The Voter ID issue and the HCRP

In a recent interview for the Houston Chronicle, I predicted that I would get some criticism for my observations about the strategy the current HCRP Chair pursued to promote adding the issue of a Voter ID to the recent special legislative session. Never one to prove me wrong, yesterday Jared Woodfill used the party’s email system to again promote his idea for a session to address the Voter ID issue and to criticize my statements. Normally, I would ignore this predictable response, but I want to briefly show how our differences in approach to this issue matter for the future of our party.

Let’s be clear about one thing first. Mr. Woodfill and I agree on the goal of passing and implementing an effective Voter ID bill. In fact, at least 70% of Texans, including people from both parties, consistently have stated they support passage of such a law. Where he and I disagree is over the strategy and tactics for finally getting the law we both want.

Unfortunately, Mr. Woodfill promotes this issue as an "us"-versus-"them", Republican versus Democrat issue that requires a defense of our conservative principles. I do not. In fact, I believe that as long as we discuss the issue this way, we will divide the natural majority who support this idea, and we will continue to lose in a closely-divided House of Representatives in Austin.

This issue is not an "us"-versus-"them", Republican versus Democrat issue, like the 2003 battle over redistricting. That battle truly was a battle of power politics to determine which party would control the Congressional Delegation from Texas. To win it required steeled determination to outlast the other party. The analogy of that partisan struggle to the Voter ID issue is inappropriate.

Nor does this issue present us with a titanic struggle for the survival of our conservative principles. I don’t know about you, but my convictions in those principles are not so weak as to be threatened by the lack of a picture and smart ID card. In fact, our republic and our principles have survived a tremendous amount of voting irregularities and shenanigans over the last 230 years. I am confident that our republic and our principles will continue to be strong enough to survive a little longer until we get the bill we want.

Instead, the Voter ID issue is simply a good-governance issue that transcends party politics. If implemented properly by incorporating the latest technology, it will prevent fraud, and it actually will give both parties the ability to muster their voters and increase turnout by transmitting real-time voting information from the polling place to the county, and from the county to the local political parties. The parties can then use this information at the precinct level to get their voters to the polls--increasing interest and turnout. In fact, all of the arguments over alleged voter suppression are simply wrong, but they gain traction when we make the issue partisan rather than promote it correctly to the 70% of Texans who agree with us.

I believe as the current elected leader of our party in Texas, Governor Perry (who also supports the passage of this law) showed the proper restraint and fiscal sanity when he did not call a special session on this issue. Rather than stomp our feet and yell for a session that is doomed to fail because of the close division in the House, let’s regroup, work on promoting the facts and the benefits of the bill to the 70% who agree with us, and let that natural public consensus put pressure on the Democrats to vote for this law in the next regular session. That is the mature approach, and the approach that will eventually see the bill become law.

In the meantime, rather than publicly attack the elected leader of our party, our local chair should focus his time and energy on getting our local party’s house in order.

P.S. In that same interview, I believe the Chronicle columnist was very fair in her treatment of me and what I said. However, there was one bit of miscommunication that I have clarified to her.

In the column she stated that I believe "school board races should be partisan." Looking back on our conversations, I completely understand how that impression was created by the intensity of my approach to this issue. However, I do not want to convert school board races into partisan elections. Instead, my goal is to encourage Republicans to get more involved in the governance of their communities. If Republicans believe in improving education, and in local control of schools, we have to get more involved in our school boards and districts in a positive way. Essentially, I want the GOP to do more than appear periodically to fight a bond issue; I want our party to work seriously to be a constructive force for positive improvement in the classroom.

Some Republicans already sit on school boards for HISD, Spring Branch ISD, and Cy-Fair ISD (and probably others), and I applaud their efforts, and their non-partisan work on those boards. That is the type of involvement I want to encourage among Republicans in every city and school district in the county--there are over 600 elected offices in this county and most of them involve these type of non-partisan, civic positions. I want Republicans to seek these offices and engage in the governance of their communities.

Lastly, if you have time, I did a podcast interview last night with a gentleman from NYC, the interview went into discssing my principles in great detail, I think you'll enjoy it, click here.