Texas Elections Director: Electioneering For Greg Abbott Isn’t Electioneering

In a stunning abandonment of all logic and reason, the Texas Director of Elections, Ann McGeehan, has determined that wearing in a polling location a button or a T-shirt bearing the words “Don’t tread on me” along with a coiled snake doesn’t constitute electioneering.

Writes the director in what can be described as the most poorly worded policy decision that I have ever read:

“It is the opinion of this office that people simply wearing a t-shirt or button with the wording “Don’t Tread on Me” displaying the coiled rattlesnake and nothing else are not electioneering for (nor does such action relate to) a candidate, measure or party and such action does not relate to the conduct of the election.”

Stunning in that this symbol has become the unofficial seal of the TEA party movement.

Illogical in that this symbol is the adopted symbol of a real Texas Republican politician engaged in a real campaign against a real Democrat. In other words, if wearing the symbol that represents the campaign of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is not electioneering, then anything goes from here on in.

Unreasonable in that Greg Abbott actually uses the Gadsden Flag on his campaign material. He even has a “Don’t Tread On Me” campaign on his website. You can see it here and read about the fact that “If you contribute just $10 to General Abbott's campaign, you can get your own "Don't Tread on Me" embroidered hat or t-shirt!”

He even poses for a photograph with his campaign symbol.

It now appears to me that merely bringing the federal Department of Justice here and federalizing the entire election process in the state of Texas would not be enough to stop the gross crimes and misdemeanors of ultraconservatives and other assorted fanatics. Texas is simply too far gone for any of that.

No, there is only one thing we can do in order to bring Texas forward into the 21st century, completely skipping the 20th.

Bring back Reconstruction.

Perry and Abbott Waste Taxpayer Money with Frivolous Lawsuit

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times called it today: Rick Perry and his chief counsel, Attorney General Greg Abbott have committed an egregious act as any Texas Republican will likely admit – they have filed a frivolous lawsuit.

But more damning is the fact that they are using taxpayer money to do this.

This is about the $820 million that the federal government has allocated to Texas to augment its education budget. An infusion of cash so that Texas teachers aren’t laid off and Texas students aren't made to sit in overcrowded classrooms.

A tidy sum, this $830 million. A sum that can make a real difference. But Rick Perry and Greg Abbott divined a way to look this $830 million gift horse in the mouth. Have divined a way to make themselves look like crusaders tilting at the federal government while it desperately tries to get Texas to accept this money.

The problem is the Doggett Amendment. Crafted by Texas Congressman Lloyd Doggett, this amendment requires the governor of Texas to “guarantee no drop in state education funding for the next three years, as a condition of receiving the $830 million.” This was in reaction to the 2009 shell game that Perry played with the $3.2 billion federal stimulus check that was issued especially for the state’s education fund. Perry simply placed it in the education budget, then reallocated a like amount from Texas revenue to other places.

In short, he used the $3.2 billion, meant to augment Texas education, to balance his budget.

So according to the Doggett Amendment, all they have to do is make a political promise. All they have to do is promise that the state’s education budget will stay at the same level that it is at for three years. But this, they say, they cannot do because the Texas Constitution ties their hands.

From the Caller-Times:

“Their primary assertion, however, is that the Doggett Amendment would require Perry to violate the Texas Constitution because the Legislature, not the governor, allocates funds and can do so only two years at a time. The Doggett Amendment requires a three-year guarantee.”

This reading, while true, begs the question: no one asked them to allocate funds, they simply asked for a guarantee. They make guarantees all the time. They even make them and renege on them. That’s politics.


But no.

Perry and Abbott spend taxpayer money to make a political point, and in so doing, deny Texas much needed education funds as the Education Commissioner proposes $260 million in slashes to the education budget.

But it gets even better. It seems that Greg Abbott’s opponent, Barbara Ann Radnofsky had out-lawyered Greg Abbott again. She read further on down in the Texas Constitution and found that what Perry did with the $3.2 billion last year was illegal.

And I thought is was just bad taste.

From the Caller-Times (again):

“His opponent, Democrat Barbara Ann Radnofsky, setting out to prove that this is just needless political theater, read further into the Constitution and found something that appears to trump Abbott’s legal premise:”

“‘The Legislature shall not have power to ... in any manner divert from its purpose, any special fund that may, or ought to, come into the Treasury; and shall make it penal for any person or persons to borrow, withhold, or in any manner divert from its purpose any special fund, or any part thereof.’”

That $3.2 billion was a “special fund” meant to benefit education. It was diverted. And it is “penal” to do that.

In short, Rick Perry did what any Columbian drug lord does as a standard business practice, he laundered money. But at $3.2 billion, Perry certainly did his money laundering in a grand way.

.

Barbara Radnofsky: Texas AG Abbott Oversaw Nullification of Texas Marriages

Texas voters, it seems, in their zeal to deny to their gay neighbors rights and privileges that they take for granted, may just have shot themselves, and their marriages, right in the foot.

Apparently, according to Barbara Ann Radnofsky, who hopes to unseat Republican State AG Greg Abbott, the constitutional amendment that Texas voters came out in droves to vote for in 2005, as urged by their priests and preachers, the amendment to deny gay men and women the right to a state-sanctioned marriage, went a little too far.

You see, in their zeal to deny gay Texans the right to marry, the framers of Proposition 2, a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage in Texas, actually banned all marriage. And, as Radnofsky points out, Greg Abbott oversaw the whole process.

Said Radnofsky in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

“You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says.”

Oh really? I had trouble believing it, that these people could be that dense, but then I went and read the entire thing as it sits right now as Section 32 of Article 1 of the Texas State Constitution (scroll all the way down):

Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)

Clause (b) says it all.

Said Radnofsky:

“Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel.”

For “whoever” read Abbott.

Not true says Abbott’s staffer Kelly Strickland (who helped draft the amendment), from the same article:

“The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional.”

In saying this, the staffer appears to be defending Texas’ ban on all marriages, saying that this ban is “entirely constitutional.”

What is truly ironic here is that Radnofsky is not the first person to point this out. It was pointed out 4 years ago by the group “Save Texas Marriage.”

From the Austin Chronicle:

“A newly formed group, Save Texas Marriage – a blood relative of the No Nonsense in November campaign – has mounted a full-on attack on Prop. 2 that ncludes a massive rollout of automated calls to nearly two million homes across the state. In one call, the Rev. Tom Hegar, a Presbyterian minister, warns that because the second part of the proposed amendment, prohibiting the recognition of "any legal status identical or similar to marriage," fails to distinguish between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, a ‘liberal activist judge’ could see fit to void all marriages. ‘Don't risk it; vote against it,’ Hegar says, and ends with ‘God bless you.’”

Now you just know that someone is going to take advantage of this ill-written law. What better way to get out of a property settlement in a divorce case than to make the case that the marriage was never legal?

I am wondering one step further. If marriage in Texas isn’t legal, what does that do to divorce decisions? If there no marriage is recognized in Texas, how can the state grant divorces?

Never mind how many people are there out there having sex out of wedlock, I want to know how many bigamists there are out there as a result of this snafu.

Who is Testifying at the Senate Hearing on the Voter ID Bill - - - and Who Is Not.

The call out to the public to come to Austin today to give testimony before the Texas Senate on the Voter ID bill, SB 362, currently being considered, was a rousing success. At last count, 120 individuals signed up to address the Senate. At 3 minutes allocated for each, that is 480 minutes of individual testimony.

That’s eight hours.

Minimum (will more speakers sign up yet?).

Plus the minutes spent between speakers.

So the public, intensely interested in this veiled attempt at voter suppression in Texas, in a state that threatens to turn over the majority to Democrats for the first time since 2003, has reacted with the righteous indignation that the bill deserves.

Contrast that to two individuals who will not be showing up to give testimony in this upcoming debate: Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott, and Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade.

Abbott says testimony represents a conflict as he will be having to defend the law in court when it gets challenged.

Andrade is out of town on a previous commitment.

I guess no one told Hope Andrade that this bill, if enacted into law, will have a singular effect on her office, and her ability to carry out her responsibilities in running the state’s elections. It will be people at the bottom of the Elections tree that will be having to enforce the restrictive Voter ID rules. It will be her people who will turn voters away from casting their votes at the polls.

But Andrade had a previous engagement.

Abbott, I can understand. This sleight of hand that he proffers, that he cannot comment on a bill that he is all set to support in the courts, gives one pause. Does this mean that he doesn’t really support the bill and cannot comment on it because he must do so in court? That would make more sense.

Fact is, Abbott not only supports the bill, he provides the paltry ammunition that is the bill’s reason for being: there is voter fraud in Texas and this bill will prevent that.

Fact is, if he shows his face in the Senate, he will be open to questions from Democrats who will ask what results came of his $1.4 million investigation in voter fraud in Texas. The answer, I hear, is truly embarrassing.

The point is, 120 (or so) private citizens thought it important enough to make their views heard, and probably went out of their way to do so. Getting time off on a workday is not an easy thing to do.

Abbott and Andrade would have been paid to testify.

But, those are the priorities.

Obvious, isn’t it, that there is no chance for this legislation to be defeated in the Senate, huh? Republicans are just biding their time

And ducking their responsibilities.

Nothing new under the sun.

Texas AG Abbott Decries Overturn of Death Sentence for Child Rapists

In a statement released to the press today in the wake of the Supreme Court’s sane move to strike down an anti-child rape law where punishment included the death penalty, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott found cause to object most strenuously, though his spokesman Jerry Strickland. From The Chron:

“Today's decision marks a setback for Texas' efforts to punish repeat child rapists. A criminal convicted of multiple brutal acts of child rape will be treated less severely than one who commits treason or espionage.”

Now the point I think the AG is making, is that the rape of a child and treason or espionage are all crimes where no victim suffers death. Abbott, through his spokesman makes the case that child rape is a morally more heinous offense than treason, yet a traitor receives a heavier sentence – the death sentence in this case.

AG Abbott forgets two things about the death penalty for child rape. First, quite often the offender is a family member; other members of the family who want repeated rapes of a family member to stop would be disinclined to turn in their relative if they knew it would mean a death sentence for them. Second, when the only witness to a rape is the child/victim and there is literally no difference in punishment between child rape and murder, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect the rapist to push it to murder?

In short, the law is not only unconstitutional under the law; it was a real bad idea.

AG Abbott forgets about the calamity that besets a society whose secrets are traded to an enemy, or whose covert intelligence is exposed to the public. How many people, do you think, lost their lives when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg gave the Soviets the key to building a thermonuclear bomb? By how many years did it extend the Cold War? Would the Cold War have occurred at all?

By the same measure then, how many lives were imperiled when Valerie Plame’s covert identity was revealed by Karl Rove?

AG Abbott clearly has let his politics infect his entire thought process. Treason and espionage are lesser offenses than child rape? If you ask the people of Norway who were alive before Hitler invaded it, and were not after, I think they will have a relevant opinion on this. They already have a noun and a verb for it: Quisling.

AG Abbott needs to keep these things in perspective, in case he has lost that perspective when members of his own party committed treason when they knowingly exposed a covert CIA agent.

Just because no one was tried, convicted, and executed in that affair, doesn’t mean it is less heinous a crime than child rape.

Texas Attorney General Agrees to End Voter Suppression; Claims Victory

Only in Texas can an elected official completely cave on significant voter suppression issues, and then turn around and claim absolute victory. This is exactly what happened today as 6 plaintiffs who filed suit in federal district court over Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s voter fraud attacks on minorities and senior citizens, agreed to drop their lawsuit.

According to the Lone Star Project which spearheaded the lawsuit, this settlement was a victory for Texas voters:

“The Texas Attorney General has agreed to rewrite prosecution guidelines to reflect that voters who merely possess the ballot of another voter with that voter's consent will not be investigated or prosecuted unless there's evidence of actual fraud. Prosecutions will be limited to cases exists such as when a person illegally votes a ballot for another person or causes a person to vote for a different candidate than they wish.“

“By agreeing to this settlement, the Texas Attorney General has essentially acknowledged that those who have been prosecuted to date for hypertechnical violations of failing to sign a mail ballot envelope did not commit any fraud, as he has falsely claimed for years.“

“The Attorney General's filings in the case also revealed that two of the plaintiffs, Gloria Meeks and Rebecca Minneweather, were no longer under investigation, a point the Attorney General had failed to tell these voters. “

“The Attorney General also agreed that the Secretary of State would change instructions to voters who vote by mail in 2008. The Secretary of State had already made changes to the ballot envelope and instructions to voters, acknowledging that such changes were made as a result of the lawsuit. The Attorney General and Secretary of State also agreed to consider additional revisions to voter instruction language that make it clear to voters, and those who assist them, the proper procedures for voting by mail. The Plaintiff will also help the Secretary of State's office create training materials and guidelines so
those who help their neighbors vote will do so in accordance with the law”

In exchange for this agreement, the plaintiffs agreed to drop the lawsuit. Obviously the Attorney General was in a territory that was part of the Bush/Rove voter suppression culture of 2006 and before, but this culture has since fallen into disrepute with senate investigations on the firing of 8 US Attorneys. Attorneys who refused to go along with Karl Rove’s orders to actively prosecute individuals in dubious cases of voter fraud.

This didn’t stop Greg Abbott from congratulating himself for his sly and slick maneuvering against these Democratic activists. From his website:

“Election fraud is a serious crime that undermines our democratic system of government,” said Attorney General Greg Abbott. “After more than a year and a half of pre-trial maneuvering and discovery, the plaintiffs discovered that their claims were without basis in fact or law. Today’s dismissal marks an important victory for the integrity of the electoral process”.

Whatever.

What is important is not who gets to claim victory. What is important is that the Attorney General will stop his hypertechnical interpretation of a 2003 law that governs mail-in ballots, stop prosecuting little old ladies, and stop the Attorney General’s people from peering into the bathroom windows of women as they take a shower.

But a “victory” claim by the Attorney General? I guess you can claim a victory when someone wins. And today, the voters of Texas are winners.

Texas AG Abbott Sides With Craddick

Just hours before the opinion’s deadline, Texas Attorney General issued what amounted to a moral victory for House Speaker Tom Craddick. Moral victory in that in his opinion, the AG found that Craddick, as House Speaker, held a statewide office, and as a statewide office holder, could only be removed by impeachment in the Texas Senate.

Some would say that that is a flat out victory for Craddick, and its effect does amount to victory. Curiously, Abbott refused to cross the line and issue an interpretation on House rules.

“This office will adhere to the Texas Constitution's separation of powers doctrine and long-standing precedent in declining to answer questions requiring an interpretation of Senate and House rules or questions regarding legislative parliamentary decisions.”

Oh please. Are we not full of ourselves? Abbott does not deign to make an opinion on House rules because why? Would his opinion become House rules? Does his opinion carry the force of constitutional law? No, Abbott did not go there because in going there he would be finding all of the statements made on parliamentary procedure in all of the briefs filed to be absolutely valid. Craddick overstepped his authority in claiming that his power was absolute. Craddick cannot refuse to recognize a member. To do so would be to disenfranchise every constituent in the member’s district.

Abbott knew this, so he just left it alone, giving the inviolability of the separation of powers as his reason.

How does that work? How do you issue an opinion that the House Speaker is a statewide office holder, and that’s OK, but on the other hand refuse to render an opinion on House rules, because the Executive Branch can’t meddle in the affairs of the Legislative?

It works because you just say it works, that’s how that works. But AG Abbott is fooling no one here. Keffer and Cook alluded to a football metaphor in saying that AG Abbott punted and fumbled. I’ll go them one better by observing that what AG Abbott really did was take the game ball and hide it somewhere.

Greg Abbott: “We need to be prepared for a closer, tighter, tougher battle”

It’s in the Galveston County Daily News, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott isn’t talking about the War in Iraq, either (although it’s related). He’s talking about the looming battle for Texas.

Addressing a packed house on Galveston Island, the Galveston Island Pachyderm Club, Abbott revealed his fears of a growing Democratic presence in Texas, particularly in the cities with large populations, citing in particular, Dallas. Last year, in Dallas and Travis County, Democrats swept Republicans out of every single office where there was a race. Abbott cites white flight as the reason, and claims that it will continue to occur, in particular in Houston.

Ticking off more woes for his failing party, Abbott listed the fact that the Hispanic population in Tejas is growing but that this is “a group that has traditionally voted Democratic”.

Then there’s Iraq.

And Bush.

What did he leave out? What about how royally pissed of the Latino community is over Republican rhetoric on illegal immigrants, especially with regard to the word “Amnesty”.

What about the continued migration of blue state Yankees into Texas?

And finally, what about the top of next year’s ballot? No one currently running for the Republican nomination appeals to Bushites. Republicans may have a Get Out The Vote issue next year.

But it’s the end of the article that is particularly appealing. Here we have Greg Abbott addressing a crowd in what he assumes to be a “rock-solid Republican county”, when what he might have wanted to do was find out who were the current Galveston County office holders. Republicans hold only a third of the countywide offices, and only one Republican is on the Galveston County commissioner’s court.

Compared to Fort Bend County – also known as DeLayville – Galveston County is colored purplish blue.

What Do Alcoholic Beverages And Higher Education For Texas’ Veterans Have In Common?

No, I’m serious, there is a connection.

In a Chron article today, we learn that Gulf War veteran William Sanchez has been denied a waiver of college tuition and fees guaranteed to other Texas veterans by the
Hazlewood Act. So he has joined in a federal lawsuit that has been filed in San Antonio by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Apparently there is a hole in the Hazlewood Act that excludes people who are not citizens of the United States. This hole was to be repaired by legislation sponsored by Letitia van de Putte (D-San Antonio) and Rick Noriega (D-Houston). The bill failed in the last legislative session, leaving the hole unfilled.

Of this failure and the situation faced by thousands of Texas veterans, Rick Noriega said:

“Our government says that you're OK to join the military and fight overseas, and when you return you're afforded GI Bill benefits. But, the state of Texas says if you're a Texan and fight overseas, you're not afforded Texas benefits. It's a real hypocrisy.”

Where is this hole and how did it come to be?

First, you need to answer this question: What is the difference between a “resident” of Texas and a “citizen” of Texas? At first blush you will say, there IS no difference and you might be right. In actual fact, when you look at any given time requirement in the Texas Education Code, which the Hazlewood Act amends, you will find that there is a “residency requirement” of 12 months. Yes, you must be a resident of Texas for 12 months before you can attend a Texas public institution of higher education and not pay out-of-state fees.

And that’s a good law. Texas’ higher education institutions benefit from local taxes that Texas residents pay. Out-of-staters, aka “foreigners”, need to pay a surcharge since they have not paid into supporting the schools in other ways.

But if you look at the Hazlewood Act, you see two actual requirements. The benefit is available to all veterans who “were citizens of Texas at the time they entered the services indicated and have resided in Texas for at least the period of 12 months before the date of registration”.

Now I look at that and say well of course, they have to have come from Texas when they entered the service, and they had to have been paying into the various ways the state raises revenue. No problem.

Yes problem.

It caused Letitia van de Putte to send a letter to Attorney General Greg Abbott seeking clarification:

“It is significant that the act explicitly requires both Texas citizenship and residency which may indicate that lawmakers viewed citizenship and residency as distinct requirements. The two requirements may have been conflated because of the lack of an explicit definition of citizenship.”

All Abbott had to do was to view these two requirements as separate as I have done, and not fused as suggested by van de Putte.

Why?

“Texas citizen” is not statutorily defined, which, I think, is the point that van de Putte was making.

But give Greg Abbott enough rope and he’ll find a way to tie a noose. He (or most probably someone on his staff) found a definition of “Texas citizen” in the statutes. Once, but that was enough. It is found in the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code. In his opinion, Abbott writes:

“only the Alcoholic Beverage Code defines it: "In this code . . . '[c]itizen of Texas' and 'citizen of this state' mean a person who is a citizen of both the United States and Texas." Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. § 1.04(20) (Vernon 1995).”

Oh boy, that one is a stretcher isn’t it? One has to have one long arm to reach for that one, but Greg Abbott is equal to the task. That discovery, and Abbott’s acceptance of it as a valid definition, dumped a load of cock-a-doodle on thousands of Texas veterans. Those who served their country, some who went to war, and some who faced bullets and IEDs.

When Rick Noriega called this a “real hypocrisy” I think he was being polite.

Texas House and Senate Vote to Make My Social Security Number Public Record

Now if it weren’t for the fact that the Social Security Administration’s 9-digit number gets permanently attached to every American, and that it’s used not only for the SSA’s records but is essentially a personal identification number that is used in all sorts of record-keeping, including banking, and if it weren’t for the fact that identity theft is the newest form of grand theft being conducted on the internet, well, I wouldn’t be concerned at all about the Texas legislature’s latest blunder.

The legislature is supposed to serve the people, not serve them up.

I wrote about this before, and about HB 2061, Jim Keffer’s way of fixing the problems pointed out by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. So I am not going to repeat myself.

I want to point out something else.

We have the technology to remove easily these sensitive bits of information from public records. One bit of technology is a system being sold by Hart Intercivic – you know – the one that sold 94 Texas counties their voting machines? It’s called “Anthem”. It does a lot, and one thing that it can do is redact social security numbers from any public record – and it’s automated. I’ll bet there are other systems out there, but I heard about Hart Intercivic’s system from FortBendNow.

You see, it seems that in the wake of Greg Abbott’s opinion, Dianne Wilson, the County Clerk of Fort Bend County shut down public access to internet records that include individual social security numbers. When Abbott suspended himself, the county went back online, but Wilson, secured a bid from Hart Intercivic to buy and install “Anthem”. She took a $48,000 request to the commissioners’ court and was just about to get the nod to buy the equipment when news came down from Austin that Keffer’s bill had passed in the House. So rather than do the right thing and authorize the purchase of a system that will keep the personal records of every resident of Fort Bend County secure, Fort Bend County Judge Bob Hebert took the item off the agenda. He wanted to wait a week.

Heck, why spend $48,000 if you don’t have to? Better to spend $56,000 on the inflated rent of a county judge’s house while it is used as temporary office space to staff members of the Gus George Law Enforcement Academy.

Incidently, an amendment to Keffer’s original bill makes it possible for individuals to contact county offices and request that their social security numbers be redacted, all but the last 4 digits that is. I suppose this was added to make the bill palatable to those who were anticipating public outcry over this. What I don’t like about it is that while it is a compromise, it puts it all on the individual. Why not just get the automated redaction system in place?

Heck, you know, just maybe Hart Intercivic will get so much return on this product that they won’t have to sell their voting machines any more to stay in business.

And there can’t be anything bad about that.

Greg Abbott Suspends His Own Opinion

Texas State Attorney General Greg Abbott has made himself look like a fool again. I say “again” because it wasn’t so long ago that Abbott filed an Amicus Curiae with the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on the appeal of Texas Democratic Party vs. Tina Benkiser et al. The Amicus was so laughable that the appellate judges spared him a host of embarrassment simply by ignoring it in the rendering and writing of their decision.

So now he’s at it again.

He suspended his own opinion on allowing public access to county records when the records contain personal information such as social security numbers. Abbott failed to realize that by issuing this opinion he would hamstring any company or organization that needs daily access to land records. County clerks across the state were presented with the choice of continuing to provide online land record services and garnering a misdemeanor warrant every time someone got access to another person’s personal information through the system that they support, or shutting off public access to their records. So they shut off public access to the records.

Title companies and oil companies whined about their being inconvenienced by the county offices to Austin, resulting in Jim Keffer’s HB 2061, a quickly hashed together bill that would repeal Section 552.147 of the Government Code.

§ 552.147. EXCEPTION: SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OF LIVING PERSON.
(a) The social security number of a living person is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021.

(b) A governmental body may redact the social security number of a living person from any information the governmental body discloses under Section 552.021 without the necessity of requesting a decision from the attorney general under Subchapter G.

In other words, Keffer’s bill would make it legal for the county clerk to divulge anyone’s social security number.

In the age of rampant identity theft, I have to question the wisdom of this.

So Abbott suspended his opinion for 60 days, and Keffer’s bill, while still on the list of submittals, won’t be fast-tracked to the floor any more.

Here in Fort Bend County, we used to have a District Clerk who was taking care of business in this regard. Glory Hopkins, took it upon herself in a project to excise social security numbers from all sorts of public records that were available online. People were wondering about it at the time – why was she doing this? Well, we all know now, don’t we? Glory Hopkins was doing her job efficiently with an eye to keeping confidential information away from prying eyes.

And whatever happened to Glory Hopkins? Well Ms. Hopkins, a District Clerk for 20 years, was summarily ousted from her office by a sleight of hand on the part of the former Republican Party Chairman of Fort Bend County. It’s all explained here.