he needs to intercept terrorist communications, even if the law expires, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. The congressional majority is simply trying to balance concerns about civil liberties against the government's spy powers, and needs time to do it, she said.
So who's right?A quirk in the temporary eavesdropping law adopted by Congress last August complicates the answer. The law allows the government to initiate wiretaps for up to one year against a wide range of targets. It also explicitly compels telecommunications companies to comply with the orders, and protects them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them for doing so.
But while the wiretap orders can go on for a year from the time they started, the compliance orders and the liability protections go away when the law expires, says Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.
That is not exactly true. Even if the law expires, the government can get an order from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to compel their cooperation. That court was created 30 years ago for just such a purpose.
But McConnell rejects that option. He says the process of getting a court order ties intelligence agents up in red tape.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires court permission to tap wires inside the United States. Changes in technology since then mean much of the world's computer and phone traffic passes through the United States, much of it on fiber-optic cable. Successive court cases say court orders are needed to listen in on any of them, McConnell said.
To get a court order, intelligence agents have to prove they have "probable cause" to believe a target is foreign agent or terrorist before being allowed to tap a line inside the United States, even if the communication originates and ends in a foreign country. "If it touches a wire in the U.S. you have to have a warrant," he said.
It is difficult for intelligence agents piecing together shreds of information to get enough to merit probable cause, he said. By the time they can amass enough information to do that, the phone number they wanted to track might already be obsolete, McConnell said.
The FISA law does make provisions for fleeting targets when there is not time to fill out the paperwork. Within a few days, though, the paperwork must be completed and probable cause proved to get an order approved.
The easy solution, say Democratic congressional leaders, is to extend the current law long enough to allow the House and Senate to work out the differences in their respective surveillance bills. The House finished its version in October, but the Senate did not finish until this week, pushing Congress hard up against the deadline.
The law had been set to expire on Feb. 1. The White House reluctantly agreed to a 15-day extension but refuses to approve any more, and has appealed to House leaders to simply approve the version approved by the Senate, which includes the legal immunity for telecom companies the president wants.
The immunity provision protects phone companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program conducted outside the authority of the FISA court, a feature the House intentionally left out.
Unable to muster the votes to extend the current law, House leaders say they'd rather let it lapse and operate under the old FISA rules than be pressured by the White House into accepting the Senate bill. House Republicans protested with a walkout Thursday.
House Democratic leaders say they're reluctant to grant legal immunity to the phone companies without knowing what they did, and have asked for more information, most of it classified. They say the administration is balking.
McConnell acknowledged that the White House's refusal to extend the current law is meant to force Congress to adopt the Senate bill. "If anybody agrees to 21-day extension, in 21 days we're going to have the same discussion again," he said.
However, Pelosi predicted the House and Senate versions could be reconciled in three weeks.
McConnell believes retroactive telecom immunity is critical to national security. Failure to provide it could result in telecommunications companies challenging FISA court orders as a way to further insulate themselves from future lawsuits, he argued.
Already, he says the roughly 40 lawsuits filed against telecom companies nationwide has chilled the private sector's willingness to help the intelligence agencies in ways unrelated to electronic surveillance. Exactly how is classified, and he won't elaborate.
But that help has waned over the last two years, he said.
House Republicans stage a walkout on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008, as Democrats considered a resolution that would hold some of President Bush's former aides in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions before the House Judiciary Committee.
Read more in NPR
President Bush says the House needs to finish a bill governing U.S. eavesdropping on the phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists. The current law, the Protect America Act, expires this weekend, and the president says he won't approve another extension of it.
The president is insisting that Congress send him legislation expanding wiretapping powers before the temporary law expires Saturday.
The Senate passed such legislation this week that's at odds with what the House passed three months ago, and House Democrats now want three more weeks to settle those differences.
At the White House on Thursday, President Bush said no to that:
"I urge congressional leaders to let the will of the House and the American people prevail and vote on the Senate bill before adjourning for their recess. Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence. Failure to act would also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country, and this is unacceptable."
Bush, Congress in Spy Bill Standoff
By The Associated Press - WASHINGTON -February 15, 2008
With a deadline looming, President Bush and congressional Democrats are locked in a standoff over the government's authority to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.
A temporary law that makes it easier to carry out that spying expires Saturday night at midnight, and Bush and his top intelligence officials say the consequences are dire. Al-Qaida, Bush says, is "thinking about hurting the American people again," and would be helped if U.S. eavesdropping is hampered.
The Democrats are equally adamant. Bush has all the authority he needs to intercept terrorist communications, even if the law expires, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. The congressional majority is simply trying to balance concerns about civil liberties against the government's spy powers, and needs time to do it, she said.
So who's right?A quirk in the temporary eavesdropping law adopted by Congress last August complicates the answer. The law allows the government to initiate wiretaps for up to one year against a wide range of targets. It also explicitly compels telecommunications companies to comply with the orders, and protects them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them for doing so.
But while the wiretap orders can go on for a year from the time they started, the compliance orders and the liability protections go away when the law expires, says Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.
"There is no longer a way to compel the private sector to help us," he said Thursday in an Associated Press interview.
That is not exactly true. Even if the law expires, the government can get an order from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to compel their cooperation. That court was created 30 years ago for just such a purpose.
But McConnell rejects that option. He says the process of getting a court order ties intelligence agents up in red tape.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires court permission to tap wires inside the United States. Changes in technology since then mean much of the world's computer and phone traffic passes through the United States, much of it on fiber-optic cable. Successive court cases say court orders are needed to listen in on any of them, McConnell said.
To get a court order, intelligence agents have to prove they have "probable cause" to believe a target is foreign agent or terrorist before being allowed to tap a line inside the United States, even if the communication originates and ends in a foreign country. "If it touches a wire in the U.S. you have to have a warrant," he said.
It is difficult for intelligence agents piecing together shreds of information to get enough to merit probable cause, he said. By the time they can amass enough information to do that, the phone number they wanted to track might already be obsolete, McConnell said.
"Terrorists change their name, change their means of communicating all the time. Every time that changes you've got to stay with it. We have to be very dynamic. More than likely we would miss the very information we need to prevent some horrendous act from taking place in the United States,"he said.
The FISA law does make provisions for fleeting targets when there is not time to fill out the paperwork. Within a few days, though, the paperwork must be completed and probable cause proved to get an order approved.
The easy solution, say Democratic congressional leaders, is to extend the current law long enough to allow the House and Senate to work out the differences in their respective surveillance bills. The House finished its version in October, but the Senate did not finish until this week, pushing Congress hard up against the deadline.
The law had been set to expire on Feb. 1. The White House reluctantly agreed to a 15-day extension but refuses to approve any more, and has appealed to House leaders to simply approve the version approved by the Senate, which includes the legal immunity for telecom companies the president wants.
The immunity provision protects phone companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program conducted outside the authority of the FISA court, a feature the House intentionally left out.
Unable to muster the votes to extend the current law, House leaders say they'd rather let it lapse and operate under the old FISA rules than be pressured by the White House into accepting the Senate bill. House Republicans protested with a walkout Thursday.
House Democratic leaders say they're reluctant to grant legal immunity to the phone companies without knowing what they did, and have asked for more information, most of it classified. They say the administration is balking.
McConnell acknowledged that the White House's refusal to extend the current law is meant to force Congress to adopt the Senate bill. "If anybody agrees to 21-day extension, in 21 days we're going to have the same discussion again," he said.
However, Pelosi predicted the House and Senate versions could be reconciled in three weeks.
McConnell believes retroactive telecom immunity is critical to national security. Failure to provide it could result in telecommunications companies challenging FISA court orders as a way to further insulate themselves from future lawsuits, he argued.
Already, he says the roughly 40 lawsuits filed against telecom companies nationwide has chilled the private sector's willingness to help the intelligence agencies in ways unrelated to electronic surveillance. Exactly how is classified, and he won't elaborate.
"I'm talking about the things they've done to help us track terrorists," said McConnell. "They did lawful things at the request of the government under the conditions they've done it for 50 years."
But that help has waned over the last two years, he said.
"Your country is at risk if we can't get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time," he said.
House Republicans stage a walkout on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008, as Democrats considered a resolution that would hold some of President Bush's former aides in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions before the House Judiciary Committee.
Read more in NPR
Thursday, February 14, 2008
DOJ Requires Clear Channel To Divest In Four Markets To Complete Buyout
By Radio Ink - Feb. 13, 2008
WASHINGTON -- February 13, 2008: The Department of Justice says it will require Clear Channel to divest radio stations in Cincinnati, Houston, Las Vegas, and San Francisco in order for the company to proceed with a buyout led by private equity groups Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners.
Additionally, the DOJ's Antitrust Division has filed suit in Washington, DC, to block the acquisition, and at the same time has filed a proposed settlement that, if the U.S. District Court in Washington approves it, will resolve the lawsuit and the DOJ's competitive concerns.
The divestitures will be required, the DOJ said, because "the transaction, as originally proposed, likely would have resulted in higher prices to purchasers of radio advertising in Cincinnati, Houston, Las Vegas, and San Francisco because [buyers] Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners already have substantial ownership interests in two firms that compete with Clear Channel in those cities. Bain and THL have ownership interests in Cumulus Media Partners LLC (Cumulus), a large nationwide operator of radio stations, and THL also has an ownership interest in Univision Communications Inc. (Univision), a large nationwide operator of radio stations that broadcast primarily in Spanish."
According to the complaint filed by the Antitrust Division, radio stations owned by Clear Channel and Cumulus compete head-to-head in Cincinnati and Houston, while Clear Channel and Univision own competing Spanish-language radio stations in Houston, Las Vegas, and San Francisco. The division must approve the buyers of the divested Clear Channel stations.
"Without the divestitures obtained by the department, advertisers that rely on radio advertising in the affected cities likely would have faced higher prices," said Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division. "The divestitures will ensure that advertisers will continue to receive the benefits of competition."
Read more on Radio Ink
WASHINGTON -- February 13, 2008: The Department of Justice says it will require Clear Channel to divest radio stations in Cincinnati, Houston, Las Vegas, and San Francisco in order for the company to proceed with a buyout led by private equity groups Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners.
Additionally, the DOJ's Antitrust Division has filed suit in Washington, DC, to block the acquisition, and at the same time has filed a proposed settlement that, if the U.S. District Court in Washington approves it, will resolve the lawsuit and the DOJ's competitive concerns.
The divestitures will be required, the DOJ said, because "the transaction, as originally proposed, likely would have resulted in higher prices to purchasers of radio advertising in Cincinnati, Houston, Las Vegas, and San Francisco because [buyers] Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners already have substantial ownership interests in two firms that compete with Clear Channel in those cities. Bain and THL have ownership interests in Cumulus Media Partners LLC (Cumulus), a large nationwide operator of radio stations, and THL also has an ownership interest in Univision Communications Inc. (Univision), a large nationwide operator of radio stations that broadcast primarily in Spanish."
According to the complaint filed by the Antitrust Division, radio stations owned by Clear Channel and Cumulus compete head-to-head in Cincinnati and Houston, while Clear Channel and Univision own competing Spanish-language radio stations in Houston, Las Vegas, and San Francisco. The division must approve the buyers of the divested Clear Channel stations.
"Without the divestitures obtained by the department, advertisers that rely on radio advertising in the affected cities likely would have faced higher prices," said Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division. "The divestitures will ensure that advertisers will continue to receive the benefits of competition."
Read more on Radio Ink
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Water Conservation Key Issue for Railroad Commission Candidate Dale Henry
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
