Sam Houston once said, “Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” Great sentiment, Mr. “Raven,” but unfortunately, an abundance of your successors have perpetuated oppression on the people of this state.
Now, however, for the first time in a quarter of a century, Texans are ready to fight. We’re ready to elect people like Jessica Cisneros to unseat a Democrat with an A rating from the NRA. We’re, also, eager to banish John Cornyn from the U.S. Senate.
As liberal as Sam Houston was for his time, it wasn’t enough to keep our marginalized communities protected. Slowly, I believe, the teachers and leaders of our communities will embolden us to be more forward-thinking and open-minded. For right now, though, our fight is electoral, and it’s getting very interesting here in the Lone Star State.
So interesting, in fact, the state is ascending into battleground territory at a coups d’etat level.
This is important for Texans, because it gives us a sense of voice that, up until recently, we have not felt we had. Everyone just categorizes Texas as a red state without even considering the work Democrats are doing in local organizations and governments. Doing so marginalizes left-wing voices and, with them, the voices of women, POC and LGBTQ+ individuals.
When people say Dallas, some people think conservative white people with big, feathered hair. When I was growing up in New Jersey in the early 2000s, we thought of Dallas as an Old West town, with people riding around on horses. (Yes, in 2004 kids in Jersey really did think everyone rode horses in Texas, and for much longer after that!)
What you don’t think of is the fact that when reviewing voter turnout for Texas and California, considering 2018 vs. 2014, Texas turnout increased by 18 percent and California turnout by 18.8 percent. This means we had the sixth-highest voter turnout increase, just under California, arguably the most liberal state, which was fourth.
So, this Bible Belt state is right on par with a beacon of liberalism.
We cannot discount how close the 2018 was. Democrats at the top of the ballot lost by about 1.25 million votes in 2012 and 2014, then in a sharp change, to only 807,000 in 2016. Then O’Rourke lost by only about 215,000 votes in 2018!
Using figures from the Secretary of State website, there are about 452,000 newly-registered voters since then. If even half of these voters disapprove of President Trump — which, based on national polling they do — we are sprinting toward the reality of flipping Texas blue.
To those distressed about the “Bernie or Bust-ers,” let’s use the national average of 12 percent of Sanders primary voters who voted for Trump. That’s 57,000 here in Texas — a measly amount compared to the number of newly-registered voters here.
We are the second-largest state in the country and so control the second-largest amount of delegates. I won’t even begin to try and comment on the travesty that is the Electoral College, because the reality is, we’ll have to deal with it in 2020. We will just have to bust out enough votes to make it bend to our will.
Because Texas has been such a deeply red state, the 2016 election felt like a loss for most of us before it even happened. However, there is a YUGE chance that we alone could be the electoral elixir this year.
We could have done it in 2016, if we would have swung blue and voted majority Clinton, she would have received exactly the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win. This is not something to scoff at; this is momentous. With mounting Republican retirements and increasingly-razor-thin winning margins for the GOP, if we do the work, Texas could hoist the country into a new era of liberty and justice.
We can lead our fellow Americans into a better quality of life. This means not only can we speak up and spearhead progress as never before, but it also means we are obliged to do so.
Here is Texas, we have had to deal with our classmates and relatives terrorizing us, calling us “fags” and worse and always having to deal with bigotry and ridicule. We’ve seen Texans of color being murdered in mass shootings, including a 17-month-old Texan being shot in the face in El Paso, an innocent little girl struck by tragedy before she could even understand her own consciousness — thanks to Texas’ incredibly absurd gun laws.
If we as a “conservative stronghold” can show that we abandon tradition and prejudice for an honest investment into the well-being of fellow Americans and their future, we can shepherd United States policy for decades to come. No longer will we be written off as bozos or dismissed as uneducated, something we, the righteous Democrats of Texas, have never been. We have, in fact, been the opposite, standing up for what’s right in the face of a barbarous conservative culture.
And we are not done; we never will be. There is still so much work to do — before November and beyond. I urge you to do what you can to get involved; talk to loved ones and be the transformation. It is not in vain.
We don’t just want to win; we want to dominate! The fact is, voters in Texas have swiftly swung left, and the margin of victory for Republicans has shriveled from 27.2 percent in 2014 to 2.56 percent in 2018. Victory is more than achievable, but we need you to be able to succeed. You are the key.
Do not give up.
Joey Casiano is a local artist/author working on his first novel. He serves on the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas executive board and volunteers for the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Note: The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
I would suggest those who are within the LGBT communities first understand that this bill on its face is unconstitutional – it violates the US Constitution and should be withdrawn as a matter of course; However, what Mr. Casiano has never been to a country that has governments that run the entire show.
They seize guns from their citizens, in order to ‘keep the masses’ from being able to defend themselves. This is called a tyrannical form of government.
I cannot believe those so-called intelligent voters would be so compelled to give up their rights. Take a look at the governor of Oregon, who has done away with the electoral college. This is what Mr. Casiano wants to have happen here, and then it will become the same that YOUR votes won’t matter when a tyrannical government takes away your Constitution. Having grown up in a Communist country I can tell you that what the democrats in the House are doing is just how our government was taken away from us, and then Government controlled us….we were not even allowed to own guns to protect ourselves. So, think outside your own country, take a look at Venezuela and the Communist regime there. I guess some of you are so ready to hand over your rights, which brave men and women have fought for you to have freedom. Freedom is NEVER free…it must be fought for in order to keep it. My fear is that there are more conservatives who do not say anything about this topic, but perhaps those reading this need to heed warning…that a sleeping giant has been awoken, and that my friends is the Conservative party.
The bill would not abolish or replace the Electoral College. It replaces state laws. Each enacting state’s electors would vote for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes nationwide. It supports the Founders’ commitment to federalism.
The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.
The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
The Electoral College system – the way we really elect our president – has always had its detractors and lost even more public support after the 2016 election, when it became apparent that President-Elect Donald Trump might have lost the nationwide popular vote to Sec. Hillary Clinton, but won the electoral vote to become the 45th President of the United States. Now, the states are considering the National Popular Vote plan, a system that, while not doing away with the Electoral College system, would modify it to ensure that the candidate winning the national popular vote is ultimately elected president.
After the 2016 presidential election, political science expert Nate Silver wrote that, since the swing states are not likely to support any plan that might reduce their influence over control of the White House, the National Popular Vote bill will not succeed unless the predominately Republican “red states” adopt it. As of September 2017, the bill has been fully adopted only by predominately Democratic “blue states” which delivered the 14 largest vote shares for Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.
After the 2016 presidential election, political science expert Nate Silver wrote that, since the swing states are not likely to support any plan that might reduce their influence over control of the White House, the National Popular Vote bill will not succeed unless the predominately Republican “red states” adopt it. As of September 2017, the bill has been fully adopted only by predominately Democratic “blue states” which delivered the 14 largest vote shares for Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.
After the 2016 presidential election, political science expert Nate Silver wrote that, since the swing states are not likely to support any plan that might reduce their influence over control of the White House, the National Popular Vote bill will not succeed unless the predominately Republican “red states” adopt it. As of September 2017, the bill has been fully adopted only by predominately Democratic “blue states” which delivered the 14 largest vote shares for Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.
After the 2016 presidential election, political science expert Nate Silver wrote that, since the swing states are not likely to support any plan that might reduce their influence over control of the White House, the National Popular Vote bill will not succeed unless the predominately Republican “red states” adopt it.
As of September 2017, the bill has been fully adopted only by predominately Democratic “blue states” which delivered the 14 largest vote shares for Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.
After the 2016 presidential election, political science expert Nate Silver wrote that, since the swing states are not likely to support any plan that might reduce their influence over control of the White House, the National Popular Vote bill will not succeed unless the predominately Republican “red states” adopt it. As of September 2017, the bill has been fully adopted only by predominately Democratic “blue states” which delivered the 14 largest vote shares for Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.
AG Paxton Defends Electoral College at Fifth Circuit
AUSTIN – On behalf of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Governor Greg Abbott, Deputy Solicitor General Matthew Frederick today defended the time-honored Electoral College system at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Texas’s method of appointing presidential electors is consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s command that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress.” Texas appoints the State’s presidential electors on a winner-take-all basis to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in a statewide election—a method that dates back to the first presidential election and that is used in all but two states today.
“Only an amendment to the Constitution can change or eliminate the stable and successful presidential election system designed by our Founders. The Electoral College has been in constant use since 1789, and the Constitution clearly allows states to appoint electors as directed by the Legislature,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Texas and the 47 other states that selected the winner-take-all method are operating in full compliance with the Constitution. This challenge to the Electoral College system is not just baseless, it threatens to destroy the framework of our election process.”
Nearly 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a decision rejecting the argument that the winner-take-all system is unconstitutional. One year ago, the U.S. District Court in San Antonio dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Electoral College system, finding that Texas’s method of appointing electors does not deny any person an equally weighted vote or deny any voter’s First Amendment rights of association or expression. The election process in Texas is free, fair, and lawful.