The Texas Observer

At long last, Alberto Gonzales has found a job. While there are some who believe he’s best suited for making license plates in a federal penitentiary, his new gig may not be much better: teaching undergrads in Lubbock, Texas.

Ever since his forced retirement back in September 2007, the former attorney general has busied himself with speaking engagements, op-eds, part-time legal help, and high-school commencement addresses.

Now, however, he seems to have found a more permanent home at the Harvard of the Panhandle. According to a Texas Tech press release, Gonzales will be a visiting professor teaching a junior-level class in “Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch.”

No word yet on whether those “contemporary issues” will include topics such as the constitutionality of torture, proper grounds for firing U.S. attorneys and whether or not it’s appropriate to badger Cabinet secretaries recuperating from major surgery.

The release also states that Gonzales will “assist both Texas Tech University and Angelo State University with recruiting and retaining first generation and underrepresented students.”

(To find out more about where former Bush officials have ended up, you can read our Sept. 18, 2008, cover story here.)

I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the school that hired Bobby Knight as its basketball coach would be willing to offer employment to another controversial public figure.

What is surprising, however, is that a lawyer whose resume includes service as a Texas Supreme Court justice, White House counsel and U.S. attorney general isn’t teaching at Texas Tech’s law school — but rather in its undergrad school of political science.

Then again, maybe that says it all.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is still the law of the land … for now. That is the gist of the U.S. Supreme Court decision today in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, et al. The case challenged the provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring all or parts of 16 states with a history of racial discrimination, including Texas and most of the South, to receive federal approval prior to making any changes to voting procedures. (You can downloard the opinion here.)

In a narrowly tailored ruling that sidestepped dicey constitutional issues, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the lower court erred in holding that small entities such as the Northwest Austin MUD are not eligible to apply for an exemption (or bail out) from federal pre-clearance requirements. Since the Court was able to rule on these more narrow grounds, he wrote, it had an obligation to do so and avoid striking down the provision in its entirety. (You can read our feature story on the case here.)

His opinion spent some time pointing out “serious constitutional concerns” with Section 5, such as the way it treats states differently based on a coverage formula dating to 1972. He did note, however, that “Congress has amassed a sizable record in support of its decision to extend the pre-clearance requirements, a record the District Court determined ‘document[ed] contemporary racial discrimination in covered states.’” For now, the Court will not have to reconcile these two facts.

Already, many are pointing out the irony that Justice Clarence Thomas, the only African-American on the court, was also the sole opposing vote in the decision, writing that “lack of current evidence of intentional discrimination with respect to voting renders Section 5 unconstitutional,” and, “Punishment for long past sins is not a legitimate basis for imposing a forward-looking preventative measure that has already served its purpose.”

But, while Thomas may have been the only justice who wanted Section 5 killed today, all this decision has done is kick the eventual day of reckoning for the pre-clearance requirement a little farther down the road. When the next challenge comes — and it will, given the dedication and deep pockets of the conservative groups that bankrolled the Austin MUD case — the court may have no choice but to tackle the constitutionality of Section 5 head-on. And it is on that day that the real divisions on the court likely will be laid bare.

Today’s decision is probably the best-case outcome for Section 5 proponents (which may explain the four liberal justices’ conspicuous silence in the opinions). Justice Anthony Kennedy — a potential swing vote who had expressed concerns over the provision during oral arguments — could have sided with the four conservative justices to strike down Section 5. For now, his feelings on the subject will remain hidden.

The long-term impact of this decision is very much up in the air. A lot will be determined by how the Justice Department implements the court’s ruling and whether Congress revisits the Voting Rights Act to loosen the bailout provision or update the coverage formula. And although this case putatively opens the door for more political subdivisions, such as the Austin MUD, to apply for bailout, it will be interesting to see how many actually take the court up on the offer. Travis County, for instance was eligible to bail out even before the court’s decision — but in an amicus brief, it stated that it preferred the pre-clearance requirement because it helped ensure that any voting changes wouldn’t be snared in lawsuits after implementation.

This also means that the state of Texas — which has no realistic hope of qualifying for the bailout provision as it’s currently written — will continue to be required to seek pre-approval for any statewide changes to its voting laws. This is of particular concern, since in the absence of Section 5, controversial measures such as voter ID laws and proof-of-citizenship requirements would have been allowed to go into effect before they could be challenged in court.

For a city that likes to advertise its quirkiness, it’s fitting the candidates vying to be its leader include two city councilmen, a fast-talking former mayor and statewide officeholder eyeing her comeback, a real-estate investor who thinks business knows best and sounds a bit like Ron Paul, and a wiry hotel employee who claims he just received his high-school diploma. What: Is Leslie, Austin’s cross-dressing icon and past office seeker, tied up with a ballot initiative or something this year?

The five candidates—council members Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCracken, former Mayor and State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, David Buttross and Josiah Ingalls—discussed the city’s budget shortfall, traffic woes, and preserving the city’s spirit and status as the Live Music Capital of the World at an April 22 debate at the LBJ library. The race is close, according to a just-released KXAN/Constituent Dynamics poll, which has Leffingwell, McCracken and Strayhorn in a statistical dead heat. The election is May 9, and a runoff appears likely.Front and center: what would each do with a city in the red and a tech sector headed elsewhere? Leffingwell favors “structural” reforms, such as consolidating government departments. McCracken believes City Hall either needs a pay freeze or a pay cut, while Strayhorn said “nothing’s off limits.” She’s ready to fire the city’s consultants and lobbyists and march to the Capitol by herself if need be.

Leffingwell and McCracken stressed different approaches to renewing Austin’s economy. A favorite of Austin’s progressive activists and civic groups, Leffingwell, a veteran and past commercial pilot, wants to diversify Austin’s economy. McCracken, a Princeton-educated Corpus Christi native and former prosecutor, said after the debate, “I don’t know what Lee’s vision is.” Austin’s losing its foundation, he said, and he wants to boost “creative class” industries like biotechnology, green energy, and film production, sectors he claims Leffingwell only mentioned recently.

Ingalls and Buttross lack support but not passionate ideas. Ingalls, if short on specifics, adamantly expressed his desire to return government to the people, “even if I have to work on weekends.” He is still irritated that Congressman Lloyd Doggett hasn’t returned his calls, and that current Mayor Will Wynn won’t meet with him. His rocky, winding life, however, has given him an appreciation for struggling workers.Buttross also wants to rid the special interests from government. “A businessman is not going to throw you under the bus,” he said. He favors no-government, no-nonsense solutions such as flex time to reduce traffic. “I solve problems today, and the city of Austin does not,” Buttross stated.

No stranger to debate podiums, Strayhorn came armed with talking points, alleging the two councilmen were guilty of mismanaging Capital Metro, the cash-strapped transit system. “The bus isn’t going to be there,” she quipped. Austin’s first female mayor refuted claims she’ll build a Bridge to the Past, saying young people “energize her.” She downplayed an early hope that she might turn out 100,000 voters in May, about 40,000 more than showed up for the last open seat election.

Amid new fears Austin is becoming the noise ordinance, not live-music, capital of the world, candidates expressed reforms to keep the music playing. Leffingwell supports “structural” solutions like moving stages to minimize noise. Buttross wants to create “music friendly” apartments, while Ingalls offered a more dramatic answer: move those pesky residents out of downtown. McCracken said the real issue is taking care of local musicians. “Live music is what makes Austin, Austin,” Strayhorn added. True, but so do the curious field of Austinites who aspire to be its next mayor.