Search this site

A water grid for mass movement of groundwater for real estate development is all kinda wrong for Texas! She’s baaack! Action please! You think California was a disaster? Texas here I come” — Gridzilla Share this 40-sec video starring Griddy from our Facebook page here ! A Texas water grid to move masses of groundwater to fuel growth in areas without their own water supply — is all kinda wrong for Texas. The California water model is a proven disaster, so why are some legislators ushering the grid to Texas, while others do little to stop it? Only we Texans — together across all party lines — can stop Gridzilla. Do this, won’t you? 1. Watch and share our Gridzilla 40-sec video. Then donate to the non- profit Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund at GoFundMe here . (If you’re in Bastrop today — Sat., March 2, from 12-4, you’ll see SAWDF with these yard & fence signs at the frontage road at Tractor Supply!) 2. Call your state rep and state senator ( find them here ) and ask them to pass groundwater and eminent domain reforms urged by the League of Independent Voters of Texas and our friends. Hearing on Eminent Domain is Monday (details here) & Tuesday on Water ( hearing notice here ). Note that Rep. Ashby’s HB 1066 could help the Vista Ridge – San Antone Hose — aka Gridzilla! 3. We’ll prep you on all of this at LIV Lobby Day here . Make a reservation — it’s free and we need to see your smiling faces in the flesh! If you can’t make it, watch the stream and make your calls! Got questions? Reply or give us a call at 512-213-4511. Tell Griddy to get on down the road, y’all. It’s YOUR water for now and for the next generation! #SAWDF #SimsboroAquiferWaterDefenseFund

The Quest to End Two-Party Rule: Part 4 “The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.” ― Michael Porter, What Is Strategy? In a prior blog , I suggested that there were three aspects that we should be considering as we engage in our quest to end two-party political rule: 1) an elaboration on the nature of The Opportunity (Part 2) that lies before us, 2) an identification of The Barriers (Part 3) to change that stand in our way, and 3) a list of potential Strategies that might be considered as we develop plans for successfully bringing about change. In this final installment … Strategies It may not surprise you that this final installment has been a challenge. I thought that perhaps I could propose a few clever ideas to put forward for consideration. But finding a chink in the duopoly’s armor is difficult. As discussed in a prior blog ( The Barriers ), what stands in our way are a combination of intense inertia, apathy, and structural impediments long baked into our elections statutes and even the media’s coverage of politics. There are some on-going efforts that obviously should continue. The Texans for Voter Choice coalition plans to continue their work to relax statutory barriers to ballot access for independent candidates and alternative parties. And, of course, the Libertarian and Green Parties have managed to largely retain minor-party ballot access (though the Greens failed to maintain their access for 2018), therefore providing at least a modicum of alternative choice. But as a recent article in the Economist points out, Americans are much more likely to change their religious denomination than their political party. And except for a few high-profile candidates ( e.g ., Ross Perot), alternatives to the duopoly are basically ignored – both by voters and by the media. For there to be a significant change in voting patterns and media coverage, both voters and media outlets will likely need to see something significant to begin to occur. Somehow, and in some way, the task ahead should be to find ways to garner enough voter and media attention to establish a toehold from which to build future success. A modest toehold might be enough. Imagine if alternatives to duopoly candidates regularly garnered 10-20% of votes or 10-20% of serious voter and media attention. This continuing level of attention would maintain duopoly alternatives as a part of our regular political discourse. Diffusion of Innovation Theory suggests how innovations generally propagate through a population. Adoption of new ideas does not happen simultaneously, but rather progresses through different categories of the population (see figure below). “Innovators” are those who have already signed on. They’re already listening to and even promoting alternative parties and/or independent candidates. Little needs to be done to address this population, other than to keep them on board. Getting to the 10-20% range, though, will require bringing on what Diffusion of Innovation Theory calls “Early Adopters”, those who are aware of the need for change and are willing to embrace it given the opportunity. They’re comfortable with new ideas and are often opinion leaders. They’re swayable. The first question, of course is, who exactly are the Early Adopters? And secondly, how can they be convinced to regularly and actively engage in non-duopoly politics? They’re certainly not to be found among the Democratic or Republican faithful or their respective political classes. These populations are too invested in the status quo. Although there might be exceptions, members of this population are unlikely to jump ship. It’s not at all clear (at least to me) who the Early Adopters are. Perhaps they’re discouraged non-voters. Perhaps they’re some portion of those who are increasingly disassociated from the duopoly parties. Perhaps they’re reporters for major news outlets that are looking for ways to expand the political conversation. Perhaps they’re news executives looking for niche markets. What is clear, though, is that the Early Adopters must be able to visualize some reward for their efforts. They must be able to see that stepping outside of duopoly politics will make a difference – even short of winning elections. This is our challenge. Ideas anyone? Mark Miller Dripping Springs, TX Mark serves on the LIV Advisory Committee. Read his bio here . #EarlyAdopters #TheEconomist #twopartysystem #MichaelPorter #Innovators #TexansforVoterChoice #MarkMiller

The war between the two parties is putting our democracy at risk — not to mention fundamentals like our land and water. If you agree with us, please accept this invitation to join the independent movement to do something about it! Democracy is not a game, Babe. Our Land, Our Water, Our Democracy Lobby Day Tuesday, March 5, 9 am to 5 pm John H. Reagan Building, Room 140, 105 W. 15th Street, Austin, TX Here’s what we’ll be talking about with our legislators: Democracy is not a game: Most voters agree the gamesmanship between the two parties is not only stifling innovation, it is harming small “d” democracy – the ability to build consensus in our country. In Texas, ballot access petition reform would allow independent, non-aligned candidate and minor party competition. It’s called the Texas Voter Choice Act . ►We must also defend the right to petition for municipal voter referenda – real local control – currently under attack by municipal lobby machines — this news piece tipped their hand . If you live in Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Plano or any municality where citizens collected signatures this year, you really need to be at this Lobby Day! If you cherish democracy come to the Capitol on March 5th! ► Saying NO to the California Water Model: Private water speculators are hijacking the State Water Plan via “Gridzilla,” a water grid mimicking California’s over-pumping and costly transfer of groundwater from distant locations for real estate development. Pass the Sustainable Groundwater Development Act to protect our aquifers, landowners, ratepayers and future generations. ► Curbing Eminent Domain Abuse: The newly organized Texas Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform is working this session to level the playing field in an unfair process that favors condemnors over landowners. What you can do right now! ► Call your state senator and state representative to urge they visit with League of Independent Voters representatives. Find them at: fyi.capitol.texas.gov ► Go to our website or call us to make a free reservation to attend the March 5th Lobby Day. ► Share this message from here, sign up to get our email alerts and bring other Texans with you on March 5th. LIV is developing and cultivating the independent, non-aligned voter. We’re in the tool-kit business. Pay your dues to become a member today! Happy Valentines Day, y’all! #LeagueofIndependentVoters #Gridzilla #localcontrol #Californiawatermodel #IndependentTexans #ballotaccessreform #Independentpolitics

The Grinch of the year is surely the LCRA. The Lower Colorado River Authority is pushing hard for a redundant and massive water grab of Simsboro water 8 days before Christmas. The move is bad news for all Texans given its potential impact on water policy. In essence, “The California Water Model”, an already proven disaster is proceeding in Texas at the behest of the real estate lobby and their minions on public office. The ancient Simsboro formation of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer underlying Bastrop, Lee, Burleson and Milam counties does not recharge in human terms. But this hasn’t stopped privateering Recharge (aka End Op), the San Antonio Water System (Vista Ridge aka the San Antone Hose) and now the LCRA, a quasi-governmental agency. LCRA lawyers pushed for a legal hearing tomorrow — December 19, starting at 10 am at the Bastrop Convention Center. You can reach Sen. Watson and ask him what he is going to do to stop LCRA at 512-463-1114. Watson sits on the Sunset Commission, represents Austin and all of Bastrop County and has been silent on the LCRA grab. We share this message from the non-profit Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund with additional details. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation online to SAWDF or come to the hearing tomorrow and grab some home-baked goodies to die for. That’s right. Landowners are facing Goliath with a bake sale – the spirit so fitting for this pre-Christmas occasion! Come get some tomorrow! MORE:  It’s Christmas time but for whom we might be asking. This Sunset Advisory Commission, whose charge is to review state agencies, just conducted a limited review of LCRA. They held a hearing on December 12. There were 20 witnesses who spoke at the top of the hearing. They were Bastrop landowners, Austin environmentalists, Highland Lakes protectors and one 30-year water professional, James Murphy, singing a very similar song — protect us, LCRA, do your job like you did during the recent flood. Stay out of groundwater. Truthfully, James Murphy stuck out like a sore thumb. He is a Bexar County resident, who has been making the rounds, stirring the pot by lending his impressive expertise to the good fortune of Texas water policy. He is the Christmas gift to the Simsboro. We lift this quote from Murphy’s testimony: Texas groundwater policy has been hijacked by private speculators bent on manipulating local governments to the tune of billions of dollars in unnecessary and duplicative groundwater projects.  Governor Abbott has warned Texas not to follow the “California model”, yet it seems LCRA is intent on doing so.  Ironically, California is now investing billions in an effort to undo the damage to both the economy and environment caused by unrestricted groundwater mining at the very time LCRA is leading Texas down the same path with no regard for the costly ruin that lies ahead. Watch the LCRA testimony here Murphy is at 1:32:35 followed by a telling interchange with respected Houston State Rep. Senfronia Thompson. For the many of you who want to know what our plans are. We’re working on it. Should we continue building new alliances (across party lines and across the state) uniting voters outside the parties for the common good of all? The answer to that question lies with you. You can help by: Becoming a dues paying member of the LIV or simply donating . Stepping up to get active in LIV. We’re headed for lots of activity in the upcoming legislative session on election, water and land reform. (Reply if you’re interested in details.) Building an LIV chapter in you area. We’re holding a meeting on January 12, shooting for Caldwell County (likely Lockhart.) We wish you all the very best holiday ever and a peaceful – unifying — New Year! Please join us to build a 36-member geographically representative Board across Texas in 2019! #JamesMurphy #KirkWatson #SenfroniaThompson #SimsboroAquiferWaterDefenseFund

The press conference scheduled for noon today in San Antonio is canceled due to weather. We hope to reschedule it soon. Watch our video for tonight’s event here. In the meantime, the Debate on Prop A and Vista Ridge is still on! Join us at a civil and fair debate moderated by Brendan Gibbons of the Rivard Report. “Yes or No on Prop A Debate on Vista Ridge” ( Read our release here .) Tuesday, October 16, 7 to 8 pm, followed by a Cruz/O’Rourke Debate Watch 2300 Avenue B, San Antonio 78215 * Pan American Golf Association Clubhouse Due to limited seating, we suggest you show up early. Event details here . Invite your Facebook friends from here. If you need to reach LIV, call or text 512.657.2089. Hoping to see you — people and media tonight!

Ron Nirenberg’s disaster might be overstated just a tad when he calls reasonable petition requirements for citizens to call for a public vote (Prop A), a disaster. With or without the foot dragging by the No campaign, this debate will go on. Watch this video and see our response and please do share! ==> Well, maybe the Mayor of San Antonio is right in a way. Without suppressing the right to petition, San Antonio’s high rollers in real estate and their friends in public office, couldn’t have forced the disastrous Vista Ridge (San Antone Hose) on SAWS ratepayers and landowners along its 142-mile path. Does it ever cease to amaze you what large sums of money dangling in the balance can do to basically good people? We hope you already received notice of a Debate on Proposition A and Vista Ridge to be held THIS Tuesday night. See flier here . Here’s our Facebook Event Page . See flier here . Here’s our Facebook Event Page . Not on Facebook? Use our Event page . Join us THIS Tuesday night, October 16th from 7 to 8 pm Pan American Golf Association Clubhouse at 2300 B, San Antonio 78215.Please do stay for the Cruz/O’Rourke debate from 8 to 9 pm, or come late if you can’t make the Prop A debate from 7 to 8. We can agree to disagree, have a laugh and beer together. United we stand, divided we fall, y’all! #BertoGuerra #ORourke #PropsA #SAWS #VistaRidge #RonNirenberg #debate #Cruz #Unitedwestand #BandC

New LIV Board Member, San Antonio architect, Ellen Berky, is hilarious. This is what she said about the debate going on in San Antonio on citizen propositions A, B and C: “The real estate lobby and its henchmen in the public realm have the city so thoroughly divided it’s like Chinatown (the movie) except without the sex and mayhem. Actually, strike half of that. We have got the mayhem – just not intelligent and informed debate.” What is happening in San Antonio politics is actually a little closer to the movie, The Shining. The City Hall political establishment — you know, the same guys and gals who rammed the Vista Ridge/San Antone Hose on all of Central Texas — is aflame to stop three measures placed on the ballot through petitions led by the Firefighters. Props A, B and C ( Details Here ). The League of Independent Voters is really keen on Prop A — fair petition requirements. Prop A is truly a gift by the San Antonio Firefighters to the community. If San Antonio citizens had fair petition requirements in 2014, we could have petitioned for a public vote on a $3.4B, 142-mile pipeline mega-water and wallet grab. Instead, SAWS (San Antonio’s water utility) ratepayers are faced with a rate hikes for an unnecessary project while SAWS ushers in the California Water Model. Guess what, Texans. California continues to reel in self-induced water crisis and now struggles to reverse 50-years of failed groundwater policy. Join us at a civil and fair debate moderated by Brendan Gibbons of the Rivard Report. “Yes or No on Prop A Debate on Vista Ridge” ( Read our release here .) Tuesday, October 16, 7 to 8 pm, followed by a Cruz/O’Rourke Debate Watch 2300 Avenue B, San Antonio 78215 * Pan American Golf Association Clubhouse Due to limited seating, we suggest you show up early. Event details here . Invite your Facebook friends from here. AND EARLIER ON THE 16TH JOIN OUR TUESDAY NOON PRESS CONFERENCE! In front of SAWS. Bring your own homemade sign. Noon sharp! 2800 U.S. Hwy 281 North, San Antonio, Texas 78212 (At the Customer Service Center… see map here ) We hope to see you this coming Tuesday at either or both of these important events. Read our media release here. We also just received LIV Advisory Committee member Mark Miller’s third and final installment of “ The Question to End Two Party Rule. ” Nice work, as usual, professor! PS Though it might seem that the San Antonio election is like Chinatown (the movie), it’s probably much closer to the movie, The Shining. Ya think? #RonNiremberg #EllenBerky #SanAntonioFirefighters #BrendanGibbons #PropsA #SAWS #JamesMurphy #BandC #MarkMiller

The Quest to End Two-Party Rule: Part 3 “We build too many walls and not enough bridges.” – Sir Isaac Newton In a Part 1 of this blog , I suggested that there were three aspects that should be considered as we engage in our quest to end two-party political rule: 1) an elaboration on the nature of the Opportunity (Part 2) that lies before us, 2) an identification of the Barriers to change that stand in our way, and 3) a list of possible Strategies that might be considered as we develop plans for successfully bringing about change. In this installment … The Barriers Voters have the ultimate responsibility for allowing the old party duopoly to remain so firmly in-place. Despite extreme voter dissatisfaction with the two major parties, however, fewer than 6% of votes were cast in 2016 for presidential candidates other than Trump or Clinton. That same year, 97% of US House incumbents and 93% of US Senate incumbents were re-elected. Over half of Texas’ legislative races in 2016 had a single candidate on the ballot. Nearly 2/3 had only one major party candidate, meaning that only 1/3 of Texas’ legislative races were effectively contested. Duopolistic thinking is firmly entrenched in most voters. After the last presidential election, many Democrats even complained that those who voted their conscience for an independent or alternative party candidate somehow wasted their votes and threw the election to Trump. Barrier #1: Voters continue to strongly buy into the “wasted vote fallacy” that there are only two viable election choices. Millennials (aged ~22-37) make up a significant voting bloc, roughly 27% of the voting age population . Younger voters are less prone to identify with either of the major parties and, in general, are more open to change. But they self-report that only about half vote. This compares to around 70% of those older than 55. Some combination of apathy and disillusionment seem to be keeping so many young voters unengaged in elections. Barrier #2: Younger voter apathy and discontent cause them to vote at levels significantly lower than older voters. Gerrymandering, first-past-the-post plurality voting, taxpayer-funded primaries, one-punch straight-ticket voting, Federal Election and Texas Ethics Commissions appointed by those already in power, and statutory ballot access restrictions are only a few of the ways that governments lock in shared two-party political power. Duopolistic control of the legislative and executive branches of government remains strong – and resistant to altering the status quo. Redistricting (done by political parties in power) ensures as many non-competitive districts as possible, effectively dividing up the spoils between the two old parties. This enhances the incredible advantages that incumbents of both major parties continue to hold. For an excellent discussion of the history of ballot access in the US, read Death by a Thousand Signatures: The Rise of Restrictive Ballot Access Laws and the Decline of Electoral Competition in the United States by Oliver Hall, director of the Center for Competitive Democracy. It’s an eye-opener. Barrier #3: Unnecessarily restrictive statutory barriers to alternative candidates and parties have been erected to protect the interests of the duopoly. Modern campaigns have become amazingly expensive, especially in large states such as Texas. Because governmental actions increasingly impact commercial interests, many feel compelled to try and influence those actions by providing the financial and organizational support that has come to define modern political campaigns. Because money is fungible (and always seems to “find a way”), fixing campaign finance ( e.g ., reversing the Citizens United US Supreme Court ruling) is likely to do nothing to improve our politics unless the two-party power-sharing duopoly is also dealt with. The two major parties also have a “big data” advantage. Important campaign tools, such as lists of supporters and donors and historical voting records, are prohibitively expensive for independent or upstart political movements to replicate. As populations (and data) grow, the duopoly’s competitive data advantage will very likely increase, much as it has in the commercial marketplace with firms such as Google and Amazon. Barrier #4: The duopoly parties vigorously guard the barriers to entry that stem from their huge financial and organizational advantages. With special constitutional protections, the press has a role as our (theoretically independent) governmental watchdogs. Yet the media stand by as the duopoly parties dictate debate terms and collude to exclude competitors from even a modicum of coverage. And even as they deplore excessive money in politics, the press continues to treat candidates with small campaign budgets as insufficiently serious. The mainstream media may be too enmeshed with the duopoly to change their ways. Their financial interests, if nothing else, may be threatened by “breaking the rules” effectively dictated by the two duopoly parties. Given the competitive nature of their industry, larger media outlets may simply be too easily manipulated to be sufficiently independent. Barrier #5: Media that effectively supports and protects the duopoly through its coverage of election campaigns. These are seriously difficult barriers to overcome – and there are many more that others have suggested . In the next (final) blog I’ll discuss a few strategies to begin thinking about. Mark Miller Dripping Springs, TX Miller serves on the Advisory Committee of the League of Independent Voters of Texas. Visit our our Board page for more about Mark and the rest of us at LIV. #CenterforCompetitiveDemocracy #OliverHall #duopolisticcontrol #twopartysystem #MarkMiller

Who Will Debate Prop A on Vista Ridge? Tuesday, October 16, 7 – 8 pm, Pan American Golf Association Clubhouse 2300 Avenue B, San Antonio 78215 For details, visit our Event Page Here Or invite your Facebook friends from here. Leading Water Attorney Agrees to Debate FOR Prop A Because of Vista Ridge; SAWS Chairman Berto Guerra Declines to Debate PROP A, Mayor Nirenberg now invited! At Tuesday’s San Antonio Water System (SAWS) board meeting some things happened that made Prop A far bigger an issue than is being discussed yet in the battles between the Vote Yes and Vote No campaigns aflame in the city of San Antonio. SAWS moved the largest water project in Texas history—the behind schedule $3.4 billion Vista Ridge, 142-mile long pipeline, closer to meeting its 2020 deadline. Meanwhile, SAWS trustee, Mayor Ron Nirenberg, was absent when the board voted for 81 million dollars worth of Vista Ridge related construction contract awards. Members of the League of Independent Voters (LIV) hoped that someone – perhaps the Mayor — might mention the two articles in the Rivard Report about SAWS recently rejecting a low bid contract for one tiny portion of the Vista Ridge Project and awarding the contract to a company which proposed to be paid $16.6 million more for the same amount of work. Instead of taking his trustee chair and questioning the SAWS recommendation to award to the high bidder or revisiting SAWS CEO Robert Puente’s recommendation to fight the ensuing lawsuit which names city council members as well as the San Antonio Water System, the Mayor was out stumping to defeat Props A, B and C. Ellen Berky, a San Antonio architect who started fighting Vista Ridge in 2014 alongside those living over the Simsboro aquifer in Burleson county, recently joined the board of the League of Independent Voters. The League advocates for groundwater and eminent domain policy reform and protection of the first amendment right to petition. Berky said: “San Antonio citizens across the political spectrum opposed Vista Ridge because it is massively expensive and thoroughly flawed project that will take us in reverse on San Antonio’s exemplary history of water conservation. Plus, who really supports taking someone else’s water other than those who have most to profit from this 3.4 billion dollar boondoggle? But the real estate lobby and its henchmen in the public realm have the city so thoroughly divided it’s like Chinatown (the movie) except without the sex and mayhem. Actually, strike half of that. We have got mayhem – just not intelligent and informed debate. If San Antonio had the right to petition as provided in Proposition A, perhaps we would have had a public vote in 2014 and avoided all this madness.” On Tuesday, at the SAWS meeting, Berky asked SAWS Board of Trustees Chairman, Berto Guerra, who had donated $25,000 to the “Go Vote No” campaign, to join a LIV sponsored debate on Prop A with one of the top water attorneys in Texas — James Murphy.  Berky followed up with this formal letter of invitation . Berky received this short letter the next day from SAWS CEO Puente declining the invitation to Guerra: Ms. Berky, We are in receipt of your letter to Chairman Guerra dated October 9, 2018, regarding an invitation to debate the pros and cons of Proposition A.  Chairman Guerra is aware of your request and formal invitation.  Unfortunately, Chairman Guerra is not available to participate in this event. Sincerely, Robert Puente SAWS CEO, Robert Puente, is the most responsible person besides the Mayor and city council, for the continuation of the Vista Ridge Project. Despite its many setbacks, costs to ratepayers, and the disgust of targeted landowners living some 142 miles away, CEO Puente presses on while the Mayor and Council look the other way. James Murphy is working with landowners and ratepayers across the state to make clear to legislators that: “2019 is either the year Texans accept a failed and dangerous model for groundwater – that of California – or we remember that Texas is our Texas, not a place for fools’ gold. California has come full circle and is now struggling to reverse over 50 years of decisions that have the state reeling in water crisis. Texas cannot go down this path and certainly not SAWS ratepayers who happen to live in one of the poorest cities in the country.” One of the spokespersons for the Yes campaign, Reinette King, said, “If we pass Prop A this November ‘we the people’ will have a voice in matters people across our community are upset about such as the city giving away the land under the Cenotaph and the Alamo.  Some things cannot wait until it is time to elect a new council.” ( more info here ) Linda Curtis, a founder and spokesperson for LIV who lives over the aquifer targeted by Vista Ridge in Bastrop, said: “Prop A isn’t for any one group or interest, including the Firefighters. It is truly a gift from the Firefighters to the citizens of San Antonio to empower them to check and balance their local government.” The event will take place with or without an opponent of Prop A. LIV is extending invitations to Mayor Ron Nirenberg, Christian Archer (the campaign manager for Go Vote No) and anyone who can credibly claim they can debate the pros and cons of Prop A and Vista Ridge. The Prop A debate will be followed by a debate watch of the contenders for US Senate, Representative Beto O’Rourke and Senator Ted Cruz. The flier for this event is posted here . # For more information: 512.657.2089 call or text to reach anyone quoted in this release. #LindaCurtis #BertoGuerra #EllenBerky #propA #petitionrights #RobertPuente #SAWS #ReinetteKing #JamesMurphy #SanAntonioMayorRonNIrenberg

The Quest to End Two-Party Rule: Part 2 “The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower In a previous blog , I suggested that there were three aspects that should be considered as we engage in our quest to end two-party political rule: 1) an elaboration on the nature of the Opportunity that lies before us, 2) an identification of the Barriers to change that stand in our way, and 3) a preliminary list of possible Strategies that might be considered as we develop plans for successfully bringing about change. In this installment … The Opportunity We are clearly in an era of extreme voter dissatisfaction. Already at historic lows, the voting public’s opinion of US electoral politics continues to sink. The last Presidential election featured two of the most disliked major party candidates of all time. Voter turnout in 2016 was only 55%. Dissatisfaction is leading voters to identify with neither of the two old establishment parties. 42% of American voters (50% of Millennials) now self-identify as independents – a record number that is larger than with either major party. Opportunity #1: Citizens who don’t vote, along with independent voters. The candidacies of outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were driven by high voter dissatisfaction – from both ends of the political spectrum. Voters want change. The rise of both left and right populism in the US and elsewhere is driven by widespread beliefs that the establishment parties are not serving us well. Dissatisfaction with duopoly candidates in 2016 also caused a significant surge in attention for alternatives. Non-duopoly votes for President were nearly 6% of the total, by far the highest since Ross Perot last ran in 1996. Some non-duopoly candidates received significant numbers of votes in individual states – the highest being Evan McMullin in UT (over 20%). In six states (UT, ID, VT, AK, NM, OR, WA), non-duopoly votes exceeded 10% of the total. Opportunity #2: Voters looking for alternatives to candidates that have historically been nominated by the two major parties. Though we often focus on presidential and gubernatorial elections, perhaps the biggest “bang for the buck” might come by electing non-duopoly candidates to state and/or federal legislatures. This might be particularly true in those many legislatures, such as Texas’, that have effectively become dominated by one party. As few as 10% of an elected body without major party allegiances could become the deal-makers that help us get past partisan gridlock. Opportunity #3: Election of a small number of non-duopoly representatives and/or senators could have a significant effect on legislative polarization. A rural/urban divide seems to also be increasingly driving our politics. In the 2016 Presidential election, most of Texas’ large urban counties voted Democrat. Trump received Texas’ presidential electors because of his overwhelming (70+%) support in the smaller rural counties. If Texas had consisted of only the 37 counties that make up 80% of its voters, Clinton would have won the state. Maps of the last presidential vote results show that the rest of the country appears as geographically divided as Texas. Opportunity #4: Candidates with platforms who can effectively address the common concerns of both rural and urban voters. Taking advantage of voter concerns will undoubtedly be a challenge given the immense barriers to change that have been erected in our political system (to be addressed further in Part 3 of this series). But there are a few cracks in system that might give alternative parties and independent candidates a toe hold. For one, Texas is scheduled to eliminate the one-punch straight-ticket voting option starting in 2020. In the runup to the 2020 elections, we might expect many elections officials and others to embark on programs to educate voters about the coming change. Eliminating the one-punch option will obviously not prevent voters from voting straight-ticket. It could, however, have positive effects for electoral competition, particularly in down-ballot races. It certainly is an opportunity to educate voters about their options. Opportunity #5: Elimination of one-punch straight-ticket voting provides an opportunity to educate voters about their voting options. In the 85th Texas Legislature, the Texans for Voter Choice coalition managed to get a bill considered ( HB 3068 ) that would have significantly improved ballot access for independent candidates and minor parties by establishing more reasonable ballot access and retention requirements. Though the bill failed to get voted out of committee, there was little opposition to its provisions at hearing. In the 86th Texas Legislature (2019), Texans for Voter Choice coalition will again pursue this legislation. Opportunity #6: Legislative and/or legal action that would improve ballot access for alternative parties and independent candidates. In addition, politically-driven gerrymandering is increasingly being challenged in the courts, including in Texas. Though both major parties resist alternatives to partisan gerrymandering, the egregiousness of this practice is causing increased legal scrutiny that could result in less distressing gerrymandering practices. Opportunity #7: Legislative and/or legal action that could decrease the deleterious effects of gerrymandering on electoral competition. In the next installment of this blog, we’ll explore the barriers that will need to be addressed in our pursuit to diminish two-party rule. #MarkMiller #TexansforVoterChoice #Trump #twopartyrule

Landowners marked a big map with a pin pointing to their water well Bastrop Landowners rally to protect their wells from water grab by LCRA “Mega-Permit.” Michele Gangnes, of the Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund spoke to over 200 Bastrop and Lee County residents in two consecutive meetings at the American Legion Hall in Bastrop, September 13th. They learned the issues and strategized how to defend their well water from LCRA and other water pirates planning big export wells in the precious Simsboro Aquifer. The event was co-sponsored by Friends of Bastrop Water . Environmental Stewardship Executive Director Steve Box confers with concerned landowners Phil Cook and John Watson Environmental Stewardship Executive Director Steve Box confers with concerned landowners Phil Cook and John Watson as they study new maps of groundwater drawdown throughout the Bastrop area that will be caused by LCRA. The urgency is a September 26th public permit hearing by the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District (LPGCD) to review a 25,000 acre-foot/year (AFY) application by LCRA to mine water for unspecified future use throughout its service area – clearly outside of Bastrop. The LCRA permit public hearing is at 7:00PM at the Bastrop Convention Center, 1408 Chestnut St. Please come out and support the rights of Bastrop landowners to protect the water under their homes and ranches. If you are a landowner near the Griffith League Ranch – with or without a well – you can file an objection to the LPGCD by September 21st. LCRA’s Goal LCRA’s goal, according to General Manager Phil Wilson is, “in addition to providing drinking water for residents, the water could be used throughout our Central Texas service area for manufacturing, irrigation and power production.” LCRA was created by state legislation in 1934 to for “the control, storing, preservation, and distribution of the waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries within the boundaries of the authority for irrigation, generation of electric energy and power, and other useful purposes.” It has always had the responsibility for managing river water. Clearly LCRA wants to get into the lucrative groundwater development business – though its charter is to manage the surface water of the Colorado River. LCRA already has four large wells at its Lake Bastrop power plant to supplement their needs – and, incidentally, allow LCRA to sell more of its river water elsewhere. LCRA’s lakeside groundwater claim is up to 10,000 AFY. Other than the swap plan at Lake Bastrop, this is the first time that they have crossed into the groundwater business. LCRA’s water claim is on top of water use by Aqua Water Service Corporation, which has been providing water to about 50,000 Bastrop area residents since the 1970’s. Aqua’s present use is estimated around 9,000 AFY, though it is permitted for twice that amount. Thirsty San Antonio got permits to pump 50,000 AFY from the same aquifer in nearby Burleson County (Vista Ridge, aka “The San Antone Hose”). Though the original developer of the ‘San Antonio Hose’ went belly up, the construction company and city are plowing ahead to have the water flowing by 2020. An Austin based company came next. Cleverly named ‘Recharge LP’, it leaves the impression that it might help the aquifer. Headed by former Austin Mayor Will Wynn, Recharge (formerly End Op) got into action in 2016 with a permit from the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District for 56,000 AFY. Though close lipped, they apparently want to sell water to major developers in Hays, Travis and Williamson Counties. This application was approved by the water district, but currently under court challenge. In addition, Forestar Real Estate Group has an active permit for up to 28,500 AFY for new developments in Hays, Travis and Williamson counties. All of this adds up to well over 110,000 AFY that scientific studies show to be totally unustainable. But with millions of dollars and billions of gallons at stake the Bastrop region has a big target on its back. Editorial Note: We wish to thanks Al Braden, a volunteer with Austin350.org and a professional photographer for allowing us to print his photos and article. Al is one of many good friends in Austin who are looking out for water in our region. The Simsboro is a slow-to-no recharge aquifer as compared to the mighty Edwards Aquifer , a fast-recharging Karst aquifer. Watch the LIV video, “I Oppose the San Antone Hose.” Central Texans’ affordability and quality of life is under siege by water profiteers and their minions on government who believe rapid growth is just great. Who pays? You and the aquifers underlying us. #MicheleGangnes #SimsboroAquifer #ForestarRealEstate #Recharge #SimsboroAquiferWaterDefenseFund #JamesMurphy #WillWynn #EnvironmentalStewardship #AquiferWaterSupply #LCRA #SteveBox

This affects all Texans regardless of your party or location.   Central Texans’ affordability and quality of life is under siege by water profiteers and their minions in government who believe subsidizing in-migration growth carries no consequences. Check out our Costs of Growth page here . A powerful river authority in Central Texas, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), has applied for a mega-groundwater permit to get in on the ever-expanding Siege on the Simsboro Aquifer east of Austin. The precedent the Siege may set for groundwater resource mismanagement in Texas is not to be under-estimated. It is potentially damaging as Hurricane Harvey but slower and longer lasting. Take a moment to read this entire message. This is a long and difficult fight. Watch the video we released in 2015. And try your best to join us at these events below: CENTRAL TEXAS URGENT WATER ALERT! You’re invited to these two urgently important events in Bastrop. Thursday, September 13, 4:30 & 7 pm, American Legion, 3003 Hwy. 150, Bastrop, TX — but please reserve a seat by calling 512-333-0252 or sending an email to simsboro@fastmail.com ! This Community Meeting is for all those who want to fight this permit. Co-sponsored by the Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund and Friends of Bastrop Water: If you wish to contest the LCRA permit, you must file your intentions to do so no later than September 21st, 5 days before the public hearing! Come to this meeting! More details here . Wednesday, September 26, 7 pm:  HEARING on the LCRA permit at the Bastrop Convention Center, held by the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District. Don’t allow the escalation of the “California Water Model.” Moving precious groundwater to fuel no-holds-barred in-migration growth as fostered by the real estate lobby — harm our water supply, our affordability and our quality of life.  Hearing details pack the house on September 26th! Meanwhile, it is no coincidence… …that the Mayors of two major Texas cities — San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg and Austin Mayor Steve Adler — are attacking citizens petitions on the ballot in November: San Antonio and Austin voters can put a stop to this, just inform your voting friends. See the petition fights going on in San Antonio here  and in Austin here. The League of Independent Voters does not endorse candidates, but we know YOU do with your vote. Bring your concerns with you to the polls after you read How to Organize Texas Independents and talk to your officials and favorite candidates. Share this email from our website here. Like us on Facebook and ask your friends to do the same! Become a dues paying member of LIV ! Only a united Texas can put a stop to this madness in the 2019 legislative session. We’re getting ready to show you how, Texas! #Texasindependents #SimsboroAquifer #SimsboroAquiferWaterDefenseFund #AustinMayorSteveAdler #LCRA #SanAntonioMayorRonNIrenberg