Catching Up

Here are a few items from last week that I didn’t mention despite an intention to do so.

• In the case of TDP v. Benkiser, Texas AG Greg Abbott filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams (who is the chief election officer for the State). Abbott, of course, sides with the RPT. Thus, it is the official position of the State of Texas that the RPT should be able to replace DeLay on the ballot, even though the law clearly indicates otherwise. As the Houston Chronicle said in a recent editorial that was published before Abbott filed his brief . . .

  For the Texas attorney general to use the resources of the state to help his party win a favorable court judgment would be an intolerable conflict of interest. If Abbott does file a brief, it should recognize that Texas law prevents parties from replacing unpopular primary winners such as DeLay with stronger candidates–exactly what the state GOP is trying to do.

• In support of his decision to involve the State in this litigation, Abbott claims "the district court’s decision effectively declares a portion of the Texas Election Code, § 145.003, to be unconstitutional as applied in this case." Umm . . . no it doesn’t. Judge Sparks ruled (correctly) that the U.S. Constitution specifies the eligibility requirements for serving in the U.S. House. If the facts "conclusively" show that Tom DeLay is ineligible, then section 145.003 could still be invoked. (Section 145.003 specifies the procedures and requirements for an administrative declaration of ineligibility.) The problem is that the RPT can’t show that DeLay won’t be a Texas resident on election day. In fact, DeLay, as I recall, testified that he didn’t know where he would be living on election day. That pretty much undercuts Abbott’s argument. (Look here for a copy of Abbott’s brief.) I expect better from the State’s lawyer.



• On August 3, 2006, the three-judge-panel presiding over the Texas redistricting cases will hear oral argument from the various parties. Following the SCOTUS opinion from last month, the parties have filed proposed maps and briefs. I haven’t had the time to review all of the maps. (Believe me, I’m enough of a geek to do so if I can find the time.) Lone Star Project is a great source of information on this topic, and Phillip at BOR has organized LSP’s information into a must read post.



• On Saturday, the FWST provided an update on the Dallas Cowboys stadium project. The City of Arlington has only three more parcels of land to purchase, and each parcel is owned by the same company. The FWST also reported that:

  Initially, the city said it could cost $50 million to acquire close to 200 acres for the stadium. But as parcels were added and then excluded from the footprint, cost estimates rose to $70 million and then to $100 million.
  
  Land acquisition costs may rise depending on the outcome of several lawsuits by property owners who opposed having their land taken for the project.

  I mention this because it gives me an opportunity to remind you that economist Mark Rosentraub has estimated that the city will lose roughly $235 million over 30 years as a result of the new stadium. Can anyone explain to me how this project benefits the general public?



• Last week, Human Rights Watch released a report concerning the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. personnel in Iraq. The report is "based largely on firsthand accounts by U.S. military personnel stationed in Iraq," and it covers 2003-2005. The conclusion:

  The accounts in this report are further evidence that detainee abuse was an established and apparently authorized part of detention and interrogation processes in Iraq for much of 2003-2005. The cases also show that U.S. military personnel have faced systemic obstacles to reporting or exposing abuses, that the U.S. military in numerous cases has not taken adequate measures to stop reported abuses. The report also shows that the U.S. military has often failed to properly investigate and prosecute perpetrators, including officers who allowed abuses to occur on their watch.

  This is how we win hearts and minds?