The 83^rd District Demo Election, Runoff and Trial Series 

A Report from the Front Lines
A Close Primary for Frontier DA
by Jack D. McNamara

Frank Brown of Alpine filed an election contest in Presidio County on Monday morning, May 15 — precisely 10 days after the canvass of the recount in the Democrat's 83d District Attorney runoff April 11.  It is Cause Number 6427.

The first primary election on March 14 ended with Steve Spurgin in the lead but without a majority in the six-county district (Pecos, Brewster, Presidio, Jeff Davis, Reagan and Upton counties).  A third candidate, currently an assistant district attorney, James Jepson of Ft Stockton, was eliminated.  Presidio County reported last with a large Spurgin margin. 

The initial count of the election runoff showed Spurgin the winner by a single vote, 2448 to Brown 2447.  The close result came late at night in Brewster County after Radio Station KVLF in Alpine predicted Spurgin the winner.

A recount was immediately requested.  Late in the evening of April 29, as the counters moved to Presidio County, the last of the six counties, it was a dead heat.  No changes were found in Jeff Davis, Reagan or Upton counties.  But both Brewster and Pecos counties were revised.  After the recount was complete in Presidio County, officials declared Spurgin the winner by two votes, one more than the total on runoff day.

Those counts were then forwarded to the Austin headquarters of the Democratic Party and (exclusively reported by The Nimby News) Spurgin gained yet another vote to win the nomination by three votes.  Under the law, Frank Brown had 10 days to challenge the election in court and he did so on May 15.

While voters and elections officials soldiered on through primary, runoff, recount and canvass, the combatants gathered at their respective courthouses to plot strategy and devise strategems.  We see at least three skirmishes ongoing:

The Avalanche 3 — On election day and just prior in Brewster County, three Alpine Avalanche employees voted shortly after registering.  State law requires a 30-day waiting period.  The voters acknowledged to the election judge at the polls that they were not consistent with the plain language on the registration card.  After they voted, county officials were immediately notified.  In the succeeding weeks The Alpine Avalanche printed columns of news and opinion concerning their own actions, including the statement of the local publisher-editor that the newspaper was testing the ?integrity? of the voting process.  The election official tested is Gerald Raun, an Alpine city councilman whose defeat the newspaper has urged in its columns.  The news was therefore that Frank Brown?s single vote deficit might be four because the Avalanche 3 are presumed to be part of the huge Brewster County Brown majority.  As of May 23, those three votes remain part of the total.

For two weeks after the April 11 runoff vote, Brewster County Attorney Steve Houston proclaimed an investigation of the Avalanche 3.  When it was discovered Houston was a witness to the act because he was immediately notified on election day, Houston was forced to recuse himself and pass his investigation over to the Texas Attorney General.  Later still, the Big Bend Sentinel of Marfa wrote that Houston was a contributor to Brown?s campaign ($1000 as of April 4) as was his volunteer investigator John Newsome ($200), identified as a retired FBI agent. 

The Pecos County Factor — On May 8, the controversy reached the Associated Press with reports of intimidation of Pecos County Hispanic voters by 112th District Attorney Ori White.  The 112th overlaps the 83d in Pecos County.  White commented extensively to the press, alleging that Spurgin and/or his campaign workers had intimidated Pecos County voters and committed other infractions.

Nina Perales, a staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) said DA White was the intimidator, attempting to influence the May 6 Ft Stockton municipal elections.  DA White's investigation was promptly rendered unto the Attorney General's office also.  In the Pecos County case, however, the AP elicited a "We have received allegations of violation of the Voting Rights Act and we are reviewing this information" from a U.S. Department of Justice civil rights spokesman.

The Brewster County Attorney's investigation, the 112th District Attorney's investigation, the Attorney General's investigation, the civil challenge alleging fraud from Frank Brown along with the obvious response by Steve Spurgin, and the possibility of a U.S. Department of Justice civil rights investigation — the Big Bend is crawling with investigators and hot breathing attorneys. 

The Presidio County Factor — Rumors abound that the Presidio County vote  "a huge majority for Steve Spurgin"  was cooked up in a Texas style made famous by Lyndon Johnson.  But as the county voted, they were closely observed by the Texas Rangers on the scene investigating a previous voting irregularity.

Golliver's editorial cartoon in the weekly Big Bend Sentinel of May 18 shows one character looking at a newspaper and he says " . . . how long can this drag out?"  The other character, also holding a newspaper, says "Don't hold your breath . .   " and the headline in the paper he is holding reads "KENNETH STARR TO INVESTIGATE DA ELECTION."

The weeklies of the Big Bend delivered reasonably straight and balanced news accounts of the controversy through the Monday filing of the contest.  Remarkably, all four of the newspapers (Big Bend Sentinel, Alpine Avalanche, Alpine Observer, and the Jeff Davis County Mountain Dispatch) included news of Spurgin's response which was filed on Tuesday afternoon in Presidio County by Spurgin's lawyer Buck Wood of Austin.

The Sentinel had the news that Judge Murray Jordan, a retired judge who was formerly seated in Brady, the 198th Judicial District, was appointed on Wednesday by Judge Steven Abels, the regional administrative judge in Kerrville.

The Alpine Avalanche reported "that MALDEF is still investigating the matter in Pecos County" along with extensive remarks by Nina Perales.

On Friday, Spurgin subpoenaed DA White and James Quintana to the Alex R. Gonzalez Judicial Building in Ft Stockton for oral deposition.

There is a great irony in DA White's deposition in the judicial building named after the first and so far only Hispanic to serve as judge of the 83d Judicial District.  Judge Gonzalez, a native of Ft Stockton, was appointed by Governor Mark White in 1984 after Judge Bill Earney of Marfa retired.  Gonzalez was unopposed in 1986 and in 1990 he defeated Republican Martin Adams of Ft Stockton.  Judge Gonzalez won the election by a massive turnout and a huge margin in Presidio County.  The vote showed that so long as the demographics of the 83d District did not change, Judge Gonzalez would win forever with margins in Presidio, and to a lesser degree in Pecos counties.  These are the votes of energized Mexican American Democrat majorities in a state increasingly Republican.  The Republicans, of course, are yesterday's Tory Democrats from the days when Texas was a one party state.

Judge Gonzalez's campaign manager in 1990 was Steve Spurgin.  Unable to defeat Alex Gonzalez, the 83d District was legislatively destroyed in 1995 by Petey Gallego, the state representative for the area and the favorite Mexican American politician of the rancher elite.  The result is a new 394th District (Brewster, Presidio, Jeff Davis, Culberson, Hudspeth) which is served on the east by the 83d District Attorney and on the west by the El Paso DA.

Contributions — Frank Brown has many contributors and spent far less in the early days of the campaign.  Many of them, however, are Republicans and we have our doubts they voted in either the Democrat primary or their runoff.  Among them are Claytie Williams, the Texas Republican candidate for governor in 1990; Martin Adams; and Tucker White of Sanderson, related to DA White.  In Brewster County, $1000 was recorded in three contributions principally from W. Thomas Beard III, aka "Tom" Beard, and his wife Val Clark Beard.  Mrs Beard is elected as a Democrat and she is the Brewster County judge.  She helped engineer $2000 for the Attorney General's investigation of the Avalanche 3, to which she is also a witness.  The Beards are among the largest political campaign contributors of the area and few if any contributions are to Democrats except Alpine's Petey Gallego.

Democrats in Texas have long complained that Republicans flock to their primaries with money and votes which will not be there in the November elections.  The Republican primary polling places in Texas are lonely places while the Democrats are brawling.  It is a commonplace that all voters go to the primary polls which have the best, most exciting races.  But in November, Texans return Republicans overwhelmingly except in small, local jurisdictions — like the 83d District Attorney's where there is currently no Republican to face the Democrat's nominee.

This was a bruising election and it is unlikely to get prettier.  Nothing quite equals a direct confrontation between two testosterone-crazed trial lawyers.  This is nevertheless an exciting and fundamental display of the democratic system here on our remote frontier, remarkable mainly in the participation of the main players of the Criminal Justice Empire of the Big Bend.  Six individuals among Brown's contributors are either federal lawyers or married to federal officers.

Frank Brown is an excellent lawyer with a significant victory in his few years here in the Big Bend.  Steve Spurgin is an excellent lawyer with more than 20 years' experience here, including the long and bitter struggle against the drug dealing former sheriff of Presidio County, Rick Thompson.

We will not be ruined by the election of either of these good men.  But it makes a great deal of difference how we do it.

Follow The MONEY
Campaign reports as filed by Frank Brown and Steve Spurgin were forwarded to The Nimby News on April 29.  We summarize the public reports from the Texas Ethics Commission which show the following (we summarize and apologize!):

Steve Spurgin filed reports for Jan. 15, Feb. 3, March 1, and March 4.  Spurgin?s contributors were:
 

Frank Brown filed reports January 10, Feb. 10, Feb. 14, March 6, and April 3.  Brown's contributors were: 
 

Frank Brown's expenditures amounted to about $13,000, and Steve Spurgin's are over $40,000, mostly his own money.  We caution these are early reports and the final results will not be available before July.  We have other reports on the way by snail mail. u

Return to Top

June 5, 2000
Frontier DA Battle Is More Confusing — If Possible?

by Jack D. McNamara

Your Humble Publisher filed a "Texas Public Information Act" request on Saturday, June 3 with the Texas Attorney General.  We asked for the 112th District Attorney's investigation of alleged voting irregularities in the Pecos County Democratic Primary race for 83d District Attorney.

112th DA Ori T. White apparently began the criminal investigation before the April 11 runoff between attorneys Frank Brown of Alpine and Steve Spurgin of Marfa.  Spurgin won the runoff by three votes after a recount.  DA White told the San Angelo Standard Times that "We are investigating the intimidation of homebound, elderly and primarily Hispanic voters by certain campaign workers."  DA White said he had received two complaint affidavits.

Pecos County Commissioner Tony Villareal immediately challenged DA White, alleging that it was the DA who was attempting intimidation.  DA White's investigation was timed to influence Ft Stockton city and school board elections of May 6, said Villareal, who also called the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF).

Dozens of voters and Spurgin campaign workers were telephoned and ordered to come to the 112th DA's office for interrogation.

Allegations against DA White's heavy-handed investigation appeared in the press, including an Associated Press (AP) story which was published in the online Pecos Enterprise on May 8.  In the story, DA White "declined" to reveal any details of his investigation.

Spurgin Accused
On May 15, Frank Brown filed his challenge in 394th District Court in Presidio County, Cause #6427, alleging categorical misconduct by Spurgin.

It is typical of election contests that specific violations are slow to appear in the case, sometimes not until the actual court hearing.  On May 26, Brown filed a lengthy ?Amended Petition? which attacks the votes more than two dozen Pecos County voters who are identified by name, address and status as elderly or disabled.  Other allegations include:
  —That Spurgin was given two votes in Presidio County when the ballots were unclear.   
  —That a Pecos County voting official incorrectly and erroneously certified the vote, costing Brown one vote when the totals were forwarded to Austin.
  —That four Presidio County voters requested mail in ballots and then voted in person.
  —That Spurgin handled mail in envelopes, although Brown "cannot identify" which ones.

The remainder of the allegations by Brown are that mail-in votes by mostly Pecos County elderly or disabled Hispanic surnamed individuals were improperly solicited, marked, mailed, certified, signed, assisted, registered, or otherwise voted.  Brown's pleading is not specific as to all the errors by all the "voters who received one or more kinds of this assistance . . ." and "Candidate Brown cannot identify all the specific voters or ballots . . ."

Besides the Pecos County voters who are named in several places in the pleading, there are 15 Upton County voters named and one Presidio County young woman currently attending an East Coast university, Miriam Halpern, daughter of Robert and Rosario Halpern, publishers of the Big Bend Sentinel in Marfa and the Presidio International.

You Do Not Have the Right to Remain Silent . . .?
Depositions were originally scheduled for Friday, May 19, but were postponed as the pile of allegations mounted and the Memorial Day weekend intervened.  The depositions went forward in the opening days of June.

DA White's investigation was presumably high on the list of targets for Spurgin and his attorney, Austin lawyer Randall "Buck" Wood.  The details of White's investigation were certainly in Brown's hands before May 26, according to the details in the Amended Petition.

On May 1, the news in the daily, online Pecos Enterprise was of another investigation in the 83d DA primary.  The Pecos Enterprise published that the Texas Attorney General would take over the investigation of Brewster County irregularities which included the improper voting of three Alpine Avalanche reporters.  This offense proceeded as an investigation by Brewster County Attorney Steve Houston, a Frank Brown supporter and contributor, until Houston discovered he was a witness.  Houston recused, enter AG Cornyn for the Avalanche 3.

At some point, perhaps May 12, DA White handed off his increasingly hot investigation to the AG also.  In hot pursuit were (perhaps) MALDEF, the civil rights division of the U.S. Justice Department, Spurgin's lawyers and the press.

On Friday, June 2 we reached Shannon Flanigan in the 112th DA's office.  In a long conversation, Flanigan said that the DA's investigation was "OR'd" (open records).  Flanigan also said, "we gave both sides copies."

Flanigan confirmed the investigation was asked for in the depositions that week.  Normally criminal investigations are not released, Flanigan said.  The DA has a policy of fighting open records requests, he said.  Flanigan expressed concern that a release of the investigation to the press might "taint the jury pool."

Flanigan also said the DA's office had "talked to" the Texas Attorney General "weeks ago."

The AG's office has consistently, throughout the month of May, refused comment on the 112th DA investigation.  On May 31 press spokesperson Heather Brown told us she could not comment until something was put on the "public record" because this is an "ongoing investigation."

But the DA's investigation was on the public record, released to Frank Brown or his lawyers as early as the first week in May.

What Are We Here, the FURNITURE?
On Saturday, June 3 we clicked on the San Angelo Standard Times online and found "Brady judge to preside in lawsuit over 83rd  race" by Sandra Billingsley, announcing June 15 in Marfa for the election hearing before Judge V. Murray Jordan of Brady.

The SAST quoted Buck Wood, Spurgins attorney, "I've never seen (a district attorney) turn (his/her) investigation over to anybody at any time until someone's been indicted," Wood said.

Wood also told the SAST that the investigatory file was offered to him after he had found out it had been given to Brown.

Apparently everyone in the Big Bend has the 112th DA's criminal investigation except the public and the press.  We seek to rectify that. 

Steve Spurgin says to all who will listen that this is a politically driven criminal investigation.  DA White's assistant, Shannon Flanigan, denies it.  The jury is out.  •

June 22, 2000

The Slaughter of the Votes
by Jack D. McNamara

A dour and strictly constructed Judge V. Murray Jordan of Brady, Texas voided the April 11, 2000 runoff election in the Democratic primary race for the office of 83d District Attorney last Friday.

Facing the courtroom and speaking into a microphone, the judge said clearly what was unclear from Steve Spurgin's attorney Randall "Buck" Wood of Austin speaking before the bench, unamplified.

Wood rose to speak after the noon recess and a conference with Frank Brown's attorney to say both concurred in a joint motion to Judge Jordan that the April 11 election be declared void, a new election be called and both sides agree not to appeal.  The judge was clearly relieved and repeated twice that the "Court is unable to determine the successful candidate."

When the Court recessed about 12:30 p.m. on Friday, June 16 Judge Jordan had just voided the mail-in vote of Marfa resident Miriam Halpern, a Brown University junior next fall.  Having voided her vote, the Court was preparing (after lunch of course) on the motion of Frank Brown, to put her on the
witness stand under oath, and require Miss Halpern to testify how she voted on her now-void ballot.

Her offense?  There were several, all of an administrative nature regarding how the mail in ballots are marked.  The address below (an example of a mail-in voting application form entered as an exhibit) was complained of by Contestant Brown and voided by Judge Jordan:
 

"TO:  Early Voting Clerk
P.O. Box 789
Marfa, Texas 79843"

The Texas law, as determined by the judge, required a clerk's name be printed on the line below the line "TO:  Early Voting Clerk."

This is not the law, argued Buck Wood, a former head of the Texas Elections Division and a veteran of a quarter century of experience with these laws.  Nor is this the law according to Spurgin's expert Bruce Sherbet, Director of Elections, Dallas County, where more than a million county voters  "hold more elections than anywhere in the state."  Sherbet testified he would not reject Miriam Halpern's vote.  "If you can keep from denying a vote you do.  We have a duty not to disenfranchise voters," testified Sherbet, citing the Federal Voting Rights Act.

Judge Jordan was unmoved by Wood's arguments and similarly unimpressed with voting in metropolitan Dallas.  Instead the judge accepted the arguments of Frank Brown's attorneys Monty Kimball and Mark Brown. Contestant Brown argued that the Texas election law regarding the procedures for mail-in ballots was amended by the Legislature in 1999, after numerous complaints of voting irregularities, and that the statute required mandatory compliance with the entire section.  Mark Brown moved that Miriam Halpern's vote be thrown out and that she be required under oath to tell how she voted.

Presidio County Clerk Brenda Silva testified, as did her deputy.  Miss Halpern is a registered voter, the clerks know her, know her family, know where she lives - but the Presidio County Clerk's efforts, along with those of the Dallas Elections Officer, were insufficient to satisfy Mark Brown.  In his argument, Brown said Sherbet was "not a lawyer" and that the clerks were "slow to
catch up" with the change in the law.  The only way to enforce the Legislature's will was to "throw out the votes" and "force the clerks to pay attention," said Mark Brown.

Buck Wood tried to point out that the point of voting was voters, not administrative punctilio.  Mark Brown was not to be deterred - he said the fault was not that of the county clerks in the 83d District, it was Spurgin's fault for "getting those votes."  To Brown, it was also clear that Dallas County is "screwed up" and perhaps even the Texas Secretary of State as well is screwed up (Secretary of State Elton Bomer was not available for comment).

Judge Jordan concurred with Contestant Brown and citing a recent court case ended the morning by declaring that Miss Halpern's vote was void.  She was standing by, waiting to be called.

The previous day's vote slaughter was fresh in the minds of participants and spectators on Friday.  As reported in the San Angelo Standard Times and the Odessa American, Contestant Brown presented witnesses from Pecos County who testified to improper influence from a Spurgin supporter.  Out went a handful of votes.  Spurgin retaliated with several "cross-over" voters, meaning those who first voted in the Republican primary and decided they liked it so well that they voted in the Democrat runoff between Spurgin and Brown.  Out went the Republicrats votes.

Spurgin called Thursday a U.S. Customs employee who voted in the Republican primary and also in the Democrat's runoff. Unfortunately, this federal employee could not remember whether she voted Brown or Spurgin and Oh by the way, she just HAD to get back to Albuquerque, according to a regional daily newspaper on June 15. Brown countered with an Alzheimer's patient to demonstrate loss of memory.

At the end of Thursday's testimony, Judge Jordan may have known from the legal briefs that perhaps 100, perhaps 200 such wrenching testimonies were facing his court.  These votes would first be declared forfeit.  Then the voters would be forced to testify how they voted in order to adjust the totals for each candidate.  The judge acknowledged on Friday afternoon when he voided the election that under such circumstances, people do not always tell the truth.

After the court's decision, Frank Brown made telephone calls from the judge's chambers and then quickly left the courtroom after refusing any comment to Robert Halpern, father of Miriam Halpern and publisher of The Big Bend Sentinel.

Steve Spurgin stayed to talk and said for the record:
 

We beat Frank Brown in the March primary, the April run-off, the recount and at the Democratic State Canvass, despite the negative, personal and false attacks upon me and my family.  Frank Brown disenfranchised over 200 elderly, disabled and Hispanic voters in this lawsuit for personal gain.  I welcome a new election.  I like to campaign. I'm sorry that the public has to go through this again, but I didn't bring the lawsuit and I will defend the majority's decision.

June 26, 2000

Voting in the Big Bend ? 
Who is Helping, Who is Hurting?

By Jack D. McNamara

The "investigation" of voting irregularities in the 83rd District DA runoff of April 11, by 112th DA Ori T. White, is quite clear if you line up the documents according to date.  That is, what set the intrepid investigators a-sleuthing when?

The DA investigator James Quintana's chronology states the DA office "began conducting an investigation" on April 13, two days after the runoff votes were counted and Steve Spurgin had won by one vote out of almost 5000 votes cast in six counties.

Sandra and Emerson Wayne Tinkler, both apparently Brown campaign workers, signed affidavits on April 13 stating that on the afternoon of April 5, on the front steps of the courthouse annex in Ft Stockton, the two Tinklers, Robert and Dee Jamison and Frank Brown observed Steve Spurgin and another man in two vehicles with a number of mail-in ballots being handled suspiciously there at the courthouse. 

Both Tinklers were only moved to swear to a suspected  offense after the runoff election was completed.

A third and later affidavit by Pecos County Clerk Judy Deerfield was later added to the file.  Ms Deerfield did not record her observations until May 3.  Apparently, she remembered after a full month and came forward after Frank Brown had filed his election contest.  She could only swear to an event "during early voting."

A "Sandra Tinker" contributed $100 to the Frank Brown campaign, according to public campaign reports.

Based on Quintana's chronology, the sudden discoverery after the election of what Quintana calls "alleged vote tampering," the 112th DA "investigation" quickly moved into high gear.  A lengthy questionnaire was developed.  A computer-generated list of "absentee" Pecos County voters who apparently received mail-in ballots was annotated with the telephone numbers of 76 of 365 mail-in votes.

On May 3, the voters were telephoned by four DA office workers and the eight questions on the questionnaire were completed, including name, address, and telephone number.  The forms are written only by the DA office workers, not the voters themselves.

Question #7 asked the voters' help by "telling us who you voted for?"

Question #8 was "Do you know of anyone else who was manipulated during the voting process?"

All the forms in which a voter answered as to his voting choice specified Spurgin.

Quintana concluded about half of the "voters indicated violations may have occurred" and half "indicated no apparent violations."  Of course, the "voters" indicated no such thing — the investigators and the Brown campaign workers did all the indicating.

The San Angelo Standard Times stated May 6 that DA White "began the investigation after receiving two complaint affidavits the weekend before the election."   White didn't receive the two Tinkler sworn affidavits until April 13. 

By May 3, DA White was writing to the Texas Attorney General referring to his growing stack of troubles as "your investigation."  The Texas AG has no documents generated by his office — nada, zero, ninguno — which acknowledge any efforts by DA White to enlist the AG.  If the AG ever accepted any responsibility at all for DA White's investigation, there are no documents to so indicate.

DA White?s efforts finally elicited a response on May 4.  MALDEF issued a press release which DA White somehow obtained and later forwarded to the AG.  Also on May 4 DA White attacked a county commissioner who had criticized him.  The letter to Antonio Villareal, a Pecos County Commissioner, was forwarded to the AG.

The following day (May 5) DA White was again into press releases claiming he was not intimidated by the "bully boy" tactics of Commissioner Villareal and Ft Stockton businessman Pete Terrazas.

On May 10, DA White wrote the AG to report the results of his "questionnaire" and violations which "may have occurred."  On May 15, both attorneys Monty Kimball and Paul Dionne of Ft Stockton wrote for the "O.R. (open records, now in fact the Texas Public Information Act)" and "FOIA" (sic).

The following day, DA White issued a press release announcing his "investigation" "closed" and forwarded the press release to the Texas AG.

Ten days later on May 26, the voluminous DA White "investigation" was in the voluminous Contestant's (Frank Brown) First Amended Petition at the Presidio County Courthouse.

Of course, as is rather standard in this "investigation," DA White had not sent anything except the three affidavits, the superficial "questionnaires" and a videotape of Eva Munoz's statement "voluntarily" given to the AG.  Whites investigator Quintana was still in the ?process of writing a report detailing his findings? back on May 10.  With no coordination with the AG, much less any notice to the voters who ?voluntarily? gave statements, DA White splashed the information from his unwitnessed, unsigned, unverified questionnaire all over the 83rd District through the selective release to Frank Brown?s attorneys and supporters.

On June 5, a full week after the public release of his "investigatory" material, DA White for the first time notified the Texas AG of the release of the material to Kimball and Dionne, "and Randall Wood in response to the open records request. "

Wood had made no "open record" request.  He fully intended to get the material in depositions and discovery ? which he did.  But Brown needed it sooner for the amended filing.

On June 19, Adrienne McFarland of the Prosecutor Assistance Office of the Texas Attorney General forwarded us the materials described here.

The "crimes" alleged occurred on April 5, cleverly hidden on the front steps of the Pecos County Courthouse Annex in the middle of the afternoon.  Frank Brown and four of his supporters and workers observed the actions but didn't complain until after the votes were counted April 11.

Annotations in margins and on the questionnaire indicate overwhelmingly that a daughter, son, nephew or caretaker usually helped the mail-in voters.  Candida Rangel spoke quite openly to DA White's investigators and they used her information widely, even in the election contest hearing on Thursday, June 8, without cross examination or protection against self incrimination.

Nevertheless, a DA in a poor rural West Texas has great power.  An example leaps out from one of the questionnaires filled out by DA White's assistants.  On the undated form, the investigator filled in that "Candida" helped.  On Question #3, "Why," she wrote, the voter "Refused to answer because he feels she did right in bringing him the ballot and is in agreement with the turnout."  At the bottom of the form, the investigator added later, "His daughter _____  ______ called me back and is in support of our investigation and agrees with us.  She said her father did not quite understand us and therefore got a little scared."

Ah — we understand.  We have often been in parts of the world where people can be brought to understand investigations.

(Note to readers:  we will cheerfully provide access to any Nimby readers who want to see these documents subject only to arranging the logistics.  In such a spirit, we provide the document below.
 

June 25, 2000

(Publisher's Note:
The following is a verbatim reproduction of a statement apparently obtained by 112th DA Ori White from Candida Rangel in connection with White's "investigation" of the 83rd DA runoff.  The statement, if that is what it is, was released to Frank Brown, submitted to the Texas AG, and released to us
It is not signed by anyone other than the 112th DA Victims Assistance Coordinator, Victoria Hamilton.  We have changed nothing.)
 

"On May 2, 2000, I went with Investigator Quintana to interview Candida Rangel at her address of 1106 N. Williams, Ft. Stockton, TX 79735.  This interview was regarding the recent election for 83rd District Attorney and the procedures taken by the campaign workers.

Ms. Rangel welcomed us into her home.  Mr. Quintana advised her that we were there to gather information on how the process worked.  She told us that she was driven to the residences of the elderly (65 and above), and the disabled by Eva Munoz.

She said that she would take the white cards to people and help them fill them out. (The white cards are the applications for mail-in ballot) Ms. Rangel said that when the green cards arrived the people would call her.

Quintana asked Ms. Rangel if she would tell the people who she was working for.  She said yes that she would tell them she was working for Spurgin.

Ms. Rangel said that she would read the ballots to the people and help them fill them out if they couldn't read.  She also said that the people who couldn't write would put an "X" and she would sign.  She said that once sealed they would take the ballots and put a stamp on them and mail them out.  She said that Steve Spurgin had provided her with the stamps to put on the ballots. ("I couldn't afford to buy that many stamps").

Ms. Rangel said that she is certified to work the elections.  She said she has worked elections for years and that everyone in and around Ft. Stockton and Alpine knew her.  She was very proud of her certification and even showed it to Investigator Quintana.  Ms. Rangel said that she was almost certain that she was the only one who had this certification.

Quintana asked Ms. Rangel if he could video tape her.  Ms. Rangel said that she wanted to talk with her lawyer first.  She said that her attorney was from Odessa and that she needed to give him a call later that afternoon.  Quintana advised that that would be fine and asked her to have her attorney contact him.  Ms. Rangel said she didn't know when that would be because her attorney was in El Paso.

At this time I handed her a business card and thanked her for her time.  On our way out, Ms. Rangel pulled out a white piece of paper which she called an example to the application for mail-in ballot.  She said that she would have shown us a sample of the ballot but didn't have one handy. Once again said that she had been driven by Eva Munoz to pick up ballots and mail them out and that this was how the process worked.

Mr. Quintana thanked her for her time as we left the residence."

u

June 29, 2000

After the Massacre, What?

By Jack D. McNamara

We wait to discover the details of yet another 83^rd District Attorney election on August 12.  Surely we will get it right this time because it will soon be November and the Big Election for President will be on.  If we cannot vote for DA, how can we vote for President?

Of course there is little question in Texas who will win.  George W. Bush, our current guv, will win in Texas with huge majorities for the Republicans, who now control all statewide offices, including the judiciary. 

These sad prospects should clearly depress the remaining Democrats, who don't even support their own nominee for U.S. Senator with campaign funds.  Everywhere in Texas, save one, Democrats are on the run.

"It surprises me that the federal government would think some of the poorest counties in the country would have the resources if they (the feds) don't have the resources," Esparza told the Associated Press in early May this year.

The argument has been heating up for at least a year, according to a lengthy article in Texas Lawyer of August 2, 1999 (see www.law.com).

And heat we mean.  The first resistant DA, Joe Rubio, has been under investigation by the FBI since July 22, 1999.  He is not charged and has won renomination even though 10 relatives and associates have been charged (and some convicted) on bribery and misconduct charges.

Perhaps the feds will step into the electorally paralyzed 83rd District and take over, having concluded we are incompetent to conduct honest elections.  The feds are pouring so much money into this area's law enforcement establishment they may conclude they have to protect their investment.

On Friday June 23 there was a flurry of speculation around Brewster County to the effect that the new run off election would be conducted on July 18.  This turned out to be pure Alpine rumor however.  In a far away northern 83rd District county a clerk?s office worker observed laconically that their county had not even been informed the previous runoff election was void.  In another county, a clerk opined the setting of the election date might be middle August —"unofficially."  In Pecos County they didn't know nothing. 

Brewster County was trying to start a log rolling perhaps. 

Around the state the reaction to Judge Jordan's original decision of June 16 was neither mild nor restrained.  Jerry Meadows, senior Vice President of the Elections Division of Hart Graphics, who produce the form voided by Judge Jordan, was "flabbergasted."  In 30 years, he said, he had never heard anything quite like this.  Meadows pointed out the form voided by the judge is not only prescribed by the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State actually prints and ships the forms to some counties.

Several calls to the Secretary of State received similar gasps.  One attorney forcefully expressed her dissent.  In a long conversation with another Secretary of State attorney, Elizabeth Hanshaw, she pointed out the judge's action affects EVERY election in Texas.  The Secretary of State?s office had no solution on Friday on how to administer the judge's decision.

Of course, it would be simple if Texas merely cancelled mail in voting.  Soldiers on the Korean DMZ and sailors at sea could forget about both past and future votes, the way it was before the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Students away at school would forget about voting and get to work.  The nursing home routine would not be upset by the oldsters banging their orange juice cups demanding "VOTE!  VOTE!?

Fewer voters are more efficient to administer.  Such efficiency is well under way in Brewster County, for example.  There were only 977 votes cast in the Democrat?s DA primary, 783 for Brown and 194 for Spurgin.  There are 5946 registered voters, so less than 20% of the county electorate went to the polls on April 11.  On August 12 perhaps we will be down to 10%.

There was a heavy turnout of the Republicrats, by which we mean those who give money to Republicans and vote Republican in November — but also vote in the Democrat's primary.

A review of the voting list indicates only about one-third of the Democrat's votes were Mexican Americans who are 50% of the population and a greater percentage of the Democrat's rank and file.  A far greater percentage of the lawyers voted, as did the contributors to Frank Brown's campaign.  There were only eight requests for mail-in ballots in Brewster County.

The long delay in the judge's decision feeds speculation.  Maybe, as some close to the Brown camp argued, this situation is easily solved — buy a stamp with the early voting clerk's name on it and stamp everything in sight.

But others are not so sure.  The Spurgin and Brown parties agreed not to appeal; but that is not binding on any voter whose ballot was massacred through no fault of the voter. 

Any voter may appeal and he may be assured of a hearing under the federal voting rights laws.  When Judge Jordan massacred more than 300 votes, two of them were from an Ohio Air Force Base, US airmen on duty on the line.

A review of DA White's "investigation" (available for $32.50 from Texas Attorney General John Cornyn) suggests there just might be some politically motivated coercion going on here.  Here?  In the Big Bend, home of Ricky Thompson?  Surely you jest.

Not in my back yard.  •

Letter to Hon. V. Murray Jordan
June 27, 2000
 

Hon. V. Murray Jordan
Senior Judge
1501 S. Pine St.
Brady, TX 76825-6537

RE: Brown v. Spurgin, No. 6427 (In the District Court of Presidio County, Texas, 394th Judicial District)

Dear Judge Jordan:

On behalf of elderly Latino voters who cast ballots in the April 11, 2000 primary runoff election of the Texas Democratic Party for District Attorney in the 83rd Judicial District, MALDEF writes to express its concern regarding the conduct of the new runoff election pursuant to the Court's Order dated June 27, 2000. 

In Pecos County, a large number  elderly Latino voters applied for and cast mail ballots for the April primary runoff in this case.  The Court invalidated the mail ballots of almost all of these Latino voters on the basis of a technical defect in the application form which was caused by a failure of either the Secretary of State or the early voting clerk of Pecos County to provide these forms with the name and address of the county early voting clerk stamped or printed upon them.

The Court did not find any wrongdoing on the part of the elderly Latino voters who applied for and cast mail ballots using the form provided to them.  The legitimate basis on which these voters applied for a mail ballot, i.e. their age, is unchanged for the upcoming election.  Nevertheless, the requirement imposed by the Court on these voters to complete and return new ballot applications, before they can receive and vote a mail ballot in the new runoff election, will pose an obstacle to the voters and will most likely cause fewer of them to participate in the election than might have otherwise.

In order to ensure a fair and accessible run-off election for the Latino elderly mail ballot voters, MALDEF respectfully requests the Court to weigh the equities in favor of the voters and amend its order to provide that the early voting clerks of Brewster, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Reagan and Upton Counties mail new mail-in-ballots to voters previously provided a mail-in-ballot, including those voters whose applications for mail-in-ballots indicated that the voter is over age 65 and whose applications failed to comply  with the requirements of Tex. Elec. Code Section 84.001.

 I am providing a copy of this letter to counsel for the parties in this case and am available to discuss any further questions or concerns that the Court may have with respect to this issue.

Very truly yours,
 

Nina Perales
Staff Attorney

cc:  Monty Kimball, Counsel for Frank Brown
       Buck Wood, Counsel for Steve Spurgin

 Return to Top