Unless Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) intervenes, Duane Edward Buck is set to be executed today, becoming the 236th person to be put to death during Perry’s tenure. On Tuesday, the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles denied Buck clemency, refusing to commute his death sentence to life without parole. That’s despite the fact that Buck’s former prosecutor and now-Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have both called for a retrial because his case was so tainted by racist testimony:

[H]is lawyers are fighting to overturn his death sentence on the grounds that a psychologist told jurors at Buck’s 1997 trial that because Buck was black, he was more likely to be violent in the future, the Dallas Morning News reports.

A defendant is likelier to receive a death sentence if a jury determines that the defendant poses a future danger. It was improper to use Buck’s race as a factor in deciding whether he posed a future danger, his lawyers contend.

In 2001, Texas passed a law explicitly prohibiting the state from introducing evidence that a defendant’s race or ethnicity makes it likelier that he will commit a future act of violence.

Former Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (now a U.S. senator) wanted Buck’s case reviewed because of the sentencing testimony at issue. [...]

Buck also has on his side one of the Harris County prosecutors who helped secure Buck’s conviction. Last week the prosecutor, Linda Geffen, wrote a letter to Perry urging him to grant a retrial. When he was Texas Attorney General, Cornyn called for Buck and five others to receive a re-trial based on the racially-charged testimony that is now illegal. Over the last 10 years, Buck is the only one who hasn’t.

Cornyn admitted that all of the cases were tainted by a constitutional error — relying on race as a consideration for the death penalty violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. But Buck’s case “has fallen through the cracks,” his lawyer says.

In a strange twist, the very same psychologist whose testimony is in question ultimately told jurors that he did not believe Buck presented a future danger to society.

One of Buck’s victims who survived, Phyllis Taylor, is also urging Texas to halt the execution. “This execution would only add to my pain, and it wouldn’t give me closure,” said Taylor. “I feel that he deserves a fair trial,” she added.

Perry has the power to grant a temporary stay of execution, which would give Buck additional time to push for a new sentencing hearing, but seems unlikely to do so.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported on Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett’s (R) plan to rig the Electoral College for the GOP by guaranteeing that as many as a dozen of his state’s electoral votes go to the Republican candidate even if the state as a whole votes for Obama. Under Corbett’s plan, each of the state’s 18 congressional districts — which are being gerrymandered to overwhelmingly favor Republicans — would choose how to allocate a single electoral vote rather than having all of the state’s votes go to the winner of the state.

Corbett’s plan may have hit a snag, however. Turns out, GOP members of Congress care more about keeping their own jobs than they do about electing a president who will eliminate Medicare:

[T]o several Republicans in marginal districts, the plan has a catch: they’re worried that Democrats will move dollars and ground troops from solid blue districts to battlegrounds in pursuit of electoral votes — and in the process, knock off the Republicans currently in the seats.

Suburban Philadelphia Reps. Jim Gerlach, Pat Meehan and Mike Fitzpatrick have the most at stake, since all represent districts Democrats won in the last two presidential elections. They and the rest of the Republicans in the delegation are joining with National Republican Congressional Committee officials to respond and mobilize against the change.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of today’s GOP that the only reason its members can find to oppose an election rigging scheme is that they are too concerned about looking out for their own hides. Yet, as Kevin Drum warns, “we live in the era of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and Tom DeLay and Fox News. There’s really no one left who might object to this merely out of a decent respect for institutional integrity and fairmindedness.”

As ThinkProgress reported in July, Tea Party freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), who relishes lecturing President Obama and Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $117,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children. Despite loaning his own campaign $35,000 — and paying himself back at least $14,200 for the loans — Walsh has claimed he failed to make the payments because he “had no money.”

But yesterday a Chicago judge issued a preliminary ruling against Walsh, ordering him to explain why he is more than $100,000 behind in child support payments. The judge also scolded Walsh for not attending the hearing personally, after his lawyer suggested he deserved special treatment because he is a congressman:

Cook County Circuit Judge Raul Vega also wanted to know why Walsh wasn’t in court Wednesday — the McHenry Republican’s ex-wife, Laura Walsh, was there — and initially said he expected him to show up for the next hearing.

In court, Walsh’s attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega “for what purpose” he wanted the congressman in court.

Vega gave her a puzzled look — to which Boyle responded: “Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.”

“Well, he’s no different than anyone else,” the judge replied.

Vega issued a “rule to show cause,” which requires Walsh to explain to the court why he shouldn’t be held in contempt for falling so far behind in child support over the past five years. The ruling means that the burden of proof is now on Walsh to prove he doesn’t owe money.

Laura Walsh has had to go back to court repeatedly since 2002 to get Walsh to honor his court-ordered child-support obligations. At the hearing, she spoke of her difficulties shouldering the financial burden for raising three children without Walsh’s support. “It’s been extremely difficult,” she said. “We get through one day at a time.”

The comments of Walsh’s lawyer are telling: Walsh, who frequently appears on television to upbraid the president for putting too much “debt upon the backs of my kids,” apparently considers himself above the law and too important to show up for child support hearings. Obviously, the court thinks otherwise.