Travis Precinct 211

ACC and AISD Board Elections

Daniel McDonald — Sat, 01 May 2010 22:11:12 +0000

There is very little information in the public domain about the candidates for AISD School Board and ACC Trustees. One of the few I’ve found is on the Blue dot blues blog.

My advice during my first mailer still stands pretty much. In ACC Place 5 I’ve heard good things about Vic Villarreal. ACC Place 4 is uncontested, and I’ll probably just skip that race, and for AISD Place 9 I’ve heard the most good things about Julie Cowan. She has been involved in the PTA as her 4 children have attended Austin Schools. She has been active, and I think she will continue to represent parents well on the Board of Trustees.

For ACC Place 6, I’m most likely going to vote for Michael Perrine. Michael does not have much of a campaign presence, but his profession is compliance officer for Sarbanes-Oaxley regulations for a local bank. Sarbanes Oaxely compliance deals with openness and financial integrity, and he has pledged to bring those same skills to the ACC board, and I would find that refreshing.

But please, do your research on this one. It’s hard to find good information.

ACC Tru

Pros and Cons of early Convention Chairman election

Daniel McDonald — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:46:36 +0000

A lawsuit is winding its way slowly through the Texas courts. The complaint: Republicans wait too long in their state convention to elect a convention chairman. But the election occurs at a logical point in the convention. The reason that the chair is elected so late is that the permanent chair can’t be elected until the permanent credentials committee is elected and has had time to deliberate over challenges. There is no earlier time that the permanent chairman could be elected unless the permanent credentials committee could be empaneled earlier.

The current schedule runs something like this:

Tuesday through Thursday
1. Temporary committees meet and do a lot of work
Friday
1. General “rah-rah” session with patriotic welcoming ceremonies
2. SD Caucuses meet and elect permanent committee members
3. Committees meet and do most of the official work of the convention
Saturday
1. SD caucuses meet again and elect SREC and nominate State Chair and Vice Chair
2. Second General session where business gets done
  1. Vote on Permanent Credential Report
  2. Vote on Convention Chairman
  3. Elect State Chair and Vice Chair
  4. Vote on New Rules
  5. Vote on Platform

As currently constituted, the permanent convention chair is a mostly honorary position that merely presides over the last few votes of the convention. The system works pretty well from a timing perspective. But no major changes in direction can take place from the floor of the convention.

An alternative order might go like this:

Tuesday through Thursday
1. Temporary committees meet and do a lot of work
Friday
1. Shorter General “rah-rah” session with patriotic welcoming ceremonies, much earlier in the morning
2. SD Caucuses meet and elect permanent committee members, nominate Convention Chair, done by lunch
3. Permanent Credentials and Organization meet in the afternoon, about 12:30 to 4:00pm
4. Second General Session
  1. Candidate speeches until 4:00pm
  2. Vote on Permanent Credentials report at 4:00pm
  3. Vote on Permanent Convention Chair
  4. Permanent Chair appoints permanent committee chairs
5. Rules and Platform Committees meet in the evening – 6:00pm to Midnight
Saturday
1. SD caucuses meet again and elect SREC and nominate State Chair and Vice Chair
2. Third General session
  1. Elect State Chair and Vice Chair
  2. Vote on New Rules
  3. Vote on Platform
Pros and Cons

Changing the election of the permanent convention chairman has the following intended effects and un-intended effects:
- Encourages attendance on Friday. Currently, most business is conducted on Saturday, and people who show up for Saturday only are slightly disenfranchised.
- Requires a third general session, interfering with lunch and banquet times
- Cuts the amount of time that Permanent Credentials can consider challenges, from 5 hours to 3.
- Creates about 2 hours of “dead time” that has to be filled with more speeches and no business
- May put the process of the Rules and Platform committees in jeopardy, if an inexperienced chair is appointed by a new Convention Chair
- Politicizes the Rules and Platform Chairman positions. Currently, those positions are free to focus on process and the enormous amount of work that they have to accomplish. Instead, they will need to campaign for their preferred candidate for Permanent Chair

Marsha Farney Attack Ads Again!

Daniel McDonald — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:06:59 +0000

Truly amazing mail-pieces are being showered by Marsha Farney on the electorate. There are a couple of responses out there, including a very charitable one from Smart Girl Politics. Brian Russell has also published a resonse on his website.
But neither of the responses dealt with this little zinger:

Obama-like secrets — Involved in a physical skirmish after crashing a Republican Executive Committee meeting that led to an arrest by Austin Police

Truly amazing. I’m not exactly certain how you can “crash” an open meeting, particularly when you are a candidate for Party Office. Brian had announced his intention to run for State Republican Executive Committeeman, a fact well known to Dr Alan Sager, who is feeding this information to Marsha.
But the most amazing part is that Brian was not the aggressor in the skirmish – he was the one attacked! And the person arrested was not Brian Russell, it was Ty Runyan, a man serving as Alan Sager’s Sergeant at Arms.
Now, I admit that I was not looking at Brian when the altercation began. In fact, I was putting a motion to the floor at that moment on the adoption of Bylaws. No-one has proven whether Dr. Sager was involved in the timing of the attack on Brian Russell, but it was awfully convenient to disrupt the discussion about how the Executive Committee was going to conduct itself. In the end, Ty Runyan was sentenced to about six months of probation and some community service, in addition to covering the medical bills associated with the injuries he caused Brian Russell.
Now, I’m not going to say that Marsha is not a conservative. I’m merely going to state that she lacks the judgment to stop her attack dogs from spreading malicious lies.

Response from Rick Green

Daniel McDonald — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:20:33 +0000

I received the following from Rick Green concerning his candidacy

Just wanted to say thanks for your kind words in your blog, I thought you laid out a very thoughtful analysis of our race…MUCH more so than any of the major media (of course!).

Only thing I would say to try to convince you to come down on my side is the following:

First, considering the debate in our nation right now over socialism…it is far more important to have someone with a constitutional understanding of our founding principles on the Texas Supreme Court than to have another family law judge (Eva Guzman was a family law judge, so we have that covered, and it really is a small part of what the court deals with).

Second, we really have no idea if Lehrman is conservative. She refuses to answer any of the key questions, while Justice Mosely, Justice Brown, and myself had no problem (see Liberty Legal voter guide below) answering the questions…and she listed Children’s Defense Fund (Hilary Clinton’s favorite left wing group) as one of the groups she supports. She has never had to take a stand on the major conservative issues of our day, so we really just don’t know and now is no time to gamble.

Third, the election of judges is nowhere in danger. Texans are not about to give up that right. My campaign is actually raising awareness of the judiciary more than any I can think of in recent history. I have been amazed at the positive response of voters because they finally get to vote for a judicial candidate with confidence instead of just rolling the dice. My hope is that we begin to pay attention to these judicial races more and then hold their feet to the fire as well.

Thanks Dan, just wanted to throw those things out there. Whichever way you end up, I look forward to being on the same team for sure come April 14th!

Rick Green
www.RickGreen2010.com
www.facebook.com/RickGreen2010

Thomas Jefferson and the State Board of Education

Daniel McDonald — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 23:45:51 +0000

I’m sure you’ve seen the headlines: “State Board of Education removes Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum”. It’s been repeated countless times, by sources like the New York Times, every democratic blogger, and Marsha Farney. However, it’s completely untrue.

A more accurate statement would be that the State Board of Education rejects proposals to add two more references about Thomas Jefferson in places where he is not really relevant. The Board believes the existing 16 references to him are sufficient for the man, and that the two additional references simply don’t fit.

Board member “Tincy” Miller describes the first reference this way:

It has come to my attention since the SBOE Meeting, though, that there were a couple amendments I voted for with which some people are unhappy and that the media have taken to mean something other than was intended. So, I want to explain my votes and set the record straight.

The first eliminated a reference to Thomas Jefferson from World History. The media incorrectly reported that he was completely taken out of the curriculum framework.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson was stricken in an 8-6 vote in reference to his influence of Enlightenment thinkers that included John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

I am obviously pro-Thomas Jefferson. However, I voted in favor of the elimination because I felt like his name did not belong there as he was not an Enlightenment philosopher, and I thought he was more relevant in other history classes.

He remains a part of grade 5, grade 8 and US Government.

There are more references from people who actually were there when the vote was taken, like this bit from Jonathan Saenz of the Liberty Institute

Liberal media/bloggers claimed that Thomas Jefferson was eliminated from the standards. False-Jefferson is emphasized more in the social studies standards than anyone else, other than George Washington. Jefferson was simply taken out of a list of philosophers in a World History section, as he’s known for his American contributions. He’s still in many other sections.

Another account of the action is clearly delineated by State Board of Education Chairman Gail Lowe

It did not take long for reverberations from the Texas State Board of Education’s preliminary vote on Social Studies requirements to spread across the country. And predictably, the media coverage was woefully inaccurate and blatantly distorted.

The New York Times probably was not the first to report on the board’s deliberations, but it joined a host of prominent Texas news outlets that incorrectly claimed Thomas Jefferson had been dropped from the curriculum framework used in Texas public schools.

Apart from Thomas Jefferson, the only historical figure with more emphasis in the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills standards is George Washington.

The point? Many of us received an attack piece from Marsha Farney against Brian Russell, claiming that he was one of those right-wing wackos that wanted to remove Thomas Jefferson completely from the curriculum. If she knows what really happened there, then it is a completely unmerited attack and shows badly on her character. If she didn’t know what happened, and only relied on bad reporting from the New York Times and Left-Wing wackos for her information, then it reflects badly on her level of scholarship. In either case, I hope that she issues an apology.

We have a runoff

Daniel McDonald — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:37:00 +0000

Runoff elections are scheduled for April 13th.
For precinct 211, there are two races on the ballot. Altogether, 4 races show up on ballots somewhere in Travis County.

Due to the low turnout expected for the runoff, there will only be 5 days of early voting: Monday April 5th through Friday April 9th. Similarly, the county is consolidating polling places. Precinct 211 will be voting at Graham Elementary instead of our usual polling place.

Locally, we have to choose between Rick Green and Debra Lehrmann for Supreme Court Place 3, and between Brian Russell and Marsha Farney for Member, State Board of Education, Place 10. Elsewhere in Travis County there is a runoff between Holly Turner and Paul Workman for State Rep in district 47, and just one Precinct Chair race.

The State Board of Education race is an easy one for me. I have worked with Brian Russell for ten years, and I know him to be well qualified for the post. He understands the need for a rigorous, knowledge-based education, and will continue to press the case for American Exceptional-ism and preserving our heritage in our textbooks. Brian has been endorsed by most of the State Republican Executive Committee members, and several current and former members of the State Board of Education. Brian is also a solid conservative. He has served on the Republican State Platform Committee, and the State Republican Executive Committee Resolutions Committee. In contrast, Marsha Farney is a part of the professional educational establishment, with minimal classroom experience; most of her time was spent as a counselor and curriculum researcher.

The State Supreme Court race is a bit more challenging to me. Rick Green is a great speaker and has solid conservative underpinnings, but I’m not certain that he has the level of legal scholarship required to be a Supreme Court Justice. Debra Lehrmann is certainly well qualified, with 22 years on a District Court bench focused on Family Law, she is one of the state experts in the field. Although she tries thousands of cases each year, she is seldom overturned on appeal. Her annual Annotated Family Law book, reviewing all family law cases at the appeals and supreme court levels each year, demonstrates her level of scholarship.

Personally, I would trust Rick to understand the legislative thinking that produced a statute, and the Constitutional underpinnings, but would be concerned that he might have to rely heavily on his law clerks for the minutia of the law. I know Rick to be pro-family, pro-life, and pro-second-amendment. His experience as a legislator would be a valuable addition to the Supreme Court, bringing legislative intent to the forefront in some areas. For the past 10 years he has been working with David Barton of Wall Builders – a conservative think-tank that researches and teaches about the founding fathers of the United States from their original writings.

On the other hand, Debra is also a social conservative. She has spent a great amount of effort promoting adoption in Fort Worth, and is well liked by the grassroots conservatives there. I expect the Supreme Court to hear a number of high-profile family law cases, particularly around the Texas Defense of Marriage Act and Constitutional Amendment. In fact, after the Yearning for Zion Ranch cases reached the Supreme Court, a couple of current members approached her to consider running for the Supreme Court because they felt that they lacked a sufficient depth of understanding for that sort of case, and predicted that more family law cases would come before them.

Beyond the ability of each on the Supreme Court, there are two other factors involved. Firstly, Rick Green has a large and active grassroots network constructed – probably larger than Medina’s was for the primary, and certainly much more effective. These people are the platform-affirming, dig-in-the-trenches sorts of activists that the party has not been able to activate for a while, and I personally would love to see them involved. Keeping Rick in the general election keeps these activists motivated to continue to bring out the whole ticket.

On the other hand, the election of Rick Green poses a threat to an elected judiciary. There have been a number of proposals to switch Texas from an elected to an appointed judiciary. Does the average citizen really have the information needed to elect these people? As a quick test – see if you can name off the top of your head all 9 sitting state supreme court justices. No peeking! I couldn’t – I only came up with 4, and I spend a lot of time with political activism. A Rick Green win might suggest to those legislators on the fence about an appointed system that the time has come to get serious about controlling access to the Supreme Court to only those most qualified.

Whom will I vote for? I truly haven’t decided. Rick deserves an “A” for effort – his campaign is everywhere. I think most of the Debra Lehrmann votes will be votes against Rick rather than for Debra – a great pity, because I think she is a well qualified candidate. From the primary, and certainly based on her lack of campaigning for the runoff, I don’t know that Debra is ready to mount a serious statewide race for the General Election. But I’m not ready to state that her weakness as a campaigner makes her less viable in a general election in Texas in a Gubernatorial year.

Early thoughts on the Primary

Daniel McDonald — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:04:23 +0000

I am very pleased by the results of the primary. A few things stood out to me:

Although the crossover vote was rather high, they did not negatively affect our elections. Rick Perry still won handily, and none of the other races seemed to be at all different.
Republicans are mostly satisfied with traditional, establishment candidates. Michael McCaul had an easy victory, with 7% or so each going to two challengers, one of whom died long before early voting started. Patrick McGuinness also had an easy victory, garnering 60% districtwide, and 80% in precinct 211.
The biggest surprise was the defeat of Victor Carrillo. I’ve never heard anything bad about the man personally or professionally, but he only ended up with 36% of the vote state wide. I really don’t have a good explanation.

There are two races with a runoff:

State Supreme Court Place 3 pits Rick Green against Debra Lehrmann. Both are exciting candidates who don’t fit the typical civil-practice-attorney model that the court is over-represented in.
State Board of Education Place 10 its Brian Russell and Marsha Farney. Brian is by far the more conservative candidate. He is hampered by a lack of money – he managed to raise $20,000 for the primary to Marsha’s self-funded $150,000. But he has the advantage that Rick Green supporters are probably Brian Russell supporters, which Debra Lerhmann supporters have no natural affinity to support either candidate. How that plays out in the runoff remains to be seen.

I’m also exceedingly pleased that Melissa Goodwin prevailed against Scott Field for the 3rd Court of Appeals place 4. Scott’s negative campaign tactics probably sunk him, and his negative facts were only loosely related to the truth. For example, in one of the cases where Scott claimed that Melissa had granted a sex offender probation, it was true. But the probation was to be served after a 75 year prison sentence.

All-in-all, I’m quite pleased with the results, and look forward to supporting the entire Republican ticket in November.

Scott Field’s attack ad – does it show judicial temperament?

Daniel McDonald — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:06:06 +0000

Lately, I’ve run across Scott Field’s attack ad against Judge Melissa Goodwin. I got a mailer with it, an e-mail, and I’ve heard it played on the radio.

I’m not going to dispute the facts, but let’s ask a few questions:

Should a Judge always give the District Attorney what they ask for?
Does Mr. Field have insight into everything that transpired in those courtrooms?
Should Mr. Field be commenting on specific cases that might possibly come before the Appeals Court?

I don’t believe the answer to any of these questions is “Yes”. Tough on crime is one thing, but fairness is more important in my book. And these cases were amongst the more problematic ones in the county – The Democrats dumped the really gnarly cases on Judge Goodwin. As the only Republican on the bench in Travis County, her court was the dumping ground for the cases that no-one else wanted to try. That usually means a poorly constructed case by the DA office and subject matter that is painful to hear.

As for Mr. Field, he has no Criminal Law experience – neither as a defense attorney nor prosecutor. And he has never served as a judge. It is easy to be an arm-chair quarterback when you’ve never even played in a Pop-Warner league, it is another thing entirely to apply the law as passed by the Legislature in a just manner.

Precinct Conventions

Daniel McDonald — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:16:49 +0000

Ever wonder what the Republican Party really thinks about something? Here’s the way to find out: After the election on Tuesday, March 2nd, the Republican Party meets. In Travis County, we meet at 8:00pm, in our precincts, at the Precinct Convention. There will be no state party leaders present, nor likely any county leaders, unless your county leaders happen to live in your precinct. Instead, the Party – the voters in a particular neighborhood – get together and make their own decisions. These decisions become the basis for everything the Party does – Republicans start with the voters and organize on top of that, unlike the Democrats who come up with a national plan and push the policies down.
This year there is likely to be a little confusion about some of the Precinct Convention locations. Usually they are held at the polling place. However, in 2008 the Democrats had their precinct caucuses, with hundreds in attendance, and left a royal mess behind for the host facilities to clean up. As a consequence, many polling sites have un-invited the Party Conventions from returning. Fortunately for us in precinct 211, our Convention will be held at our polling place.
While there, we will accomplish two things:

Elect Delegates to the Senatorial District Convention
Pass resolutions, in effect, a mini-platform

Delegates to the Senatorial District Convention represent the ideas of the Precinct Convention at a larger body. They need to be ready to commit to spending all day on Saturday, March 20th, at the Convention. Precinct 211 is allowed to elect up to 10 delegates and 10 alternates, based on our votes for the Republican Gubernatorial candidate in 2006. Our delegate totals will change in 2012 based on how well the Republican candidate for Governor does this November.

Resolutions are the place that the Republican Party of Precinct 211 gets to “talk back” to elected officials, to the president, to the mayor, to anyone we want to say something to. Here are some sample resolutions:

Resolved that the City of Austin abandon the “Austin Climate Protection Plan,” and instead focus Austin Energy on the delivery of reliable, safe, and affordable power.
Resolved that the Texas Delegation to the US Congress stand united against federal government regulation of medical practice or medical insurance.
Resolved that the State of Texas pass a voting reform act that requires a photo-id be presented in order to cast a vote.
Resolved that the Travis County Health District cease and desist from funding abortions at the expense of taxpayers

That’s merely a small sample of the sorts of resolutions that can be presented. I encourage all Republican voters to come to their precinct convention, and to bring useful resolutions. And if you are willing to spend all day on Saturday, March 20th, at the Senatorial District Convention, I would encourage you to seek a delegate slot.
I would appreciate your votes for me to become a delegate to Senatorial District Convention. I have served as the Senatorial District Credentials Committee Chairman for the past 4 conventions. It’s a huge amount of work – I’m expecting well over 150 hours of my effort in the two and a half weeks between the Precinct Conventions and the Senatorial District Convention. But, if I am not elected as a delegate, then someone else will need to do it.

4th Day of Early voting Still strong!

Daniel McDonald — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:42:50 +0000

The fourth day of early voting in Travis County continues with the same vigor as the previous three. Republicans continue to outnumber Democrat primary voters by a comfortable 40% margin.
Also telling is the decent number of cross-over voters, with D voting histories that are voting R this year. The pluralty of these are in HD 47. I’m not certain whom that benefits, but I’m glad to see them come our way. In total, 694 D voters have crossed over. In contrast, only 25 people with R voting histories have crossed over to the D primary.

Also, first-time primary voters are running more than twice as heavy in the R primary as the D primary. All great signs that the Republican Primary is the place to be this year….