Chaos will reign supreme in 2016 election, if …

Randall County is going to need a serious reworking of how it conducts its elections in 2016, based on what I witnessed all day today in this mid-term, supposedly “low-turnout” election.

The county established “voting centers,” which effectively eliminated many traditional polling places around the county.

One of those centers happened to be at the County Courthouse Annex on Georgia and the Canyon E-Way in south Amarillo. I worked all day there conducting exit polling for a public opinion research company.

I witnessed considerable chaos, some chagrin from disheartened voters and some angst among county election officials seeking to manage the mayhem.

The voting center system allows voters who live anywhere in the county to vote at whatever polling site they wish. It turned out today that nearly 2,000 of them decided to vote at the courthouse annex. It started off fast when the polls opened at 7 a.m., slacked off just a bit right after noon, then it got seriously busy and crowded from about 2 p.m. until the polls closed at 7.

I was camped just outside the west entrance and I watched voter after voter walk in, look at the crowd, then walk out proclaiming they’re “coming back later,” or “I’ll go vote somewhere else. I ain’t waiting in that line to vote.”

It was an impressive display of voter interest in an election that pundits said would produce a tepid turnout. I don’t know what the final numbers are just yet and I don’t think they’ll really rival presidential election-year vote totals. The pandemonium at the annex, though, needs to be examined.

We’ll be electing a new president in 2016. The turnout for those elections always is greater than these mid-term elections.

What’s the county to do? Elections officials told me tonight they’re going to need to reconfigure the ballot box setup, the course of the lines that will be sure to form and look for better ways to manage the crowd packed into the area in front of the tax office.

Good luck with all of it.

 

Texas Democrats take it on the chin

The Texas Democratic Party has just been knocked out … cold.

All that brave talk about upsets in the making, about how the state was on the verge of returning to its Democratic roots, of Texas becoming a “battleground” upon which Democrats would wage combat with Republicans … well, you can toss it into the trash can.

Greg Abbott is going to be the next governor and, worse still, Dan Patrick is going to become the next lieutenant governor.

If I were Abbott, I’d start plotting my renomination strategy — let alone my re-election plans — right now.

The fight is going to commence probably quite soon for the seat Abbott is about to assume. It well could be between the new governor and the new guy who’ll be lieutenant governor.

Abbott vs. Patrick. Sounds appealing, doesn’t it?

As for the Democratic Party, well, back to the drawing boards, folks.

Battleground Texas, the phony political action group that crowed about pumping juice into the Democratic Party, has been shown to be bogus. It didn’t do nearly the job it claimed to have done in registering voters.

See you around, hucksters.

Meanwhile, the GOP stranglehold on every statewide office continues.

As for the Texas Senate, let’s just say it’s going to be a good bit crazier than it’s been. Patrick is likely to toss aside all the bipartisan niceties shown by predecessors of both parties. He isn’t likely to appoint any Democratic Senate chairmen or women, which David Dewhurst and Rick Perry did when they held the office. Indeed, the late Democrat Bob Bullock selected Republican allies to chair committees when he ran the Senate prior to Perry taking over in 1999.

I’ll say this, though. Watching the Texas Senate will provide plenty of grist for folks like me.

As for the rest of the state’s political lineup, they’re all likely to march to the cadence that Dan Patrick is going to call once he takes office.

Get ready, Texas.

 

 

Here's what I am doing on Election Day

My granddaughter likely never will ask me this question: Grandpa, what did you do on Election Day 2014?

But if she did, I would have something rather interesting to tell her.

I would tell little Emma I worked all day, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. as an exit pollster.

My job, which I’m doing for a public opinion research firm, is to interview voters as they exit the polling place at Randall County’s Courthouse Annex. Well, I don’t “interview” them per se. I will ask them if they would mind filling out a short questionnaire telling who they voted for, what are the key issues of the day and then a little bit about themselves.

I’ve got to log every person who takes part, everyone who refuses and everyone I “miss,” those who walk by without being asked if they’ll participate. I have to be sure to make a record of it.

Three times during the day I’ll call in voting results; I’ll report the total number of people voting, total “misses” and “refusals.” The polling firm is interested in the races for Texas governor, lieutenant governor and U.S. Senate.

The polling is being done on behalf of all the major media outlets in the country: CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, The Associated Press.

They gather this data from all across the country during the day, compile and then report their findings nationally to an audience awaiting the election returns when the polls start closing around 7 or 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

It’s going to be a challenge to make sure I get all the data collected that’s required.

My adviser at the polling firm assures me it will be fun. She also believes I’ll find my rhythm once I get going. I’m going to take here word for it.

So, with that I’m off to my polling station for what I believe will be a most interesting day watching democracy at work.

Oh, by the way: Be sure to vote.

 

Battleground Texas left for dead

Battleground Texas is phony.

You might remember this pseudo-organization. It came into being around 2012 intending to turn Texas from Republican Red to Democratic Blue.

Turns out it failed. In so doing, it bruised the credibility of what used to be a great political party.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/losing-battleground

As Texas Monthly blogger/editor Paul Burka notes, Battleground Texas put out phony numbers on the voters it supposedly was registering. The organization proclaimed great success where none existed. It was, as Burka notes, a “mirage.”

So what happens now? Immediately, we’re going to see Texas Republicans tighten their grip on the levers of government after the Tuesday election.

How does the once-great Texas Democratic Party get back into the game? Well, it might start by fielding candidates up and down the ballot who’ve got more than a prayer of winning.

There are some good candidates on the ballot. Wendy Davis and Leticia Van de Putte head the state ballot for the party. They’re both solid public servants. They’re both going to lose Tuesday — maybe by big margins.

As for Battleground Texas, my guess is that the organization needs to disband, pack it in and let someone else do some actual work to make Texas a legitimate two-party state.

 

Will Patrick be the tail that wags the dog?

Let’s go just a bit out on a limb and presume that Republicans Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick will be elected Texas governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, on Tuesday.

This sets up an interesting and provocative relationship for the next four years.

Abbott has campaigned to the far right in his bid to succeed Rick Perry as governor. He’s out there on the fringe with Patrick, who’s made no effort to disguise his brand of “conservatism.”

As some Austin commentators have noted, Abbott has raised a mountain of money and has a lot of it left over from the campaign that’s about to conclude. The theory is that Abbott is preparing for a possible challenge from within his party in 2018 — from none other than Dan Patrick.

Here’s where it get provocative.

Abbott has a chance to govern more from the center-right than from the far right. Will he do so? Or will he be concerned about that potential challenge from Patrick that he’ll govern from the far right, which likely is how Patrick likely will do his own job as presiding officer of the Texas Senate?

I’ll be brutally candid. I don’t want either man to win the office they are seeking. I support strongly Democrats Wendy Davis for governor and Leticia Van de Putte for lieutenant governor. But this is Texas, one of the most Republican Red states in the U.S. of A.

Abbott has done nothing to defeat himself. Patrick’s shrill rhetoric endears him to the GOP majority that runs everything in Texas.

My hope is that for Texas’s sake that Abbott veers more toward the center and works constructively with the relatively few Democrats who remain in the Legislature. If he does that, then he’s likely to anger the lieutenant governor enough to challenge him in four years.

So we’ll find out just how much of his own man a Gov. Abbott turns out to be.

 

 

Assisted suicide causes serious conflict

Some social, moral and theological issues are clear to me.

Women have the right to choose whether to end a pregnancy; homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but is predetermined by one’s genetic code; God created the world, but didn’t do it in six calendar days. Those are my views, for better or worse.

Assisted suicide? Oh, brother. Someone pass the Pepto.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/terminally-ill-brittany-maynard-takes-her-own-life/ar-BBcEQgq

Brittany Maynard took her own life over the weekend in Oregon, my home state, which also allows for assisted suicide. She had suffered from terminal brain cancer. Doctors said she had no hope of surviving. She was left with two choices: die a slow, agonizing death and subject her loved ones to untold misery or take her life peacefully, quickly and clinically.

She’s now gone.

The debate rages on.

I’ve long struggled with whether human beings should be entrusted to do God’s work, to determine whether someone should live or die. The issue confuses and confounds me.

I get Brittany’s struggle. I understand fully her desire to spare her family such untold agony. I also try to understand the family’s desire to spare her the pain and agony that surely awaited her.

Then I ask myself: Would I want (a) to end my life or (b) allow a member of my family to make that decision?

The answer is “no” to both parts of that question.

But then I come back to what Brittany Maynard and her family wanted. Is it up to me or anyone else to make that decision for them? No. It’s their call exclusively.

Come to think of it, I might have persuaded myself that assisted suicide is one of those issues that only can be decided by those affected directly by it. The rest of us have no business determining someone’s fate.

The issue, however, still upsets my stomach.

 

Went to a fight and a race took place

What in the world is going in the world of automobile racing?

It’s becoming kind of like hockey on wheels. Heck, even baseball — where beanings have set off classic brawls — is beginning to look tame by comparison.

Well, after a NASCAR race in Fort Worth’s Texas Motor Speedway, Jeff Gordon and Brad Keselowski had words on pit row, then Gordon started throwing punches. The two race teams got into a serious melee. Gordon called Keselowski some unprintable names on TV, apparently after Keselowski caused Gordon’s car to crash as Gordon was racing for the lead.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nascar/story/2014-11-02/jeff-gordon-brad-keselowski-fight-texas-results-jimmie-johnson-win-chase-standings

Well, I used to watch hockey. Then I became disinterested because of all the fighting that — in my view — detracts from what at its core is a beautiful sport that demands supreme athleticism.

Car racing is now falling into that category.

Hey, didn’t race car drivers use to say “That’s racing” when they crashed or when someone nudged them, causing them to spin out, lose track position and — what the heck — maybe even championships?

These days it’s become grist for vengeance on the track.

I’ll give Gordon and Keselowski a tiny bit of credit: At least they were fighting with their fists — or trying to fight that way — rather than using their cars as high-speed battering rams, which also happens with startling frequency on these race tracks. That, I submit, is the kind of “fighting” that must not be tolerated, ever.

Auto racing is a dangerous enough sport when all the competitors are keeping their cool. When hotheads start bumping competitors to pay them back, they put the entire field — not to mention the spectators sitting at track side — at maximum risk of injury or death.

As for these pit row brawls, let’s knock it off. It might be safer for everyone than when they’re racing — but they’re no less idiotic.

 

Back to Standard Time

Now that we’ve turned the clocks back and we’ve all gotten that hour’s sleep we lost in the spring, it’s fair to ask: Why do we “spring forward” in the first place?

My old pal Jon Talton, an Arizona native and blogger who writes about issues in his home state, says Arizona was right to forgo the switch to Daylight Savings Time when it was introduced back in the old days.

You know, I’m beginning to agree with that notion.

Why switch?

Well, the modern version of DST had its origin in the 1970s energy crisis. U.S. politicians thought that turning the clocks ahead in the spring would give us more late-afternoon and evening daylight, thus reducing demand for electricity in the form of street lights and such.

I guess it just stuck. People in most of the states got used to the switch to DST and then back to Standard Time in the fall.

Perhaps the older I get the less I care about having to change every clock in the house or in my vehicles.

I do like the extended periods of sunlight in the evenings in the Texas Panhandle. Given our location, just about 70 miles or so from the Mountain Time Zone, the sun sits in our huge sky for a very long time when the Summer Solstice arrives in June. It doesn’t get seriously dark until well after 9 p.m.

Now that we’ve flipped our clocks back and gained that hour of sleep, the sun goes down a whole lot earlier.

I’m still asking why the need to keep switching our clocks in the first place.

 

Breakthrough in Alzheimer's research? Yes … maybe

For more than three decades I’ve had this intensely personal fascination with Alzheimer’s disease.

My mother died of complications from this horrific affliction. I’ve seen friends waste away and succumb to it, just as Mom did.

And just recently I learned that another member of my family has been diagnosed with it.

I am dreading what lies ahead on the road for this beloved family member.

Then I saw an item out of Florida that suggests a breakthrough might be at hand.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/30/blood-pressure-drug-alzheimers-disease/18186177/

USA Today reports that scientists believe a common blood pressure medication might hold the key to treating a “trigger” that causes the disease to begin destroying a person’s brain.

Here’s how the newspaper reported it: “Scientists at the Roskamp Institute in Sarasota, Fla., have discovered a common enzyme in all three known triggers of the disease. The enzyme is shut off by the key chemical in Nilvadipine, a blood pressure medication used overseas for the last 20 years.”

It sounds rather complicated. It’s not a cure, per se. It’s not even the discovery of a drug that arrests the advance of the disease. The findings suggest that scientists have found a way to stop one of those so-called “triggers” through the use of a common drug to treat high blood pressure.

The disease affects more than 5 million Americans. The number is going to accelerate as the Baby Boom generation — that includes my wife and me — continues to age.

One doesn’t see telethons or lots of celebrities lining up to proclaim their desire to stop this killer. It just does its dirty work and people die quietly. Yes, plenty of famous folks have been taken from us by this monstrous disease.

The news out of Sarasota, though, heartens me and I’ll continue to raise awareness of findings as they occur.

I’ll also say prayers for the researchers to stay on the hunt for more potential miracles. I can tell you that millions upon millions of American families — not to mention others around the world — are cheering them on.

 

Strong mayor? Not for Amarillo

A friend and former colleague shared a story out of Sacramento, Calif., that he thought might pique my interest.

He’s right. It did.

The story concerns a ballot referendum that calls for a strong mayor form of government in California’s capital city.

It asks voters if they want the mayor to have appointment powers and to wield serious power over city government, which now runs on a council/city manager system.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article3189903.html

My hometown of Portland, Ore., is run that way, with the mayor having the power to appoint city commissioners to oversee various city departments. Portland has no city manager; the mayor and the council do all the heavy lifting.

However, in my current hometown of Amarillo, we’ve got something quite different.

We have a council/manager government. What’s more, the council is a volunteer outfit, with five members — including the mayor — serving the city essentially for free. They get $10 every time they meet, which is weekly. The manager does all the grunt work. The only hire the council makes is, that’s right, the city manager, who then hires all the department heads.

I don’t know what would work for Sacramento. That’s the voters’ call.

Amarillo? It’s not in the cards.

***

Having said that, though, I have been entertaining second thoughts about whether the city should retain its at-large system of electing all council members.

Amarillo’s population is closing in on 200,000 residents; heck, it might even be there by now. With that population growth comes an increasingly diverse population. There’s a growing ethnic diversity, with residents of various ethnicities and races seeking City Hall’s attention on all manner of issues.

The argument here has been that each of the city council members represents the entire city. If someone has a concern, he or she can call any one of the five council members. But do they listen as intently to someone of, say, a different ethnic or racial background than they do one of their own? They all say they do, but not everyone believes what they hear.

The all-for-one approach, furthermore, reduces the mayor’s actual power. The city mayor’s main job, therefore, is just to preside over those weekly council meetings. Beyond that, the mayor has as much stroke as the other four council members.

One day — maybe soon — the winds of change will arrive at City Hall. It’s going to spark an interesting fight over whether to upset the norm that makes a lot of folks comfortable.

Continued growth, which the city fathers and mothers say they want, is going to change it.

Guaranteed.