Deep in the bowels of Democrat-dominated south Texas, admissions of election bribery and voter fraud have emerged. What’s ironic is that Democrats continue to deny that election tampering and voter fraud exists. Also, it is curious how the Media has ignored or limited its coverage of the of this case.
Judge J. Bonner Dorsey voided the June 9, 2018, mayoral runoff, in which incumbent and former mayor Norberto “Beto” Salinas was defeated by the challenger and current mayor Armando O’Caña. Salinas had served as mayor for 20 years, and he had established a strong city hall organization.
The Judge also said, “I hold or find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the number of illegal votes was in excess of 158.” He said he based his ruling on the bribery of voters, the paperwork of the mail-in ballots and the assistance of voters at the polls, and added, “I never thought I would hear admissions of being bribed.”
When people can’t defend their position on an issue, they make the debate personal (see Kavanaugh confirmation hearing), and that’s what happened on Thursday, Sept. 20, 2018. San Antonio mayor Ron Nirenberg refused to debate anyone except Firefighters union leader Chris Steele regarding the three proposed city charter amendments on the November ballot.
The debate was supposed to be about issues, and local conservative leader Reinette Alecozay was ready to step up. However, Nirenberg and the City Hall Establishment wanted to play only by their rules, and thus he refused to debate Alecozay.
Sadly, but as expected, the San Antonio Express-News and the rest of local media blamed Steele for not showing in their reports. The SA Express has played the role of the City Hall Establishment’s mouthpiece and supported the “NO Vote” campaign against the city charter amendments.
Citizens should ask if this debate and vote is about personalities or issues? Furthermore, can’t issues be discussed and debated by any knowledgeable persons?
The San Antonio city council voted unanimously on Thursday, Aug. 16 place three city charter amendments on the Nov. 6 ballot for the voters to decide. The SA mayor and most members of the city council have opposed the amendments and formed a PAC to raise money to fight them.
The amendments would: 1) cap the salary of future city managers and place term limits on them; 2) lower the threshold for signatures on referendum petitions, increase the amount of time allowed for gathering them and remove prohibitions against overturning utility rates, tax levies and appropriations; and 3) give the Firefighters’ union the ability ask for arbitration if necessary.
The city has been fighting against these charter changes because they don’t want their power limited nor have the voters have a say in the matter. The SA city council has often ruled without having voter input on controversial issues, such as the oridnance forcing private businesses to provide sick-leave to their employees that was passed today.
Yesterday, Wednesday, Aug. 15, a state district judge denied a request from the city’s PAC to prevent the City Council from calling for a November charter amendment election at today’s meeting. The judge said the Firefighters’ union did not act illegally in gathering signatures for the petitions for the city charter amendments.
If anyone ever wonders about San Antonio politics and who controls and influences city hall, here is a good snap shot into one group and their role in a very intense controversy.
The Texas Organizing Project (TOP) is a leftist Saul Alinsky state-wide organization, that supports a $15 minimum wage, open borders, and opposes voter I.D. Interestingly, TOP has announced it is opposing two of the San Antonio city charter amendments because they are "not the best solution to the problem".
It is ironic that an organization like TOP that demands "democracy" and a "voice for everyone" would oppose an amendment that would lower the required number of signatures for voters to challenge city hall to trigger a referendum. That's hard understand. Isn’t that democracy?
On Monday, June 11, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s state law that allows them to clean their voter rolls of inactive voters. Republicans cheer it, and Democrats cried foul.
The Court ruled 5-4 that Ohio voters who have not voted in two years can be flagged, sent a confirmation notice, and if they fail to respond and don't vote within the next two years, they can be removed from the rolls. The process is one of two methods that Ohio officials use to identify voters who are no longer eligible to vote due to a change of residence (or possible death).
Democrats and liberals were upset, and called it “discriminatory because they seem to want anyone, everyone, anywhere, and everywhere to vote. Republicans and conservatives said this law helps to have more fair elections and to discourage voter fraud.