brian birdwell is one of the most honorable men i have ever met in more than two decades of political involvement. i don't know the case law involved to have an educated opinion on his residency eligibility, but he was accused of voting twice in the same election, and there is no way that this man did that.  the tarrant county elections department shows that he voted in the 2004 presidential election but that is not proof that he did so. when somebody votes on election day, he signs a "voter poll" also known as a "sign in sheet", the election clerk makes a notation next to the voter's name in the poll list, and after the election is over an employee of the elections department goes through the poll list and updates the voter history in the computer for every person who the election clerks say voted in that election.but if the election clerk at the polling place accidentally marked birdwell as having voted instead of his neighbor on the poll list, or if the elections department employee mistakenly updated birdwell's voter history instead of somebody else's, that would explain how birdwell was shown to have voted in that election when he did not do so. the fact that mr. birdwell's brother, who has a similar name, claims that he did vote in that election but is shown by the elections department as not having voted in that election is strong circumstantial evidence that human error on the part of some elections official caused this misunderstanding. birdwell does not have the ability to prove his innocence because the sign-in sheets appear to have been destroyed already, but in this country, it is not birdwell who has to prove anything, it's his accusers.they have proven nothing

Pete-I'm with you on this one on the voting twice question. If it turns out that someone can prove that Birdwell voted twice in the same election, then let them do it. What I do have concern with, and it is proven, is that Birdwell is not eligible to run for Senate. Intent to live in a place is not the same as being a resident, Birdwell didn't purchase the Granbury property until November of 2005, and says on his own website that he and his family moved to Texas in 2006. Tha'ts not the Texas constitutional requirement of five years. Of course, if no entity decides to challenge this in court, he will get away with violating constitutional law, but that will keep a cloud over his senatorship, not to mention questions about his honorability.

P.S. Pet peeve of mine is when somebody creates a WORD document, for press release purposes, and then runs around and comments and pastes in what they want to say in any critical articles. I see that  is what Mr Pete Wrench has done; the same Pete Wrench who is a precinct chair in the Johnson County Republican Party. Compare what he said above with Ellis County Observer. Mr Wrench also pasted in about the same thing in a Virginia online paper. 

Doesn't change my thinking on the fact that Mr Birdwell needs to cough up his tax records in Virginia, which would clear up once and for all whether he, in the 3 or 4 years he lived and voted in Virginia, claimed to be an in-state resident.

Maybe Mr Wrench is Birdwell's compaign manager or something. I see he responded to the Waco trib again about the double voting issue. Again, the double voting issue is secondary to whether Birdwell is a LEGAL RESIDENT OF TEXAS for the last 5 years.

I read Birdwell's response in the GR Reporter today. He offers nothing new in his claim to residency in Texas. Having bank accounts and property in a state is not a declaration of residency as far as I know. Where is he registered to vote? His driver's license, vehicle registration? Other documents like a will in which he declared himself a resident of Texas?

It 's like this. He has to have lived in Texas for five years to run for Texas Senator. He was in Virginia for part of the last 5 years and didn't move to Granbury until 2006. He  can eaily prove whether he claimed residency in Virginia or not by showing his tax records for the time he was in Virginia. Why isn't he? I have this feeling that he and  his campaign minders would like people to focus on this double-vote thing that can't be proven and NOT on the FACT that he is not eligible to even run-unless he PROVES different.

Reminder that personal attack comments on posters on this site will not be approved. If you have a point to make, make it at a high level, with your proof and sources.

Incidentally, the military voting rules for Texas have to do with someone who is overseas or in another state and wants to vote in Texas.  Here's the URL to the Secretary of State website that covers election and voting law for the military.

Texas Residency

You must have a permanent residence address in Texas to request ballots from Texas. Residence is defined in Section 1.015 of the Texas Election Code as a voter's permanent home to which he or she intends to return after any temporary absence. This definition also implies that you lived at the location at one time and intend to return, so generally, you cannot list a location where you have never been physically present.

If you feel you do have a permanent residence address in Texas that you can claim for voting purposes, you may wish to follow the procedures outlined next to request a ballot by mail. The FPCA acts as (1) a request for ballot by mail, and (2) for FPCAs received on and after September 1, 2009, a permanent voter registration for (a) a member of the uniformed services or merchant marine on active duty or an eligible spouse or dependent, or (b) a U.S. citizen residing outside the U.S. temporarily, who is not already a registered voter in Texas.

This doesn't apply to Mr Birdwell, who wasn't trying to do an absentee ballot to vote in Texas while living in Virginia, but voted IN Virginia.   The question of whether he voted as a resident of Virginia is easily solved by his showing his tax returns.

Good for you, Salon!  Too many blogs permit that nonsense --- often under the free speech umbrella --- and it inevitably kills the credibility and participation of the blog.  I support you 100 percent on this issue!

Thanks, Peter. As you might guess, my comment was a reference to a post I deleted. With you about freedom of speech-I wrote about this a few weeks ago with regard to a different topic here. 
Sometimes there are posts that are right on the line and it's only if the post then is an otherwise cogent and sourced one that it would get approved. Sadly, that's usually not the case.