Is it Texas Uber Alles, Governor?

by Norman Markowitz

A few years ago I was giving a lecture before a group of students about U.S. Presidents and wars of aggression. After I had dealt with James K. Polk and the Mexican-American war, a student asked me if I would give up the conquests of the war, the contemporary U.S. Southwest. I said, as a joke, that I would never give up California, Arizona, Nevada, or New Mexico, but would think about Texas.Now the Republican Governor, Rick Perry (no relation to the best of my knowledge to Commodore Matthew Perry, who fought in the Mexican War and is best known for "opening Japan to the West" aka threatening the Japanese with a naval attack and having them sign an agreement opening trade) has mentioned the possibility of re-examining Texas relationship to the Union before group of rightwing yahoos straight out of central casting (not the internet search engine) shouting "secede" according to the press.

First let me present some relevant history before I address Perry's nonsense the way hipsters used to address political nonsense half a century ago-with counternonesense.

Texas slaveholders rebelled against Mexico after Mexico abolished slavery, in part because the Mexican government sought to gain protection and support from the British Empire which had abolished slavery in its colonies in the early 1830s, since it was no longer profitable.

The administration of Andrew Jackson, slaveholder, nationalist and expansionist, looked toward the annexation of Western territories, including Texas, whose leader, Sam Houston, was a Jackson protege from Tennessee.But Jackson feared the power of the British Empire, which he had fought as a teenager in the revolutionary war. Another Jackson protege, James k\K. Polk, carried forward Westward expansion by annexing Texas and provoking a war with Mexico over the Texas Mexican border.

Polk's real aim was to purchase California and he ordered General Zachary Taylor to occupy the disputed territory in the hope that war would break out when the attempt to purchase California failed. The U.S. won a sweeping victory--not only was the U.S. more advanced than Mexico but the Mexican land barons could not mobilize the masses of indigenous people living under their heel to fight against the Americans.

Texas entered the Union as a slave state after abolitionists failed in their campaign in Congress to have a resolution, the Wilmot Proviso, attached to any treaty ending the war that would bar slavery from all annexed territory. Texas joined the slaveholder's confederacy and fought against the Republic during the Civil War, although, to be fair, Sam Houston sided with the union and there was significant opposition to the slaveholders power in the state then, just as there is significant opposition to the oil and natural gas corporations power in the state today.

Governor Perry and his GOP friends should know that the union won the civil (under the leadership of Republicans who talked about hanging secessionists)and that the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States established national citizenship and its supremacy over the states That settled the question of secession for all states. If one wishes to take him seriously, whatever conditions real or imagined by Governor Perry which prevailed when Texas entered the union through the machinations of a slaveholder President have not prevailed since 1866. Neither have there been any slaveholder Presidents since the fall of the Confederacy

Unless Perry and his friends could convince the Congress of the United States to voluntarily support such a secession, it would be an act of treason and it would be the duty of the U.S. government to use our 500 billion plus military to smash the secession, occupy Texas, and begin its reconstruction so that it could be re-admitted to the Union. Repealing the "right to work law" abolishing the death penalty, drawing representative electoral districts and making anger management a required school course might be some of the conditions for re-admitting Texas to the union

Now for some some counternonesense to Perry's nonesense in the form of leading questions. Since the plantations of some of the leading confederates were confiscated and turned over to the slaves (this was done only in a very very limited way, but the best example was the confiscation of Confederate President Jefferson Davis lands in Mississippi) should not the U.S. army confiscate the assests of the the oil and natural gas interests and make those assets public property, to compensate the American people not only for the cost of occupation but also for what these companies have done to the U.S. for so long? Should all the military industries in the state face nationalization for supporting the Perry secession?

Should the sordid history of business corruption and racist abuse directed against Mexican-Americans and African Americans among others, the dishonor that Texas has brought to the United States for so long for its championing of the death penalty lead to economic and political war criminals trials--a sort of judgment at El Paso?

Or should Texas be allowed to leave the union and become a buffer state between the United States and Mexico (with the U.S. of course controlling the oil)? Perhaps Texas could then become a neutral, a Switzerland of the Western Hemisphere? Since Commodore Perry in the
1850s suggested to the State Department that the U.S. attempt to establish sovereignty over Formosa as a way to can access to the China market and General Asian Trade, perhaps some bold leader might suggest trading Texas to China for Taiwan? However, it should be made clear to Perry (the Governor, not the late Commodore) that Texas slavery will under no circumstances be restored.

What is so wacky about this is that Perry appears to think, from the press commentary, that he can make some political capital out of such a statement. If he can, then he and his supporters deserve each other. As for President Obama, enemies like this should bring him many more friends among post nineteenth century Americans (or, for Perry and his friends, post-bellum Americans).

Perhaps Perry's statement was a ploy to encourage more respect for the intelligence of another Texan, GW Bush, at least by comparison. If our readers have any answers or questions for Perry, please send them in.

Ultra right defeated in Houston

By Paul Hill

HOUSTON – Any way you look at it, the ultra-right suffered a resounding defeat in Harris County in the 2008 Texas primaries. In spite of Rush Limbaugh’s admonitions to his constituency to cross over and vote for Sen. Clinton, she was defeated 56.15% to 43.30% in Harris County according to the Texas Office of the Secretary of State website. The victor, Sen. Obama, received 227,886 votes as compared with 87,426 votes for Sen. McCain in the Republican primary. In other words, there were 2.6 times as many votes for Obama as McCain in Harris County in the primary election. If you add Sen. Clinton’s and Sen. Obama’s votes there were a total of 403,610 votes or 4.6 times as many votes for the two Democratic candidates as for McCain. Radical libertarian Ron Paul received 9,138 votes for his anti-war stance among Republicans. This means that the vote for anti-war candidates was 4.8 times as many as for McCain in Harris County which has been portrayed by the mainstream media as a stronghold for Bush supporters.

It is instructive to take a look at 2004 when Bush was riding high in Harris County. At that time, the total vote in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary was 73,747 and in the Republican primary the vote was 78,898. This means that in the 2008 Texas primaries, 5.1 times as many people voted in the Democratic primary as did Republicans in the 2004 primary in Harris County.

Labor endorsed candidates fared well in Harris County with some exceptions. Rick Noriega, a labor endorsed candidate, won in Harris County with 56.53% of the vote and will face anti-labor Sen. John Cornyn in November. Labor backed Carol Alvarado won 69.3% of the vote for State Representative, District 145. All of the labor backed candidates for Texas Supreme Court won as did candidates for the Courts of Criminal Appeals. Labor backed Rep. Kevin Bailey was resoundingly defeated by Armando Walle 57.4% to 42.6%. Bailey was seen as an ally to ultra-right iron-fisted Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick. Labor backed candidate David Mincberg for County Judge won easily as did Labor endorsed C.O. Bradford for District Attorney.

Democrats are very positive about the candidates selected in the primary. They are hoping to emulate the sweep of Judicial seats seen in Dallas county in 2006. Many people are outraged by the heavy handed tactics of the Bush picked right wing judges in Harris county and are looking forward to more fairness in the courts and criminal justice system after the election.

Obama Retains Lead, Clinton Makes Case for Going On

by Joel Wendland

While Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) managed to stake a claim for staying in the race for the Democratic nomination with a split victory on "crucial Tuesday," Mar. 4, she failed to overcome numerical odds against her capturing the nomination of that party.

Barack Obama held on to a roughly 100 delegate lead, by most media estimates. But with a mere 600 pledged delegates remaining and both candidates more than 700 away from clinching the majority needed to win, it is increasingly likely that the Democratic nomination will be decided late into the spring and quite possibly by the much maligned superdelegate voting process.

The night began with Obama's 12th straight victory in Vermont, but quickly unraveled from there. Clinton opened an early commanding lead in Ohio that narrowed to a 10-point victory after the votes had been counted.

A ballot shortage in Cleveland-area precincts, an Obama stronghold, sparked some controversy. Though Obama campaign lawyers convinced a judge to keep the polls open an extra hour and a half, no outside estimates exist on how many votes may have been lost in the process.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who oversees Ohio's controversial elections process and who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, denied that ballot shortages in Cleveland caused lost votes.

Obama's campaign efforts in Ohio included a massive virtual phonebanking effort that claimed to reach more than 1 million voters in Ohio and Texas. Activists from Michigan, West Virginia, and Illinois poured across the border to canvass and turn out the vote.

Hundreds of Obama supporters in Columbus, Ohio staged a march to the polls to participate in the early voting process last weekend.

In the end, however, these efforts may not have been enough to overcome sharply negative campaigning from the Clinton camp. According to exit polling, a majority of Ohioans thought that Clinton had lobbed unfair attack ads, but in the end, a majority of them sided with her at the polls.

Notably, the Clinton campaign circulated a TV ad known as the "3 am" ad, copied from a 1984 Walter Mondale commercial, which claimed that Obama would not be ready in an international crisis. Obama responded by stating that the 3 am crisis had already come in Iraq in 2003, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain made the wrong choice to go to war.

Voters from union households in Ohio numbered approximately 34 percent and backed Clinton by margins roughly proportional to the statewide totals. Union voters played a huge role in bringing economic issues to the foreground in that state's primary.

Voters who cited the Iraq war as their top concern backed Obama.

One major issue was the role of NAFTA and other free trade deals in decimating Ohio's manufacturing economy. While both candidates pledged to revisit the unpopular trade deal and find ways to prevent it from causing job losses, Obama could not overcome Clinton's claim that members of his campaign told Canadian officials that Obama's views on NAFTA were mere campaign rhetoric.

A report in the Washington Post, Mar. 4, showed that the Feb. 8 meeting between Obama campaign representative Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian consul-general for Chicago actually included a discussion of Obama's goal to revamp NAFTA in favor of the labor and environmental concerns of US workers.

According to the memo released by the Canadian government Goolsbee told the Canadians that they sought to remake the trade deal "in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more 'core' principles of the agreement."

Labor and environmental advocates accuse the Clinton administration of sidelining workers' rights and environmental concerns in the original NAFTA negotiations back in the 1990s in order to win Republican backing for the agreement in Congress.

Obama's point that Clinton had long been a supporter of NAFTA until her recent campaigning in Ohio failed to overcome Clinton's spin on the affair as one in which Obama had two views on the subject.

The day before the primaries, Sen. Clinton delivered what many commentators saw as her most controversial argument. On Monday, critics of the Clinton campaign argued that Clinton appeared to endorse John McCain over Obama when she stated, "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House."

Media reports also suggest that when pointedly asked, Clinton failed to denounce strongly false rumors about Obama's religious views, hinting that he might be a closet Muslim.

Negative campaigning in Ohio and Texas helped sway last minute, undecided voters in Clinton's favor, polls showed.

In Texas, Clinton and Obama appeared to split the state's "prima-caucus" system, with a razor-thin victory for Clinton in the primary and a similar advantage for Obama in the caucus, though final tallies in the caucus were not turned in at the time of writing. Vermont fell to Obama by large margins, while in Rhode Island, Clinton held off a last-minute Obama rally.

In her victory speech, Mar. 4, Clinton made an argument for staying in the race despite failing to win by large enough margins to overcome Obama's lead. "We're going on, we're going strong and we're going all the way. Millions of Americans haven't spoken yet and they want their turn," she told a small but exuberant crowd in Columbus, Ohio.

The Obama campaign downplayed the results. According to it, March 4th saw Clinton's huge February leads in the polls in those four states crumble. Obama supporters claimed a continuing lead in the popular vote for all 41 primaries and caucuses to date, a more than 100-point delegate lead, and victories in 28 states to Clinton's 13.

"Time is running out," said Obama campaign spokesperson David Axelrod. "And at some point, the party is going to coalesce around the nominee, and the nominee is going to be Barack Obama."

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

Texans Fought for Better Election Laws

The incredible increase in Texas voting is particularly remarkable when one considers that the ruling class in Texas, who wrote the state constitution and voting laws, did, and are doing, everything possible to discourage voting by the working class and minorities.

Prior to 1948, African-Americans could only vote in the general election but not in the Democratic Party primaries. Since Texas voted Democratic, that prohibition effectively blocked African-Americans from participating in elections.

Since the 1960’s, ballots had to be also written in Spanish. Prior to then, Latinos had to be able to read English to vote.

In the 1970’s & 1980’s, cities and counties began to dismantle the at-large system, which gives the advantage to the candidate who has the most money and most support from the established politicians. Since then, most cites and counties changed to single-member districts where each district can elect their own representative.

In the 1970’s, the Democratic Party instituted Affirmative Action guidelines so that delegates, including Latinos, Asians, African Americans, women, youth, disabled and lgbt’s would make the delegation representative of the state’s population.

In the 1990’s, Texas passed one of the best early-vote laws in the nation. We are allowed to early-vote for approximately two weeks prior to the election at polling stations located throughout each county.

There are still anti-voting things that go on. For example, to get a bill passed our state legislature, which only meets for a few months every two years, is very complicated and has 27 different ways to stop legislation from getting passed. They nearly passed one of the vicious “voter ID” laws in the last session. There is still voter intimidation and trickery in polling places.

It is important for people across the country to know that there has been great progress toward increased voter participation in Texas, and that we can be a part of changing the direction of our country to one that values real human rights.

--Elaine from Texas

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

The Sun Rises on Dallas Voters

By Jim Lane

DALLAS – It was snowing when we went out scrambling to find Obama literature last night, the night before primary election day. The “campaign offices” are in people’s houses and all sorts of oddball places. We found most of what we were looking for at a florist’s. They didn’t have any yard signs, but a few conventional signs and some handout literature. I had trouble sleeping, but it wasn’t a bad night.

The morning paper had the final totals for Dallas County early voting. The Republicans had quadrupled their vote since 2004, 8,433 to 33,787. Democrats went from 13,058 to 123,021 – an increase of 940%!

This morning, we were at the polls a half hour before they opened. The snow had stopped and didn’t stick on the ground, but the radio said bridges were iced over. That will hurt voter turnout. North Texans are afraid of ice. Snow tires and chains are unknown here. People who move in from the South are lost on ice, and people who move here from the North say we’re all incompetent drivers. Ice storms, once or twice a year, usually create hundreds of fenderbenders and a few serious wrecks. This wasn’t an ice storm, but just a report of ice will keep some people from coming out early.

Sure enough, we didn’t see hundreds of people at the polls, just a decent turnout somewhat higher than other times that we’ve stood outside that same station. My partner put up Obama signs and distributed Obama literature, while I did push cards for our high profile gay female sheriff. I didn’t wear both gloves because it’s hard to separate the little push cards from the stack, so I had one hand and both ears freezing.

About half of the first voters were probably from our growing gay community. Stonewall Democrats is a real force in Dallas politics. They seemed very positive about the sheriff, but didn’t comment on Obama. There were a few grim Republicans who wouldn’t even look at us, but almost everybody was very pleasant and cooperative. We felt good about the push cards, because so many of the voters didn’t seem sure of what they were going to do on down-ballot candidates.

As they came out of the polls, it was really easy to tell who was who, because the Democratic Precinct Chair was in there giving out “I voted” stickers. People wore them proudly, along with big bright smiles. The sun finally peeped up over the trees and created a hopeful illusion of warmth. As the world continued to brighten, we noticed a big elm tree with new leaves budding. The redbud and whitebud trees are in full magnificent bloom. In Dallas, we’re turning the corner away from icy winter and the Bush years.

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

In Houston-area early voting, Dems beat Repubs 3 to 1

By Paul Hill

HOUSTON – Early voting totals are in and 170,032 voted in the Democratic primary while 51,199 voted in the Republican primary according to the Harris County Clerk's office. That means 3 times as many Democrats voted as Republicans in the country's third largest county which is reputed to be a Republican stronghold.

The all time record early vote for a primary in Harris County was 165,958 in 2000 for the Republicans. In that year, 56,168 Democrats early voted in the primary. The numbers this year have flipped as compared with 2000.

What could account for this dramatic change in voter turnout?

When I attended an election school, the Republican officials talked about the fact that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organizers were actively registering new people to vote. A friend told me that an African American neighborhood civic association meeting was focused on getting out the vote. Everywhere I go people are talking about change and how they are sick of low wages, no health care benefits and the devastating effects of the Iraq war.

It seems that although his popularity is soaring on Wall Street, George Bush's popularity among working people in his home state and his parent's home city is plummeting.

Both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Obama have impressive grass roots organizations in Houston. I have received many calls from both campaigns. Marches and rallies are ongoing at this point to support both candidates.

One amazing thing is that people are also talking about unity. A coworker today praised Obama's ability to unify people but also agreed that when the candidate is selected it will be important for people to unite and fight the ultra-right.

Most people here view McCain and his acolytes as crackpots whose policies would just further the destruction heaped upon the people of the world by Bush. Conversations I have had with union members indicate about 50/50 support for Clinton and Obama. No union member has told me they support McCain or any of the other Republicans.

Although Houston is hallowed ground among right-wingers, it should be recalled that one third of our population is Latino, one third African American and one third Anglo. It also has a large number of working people and a high rate of poverty.

The dynamics in this city were radically changed post-Katrina. The numbers of working and poor people increased when Katrina survivors arrived here after the storm. No one is talking at this point about how this will effect the 2008 elections, however it appears the change will be profound.

No one is talking at this time about how the victims of the sub-prime lending fiasco will effect the 2008 election, however it appears the change will be profound.

On my way to work this morning, I dropped by Obama's headquarters. There was a lot of activity and it was difficult to get a parking place. I approached a young man and he told me that 50 students from Morehouse College and Spellman College in Atlanta had come by bus to Houston to support Obama. They were about to leave to block walk in various neighborhoods to educate voters on the issues and support their candidate.

Brandon Avery, "class of 2010", Morehouse College, told me that "as a fellow Chicagoan I support his views. He is young enough not to be tainted by the dirty politics of Washington." Avery said he felt the critical issue for him was the "rising cost of education. Sen. Obama's plan for $4,000 to be allocated to students inspires me."

He commented about the war in Iraq, "I have a few friends who have served in Iraq…one of my friend's vehicle was attacked by a roadside bomb. It is a battle that can't be won with bullets, it has to be won with politics and reasoning."

On the right, students from Spelman college and Morehouse college gather in Houston to blockwalk for Obama. [Photo by Paul Hill (c)]

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

Texas voter history shows Southern shift

By Jim Lane

DALLAS -- From 1872, when Texans began voting for Democrats and Republicans in national elections, the state went with the "Solid South" and racist Democratic Party. Even the nationally popular general Ulysses Grant couldn't win in Texas, despite the fact that federal troops occupied the state under Republican Reconstruction Laws.

By 1952, though, change was evident in Texas presidential races. Even though virtually every office holder in the state claimed to be a Democrat, they began voted Republican in the presidential races. Republican presidential candidates continued strong showings even through the period dominated by Texan Lyndon Johnson. In 1972, Nixon overwhelmingly won Texas. Texans barely gave Jimmy Carter the edge over Gerald Ford in 1976, but the Republican trend dominated from then to now.

The most racist and reactionary section of Texas voters, previously strong for the Democratic Party of civil-war days, had shifted to the new coalition of transnational corporations, racists, and right-wing crazies gathered in the Republican party. Democratic progressives, who were evident as a force since the days of the "Dirty Thirty" in the Texas Legislature during the early 1970s, saw their party lose the national elections, then the state and most of the local elections. Office holders who had been lifelong Democrats, like the right-wing Senator Phil Gramm, switched parties brazenly, and continued to win as Republicans.

During the 1980s, it was evident that the progressives had taken control of the Democratic Party that the reactionaries had abandoned. But what they took over was largely a hollow shell. They could pass resolutions, but they couldn't win elections. In 2004, Republican George W. Bush buried John F Kerry 4.5 million to 2.8 million in Texas.

By 2006, Texans in some areas showed that they had enough, and elections began to swing back to the now-progressive Democratic candidates. Dallas County, the second most populous in the state, went almost completely Democratic. Houston union leaders began to point to dramatic election victories, such as putting Democrat Nick Lampson into the seat formerly held by one of the worst of the Republican reactionaries, Tom DeLay. In Fort Worth and Austin, Democrats won surprise upset victories in legislative races. Republicans like State Legislator Kirk England of Dallas began switching parties in anticipation of a Democratic rout in 2008.

In March of 2008, the "eyes of Texas," and many others, are upon us!

Statistics from the Texas Secretary of State,

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/presidential.shtml

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

Definitive Blog on Primary Election

by John Wojcik

This post considers only the narrow issue of who is going to get the Democratic nomination. It does not pretend to be balanced. It is, however, absolutely certain, scientific, factual and free of any wishful or subjective thinking whatsoever!

Wisconsin was Hillary Clinton’s Waterloo, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Barack Obama is the frontrunner, unequivocally.

He is only ONE MORE VICTORY AWAY from clinching the deal.

A victory in EITHER Ohio or Texas will more likely than not force Clinton out of the race.

A victory in both will absolutely force her out.

These conclusions are supported by the following facts:

Obama is on an incredible winning streak, as we know – ten to nothing since Super Tuesday. All of the victories were huge blow outs.

The Wisconsin victory by 17 points was actually his poorest showing since Super Tuesday. With poor showings like that, who needs strong ones?

He’s gone from a narrow pledged delegate lead and overall delegate deficit on Feb. 6 to what is unarguably an insurmountable 150 plus pledged delegate lead.

If you factor in the superdelegates, he’s still ahead by 80.

All signs point to the superdelegate gap closing perhaps as early as the end of next week. By March 4 he is likely to gain 25 or more superdelegates. (This is a reasonable, conservative estimate.)

We can expect that Clinton will pick up almost no super delegates between now and March 4 and that some of the ones she now has may also switch to Obama.

The only thing that could propel Clinton to the nomination is if Obama makes a bunch of mistakes or some huge mistake that makes him unelectable. While this is theoretically possible it is scientifically unlikely.

A sustained negative campaign by Clinton is a possibility but will not amount to a winning strategy for Clinton. Clinton cannot damage Obama to the extent that she would have to without damaging herself politically, in the Senate and for the future. She is not suicidal.

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

Texans do ‘two-step’ on March 4

HOUSTON — Early voting started in Texas last week for the March 4 primary, and votes in the Democratic primaries here in Harris County have already surpassed the total during the early voting period in 2004, according to Beverly Kaufman, Harris County clerk.

Harris County is the third largest county in the country. Houston is the adopted home of former President George H.W. Bush and has been considered a Republican stronghold.

Yet, by Feb. 23, some 38,200 people had voted in the Democratic primary, topping the total 35,381 who voted early in 2004, including Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, fewer than 13,000 Republicans have voted early so far this year.

Texas two-step

Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pushing early voting. Texas has both a primary and a caucus. In the primary, voters elect two-thirds of the state’s 228 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The caucus, held after the primary polls close, selects the remaining one-third. It’s called the Texas Two-Step. Campaigns are hoping voters will go to the primary polls early, cast their ballots — and then focus on going to the caucus.

Obama has closed Clinton’s lead in the polls here. All polls now show them virtually tied. Despite Clinton’s relationships with the Latino communities in Texas, Obama has made significant inroads among Mexican American and Latino voters, who make up close to 40 percent of the state’s population.

In addition, Obama’s campaign has proved skilled at turning out its voters for caucuses, something the Clinton camp reportedly worries about.

Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont all go to the polls on March 4. Clinton has to win both Texas and Ohio to remain viable, commentators say.

But that may prove to be too great a feat. Obama came into Texas from a huge victory in Wisconsin, part of a streak of 11 primary/caucus wins in a row. (Americans abroad gave him his eleventh victory.)

Workers issues

Economic issues, immigration, health care and foreign policy, including the Iraq war, are dominating the debate in Texas.

Voters here may have corporate greed on their minds as they consider their primary choices. Last week the Houston Chronicle ran a story on the British Petroleum refinery in Texas City, which has killed more workers than any other in the nation.

Following the catastrophic disaster that killed 15 workers in March 2005 at the Texas City refinery, five more have been killed in BP refineries around the country. Three of those were at the Texas City facility.

Brent Coon, a Beaumont attorney who has represented dozens of families of killed and injured refinery workers, told the Chronicle, “None of these plants are re-investing like they should — production is at an all-time high. They’re pushing the operating envelope at all of these plants, and that makes all of them to some degree time bombs.”

While oil companies put profits before people’s lives, working people and their families are outraged by these unnecessary deaths. That feeling may be spurring the huge voter turnout, analysts say.

Struggle continues on voting rights

Also last week some 2,000 people marched more than seven miles from historically Black Prairie View A&M University to the Waller County Courthouse to demand the right to vote.
Members of the university community were outraged that officials planned for only one polling place in Waller County for early voting. Originally the county planned to have six polling places. Protesters saw it as a blatant attempt to suppress the vote of students who make up a significant portion of the eligible voters in the county. They complained that students at Prairie View A&M have had their voting rights suppressed for decades by Waller County.

Waller County officials were forced under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice to add three polling places.

Prairie View Mayor Frank Johnson said, “These are wonderful kids. They are making a statement. Until they spoke up there was only one early voting place in the entire county. They spoke up but everyone is benefiting from what they are doing.”

The county has been notorious for African American voter suppression and has faced numerous lawsuits over the past decades.

A Supreme Court decision as a result of a Prairie View protest more than 30 years ago allows college students to register and vote in communities where they attend school.

November

Texans are looking forward to the November battle as well, where the country will have a chance to deliver a final blow to the far-right Bush administration and clones.

At a recent Obama speech, Texans in the crowd erupted with cheers and laughter when he said, “No matter what, the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot. I love Texas, but I want y’all to take him back.”

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]