A reminder: Yes Week 4's written assignment was cancelled

I had the notice up on blackboard, but just in case you didn't see it ....

Will voter suppression tactics return now that the VRA has been weakened?

Here's a concern that they will.

It comes with a complied list of 12 tactics used in the past. A nice history review for our purposes.

1. Changing polling locations. An election official can make this call just days before an election.

2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. This may be particularly problematic in urban counties where long polling lines are most likely, as Henry Grabar reported last fall.

3. Reducing the number of polling places. This raises the same problem as above, particularly when the eliminated polling places had disproportionately served minority communities.

4. At-large elections. At-large elections for school-board members or city councils often dilute the voting power of minorities who have greater influence in single-candidate district elections. In an at-large election, a cohesive voting block with 51 percent of the vote can elect 100 percent of the officials.

5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.

6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).

7. Voter ID laws: This increasingly popular tactic, sometimes likened to a modern-day poll tax, has the potential to disenfranchise voters who don't have a driver's license, or who don't have the money or ability to obtain one (a disproportionate share of these people are minorities). Such laws can also have a disproportionate impact in cities, where many people don't own cars.

8. Onerous candidate qualifications. In 2007, a Texas provision tried to limit those people eligible to become water district supervisors to landowners who were registered to vote.

9. Changing multi-lingual voter assistance. Making it harder for non-English language speakers to vote is a good way to dilute their power.

10. Changing election dates. Another trick that may not require legislative approval.

11. Creating new elections. In 2006, the DOJ objected to a plan in the Houston area that would have eliminated some joint elections and required voters to travel to multiple polling places.

12. Canceling elections. We're not even really sure how Kilmichael, Mississippi, thought they could get away with this.

From the Atlantic: The Most Famous Brand From Every State

Is the Republican Party broken?

Next week we will start discussing political parties in both 2305 and 2306. Conventional wisdom has held for a while that the Republican Party needs major adjustments in order to become competitive again. Its important to not that as recently as 2004 the same things were said about the Democratic Party, so things can change quickly.

Here's an article from March suggesting that this story may be inaccurate.

Its contains a little insight about public opinion that'll be worth talking about next week. Public opinion tends to move away from the position of the party in power:

Voters serve as “thermostats” for public policy.  They move in the opposite direction as the party controlling the White House—to the left under Republican administrations and to the right under Democratic administrations.  It is as if when the government does too much, or is “too hot,” the public says “cool it.”  And when the government does too little, or is “too cold,” the public says “turn up the heat in here.”

So after Obama was elected in 2008, thermostatic public opinion soon moved against him.   See the graph below, which uses an omnibus measure of the public’s support for government programs that was created by political scientist James Stimson from hundreds of different survey questions.  In this graph, the absolute numbers are arbitrary; by itself, “50” doesn’t mean anything.  The key is how the numbers shift over time.

Under Reagan, the public became more liberal, in contrast to the prevailing view that Reagan’s skills as a communicator made the public more conservative.  During the Obama administration, as during the Clinton administration, there has been another shift to the right.  Far from ushering in a liberal majority, the Obama administration has presided over a shift among Americans toward preferring less government, not more government.  Obama has helped to increase the overall conservatism of the American public more than Reagan ever did, ironically enough.

From Wonkblog: Obamacare starts in 100 days

A little less actually since this was posted on June 23rd, its set to start up October 1st:

There are, arguably, two big things that need to happen between now and October. The first is technical:

The federal government needs to finish building the infrastructure that allows multiple government agencies to transmit information, determining whether an individual should qualify for tax subsidies. This is a really big lift that means connecting Health and Human Services, Treasury, Homeland Security and other agencies in a way that has never really happened before.

Also in the technical arena, the federal government needs to finish building the federal exchange, an online portal that most states will have their residents use to purchase health insurance. Fifteen states are also in the midst of putting finishing touches on the insurance markets they opted to run.

“It’s a compressed time frame,” says Kevin Walsh, a top executive at Xerox, who has worked extensively on Nevada’s health insurance exchange. “We are working diligently to implement the entire scope of work for October 1. So, you back up from there. It means we have to have all our enhancements done in mid-July, so we can do the integration testing.”

A few months ago, Walsh gave me one of my favorite charts on the health insurance exchanges, which explains why this technology piece is such a big lift for state and federal governments.

From outreach to eligibility determinations to bringing health plans into the marketplace, all of that needs to be ready by Oct. 1.

There’s one other task on the Obama administration’s plate just as big as technological work, and that’s outreach. Even if the technological launch goes off without a hitch, that won’t be much good if no shoppers show up to the marketplace.

To that end, non-profit Enroll America last week launched its education and enrollment campaign. The group started shortly after health reform became law. And their goal is, come October, making it impossible for an uninsured person not to know that there are new options available.

“If I’m uninsured and it’s October, I won’t be able to go anywhere without escaping a message,” John Gilbert, who leads Enroll America’s field operations, told supporters in a Thursday night presentation. “I turn on my TV and there’s an ad. I go on the Internet and there’s another ad. Someone shows up at my door to talk about it. I go to church and my pastor is talking about it.”

From the Monkey Cage: Crowd-Filibustering in the Texas Senate

Its also being called the citizen filibuster. A handful of actors both inside and outside the Texas Senate worked together to defeat SB5 - at least temporarily.

One of the authors at The Monkey Cage walks through several aspects of the filibuster. I'd consider this essential reading for my students since it reminds us of the reality of how political power is exercised.

Did Dewhurst screw up?

Accusations are flying that the Lieutenant Governor's mismanagement of the special session set the stage for Davis' filibuster. Dewhurst's political future may have evaporated. We've been reading about Allen Shivers and how he made the Lieutenant Governor a powerful position. I wonder if history will look at Dewhurst as being responsible for undermining it. 

Great detail from Ross Ramsey:

When the special session began (and, to be fair, before abortion was on the agenda), Dewhurst took a long-planned trip to France. That had to do with the dedication of a D-Day museum, a project that involves some family history for Dewhurst, whose father was on a bomber crew. Most lawmakers gave him a pass, even if they rolled their eyes at the same time.

When it came time for Dewhurst to give someone a pass, it was the last day of the session, and he decided that the most important issue on his plate was more important than the funeral of the father of Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio. It’s true that the funeral was held on the last day of a special session with several bills still in play.

But it’s also true that the first bill in line — because Dewhurst put it there — was the abortion bill. He and everybody else knew there would be a filibuster and that it might imperil other legislation on tap.

He might have asked senators to vote out the other bills, gone to the funeral and let Davis have a short filibuster on Tuesday night. That would have completed the other business, taken some of the spotlight away from Davis and set up a story for Republicans coming back in another special session to get their work done in a way the Democrats couldn’t block.

Or he could have used the rules to cut off the filibuster, which turned out to be the strategy he pursued. He assured the governor and House leaders that the abortion legislation would pass on Tuesday. But the day slipped away from him.

Senators are allowed to talk as long as they want, and when they do that in a strategic way — to delay a vote, for instance — it’s a filibuster. Those can be stopped if the senator doing the talking breaks the rules of the filibuster, yielding the floor to another senator, sitting or leaning on furniture, or going off subject. It’s a three-strikes-you’re-out rule, and Senate Republicans decided that was the way to go.

Instead of the customary empty chamber where one senator filibusters and friendly colleagues take shifts asking questions to pass the time, senators stuck around for Davis’ debate, watching for mistakes. They eventually found three that Dewhurst would sustain, and the filibuster came to a halt. But it was late and his rulings were questionable — to some of the senators and most of the spectators — and a challenge pushed Dewhurst out of the chair.

The parliamentary wrangling and the protesters ate up the rest of the time, and when Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, finally called a vote on the abortion bill, it turned out that the midnight deadline had passed.

Republicans had the votes they needed, and the conversations about whether and when to come back and try again started right away on Wednesday morning.|

They might be able to put the bill back together, but Dewhurst’s fortunes are another issue. In his attempt at a political revival, he flopped on stage with everyone watching.

From the Texas Tribune: Rick Perry Calls Second Special Session

No big surprise after the recent successful filibuster:

Hours after Democrats won a rare victory by blocking a restrictive abortion bill, Republican Gov. Rick Perry called a second special session to take up the issue again.

Perry also put transportation funding and a juvenile justice measure on the agenda for the session, which is set to begin July 1.

“I am calling the Legislature back into session because too much important work remains undone for the people of Texas. Through their duly elected representatives, the citizens of our state have made crystal clear their priorities for our great state," Perry said. "Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn. Texans want a transportation system that keeps them moving. Texans want a court system that is fair and just. We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do."

The governor had been almost universally urged by conservative grassroots activists and Republican lawmakers to call a new session after Democrats, with the help of boisterous activists in the Senate gallery, killed abortion restrictions in the final seconds of the first special session, which ended in chaos Tuesday night.

What's not immediately clear is if Perry will make good on his vow earlier to make a decision about his own political future by July 1. Now that there's a new session about to start, he might choose to delay an announcement so that he won't be considered a lame duck while legislation is being debated.

From the Texas Tribune: DPS to Offer Free Voter ID Cards

From the story:

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday that paves the way for implementation of Texas’ voter ID law, the Texas Department of Public Safety announced it will begin processing applications for free voter ID cards this week.

On Wednesday, the department will begin issuing so-called election identification certificates for qualified voters. Offering the certificates is required by Senate Bill 14, a measure that passed in 2011 but was on hold until Tuesday's decision. 

The IDs are free and will be available to voters who do not yet have a viable form of ID, such as a driver’s license, a concealed handgun license, a passport or military ID. Applicants must go to a DPS driver’s license office to apply and show proof of citizenship. The IDs can only be used to vote, and are not acceptable forms of personal identification for other purposes.

To qualify, applicants must be U.S. citizens and Texas residents and be eligible to vote in Texas. They must prove it by showing a valid voter registration card or submitting a voter registration application when applying for the card. Most documents will be valid for six years, though they do not expire for citizens 70 or older.

An accepted list of documents that prove citizenship can be found here, and proof of identity documents can be found here.

Has Windsor established a standard of review for sexual orientation under the equal protection clause?

We discussed this in class, and couldn't find any clear language to that effect in the decision.

Nothing like "strict scrutiny" or "rational basis review" stuck out.

Here are a couple takes on that question.

Jack Balkin:

Windsor is a reminder of the fact that the scrutiny rules we teach our students as gospel are a relatively recent invention--less than fifty years old.   They were designed to make it easier to think about when laws are constitutionally unequal. But sometimes they don't really assist our understanding of the issues; they just get in the way.  In fact, you actually can explain Windsor in terms of the existing structure-- it's a "rational basis with a bite" case, and that's how the casebooks (including the one I co-author) will probably classify it. But we should be able to look behind the doctrinal superstructure, which explains little, and see the deeper principles at stake, principles that have a long history in American constitutional thought.  DOMA singled out gay people for special burdens in an important area of social life; it declared their marriages less valuable, and therefore, to that extent, it made them second-class citizens.  Even if this wasn't obvious in 1996, it is increasingly obvious today.

Ilya Solim:

As with some of Kennedy’s other important opinions, the exact meaning of this one is hard to figure out. But what he seems to be saying is that the the Congress’ pursuit of purposes beyond the normal scope of federal authority in DOMA makes the law a “discrimination... of an unusual character” and justifies imposing tougher scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment. According to longstanding precedent, the Fifth Amendment imposes on the federal government equal protection antidiscrimination principles that the Fourteenth Amendment imposed on the states. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment precedent impose different levels of scrutiny on different types of laws, depending in part on the purposes those laws pursue. Here, Kennedy suggests that the level of scrutiny is higher if discriminatory federal laws are intruding into areas generally left to the states. Later in the opinion, he notes that ““‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character” [require] especially require careful consideration” to determine whether they are based on “animus” against a particular class, and that “DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage... is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class [gays and lesbians].”

DOMA is overturned. Plaintiffs lack standing to sue against Prop 8

Coverage in the NYT.

Compilation of coverage from Andrew Sullivan.

The VRA map

The NYT explains the formula that was struck down yesterday. These are the affected states and local areas:

On the long term consequences of the VRA decision

Andrew Sullivan compiles reactions to the Voting Rights decision.

One author wonders if the decision will have short term benefits but long term harms for the Republican Party. The benefits come from Republican dominated legislatures now being free to pass whatever electoral rules they choose without having to worry about pre-clearance, but the harm being that these legislatures are primarily in the south and will further define the party as white and conservative. It may make it easier for the party to hold onto the House due to gerrymandering, but more difficult to broaden its coalition in order to win the White House.

Here's a related argument in the NYT. The decision may eventually make the party less competitive in the South as well due to the rise of the Latino population.

. . . those who have studied the region closely say that a more unstoppable force is approaching that will alter the power structure throughout the South and upend the understanding of politics there: demographic change. 

The states with the highest growth in the Latino population over the last decade are in the South, which is also absorbing an influx of people of all races moving in from other parts of the country.

While most experts expect battles over voting restrictions in the coming years, they say that ultimately those efforts cannot hold back the wave of change that will bring about a multiethnic South.

“All the voter suppression measures in the world aren’t going to be enough to eventually stem this rising tide,” said Representative David E. Price, a veteran North Carolina Democrat and a political scientist by training.

As the region continues to change, Republicans who control legislatures in the South will confront a basic question: how to retain political power when the demographics are no longer on your side.

The temptation in the short term, now that the Supreme Court has significantly relaxed federal oversight, may be to pass laws and gerrymander districts to protect Republican political power and limit the influence of the new more diverse population.

But that could be devastating to the party’s long-term prospects, especially if it is seen as discriminating against the groups that will make up an ever larger share of the future electorate.

The Davis Filibuster

The special session finished with a successful 13 hour filibuster against SB5 Fort Worth Senator Wendy Davis.

Some related items - mostly from the Texas Tribune:

- Legislative History of SB5.
- The impact of proposed abortion restrictions.
- Led by Davis, Democrats Defeat Abortion Legislation.
- Slideshow.
- Filibuster Launches Davis Onto National Stage.

Sesame Street has new character with a dad in jail

Something we focused on in 2306 today.

Those friendly, fuzzy Muppets from “Sesame Street” have helped kids open up about all sorts of serious subjects, from hunger and divorce to military deployment.
But they’re now tackling a much more unexpected issue: incarceration.
Meet Alex, the first Muppet to have a dad in jail. According to a Pew Charitable Trusts report, one in 28 children in the United States now has a parent behind bars -- more than the number of kids with a parent who is deployed -- so it’s a real issue, but it’s talked about far less because of the stigma.
That’s why the Sesame Workshop says it created the “Little Children, Big Challenges: Incarceration” initiative, an online tool kit intended to help kids with a parent in prison find support and comfort, and provide families with strategies and tips to talk to their children about incarceration.

This is what happens when incarceration is used as an option to solve non-violent crime. And its become a more recent phenomenon, as can be seen by the following graph. 

The 83rd Legislature created 33 new crimes, including 6 felonies

So says Grits for Breakfast.

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is found unconstitutional

Click here for ScotusBlog's coverage of Shelby Co. v Holder.

From what I see, The SC wants Congress to update the pre-clearance map. Discrimination is still illegal and pre-clearance is still allowable. More soon.

The Supreme Court narrows the meaning of "supervisor"

Which makes it more difficult for harrassed employees to sue for discrimination.

In two decisions issued on Monday, the Supreme Court effectively made it harder for workers to prove that they had suffered employment discrimination.

One ruling narrows the definition of what constitutes a supervisor in racial and sexual harassment cases, while the other adopts a tougher standard for workers to prove that they had faced illegal retaliation for complaining about employment discrimination.

In both cases, the rulings were decided by a 5-to-4 majority, with the dissenting justices, the court’s four most liberal members, calling on Congress to fix what they said were overly restrictive rulings.

In Vance v. Ball State University, in which an African-American worker accused her supervisor of racial harassment, the court held that the person she accused was a co-worker and not a supervisor — a distinction that requires a higher burden of proof for the plaintiff’s employer to be found liable.

The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejected the definition of “supervisor” advanced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as someone authorized to take “tangible employment actions” or direct the employee’s daily work activities.

Click here for ScotusBlog material on Vance v. Ball State University.

From the NYT: Obama to Outline Ambitious Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases

Expect backlash from Congress, and attempts to implement this agenda through executive orders:

The plan, to be announced in a policy address at Georgetown University, is the most far-reaching effort by an American president to address what many experts consider the defining environmental and economic challenge of the 21st century. But it also could provoke a backlash from some in Congress and in states dependant on coal and other industries, who will say that it imposes costly, job-killing burdens on a still-fragile economy.

In a speech in Berlin last week, Mr. Obama called climate change “the global threat of our time” and promised swift action to avert it. The plan to be announced on Tuesday represents his first serious effort to engage the problem since he threw his support behind a Democratic cap and trade proposal in the House in 2009 to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. That legislation died in the Senate in 2010.

None of what the president plans to propose will require action by Congress, which has shown no appetite for dealing with global warming and its attendant energy challenges in a comprehensive way. But some of what the president hopes to accomplish will likely face legal and political challenges, including the possible use of a rarely used law that allows Congress to overturn executive branch regulations.

Top-level White House aides and cabinet officers have been working on the climate plan for months to support the “conversation” on climate change that Mr. Obama promised shortly after he was re-elected last November.

The Supreme Court kicks the can on affirmative action

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Fisher v UT, which was to send it back down to the lower courts and ask them to review the programs more stringently, and specifically to apply strict scrutiny when making that review.

Scotusblog's review in plain english is worth a read - here's a chunk of what it says:

Today a broad majority of the Court reinforced that affirmative action must be strictly reviewed, but it did not outlaw those programs. In an opinion that required only thirteen pages, the Court explained that a university’s use of race must meet a test known as “strict scrutiny.” Under this test, a university’s use of affirmative action will be constitutional only if it is “narrowly tailored.” The Court in Fisher took pains to make clear exactly what this means: courts can no longer simply rubber-stamp a university’s determination that it needs to use affirmative action to have a diverse student body. Instead, courts themselves will need to confirm that the use of race is “necessary” – that is, that there is no other realistic alternative that does not use race that would also create a diverse student body. Because the lower court had not done so, the Court sent the case back for it to determine whether the university could make this showing.

And a bit more from the NYT:

The admissions system that Ms. Fisher challenged is idiosyncratic. Three-quarters of applicants from Texas are admitted under a program that guarantees admission to the top students in every high school in the state. (Almost everyone calls this the Top 10 program, though the percentage cutoff can vary by year. Ms. Fisher just missed the cutoff.)

The remaining Texas students and those from elsewhere are considered under standards that take account of academic achievement and other factors, including race and ethnicity. Many colleges and universities admit all of their students on such “holistic” grounds. The question in the case decided Monday was whether Texas was entitled to supplement its race-neutral Top 10 program with a race-conscious holistic one.

The Top 10 program has produced significant racial and ethnic diversity. In recent years, about 25 percent of freshmen who enrolled under the program were Hispanic, and 6 percent were black. Thirty-eight percent of Texans are Hispanic, and 12 percent are black.

Monday’s decision let stand, for now, a longstanding but fragile societal compromise, one that forbids quotas but allows using race as one factor among many in the admissions process. That was the essential message of the court’s two earlier major encounters with the issue, University of California v. Bakke, in 1978, and Grutter v. Bollinger, in 2003.

The Texas Tribune reports that the filibuster just might work

Governor Perry has a wild card though - he can call another special session.

From the story:

Using delaying tactics and parliamentary rules, the minority party argued into the wee hours in the state House on Monday morning and then stuck together to keep the GOP from jamming Senate Bill 5 through the Senate in the afternoon and evening. Republicans vowed to try to muster enough support to push the bill through Monday night, but that effort failed. And Democrats are prepared for a final talk-a-thon Tuesday that could spell death — for now — for the bill.

SB 5, by state Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, would make abortion illegal after 20 weeks and would establish stringent new requirements for facilities that perform abortions. Supporters of the bill say it would make the procedures safer for women and protect unborn babies. Abortion rights proponents say the legislation would shut down most of the abortion facilities in Texas.

With barely more than a day left in the 30-day special session called by Gov. Rick Perry at the end of May, that means Democrats have moved much closer to putting the controversial measure within the range of a filibuster.

From the Chron: Texas Senate has a history of record-breaking filibusters

Opponents of the abortion bill being debated in the Senate are planning a filibuster.

The Houston Chronicle points out that the record was set in the Texas Senate in 1977 - 43 hours. They also point out that the filibustered bill passed immediately after the filibuster was over.

From the Chron: Dewhurst: Second special session likely unless ‘certain items’ pass

The "certain items" appears to be the abortion measures introduced in Senate Bill 5:

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst strongly hinted Sunday that Gov. Rick Perry would call lawmakers back to work if certain bills failed to pass during the current special session.

Dewhurst, talking to reporters shortly after the Senate recessed for the day, declined to say specifically which proposals Perry would call a second special for if they failed. But a package of bills containing some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country has been the center of attention.

Aside from the abortion measures, a bill to boost transportation funding and a proposal dealing with sentencing guidelines for 17-year-old murderers are also currently in limbo. The Legislature must pass those measures before the special session wraps up Tuesday or face the potential for Perry to call a second special session.

“Unless I’m misreading him, we’re going to be called back in,” Dewhurst said. “There are certain items on this call that he shared with me that are a must pass.”

The most pressing of the issues still up in the air for Republicans, which control the House and Senate, is clearly the abortion proposals. Dewhurst, along with Republicans in both chambers, lobbied Perry to add the measures to the special session.

A catch-all anti-abortion proposal — Senate Bill 5 — would ban the procedure at 20 weeks, would allow abortions only in surgical facilities, require doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and place greater controls on abortion-inducing medications.

From the Hill: 10 to watch on ObamaCare rollout

The Affordable Care Act is going through the implementation phase of the public policy process.

Time to get caught up. Here's The Hill's look at the major players in the process.

Here's one:

* Andy Allison (Arkansas Medicaid Director)

Allison has been called a visionary for his role in a proposal to use funding from ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion to finance the purchase of private coverage for low-income people on the state’s insurance exchange. The plan is seen as a possible red-state alternative to the expansion and has been approved both by federal health officials and the Arkansas state legislature. It’s also expected that the plan could lower premiums on the exchange and draw in new insurance carriers.

Allison moved the Arkansas Medicaid program away from fee-for-service payments and toward a model that rewards quality and efficiency. He formerly served as head of Medicaid in Kansas, and started his work in the field as a Medicaid analyst at the Office of Management and Budget.

From the NYT: The Endless Battle Over Judicial Nominees

The author tests the idea that Obama's judicial appointees have been treated worse than W. Bush or Clinton. He finds the record mixed.

First he points out why a controversy even exists over these nominations: 

Judicial nominations tend to be drawn-out, process-heavy affairs, as do the trials and appeals over which federal judges ultimately preside. Yet in the last few years alone, federal judges have shaped policy on climate change, health care, voting rights, labor relations, contraception, gun control and campaign finance, among other issues. Congressional action may get the bigger headlines, but federal judges often have the last word.

He then points out that the picture varies depending on whether the appointment is for a district court, or a circuit court judge.

. . . Mr. Obama has been roughly as successful as his recent predecessors in getting his circuit court nominees confirmed. He has placed a handful fewer judges because he has nominated fewer. His fifth-year failure rate (14 percent of nominees not confirmed) is actually somewhat lower than Mr. Bush’s (22 percent) and Bill Clinton’s (21 percent).

. . . The district courts, where federal trials occur, are a different story. There, Democratic presidents really have had a harder time winning Senate confirmation for their nominees.

The Senate failed to confirm only 3 percent of Mr. Bush’s district court nominees through June of his fifth year in office (and 1 percent by the end of his presidency). The fifth-year failure rate for Mr. Clinton was 11 percent, and it has been 8 percent for Mr. Obama. If every recent president had a confirmation rate as high as Mr. Bush’s, Democrats might have placed 25 more trial judges on the federal bench.

The difference is especially notable, legal experts say, because Democratic presidents have generally avoided nominating passionate liberals, while Mr. Bush did not shy away from putting strong conservatives in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia on appellate courts.

Republicans, in other words, have played a tougher brand of politics with federal trial courts. Depending on one’s perspective, that strategy is more partisan or more successful — or both.

He finds that vacancies in trial courts happen mostly in states with two Republican Senators. 

The US Supreme Court nixes social media - and most of the rest of the 21st Century

And maybe this is a good thing. Even if it isn't, it fits the picture of an institution that prefers - and is designed to be - removed from the new and the novel:

In a city beset by leaks — a 30-year-old programmer recently gave a hoard of top-secret documents to newspapers — the high court’s annual rulings remain stubbornly opaque until they are handed out (on paper, first) by the court’s public relations staff. Meanwhile, the nine justices have the luxury of appearing publicly oblivious to the swirl of social media, the angst of Washington’s legal community and the voracious appetite of America’s 24-hour news cycle.

Many Washington institutions are making the high-tech transition; even the chairman of the Federal Reserve holds regular news conferences now. But like the Kremlinologists of the cold war, who deduced Communist power struggles by a leader’s presence on the Red Square reviewing stand, modern-day court watchers can do little more than speculate about when and how the court might rule.

“You never know when it’s going to come down,” said Mr. Olson, a former solicitor general who would know, if anyone would. A court observer for decades, he has shown up on each of the last three decision days at the court. “I just try to prepare for anything.”

After the decisions are released however, social media takes over:

A year ago, in the minutes before the court announced its decision on President Obama’s health care law, Twitter users posted more than 13,000 messages a minute about the court. (By comparison, there were 160,000 a minute at the height of the presidential debate in Denver last year.)

The Hastert Rule and the Bill Making Process

Here's a story that provides some detail for our discussion of the US bill making process tomorrow in 2305. It involves the Hastert Rule - or the majority of the majority principle - which is a rule House Republicans have used since the mid 1990s whenever they are in the majority (it is named for former Speaker Dennis Hastert, but is said to have been developed by Former Speaker Newt Gingrich).

The rule simply requires that the Speaker of the House will not allow a vote on a bill unless it is supported by a majority of the majority - meaning a majority of his party. This prevents the minority from brining up a bill they support that has enough support from majority party members to potentially pass the House.

The rule effectively prevents the minority party - Democrats in the House - to have the ability to pass anything. It allows the Speaker to behave less the presiding officer of the House than the leader of his party.

Here's more on the subject:

- GOP House 'Insurgents Pushing to Weaponize the Hastert Rule."
- What the "Hastert Rule" figth tells us about House Republicans.
- Hastert Rule pushed by insurgent Republicans.

Remember that the Constitution says nothing about what happens prior to the presentation of a bill to the president for a possible signature, with two exceptions. Bill for raising revenue have to be introduced in the House and the bill has to have passed both the House and Senate.

Everything else presumably falls under the ability of Congress to determine its own rules of procedure. The current bill making process has evolved over the time into the comprehensive process that exists today.

What I cannot address - and cannot readily find though I'm sure such a thing exists - is a historical description of how the bill making process has evolved over time. I'd like to locate such a study.

One thing that needs to be emphasized as well is that the comprehensive bill making process that is described in most textbooks - see this one for example - is not how many bills actually become law. The actual process varies from time to time depending on circumstance.

One of the best ways to see this is by looking at the legislative histories of actual bills that have become law - you can find these in Thomas, which is run by the Library of Congress.

Here's a list of the laws which have been enacted so far this year. We'll walk through a few to see what the actual bill making process looks like. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, for example, seems to have spent no time in committee.

From Slate: This Time, Scalia Doesn’t Want to See Your Papers

I'm linking to this because the story highlights a part of the constitution we went over in class today and how it explains Justice Scalia's decision to vote against Arizona in the case regarding whether a state can require additional requirements to register to vote beyond what is required by the national government.

Here is the constitutional text - From Article One:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators."

The author comments further:

So the states get to make the rules, and then Congress gets to remake them. Scalia says this was the framers’ way of making sure that the states wouldn’t refuse to provide for elections to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Apparently “widespread vociferous opposition to the proposed Constitution” made this a live possibility back in the day. (Now, of course, we like to elect our own representatives to the House and wish that everyone else’s would stay home.)

But the minority opinion points out that other language in the Constitution supports Arizona's argument that they have full discretion over who gets to vote in the state from another part of Article One - which we also discussed in class:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

This means that the states get to determine who gets to vote in federal elections (except for the modifications we noted in the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments). Scalia acknowledges this, and states that the states have to go through an additional process in order to place the additional requirement of submitting proof of citizenship as a precondition for being able to register to vote:

Thomas is right that the states get to decide who may vote in federal elections. This state authority lies in another part of the Constitution. (For House elections, look in Article I. For Senate elections, it’s in the 17^th Amendment.) Doesn’t that mean Arizona can in fact require aspiring voters to be citizens, as it has since becoming a state in 1912?

Here is the neat answer Scalia comes up with to that question: Yes, Arizona can require proof of citizenship to register to vote—the state just can’t do it by passing a law superseding the federal form. Instead, Arizona has to go to the federal Election Assistance Commission to ask for a change to the federal form, so that it will include all the information the state says is needed to decide voter eligibility. If the EAC turns Arizona down, the state can sue. Arizona hasn’t done this yet, but the court says the state still could. Never mind, as Alito points out, that the EAC has no actual commissioners at the moment. Arizona still has to try to compel the agency to act.

I may be looking at this the wrong way, but I'm drawn to stories that point out areas where the Constitution contradicts itself - or at least creates tensions - and this seems to be one.

From the NYT: Justices Reject Arizona Voting Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship

Click here for the story:

Arizona may not require documentary proof of citizenship from prospective voters, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-to-2 decision on Monday.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, No. 12-71, said a federal law requiring states to “accept and use” a federal form displaced an Arizona law.

The federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

The state law, by contrast, required prospective voters to prove that they were citizens by providing copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or Arizona driver’s licenses, which are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.

A divided 10-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the two sets of requirements “do not operate harmoniously” and “are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways.”

Full detail from ScotusBlog here.

Real Politik: Obama to provide limited arms to Syrian rebels.

The NYT describes the White House's decision to do so after waiting on the decision whether to intervene in the Syrian Civil War for two years. Advisers have been conflicted about going forward - and still are apparently.

. . . the Obama administration remains deeply divided about whether to take more forceful action to try to quell the fighting, which has killed more than 90,000 people over more than two years. Many in the American government believe that the military balance has tilted so far against the rebels in recent months that American shipments of arms to select groups may be too little, too late.Some senior State Department officials have been pushing for a more aggressive military response, including airstrikes to hit the primary landing strips in Syria that the Assad government uses to launch the chemical weapons attacks, ferry troops around the country and receive shipments of arms from Iran. But White House officials remain wary, and on Thursday Benjamin J. Rhodes, one of Mr. Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, all but ruled out the imposition of a no-fly zone and indicated that no decision had been made on other military actions.

The decision has angered some of Obama's supporters and pleased some critics, but I think the most interesting arguments are from those who suggest the decision is based on realpolitik, which is defined as "politics based on practical considerations: politics based on pragmatism or practicality rather than on ethical or theoretical considerations."

Here's a quote pulled fromt the wikipedia page on the subject:

"The study of the powers that shape, maintain and alter the state is the basis of all political insight and leads to the understanding that the law of power governs the world of states just as the law of gravity governs the physical world."

President Nixon was argued to base his foreign policy on the it - meaning that he was guided less by principle and theory than on the need to deal with the powers that existed in the world in a pragmatic manner. Increasingly President Obama is argued to have a similar approach in his foreign policy. Ideals - including human rights - take a backseat to whatever is necessary to check the powers of world nations.

Here's a suggestion that this is behind not only the delayed response to the civil war, but the limited support for the rebels right now. There are forces behind both the existing regime and the rebels that we do not care for, and that we consider destabilizing. Iran and Hezbollah is backing Assad, and groups affiliated with radical Islam are backing at least some of the rebels. While we are not anxious to have either side win, a long drawn out resource depleting conflict between the two could make all less capable to be disruptive in the Middle East.

A prolonged war may be in our best interest.

But there could be another reason for doing just enough to keep the two sides fighting. The Assad regime is increasingly relying on Hezbollah to fight throughout the country. The rebels for their part are relying on jihadist and al Qaeda allies to fight back. Keeping two of the United States’ most active terrorist enemies fighting each other might be seen in some circles as not such a bad thing.

This allows for human rights abuses, but realpolitik does not take that into consideration as a valid issue.

Perry uses line item veto authority to cut funding for the Texas Public Integrity Unit

The Governor has been threatening to do so unless the Travis District Attorney - who had been arrested for DWI earlier this year - resigned. She didn't, so he did. This means the unit - which is responsible for investigating fraud and corrpution in state government - will lose $7.5 million. It doesn't shut it down, but it compromises its ability to carry out its mission.


The Texas Tribune decribes the impact of the cut here.
Click here for the governor's message on all line item vetoes. This is the part that relates to the Public Integrity Unit. 

Article IV - The Judiciary

Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department
D.1.4 Strategy: PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT, $3,742,829 $3,830,597
TRAVIS CO & UB

Public Integrity Unit, 53rd Judicial District.

Despite the otherwise good work the Public Integrity Unit's employees, I cannot in good conscience support continued State funding for an office with statewide jurisdiction at a time when the person charged with ultimate responsibility of that unit has lost the public's confidence. This unit is in no other way held accountable to state taxpayers, except through the State budgetary process. I therefore object to and disapprove of this appropriation.

Click here for information about the Public Integrity Unit from the Texas Tribune.

And here for a list of stories related to the unit from the same source.
The Texas Republican Party has sought to eliminate the unit for many years. It highlights the political conflict that exists between the liberal leaning elected officials of Austin and Travis County and the more conservative officials elected state-wide. The unit had investigated Tom Delay among other prominent officials. The current DA's arrest may have simply given the governor cover for accomplishing a goal he has sought for some time. If she resigns, he gets to appoint a replacement - which woudl certainly be a Republican less anxious to investigate the governor.

Here's a story about a past attempt to get rid of the unit in 2011, and to remove the authority to investigate fraud from the Travis County DA's office to the Attorney General's office.

Texans for Public Justice have filed a complaint about the governor's veto, but the complaint was filed with the Public Integrity Unit, which creates some obvious problems. They argue that the governor's actions overstepped his authority.

Governor Perry vetoes a total of 26 pieces of legislation from the 83rd session

Here is the official statement from the governor's office about the final bunch.

And a list of all vetoes, again from the governor's office, and a similar list from the Texas Legislature Online.

I'll detail the reasoning behind each of these vetoes in separate posts.

Here's further commetary:

- The Dallas Morning News criticizes his decision to veto two ethics bils and to use line item veto authority to stop funding of the Public Integrity Unit which is investigating the cancer research center. They suggest the cut might actually be illegal.

Written Assignment #3 - GOVT 2306

I want you to apply some of the ideas and arguments presented in the assigned book on Allen Shivers and the Rise of the Republican Party in Texas to the current governing landscape in the state.

Specifically I want you to review the rsults of the recently completed regular session of the 83rd Legislature and determine whether or not its activities can be directly traced to the types of policies covered in the book.

History tends to have a linear component, what happens today is related to what happened yesterday, let's see if this is true for Texas Politics. So review the policies promoted in the legislative sessions Shivers was involved in from the 30s through the 50s and see if they set the stage for what the legislature is currently involved in.

Give at least 150 words - you may write as much as you wish - and send the result through blackboard.

Nice long thorough answers get nice high grades.

Written Assignment #3 - GOVT 2305

This week I want you to write about something other than the assigned book.

In the lecture class we have been discussing the recent revelation of a previously somewhat revealed NSA program where telephone and online search records of Americans have been collected in order to facilitate future searches of terrorist suspects. I've had posts of related stories here on the blog for online students to follow.

We have also been looking at the overall structure of the U.S. Constitution, with a special emphasis on the basic principles within it - especially the separated powers and checks and balances. Remember that powers are separated in order to prevent tyranny - the ability of one person or group to legislate, execute and adjudicate the law.

One of the concerns that has emerged is that secrecy surrounding this NSA project - and secrecy in general - might compromise the checks and balances.

In at least 150 words I want you to weigh in this issue. Do secret surveillance programs negate the checks and balances? Does this present a threat to the republic? Why or why not. Long comprehensive, well reasoned arguments get A's.

Send in through BlackBoard - make it interesting.

Rare disciplinary process to be used to investigate 5th Circuit Judge Edith Jones

Judge Jones is said to have made racist remarks at a meeting of the Federalist Society chapter at the University of Pennsylvania law school. The review stems from a complaint filed by the Texas Civil Rights Project.

The Huffington Post details the content of the complaint: 

Her comments were not recorded, but five students and one attorney who were in attendance signed affidavits swearing to what they heard.

The complaint alleges that Jones said certain "racial groups like African-Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime," and that they are "prone to commit acts of violence" and be involved in more violent and "heinous" crimes than people of other ethnicities. The judge also allegedly said Mexicans would prefer to be on death row in the U.S. than serve prison terms in their native country, and that it's an insult for the U.S. to look to the laws of other countries such as Mexico.

The allegations were laid out in a 12-page complaint backed by several Texas groups and filed Tuesday in New Orleans, where the appeals court is based. The complaint said Jones engaged in conduct that, among other things, "undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and creates a strong appearance of impropriety."

The Houston Chronicle points out that the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice to have the review of her condust conducted by the DC Circuit Court is highly unusual. From the justice's letter: 

"I have selected the Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit to accept the transfer and to exercise the powers of a judicial council with respect to the identified complaint and any pending or new complaints relating to the same subject matter," Roberts said in a letter addressed to the D.C. circuit's chief judge that was posted on the 5th Circuit's website.

It is only one of a handful of times in U.S. history that a federal circuit judge has been the subject of a public judicial misconduct complaint and a formal disciplinary review. Normally such matters are secret under federal law.

 More from the Huffington Post here. And more detail from the American Constitution Society. For background on Edith Jones and past controversies involving here, click on her Wikipedia page. This process is a new one for me. When we discuss the judiciary we will discuss its inherent weakness - in 2305 we review Hamilton's arguments to that point. For all its bluster, court decisions have proven easy for other institutions to ignore. All it has is the sense that it judges in a fair manner. This investigaton seems intended to ensure that that appearance is maintained. I have no idea what can occur as a result of the review process or how quickly a decision will be made. This is worth followign closely.

Merry Christmas Bill

Governor Perry signed HB 308, which intends to protect school districts from lawsuits related to religious expression:

Under the new law, as long as displays include more than one religious symbol — or at least one secular symbol — and don't encourage adherence to a particular religious belief, districts can put up decorations like nativity scenes, Christmas trees and menorahs on school property. Public school staff and students can also offer each other seasonal greetings like Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah.

House Bill 308 was intended to help protect school districts from lawsuits, said state Rep. Dwayne Bohac, the Spring Branch Republican who carried the legislation, adding that it would "restore some sanity" to "political correctness run amuck." He said he hoped the bill, which passed overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate, would become a model for other states.

Texas public schools have seen several high-profile lawsuits attempting to define students' rights to religious expression, including the landmark 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision Santa Fe ISD v. Doe. In that case, the court outlawed student-led prayer over the loudspeakers at football games, saying it amounted to government endorsement of religion, a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. More recently, a state district court judge ruled in favor of cheerleaders who sued their East Texas high school after they were told to stop displaying Bible verses at school events. The school district is appealing the ruling. 

Though the cheerleaders' situation remained an example of the oppression facing those who want to express their faith publicly, Perry said, the new law would not directly apply to their case.

"It's a shame that a bill like this one I'm signing today is even required. But I'm proud that we are standing up for religious freedom in the state," he said. "Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.

ion." 

Does the public want Congress to compromise?

Maybe not:

The public wants Congress to compromise. Except that they really don’t.

Here’s why.

1. Everyone likes the idea of compromise — both in politics and in life more generally. We all like to think of ourselves as reasonable people who are always looking for the common-sense middle ground on a given issue and we want our politicians to reflect that approach. But, our desire for compromise goes out the window when it’s an issue that matters to us and/or where we are convinced we are right. Same goes for politics.

2. Compromise doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.  One man’s compromise is another’s concession. Detailing what a compromise might actually look like in, say, talks about a grand bargain on debt and spending, would send many compromise-seekers running away from the negotiating table.

3. Compromise isn’t rewarded politically.  Remember that large majorities of the House — Democrats and Republicans — face only one real threat to their political careers: a challenge from their ideological left or right. Redistricting, the decennial line-drawing process in all 435 House districts, is one reason for such lopsided districts. Compromise is a dirty word in primaries where the electorate tends to be the most conservative (or most liberal) voters who prize philosophical convictions over pragmatic legislating. There is not only no incentive to compromise then but there is actually a disincentive to do so.

Perhaps Congress is dysfunctional because we like it that way.

From the Washington Post: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

Just released:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that human genes cannot be patented, a decision that could shape the future of medical and genetic research and have profound effects on pharmaceuticals and agriculture.

The ruling was a split decision for Myriad Genetics Inc., which holds patents on genes that have been linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said merely isolating those specific genes -- called BRCA1 and BRCA2 — was not worthy of a patent.

“Myriad found the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, but that discovery, by itself, does not render the BRCA genes . . . patent eligible,” Thomas wrote.

On the other hand, Thomas wrote, Myriad’s creation of a synthetic form of DNA — called cDNA -- based on its discovery does deserve patent protection.

“The lab technician creates something new when cDNA is made,” Thomas wrote.

A list of the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.

SJR 1		The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas to assist in the financing of priority projects in the state water plan to ensure the availability of adequate water resources.
SJR 18		The constitutional amendment to authorize the making of a reverse mortgage loan for the purchase of homestead property and to amend lender disclosures and other requirements in connection with a reverse mortgage loan.
HJR 24		The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization.
SJR 42		The constitutional amendment relating to expanding the types of sanctions that may be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding instituted by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
SJR 54		The constitutional amendment repealing Section 7, Article IX, Texas Constitution, which relates to the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County.
HJR 62		The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed in action.
HJR 79		The constitutional amendment eliminating an obsolete requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a tate Medical Education Fund, either of which is operational.
HJR 87		The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.
HJR 133		The constitutional amendment to authorize a political subdivision of this state to extend the number of days that aircraft parts that are exempt from ad valorem taxation due to their location in this state for a temporary period may be located in this state for purposes of qualifying for the tax exemption.
HJR 147		The constitutional amendment repealing Section 7, Article IX, Texas Constitution, which relates to the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County.

The Texas Tribune reports that the Kumbaya Session is over

Contentious issues had been kept off the table in the regular session of the legislature, but the Governor has made them central to the special session. Aside from being called in order to deal with redistricting - which always bring out partisan daggers - Perry has also added abortion and juvenile justice to to agenda.

From the Texas Tribune:

“The regular session overall was collegial and productive. We saw bipartisan work for the benefit of public education, water infrastructure and other priorities,” he said. “In contrast, the special session appears to be largely about partisanship and scoring political points. I think that’s unfortunate.”

Democrats can’t do much about it. Republicans have a 95-55 majority in the House and a 19-12 advantage in the Senate. Though Senate Democrats normally can block controversial legislation using the so-called two-thirds rule that gives the minority party real power, Dewhurst — who presides over the upper chamber — is dropping that procedure for the special session.

Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin and a Texas Tribune pollster, said Perry’s recent moves highlight a “fairly shrewd use of his position” and are likely to play well with Republican voters who have controlled the outcome of statewide races in Texas for years.

While his power is somewhat limited in regular sessions, the governor can call an unlimited number of special sessions and has the sole discretion to decide what goes on the agenda.

“He’s taking full advantage of the moment in which he has optimal leverage,” Henson said. “It burnishes his image as a leadership figure in the party.”

Its well past time to consider the governor's office to be weak. Perry has been able to determine how to expand his power and implement his agenda. Of course it helps if you have been elected to office repeatedly.

Proposed changes to Alvin's City Charter

A variety of changes to the Alvin City Charter were presented to the voters in May. Click here for the results of the election. We will consider the significance of these changes in class.

Proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution from the 83rd session

I assume this is the full list - I'll confirm soon - of proposed revisions according to the Legislative Reference Library of Texas. Notice that these are joint resolutions - as required by the Texas Constitution - and that the governor need not sign them.

These have to be ratified by the electorate in an election coming up this November in order to take effect.

Is Edward Snowden a traitor?

In 2306 we looked at the sections of the Texas Bill of Rights which define treason - which contains language very similar to what we will see in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The language is very specific and narrow, yet a variety of people are arguing that Snowden - who leaked the information about PRISM - qualifies.

The Speaker of House says he is, saying the revelation of " important national security programs to help keep Americans safe and give us tools to help fight the terrorist threat we face . . . puts Americans at risk." I'm no expert, but I'm not quite sure that the revelation of a program that has already been referred to constitutes a risk. I'd be interested in a discussion of whether this revelation jeoparizes national security.

Two U.S. Senators tweeted that he is, but without giving a reason.

A University of Chicago law professor says he is not a traitor, but is "a criminal who deserves serious punishment. . . . Snowden knowingly accepted a position of trust in his relation to the government. He did not have to accept his job, but he did. A clear condition of that job was his voluntary agreement not to disclose any classified information - that is, information the disclosure of which could reasonably endanger the security of the nation."

He argues that is Snowden had concerns about the program, there are legal processes in place that involve constitutional officers where that decision can be made.

Jeffrey Toobin agrees that Snowden is a criminal, but does not seem to comment on the question of whether he is a traitor according to the Constitution.


A writer in Bloomberg criticizes the Speaker and other for not knowing what "treason" is. It does not fit within the narrow reading of the Constitution, in fact few cases do:

Treason cases, in fact, are rare: Fewer than 30 Americans have ever been charged with the crime, and none since the aftermath of World War II.

Not even John Walker Lindh, who fought alongside the Taliban when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, was accused of treason. Lindh was originally charged with conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism, but he took a plea bargain on two yet lesser offenses.

. . . Why do U.S. prosecutors avoid treason charges? One reason is that the standards of evidence are high: The Constitution requires "two witnesses to the same overt act." Another likely explanation, however, is that treason convictions simply aren't worth the trouble. Most traitors can be put away for life on several counts of espionage and conspiracy. That's less work for the prosecution.

So the answer seems to be no.

Partisan positions on NSA tracking have shifted since 2006

This is not a surprising finding. Partisanship matters in forming opinions on certain events.

The Washington Post finds that partisan attitudes about NSA surveillance shift when there is partisan change in the White House. Party identification remains a lense through which the public determines whether it approves of disapproves of governmental activity.

Overall, 56 percent of Americans consider the NSA’s accessing of telephone call records of millions of Americans through secret court orders “acceptable,” while 41 percent call the practice “unacceptable.” In 2006, when news broke of the NSA’s monitoring of telephone and e-mail communications without court approval, there was a closer divide on the practice — 51 percent to 47 percent.

General priorities also are similar to what they were in 2006: Sixty-two percent of Americans now say it’s more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even if those investigations intrude on personal privacy, while 34 percent say privacy should be the focus, regardless of the effect on such investigations.

But with a Democratic president at the helm instead of a Republican, partisan views have turned around significantly.

Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say terrorism investigations, not privacy, should be the government’s main concern, an 18-percentage-point jump from early January 2006, when the NSA activity under the George W. Bush administration was first reported. Compared with that time, Republicans’ focus on privacy has increased 22 points.

The reversal on the NSA’s practices is even more dramatic. In early 2006, 37 percent of Democrats found the agency’s activities acceptable; now nearly twice that number — 64 percent — say the use of telephone records is okay. By contrast, Republicans slumped from 75 percent acceptable to 52 percent today.

From Wired: Big Data and Analytics

There was talk in class today - in relation to the assigned book on the 2012 election - about whether data and analytics were good for campaigns. Is the public better served when candidates have such detailed information about what makes them tick? Should candidates have to physically confront potential voters in order to determine what their preferences are? Does data and analytics make manipulation more possible?
Its a legitimate subject.

This Wired author points out that the brave new world of big data and the analytical ability to process it provides all sorts of possibilities - some good, some bad. But you can't have one without the other:

If you think about all the hype generated about consumer privacy and enterprises collating and analyzing information for a more targeted and personal experience, customer segmentation and demographics, location-based and real-time marketing what the NSA exposure has taught us is that there really is no privacy in the 21st century and we should just get used to it. Our data is anonymized unless it’s being used specifically for our purpose and benefit but the fact is we are happily generating it for them to use in any case.

But Big Data is no longer creepy. Sorry but it’s not. You must live in painful ignorance if you think that every nuance of a digital interaction hasn’t been collected by someone and analyzed. What’s clear is that analytics and big data seem to be labelled as only for marketers to hound us with or for banks to sell us more debt laden products. We forget, for example, about the medical and scientific boundaries being broken that rely on data analytics and human generated information to help it along.

At some point there will be consumer based tools affordable enough for people to make sense of the data they generate themselves, and why not, it’s all part of the equation. Personal graph analysis will become a reality as much as its parent will be wielded by enterprises.

So, you see, we have heroes and villains even in data analytics but it’s all a matter of perspective. The NSA are deemed evil for breaching our liberties and analyzing data without our consent to understand terrorist activities, and medical science is a force of good for helping us cure diseases using data sourced from all manner of places.

Is data mining helping reduce the number of murders in Chicago?

This is topical since the NSA surveillance issue is all about obtaining information to efficiently solve a problem (that puts it mildly I suppose).

From the NYT:

So far in 2013, Chicago homicides, which outnumbered slayings in the larger cities of New York and Los Angeles last year, are down 34 percent from the same period in 2012. As of Sunday night, 146 people had been killed in Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city — 76 fewer than in the same stretch in 2012 and 16 fewer than in 2011, a year that was among the lowest for homicides during the same period in 50 years.

In recent months, as many as 400 officers a day, working overtime, have been dispatched to just 20 small zones deemed the city’s most dangerous. The police say they are tamping down retaliatory shootings between gang factions by using a comprehensive analysis of the city’s tens of thousands of suspected gang members, the turf they claim and their rivalries. The police also are focusing on more than 400 people they have identified as having associations that make them the most likely to be involved in a murder, as a victim or an offender.

A couple stories regarding the equal protection of the law

1 - Stand your ground laws seem to be enforced differently for white and black defendants.

2 - Where do transgendered people use the bathroom?

How does PRISM work?

An inside look - sort of anyway - at the NSA program.

What Gallup got wrong in 2012

The Gallup Poll predicted Mitt Romney would win the 2012 presidential election and consistently overestimated his support. This can be bad for business, so they have tried to figure out why that happened:

Here is a link to their report.

The review, led by Mr. Newport and Michael Traugott of the University of Michigan, was conducted by a team of statisticians, methodologists and analysts from Gallup, assisted by outside consultants. After identifying more than 20 possible elements that could have been related to the Republican skew in Gallup’s polls, the team isolated four factors as the likely causes.


Gallup’s model for identifying those most likely to vote — a series of seven questions — seemed to have failed in 2012, and the organization is re-evaluating its formula for ranking voters who will turn out.
Just as technology has changed the way campaigns work, it has altered the way survey researchers gather data. A change in the way that Gallup called respondents on land lines may have been a contributing factor that led to its sample to be older and more Republican. Half of their respondents, however, were reached on cellphones — a proportion that is at or above industry standards.

In addition, there were too many respondents from certain time zones. In the South and the Midwest, there were more respondents from the Central Time Zone, which tends to be more Republican, than the Eastern Time Zone, which skews Democratic.

Finally, the way Gallup asked callers about their race overrepresented some groups.

From The Atlantic: Secrecy Undermines the Ability of Congress to Function as the Framers Intended

Does the surveillance state - or the "deep state" - undermine the system of checks and balances?

Congress cannot act as a check on the executive branch in the way the Framers intended when hugely consequential policies it is overseeing are treated as state secrets. The Senate, intended as a deliberative body, cannot deliberate when only the folks on the right committees are fully briefed, and the Ron Wyden types among them think what's happening is horribly wrong, but can't tell anyone why because it's illegal just to air the basic facts.

Our senators have literally been reduced to giving dark hints.

And the House of Representatives? Members are up for reelection every two years because the body is supposed to respond to the will of the people. But by some accounts, the people are only now finding out about surveillance that some House members signed off on three or four election cycles in the past.

Not that we know all the details even now.

It's one thing to keep the identities of CIA agents and the location of our nuclear arsenal classified. But this is something different. The national-security state, as currently constituted, is removing many of the most important moral and strategic policy questions we face from the realm of democratic debate and accountability. In a real sense, our current approach is preventing our system of government from functioning in very basic ways that the Framers intended.

Metadata is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Foreign Policy magazine finds this troubling.

The mere collection of data about telephone and internet usage is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. That only becomes an issue when that data is searched for patterns of usage.