Page 15


Political Intelligence Other Election Results V According to the latest figures as the Observer went to press, voters approved a liquor-by-the-drink referendum by a narrow margin of 747,086 to 706,142. The vote is purely advisory. Only the state legislature can revamp present drinking laws. V A few days before the primary, the Liquor Control Board issued a stiff ruling which brought cries of anguish from club owners and probably encour aged many private club members to vote for the drink proposal. The ruling pro hibits cash sales by private clubs for any service or commodity. Many club owners said the ruling would put them out of business. A day before the primary, Dis trict Judge James R. Meyers granted a temporary restraining order against the Liquor Control Board preventing it from carrying out its instructions to halt cash sales. The suit was brought by Joe Martin, manager of a private club in Dallas. A hearing on the order was set for May 10. Local Elections Breakthroughs continue to be made in local politics by Negro and Mexican-American candidates in Texas, a phenomenon of the 1960’s. g/ Wichita Falls elected the first Negro ever to the city council. A Negro just beginning his second term on the Port Arthur school board was elected its president by his white board colleagues. Austin elected its first Negro to the school board, by 161 votes. V The gains of Mexican-Americans in local elections this year was not as impressive as in 1967 [Obs., April 14, 1967, pp. 2-3]. At Mathis the Action Party, which upset Anglo control of that city in 1965, managed to win two of four races to retain control of the council. Two Texas Rangers were in town during the day, spending time near city hall, where voting was taking place. Mexican-Americans at Robstown were thwarted in a bid to win the mayoralty but still have four of five places on the concil \( though the latinos have troubles 2,503 voters returned the Anglo mayor, the city’s political power, to office. The most notable gain by MexicanAmericans was at Weslaco where for the first time twoand not one, as has been usuallatinos will serve on the council. Eduardo J. Hinojosa, 27-year-old teacher, upset an Anglo incumbent after waging a quiet but energetic door-to-door campaign in the Mexican-American neighborhood. V Two women won election to munici pal posts, one being elected mayor at Port Aransas, the second winning election to the Refugio council. Hunger in Texas g o. Thirty Texas counties were identified as “emergency” hunger areas in a report recently released by the Citizens Board of Inquiry into Hunger. and Malnutritidn in the United States, a private group. The board, shocked by its own findings, criticized present welfare programs, especially the Agriculture Department, saying that department “converts programs to feed the poor into disposal systems to relieve market gluts and protect profits.” The report contains a litany composed from the testimony of the poor. A refrain, “The children go to bed hungry. Sometimes they cry,” is repeated throughout the 100-page report. The 30 emergency counties listed by the board are Atascosa, Burleson, Caldwell, Cameron, Concho, Cottle, DeWitt, Delta, Dimmit, Falls, Foard, Frio, Hays, Hidalgo, Karnes, Kinney, LaSalle, Limestone, Madison, Marion, Milam, Motley, San Augustine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, San Saba, Trinity, Tyler, Willacy and Zavala. Starr and Webb counties, usually considered among the most impoverished in Texas, were classified among 131 Texas counties with “serious” conditions of hunger and malnutrition. Cong. W. R. Poague, Waco, chairman of the House agricultural committee, and Cong. Graham Purcell, Wichita Falls, a member of the committee, defended the policy making committee, explaining it is primarily interested in looking after farmers. Burton Hackney, director of the Texas Department of Welfare, insisted there is no authentic report of persons going hungry in Texas. “If anyone can cite me specific names and cases of hungry people, we’d like to help,” he said. The report received editorial response from many Texas newspapers. “The citizens’ group called for the declaration of a national emergency and the launching of emergency food programs in 256 hard-hit counties and in migrant farm camps and some Indian reservations. And this is at least one step that should be taken immediately,” the Dallas Times Herald editorialized. The Houston Chronicle agreed that emergency programs should begin immediatelyif the facts of the report were verified. The Valley Morning Star said it had never heard of the committee and instead of discussing the report attacked an instigator of the investigation, UAW President Walter Reuther. Court Decision v Antiwar and civil rights demonstrators have been given a boost by the decision of a special three-judge federal court which has held that Texas’ disturbing the peace statute is so broadly drawn as to have a “chilling effect” on constitutional guarantees of free expression. The decision came after three Austin anti-war demonstrators were arrested in December at Killeen and charged with peace disturbance during a speech by President Johnson. The three men, members of the University of Texas Committee to End the War in Vietnam, had begun walking through a crowd of spectators, mostly soldiers from nearby Fort Hood, to display antiwar signs. They were attacked by some of the soldiers and were arrested by Bell county sheriff’s deputies. A defense fund was established and more than $2,800 raised to challenge the constitutionality of the Texas statute. In February the state sought to drop the charges since the arrests had been made on federal property, over which the sheriff has no jurisdiction. The defend: ants determined to proceed in the matter, feeling it not moot, as the state contended. The merits of the case at Killeen thus became of no particular importance; rather, the issue became the entire statute under which they had been arrested. The part of the law the judges found unacceptable is the wording “loud and vociferous . . . language.” “It cannot be doubted,” the court’s decision says, “that the provision regarding the use of loud and vociferous language would, on its face, prohibit speech which would stir the public to anger, would invite dispute, would bring a condition of unrest, or would create a disturbance. In so doing the statute on its face makes a crime out of what is protected First Amendment activity. This is impermissible.” The statute’s application to cases not involving free expression \( tavern disturbaffected by the decision. V The three judges withheld making their decision have full effect until the next session of the legislature, either special or regular, so lawmakers will have an opportunity to redraw the statute. The judges said they will retain jurisdiction in the case to see what the legislature does. V Atty. Gen. Crawford called the deci sion a blow to state sovereignty and to law enforcement. He requested a new hearing by the three judges, who have recently turned down the request. Martin says he’ll take the case to the US Supreme Court, his only recourse now. V The administrations of Texas A&M and Amarillo College have been cen sured by the American Association of Uni May 10, 1968 3