Texas court documents allege payments in ‘vote harvesting' probe
Officials in a rural Texas county who were charged with 'vote harvesting' this week were accused of paying a campaign worker who told elderly residents how to vote while assisting them with their ballots in 2022 and 2023, according to court documents released this week.
The indictments and applications for search warrants in Frio County, located near San Antonio, were released a day after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced the charges against six people related to what he described as a 'vote harvesting' operation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump deals a ‘big blow' to clean heat with Energy Department cuts
Last week, the Trump administration canceled $3.7 billion in federal funding for two dozen green industrial projects that the Department of Energy claimed 'failed to advance the energy needs of the American people, were not economically viable, and would not generate a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.' More than a quarter of that spending would have gone to 11 projects designed to cut planet-warming pollution from generating the heat used in factories — one of the trickiest decarbonization challenges to solve. 'This is a really, really significant setback for clean heat in the U.S.,' said Brad Townsend, the vice president of policy and outreach at the think tank Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). The wide-ranging projects included installing industrial heat pumps at up to 10 plants where giant Kraft Heinz Co. produces its foodstuffs, building an electric boiler at one of plumbing-fixture manufacturer Kohler Co.'s Arizona factories, and adding a heat battery to Eastman Chemical Co.'s facility in Texas. Distributed under the Industrial Demonstrations Program at the Energy Department's now-embattled Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, the funding promised to bolster the manufacturing sector with a major investment in technologies meant to give American companies an edge in global markets. Groups such as C2ES and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimated the federal support would generate hundreds of thousands of jobs in both direct construction and operations and indirect hiring at real estate firms, restaurants, and retailers near the industrial sites. In addition, federal researchers expected to gather information through the projects that could be used broadly throughout U.S. industry to improve output and bring down energy costs. 'The data and lessons learned in de-risking this technology would then translate into follow-up investment in the private sector,' said Marcela Mulholland, a former official at the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations who now leads advocacy at the nonpartisan climate group Clean Tomorrow. 'If you were in a technology area covered by OCED, you needed public investment to scale,' she added. 'Something in the proverbial 'valley of death' made it difficult for the private sector to advance the technology on its own.' With the funding, U.S. industry had the chance to develop new approaches that could produce greener — and cheaper — materials, giving American manufacturers an edge over Asian or European rivals as corporate and national carbon-cutting policies put a premium on products made with less emissions. Absent that, Mulholland said, U.S. companies risk falling behind competitors who benefit from lower-cost labor and easily accessible components from nearby industrial clusters, like those in Vietnam, China, or Germany. 'It's hard to overstate the scale of the loss,' Mulholland said. Already, a handful of companies are considering shifting production overseas in the wake of the funding cuts, according to two sources who have directly spoken to leaders of firms that lost federal funding. The sources were granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the plans. 'When these projects don't go forward, we're going to see challenges for the companies from a profitability perspective and from a global competitiveness perspective,' said Richard Hart, industry director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 'What happens then is other countries and other companies will step in to meet those demands.' In the long term, he added, the cuts erode the value of a federal contract. 'When the U.S. government signs a contract with you, it's reasonable to assume that that contract is gold and that you can use that contract to make plans as a company that … you can explain to investors, to employees, and to the full group of stakeholders around your facilities,' Hart said. 'The loss of trust that comes from canceling those contracts is likely to be pervasive. That's very sad.' Part of the problem is that the contracts were cost-share agreements, which traditionally give the federal government the right to exit the deals without any legal penalty. In theory, OCED could have structured the federal contracts differently through a category known plainly as 'Other Transactions.' The Department of Commerce, for example, issued money from the CHIPS and Science Act to semiconductor companies through such 'other transactions' that lack the same off-ramps for the government. But the Commerce Department did so under the advice of a legal memo from its general counsel. By contrast, the Energy Department 'is way, way behind' on adopting alternative contract structures when disbursing money, according to a former OCED official who spoke on condition of anonymity. As a result, the agency stuck to the financing mechanisms with which it was familiar — such as cost-share agreements. Internally, the Trump administration said the cuts were justified in part because the companies involved were well funded and could manage the investments themselves, the official said. 'But I don't think that's the case. They need a government incentive to make the technological changes they were trying to do,' the former OCED official said. 'I would bet less than half of them keep going by themselves,' the official added. 'It's a big blow.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Conroe officer-involved shooting: Suspect shot by authorities following domestic disturbance call, standoff
The Brief An investigation is underway after an officer-involved shooting on Thursday night in Conroe. The shooting occurred in the 1400 block of North San Jacinto Street. The armed suspect was struck by officers fearing for their safety. CONROE, Texas - A suspect is in the hospital after being shot by authorities following a domestic disturbance call in Conroe on Thursday, officials said. What we know According to a release, authorities were called out to the 1400 block of North San Jaincto Street just before 2:15 p.m. Officials said reports indicated a suspect had seriously assaulted family members and was barricaded inside with weapons. When officers arrived, they stated the scene was secured and victims were safely evacuated. The suspect then refused commands to surrender, and a standoff ensued. After what police called a "prolonged standoff and efforts to negotiate a peaceful surrender," SWAT deployed CS gas. Officials said the suspect resisted all efforts by officers and escalated his behavior. As SWAT entered the home, officials said, the armed suspect confronted them, and officers fearing for their safety, fired a duty weapon, striking the suspect once. Police said life-saving measures were immediately initiated, and the suspect was taken to the hospital and is in critical, but stable condition. Officials stated the previously injured family members received medical care and are now safe. The shooting remains under investigation by Conroe Police Criminal Investigations and the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office. What we don't know Authorities did not release any names of those involved in the incident. The Source Information from the Conroe Police Department.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Convicted felons can own firearms in Texas; here's how
The Brief Felons can own firearms in Texas under certain circumstances, but it remains federally illegal. Five years must pass after the completion of their sentence, and they are only permitted to have the gun in their residence. Defense attorney Anthony Osso answers FAQ's around the law and restrictions HOUSTON - In Texas, a convicted felon can legally own a firearm - with some restrictions. Here's what you need to know. Under Texas Penal Code §46.04, individuals convicted of a felony may legally possess a firearm at their home five years after completing their sentence, including any parole or probation period. The law only allows possession at the person's residence. The same rule applies to family violence convictions. Texas law prohibits gun possession for five years after a misdemeanor conviction involving family violence. After that period, state law technically allows home possession of a firearm. Not in one's car or place of business, only their residence. Despite the Texas law, federal law does not allow felons to own or possess firearms under any circumstances. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits anyone convicted of a felony from possessing firearms, ammunition, or explosives. This applies regardless of state-level permissions and can lead to federal charges. "The likelihood of them actually being prosecuted is slim, but it's still a violation of federal law," said Houston criminal defense attorney Anthony Osso. "The only time you really see that is a search warrant or if the person was violating other federal laws." This extends to individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and to those subject to certain restraining or protective orders, as outlined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Possession of a firearm is federally illegal under any circumstances for those convicted of these crimes. All firearms purchased through a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) — including at gun shows — require a background check through the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), in accordance with federal law (FBI NICS, ATF). So, those sellers are not allowed to sell firearms to anyone convicted of a felony under federal law. Private sales, however, are not subject to background checks under Texas law. Individuals buying from non-licensed sellers (including at gun shows or through personal exchanges) do not need to undergo a background check or register the firearm. "The felon is allowed to purchase the firearm from anyone who will sell [it] to them legally. The problem is that it's still a federal offense for someone to sell a firearm to a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law. That's why you don't see Academy or other gun stores selling to felons," said Osso. The law only allows felons who meet the 5-year requirement to possess a firearm in their home, not their vehicle. "If you transport a gun from a store to your residence after purchase, while in the car you are committing felon in possession of a weapon," said Osso. Osso says it's important for anyone convicted of a felony to consult an attorney prior to attempting to purchase a firearm. The Source Texas Penal Code §46.04, Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and attorney Anthony Osso
