From the Guardian: The Pentagon's slush fund is arming a War Zone on Main Street. Let's end the local-cop addiction to backyard battle

This picks up a bit on the previous post since it concerns police behavior.

But in this case it focuses on the increased use of military weapons by local police forces. The weaponry has been made available by the military that has lots of it to sell.

- Click here for the article.

A few years ago, the police chief in Keene, New Hampshire (population: 23,000) announced plans to patrol the hamlet's "Pumpkin Festival and other dangerous situations" with a 19,000-pound armored vehicle called the BearCat (price tag: $285,933, courtesy of a federal Homeland Security grant).

The cops in nearby Nashua had already purchased one of the so-called "rescue vehicles" – typically reserved for Swat missions and, you know, IEDs – with hundreds of thousands in drug forfeiture money, but given that the town of Keene has had just three homicides in the last 11 years, some locals thought the gun ports, rotating hatch, battering ram and tear-gas deployment nozzle all might just be a little much.

"The police are already pretty brutal," said one resident. "The last thing they need is this big piece of military equipment to make them think they're soldiers."

What many other communities across America have learned since is that we're living in what the writer Radley Balko calls the age of the "warrior cop". And when warrior cops want a straight-outta-Baghdad toy, it's increasingly and unnecessarily simple for them to use a federally enabled slush-fund to wreak havoc – particularly against minorities, and even at a pumpkin festival. It's also pretty simple to start accounting for all the high-tech violence.

"Before another small town's police force gets a $700,000 gift from the Defense Department that it can't maintain or manage," Rep Hank Johnson of Georgia told me this week, "we need to press pause and revisit the merits of a militarized America."

The Supreme Court says policy must get a warrant before searching the contents of a cell phone

This raises issues covered in 2305's section on civil liberties and and the Supreme Court.

A unanimous court ruled that police need warrants if they want to search the cell phone of a person they have arrested. Police generally do not need warrants in such cases, but cell phones are argued to be different because of the information they contain. It is the first time the court has ruled on searches on cell phones. The data on them can only be searched if a warrant is issued to authorize it.

In the material on civil liberties I try to cover the exceptions the court has allowed for many of them. This ruling narrows those exceptions.

- Click here for NYT coverage.

In a sweeping victory for privacy rights in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Wednesdayunanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest.

While the decision will offer protection to the 12 million people arrested every year, many for minor crimes, its impact will most likely be much broader. The ruling almost certainly also applies to searches of tablet and laptop computers, and its reasoning may apply to searches of homes and businesses and of information held by third parties like phone companies.

“This is a bold opinion,” said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. “It is the first computer-search case, and it says we are in a new digital age. You can’t apply the old rules anymore.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, was keenly alert to the central role that cellphones play in contemporary life. They are, he said, “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”

The case is Riley v California.

- Click here for the decision.
- Click here for ScotusBlog's background on the case.

The court argued that by being allowed to search through the cell phone without a warrant, police were able to go on "fishing expeditions" and broadly search for anything they can potentially arrest someone for. This defeats the purpose of warrants.

Here's an author that is not that satisfied by the decision:

In 1926, the court said, Judge Learned Hand “observed … that it is ‘a totally different thing to search a man’s pockets and use against him what they contain, from ransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him.’”

But “if his pockets contain a cell phone, that is no longer true.”

That’s why police need a warrant to search your phone.

And this the court did not say: Search warrants are not that hard for police to get. They go to a judge or magistrate and argue that they have probable cause to believe there may be criminal activity involving you. They don’t have to prove you’ve done anything.

You are not consulted.

Also, police need a warrant to search your phone but others — private investigators, industrial spies, identify thieves or your kid’s nosy friend (or your kid) — do not. The Constitution protects you from actions by the government, not anyone else.

And the court said police don’t always need a warrant. In “exigent” circumstances — a suspect texting an accomplice about a bomb or a child abductor who may have information about a child’s location on his phone — they need not waste time calling a judge.

The message from the court: Be careful what you put on your phone.

Weekly Written Assignment #4

This assignment serves as your personal responsibility assessment. It is the same question for 2305 and 2306. If you are taking both classes, apply one answer to the national government, the other to state and local government.

Question:

Compromise seems to have become a dirty word recently. Some candidates for public office - especially in primary elections - promise not to compromise if elected, and their supporters seem to demand that. Furthermore some officeholders are punished for reaching across the aisle and working with political opponents.

This is curious since multiple compromises were made in the constitutional convention, and a willingness to make adjustments in one's demands has historically been considered to be a virtue. But there are arguments made that compromise reflects a lack of moral principle or the existence of some fundamental value system that gives voters a sense of who a candidate is and what they stand for.

Then again, that can lead to governmental dysfunction.

So what to do about this?

I want you to consider this - as a matter of personable responsibility - and consider when compromise in political matters is and is not acceptable. What types of things should people compromise on? What types of things should they hold firm on? Why? You can use your personal points of view in this assignment.

I think this quote from 2305's slides on "Why Do I Have to Take This Class?" might be helpful:

In his essay on Representative Government, John Stuart Mill identified three fundamental conditions. . . . These are: "One, that the people should be willing to receive it [representative government]; two, that they should be willing and able to do what is necessary for its preservation; three, that they should be willing and able to fulfill the duties and discharge the functions which it imposes on them.

Fulfilling the duties and discharging the functions of representative government make heavy demands on leaders and citizens, demands for participation and restraint, for consensus and compromise. It is not necessary for all citizens to be avidly interested in politics or well-informed about public affairs–although far more widespread interest and mobilization are needed than in autocracies. What is necessary is that a substantial number of citizens think of themselves as participants in society’s decision-making and not simply as subjects bound by its laws. Moreover, leaders of all major sectors of the society must agree to pursue power only by legal means, must eschew (at least in principle) violence, theft, and fraud, and must accept defeat when necessary. They must also be skilled at finding and creating common ground among diverse points of view and interests, and correlatively willing to compromise on all but the most basic values.

Remember the kidnapped Nigerian girls?

Apparently not many people do.

The Dish publishes this chart showing declining use of #BringBackOurGirls:




It's a sad fact of public policy making that people only pay attention to problems for so long before we get distracted by other things.

In 2305 we briefly touch on the issue attention cycle. There's nothing new here really.

From the NYT: G.O.P. Senator Courts Blacks in Mississippi Primary Race

Incumbent Senator broadens coalition in order to win election.

- Click here for the article.

Inside an abandoned grocery store-turned-church here, a dozen black pastors gathered to discuss a seemingly impossible task: persuading their congregations to vote Republican next week.

“In tough times, you’ve got to do some unusual things,” said Bishop Ronnie C. Crudup Sr., a pastor of the New Horizon Church International in Jackson.

Unusual is an understatement. Mississippi, with its painful history of Jim Crow laws, may have the most racially polarized electorate in the country. Blacks make up a higher percentage of the electorate here than in any other state — 36 percent in 2012, according to exit polls. But they are so overwhelmingly Democratic that they remain nearly invisible in Republican politics, with just 2 percent participating in the Republican primary in 2012.

Now, with Thad Cochran, the state’s senior Republican senator, fighting political extinction in next Tuesday’s primary, his campaign is taking the unlikely step of trying to entice black voters to help decide the most high-profile Republican contest in the country.

And it worked.

Here's commentary:

- Thad Cochran's run-off win is a victory for pork, not a racially diverse GOP.

Cochran ran partially on the idea that Mississippi needs the federal government. Haven;t that one in a while.

Ambiguous ruling on the EPA's regulatory power

The Supreme Court issued a ruling that largely upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory powers, thought the decision was complex and has been portrayed in different ways. This applies to aspects of both 2305 and 2306. Especially the sections on federalism, the bureaucracy and the Supreme Court'

- Click here for the actual decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency.
- Click here for ScotusBlog's coverage of the case.

The case stems from a lawsuit from Texas - specifically Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate) Greg Abbott. It is the latest in a long line of such cases, given Texas being home to oil and gas and petrochemical production and manufacturing, and given the political clout these groups have in the state.

Texas' environmental agencies are considered to be largely weak - so any muscle comes from the national level. This helps explain the tension between the two levels of government. Much of this has played out in the federal courts where the Texas government - and/or interests within the state - sue the national government for overstepping its bounds and regulating matters that should be fully up to the states.

Recently the EPA has used its pre-existing authority to regulate conventional pollution to also regulate greenhouse gases. Texas has argued that since the Clean Air Act does not explicitly mention greenhouse gases - which at low levels aren't pollutants - the EPA cannot deny permits to new plants on the basis that they will produce more of them.

The court disagreed - but only partially.

Here's coverage:

- Everyone Declares Victory After Supreme Court's EPA Ruling.
- Another Loss for Texas in Its Challenge of EPA Regulations.

What is a whip?

Since we have a new one - here's a description of the office found in the U.S. Senate's glossary:

Assistants to the floor leaders who are also elected by their party conferences. The majority and minority whips (and their assistants) are responsible for mobilizing votes within their parties on major issues. In the absence of a party floor leader, the whip often serves as acting floor leader.

Wikipedia's pages on party leaders in the House and Senate has a bit more on the position in each respective chamber. And there's this from the page on Whip (politics).

A whip is an official in a political party whose primary purpose is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. Whips are a party's "enforcers," who typically offer inducements and threaten punishments for party members to ensure that they vote according to the official party policy. A whip's role is also to ensure that the elected representatives of their party are in attendance when important votes are taken. The usage comes from the hunting term "whipping in," i.e. preventing hounds from wandering away from the pack.

This academic paper contains a good description of the development of the whip system in COngress, as well as an analysis of its effectiveness.

- Party Voting and the Institutionalization of the Whip System. 

House Republican leadership team shuffled

For 2305's look at how Congress is organized.

In the wake of Eric Cantor's defeat and resignation as House majority leader, the Republican Conference meet yesterday to replace him. As expected the third in command - majority whip Kevin McCarthy - stepped up to be the new majority leader(second in commend of the party) - which created a vacancy in his old position. So there has to be a race for majority whip.

Here's a description of that process from the Washington Post.

- Click here for the article.

It's a great inside look at the process. Click here for another look at it from the National Journal.

Then came the day’s real drama, the election of majority whip. There were three candidates vying to take the spot that McCarthy was vacating and become the House GOP’s official arm-twister and vote-counter.

There was Scalise, the head of the right-wing caucus within the House GOP. Scalise, elected in 2008, sold himself as a voice of the South, and of red-state Republicans more broadly. Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio), the top Republican in the House, after all, was from a swing state, McCarthy from solid-blue California.

On Wednesday night, Scalise had hosted 40 allies at Acadiana, an upscale Louisiana Creole restaurant in the District. Even in a powerful institution like the House, the strength of a candidacy is measured by its free food. And Scalise’s food was solid.

At that gathering, Scalise also handed out red baseball bats. It was meant to be a message of toughness, that Scalise would be harder to say “no” to than the genial McCarthy. This, apparently, would be a whip for whom actual whips were not a strong enough metaphor.

The other major candidate was Rep. Peter Roskam (Ill.), who has been in Congress since 2007 and served as McCarthy’s deputy whip. Roskam’s pitch was that he had already worked closely with the GOP leadership and would be a candidate of stability.

He spent Wednesday afternoon telling that to the House’s older members, who have been there long enough to remember when therewas stability. Roskam knows “how to run the trains on time,” as Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), Roskam’s main campaign strategist, put it to reporters. He offered free food, too: burgers from Good Stuff Eatery, served to supporters in his office.

Scalise won a majority on the first ballot. The story ends up with this ominous note:

But, before Thursday was even over, the House’s two new GOP leaders got a hint of how many other people — outside conservative groups, even other Republicans in Congress — want to lead their troops instead.

At 4 p.m., immediately following the leadership elections, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — who has repeatedly encouraged House conservatives to defy their leaders — sent an e-mail to a large group of conservative House Republicans.

Cruz invited them to meet with him June 24 for an “off-the-record gathering” and “an evening of discussion and fellowship.”
Pizza, Cruz told them, will be served.

City of Houston passes $5.2 Billion Budget

For 2306's look at local government:

The budget is for the fiscal years starting July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016.

- Here's the document itself: City of Houston: Fiscal Year 2015 Proposed Budget.

Here are a series of links related to the process and the result:

- A time to make tough decisions.

One of the city's city council members (who represents a single member district - G and plans on running for mayor in 2015) outlines the challenges presented by the budget, namely the fact that deficits are projected for next year's budget.

- City of Houston 2015 Budget Amendments.

This lists both the proposed amendments and the response to them by the mayor's office. 63 amendments were offered. 

- Live Coverage: Houston City Council budget decision.

A Chronicle reporter tweets as the process goes forward. 

- Houston Matters: City Council Passes 2015 Budget.

A radio conversation. 

- City of Houston: Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Operating Budget Bootcamp.

This is kinda cool. It stems from a project proposed in a city sponsored hackathon. It walks you through the budget, the process, the lingo - everything.  

And here's a link to the platform of the Republican Party of Texas

- Click here for it.

When Democrats produce theirs, I'll have an assignment where students can compare the two.

From the Texas Tribune: GOP Platform Complicates Hispanic Outreach for Abbott

This story compliments the previous post.

While the Democratic Party has - and continues to try to expand - its coalition, forces within the Republican Party resist similar efforts for that party. The greater effort is to purify the party and expel people that do not conform to the party line.

At least that what some of the activists within the party attempt to do, to the chagrin of party leaders that see this as self defeating - if not in the near future - sometime ahead when the Latino population gets to the point where due to size they become a legitimate political force.

This author points out the difficulty the party's recent platform make it to make the party appealing to Latino voters. While activists approved language that might drive Latino voters away, the party's candidate for governor is trying reach out.

- Click here for the post.

In the wake of the GOP's approval of a platform that includes a hardline stance on immigration, Attorney General Greg Abbott finds himself at the top of the ticket for a party whose members are deeply divided over the subject and under fire from opponents who say the Republicans' position is offensive to Hispanic Texans.

And it all comes during an election cycle in which Hispanic Texans are seen as an especially critical voting bloc that Abbott has worked to woo.

"It effectively puts him in an awkward position," said Mark P. Jones, a political scientist at Rice University, because the attorney general does not want to risk alienating Hispanic voters or contradicting the official party stance.

Last week, the Republican party adopted a political platform that no longer endorses a provisional visa program for immigrants and calls for ending in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants and for prohibiting “sanctuary cities” that do not enforce immigration laws.

Abbott has largely been silent on the issue. Representatives for the Abbott campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this story, and they have not responded to previous inquiries about his position on the immigration plank of the platform.

What Keeps the Democratic Party Together?

Both 2305 and 2306 students should be working through the material on political parties.

The material in 2305 covers abstract issues about parties while more specifics are offered in 2306 - since states have the power to pass laws related to parties, that seems to me to be the best way to divide up the subject.

A major point made in 2305 about parties is that certain electoral rules - winner take all elections and single member districts chief among them - lead to the creation of two large political parties that are each composed of a variety of factions. Each faction has its own set of issues it prioritizes and chooses to ally with other factions they are ore or less in agreement with. So our major parties are best understood as being coalitions - you'll note that I make that point repeatedly in the class notes.

A party is only strong if it contains within it more factions than the other one, and if those factions are in fact cohesive - they are willing to work together to achieve party goals, the primary goal being winning elections.

Prior to each election, commentators tend to speculate about whether the factions that identify with either party are cohesive enough to win.

A brief flurry of opinions were offered about whether Democrats might be able to pull it off (I'll have a few stories about Republicans soon enough). I should note that these stories are about each parties performance nationally. In Texas its a different story.

Here are a few items you might wan to run through:

- There Is No Alternative.

This author is doubtful that the coalition that elected President Obama has enough to keep itself together - apart from the personality of Hillary Clinton. But if she does not run, the coalition will fragment. No single issue binds the party together, so without the force of Hillary's personality matters for the party's electoral success.

- Clinton and the Ramshackle Democrats.

This author offers a counterpoint. The lack of a single issue that binds all factions within the Democratic Party together is a strength, not a weakness. Democrats have outperformed Republicans in most recent elections (in number of votes cast anyway): by being “sprawling” and “heterogeneous,” and doesn't depend on a particular nominee to do this.

- 7 reasons the Democratic coalition is more united than ever.

The author argues that key issues - banking reform and inequality - unify the party and that those that divide it - K-12 education - aren't topical national issues. They resonate more at the state and local level. The major divisive issue in 2008 was the Iraq War, and that has faded into the distance. The fact that each party dislikes the other so much is bad for the nation but good for party cohesion. The author states that Clinton leads the pack because of Democratic unity, not the other way around. 

Intra-party divisions are important to comprehend if one is to come to grips with the nature of American politics. And these occur because of the coalition nature of American parties, which are the result of our unique way of electing people to office.

Weekly Written Assignment #3

This assignment also serves as your critical thinking assessment.

So be sure to think critically on this one.

Note that the assignment is different for 2305 and 2306.

For GOVT 2305:

The U.S. Patent Office did something interesting yesterday. They cancelled the trademark for the Washington Redskins' name (though not its symbol). They argued that the name is disparaging and granting it protection makes the U.S. Government complicit in their using it. The move does not ban the use of the name, but it makes it possible for other to use it for their own purposes.

- Click here for some background.
- Click here for the ruling.
- Click here for team's legal response.

I want you to apply your critical reasoning skills - not your opinion making skills - to unpack the logic underlying the decision, as well as the argument against it. Speculate on what this precedence might mean for other teams with similar names.

For GOVT 2306:

Recently President Obama announced that he would use executive authority already granted to the Environmental Protection Agency to order cuts to carbon emissions from coal plants. States where these coal plants are located have cried foul and argued that these regulations go beyond the constitutional authority of the national government (some also argued that Obama overreached by using executive authority to implement the policy instead of Congress - but let's not worry about that aspect of it here.)

Since this story raises issues associated federalism - the ongoing conflict between state and national authority which we covered early in the class - this event gives us an opportunity to apply our critical thinking skills to it.

- Click here for come background on the regulations.
- Click here for political issues associated with the decision.
- Click here for a story on "climate federalism."
- Click here for "keeping the cooperative in cooperative federalism."

Pollution is one of those nasty things that just don't seen to respect state borders. it tends to drift from place to place depending on wind patterns and topography. One state's environmental policies impact those of its neighbors. So how do we reconcile this reality with the desire of states to create their own environmental regulations? How do we determine where the line is drawn between national and state authority on environmental issues?

-----

Remember that I want answers of at least 150 words - and you may go over.

I'll have the links on blackboard open by the end of the day.

 

From The Dish: America’s Trust Deficit

The Dish points to a story in 538 that argues that opinions about Obamacare are low due to the decreasing level of trust American hove to government - which almost always means the national government.

- Click here for the post.

Both links are worth reading, but I like it because it contains this great graph based on poll results from the American National Election Studies:



The graph should be self explanatory. I posted it because it helps support one of my working theories about why the world works the way it does.

Everything changed in 1964.
Why? That was the year the Civil Rights Act was passed, and the next year the Voting Rights Act was passed. Suddenly the national government - and the state and local governments as well - had to respond to the needs of populations that had been previously excluded.

I have no proof - but I'll work on it one day.

The True Threat Doctrine

The Dish flags a few stories related to the true threat doctrine and how it plays out online.

This applies to 2305's look at the limits of free speech - true threats are not protected by the First Amendment - and the overall concept of civil liberties. It also provides an example about how the courts determine the limits of free speech. The case - Elonis v. United States - will allow the Supreme Court for the first time to apply the true threat doctrine to online communications and social media. 

- Click here for the post.

Here's a description of the true threat doctrine and the problem posed by it:

A true threat is a threatening communication that can be prosecuted under the law. It is distinct from a threat that is made in jest. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that true threats are not protected under the U.S. Constitution based on three justifications: preventing fear, preventing the disruption that follows from that fear, and diminishing the likelihood that the threatened violence will occur. There is some concern that even satirical speech could be regarded as a "true threat" due to concern over terrorism

- Click here for the First Amendment Center's discussion of the doctrine.

Here's detail about the specific case that the court will consider:

. . . the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that defendant Anthony Elonis’ 2010 Facebook rants mentioning attacks on an elementary school, his estranged wife, and even law enforcement, constituted a “true threat” under First Amendment precedent. As such, the court upheld Elonis’ sentence and conviction. In his petition to the Supreme Court, Elonis’ counsel said the issue boils down to “whether a person can be convicted of the felony ‘speech crime’ of making a threat only if he subjectively intended to threaten another person or whether instead he can be convicted if he negligently misjudges how his words will be construed and a ‘reasonable person’ would deem them a threat.”

For example, in one such Facebook posting, about which Elonis has since argued that he lacked criminal intent, he wrote: “Do you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife? It’s illegal. It’s indirect criminal contempt. It’s one of the only sentences that I’m not allowed to say.”

Some advise on the second writing assignment

Keep in mind that the subject of this assignment is not the person who represents the district, but the nature of the district itself. I don't need any more information - at this time - about Pete Olson, or Ed Thompson, or whoever else holds the position.

Instead I want you to figure out what issues and interests are likely to be dominant among the people who live in the 14th Congressional district or the 29th State House district. If you go to the websites of the incumbents you'll find demographic information about the districts - which is a good way to start - but by analyzing the maps you should be able to do searches that give you an idea of what types of things people are most concerned about - or not - in the local area.

To give you an obvious hint - there's lot's of oil drilling in the local area. A a result, fracking is a big deal, as is the Johnson Space Center. There's also the fact that we live near the Gulf Coast and we know what types of storms we get from time to time. Think broadly about the concerns that dominate people around here - and what the national or state government can and cannot do about it. Think about how this influences what areas representatives and state senators do in office.

The purpose of this assignment is to get you further prepared to do s good job on the 1000 word essay.

Let me know if you have further questions.

From the Dallas Morning News: Political consultants battling it out behind the scenes

I have very little material on political consultants - which is a major deficiency.

These are individuals who have expertise in campaigning - and other related political matter like lobbying - and offer their services to candidates.

Occasionally we will have candidates speak to a class - especially when they see it in their interests to do so. The good ones have a consultant along with them, and they're the ones I'm especially interested in. Sometimes I can talk them into coming back by themselves to talk to the class since they can provide a much clearer inside look at the political / electoral process.

Here's a look at some state races in Dallas that feature the political consultants going at each other.

- Click here for the article.

The bitter, all-Republican fight for the Park Cities-based legislative seats did more than rattle the usually staid politics in that wealthy enclave.

It also provided an up-close look at two opposing political teams and their strategies, driven by attack ads that drew statewide attention — and even a misdemeanor charge against one of the candidates.

Some of the hard-edge tactics worked; some backfired. And, as in many campaigns, the final outcome has prompted a vigorous bout of second-guessing.

The GOP match-ups pitted North Texas newcomer Matt Langston and national political operative Jeff Roe against Mari Woodlief, president and chief executive of Allyn Media, a local advertising and public relations agency.

Here's a 2004 list of the powerful political consultants in Texas.

Click here for Blakemore and Associates - one of the more influential area consultants.

It's tough to make sense of the political landscape - on all three level of government - without appreciating the influence of these individuals.

Elections are sometimes won or lost based on who someone was able to hire as a consultant.

From PolicyMic: In 33 U.S. Cities, It’s Illegal to Do the One Thing That Helps the Homeless Most

For 2306's look at the role local government - as well as 2305's look at federalism - some analysis of the consequences of local policies related to homelessness.

- Click here for the article.

This is also an example of both agenda setting and interest groups - since it is based on a report by an advocacy group which is attempting to highlight the problems caused by cities banning food-sharing by private organizations for the homeless.

The report argues that such laws - as well as others - "criminalize" homelessness.

That said, this also illustrates the concept of an unintended consequence, as well as criminal justice policy. An increasing number of people are concerned about the tendency of government to deal with social problems by criminalizing them, making them a felony.

Are there more effective - and cheaper ways to deal; with these problems?

Here's a bit from the story:  

The news: In case the United States' problem with homelessness wasn't bad enough, a forthcoming National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) report says that 33 U.S. cities now ban or are considering banning the practice of sharing food with homeless people. Four municipalities (Raleigh, N.C.; Myrtle Beach, S.C.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Daytona Beach, Fla.) have recently gone as far as to fine, remove or threaten to throw in jail private groups that work to serve food to the needy instead of letting government-run services do the job.

Why it's happening: The bans are officially instituted to prevent government-run anti-homelessness programs from being diluted. But in practice, many of the same places that are banning food-sharing are the same ones that have criminalized homelessness with harsh and punitive measures. Essentially, they're designed to make being homeless within city limits so unpleasant that the downtrodden have no choice but to leave. Tampa, for example,criminalizes sleeping or storing property in public. Columbia, South Carolina, passed a measure that essentially would have empowered police to ship all homeless people out of town. Detroit PD officers have been accused of illegally taking the homeless and driving them out of the city.

Houston's mayor is featured:

Some city officials, like Houston's Mayor Annise Parker, claim that "making it easier for someone to stay on the streets is not humane" and say that uncoordinated charity efforts "keep them on the street longer, which is what happens when you feed them."

Washington's thoughts on political parties

This provides a good counterpoint to the previous posts. It's material 2305 students will run across in the section on political parties. The founders were concerned about the emergence of factors that might undermine the stability of the republic.

Washington thought the newly formed political parties were one of these factors. This concerns was a key part of his farewell address in 1796. It might be worth considering whether the results of the Pew survey make his point.

- Click here for the entire address.

Here are some outtakes:

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. . . .

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Republicans and Democrats hate and fear each other

These might be the most problematic findings in the Pew study. It helps explain the inability of Congress to work together. Tough to do so if you think the opposition is a threat to the nation.





Why the increase since 1994?

Why the - slightly - greater animosity of Republicans towards Democrats?

There is a tactical advantage for political parties to foster antipathy however. It helps get the vote out, and it helps persuade people to donate money.


So while we might conclude that these attitudes are problematic for the long term health of the republic, they can benefit parties in the short term. So this is not completely irrational.

The politically engaged are more polarized than the detached

This seems to cut against the idea that the key to a stable and rational governing system is to get people involved in the political process. The more engaged, the more polarized. The degree of polarization has increased far more among the engaged than the less engaged.

- Click here for the source.



I don't really know what to make of this.

Increased participation - according to these data - may make things worse.

This might explain party polarization more than anything else

Chew on this graph for a moment:



When we discuss voter turnout - mostly in 2305, though it certainly applies to 2306 - we point out that turnout varies depending on the types of election. We also point out that the composition of the electorate varies depending on the election.

This is especially true for primary as opposed to general elections.

Primary elections - as you have hopefully already seen - are party elections. It's how party identifiers determine who their party's candidates for the general election are. Notice what the graph is telling us.

The more ideologically consistent the voter - the more likely he or she will vote in a political primary. The more mixed - meaning the more moderate the voter - the less likely this is the case. This tells us that candidates for general elections are selected by ideologues. This guarantees that those candidates will be ideologues also - since that's what it takes to win primary elections.

What's more, moderates have little ability to determine what candidates will be on the ballot on the general elections because they opt not to vote in primary elections.

There's a school of thought - that I tend to agree with - that looks at primary elections as the driving factors behind ideological and party polarization.

This graph provide evidence why that's the case.

This is what party/ideological polarization in Congress looks like

This is mostly for 2305 - but it helps describe the shift in party dominance in Texas, which we touch on in 2306. The chart applies to the United States Congress - not the Texas Legislature.

Click here for the chart's source.



Notice that Republicans become increasingly conservative in the 95th Congress which was elected in 1976 - the first election following the Watergate scandal, and the election that brought Jimmy Carter to the White House. And also that the ideological drift is more pronounced among Republicans than Democrats.

The story that is commonly told about about the roots of ideological polarization is that it begins with (Texas Democrat) Lyndon Johnson's signature of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Doing so re-positioned the Democratic party - which had historically supported slavery and racial segregation - to being the party of desegregation and civil rights.

Republicans - notable Richard Nixon in 1968 - saw an opportunity to flip the south from being a Democratic stronghold - to a Republican one. The process for doing so was called the Southern Strategy and it involved a series of positions that indirectly touched on race, but mostly focused on the animosity southerners had towards a national government that was forcing them to change laws related to racial segregation.

The above graph reflects the gradual shift of the South - a conservative area of the country - from the Democratic to Republican party.

Note that these efforts - begin in the 1960s - have a delayed effect in Congress. There are many reasons for this, most having to do with the fact that Democrats dominated Congress until the election of 1994. They were the majority party for 40 uninterrupted years. Being a member of the majority party allows access to goodies that are then beneficial to the local constituencies.

But this would not happen for some time - so why do we see the shift occur when it does?

From the Pew Research Center: Political Polarization in the American Public

An emerging concern about American politics is that it has become increasingly polarized over the past two or three decades - meaning that an increasing number of people have clustered around either end of the ideological spectrum. There are more self identified "extreme" liberals and conservatives and fewer moderates.

Since ideologues vote at higher rates than moderates, this polarization in the electorate has infected electoral institutions - notably the United States Congress. The recent story about Eric Cantor's defeat in the Virginia Republican Party Primary could be an example of how this works - energized conservative ideologues kick out a Republican office holder they deem too moderate, replacing him with someone more to their liking. Moderates - voting in the general election - may be able to stop this from happening, but they have to show up at the polls.

It's a dynamic I want to dig into more this summer.

Click on these for a collection of related blog posts:

- ideological polarization.
- party polarization.

Polarization continues to be popular research topics. Inquiries range from isolating its sources, figuring out what its consequences are, and speculating on what can be done about it.

The Pew Research Center released its most recent study on the topic - which promises to be the first of a series. I'll throw a few posts out that touch on the studies findings. You should consider these things in light of the question posed in this class' opening slides - for both 2305 and 2306 - is representative government sustainable? Can the republic be maintained?

- Click here for the actual study.

And some commentary on the findings:

- The single most important fact about American politics.
- Polarization Is Dividing American Society, Not Just Politics.
- Five charts that show how conservatives are driving partisan rancor in DC.
- Wonkbook: The American center is shrinking.
- America's Fracturing Electorate.
- Energized partisans are driving polarization – but so are apathetic centrists.

From The Dish:What Really Doomed Cantor? Ctd

This post should help shine light on what I want you to do with your essay.

- Click here for it.

It's yet another look at why Eric Cantor lost the primary this week, but this time it looks at what issues were more important to the voters in his district as opposed to voters across the nation.

Notice what this graph is telling us:



Nationally, the dominant issue is jobs and the economy, and it has been that way for the past two electoral cycles. As majority leader, Cantor focused on these issues - as he should have - since they were what his party overall had to concentrate on.

But the voter sin his district were focused on spending/debt and Obamacare (but not so much on immigration). Cantor obviously did not see that while his opponent did. That's why Cantor lost - if true. He lost touch with what was important to voters - or more specifically Republican primary voters - his district.

Think about this as you develop your paper topic. Are the elected officials on the same page as their constituents?

What is a majority leader anyway?

This primarily for 2305 - there is no similar position in the Texas Legislature (House or Senate) because the Speaker and Lieutenant Governor are far more powerful in each chamber, which means there is less need for a majority leaders. Parties matter less in the Texas Legislature also.

But in the 2305's section on Parties and Committees in Congress, mention is made of the party leadership structure so this illustrates that point. For now, its best to understand this - the House Majority leader is the second highest position in the majority party in the House of Representatives. It's #2 because the leader of the party is nominated by the party to be Speaker of the House when it convenes after each election. Since the majority party is the majority, they get to select the Speaker.

So what happened earlier this week was that the primary voters in Virginia's 7th District defeated the second most power Republican in the House by not renominating him for the general election. That has never happened before in American history.

Here are a few links for further info about the position of House majority leader, and of leadership in the House in general.

- Wikipedia: Majority Leader.
- Wikipedia: Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives.
- NCSL: Roles and Responsibilities of Selected Leadership Positions.
- US House: majorityleader.gov.
- US House: Majority Leaders of the House (1899 to present).

I want to call special attention to this report from the Congressional Research Service:

- The Role of the House Majority Leader: An Overview.

Here are the opening two paragraphs from the report:

The majority leader in the contemporary House is second-in-command behind
the Speaker of the majority party. Typically, the majority leader functions as the
Speaker’s chief lieutenant or “field commander” for day-to-day management of the
floor. Although the majority leader’s duties are not especially well-defined, they
have evolved to the point where it is possible to spotlight two fundamental and often
interlocking responsibilities that orient the majority leader’s work: institutional and
party.

From an institutional perspective, the majority leader has a number of duties.
Scheduling floor business is a prime responsibility of the majority leader. Although
scheduling the House’s business is a collective activity of the majority party, the
majority leader has a large say in shaping the chamber’s overall agenda and in
determining when, whether, how, or in what order legislation is taken up. In
addition, the majority leader is active in constructing winning coalitions for the
party’s legislative priorities; acting as a public spokesman — defending and
explaining the party’s program and agenda; serving as an emissary to the White
House, especially when the President is of the same party; and facilitating the orderly
conduct of the House’s business.

Randon items About Eric Cantor's loss

Eric Cantor - the U.S. House majority leader - was defeated in a primary election in Virginia Tuesday. The story caused quite a stir, not only because he was the first House majority leader to not be renominated by his party, but it was not expected. It also suggests the Tea Party - at least on states like Virginia - still has legs.

Here are a few items related to this event and how they illustrate class material:

- Eric Cantor Defeated by David Brat, Tea Party Challenger, in G.O.P. Primary Upset.

Read this for basic background about what happened.

- Cantor internal poll claims 34-point lead over primary opponent Brat.

All campaigns run their own polls in order to figure out how well they are doing, but not all polls are conducted well. The poll was taken in late May, so perhaps it did not take into consideration last minute shifts in Brat's direction - or perhaps it was just wrong.

- Tea Party Cannibalizes Cantor.

The author here argues that the major factor in Cantor's defeat was low voter turnout. We will discuss the importance of turnout - as well as the decision to not vote - at different times in this class. Low voter turnout cuts against the idea that democracies reflect the will of the majority of the people. They reflect the will of the majority of those who show up. In primary elections this number can be especially low. 

The key factor in this upset is a 12% voter turnout—meaning that 6.1% of the local electorate could make a majority. This is a paradise for activists and ideologues—Main Street voters, not so much. No one seriously doubts whether Cantor could have won a general election in his Virginia district. This is purely a numbers game. An unrepresentative turnout makes for an unrepresentative result. And for Republicans, it is perhaps the most pointed reminder of the dangerous game they’ve been playing by stoking the fires of furious conservative populism.

The Tea Party's strength has been due to their members' decision collectively to actually show up and vote.

- Cantor’s Loss a Bad Omen for Moderates.

Cantor was the last Jewish Republican. He may have been inadvertently gerrymandered out of his own district.

- Total Raised and Spent.

Cantor raised $5.4 million to his opponents $206,663. So despite what we say elsewhere about the influence of money in politics - and it remains important - it ain't everything.

Weekly Written Assignment #2

By now you should have selected which district and which member of the U.S. House or Texas Legislature (House or Senate) to analyze for your 1000 word paper.

In the previous assignment I asked you to figure out who represented you in these positions and to get some basic information about them. For 2305 classes, this was almost always either Pete Olson or Randy Weber. For 2306 this was either Ed Thompson or Greg Bonnen in the Texas House or Larry Taylor in the Texas Senate (I asked you to select one of these).

In my responses to most of you I asked that you continue to research what they do - what committees they serve on, what legislation they have introduce they have introduced and whatever else comes up. I need specific information about this. Not just "he wants to make jobs for the area," but what specific kinds of jobs, and how is this being done?

For this assignment I want you to look at the district itself. Try to find out what you can about the nature of the districts these people represent - their constituents. Ideally this will give you an idea about what the needs of the district are, and what types of things these office holders ought to have on their agendas. You might want to start considering whether the things the office holders do match up with the needs of their constituents.

- Click here to access maps.

This will allow you to make a reasonable judgement about the nature of representation in the local area. How democratic is it? What interests do the area representatives in fact serve?

This assignment is to be at least 150 words long. It will be due on July 19th at noon.

How incumbent Senators hold off Tea Party challengers

The Atlantic has two stories featuring how two southern senators - Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Thad Cochran of Mississippi - have attempted to fight of challenges from Tea Party Republicans who see both as too committed to Washington, too willing to compromise and not conservative enough.

These are among a series of stories I'll highlight which point out the internal conflict within each major political party, both the Democrats and Republicans. A quick read through these stories points out how these internal conflicts play themselves out.

- Click here for How Lindsey Graham Stomped the Tea Party.
- Click here for Thad Cochran, the Last of the Naive Republicans.

Tonight Senator Graham defeated six opponents in the Republican Primary. He won a majority of the vote (56%), which means that there is no need for a run-off. Neither Cochran nor his Tea Party opponent won a majority of the vote in June 4th's primary, so they are preparing for a run-off on June 24th.  

Since its development in 2009, the Tea Party has attempted to pull the Republican Party further right by funding challengers to Republican incumbents they deem too moderate. In some places this has been successful - like here in Texas - but in other's it has pulled the Republican Party far enough to the right to lose the support of moderate voters.

Democrats are hoping that continues to be the case.

2305 students should think about this in terms of party factions. You'll note in the section on parties that the Tea Party, is not a party - it is a faction within the Republican Party. There is a good reason for this, As an independent party they would have no chance to win elections, but if they are able to control the Republican Party - they are more likely to do so. This assumes that they do not nominate candidates judged too extreme, or just plain weird, for moderates.

2306 students should think about this as an example of the fact that the major parties are primarily state organizations. They are each reflective of the internal politics in each of the states. This explains why the Tea Party has enjoy more success in certain places than others.

Introducing Alexander Fraser Tytler

I stumbled across this skeptic of democracy a few moment ago. He was a Scottish judge (among other things) and lived from 1747 - 1813, which made his a contemporary of the people who wrote our Constitution.

His thoughts mirror those 2305 students will come across in different sections in class, including the introductory slides and those on the Federalist 10.

It's not that he does not like democracy, he just seems to not believe that democracies are really democracies.

Here's a bit from the wikipedia entry on him:

In his Lectures, Tytler displayed a cynical view of democracy in general and representative democracies such as republics in particular. He believed that "a pure democracy is a chimera," and that "All government is essentially of the nature of a monarchy."

In discussing the Athenian democracy, after noting that a great number of the population were actually enslaved, he went on to say, "Nor were the superior classes in the actual enjoyment of a rational liberty and independence. They were perpetually divided into factions, which servilely ranked themselves under the banners of the contending demagogues; and these maintained their influence over their partisans by the most shameful corruption and bribery, of which the means were supplied alone by the plunder of the public money."

Speaking about the measure of freedom enjoyed by the people in a republic or democracy, Tytler wrote, "The people flatter themselves that they have the sovereign power. These are, in fact, words without meaning. It is true they elected governors; but how are these elections brought about? In every instance of election by the mass of a people—through the influence of those governors themselves, and by means the most opposite to a free and disinterested choice, by the basest corruption and bribery. But those governors once selected, where is the boasted freedom of the people? They must submit to their rule and control, with the same abandonment of their natural liberty, the freedom of their will, and the command of their actions, as if they were under the rule of a monarch."

So democracy is an illusion. Skeptics in America likely believe the same, and some of the material we will cover in class may well feed that notion.

Tytler is also argued to have developed his own view of the cyclical nature of history. The introductory slides introduce this idea that was common during the enlightenment.

Here's his take on the process:

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

From DealBook: Once More Through the Revolving Door for Justice’s Breuer

This illustrates the concept of a revolving door, which is central to the formation of the issue networks and iron triangles discussed in 2305:

- Click here for the article.

Coming off a grueling four-year stint at the Justice Department, Lanny A. Breuer is poised to make a soft landing in the private sector.

Covington & Burling, a prominent law firm, plans to announce on Thursday that Mr. Breuer will be its vice chairman. The firm created the role especially for Mr. Breuer, a Washington insider who most recently led the Justice Department’s investigation into the financial crisis. 

For Mr. Breuer, who will now shift to defending large corporations, Covington is familiar turf. He previously spent nearly two decades there.

“There’s a strong emotional pull to the firm,” Mr. Breuer, who departed as the Justice Department’s criminal division chief on March 1, said in an interview. “It’s my professional home.”

Mr. Breuer is expected to earn about $4 million in his first year at Covington. In addition to representing clients, he will serve as an ambassador of sorts for the firm as it seeks to grow overseas.

The move is his latest turn through Washington’s revolving door, the symbolic portal connecting government service and private practice. Mr. Breuer, who began his career as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan and later represented President Bill Clintonduring his impeachment hearings, is joining Covington for the third time.
Like Mr. Breuer, Covington operates at the nexus of Washington and Wall Street. It has represented several financial clients facing federal scrutiny, including the New York Stock Exchange, JPMorgan Chase and the former chief executive of IndyMac.

Truth-Out is very critical of this:

. . . one can argue (and the same holds true for Eric Holder, also a Covington & Burling alumni appointee), Breuer was building his value in the marketplace at the DOJ, while Wall Street executives who nearly destroyed the American economy went unprosecuted. And his future value to his old white collar defense firm was dependent, in large part, on him not angering the people who would be the clients of Covington & Burling when he left the Department of Justice. The result, one can contend: no prosecutions of banks "too big to fail" execs as publicly stated as a policy by both Breuer and Holder.

This isn't just a revolving door; one can argue it's a dereliction of legal responsibility by an employee of the people of the United States. One can proffer that it's a cash-in career move by a resume climber who was careful not to bite the hands that will write the checks that will feed him on a lavish scale.

For more information:

- DealBook; Revolving Door.
- Open Secrets: Revolving Door.
- Wikipedia: Revolving Door.

From the Brookings Institute: The Rise of Innovation Districts

For 2306's look at cities, with a special focus on Houston's continued efforts to remain competitive and step itself up into the realm of "world class" cities. Remember what notes say about cities being primarily economic units.

This report studies efforts by cities to cities to foster innovations by putting relevant institutions in close proximity to encourage the development of research and then help their innovations reach the marketplace.

- Click here for the study.

A new complementary urban model is now emerging, giving rise to what we and others are calling “innovation districts.” These districts, by our definition, are geographic areas where leading-edge anchor institutions and companies cluster and connect with start-ups, business incubators and accelerators. They are also physically compact, transit-accessible, and technically-wired and offer mixed-use housing, office, and retail.

Innovation districts are the manifestation of mega-trends altering the location preferences of people and firms and, in the process, re-conceiving the very link between economy shaping, place making and social networking. 

Our most creative institutions, firms and workers crave proximity so that ideas and knowledge can be transferred more quickly and seamlessly. Our “open innovation” economy rewards collaboration, transforming how buildings and entire districts are designed and spatially arrayed. Our diverse population demands more and better choices of where to live, work and play, fueling demand for more walkable neighborhoods where housing, jobs and amenities intermix.

Led by an eclectic group of institutions and leaders, innovation districts are emerging in dozens of cities and metropolitan areas in the United States and abroad and already reflect distinctive typologies and levels of formal planning. Globally, Barcelona, Berlin, London, Medellin, Montreal, Seoul, Stockholm and Toronto contain examples of evolving districts. In the United States, districts are emerging near anchor institutions in the downtowns and midtowns of cities like Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Cambridge, Cleveland, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and San Diego.

From Bloomberg: Obama to Sign Order to Ease Student Loan Payments

Student loan debt has exploded in recent years.

A divided Congress (Republican controlled House / Democratic controlled Senate) rarely works with the president anymore.

Existing legislation is flexible enough to allow for executive action.

All these combined have led to a decision by the president to issue an executive order "to expand the number of people who can take advantage of a law capping payments on federal direct loans to no more than 10 percent of their monthly incomes."
- Click here for the article.

The action marks the latest effort by Obama’s administration to advance policies by executive action after being stymied on Capitol Hill. With the help of several cabinet heads, the president has spent much of this year initiating modest changes in programs that may provide a boost to Democrats in advance of the midterm elections.

Obama’s action tomorrow will expand a 2010 law that tied payments to income, according to the White House official, who said an additional 5 million people who took out loans before October 2007 or haven’t borrowed since 2011 will be eligible.

The proposal aligns with a bill from Senate Democrats that would allow individuals to refinance their student loan debt at current rates. Democrats have argued that the $1.2 trillion worth of outstanding student-loan debt retards economic growth as young college graduates are forced to postpone home buying or other purchases.

2305 students will likely be tested on executive orders - and other mechanisms available to the president to accomplish objectives over the objection of Congress. Critics argue that these are unconstitutional ways to overcome the checks and balances, supporters argue they are essential tools for implementing the law.

In addition to class notes, click here for background on executive orders:

- Wikipedia: Executive Order.
- Congressional Research Center: Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation.
- Wikipedia: Lists of executive orders.

And since student debt has exploded in recent years, the subject has risen as a public policy issue - an example of agenda setting. Here are links with detail about the subject:

- The Project on Student Debt.
- Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Student Loan Debt by Age Group.

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Texas Seen as "Kind of an Electoral Wasteland"

As you will see in both 2305 and 2306. Voter turnout in the United States is among the lowest in all nations, and turnout in Texas is among the lowest among all states. We will investigate both later this semester - though this is a topic that we cover more in 2305 than 2306.

The Texas Tribune reports on the latest primary number - which are as low as they've ever been.

- click here for the article.

Some highlights:

. . . there is no way to spin Texas voters’ anemic level of interest into a positive commentary on civic engagement.

“It is kind of an electoral wasteland — not a lot of competition, not a lot of motivation for the parties to get out and mobilize,” said Michael P. McDonald, associate professor of government and politics at George Mason University. “If there is no battle, they just sit back and become weak and flabby.”

In years when voters are not driven to the polls by presidential races — those always inflate the numbers — Texas is one of the worst places in the country for voter turnout and engagement.

In 2010, 32.1 percent of the state’s eligible adults voted in the general election, according to the United States Elections Project maintained by McDonald. Only one place was worst: the District of Columbia, with 28.9 percent. The national rate was 41 percent — still lousy, but much better than in Texas. Minnesota was at the head of the class that year, turning out 55.4 percent of its eligible population.

The lack of meaningful electoral competition in the state makes the races less interesting and leads to voters tuning the campaigns out. People get in the habit of not voting. One of the reasons primary races are not competitive is that they have been designed not to be. Gerrymandering ensures that certain districts will be represented by Republicans, while others will be represented by Democrats. This suppresses the need to vote. In fact, high turnout might be threatening to an incumbent, so they might have an incentive to keep turnout low.

Most districts are drawn to favor one party or another, meaning that the winner of the Democratic or Republican primary will win in November unless they make a terrible mistake and also have an opponent on the general election ballot. Texas has 36 congressional seats. In seven of them, the Republican candidate has no Democratic opponent. In six, the Democratic candidate has no Republican opponent. Only one of the remaining seats, the 23rd Congressional District, is considered winnable by either major party in November. The overall level of competition is similar in the 31-member Texas Senate and in the 150-member Texas House.

Try selling that to an unmotivated voter.

This helps us come to grips with the reality of low voter turnout in the state. We'll discuss this more, its an ongoing issue in the state, but it is worth remembering that not everyone benefits from high voter turnout. There are reasons it is suppressed.

Both 2305 and 2306 students wade through early material on civic virtue and engagement and how important these are in a republic.

Links to media coverage of the Texas Republican Convention

Here's a small handful of things to look through, I'll add more as needed

Texas Tribune: GOP Approves Hardline Immigration Stance in Party Platform.

In the 2012 Convention, the party adopted a moderate immigration policy in its platform, including what was called the Texas Solution, which included a proposal for a guest worker program. This was removed following efforts by Tea Party delegates.

Huffington Post: Texas GOP Platform Draft Endorses Gay Conversion Therapy.

The party platform continues to contain language critical of homosexuality, and promotes the use of psychological techniques that other states have banned. Gay Republican groups were prevented from putting up booths at the convention. There are reports that the state Democratic Party will invite them to do so at their convention. 

Texas Tribune: Cruz Runs Away With Straw Poll at GOP Convention.

A straw poll was conducted to see who the convention delegates supported for the presidency in 2016 and Senator Cruz was the overwhelming winner with 43% of the vote. Far behind him was Ben Carson, Rand Paul and Governor Perry (11%).

 Dallas Morning News: Texas GOP splits between social conservatives, libertarians.

While attention is focused primarily on the battle between the Tea Party and the business sector, this article points out that a larger battle is brewing between Christian conservatives - who see a role for religion on state affairs - and libertarian who are more secular and focus primarily on shrinking government, including leaving moral decisions - including drug use and gay marriage - to individuals. 2306 students should note that this sounds a lot like the conflict described in the slides on political culture between the traditionalist and individualist political cultures argued to be dominant in the state.

This article contains a great quote describing the Texas Republican Party, but applies to all parties. You should memorize it. It comes from the Texas Republican Party chair:

Texas GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri said the Republican Party is a confederacy of several factions that often overlap and, over time, have traded places in influence. The party establishment, now in eclipse as the tea party asserts control, shares the libertarian opposition to government regulation. Many social conservatives agree with military hawks on a robust foreign policy.

“A smart candidate recognizes that our party is not monolithic and [that] there’s wide disagreement and tries to focus on where we agree rather than where we disagree,” said Munisteri.

The Texas Observer: Backs to the Future
.

The article details the difficulty party leadership is having in adopting policy positions that reach out to groups - primarily Hispanics - that do not identify with the party. Activists often push back and prevent these positions from adoption. Though those might continue to be successful strategies in the shirt run, they might not be so in the long run.

What is a party platform?

Some of the following material will assume an understanding of what this is, so here's background in case you don't. Simply put - it's the "official" position that party takes on political issues in a specific political cycle. The 2014 Texas Republican Party Platform - for example - is the "official" position the party has taken on issues topical prior to the 2014 election. The Texas Democrats will do the same when the meet.

Each party did so in each of the previous elections going back to the dawn of conventions - it's one of the reasons why they are held, and one of the reasons activists bother to get involved. It allows them to have influence on the policy making process. Each convention's party platform tends to be based on the previous one, but there are changes that can occur from time to time, and these reflect the changes in the party's power structure from election cycle to election cycle.

Not that I put the word official in quotes. This is because despite the fact that the platform reflects what the party stands for, it is largely the product of the passionate activists who dominate the state's temporary party organization.

It is not necessarily what the permanent party organization, or individual candidates stand for.

There is no legal mechanism for forcing candidates to run on the platform - though it may be politically problematic if they don't.

As we go forward, keep in mind that the platform is the product of internal political conflict within each party. Despite the fact that we have a tendency to think of parties as being monolithic entities, they have internal differences. These fights often play out over the tome and substance of the party platform.

Some - hopefully - helpful readings on the subject of party platforms.

- Wikipedia: Party Platform
- American Presidency Project: Party Platforms.

The 2014 Texas Republican Convention and the Temporary and Permanent Party Organizations

The Texas Republican Party held its 2104 convention this weekend in Forth Worth. Texas Democrats are set to hold theirs in Dallas June 27th and 28th.

Both 2305 and 2306 students will note that U.S. Constitution reserves to the states the power to pass laws about elections, and since political parties are the primary actors in elections, these laws impact how they form and operate. This means that each of the 50 states passes the laws that govern the activities of political parties. In 2306 we discuss this further when we cover the election code, and the part of the code that deal with political parties.

The reason that each party holds conventions each year - in a legal sense - is because the state election code says they must. Every two years. Of course you should keep in mind that the election code is based on laws passed by legislators who are members of political parties, so parties get to write their own rules, but let's not wander into that circular thicket.

When 2306 students read the section on the temporary and permanent party organizations they'll note that the state convention

The purpose of the state convention is to allow the grassroots within each party to have an impact on the way the state party is run, and the positions it holds. During presidential election years they also determine which delegates will represent which presidential candidates in the nation convention (which are only held during presidential elections). State conventions are where the activists and the professionals (let's call them the establishment) butt heads. We can also think of this as a war between the temporary and permanent party organizations.

Apparently there was a lot of head butting in Fort Worth.

The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party - people who are passionately committed to political participation - has developed an incredible degree of influence within the party. This is far beyond what their numbers suggest they ought to have, but they have it because when you and I are sleeping late - they are organizing.

Perhaps we should modify "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" to read "government of the participants, by the participants, and for the participants" because it is a far more accurate description of the reality of democratic politics. Things don't just happen for people, they happen because people work to get them.

The problem for the party establishment - especially in the Republican Party right now - the issues the Tea Party activists push for may jeopardize the party's future competitiveness. The Republican Party has done well for a while with the current electorate in the state, but as the electorate changes, the party must change in order to continue to do well. The temporary party organization - the people who reflect the needs of the grassroots - seem to be preventing them from making those changes.

I'll post - separately - links to stories that illustrate this tension.

From the Hill: Obama’s death penalty review risks backlash from the states

This fits  - in different ways - with both 2305 and 2306.

Here's the first of a handful of stories I'll post which related to the interaction between states and the national government, specifically areas where the national government has established standards that are then imposed on the states - or might possible impose on them if they in fact become policy.

From The Hill: Obama’s death penalty review risks backlash from the states.

The generations-old debate over capital punishment has shifted to Washington, where President Obama’s Justice Department has launched a national review of the death penalty.

Attorney Gen. Eric Holder’s inquiry, initiated last month following a mishandled execution in Oklahoma, is still in its early stages. The effort includes a look at state death penalty protocols, though its scope and ultimate implications are not yet clear.

But by ordering up the review, Obama is raising questions about what role, if any, the federal government should have on an issue that is traditionally the province of the states.

A few things to note in the story. It discusses national intervention in criminal justice policy, which traditionally is a reserved power of the states. It mentions that the reason this is done is because of racial bias in how the death penalty is carried out. The 14th Amendment allows the national government to prevent the states from treating people unequally before the law, but it is not specific about this requirement. Supreme Court cases often focus on determining whether national intervention is in fact justified, but this is after the fact. So this is a great contemporary example of the state of federalism in the United States.

The story mentions that if these recommendations are adopted, they will most likely be done by withholding national funds for state projects. You'll notice that this is referred to in the notes as fiscal federalism in some places. The national government enticing states to comply with certain measures monetarily.

It also points out the push back from some members of Congress on the proposals by the Justice Department. The story does not mention this, but the department's positions is most likely that existing law, in addition to the 14th Amendment, provide the constitutional basis for them to go forward with the recommendations. Congress has little ability to prevent them from doing this now, thought the states opposed to these measures could potentially challenge these in the courts, arguing the Justice Department over stepped its bounds. Consider this an example of checks and balances.

We are reminded us that the Supreme Court recently limited Florida's ability to execute people with low IQ's by overturning how they interpret the results of the test.

It also mentions a couple interest groups that have been involved in raising awareness of issues associated with the death penalty.

One is the Constitution Project, which helped develop the recommendations. This shows us how interest groups can influence public policy. You'll note that it is composed of former attorneys general and judges, which makes it an specially powerful group.

The other is Amnesty International, specifically its Death Penalty Abolition Program.

The groups points out that support for the death penalty in general has been in decline and - possibly as a result - the use of the death penalty in the United States is declining. If so, that strengthens the argument that shifts in public opinion have an impact on public policy, which is a staple of democracy.

I hope clarifies some of the class' content so far.

Note the blog tags below - they'll take you to past stories on each of the topics listed above.