Hotel Vegas
King Should Read It
RECEIVED Thu., Sept. 29, 2011
Let's perform a thought experiment about Michael King [Re: "Point Austin: Voter Suppression Made Easy," News, Sept. 30]:
Suppose a majority at the Texas Legislature – using a new federal law as an excuse – voted to postpone state elections and extend their terms a half year, so they could vote on hundreds of additional laws and budget items before facing voters again. How would King react? I think we know. With spittle-flecked outrage, he would oppose such a scheme and probably call for armed insurrection as well. But when Austin City Council members who belong to his preferred local political faction try to do the same exact thing, it doesn't trouble King at all. In fact, he charges, council members who vote to hold our election at the normal time are actually guilty of "Voter Suppression!"
Whatever you think of May vs. November, King is being a superheated ass. The fact is every major city in Texas holds its municipal contests on nonpresidential dates – just like Austin – so city candidates won't be overwhelmed by state and national elections. No one has accused Mayor Annise Parker in Houston or Mayor Julian Castro in San Antonio of "voter suppression." Michael King knows this, but doesn't tell his readers, and that's a telling symptom of the corruption that's seeped into his writing.
As I sit here in my white robe, writing by the light of a flaming cross, I ponder my career as a "vote suppressor." I'm a Democratic consultant. November helps me. Presidential year voters in Austin favor city issues I prefer – like stricter environmental protection and opposition to use public money to subsidize racetracks – even more than in May. But I still think May elections are better for the city. Reporter Wells Dunbar quoted my memo to council fairly. King should read it.
Suppose a majority at the Texas Legislature – using a new federal law as an excuse – voted to postpone state elections and extend their terms a half year, so they could vote on hundreds of additional laws and budget items before facing voters again. How would King react? I think we know. With spittle-flecked outrage, he would oppose such a scheme and probably call for armed insurrection as well. But when Austin City Council members who belong to his preferred local political faction try to do the same exact thing, it doesn't trouble King at all. In fact, he charges, council members who vote to hold our election at the normal time are actually guilty of "Voter Suppression!"
Whatever you think of May vs. November, King is being a superheated ass. The fact is every major city in Texas holds its municipal contests on nonpresidential dates – just like Austin – so city candidates won't be overwhelmed by state and national elections. No one has accused Mayor Annise Parker in Houston or Mayor Julian Castro in San Antonio of "voter suppression." Michael King knows this, but doesn't tell his readers, and that's a telling symptom of the corruption that's seeped into his writing.
As I sit here in my white robe, writing by the light of a flaming cross, I ponder my career as a "vote suppressor." I'm a Democratic consultant. November helps me. Presidential year voters in Austin favor city issues I prefer – like stricter environmental protection and opposition to use public money to subsidize racetracks – even more than in May. But I still think May elections are better for the city. Reporter Wells Dunbar quoted my memo to council fairly. King should read it.
Dean Rindy
[News Editor Michael King responds: Setting aside his defensive histrionics, Dean Rindy's letter is helpful because it makes clear that the real issue for him is not public participation at all. His "thought experiment" omits the central variable – voter turnout – and despite what he believes if the trade-off for a postponed state election increased turnout by six or seven times beyond a risible 10%, I wouldn't hesitate to endorse that deal. In a state where suppressing turnout has become a specialized industry, neither should anyone who calls himself a "Democrat" – big D or little d. If other cities have the same disgraceful turnout, they should consider the same bargain instead of letting a tiny minority of "factional" voters – somewhere between 4% and 6% – turn city government into a private party by invitation only.]
