 |
 |
 | |
|
July 7, 2021 4:24 PM HK: An open letter to Sherry Sylvester After Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s senior adviser wrote that our publisher had a “pathological determination to push the left-wing phony voter suppression narrative,” Mr. Kronberg responds with the facts and reflects on where elections legislation stands heading into the special session Editor’s note: Following
publication last week of this column by
Quorum Report Publisher Harvey Kronberg, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s Senior Adviser
Sherry Sylvester wrote in an open letter that his article “reflects a
pathological determination to push the left-wing phony voter suppression
narrative regardless of the facts.” Sylvester’s entire letter is here
for all to read. Because the Lt. Governor’s
campaign elevated this to the level of a statewide news release – garnering national
attention for Patrick’s retreat from some key provisions of Senate Bill 7 – Mr.
Kronberg’s response is offered here free to the
public – SB Dear Sherry, Before getting into the
specifics that so outraged you, let’s remember the thesis of the column captured
in the headline: “As lawmakers prepare to convene in Austin, the level of
trust between the big three is in question.“ Frankly, that is not in
dispute. The Lt. Governor has
called Dade Phelan “the worst speaker” he has ever worked with, per
Senate sources. Meanwhile, the Governor is using the Legislature as a campaign
prop having gratuitously threatened the livelihoods of over 2000 innocent
bystanders over the actions of a minority of Texas House members who
used a legitimate parliamentary tool over a bill that morphed into something
completely different when it came back from conference committee. Furthermore, the Governor
offers financial benefit if lawmakers do what he wants – something that should
insult both chambers. The Governor and the Lt. Governor have diametrically
opposed each other on “repricing” of the electricity market and taken their
disagreement public. The mutual admiration society has definitely
taken a hit. By appointing a Select
Committee on Constitutional Rights and Remedies, Speaker Phelan sent a message
to the Governor and Lt. Governor: Any election bills would be driven less by
hysterical rhetoric and more by thoughtful deliberation. It is a strong
bi-partisan committee populated by grown-ups.
You say I am
pathologically committed to an untrue version of the facts over the evolution
of SB7. Amid finger pointing as to who inserted language undermining “Souls to
the Polls” and judicial overturning of elections, the behavior of the Senate
and its presiding officer belie a fair process. The last floor debate on this in
the Senate ran from 12AM to 6AM and let’s just say
accuracy in the debate was often a casualty. Chairman Bryan Hughes spent
hours publicly defending provisions in the bill which Governor Patrick now says
will not come up in the special session. Read on and you will learn
where the Lt. Governor publicly mischaracterized SB7. What was visible for all
to see was that when the House debated the legislation, a point of order called
by Rep. John Turner created leverage and afforded the time for Ds and Rs
to negotiate away what both sides would later characterize as some of the worst
features of voter suppression. A slew of amendments was offered and adopted
that both sides would agree eliminated the most egregious elements of the bill. If any election bill makes
it to the Governor’s desk, it will probably look more like the House amended
version than SB7 or the Conference Committee Report Ironically, the original
HB6 and SB7 cut a broad path potentially suppressing not just minority voters
but also Republican voters, especially the elderly who relied heavily in 2020 on
mail-in and drive through voting. Only one in four Republicans voted in person
on election day. Who put courts easily overturning
elections and ending Souls to the Polls on the table? — The Senate. The House sent the
“cleaned up version” over to the Senate where a 21 page “outside the bounds”
resolution, SJR
547, was adopted that gave permission to the conferees to include language
to do, among other things, the following: -
withheld voter registration funding for counties that did not properly clean up their voting rolls along with potential
fines to county officials -
push back voting hours on Sunday -- Souls to the Poll-- until 1 (yes the Senate affirmatively put that in the Resolution) -
Voters are not eligible for mail in ballots due to a lack of transportation, an
injury that does not require an attendant, can’t get
off work. Voters must specify the reason for their request for a mail in ballot
and in some cases provide an affirmation by a health care provider -
And of course, overturning an election judicially. Quibble with any details
you like, but it was a Senate bill – the Senate was the lead on the
legislation. That is exactly why it is so disingenuous for anyone to claim they
do not know how provisions were inserted that are clearly voter suppression. Nevertheless, I am pleased
Governor Patrick has now publicly said at least the two most offensive proposals
will not be in the next version. But the bottom line is the
House sent over a relatively clean bill, the Senate included last minute new
provisions in the Conference Committee report giving the House only an up or
down vote on the whole package — in effect a mélange of “take it or leave” it that
had never previously been discussed in either chamber. It is the Senate and its
leadership that’s lost credibility here. In what was a
press rant more than a press conference, Lt. Governor Patrick said anyone who
called the original version of SB7 a voter suppression bill was a “liar who had
not read it.” Patrick successfully
bullied most business leaders into keeping their collective head down, but we
subsequently learned that elements of voter suppression were at least a part of
SB7: -
The Texas
Tribune first reported
there would be fewer polling locations in minority areas of urban counties. -
The Austin
American Statesman reported
Patrick dismissing the reduction of drive-in voting of little consequence to
minorities saying, “If they're worried about people of color — on the Democrats
side who came up with this drive-in voting — statistics show that more people
of color don't have cars than not. So how do (drive-thru voting centers) help
those folks?” Move along, no voter
suppression to see here. The fact is that the Lt. Governor misled the press and
the business community. As far as polling goes, a majority of Texans initially supported the bathroom bill
until they learned more about it. As I recall and depending on what polling you
looked at, support flipped almost exactly, 65% first supported then 65% rejected
it. But the most important poll on voting is from Republican rising
star pollster Chris Perkins in which he reports broad support among
Texas voters for expanding and relaxing access to the vote. Take a
look. Finally, you point to the
press screaming about voter suppression with Voter ID and straight ticket
voting. You claim that since voter ID became Texas law, Presidential voter
turnout has increased 40%. In absolute numbers you are correct, but at least 4
million more Texans have been added in that timeframe. You accurately report that
in 2012, the percent of turnout of registered voters was 58.58%. In 2020, the
turnout of registered voters was 66.73%. Similarly, the 2014 gubernatorial race
saw 33.7% of registered voters turnout. Four years later, it was 53.01%. Of
course, that cycle featured Beto O’Rourke
facing off against Sen. Ted Cruz, a race that excited Democrats more
than they had ever been in decades. As far as the Baselice poll for the Texas Association
of Business that you cited, the most significant number
is “By nearly a four-to-one ratio, voters support efforts to make it easier
(64%) versus harder to vote (17%).” My original thesis is
accurate. There is much distrust between the leadership. And while there was quite
a bit of innocuous boilerplate in the final version, the writing out of “Souls
to the Polls” and writing in of overturning elections with little to no
evidence of fraud became the metaphor for what many viewed as pervasive
mischief by the Texas Senate. Best, Harvey Kronberg
By Harvey Kronberg |
|
|
|
|
 |
Copyright July 07, 2021, Harvey Kronberg, www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved