Section 1983
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code is part of the Enforcement Act or Civil Rights Act of 1871. This provision was formerly enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and was originally designed to combat post-Civil War racial violence in the Southern states. Reenacted as part of the Civil Rights Act, Section 1983 is the primary means of enforcing all constitutional rights.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction therof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
Houston City Councilman Mike Knox fired Trebor Gordon after a video of Gordon speaking at the May 16, 2016 Harris County 
Executive Committee meeting went viral. During the meeting, a group of precinct chair candidates were presented for approval. Gordon raised an issue as to whether Syed Ali, a Muslim, could serve as a precinct chair. Specifically, Gordon said the following:
“Islam and Christianity do not mix. During my prayer, [Gordon is the Chaplain for the Harris County Republican Party] this man did not bow his head. During the pledge of allegiance, he did not utter a word. He didn’t even try to fake it and move his lips. If you believe that a person can practice Islam and agree to the foundational principles of the Republican Party, it’s not right. It’s not true. It can’t happen. There are things on our platform that he and his beliefs are total opposite.”
In January 2015, the Harris County Republican Party applauded Gordon for “fighting for free speech and fair elections in Houston!” The party lauded Gordon for his lawsuit against the city’s limit on fundraising. Now, when Gordon is fired for his speech, radio silence from the party.
Gordon is a conservative minister and a war veteran. He is also black. During the May meeting, Gordon decided to question Mr. Ali’s qualifications to serve as a Precinct Chair.
A Precinct Chair is the local representative of the party. With the sudden death of El Franco Lee, the Harris County Democratic Party is currently seeing how important these locals are to their party. Gordon, recognizing the importance of this local position, questioned Mr. Ali’s qualifications for the Precinct Chair position.
What if Mr. Ali flew to Syria every weekend to meet with the Islamic State and throw gay people off of buildings? Would that have changed the interpretation of Gordon’s speech? What would happen if we learned that ISIS secretly wanted to kidnap members of the Log Cabin Republicans and throw them off buildings? Would Gordon be a hero if his questioning revealed that Mr. Ali’s beliefs directly conflict with the party?
The folks against Gordon want to claim that Gordon’s query is a religious test; but, in reality, it was a simple inquiry. Do Mr. Ali’s beliefs comport with the Republican Party? Whether or not you agree with the inquiry, Gordon or anyone else has the right to vocalize the question. See the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I know a little something about free speech. Recently, Devon Anderson did her very best to suppress my speech about her ludicrous prosecution of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. At a recent Downtown Pachyderm meeting, I asked Paul Simpson to join me in supporting Daleiden and Merritt at the courthouse and he declined to do so. Is he too busy? Uninterested?
Gordon, as a government employee, held a special protection against retaliation. So, his firing is clearly wrong. And it raises the necessary question: Must an employee’s speech fit within an employer’s moral staircase?
There are many hot button issues right here in Houston, Texas. Let’s take guns, for instance. I like guns. I believe that the Second Amendment allows us to own as many various types of firearms as desired. There are others, including some Republican Precinct Chairs, who disagree. What about HERO? Gordon was a staunch anti-HERO advocate. Simpson was absent from that fight. What about the ten billion dollar unfunded pension liability? Gordon’s former employer, Mike Knox, has made no contribution to this issue.
Paul Simspon, both during and immediately following the Executive Committee Meeting, failed to recognize Gordon’s right to free speech [and free exercise of religion]. Time and time again, Simspon has proven that if you aren’t on his moral staircase, your right to speech is waived. Within the last few weeks, Simpson and Devon Anderson held a Muslim pep rally in Southwest Houston.
Gordon’s plight should raise eyebrows and will definitely suppress speech. If a public employee can lose his job for asking questions at a Harris County Republican Party Executive Committee meeting, what about you? Certainly, Gordon’s situation will make folks think about liking a post on Facebook, writing a Tweet, submitting an open records request, or participating in coffee chat at the office.
I leave you with a quote from United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis:
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Mr. Knox, you should resign. You have violated your oath of office.
“What if Mr. Ali flew to Syria every weekend to meet with the Islamic State and throw gay people off of buildings? Would that have changed the interpretation of Gordon’s speech? What would happen if we learned that ISIS secretly wanted to kidnap members of the Log Cabin Republicans and throw them off buildings? Would Gordon be a hero if his questioning revealed that Mr. Ali’s beliefs directly conflict with the party?”
What if I tried to make an argument that contained a more egregious red herring than this one?
I would fail. That’s what.
Gordon was an employee at will. He could be fired for any reason or no reason, assuming he was employed by Knox as an employee who was paid by the City of Houston.
Just because Houston City Councilman Mike Knox fired Trebor Gordon after a video of Gordon speaking at the May 16, 2016 Harris County Executive Committee meeting went viral does not mean that was the reason for the firing, does it?
Cypress, if Knox says that is why he fired him it is.
Thanks Don for keeping us informed about this issue,
Great article, Don! I was present at the last Executive Committee meeting and heard of the subsequent fallout as mentioned in Don Hooper’s article. This has inspired me to suggest changes in the way the Harris County Republican Party Executive Committee handles the approval of potential Precinct Chairs and the Credentials Committee report.
The Credentials Committee’s report should not just need a cursory stamp of approval, but should still be thoroughly discussed by the entire Executive Committee, WITHOUT the potential Precinct Chairs on stage. The current positioning of the Precinct Chairs on stage while they are being discussed is not appropriate or fair — not fair to them or Executive Committee Members who may object to a particular individual, voting record, etc.
Right now, if anyone objects to a Precinct Chair, it comes off as an attack to an individual, embarrassing to the individual/s standing on stage, and a hotbed of tempers on the floor. The body should be allowed to rise in opposition to any Credential Committee recommendation or request that more information be obtained.
Additionally, getting information about potential Precinct Chairs without sufficient time to review or submit concerns/comments is not appropriate or wise. This particular committee should present their report to the body a full two weeks before the Executive Committee convenes. The Credentials Committee is not an elite group, but fellow Precinct Chairmen who have volunteered to sort through applications and present their findings for consideration.
My suggestions are:
1) Potential Precinct Chairs NOT be put on stage until AFTER the body has voted on each individual the Credentialing Committee has recommended.
2) That the body be reminded that it is okay to object to a recommendation and it should be assumed that an objection is not a personal attack against any individual, but most likely a genuine concern. Objections should be allowed and dissenters should be free to voice their opinion – without retribution or hostility.
3) Also, a reminder should be given to the body that the Credentialing Committee’s recommendation is just that — a recommendation.
When we lose our civility, we are no better than the lowest of our society. It appears that Mr. Knox has forgotten that an individual, on their own/off time, still have their Constitutional rights, which includes freedom of speech; and freedom of speech means the freedom to offend.♥
Thank you Bonnie! Paul Simpson has taken the party in a vastly different direction fast. Who would have ever thought big government pro-choice Republicans would be running the local party, embarrassing.
Bonnie, I was at that Executive Committee Meeting, too, and I agree whole-heartedly with your observations and recommendations. I would co-sponsor, support and/or otherwise assist towards getting these recommendations enacted.
Having been a Precinct Chair for only a year now, I must tell you – and anyone else who will listen! – that I was extremely disappointed with the downright aggression that Trebor’s concern was met with by a number of the EC members.
Further, I supported Mike Knox in several different ways during his successful campaign for City Council. I could not be more disappointed in Mike Knox’s reaction to political pressure to fire Trebor Gordon. This was his opportunity to SHINE, to stand and support his employee’s 1st Amendment rights. For shame, Mike Knox!
Finally, as a Precinct Chair, Trebor Gordon was fulfilling his responsibility both towards his Precinct’s voters and as well as the Harris County Republican Party, by voicing both what he himself observed and his opposition to the known discord between an observant Muslim and a Republican Party leader. I believe the voting members, the Executive Committee Members, are expected to do more than rubber-stamp whatever is presented to us.
I agree with all of your suggestions Bonnie. I think instead of calling the recommended applicants to the stage, maybe there could be a special seating area for them so people attending the executive committee would be able to identify the applicants and have an opportunity to speak with them.
I also agree that these individuals are recommended by the vacancy committee. I would argue though that there is no cursery stamp of approval. Vacancy committee members spend many hours reviewing each application. Committee members have the opportunity to contact applicants ahead of time by phone to ask more in depth questions. Then there is the in person interview.
I, myself, have been through this process. It is a very long process and intimidating. Every applicant has to have an interview. The vacancy committee has just recently interviewed one of our members and SD 15 Chair, Rolando Garcia. Rolando had to move into another precinct after the flood and applied for the precinct chair position. He also came before the committee and was interviewed. Seems silly, but yet, was still interviewed. There is no blanket stamp of approval for anybody.
I would also like to comment about the vacancy committee report going out two weeks ahead of time. It does. The report is in the meeting call. It is the responsibility of precinct chairs to read the meeting call and any reports submitted with the call. At that time precinct chairs have the opportunity to contact HCRP with any questions. I know HCRP staff is more than happy to help answer any questions. Precinct chairs can also contact members of the vacancy committee to ask questions of specific applicants. Vacancy committee member information can be found on HCRP’s website under committee information.
The best option for precinct chairs is to serve on the vacancy committee or at least attend the committee meetings. All precinct chairs are welcome to attend the vacancy committee meetings and observe. It is not unheard of for the vacancy committee to ask observers if they have questions for the applicants.
As always with anything there is room for improvement.
As a precinct chair it is most certainly Trebor Gordon’s privilege to question any recommendation by the committee. I applaud him for standing up for his beliefs. When you work for or represent an elected official your actions are limited. Whatever you say or do is representative of that official.
I also believe that our party is big enough for different opinions and different religions.
Bonnie, your thoughts and observations is right on. Your points to be considered is well thought out, but i notice a wide difference of changes coming down the tub on voting a Republican Libertarian as the entire HGOP did. I was told Chairman Simpson was at the time by one of RHCIA board member and a follower of his. I put 2 and 2 together and got 22. I left!
I own a small business and have had opportunity to hire public employees of both the city and the county from time to time. Every once in awhile we have discussions and a popular topic is about how a city or county can limit the speech of its employees on or off the clock. I do not profess to be a lawyer, nor married to one, but to a one these people I have hired have advised me they have been informed that despite some degree of civil service, they can and will be fired if they engage in certain kinds of speech. They can cite cases left and right where the courts have upheld such terminations as their own unions advise them not to have social media accounts, recent accounts of employees fired supporting that stance.
Without splitting the hair too finely, I think there are limits to what a public employee can say and keep his job, especially what amounts to a political appointee with no coverage by a contract. In Mr. Gordon’s case, I think he could have handled it better and should not have been fired but the belief that you have a Constitutional right to a job and freedom from the consequences of your speech just goes too far for my tastes. No disrespect intended but I’d like to see one of you fight his termination using the legal reasoning above and prevail in court, it just seems very unlikely.
I was at the HCRPEC meeting, and did not vote to seat Mr. Ali. He would not even honor the TEXAS flag.
So? Many religious sects do not honor flags, it doesn’t mean they are any less patriotic than you.
Hopefully Councilman Knox gave Trebor a list of occupations he is allowed to hold so he might be able to support his family.
Obviously the councilman believes working for him is not one of them.
I’m glad Trebor was removed
As are a few HCRP precinct chairs.
With all due respect, Mr. Hooper, the 1st Amendment in the federal Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to do with this situation, as it only applies to the federal government. Mr. Gordon’s constitutional protection can be found in Article 1: Section 8 of the Texas Constitution.
US Federal Courts handle employment law cases.