Katherine Haenschen Posts

Now that filing has opened, closed, opened, and closed, and maps have been drawn, re-drawn, and re-drawn again, it's time to get down to brass tacks and hold some primaries and elections for Texas's soon-to-be 36-member Congressional delegation. Our state picked up 4 new seats after the 2010 census, and this year's primaries look to be particularly competitive as candidates duke it out for seven open Congressional seats. Primaries will be held on Tuesday, May 29th, and the run-off on Tuesday, July 31st.

There was a flurry of activity at the end of last week before filing closed on Friday, especially in the few districts where non-incumbents have even a fighting chance of winning. The Texas Congressional delegation doesn't have a lot of turn-over in the partisan stronghold districts. So it's no surprise to see so many candidates filing in the few wide-open districts that emerged in this process: the four new districts, CD-33, 34, 35 and 36; the 25th, made vacant by drawing out Lloyd Doggett and thus pushing him into the 35th, and the 14th, where Ron Paul is retiring. The 20th is also open due to the retirement of Charlie Gonzales, but State Rep. Joaquin Castro has that on lock-down at this point, so there's no real race there.

As a result, Texas will send at least six new individuals to Washington DC next January (Doggett is favored to win in the 35th, so while he'll likely be back in DC next year, it will not be in his current district), and that's without any primary or general election upsets. The last time our Congressional delegation changed so dramatically was in 2005, as a result of Tom DeLay's mid-decade redistricting, which targeted Anglo Democrats and flipped our delegation from 17-15 Democratic to 21-11 Republican. Seven of our current 32 Congressfolk  were elected in that wave.

Right now, our best pick-up opportunity looks to be the 23rd, where Republican Quico Canseco faces a strong challenge from whomever wins the Democratic primary. There's also a chance in some other districts simply depending on who prevails in a crowded primary field. In particular, keep your eye on CD-14, where former Rep. Nick Lampson has a very good chance of winning. The numbers for Democrats in general aren't that great, but Lampson in particular has a solid shot given that he's represented over 75% of the district when it was part of the pre-DeLay CD-9. On the upside (cross your fingers) it looks like there aren't any Democratic districts we can actually lose (knock wood), barring unforced campaign errors. Last cycle saw a number of incumbent Democratic losses owing to the Tea Party wave and some failed organization in key areas of Texas. However, of the seats we saw switch hands in 2010 -- CD-17, CD-23, and CD-27 --  both the 17th and 27th are now strong Republican districts.

Before we delve into the extremely crowded Congressional primaries around the state, there were a few notable filings and withdraws at the end of last week that changed the nature of several races dramatically on the Democratic side. In CD-35, Democratic candidate Patrick Shearer dropped out and endorsed Lloyd Doggett. This was no surprise, since he had sent a press statement once the interim maps were released that made clear his lack of interest in opposing Doggett. Additionally, in CD-20, Ezra Johnson dropped out of challenging Joaquin Castro, as he was drawn into CD-35, said he had "no intention to run against Lloyd Doggett." Finally, the one person who might have gotten into CD-35, Ciro Rodriguez, declared instead for CD-23 and jumped in against State Rep. Pete Gallego and John Bustamante. That primary -- which otherwise could have been called for Gallego -- will now be a more interesting battle of two long-term public servants who have represented large swathes of the geographically massive border district. On the Republican side, Roger Williams jumped in the 25th versus Michael Williams and a softball team of opponents, since his original target, the 33rd, became a minority-opportunity district that will elect a Democrat. Of course, you will remember R.Williams from this gem of a web video that he ran last Fall.  

The real interest, at least until July, is in the open seats, which have drawn crowded fields of Democrats and Republicans alike. We'll have deeper analysis of each race (especially once we collectively find out who some of these yahoos are). But in the meantime, we can start with a run-down of who's running for what, and where.

Below the fold you'll find a chart with every candidate running, the incumbent's years in office, and the margin in the 2008 Presidential, 2008 SCOTX, 2010 Gubernatorial, and 2010 SCOTX elections, as well as the share of Spanish Surname voter registration, and our rating of the races. Since this is Texas, we're rating them in Scoville units -- or, in laymen's terms, if this race was a chile pepper, how hot of a chile pepper would the race be?
Below is a list of every candidate filed in the 2012 Congressional Republican and Democratic primary. I've rated each race according to its hotness in Scoville units, or how chile peppers' heat is measured. Basically, in descending order of hotness:

Pepper Spray! Weapons-grade pepper spray is hotter than almost any pepper known to man. Expect an angry, vitriolic, aggressive race.  

Habanero! Hot hot hot! These races will be fiercely contested between several excellent candidates, in the primary or in November.

Jalapeno Popper: Spicy entertainment. These races can always be hotter than expected, depending on what's in the filling and how long it's been in the deep fryer.

Green Bell Pepper. No measurable heat.

Peppermint Patty: So not hot, it's almost cold.

In terms of methodology, I've listed the margin in the 2008 Presidential election and the average of the three 2008 Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX) races, as well as the margin in the 2010 Gubernatorial race and three 2010 SCOTX races, so you can see the basic partisan-ness of each district. Additionally, I've added the SSVR, or Spanish surname voter registration, which helps indicate how Hispanic the district is.

::

Now that filing has opened, closed, opened, and closed, and maps have been drawn, re-drawn, and re-drawn again, it's time to get down to brass tacks and hold some primaries and elections for Texas's soon-to-be 36-member Congressional delegation. Our state picked up 4 new seats after the 2010 census, and this year's primaries look to be particularly competitive as candidates duke it out for seven open Congressional seats. Primaries will be held on Tuesday, May 29th, and the run-off on Tuesday, July 31st.

There was a flurry of activity at the end of last week before filing closed on Friday, especially in the few districts where non-incumbents have even a fighting chance of winning. The Texas Congressional delegation doesn't have a lot of turn-over in the partisan stronghold districts. So it's no surprise to see so many candidates filing in the few wide-open districts that emerged in this process: the four new districts, CD-33, 34, 35 and 36; the 25th, made vacant by drawing out Lloyd Doggett and thus pushing him into the 35th, and the 14th, where Ron Paul is retiring. The 20th is also open due to the retirement of Charlie Gonzales, but State Rep. Joaquin Castro has that on lock-down at this point, so there's no real race there.

As a result, Texas will send at least six new individuals to Washington DC next January (Doggett is favored to win in the 35th, so while he'll likely be back in DC next year, it will not be in his current district), and that's without any primary or general election upsets. The last time our Congressional delegation changed so dramatically was in 2005, as a result of Tom DeLay's mid-decade redistricting, which targeted Anglo Democrats and flipped our delegation from 17-15 Democratic to 21-11 Republican. Seven of our current 32 Congressfolk  were elected in that wave.

Right now, our best pick-up opportunity looks to be the 23rd, where Republican Quico Canseco faces a strong challenge from whomever wins the Democratic primary. There's also a chance in some other districts simply depending on who prevails in a crowded primary field. In particular, keep your eye on CD-14, where former Rep. Nick Lampson has a very good chance of winning. The numbers for Democrats in general aren't that great, but Lampson in particular has a solid shot given that he's represented over 75% of the district when it was part of the pre-DeLay CD-9. On the upside (cross your fingers) it looks like there aren't any Democratic districts we can actually lose (knock wood), barring unforced campaign errors. Last cycle saw a number of incumbent Democratic losses owing to the Tea Party wave and some failed organization in key areas of Texas. However, of the seats we saw switch hands in 2010 -- CD-17, CD-23, and CD-27 --  both the 17th and 27th are now strong Republican districts.

Before we delve into the extremely crowded Congressional primaries around the state, there were a few notable filings and withdraws at the end of last week that changed the nature of several races dramatically on the Democratic side. In CD-35, Democratic candidate Patrick Shearer dropped out and endorsed Lloyd Doggett. This was no surprise, since he had sent a press statement once the interim maps were released that made clear his lack of interest in opposing Doggett. Additionally, in CD-20, Ezra Johnson dropped out of challenging Joaquin Castro, as he was drawn into CD-35, said he had "no intention to run against Lloyd Doggett." Finally, the one person who might have gotten into CD-35, Ciro Rodriguez, declared instead for CD-23 and jumped in against State Rep. Pete Gallego and John Bustamante. That primary -- which otherwise could have been called for Gallego -- will now be a more interesting battle of two long-term public servants who have represented large swathes of the geographically massive border district. On the Republican side, Roger Williams jumped in the 25th versus Michael Williams and a softball team of opponents, since his original target, the 33rd, became a minority-opportunity district that will elect a Democrat. Of course, you will remember R.Williams from this gem of a web video that he ran last Fall.  

The real interest, at least until July, is in the open seats, which have drawn crowded fields of Democrats and Republicans alike. We'll have deeper analysis of each race (especially once we collectively find out who some of these yahoos are). But in the meantime, we can start with a run-down of who's running for what, and where.

Below the fold you'll find a chart with every candidate running, the incumbent's years in office, and the margin in the 2008 Presidential, 2008 SCOTX, 2010 Gubernatorial, and 2010 SCOTX elections, as well as the share of Spanish Surname voter registration, and our rating of the races. Since this is Texas, we're rating them in Scoville units -- or, in laymen's terms, if this race was a chile pepper, how hot of a chile pepper would the race be?
Below is a list of every candidate filed in the 2012 Congressional Republican and Democratic primary. I've rated each race according to its hotness in Scoville units, or how chile peppers' heat is measured. Basically, in descending order of hotness:

Pepper Spray! Weapons-grade pepper spray is hotter than almost any pepper known to man. Expect an angry, vitriolic, aggressive race.  

Habanero! Hot hot hot! These races will be fiercely contested between several excellent candidates, in the primary or in November.

Jalapeno Popper: Spicy entertainment. These races can always be hotter than expected, depending on what's in the filling and how long it's been in the deep fryer.

Green Bell Pepper. No measurable heat.

Peppermint Patty: So not hot, it's almost cold.

In terms of methodology, I've listed the margin in the 2008 Presidential election and the average of the three 2008 Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX) races, as well as the margin in the 2010 Gubernatorial race and three 2010 SCOTX races, so you can see the basic partisan-ness of each district. Additionally, I've added the SSVR, or Spanish surname voter registration, which helps indicate how Hispanic the district is.

::

Now that filing has opened, closed, opened, and closed, and maps have been drawn, re-drawn, and re-drawn again, it's time to get down to brass tacks and hold some primaries and elections for Texas's soon-to-be 36-member Congressional delegation. Our state picked up 4 new seats after the 2010 census, and this year's primaries look to be particularly competitive as candidates duke it out for seven open Congressional seats. Primaries will be held on Tuesday, May 29th, and the run-off on Tuesday, July 31st.

There was a flurry of activity at the end of last week before filing closed on Friday, especially in the few districts where non-incumbents have even a fighting chance of winning. The Texas Congressional delegation doesn't have a lot of turn-over in the partisan stronghold districts. So it's no surprise to see so many candidates filing in the few wide-open districts that emerged in this process: the four new districts, CD-33, 34, 35 and 36; the 25th, made vacant by drawing out Lloyd Doggett and thus pushing him into the 35th, and the 14th, where Ron Paul is retiring. The 20th is also open due to the retirement of Charlie Gonzales, but State Rep. Joaquin Castro has that on lock-down at this point, so there's no real race there.

As a result, Texas will send at least six new individuals to Washington DC next January (Doggett is favored to win in the 35th, so while he'll likely be back in DC next year, it will not be in his current district), and that's without any primary or general election upsets. The last time our Congressional delegation changed so dramatically was in 2005, as a result of Tom DeLay's mid-decade redistricting, which targeted Anglo Democrats and flipped our delegation from 17-15 Democratic to 21-11 Republican. Seven of our current 32 Congressfolk  were elected in that wave.

Right now, our best pick-up opportunity looks to be the 23rd, where Republican Quico Canseco faces a strong challenge from whomever wins the Democratic primary. There's also a chance in some other districts simply depending on who prevails in a crowded primary field. In particular, keep your eye on CD-14, where former Rep. Nick Lampson has a very good chance of winning. The numbers for Democrats in general aren't that great, but Lampson in particular has a solid shot given that he's represented over 75% of the district when it was part of the pre-DeLay CD-9. On the upside (cross your fingers) it looks like there aren't any Democratic districts we can actually lose (knock wood), barring unforced campaign errors. Last cycle saw a number of incumbent Democratic losses owing to the Tea Party wave and some failed organization in key areas of Texas. However, of the seats we saw switch hands in 2010 -- CD-17, CD-23, and CD-27 --  both the 17th and 27th are now strong Republican districts.

Before we delve into the extremely crowded Congressional primaries around the state, there were a few notable filings and withdraws at the end of last week that changed the nature of several races dramatically on the Democratic side. In CD-35, Democratic candidate Patrick Shearer dropped out and endorsed Lloyd Doggett. This was no surprise, since he had sent a press statement once the interim maps were released that made clear his lack of interest in opposing Doggett. Additionally, in CD-20, Ezra Johnson dropped out of challenging Joaquin Castro, as he was drawn into CD-35, said he had "no intention to run against Lloyd Doggett." Finally, the one person who might have gotten into CD-35, Ciro Rodriguez, declared instead for CD-23 and jumped in against State Rep. Pete Gallego and John Bustamante. That primary -- which otherwise could have been called for Gallego -- will now be a more interesting battle of two long-term public servants who have represented large swathes of the geographically massive border district. On the Republican side, Roger Williams jumped in the 25th versus Michael Williams and a softball team of opponents, since his original target, the 33rd, became a minority-opportunity district that will elect a Democrat. Of course, you will remember R.Williams from this gem of a web video that he ran last Fall.  

The real interest, at least until July, is in the open seats, which have drawn crowded fields of Democrats and Republicans alike. We'll have deeper analysis of each race (especially once we collectively find out who some of these yahoos are). But in the meantime, we can start with a run-down of who's running for what, and where.

Below the fold you'll find a chart with every candidate running, the incumbent's years in office, and the margin in the 2008 Presidential, 2008 SCOTX, 2010 Gubernatorial, and 2010 SCOTX elections, as well as the share of Spanish Surname voter registration, and our rating of the races. Since this is Texas, we're rating them in Scoville units -- or, in laymen's terms, if this race was a chile pepper, how hot of a chile pepper would the race be?
Below is a list of every candidate filed in the 2012 Congressional Republican and Democratic primary. I've rated each race according to its hotness in Scoville units, or how chile peppers' heat is measured. Basically, in descending order of hotness:

Pepper Spray! Weapons-grade pepper spray is hotter than almost any pepper known to man. Expect an angry, vitriolic, aggressive race.  

Habanero! Hot hot hot! These races will be fiercely contested between several excellent candidates, in the primary or in November.

Jalapeno Popper: Spicy entertainment. These races can always be hotter than expected, depending on what's in the filling and how long it's been in the deep fryer.

Green Bell Pepper. No measurable heat.

Peppermint Patty: So not hot, it's almost cold.

In terms of methodology, I've listed the margin in the 2008 Presidential election and the average of the three 2008 Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX) races, as well as the margin in the 2010 Gubernatorial race and three 2010 SCOTX races, so you can see the basic partisan-ness of each district. Additionally, I've added the SSVR, or Spanish surname voter registration, which helps indicate how Hispanic the district is.

::

This is BOR's Video of the Day, or VOTD, our nightly video clip segment that hopefully provides you with a laugh or a chance to think at the end of the day.

In honor of the DOJ rejecting Texas Republicans' voter suppression legislation, here's a classic from Stephen Colbert. Enjoy!

Check out all of our BOR videos of the day on the VOTD tag.  

This is BOR's Video of the Day, or VOTD, our nightly video clip segment that hopefully provides you with a laugh or a chance to think at the end of the day.

In honor of the DOJ rejecting Texas Republicans' voter suppression legislation, here's a classic from Stephen Colbert. Enjoy!

Check out all of our BOR videos of the day on the VOTD tag.  

This is BOR's Video of the Day, or VOTD, our nightly video clip segment that hopefully provides you with a laugh or a chance to think at the end of the day.

In honor of the DOJ rejecting Texas Republicans' voter suppression legislation, here's a classic from Stephen Colbert. Enjoy!

Check out all of our BOR videos of the day on the VOTD tag.  

This is BOR's Video of the Day, or VOTD, our nightly video clip segment that hopefully provides you with a laugh or a chance to think at the end of the day.

In honor of the DOJ rejecting Texas Republicans' voter suppression legislation, here's a classic from Stephen Colbert. Enjoy!

Check out all of our BOR videos of the day on the VOTD tag.  

This is BOR's Video of the Day, or VOTD, our nightly video clip segment that hopefully provides you with a laugh or a chance to think at the end of the day.

In honor of the DOJ rejecting Texas Republicans' voter suppression legislation, here's a classic from Stephen Colbert. Enjoy!

Check out all of our BOR videos of the day on the VOTD tag.  

Big news: the Department of Justice rejected preclearance of the mandatory photo Voter ID law passed by the Republican legislature. That Voter ID law would have disenfranchised a potential one million Texas voters, the majority of whom are Hispanic. It will now not go into law before the 2012 elections. The DOJ letter is available here.

The DOJ has said that the State of Texas failed to show that the law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect. Well, duh! The law does have a discriminatory purpose and effect! It disproportionately prevents minorities from voting, as the Republicans intended, simply because minorities tend to vote Democratic.

Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, and the Republican Legislature were using this law as a Hail Mary to control the demographic trends that threaten GOP dominance in the Lone Star state. Can't control population growth and demographic trends that favor Democrats? Then just shut them out of the voting process so they can't exercise their power at the ballot box. That's the same motivating factor behind the redistricting struggle, efforts to defund public education, and every other Republican policy with a disproportionately adverse effect on the poor or minority Texans.

Special credit goes to State Senator Rodney Ellis and staff, who have pushed back hard on the Voter ID law every step of the way. From asking the Texas Secretary of State for specific data on disenfranchised voters to pushing back against the "need" for this legislation to prevent "voter fraud," Ellis and staff have worked hard to protect voting rights of all Texans.

A statement from Ellis is below the jump.

And lest anyone forget, this is just another reason why it's so crucial to have a Democrat in the White House. Do any of you really think a Romney DOJ would have blocked preclearance of this law?  

Ellis Applauds DOJ Rejection of Texas Voter ID Law

(Austin, Texas)//Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) today applauded the US Department of Justice's decision to reject preclearance of Texas' controversial voter ID law.  The department had recently rejected preclearance of a very similar voter ID law passed in South Carolina.

In 2011, the Texas Legislature approved so-called voter ID legislation that will make it significantly more difficult for potentially over one million eligible Texas voters to exercise their right to vote. The legislation established some of the most restrictive voting laws in the nation. The law -- opposed by groups ranging from AARP to MALDEF to the NAACP and LULAC -- requires voters to show picture identification in order to vote.

"I thank the Justice Department for standing up for voting rights," said Ellis.  "Throughout the preclearance process, Texas consistently failed to produce information showing the law would not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters.  The Voting Rights Act exists for this exact purpose: protecting the ability of all Americans to access the ballot box."

Under Texas voter ID law, all voters must present one of the following forms of photo identification in order to be eligible to vote:

* Driver's license, election identification certificate, personal identification card, or concealed handgun license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety;

* U.S. military identification card containing the person's photograph;

* U.S. citizenship certificate containing the person's photograph; or

* U.S. passport.

With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, all of the forms of identification must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before being presented at the polling place.

"There are more UFO and Bigfoot sightings than documented cases of voter impersonation," said Ellis. "After years of testimony and debate, supporters of Texas' voter ID law still cannot prove their case that voter impersonation is even a minor problem in Texas.  We, unfortunately, have plenty of evidence that it will disenfranchise legal student, elderly, African American and Hispanic voters.  The Department of Justice saw that evidence and made the right decision."

Big news: the Department of Justice rejected preclearance of the mandatory photo Voter ID law passed by the Republican legislature. That Voter ID law would have disenfranchised a potential one million Texas voters, the majority of whom are Hispanic. It will now not go into law before the 2012 elections. The DOJ letter is available here.

The DOJ has said that the State of Texas failed to show that the law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect. Well, duh! The law does have a discriminatory purpose and effect! It disproportionately prevents minorities from voting, as the Republicans intended, simply because minorities tend to vote Democratic.

Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, and the Republican Legislature were using this law as a Hail Mary to control the demographic trends that threaten GOP dominance in the Lone Star state. Can't control population growth and demographic trends that favor Democrats? Then just shut them out of the voting process so they can't exercise their power at the ballot box. That's the same motivating factor behind the redistricting struggle, efforts to defund public education, and every other Republican policy with a disproportionately adverse effect on the poor or minority Texans.

Special credit goes to State Senator Rodney Ellis and staff, who have pushed back hard on the Voter ID law every step of the way. From asking the Texas Secretary of State for specific data on disenfranchised voters to pushing back against the "need" for this legislation to prevent "voter fraud," Ellis and staff have worked hard to protect voting rights of all Texans.

A statement from Ellis is below the jump.

And lest anyone forget, this is just another reason why it's so crucial to have a Democrat in the White House. Do any of you really think a Romney DOJ would have blocked preclearance of this law?  

Ellis Applauds DOJ Rejection of Texas Voter ID Law

(Austin, Texas)//Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) today applauded the US Department of Justice's decision to reject preclearance of Texas' controversial voter ID law.  The department had recently rejected preclearance of a very similar voter ID law passed in South Carolina.

In 2011, the Texas Legislature approved so-called voter ID legislation that will make it significantly more difficult for potentially over one million eligible Texas voters to exercise their right to vote. The legislation established some of the most restrictive voting laws in the nation. The law -- opposed by groups ranging from AARP to MALDEF to the NAACP and LULAC -- requires voters to show picture identification in order to vote.

"I thank the Justice Department for standing up for voting rights," said Ellis.  "Throughout the preclearance process, Texas consistently failed to produce information showing the law would not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters.  The Voting Rights Act exists for this exact purpose: protecting the ability of all Americans to access the ballot box."

Under Texas voter ID law, all voters must present one of the following forms of photo identification in order to be eligible to vote:

* Driver's license, election identification certificate, personal identification card, or concealed handgun license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety;

* U.S. military identification card containing the person's photograph;

* U.S. citizenship certificate containing the person's photograph; or

* U.S. passport.

With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, all of the forms of identification must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before being presented at the polling place.

"There are more UFO and Bigfoot sightings than documented cases of voter impersonation," said Ellis. "After years of testimony and debate, supporters of Texas' voter ID law still cannot prove their case that voter impersonation is even a minor problem in Texas.  We, unfortunately, have plenty of evidence that it will disenfranchise legal student, elderly, African American and Hispanic voters.  The Department of Justice saw that evidence and made the right decision."

Big news: the Department of Justice rejected preclearance of the mandatory photo Voter ID law passed by the Republican legislature. That Voter ID law would have disenfranchised a potential one million Texas voters, the majority of whom are Hispanic. It will now not go into law before the 2012 elections. The DOJ letter is available here.

The DOJ has said that the State of Texas failed to show that the law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect. Well, duh! The law does have a discriminatory purpose and effect! It disproportionately prevents minorities from voting, as the Republicans intended, simply because minorities tend to vote Democratic.

Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, and the Republican Legislature were using this law as a Hail Mary to control the demographic trends that threaten GOP dominance in the Lone Star state. Can't control population growth and demographic trends that favor Democrats? Then just shut them out of the voting process so they can't exercise their power at the ballot box. That's the same motivating factor behind the redistricting struggle, efforts to defund public education, and every other Republican policy with a disproportionately adverse effect on the poor or minority Texans.

Special credit goes to State Senator Rodney Ellis and staff, who have pushed back hard on the Voter ID law every step of the way. From asking the Texas Secretary of State for specific data on disenfranchised voters to pushing back against the "need" for this legislation to prevent "voter fraud," Ellis and staff have worked hard to protect voting rights of all Texans.

A statement from Ellis is below the jump.

And lest anyone forget, this is just another reason why it's so crucial to have a Democrat in the White House. Do any of you really think a Romney DOJ would have blocked preclearance of this law?  

Ellis Applauds DOJ Rejection of Texas Voter ID Law

(Austin, Texas)//Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) today applauded the US Department of Justice's decision to reject preclearance of Texas' controversial voter ID law.  The department had recently rejected preclearance of a very similar voter ID law passed in South Carolina.

In 2011, the Texas Legislature approved so-called voter ID legislation that will make it significantly more difficult for potentially over one million eligible Texas voters to exercise their right to vote. The legislation established some of the most restrictive voting laws in the nation. The law -- opposed by groups ranging from AARP to MALDEF to the NAACP and LULAC -- requires voters to show picture identification in order to vote.

"I thank the Justice Department for standing up for voting rights," said Ellis.  "Throughout the preclearance process, Texas consistently failed to produce information showing the law would not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters.  The Voting Rights Act exists for this exact purpose: protecting the ability of all Americans to access the ballot box."

Under Texas voter ID law, all voters must present one of the following forms of photo identification in order to be eligible to vote:

* Driver's license, election identification certificate, personal identification card, or concealed handgun license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety;

* U.S. military identification card containing the person's photograph;

* U.S. citizenship certificate containing the person's photograph; or

* U.S. passport.

With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, all of the forms of identification must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before being presented at the polling place.

"There are more UFO and Bigfoot sightings than documented cases of voter impersonation," said Ellis. "After years of testimony and debate, supporters of Texas' voter ID law still cannot prove their case that voter impersonation is even a minor problem in Texas.  We, unfortunately, have plenty of evidence that it will disenfranchise legal student, elderly, African American and Hispanic voters.  The Department of Justice saw that evidence and made the right decision."

Big news: the Department of Justice rejected preclearance of the mandatory photo Voter ID law passed by the Republican legislature. That Voter ID law would have disenfranchised a potential one million Texas voters, the majority of whom are Hispanic. It will now not go into law before the 2012 elections. The DOJ letter is available here.

The DOJ has said that the State of Texas failed to show that the law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect. Well, duh! The law does have a discriminatory purpose and effect! It disproportionately prevents minorities from voting, as the Republicans intended, simply because minorities tend to vote Democratic.

Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, and the Republican Legislature were using this law as a Hail Mary to control the demographic trends that threaten GOP dominance in the Lone Star state. Can't control population growth and demographic trends that favor Democrats? Then just shut them out of the voting process so they can't exercise their power at the ballot box. That's the same motivating factor behind the redistricting struggle, efforts to defund public education, and every other Republican policy with a disproportionately adverse effect on the poor or minority Texans.

Special credit goes to State Senator Rodney Ellis and staff, who have pushed back hard on the Voter ID law every step of the way. From asking the Texas Secretary of State for specific data on disenfranchised voters to pushing back against the "need" for this legislation to prevent "voter fraud," Ellis and staff have worked hard to protect voting rights of all Texans.

A statement from Ellis is below the jump.

And lest anyone forget, this is just another reason why it's so crucial to have a Democrat in the White House. Do any of you really think a Romney DOJ would have blocked preclearance of this law?  

Ellis Applauds DOJ Rejection of Texas Voter ID Law

(Austin, Texas)//Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) today applauded the US Department of Justice's decision to reject preclearance of Texas' controversial voter ID law.  The department had recently rejected preclearance of a very similar voter ID law passed in South Carolina.

In 2011, the Texas Legislature approved so-called voter ID legislation that will make it significantly more difficult for potentially over one million eligible Texas voters to exercise their right to vote. The legislation established some of the most restrictive voting laws in the nation. The law -- opposed by groups ranging from AARP to MALDEF to the NAACP and LULAC -- requires voters to show picture identification in order to vote.

"I thank the Justice Department for standing up for voting rights," said Ellis.  "Throughout the preclearance process, Texas consistently failed to produce information showing the law would not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters.  The Voting Rights Act exists for this exact purpose: protecting the ability of all Americans to access the ballot box."

Under Texas voter ID law, all voters must present one of the following forms of photo identification in order to be eligible to vote:

* Driver's license, election identification certificate, personal identification card, or concealed handgun license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety;

* U.S. military identification card containing the person's photograph;

* U.S. citizenship certificate containing the person's photograph; or

* U.S. passport.

With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, all of the forms of identification must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before being presented at the polling place.

"There are more UFO and Bigfoot sightings than documented cases of voter impersonation," said Ellis. "After years of testimony and debate, supporters of Texas' voter ID law still cannot prove their case that voter impersonation is even a minor problem in Texas.  We, unfortunately, have plenty of evidence that it will disenfranchise legal student, elderly, African American and Hispanic voters.  The Department of Justice saw that evidence and made the right decision."

Congratulations, Republican lawmakers of Texas! Your sonogram law has hit the big-time: week-long ridicule in "Doonesbury." The 40-year daily cartoon strip that frequently takes aim at political and social issues will turn the light on the absurdity that is Texas's mandatory transvaginal ultrasound law, also known as the sonogram law.

Not surprisingly, a few daily papers are refusing to publish the cartoon, claiming that the illustrated rendition of an actual law in Texas is "too much" for the "family-friendly fun" of the cartoon page.

The plot of the series of strips features a woman seeking a sonogram in order to have an abortion. She's asked, "Do your parents know you're a slut?" Before inserting the probe, the doctor says to her, "By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape." Later, a receptionist says, "The Republican Party is hoping you get caught in a shame spiral and change your mind."  

Is it charged rhetoric? Sure. Does it accurately convey the intent of the Republican sonogram law, passed in Texas and percolating elsewhere across the country? Abso-friggin'-lutely.

Here's Monday's strip:  

Quite naturally, a few weak-willed newspaper editors refused to run the strip that is, I note, based on an actual law and actual procedure women in Texas and elsewhere now have to endure to exercise their rights. The St. Paul Pioneer Press, Oregonian, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch have pulled the strips, among others.

The Post-Dispatch credits aborting the strip to its "graphic language" and "unsuitable language" for a section with "young readers." Hey, editors, how else are we supposed to train young women for the lifetime of slut-shaming that awaits them? How else will your young female and male readers find out that Republicans view women as objects worthy of scorn at best, and beings incapable of making their own decisions without unwanted bodily penetration at worst?

The Oregonian says comic Garry Trudeau "went over the line of good taste and humor." You know what's actually over the line? Forcing doctors to perform medically unnecessary sonograms and read ideological claptrap to their patients.

In an interview, Trudeau defended his use of the word "rape" to describe the sonogram law:

Texas's HB-15 isn't hard to explain: The bill says that in order for a woman to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure, she is first compelled by law to endure a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand. The World Health Organization defines rape as "physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration - even if slight - of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object." You tell me the difference.

The only difference I see is that the WHO hasn't adopted the 17th Century attitudes towards women that pervade the Texas Legislature.

Previously on BOR:

• Virginia and Iowa Republicans Copy Texas's "State-Sanctioned Rap" Law"

• One Week Into Enforcing Sonogram Law, It's Still Terrible
• Sonogram Lawsuit Looks Grim
• Top Medical Association Doctors Oppose Sonogram Law, Cuts to Family Planning
• More on the Mandatory Sonogram Law and Chief Judge Edith Jones
• Breaking: Federal Court Reinstates Texas Sonogram Law
• A Closer Look at the Sonogram Lawsuit
• Judge Issues Temporary Stay in Sonogram Lawsuit
• HB-15: A Transvaginal Ultrasound Wand in Every Woman

Congratulations, Republican lawmakers of Texas! Your sonogram law has hit the big-time: week-long ridicule in "Doonesbury." The 40-year daily cartoon strip that frequently takes aim at political and social issues will turn the light on the absurdity that is Texas's mandatory transvaginal ultrasound law, also known as the sonogram law.

Not surprisingly, a few daily papers are refusing to publish the cartoon, claiming that the illustrated rendition of an actual law in Texas is "too much" for the "family-friendly fun" of the cartoon page.

The plot of the series of strips features a woman seeking a sonogram in order to have an abortion. She's asked, "Do your parents know you're a slut?" Before inserting the probe, the doctor says to her, "By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape." Later, a receptionist says, "The Republican Party is hoping you get caught in a shame spiral and change your mind."  

Is it charged rhetoric? Sure. Does it accurately convey the intent of the Republican sonogram law, passed in Texas and percolating elsewhere across the country? Abso-friggin'-lutely.

Here's Monday's strip:  

Quite naturally, a few weak-willed newspaper editors refused to run the strip that is, I note, based on an actual law and actual procedure women in Texas and elsewhere now have to endure to exercise their rights. The St. Paul Pioneer Press, Oregonian, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch have pulled the strips, among others.

The Post-Dispatch credits aborting the strip to its "graphic language" and "unsuitable language" for a section with "young readers." Hey, editors, how else are we supposed to train young women for the lifetime of slut-shaming that awaits them? How else will your young female and male readers find out that Republicans view women as objects worthy of scorn at best, and beings incapable of making their own decisions without unwanted bodily penetration at worst?

The Oregonian says comic Garry Trudeau "went over the line of good taste and humor." You know what's actually over the line? Forcing doctors to perform medically unnecessary sonograms and read ideological claptrap to their patients.

In an interview, Trudeau defended his use of the word "rape" to describe the sonogram law:

Texas's HB-15 isn't hard to explain: The bill says that in order for a woman to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure, she is first compelled by law to endure a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand. The World Health Organization defines rape as "physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration - even if slight - of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object." You tell me the difference.

The only difference I see is that the WHO hasn't adopted the 17th Century attitudes towards women that pervade the Texas Legislature.

Previously on BOR:

• Virginia and Iowa Republicans Copy Texas's "State-Sanctioned Rap" Law"

• One Week Into Enforcing Sonogram Law, It's Still Terrible
• Sonogram Lawsuit Looks Grim
• Top Medical Association Doctors Oppose Sonogram Law, Cuts to Family Planning
• More on the Mandatory Sonogram Law and Chief Judge Edith Jones
• Breaking: Federal Court Reinstates Texas Sonogram Law
• A Closer Look at the Sonogram Lawsuit
• Judge Issues Temporary Stay in Sonogram Lawsuit
• HB-15: A Transvaginal Ultrasound Wand in Every Woman

Congratulations, Republican lawmakers of Texas! Your sonogram law has hit the big-time: week-long ridicule in "Doonesbury." The 40-year daily cartoon strip that frequently takes aim at political and social issues will turn the light on the absurdity that is Texas's mandatory transvaginal ultrasound law, also known as the sonogram law.

Not surprisingly, a few daily papers are refusing to publish the cartoon, claiming that the illustrated rendition of an actual law in Texas is "too much" for the "family-friendly fun" of the cartoon page.

The plot of the series of strips features a woman seeking a sonogram in order to have an abortion. She's asked, "Do your parents know you're a slut?" Before inserting the probe, the doctor says to her, "By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape." Later, a receptionist says, "The Republican Party is hoping you get caught in a shame spiral and change your mind."  

Is it charged rhetoric? Sure. Does it accurately convey the intent of the Republican sonogram law, passed in Texas and percolating elsewhere across the country? Abso-friggin'-lutely.

Here's Monday's strip:  

Quite naturally, a few weak-willed newspaper editors refused to run the strip that is, I note, based on an actual law and actual procedure women in Texas and elsewhere now have to endure to exercise their rights. The St. Paul Pioneer Press, Oregonian, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch have pulled the strips, among others.

The Post-Dispatch credits aborting the strip to its "graphic language" and "unsuitable language" for a section with "young readers." Hey, editors, how else are we supposed to train young women for the lifetime of slut-shaming that awaits them? How else will your young female and male readers find out that Republicans view women as objects worthy of scorn at best, and beings incapable of making their own decisions without unwanted bodily penetration at worst?

The Oregonian says comic Garry Trudeau "went over the line of good taste and humor." You know what's actually over the line? Forcing doctors to perform medically unnecessary sonograms and read ideological claptrap to their patients.

In an interview, Trudeau defended his use of the word "rape" to describe the sonogram law:

Texas's HB-15 isn't hard to explain: The bill says that in order for a woman to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure, she is first compelled by law to endure a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand. The World Health Organization defines rape as "physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration - even if slight - of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object." You tell me the difference.

The only difference I see is that the WHO hasn't adopted the 17th Century attitudes towards women that pervade the Texas Legislature.

Previously on BOR:

• Virginia and Iowa Republicans Copy Texas's "State-Sanctioned Rap" Law"

• One Week Into Enforcing Sonogram Law, It's Still Terrible
• Sonogram Lawsuit Looks Grim
• Top Medical Association Doctors Oppose Sonogram Law, Cuts to Family Planning
• More on the Mandatory Sonogram Law and Chief Judge Edith Jones
• Breaking: Federal Court Reinstates Texas Sonogram Law
• A Closer Look at the Sonogram Lawsuit
• Judge Issues Temporary Stay in Sonogram Lawsuit
• HB-15: A Transvaginal Ultrasound Wand in Every Woman

Last week, another Democrat joined the Turncoat Club, as State Rep. JM Lozano announced that he is switching to the GOP. Lozano then filed as a Republican for HD-43, the seat he won by ousting former Democratic Rep. Tara Rios Ybarra in the 2010 primary. Rios Ybarra had been indicted on Medicaid fraud.

Lozano claims that the Republican "values" resonate more strongly with him, so clearly he supports slashing the budget, denying women basic healthcare, closing schools, firing teachers, and forcing his constituents to pay a poll tax in the form of requiring a Voter ID. After all, that's what the Republicans in the legislature are all about.

Lozano faces two Anglo Republican primary opponents. Should he somehow survive, he will face a formidable general election opponent. Former State Rep. Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles filed last Thursday to run against Lozano. She represented HD-35 from 2005 to 2010, when she was defeated by Voter-ID enabling Jose Aliseda. A significant portion of the new HD-43 was part of the old HD-35 that elected Gonzalez Toureilles.

Here with some thoughts on the matter is Jeff Rotkoff, former ED of the Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee, the entity charged with electing and re-electing Democrats to our State House of Representatives.

Why JM Lozano Will Lose

By Jeff Rotkoff

I met Mr. Lozano about six weeks before his 2010 primary election, and the first thing he told me then was how important he believed it was to defeat Democrats who get elected, come to Austin, and take orders from Republicans. This sentiment was his unprompted answer as to why he was running for the Texas House. Unfortunately for him, his decision to switch parties and run for re-election in 2012 as a Republican demonstrates that not only is he untrustworthy and unprincipled, but that he also posses downright terrible political judgement.

Past election results indicate that JM Lozano will likely lose to an Anglo Republican primary opponent:

As of this writing, Mr. Lozano faces at least one known Anglo Republican primary opponent. For an informative look as to how Latino Republicans fare against Anglo primary opponents in the new HD 43, the 2010 Victor Carrillo vs. David Porter race for Texas Railroad Commission is instructive. Carrillo was the incumbent and well-funded Railroad Commissioner. Porter was his unknown and unfunded primary opponent. After the primary election, Carrillo blamed his defeat on voters' reaction to his Hispanic surname. 

The new HD 43

• Bee County -- Carrillo: 26.1% & Porter: 73.9%
• San Patricio County -- Carrillo: 16.1% & Porter 83.9%
• Jim Wells County -- Carrillo: 21% & Porter 76%
• Kleberg County -- Carrillo: 26.2% & Porter 73.8%

To say Porter trounced Carrillo in the new HD 43 would be an understatement. Add to that dynamic the fact that Lozano voted against key Republican priorities in 2011, including the Voter photo-ID bill and Governor Perry's centerpiece so-called "sanctuary cities" legislation, and it is clear Mr. Lozano will enter the Republican primary as an underdog against any Anglo opponent.

Past election results indicate that the Republican candidate will likely lose the 2012 general election in HD 43:

Even if Lozano is to somehow squeak out a primary win; or more likely, if Republican power-brokers in Austin are able to bully potential primary opponents out of the race, Mr. Lozano is running in a district that is, at best, a toss-up for him in a presidential election year.

It is clearly true that in 2008, President Obama lost HD 43. However, in every county in the district, down-ballot Democrats performed quite well.

• Bee County -- In 2008, President Obama received just under 47% of the vote in this county. That same year, Democratic Congressman Ruben Hinojosa took nearly 60% of the vote, and Democratic candidates for Railroad Commissioner, Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals all carried Bee County.
• San Patricio County -- President Obama received 41.3% of the vote. But despite that lackluster performance, the county was toss-up down ballot. Democratic candidates for State Senate, State House and State Board of Education all carried the county. Republican candidates for Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals won the county.
• Jim Wells County -- President Obama received 57.7% of the vote here. Every other Democratic statewide candidate received between 57% and 60+% of the vote.
• Kleberg County -- President Obama carried the county with 53.2% of the vote. U.S. Senate candidate Rick Noriega came in at 57.4%, and all statewide Democrats received between 57% and 60+%.

Little doubt can remain that county-by-county, there is a clear path to victory for a Democratic candidate in HD 43 in the 2012 presidential election. It is also clear that the decision by Mr. Lozano to leave the Democratic Party puts him square in the path to defeat -- either in the upcoming Republican primary, or in the November general election.

Last week, another Democrat joined the Turncoat Club, as State Rep. JM Lozano announced that he is switching to the GOP. Lozano then filed as a Republican for HD-43, the seat he won by ousting former Democratic Rep. Tara Rios Ybarra in the 2010 primary. Rios Ybarra had been indicted on Medicaid fraud.

Lozano claims that the Republican "values" resonate more strongly with him, so clearly he supports slashing the budget, denying women basic healthcare, closing schools, firing teachers, and forcing his constituents to pay a poll tax in the form of requiring a Voter ID. After all, that's what the Republicans in the legislature are all about.

Lozano faces two Anglo Republican primary opponents. Should he somehow survive, he will face a formidable general election opponent. Former State Rep. Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles filed last Thursday to run against Lozano. She represented HD-35 from 2005 to 2010, when she was defeated by Voter-ID enabling Jose Aliseda. A significant portion of the new HD-43 was part of the old HD-35 that elected Gonzalez Toureilles.

Here with some thoughts on the matter is Jeff Rotkoff, former ED of the Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee, the entity charged with electing and re-electing Democrats to our State House of Representatives.

Why JM Lozano Will Lose

By Jeff Rotkoff

I met Mr. Lozano about six weeks before his 2010 primary election, and the first thing he told me then was how important he believed it was to defeat Democrats who get elected, come to Austin, and take orders from Republicans. This sentiment was his unprompted answer as to why he was running for the Texas House. Unfortunately for him, his decision to switch parties and run for re-election in 2012 as a Republican demonstrates that not only is he untrustworthy and unprincipled, but that he also posses downright terrible political judgement.

Past election results indicate that JM Lozano will likely lose to an Anglo Republican primary opponent:

As of this writing, Mr. Lozano faces at least one known Anglo Republican primary opponent. For an informative look as to how Latino Republicans fare against Anglo primary opponents in the new HD 43, the 2010 Victor Carrillo vs. David Porter race for Texas Railroad Commission is instructive. Carrillo was the incumbent and well-funded Railroad Commissioner. Porter was his unknown and unfunded primary opponent. After the primary election, Carrillo blamed his defeat on voters' reaction to his Hispanic surname. 

The new HD 43

• Bee County -- Carrillo: 26.1% & Porter: 73.9%
• San Patricio County -- Carrillo: 16.1% & Porter 83.9%
• Jim Wells County -- Carrillo: 21% & Porter 76%
• Kleberg County -- Carrillo: 26.2% & Porter 73.8%

To say Porter trounced Carrillo in the new HD 43 would be an understatement. Add to that dynamic the fact that Lozano voted against key Republican priorities in 2011, including the Voter photo-ID bill and Governor Perry's centerpiece so-called "sanctuary cities" legislation, and it is clear Mr. Lozano will enter the Republican primary as an underdog against any Anglo opponent.

Past election results indicate that the Republican candidate will likely lose the 2012 general election in HD 43:

Even if Lozano is to somehow squeak out a primary win; or more likely, if Republican power-brokers in Austin are able to bully potential primary opponents out of the race, Mr. Lozano is running in a district that is, at best, a toss-up for him in a presidential election year.

It is clearly true that in 2008, President Obama lost HD 43. However, in every county in the district, down-ballot Democrats performed quite well.

• Bee County -- In 2008, President Obama received just under 47% of the vote in this county. That same year, Democratic Congressman Ruben Hinojosa took nearly 60% of the vote, and Democratic candidates for Railroad Commissioner, Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals all carried Bee County.
• San Patricio County -- President Obama received 41.3% of the vote. But despite that lackluster performance, the county was toss-up down ballot. Democratic candidates for State Senate, State House and State Board of Education all carried the county. Republican candidates for Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals won the county.
• Jim Wells County -- President Obama received 57.7% of the vote here. Every other Democratic statewide candidate received between 57% and 60+% of the vote.
• Kleberg County -- President Obama carried the county with 53.2% of the vote. U.S. Senate candidate Rick Noriega came in at 57.4%, and all statewide Democrats received between 57% and 60+%.

Little doubt can remain that county-by-county, there is a clear path to victory for a Democratic candidate in HD 43 in the 2012 presidential election. It is also clear that the decision by Mr. Lozano to leave the Democratic Party puts him square in the path to defeat -- either in the upcoming Republican primary, or in the November general election.

Last week, another Democrat joined the Turncoat Club, as State Rep. JM Lozano announced that he is switching to the GOP. Lozano then filed as a Republican for HD-43, the seat he won by ousting former Democratic Rep. Tara Rios Ybarra in the 2010 primary. Rios Ybarra had been indicted on Medicaid fraud.

Lozano claims that the Republican "values" resonate more strongly with him, so clearly he supports slashing the budget, denying women basic healthcare, closing schools, firing teachers, and forcing his constituents to pay a poll tax in the form of requiring a Voter ID. After all, that's what the Republicans in the legislature are all about.

Lozano faces two Anglo Republican primary opponents. Should he somehow survive, he will face a formidable general election opponent. Former State Rep. Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles filed last Thursday to run against Lozano. She represented HD-35 from 2005 to 2010, when she was defeated by Voter-ID enabling Jose Aliseda. A significant portion of the new HD-43 was part of the old HD-35 that elected Gonzalez Toureilles.

Here with some thoughts on the matter is Jeff Rotkoff, former ED of the Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee, the entity charged with electing and re-electing Democrats to our State House of Representatives.

Why JM Lozano Will Lose

By Jeff Rotkoff

I met Mr. Lozano about six weeks before his 2010 primary election, and the first thing he told me then was how important he believed it was to defeat Democrats who get elected, come to Austin, and take orders from Republicans. This sentiment was his unprompted answer as to why he was running for the Texas House. Unfortunately for him, his decision to switch parties and run for re-election in 2012 as a Republican demonstrates that not only is he untrustworthy and unprincipled, but that he also posses downright terrible political judgement.

Past election results indicate that JM Lozano will likely lose to an Anglo Republican primary opponent:

As of this writing, Mr. Lozano faces at least one known Anglo Republican primary opponent. For an informative look as to how Latino Republicans fare against Anglo primary opponents in the new HD 43, the 2010 Victor Carrillo vs. David Porter race for Texas Railroad Commission is instructive. Carrillo was the incumbent and well-funded Railroad Commissioner. Porter was his unknown and unfunded primary opponent. After the primary election, Carrillo blamed his defeat on voters' reaction to his Hispanic surname. 

The new HD 43

• Bee County -- Carrillo: 26.1% & Porter: 73.9%
• San Patricio County -- Carrillo: 16.1% & Porter 83.9%
• Jim Wells County -- Carrillo: 21% & Porter 76%
• Kleberg County -- Carrillo: 26.2% & Porter 73.8%

To say Porter trounced Carrillo in the new HD 43 would be an understatement. Add to that dynamic the fact that Lozano voted against key Republican priorities in 2011, including the Voter photo-ID bill and Governor Perry's centerpiece so-called "sanctuary cities" legislation, and it is clear Mr. Lozano will enter the Republican primary as an underdog against any Anglo opponent.

Past election results indicate that the Republican candidate will likely lose the 2012 general election in HD 43:

Even if Lozano is to somehow squeak out a primary win; or more likely, if Republican power-brokers in Austin are able to bully potential primary opponents out of the race, Mr. Lozano is running in a district that is, at best, a toss-up for him in a presidential election year.

It is clearly true that in 2008, President Obama lost HD 43. However, in every county in the district, down-ballot Democrats performed quite well.

• Bee County -- In 2008, President Obama received just under 47% of the vote in this county. That same year, Democratic Congressman Ruben Hinojosa took nearly 60% of the vote, and Democratic candidates for Railroad Commissioner, Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals all carried Bee County.
• San Patricio County -- President Obama received 41.3% of the vote. But despite that lackluster performance, the county was toss-up down ballot. Democratic candidates for State Senate, State House and State Board of Education all carried the county. Republican candidates for Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals won the county.
• Jim Wells County -- President Obama received 57.7% of the vote here. Every other Democratic statewide candidate received between 57% and 60+% of the vote.
• Kleberg County -- President Obama carried the county with 53.2% of the vote. U.S. Senate candidate Rick Noriega came in at 57.4%, and all statewide Democrats received between 57% and 60+%.

Little doubt can remain that county-by-county, there is a clear path to victory for a Democratic candidate in HD 43 in the 2012 presidential election. It is also clear that the decision by Mr. Lozano to leave the Democratic Party puts him square in the path to defeat -- either in the upcoming Republican primary, or in the November general election.

Today at 6 p.m. Central Time, filing closes for the 2012 Democratic and Republican primaries. As a result, today is not only the last chance for party candidates to put their name on the ballot, it's also the last chance candidates have to switch races. Candidates running solely within one county file with that county's Democratic party. Candidates running in more than one county file with the State Party.

Due to redistricting litigation this is our second filing period, and many candidates have either had to withdraw due to inhospitable maps, or switch to run in a different district. From the Texas Democratic Party, here's the official word on what candidates impacted by redistricting need to do:

If you filed for an office you still intend to run for, still live within the boundaries of that district and the number hasn't changed, you don't need to do anything.

If you filed for an office you no longer intend to run for, you will need to withdraw. You do not need to physically go to the office of the filing authority (state or county party). However, your withdrawal must be in writing. Faxes and emails are not acceptable. You may withdraw by completing the Certificate of Withdrawal form prescribed by the SOS or by sending a letter addressed to the filing entity. The form or letter needs to be signed, dated and notarized and be received by the filing entity during this newly opened filing period. The filing entity will confirm receipt of your intent to withdraw and will return the candidate's original application and petitions or filing fee.

If you filed for an office you no longer intend to run for but intend to run for a different office, you will need to amend your filing.  You will need to submit a signed and notarized copy of each page of your application and petitions (if applicable) that contains information that is no longer correct. NOTE: If the boundaries of the new district will cause you to have to file with a different filing authority than you did previously, you will need to first withdraw your application with the previous filing authority and then file an application with the new filing authority. Candidates running in districts wholly contained in one county file with the County Party, and candidates running in districts that contain areas in more than one county file with the State Party.

The deadline to move into that district is one month from today, April 9th. I wonder if there are realtors who specialize in last-minute redistricting-prompted relocations?

We'll have a full run-down of who filed where early next week, with analysis to boot. Meanwhile you can follow the action live on Twitter at the TDP's #TXD2012 hashtag. Happy filing, y'all, and don't forget to thank your notary.