The Texas Department of Vital Statistics tries to make it hard for Texans of Hispanic descent to vote. It also tries to make it hard for them to obtain passports and drivers’ licenses. On the flimsiest of pretexts, the Department of Vital Statistics refuses to issue them copies of their own birth certificates. Texas law protects the rights of a Texan accused of a traffic violation, but not of having been born in Mexico.
The law permits the state registrar to attach to any birth certificate “an addendum that sets out any information received by the state registrar that may contradict the information in a birth,” including, for example, an anonymous note saying that a Texan was born in Mexico. (Texas Health and Safety Code, §191.033). The registrar then cannot issue a birth certificate to the person whose record has been libeled. (Texas Administrative Code, §181.24(c)(3)).
The Texan can request a hearing (Texas Administrative Code, §181.21), but the hearing officer will deny the Texan’s request on the ground that the Department of Vital Statistics has discretion to deny the request even if it has no evidence whatsoever that the birth certificate is not accurate.
In effect, therefore, the Department of Vital Statistics routinely strips of their rights as citizens voters with Spanish surnames. They have no right to due process. Unless they can pay thousands in attorney fees, they cannot even fight back. And if they do, they will find that the Department and its hearing officer flout the rules of evidence.
The typical case involves a Texas birth certificate issued decades ago after delivery by a midwife in Texas who later was accused—not necessarily convicted—of having falsely registered other births. There is no need for evidence of any irregularity in the birth registration of victim whom the Department seeks to strip of her rights.
One such case is that of Maria C---, who was born in El Paso, Texas, who was denied a copy of her birth certificate because the Department said her sister was born in Mexico. In fact, her sister was born in Mexico, but it made no difference to the Department or its hearing examiner that all the evidence proved Maria was born in El Paso and no evidence whatsoever suggested that she was not.
Maria’s 82-year-old mother testified on oath and by affidavit that she gave birth to Maria and her twin brother in El Paso. Maria’s properly registered Texas birth certificate showed her birth in El Paso in 1968. Her certificate of baptism from an El Paso Catholic Church showed her birth in El Paso. Her sister, Martha, testified that she and all the rest of the family believed Maria had been born in El Paso, and nobody ever had said differently. Maria believed she was born in El Paso.
The Department, however, claimed it had “a Mexican birth record stating that Maria C--- was born in Mexico under the name Martha C---.” The Department did not produce such a record at the hearing. There is no such “Mexican birth record stating that Maria C---was born in Mexico…” under her own, her sister’s, or any other name.
That the “evidence” was a total fabrication of the Department prosecutor’s fantasy did not prevent the hearing examiner, herself a Department employee, from citing it in her decision to refuse the birth certificate. Even though Maria C---‘s attorney objected that no such document existed, the hearing examiner did not even ask the Department prosecutor to show it.
The Department’s claim that Maria C--- was not born in El Paso rested entirely on two real documents, besides its nonexistent “Mexican birth record.” One was the registration of Maria C---’s birth in El Paso by the midwife who had delivered her. The midwife really had been convicted of fraudulently registering 10 births, but nothing suggested that Maria C---’s birth was among them. Conveniently for the Department, the midwife was dead.
The other “evidence” was a Mexican certificate showing the birth of Maria’s sister, Martha, in 1968, although Martha was born in 1972. The hearing examiner said it proved that Maria had been born in Mexico under the name of “Martha.” The examiner had before her the sister’s Mexican passport, her green card, mother’s testimony, 1972 Mexican birth certificate, and testimony under oath, yet decreed, “Martha C---’s true identity is unknown.” Neither the Department prosecutor nor the Department hearing officer ever tried to explain how
Martha’s erroneous birth certificate proved Maria was born anywhere besides El Paso.
Perhaps the plainest proof that the Department’s purpose was to strip a Texan of her right to vote and other rights at any cost was the hearing examiner’s disdain for the well-established legal doctrines that facts and legal matters once litigated cannot be tried again. In 1989, apparently because of the midwife’s conviction, the U.S. Border Patrol attempted to prevent Maria C--- from returning to the U.S. after a visit to Mexico. After a full hearing, Immigration Judge Richard F. Brodsky ruled that Maria C--- is a citizen of the United States. The Department of Vital Statistics hearing officer was not impressed, and said Judge Brodsky’s decision was no evidence Maria C--- was born where she said she was born.
The Department hearing officer said “A certified copy of the Texas Certificate of Birth should NOT be issued to Maria C---, and the addendum attached to the record should NOT be removed.” In other words, Texans with Spanish surnames must expect the Texas Department of Vital Statistics to strip them of their rights under the Texas and United States constitutions, if it can find an opportunity.
John Wheat Gibson, Sr.
Texas Bar No. 07868500
The law permits the state registrar to attach to any birth certificate “an addendum that sets out any information received by the state registrar that may contradict the information in a birth,” including, for example, an anonymous note saying that a Texan was born in Mexico. (Texas Health and Safety Code, §191.033). The registrar then cannot issue a birth certificate to the person whose record has been libeled. (Texas Administrative Code, §181.24(c)(3)).
The Texan can request a hearing (Texas Administrative Code, §181.21), but the hearing officer will deny the Texan’s request on the ground that the Department of Vital Statistics has discretion to deny the request even if it has no evidence whatsoever that the birth certificate is not accurate.
In effect, therefore, the Department of Vital Statistics routinely strips of their rights as citizens voters with Spanish surnames. They have no right to due process. Unless they can pay thousands in attorney fees, they cannot even fight back. And if they do, they will find that the Department and its hearing officer flout the rules of evidence.
The typical case involves a Texas birth certificate issued decades ago after delivery by a midwife in Texas who later was accused—not necessarily convicted—of having falsely registered other births. There is no need for evidence of any irregularity in the birth registration of victim whom the Department seeks to strip of her rights.
One such case is that of Maria C---, who was born in El Paso, Texas, who was denied a copy of her birth certificate because the Department said her sister was born in Mexico. In fact, her sister was born in Mexico, but it made no difference to the Department or its hearing examiner that all the evidence proved Maria was born in El Paso and no evidence whatsoever suggested that she was not.
Maria’s 82-year-old mother testified on oath and by affidavit that she gave birth to Maria and her twin brother in El Paso. Maria’s properly registered Texas birth certificate showed her birth in El Paso in 1968. Her certificate of baptism from an El Paso Catholic Church showed her birth in El Paso. Her sister, Martha, testified that she and all the rest of the family believed Maria had been born in El Paso, and nobody ever had said differently. Maria believed she was born in El Paso.
The Department, however, claimed it had “a Mexican birth record stating that Maria C--- was born in Mexico under the name Martha C---.” The Department did not produce such a record at the hearing. There is no such “Mexican birth record stating that Maria C---was born in Mexico…” under her own, her sister’s, or any other name.
That the “evidence” was a total fabrication of the Department prosecutor’s fantasy did not prevent the hearing examiner, herself a Department employee, from citing it in her decision to refuse the birth certificate. Even though Maria C---‘s attorney objected that no such document existed, the hearing examiner did not even ask the Department prosecutor to show it.
The Department’s claim that Maria C--- was not born in El Paso rested entirely on two real documents, besides its nonexistent “Mexican birth record.” One was the registration of Maria C---’s birth in El Paso by the midwife who had delivered her. The midwife really had been convicted of fraudulently registering 10 births, but nothing suggested that Maria C---’s birth was among them. Conveniently for the Department, the midwife was dead.
The other “evidence” was a Mexican certificate showing the birth of Maria’s sister, Martha, in 1968, although Martha was born in 1972. The hearing examiner said it proved that Maria had been born in Mexico under the name of “Martha.” The examiner had before her the sister’s Mexican passport, her green card, mother’s testimony, 1972 Mexican birth certificate, and testimony under oath, yet decreed, “Martha C---’s true identity is unknown.” Neither the Department prosecutor nor the Department hearing officer ever tried to explain how
Martha’s erroneous birth certificate proved Maria was born anywhere besides El Paso.
Perhaps the plainest proof that the Department’s purpose was to strip a Texan of her right to vote and other rights at any cost was the hearing examiner’s disdain for the well-established legal doctrines that facts and legal matters once litigated cannot be tried again. In 1989, apparently because of the midwife’s conviction, the U.S. Border Patrol attempted to prevent Maria C--- from returning to the U.S. after a visit to Mexico. After a full hearing, Immigration Judge Richard F. Brodsky ruled that Maria C--- is a citizen of the United States. The Department of Vital Statistics hearing officer was not impressed, and said Judge Brodsky’s decision was no evidence Maria C--- was born where she said she was born.
The Department hearing officer said “A certified copy of the Texas Certificate of Birth should NOT be issued to Maria C---, and the addendum attached to the record should NOT be removed.” In other words, Texans with Spanish surnames must expect the Texas Department of Vital Statistics to strip them of their rights under the Texas and United States constitutions, if it can find an opportunity.
John Wheat Gibson, Sr.
Texas Bar No. 07868500
