Mayor Cook Wins! Kinda... - The Whole Story

Color me shocked that the Texas 8th Court of Appeals threw out the petitions to recall Mayor Cook, Representative Byrd and Representative Ortega.  Although, I didn't have any of the facts because the newspaper in El Paso is setting the standard for shitty reporting (yes, Mr. Schladen we are looking at you).

Here's how I see all of this.

The Ruling

For the first time since the court proceedings started, the El Paso Times reported the actual instance of law breaking that Cook had alleged in his lawsuit.  Here's the quote from the article HERE:

"Cook sued the group, arguing that the church, a nonprofit corporation, violated a state law prohibiting corporate political contributions to recall elections. The mayor also argued that El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values had not properly registered with the state as a political-action committee, even though its treasurer, Ronald Webster, admitted in court that it had raised more than $3,000 for the recall."

That is much different than the "they passed around petitions in church" argument that was reported by the El Paso Times and every other jackass with a keyboard and an internet connection since this saga began.  You can pass around a petition anywhere you damn please - including a church.  What you can't do is raise or spend money unless you are properly registered to do so.  These guys weren't and Mr. Webster scored what is known in soccer as an "own goal." 

I should point out that they weren't "guilty" of anything because they "pleaded the fifth" in court as insinuated by the El Paso Times and many other armchair lawyers out there.  If you love the constitution and you love freedom, then you'll understand that "pleading the fifth" isn't always about guilt or innocence - it's about a lot more than that.  There's a lot of historical perspective that went into that protection.  To make an assumption about someone "pleading the fifth" is to hate the constitution and the country it defines.  I hate to be that harsh, but I do not like it when constitutional rights are interpreted in such a way as to promote someone's editorial views in the news section of the newspaper. Journalistic ethics serve as toilet paper at the El Paso Times and it shows almost daily. 

It wasn't until late Friday afternoon that people on Cook's side started talking to me about what was actually being presented in court to judges.  I wish I had known about Mr. Webster's admission months ago and the fact that the church leadership was meeting in their official capacity as church elders to talk about this political initiative and plan their attack.  I would have been the first to come out and say they were engaged in illegal activity had I know that.  Instead, I got a bunch of pissy, ill-informed emails about petitions at church, which isn't illegal in any way.  Leave to El Pasoans to be focused on the wrong thing at all times - it's the mob mentality of the educationally challenged, I guess.

I say good for the Texas 8th Court of Appeals for doing their job. 

Judge Alvarez

The Texas 8th Court of Appeals wasn't too happy with Judge Alvarez's actions on this matter.  They aren't the first to have a feeling of contempt for a judge who refuses to rule on the side of obvious.  I was sued in his court - the entire legal community, minus the three involved with suing me, gasped at his inability to rule in my case.  I literally had conversations with lawyers that went "I hate you and everything you are as a person and a member of the  community, but there was no way that lawsuit shouldn't have been dismissed."

One could say that Alvarez was not interested in pissing off the electorate all by himself and let the case be kicked to the court of appeals where a panel of judges could absorb the public's likely outrage at the correct ruling.  And believe me - people are still pissed at the mayor despite this ruling. 

The problem here is that the Alvarez has the shield of "plausible deniability" in the fact that while there was wrong doing, you can't prove which signatures were collected directly because of that wrong doing.  I, like many others, saw the petition in many different places that weren't churches circulated by people not connected to Tom Brown.  I saw the petition spread like wildfire through business circles - people who think Brown is a weirdo, but wanted the opportunity to get rid of Mayor Cook.  How does a judge decide to discount the signatured will of thousands of people in this situation?  You have to think of Alvarez's inaction in that way if you want to be intellectually honest. 

The bad news is that Alvarez's fear of retribution was realized in a form he probably didn't account for.  I doubt this will make him any better of a judge in the future. He will probably be even mor paralyzed with fear now.

The Outcome

Cook won, but he lost.  He won't be the first city politico to fall to a recall.  That's a small consolation prize for a guy whose political career is dead... whose years in office are now tarnished by this one issue... whose departure from city hall will be wrapped in shame.  

If Tom Brown's ultimate goal was to make sure nobody liked Mayor Cook for what he did - Tom Brown was successful. Cook would likely lose an election to Anthony Cobos at this point.

The court case may have removed the chance of their being a recall, but it didn't remove the ire of the thousands upon thousands of people who signed that petition.  That is something that the courts can't change. 

What Did We Learn?

There were lots of lessons here with the powers of city government being the most important.  The "will of the people" isn't something city government (or any other level of government) has to accept.  All the rhetoric of "by the people" is just that - rhetoric.  Government was set up by government thus making itself supreme, not the people who would be governed.  The faster you realize that, the better off you'll be. 

I like the fact that Brown and his cronies lost because they didn't follow the rules.  Yes, there's something to be said for the idea of a couple of concerned folks getting together to try and fix what's concerning them.  There's also a slippery slope that ends with sophisticated campaigns operating under the radar as something else - in this case a church group. 

Using the federal government's rule on corporate participation in elections here does not protect Brown and friend's actions.  If corporations "raise money" they do it in a form of a PAC and those PACs are strictly regulated by the federal government.  Brown and friends were okay until they started collecting and subsequently spending money in a political effort.  This whole crap about some kind of small time grassroots effort went out the window when money started changing hands.

Because Brown was so successful in his recall attempt (the signature gathering portion), members of council decided to start making the role of community groups much clearer.  This means neighborhood associations will likely be banned from being part-time political organizations who threaten recall petitions and other political tactics when they don't get their way.  And believe it or not - that's a good thing.  Transparency is good for both the government and those who wish to change it. 

Declaring a Winner

I win. 

Just kidding.

Brown loses because those awful gay people and unmarried fornicators have benefits (that were available to them all along). 

Gays lose because a large part of El Paso doesn't approve of their lifestyle.

Mayor Cooks loses because he tried to trade his vote on the same sex issue for a charter amendment to make him King of El Paso (end term limits) and it backfired on him worse than he could have imagined.  Cook thought he'd throw Susie and Ortega a bone (overturn "the will of the people") and they'd get everybody on board for a charter amendment that he wanted. They didn't move to help him and the backlash for his risk was far greater than he ever imagined.  Add some candid statements to the people about not being a plumber in a time of crisis (the mayor was in fact right, but you can't say that to a bunch of government dependent plebeians) and you have the making of the greatest fall from grace ever recorded in El Paso politics. 

"No Recall" group loses because not only did they fail to stop enough signatures from being gathered, they created some giant new egos who think they speak for the masses.  Single issue assholes with a little power are very dangerous and El Paso is about to get yet another lesson in that scenario. 

That's it - no winners. 

I now declare this a dead issue.  Henceforth there shall be no mention of this whole debacle because El Pasoans refuse to learn from history and I'd like that tradition to stand.  Let's be honest - if you don't have tradition, what do you have?

Comments

[Carl Starr]

I think the 8th court of appeals
Ruled a hour too soon...same day scotus granted stay re montana law which is generally like the tx law re corps....I posted the info on strelz

I think every revolution is the will of the prevailing,

I agree about the 5th its re gov abuse not guilt

[Edie]

This was a simple case. The bigots broke the election code (i.e. the law). Judge Javier Alvarez was too afraid to do his job. The 8th court of appeals said he didn't do his job. Cook won and will serve out his term in office. Amen.

[Peggy]

Don't forget that the residents lose, because our benevolent dictators at City Council still over ruled a valid election result regarding what benefits the taxpayers were willing to pay for.

I had no issue with the gay partners - it's all the benefits that we're paying for for people that don't actually qualify to be insured under the benefits program that bothers me. That's cronyism.

[choco]

Edie wins. He/She is right. Brown's a clown.