Jeb Bush is in trouble

That seems to be the big electoral news this past week.

Here's detail:

- 538: Yeah, Jeb Bush Is Probably Toast.
- Washington Post: The agony of Jeb Bush.
- Politico: Bush family gathers to rescue Jeb.
- US News: Jeb Bush's Campaign Blueprint.
- National Journal: Jeb Bush’s Gut-Check Moment.

Regarding H.R.1314 - Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015

That's the official name of the budget bill that passed the Senate last night.

- Click here for full info on the bill from congress.gov.

For background:

- National Journal: Senate Approves Budget Deal, Raises Debt Ceiling.
- Huffington Post: Senate Passes Budget Bill.

- Washington Post: Congressional leaders, White House reach two-year budget deal.
- Politico: House passes sweeping budget bill.

Here's text from the NYT:

The Senate approved a crucial bipartisan budget agreement early on Friday that would avert a government default and end nearly five years of pitched battles between congressional Republicans and the Obama administration over fiscal policy.

The measure, which was approved 64 to 35, now goes to the White House, where President Obama has said he will sign it.

“This agreement is a reminder that Washington can still choose to help, rather than hinder, America’s progress,” Mr. Obama said in a statement.

The Senate vote, held in the dead of night, was perhaps a fitting cap to the clashes between Republicans and the White House, which many warned had put the United States on the edge of economic calamity and which, in 2013, forced a16-day shutdown of the federal government.

Unlike the 2013 fight, in which Republicans ultimately surrendered and conceded defeat in trying to force a repeal of Mr. Obama’s health care law, this week’s budget accord was largely a draw.

The deal would increase spending by $80 billion over two years and raise the federal debt ceiling, averting a default that the Treasury had warned would happen early next week. It was approved in the House on Wednesday with the overwhelming support of Democrats, but with less than one-third of Republicans backing it.

What made the 91st Congress so cooperative?

A close look at the graph below shows that the 91st Congress - which met from 1969 - 1971 - was the least polarized and most cooperative in the past few decades. This is based on visual analysis anyway. If you look through the graph below, its the one that has the greatest degree of overlap between the Democrats and Republicans.





I have no idea why, but its worth exploring (I'm thinking this might be a good subject for a weekly written assignment for 2305). Its worth noting that the 91st Congress elected in the critical election of 1968 - the one that kicked off the 6th party era - maybe that matters. It was dominated by Democrats and dealt with the initial two years of Richard Nixon's presidency. Again - maybe that matters.

Here's an overview of it from Congress.gov:

The 91st Congress (1969–1971) faced several daunting challenges: an unpopular war in Vietnam, race riots in the cities, a rising crime rate, and an economic recession. College campuses erupted in protest when President Richard Nixon ordered U.S. troops into Cambodia and escalated the Vietnam War. Congress defeated the President’s attempt to change welfare policy, and rejected two of Nixon’s nominees to the Supreme Court. As animosity mounted between the White House and Capitol Hill, Congress reorganized itself in 1970 to foster transparency with new voting rules, a new budget process, and a more professional staff.

And some of the major laws passed:

- The Equal Rights Amendment.
- Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.
- Controlled Substances Act.
- National Environmental Policy Act.

For general information about that session of Congress click on these.

- House.gov: 91st Congress.
- Wikipedia: 91st Congress.
- Wikipedia: Legislative record of the 91st Congress.
- Richard Nixon: Statement About the Legislative Record of the 91st Congress.

Whats drives polarization?

The article referred to in the previous post has some valuable information in its introduction which I think is worth highlighting separately.

- Click here for the article.

Prior to detailing the focus of their study, they offer a list of factors that are commonly attributed to have lead to partisan polarization. Here's what they have to say (I've edited the format for emphasis):

Americans today are represented by political figures who struggle to cooperate across party lines at an unprecedented rate, resulting in high profile fiscal and policy battles, government shutdowns, and an inability to resolve problems or enact legislation that guides the nation’s domestic and foreign policy.

Partisanship has been attributed to a number of causes, including

1 - the stratifying wealth distribution of Americans
2 - boundary redistricting
3 - activist activity at primary elections
4 - changes in Congressional procedural rules
5 - political realignment in the American South
6 - the shift from electing moderate members to electing partisan members
7 - movement by existing members towards ideological poles
8 - and an increasing political, pervasive media

The authors investigate whether the party affiliation of legislators make a difference as well, They find that it does, and is diminishing the ability of members of Congress to cooperate:

We find that despite short-term fluctuations, partisanship or non-cooperation in the U.S. Congress has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years with no sign of abating or reversing. Yet, a group of representatives continue to cooperate across party lines despite growing partisanship.

They make an observation I think is worth sharing:

This increase in non-cooperation leads to an interesting electoral paradox. While U.S. voters have been selecting increasingly partisan representatives for 40 years, public opinion of the U.S. Congress has been steadily declining. This decline suggests that voters cast their ballots on a local basis for increasingly partisan representatives whom they view as best representing their increasingly partisan concerns, leaving few if any moderate legislators to connect parties for a more cohesive Congress. Elected representatives are increasingly unable to cooperate at a national Congressional level but are re-elected at least 90% of the time, reflecting an evasion of collective responsibility. Voters might believe that highly partisan candidates will ‘tip the scale’ in one party’s favor. However, based on correlations shown here, a partisan candidate may lack cooperation needed to pass legislation. More moderate legislators may have a competitive advantage in negotiating for their party’s legislation.

Perhaps the tendency of people to support ideologically driven partisans is minimizing the ability to Congress to function.

Another graphical look at polarization in Congress over time

It was produced by some political scientists for a paper titled The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives.

- Click here if you are ambitious.

Vox comments on it here. Wonkblog comments on it here.

I cant do better than this

From Vox: 40 charts that explain money in politics.

The Hill: Paul Ryan elected Speaker

Now comes the fun part.

- Click here for the story.

Ryan’s election gives House Republicans a chance to hit the reset button. Throughout Boehner’s nearly five years as Speaker, centrist members and Tea Party conservatives were at war with each other over policy and tactics.

Now, it’s all Ryan’s problem.

He has made peace with conservative hard-liners for now, saying he’s open to rules changes that will bring more rank-and-file members into the decision-making process. And Boehner helped “clean out the barn” for Ryan this week, ensuring his successor won’t face any major fiscal crises until after the 2016 election.

“If he’s committed to the process changes that he’s espoused, a honeymoon could last well into the first and second anniversary,” said conservative Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who authored a resolution this summer that sparked a debate over whether to oust Boehner from power.

“If the actions follow the rhetoric we’ve heard, it will be a monumental and historic time for the Hill and the way we do business.”

In private meetings, Ryan has told members of the conservative Freedom Caucus he won’t engage in any retaliation against fellow Republicans — a move for which Boehner had famously been known.

And the new Speaker told all of his colleagues Wednesday that he wants the conference to figure out how to reorganize the Steering Committee by Thanksgiving.

For the vote itself, click here.

From Governing: The Top 10 Legislative Issues to Watch in 2015

Here's one persons list of the top agenda items for state legislatures this year:

- Click here to check it out.

The list?

Affordable Care Act
Funding CHIP
Public Pensions
School Testing
Transportation Funding
The Cost of Water
Specialty Drugs
Corrections
Tax Policy
Carbon Emissions

And five more for good measure:
Oil and Railroads
Net Metering
Pandemic preparedness
E-cigarettes
Ridesharing

From Governing: Are States Still 'Labs of Democracy'?

We talked about this concept early in 2306 - as well as 2305 - when we discussed the advantages of state control of public policy making. They get to experiment and everyone learns from what succeeds and what fails.

- Click here for the article.

Writing recently in The New York Times, Duke University business professor Aaron Chatterji painted a discouraging picture of the states’ current status as “laboratories of democracy.” He argued that “just when we need their innovative energies, the states are looking less and less likely” to be generating new ideas for federal policy. Has the flame of state creativity somehow gone out?

That would be a tough case to make to Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who is proposing a massive remake of federally funded job training, social welfare and health programs. Snyder has set out a “river of opportunity” plan that he hopes will make Michigan first in the nation in training for skilled trades, lift all third-graders to proficiency in reading and launch what he calls “Medicaid expansion done right.” To accomplish his aim, Snyder has created a new department designed to weave together an assortment of federal grant programs and to combine state programs dealing with health, welfare and families.

Key to the plan are federal waivers. Snyder estimates that his program could require 145 different waivers of federal rules -- “the mother of all waivers,” as he told the editorial board of The Detroit News. If he can pull it off, Snyder’s “river of opportunity” plan will unquestionably be the next big thing in intergovernmental policy.

From Governing: Why Democratic Governors and Republican Mayors Have Become Rare

Voters seem to prefer different parties for different things.

- Click here for the story.

Historically, gubernatorial elections have tended to be up for grabs between the parties. Statewide electorates are sufficiently eclectic to encourage candidates in both parties to run toward the center, expanding their bases. But the pattern of results is changing, and for an unexpected reason.

For obscure reasons, 36 states hold their gubernatorial contests during midterm cycles. This hasn’t seemed to matter much in the past. But in recent elections, the types of voters who cast ballots in midterm elections has diverged significantly from those that do in presidential cycles. Midterm electorates tend to be smaller, whiter, older and more Republican; presidential electorates tend to be larger, more demographically diverse, and more Democratic.

This pattern helped Republican gubernatorial candidates in 2010.

. . . the GOP is having an increasingly difficult time winning mayoral races in big cities. Of the nation’s most populous cities, only a few have Republican mayors. They include three city-county hybrids where suburban voters can play an outsized role (Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Fla.; and Miami), and a few Sun Belt cities (Albuquerque, N.M.; Fort Worth, Texas; Oklahoma City and San Diego). Gone, apparently, are the days when a Republican like Rudy Giuliani could be the mayor of New York or Richard Riordan could be the mayor of Los Angeles.

Here, as with the U.S. House, geography is destiny. Cities have been magnets for younger, more diverse populations that tend to be socially liberal. This makes the Republican Party, with its national image of social conservatism, a tough sell. Indeed, such mayors as Bill DeBlasio of New York, Ed Murray of Seattle and Bill Peduto of Pittsburgh have been pursuing agendas that are unapologetically progressive.

From the San Antonio News: Texas Supreme Court chief justice settles ethics fine

Here's a story that ties together the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Ethics Commission together - not in a way that that chief justice would have liked probably.

- Click here for it.

Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht has ended an ethics dispute that languished in state court for nearly seven years, agreeing to pay a substantially reduced fine to settle charges that he broke state campaign finance laws.

The settlement, made public in court documents Wednesday, concludes a high-profile case that has become the longest-running appeal of a fine levied by the Texas Ethics Commission in the roughly two and a half decades since the agency was created.

Hecht was fined $29,000 in 2008, one of the largest campaign finance penalties ever issued in the state, after the commission determined he broke campaign finance laws while successfully fighting allegations that he abused his position by openly supporting President George W. Bush's short-lived U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers.

Hecht accepted a six-figure discount for his legal bill in the course of challenging the abuse-of-power charges. The commission concluded the discount was equivalent to a campaign contribution, one he failed to report, and that the total amount exceeded the $5,000 contribution limit on donations from law firms to judicial candidates.

Instead of paying, Hecht decided to fight the fine in state district court. And the lawsuit has stalled in the courts since it was filed in January 2009, raising the ire of watchdog groups that accused the state's Republican machine of working to bury the case.

Under the settlement, Hecht agreed to pay $1,000 and to "obtain a written fee agreement with any lawyer or law firm he hires to represent him either before or within a reasonable time after the representation commences."

Watchdog groups snarled at the final conclusion to the case, saying the commission let Hecht "off the hook" and that the fine is coming years late and "$28,000 light."

"This saga makes a mockery of so-called ethics enforcement," said Alex Winslow, executive director of Texas Watch, a liberal consumer rights group that filed the ethics complaint against Hecht in 2008. "Apparently, the way high ranking officials can beat the rap is to simply delay the process indefinitely."

Abbott calls for crackdown on "sanctuary cities"

First, a definition. This is from Wikipedia's entry of sanctuary cities:

Sanctuary city is a term that is applied by some to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to not prosecute illegal aliens. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.

According to this list, Texas has three such cities (Dallas, Austin, and Houston). The criteria are loose, so other cities - notably San Antonio - also tend to make the list.

The Dallas Morning News reports that the governor is trying to pressure the Dallas County sheriff to reverse their policy and is promising to pursue legislation regarding the issue on 2017:

Gov. Greg Abbott, targeting “sanctuary city” policies on immigration, warned Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez on Monday to back down from a policy change on federal immigration detention requests.

“Your refusal to fully participate in a federal law enforcement program intended to keep dangerous criminals off the streets leaves the State no choice but to take whatever actions are necessary to protect our fellow Texans,” Abbott wrote. 

His spokesman, Jon Wittman, confirmed later Monday that the governor was throwing his support behind legislation to bar “sanctuary city” policies, under which police are barred from asking those they stop about their immigration status. Abbott wants the Legislature to address the matter in 2017, Wittman said.

A Valdez spokesman defended the policy as a modest change, and allies said the governor was distorting what she had done.

For more:

- Abbott says election key to sanctuary-city ban.

Gov. Greg Abbott said voters should elect state lawmakers who will approve a ban on so-called sanctuary cities in 2017, suggesting Wednesday it would be fruitless to summon back the current Legislature for a special session on the issue. His declaration came as the San Antonio Police Department said it would put into writing its policy against officers asking for the immigration status of people who are detained — a move that’s anathema to sanctuary-city opponents.

- Dan Patrick ups ante in sanctuary city debate.

On Monday, Abbott's admonished Sheriff Lupe Valdez over her recent decision to not automatically detain all undocumented immigrants, saying so-called sanctuary cities will "no longer be tolerated in Texas." Patrick's supporters quickly noted that Abbott stood quietly by and did not lobby last spring for passage of a bill to prohibit sanctuary cities, even when it was just two votes short in Patrick's Senate. Abbott was also unwilling to call a special session when lawmakers left Austin in June without passing a sanctuary cities bill. As a state senator, Patrick authored legislation to end sanctuary cities and said in August he thinks he now has the votes in the Senate to pass the measure.

For 2305

- Click here for the source.

From the Texas Tribune: UT to Supreme Court: We Need Affirmative Action

This applies to 2305 and 2306 - civil rights in Texas etc....

- Click here for the article.

The University of Texas at Austin needs to consider race in admissions if it wants a diverse, representative student body, the school told the U.S. Supreme Court 0n Monday in a 70-page brief filed in advance of oral arguments in the case Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin.

The nation's high court will hear arguments in the case, which could bring an end to affirmative action at UT-Austin, this December.

The school was sued in 2008 by Abigail Fisher, who argued she was denied admission to UT-Austin because she is white. Her case has already reached the Supreme Court once. In that iteration, the court upheld the use of affirmative action nationwide but asked a lower court to scrutinize UT-Austin's policy. The lower court upheld the school's use of race in admissions, and the Supreme Court now is reviewing that ruling.

In Monday’s brief, UT-Austin cites its troubled racial history, noting that a black student wasn’t admitted to the school until 1950. The school also stresses that race is still an issue on campus today. This year, the school noted, UT-Austin became embroiled in a debate about the future of an on-campus statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The statue was eventually removed from its prominent location and will be housed in a U.S. history center instead.

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Republicans, Party of Two

For 2306's upcoming look at parties in Texas.

- Click here for the story.

Politics is about competition and deciding between different ideas, and when one party overwhelms the two-party system, it tends to develop into a two-faction party. It happened to Texas Democrats all those years ago, when the conservatives and liberals in that party warred in primaries and then crushed Republicans in general elections. And it’s a current fact of life in the Republican Party — a daily battle between traditional conservatives and those who believe those traditions are not conservative enough.

Straus exemplifies one side, Patrick the other.

And each, through his endorsement, is talking to his supporters. Straus’ folks want to see the chamber of commerce in the conversation, the establishment of the party, the sober and risk-averse kinds of moves that have always marked their part of the GOP. You know, people in suits.

The speaker, citing deep family and political relationships, was in the Bush camp as soon as this year's legislative session was over. “I have been a friend of his and his family for many, many years, and his record as governor of Florida proved that he could cut taxes, reduce government waste, and fix broken government programs there,” Straus told San Antonio’s WOAI Radio in June.

Patrick’s followers want to see some fire and brimstone in their politics, a willingness to throw out tired old ways of doing things and try new ideas. They’ve also displayed a bias for new names over old ones in politics, electing Patrick over three statewide officeholders in 2014’s election for lieutenant governor. He signaled his support for Cruz’s presidential run early on, and he gave the candidate his official blessing earlier this week. “He is the outsider in this race, but who understands the inside and how things work, and how to achieve victory in Washington,” Patrick said. “Other people can be outsiders, but we don't really know they'll follow up and do what they say.”

We'll look at a few videos in 2305 today - maybe 2306 also

From Voting America.

What is Dark Money?

Federal law has required that campaign contributions be disclosed since the passage of the 1910 Federal Corrupt Practices Act. The general idea is that voters should know who is funding a candidate's campaign. That tends to provide a good indication of what the candidate really stands for.
But contributors like to hide their contributions, and Congress does like to allow groups to be able to hide donors if their primary purpose is not politics and they principally want to educate the general population about the issues surrounding the campaign.

This creates an opportunity for clever people to avoid disclosure by calling themselves social welfare organizations and filing paperwork to the IRS stating such. These are the two categories that matter:

- Wikipedia: 501(c)(4) organizations.
- Wikipedia: 501(c)(6) organizations.

The increased use of these types of organizations as vehicles for campaign spending has led to the increase of what is called "dark money" since it is hidden, unregulated and growing fast.

For more:

- Wikipedia: Dark Money.
- Open Secrets: Political Nonprofits (Dark Money).
- Charles Koch Denies Dark Money Donations.
- Mother Jones: Follow the Dark Money.
- Newsweek: As Dark Money Floods U.S. Elections, Regulators Turn a Blind Eye.

Let's take a look at the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission

It's one of the many ways to get an idea of the number of executive agencies that exist in the state and the degree of influence the legislative branch has over them. We also saw these listed in the Fiscal Size-Up. Agencies are automatically terminated unless they are reauthorized by the legislature under the advisement of the commission.

- Click here for their website.
- Wikipedia: Sunset Advisory Commission.
- Weaker Party: Sunset Review.

For detail: How Sunset Works.

These are the agencies that will be reviewed during the 2016-2017 cycle:

- Bar of Texas, State
- Central Colorado River Authority
- Chiropractic Examiners, Texas Board of
- Counselors, Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional
- Dental Examiners, State Board of
- Employees Retirement System of Texas, Board of Trustees of
- Law Examiners, Board of
- Marriage and Family Therapists, Texas State Board of Examiners of
- Medical Board, Texas
- Nursing, Texas Board of
- Occupational Therapy Examiners, Texas Board of
- Optometry Board, Texas
- Palo Duro River Authority
- Pharmacy, Texas State Board of
- Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Examiners, Executive Council of
- Physical Therapy Examiners, Texas Board of
- Podiatric Medical Examiners, Texas State Board of
- Psychologists, Texas State Board of Examiners of
- Railroad Commission of Texas
- Social Worker Examiners, Texas State Board of
- Sulphur River Basin Authority
- Transportation, Texas Department of
- Upper Colorado River Authority
- Veterinary Medical Examiners, State Board of

Conveniently enough, the last sunset review looked at the Texas Department of State Health Services, which is the agency mentioned in the previous story about the birth certificates.

- Click here for their website.
- Click here for their review.
- Here is a direct link to the report.

Big Cities, Big Challenges

Texas is refusing to grant birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants . . .

. . . and this will almost certainly be the next fight between Texas and the national government. Something else you can lay at the feet of the 14th Amendment. It also highlights conflicts between counties in the state and the state government.

For detail on the overall story click here:

- Children of Immigrants Denied Citizenship.
- Lawsuit: U.S. Citizen Children Denied Birth Certificates in Texas.

For background on the process since the lawsuit click on these. They are in roughly chronological order, elaboration to follow:

May 26 - Serna v Texas Department of Health Services filed.
July 22 - State Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Birth Certificates.
July 22 - Motion for dismissal filed.
July 23 - Texas Fights Suit After Denying Birth Certificates To Children Of Illegal Immigrants.

July 29 - Legal Experts Question State's Immunity Claim.
August 5 - Dallas County Drawn Into Birth Certificate Debate.
August 6 - County Judge Asks State to Resolve Birth Certificate Issue. 

August 25 - Mexican Government Files Brief in Birth Certificate Case.
September 3 - Judge Will Hear Birth Certificate Case Next Month.
October 2 - Judge Presses State on Birth Certificate Denials.
October 16 - Judge Denies Emergency Relief in Birth Certificate Case.

From the Texas Tribune: Court to Decide if Autopsy Counts as Health Care

Here's a story that merges our upcoming look at the Texas Judiciary - including the consequence of an elected judiciary - with our past look at Article 3 of the Texas Constitution. It also continues our ongoing look at cases that involved interpretations of the Texas Constitution - which is apparently not as clearly written as we might suppose.

The question posed is the extent of the protections that doctors and hospitals have as a result of the passage of tort reform - which was added to the Texas Constitution in 2003.

- Click here for the story.

Eleven years after a man's unexplained death in a Katy hospital sparked a lawsuit involving allegations of malpractice, deception and theft of a human heart, the bizarre case has made its way to the Texas Supreme Court, which will answer a simple yet macabre legal question: Does an autopsy fall under the definition of health care?

If the high court says yes, critics say it would be the latest decision by conservative justices broadening a landmark state law that makes it tougher to sue doctors and hospitals for alleged wrongdoing. Supporters of the legal challenge — brought on an appeal by Christus Health, then owner of the Christus St. Catherine Hospital in Katy — say Texas voters approved sweeping tort reforms in 2003 to limit lawsuits against health care providers, and that autopsies on dead patients are a valid part of the medical care hospitals provide.

The case traces back to the morning of Jan. 22, 2004, when Linda Carswell's husband, Jerry, admitted with kidney stones, was found dead in his hospital bed. Carswell wondered if his death was due to a narcotic the hospital had administered. Carswell has said she asked for an independent autopsy, but her husband's autopsy was performed by a separate hospital under the same ownership as Christus St. Catherine Hospital — a fact she said she did not know at the time. That autopsy, which was inconclusive, did not include a toxicology test, which Carswell said could have shed light on whether the narcotic had killed her husband.

Further complicating matters, the examiner who performed the autopsy also allegedly removed the dead man’s heart without Carswell’s consent. The hospital fought not to release the organ, saying it could be important evidence that would show Carswell's husband died of a heart attack.

After an appeals court ordered the hospital to release the heart to Carswell, a separate forensic biologist said it contained no human DNA — either because of the way it was preserved, or because there was a “real possibility that the heart submitted was not human,” according to court documents.

A jury sided with Carswell, who says she was misled by Christus Health about the autopsy’s independence and scope, and awarded her a rare $2 million fraud judgment against the health care provider. Christus Health appealed the case and is still fighting it, although it sold Christus St. Catherine Hospital to Houston Methodist in 2014.

A spokeswoman for Christus Health declined to comment for this article. But in court briefings, lawyers representing Christus Health asked the Texas Supreme Court to weigh in on whether Carswell's case should have fallen under the Texas Medical Liability Act. That law, the health care provider argues, defines the nebulous term “health care” broadly enough to include autopsies — which would render Carswell's suit moot because she did not meet the legal requirements to sue.

For background:

- Section 66 of Article 3 of the Texas Constitution.
- Analysis of Amendment No. 12 - the Tort Reform Amendment.
- The Texas Medical Liability Act.
- Wikipedia: Medical Malpractice in the United States.
- Wikipedia: Tort Reform.
 

Is the spoils system alive and well in Texas?

I posted a few items on the recently, but it keep coming back up on the public agenda.

The Houston Chronicle recently reported on the number of positions in Texas agencies that have been staffed by people with connections to elected officials - cronies they are sometimes derisively called. The positions are often not advertised, which is in violation of state law. A law which is seldom enforced.

Keep in mind that strategic decisions about who gets what job allows for the development of political networks that can come in handy when seeking higher office. There are reasons why this occurs - tangible benefits as well.

- Click here for the story.

The paper the editorialized that this suggests - as you all probably have always suspected is true - that is matter who you know rather than what you know. The problem is pervasive they say.

- Click here for the editorial.

. . . Texans should be glad to see their taxes spent on qualified employees instead of diverted into a spoils system, but the problem is more pervasive than elected officials hiring a few friends.

The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas was caught in 2012 handing out millions in grants without proper scientific and business reviews. It turned out that the recipients had made donations to the secretive CPRIT Foundation that boosted salaries for CPRIT officials. Closer to home, in 2013 the Houston Community College was caught up in a scandal involving a contract redirected to a politician's buddy. And earlier this year, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission came under fire for spending $30 million on scholarships for employees who had close ties to elected officials.

Even within the boundaries of the law, governments routinely grant tax exemptions or other so-called economic incentives that favor some companies over others. Sometimes these incentives are worthwhile, but they hardly take part in the sort of pure free-market philosophy that plenty of Texas politicians claim to endorse. The deeper you dig, the more it becomes clear that Texas isn't exactly a low-regulation state. We just have regulations that reward friends and punish enemies.

New upstarts, such as Tesla's electric cars, Uber and Lyft, and microbreweries, have had to fight regulatory structures that protect entrenched interests while discouraging new competition. Meanwhile, the young, the poor and the sick who could truly use help often find government assistance in Texas lacking.

So if you're a ambitious Texan who wants to lift yourself up by your bootstraps, the lesson taught by our elected officials isn't that you need to work hard, get good grades or have the best ideas. If you want to be successful in Texas, have the right connections.

And a good last name doesn't hurt, either.

From the Austin American Statesman: Texas officials gave $270M in bonuses with few rules, little oversight

For out look at the Texas Bureaucracy. The beneficiaries are those at the top.

- Click here for the story.

The Statesman analyzed payment data over the last seven fiscal years to provide the first comprehensive view of bonus payments to each employee at every state agency, except universities. The use of bonuses has risen sharply, the Statesman found, as payments more than doubled from $28.6 million in 2009 to $65 million in 2014.

The analysis found that agencies are largely free to dole out bonuses however they choose, for a variety of reasons, which are sparsely documented. Merit bonuses go unnoticed so long as agency commissioners or directors can meet their budgets approved by lawmakers or, for some money-making agencies, balance the cost with licensing fees.

Officials at several state agencies said bonuses are a handy tool to retain skilled workers whose wages have stagnated due to belt-tightening by the conservative Legislature. But while the data show many agencies use bonus cash to give small pay bumps to state workers whose health care and retirement costs are rising, the real winners are those at the top of the organizational chart.

“No one on the front lines is seeing these bonuses,” said Seth Hutchinson, vice president of the Texas State Employees Union, which represents more than 12,000 state employees.

Really, How Conservative Was the 84th Session?

From the Texas Monthly: Showdown with a Strong Governor - The Legislative Budget Board is correct about the limits of the line-item veto—but Governor Abbott has plenty of power

Here's analysis of the legal conflict regarding the legality of Governor Abbott's line item vetoes. At root there seems to be an effort on the part of Abbott to increase the power of the office of the governor. His predecessor attempted to do the same. It seems to be yet another case that will require mediation by the courts - and it involves language we covered in class last week!

The question - as the author describes it - is whether budget riders qualify as items of appropriation.

- Click here for the story.

The disagreement concerns the scope of the governor’s line-item veto authority, which is established in the Texas Constitution, Article 4, Section 14, as follows: “If any bill presented to the Governor contains several items of appropriation he may object to one or more of such items, and approve the other portion of the bill.” A seemingly straightforward statement, but you’ll notice that the document doesn’t specify what it means by “items of appropriation.” As is often the case with the Texas Constitution, there’s no way to retroactively clarify what the people who drafted the document meant by the phrase, or whether they even considered the language carefully; this isn’t exactly the Magna Carta we’re talking about. But since the governor is only allowed to veto “items of appropriations”, the actual meaning of the phrase matters and has been continuously debated.

This round of debate was triggered by Abbott, who forced the question with his line-item vetoes to the 2016-17 budget bill, most of which struck out various budget riders. By doing so, the governor’s office said, he cut almost $300m from the budget as passed by the Lege; he also broke with precedent, by asserting that such riders qualify as “items of appropriation.” The governor’s reasoning is summarized in atwo-page memo that circulated in his office. His argument, basically, is that the budget riders in question are blatant ruses. The Lege’s appropriations for the Facilities Commission, for example, included almost $1bn for Section (e), “Construction of Buildings and Facilities.” About $200m of this $1bn was intended for three specific projects, the details of which were laid out later, in budget riders that Abbott vetoed. According to the Lege, Section (e) would be the “item of appropriation” in that context: the governor could have vetoed the whole billion, or none of it. According to Abbott’s office, this is ridiculous; the budget riders were the functional equivalent of “items of appropriation”, regardless of the Lege’s hijinks: “The Legislature cannot use magic words to make an item veto-proof.”

Unnamed legislators, for obvious reasons, disagreed with Abbott’s interpretation. As a result, Joe Straus and Dan Patrick, on behalf of the House and Senate respectively, asked the Legislative Budget Board to assess Abbott’s vetoes, and send its analysis to Glenn Hegar, the comptroller. Or, if you take Patrick’s word for it, Straus asked the LBB to weigh in, and he stoically accepted their determination to do so. It’s not really important who called in the LBB. The point is that someone in the Lege asked Ursula Parks, the director of the Legislative Budget Board, to weigh in, and so she did. Her memo argues that Abbott’s vetoes exceeded his constitutional authority and represented a departure from precedent and tradition. An “item of appropriation”, she wrote, refers to an item that actually makes an appropriation of funds from the state treasury. The budget riders in dispute merely tell the state agencies what to do with those funds once appropriated; that being the case, per Parks, the governor can’t scribble them out.

Repost from August 3rd: Are some of the governor's line item vetoes invalid? We have a sudden dispute over what the clauses in the Texas Constitution regarding the line item veto authority actually means.

We mentioned the line item veto in class a few times. Its one of the few formal powers of the governor that gives the office some power, but it has some limits. In a previous post I linked to material from the Legislative Budget Board that argued Abbott's vetoes went beyond what the veto is supposed to do.

- Click here for the post.
- Click here for the vetoes.

The Legislative Budget Board issued a lengthy analysis to the comptroller regarding the veto arguing they were unconstitutional - click here for it - and Abbott's office responded to their claims here.

A historical look at presidential vetoes

Though he still has almost a year and a half in office, and a Republican Congress to deal with, President Obama is on the low end of presidents in the number of bill she has vetoed. The veto of the defense spending bill was his fifth. None have been overridden.

- Wikipedia (of course) has a full list of all presidential vetoes, click here for it.

And here's a handy chart:



Franklin Roosevelt's vetoes were largely due to the innovative nature of the proposals he made
to deal with the Great Depression and World War II. Grover Cleveland's vetoes involved cancelling what he believed were pork barrel projects and pensions for Civil War veterans.

History.com has info on the first piece of vetoed legislation. On April 5, 1992 George Washington vetoed a bill that would have increased the number of seats held by northern states in the House of Representatives.

- Click here for the story.
- Here's the notice from Senate.Gov.

Congress sent an adjusted bill to Washington later, which he signed. Thomas Jefferson advised Washington to suggest a mathematical formula be used to apportion seats across the states so it would be neutrally done.

- Click here for the bill he signed: Apportionment Act of 1792

Obama Vetoes Defense Bill.

Last week in checks and balances:

The bill is officially called H.R.1735 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This link take you to Congress.gov's page on the bill and its process. The bill would authorize appropriations for defense for the current fiscal year. Since the year began October 1st, defense spending is covered under the continuing appropriations bill passed in late September. As 2305 students know, the bill goes back to the House and then the Senate for a possible override.

From The Hill: Obama vetoes defense bill.

Obama argues the bill irresponsibly skirts spending caps adopted in 2011 by putting $38 billion into a war fund not subject to the limits, a move he called a "gimmick." He has called on Congress to increase both defense and nondefense spending. 

“Let’s have a budget that properly funds our national security as well as economic security, let’s make sure that we’re able in a constructive way to reform our military spending to make it sustainable over the long term,” Obama said.

The president also objects to language in the bill that requires the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison to remain open. Republican leaders expressed outrage with Obama’s decision to veto the bill, pointing out that it puts a scheduled pay raise for troops, among other policy changes, at risk.

“By placing domestic politics ahead of our troops, President Obama has put America’s national security at risk,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. “This indefensible veto blocks pay and vital tools for our troops while Iranian terrorists prepare to gain billions under the president’s nuclear deal."

The move forces Congress to revisit the bill and send it back to the president. The military will continue to operate under last year’s defense policy if lawmakers cannot reach an agreement. Republicans have pledged to attempt to override Obama’s veto, but it’s unlikely they have the votes to do so.

The Senate voted 70-27 to pass the bill, and overriding the veto would require 67 votes. But Democratic leaders have said some members would switch their vote to avoid defying the president. The House vote count, 270-156, would not be enough to override a veto, which would take 290 votes.

 The NYT editorializes in favor of the veto and walks through the reasoning behind it here.

For more:

- Politico: Obama vetoes massive defense bill over budget spat.
- The Blaze: Obama Vetoes Defense Bill Over Gitmo and His Demands for More Non-Defense Spending.

For a look at the status of all the appropriations bills click here.

From the National Journal: The Chairwoman Who’s At War With Her Own Agency: Ann Ravel says the Federal Election Commission is badly broken. But is her very public crusade the way to fix it?

An insider's very frustrated look at the Federal Election Commission - and agency at the hart of the content in the section on campaign finance reform. The FEC - as mentioned in the notes - is hamstrung by rules that mandate that an equal number of members of appointees of each party control it. This makes rulings on major issues regarding alleged violations of campaign finance laws difficult, if not impossible. Critic argue that the FEC has been captured by the forces it is intended to regulate and - deliberately - has no teeth.

The link below takes you to a story which discusses the innovative way the current chair of the FEC is using to bring issues to the commission.

- Click here for it.

On a Thursday morn­ing in June, the six com­mis­sion­ers of the Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion—three Re­pub­lic­an ap­pointees, three Demo­crat­ic ap­pointees—con­vened at their headquar­ters in down­town Wash­ing­ton for their monthly open meet­ing. On the agenda was a pro­voc­at­ive item: The group’s Demo­crat­ic chair­wo­man, Ann Ravel, and one of her Demo­crat­ic col­leagues, El­len Wein­traub, had filed a pe­ti­tion with their own com­mis­sion—as if they were or­din­ary cit­izens rather than two of the six people who ac­tu­ally run the place. The pe­ti­tion urged the FEC to beef up dis­clos­ure of an­onym­ous cam­paign spend­ing and to crack down on the in­creas­ingly com­mon­place prac­tice of co­ordin­a­tion between can­did­ates and sup­posedly in­de­pend­ent su­per PACs.

It was a highly un­ortho­dox move—and that was pre­cisely the point. “People will say: ‘You’re the chair of the com­mis­sion. You should work from with­in.’ I tried,” Ravel told CNN at the time. “We needed to take more cre­at­ive av­en­ues to try and get pub­lic dis­clos­ure.”

Now the six com­mis­sion­ers had be­fore them a tech­nic­al ques­tion: not wheth­er to act on the pe­ti­tion—which was un­likely to hap­pen, giv­en their 3-3 di­vide on ma­jor ques­tions and the sub­stan­tial par­tis­an enmity among them—but merely wheth­er to pub­lish the text of the pe­ti­tion in the Fed­er­al Re­gister. This form­al­ity set off what was surely one of the most bizarre ex­changes in FEC his­tory. In the view of Mat­thew Petersen, one of the three Re­pub­lic­an com­mis­sion­ers, be­cause Ravel and Wein­traub were sit­ting com­mis­sion­ers neither qual­i­fied as a “per­son” eli­gible to pe­ti­tion the FEC.

For more on the FEC, click on these below:

- The FEC homepage.
- Wikipedia: FEC.
- Wikipedia: Regulatory Capture.
- NYT: F.E.C. Can’t Curb 2016 Election Abuse, Commission Chief Says.
- The Atlantic: Another Massive Problem With U.S. Democracy: The FEC Is Broken.
- CPI: Gridlocked elections watchdog goes two years without top lawyer.

Week #10's Assignment - the Social Responsibility Assessment

In the personal responsibility assessment I asked you to tell me whether you thought it was your responsibility to vote - yes or no - and provide your reasoning. This question is similar, but has a twist.

Earlier this semester we discussed ideology in 2305 and political culture in 2306. Each concept includes thoughts about the responsibility people have to the greater society. Some think people have a good deal of responsibility to society other do not. I'd like you to analyze the different positions taken on the responsibility we have to the greater society and compare them.

If you are in 2305 you may wish to consider the different positions liberals and conservatives take - as well as socialists and libertarians. In 2306, you should look at the difference between the traditionalistic, moralistic and individualistic political cultures. Where are the major areas of agreement and disagreement regarding social responsibility?

Remember that all written assignments are to be at least 150 words long.

From the Huffington Post: Texas: Neutering Democracy

This is provocative.

The author points to some recent Texas Supreme Court decisions and notes that they prioritize "liberty" over "democracy." Apparently the two concepts can contradict each other. He also suggests that the recently completed legislative session - partially by limiting local governments - undermined democracy in the state.

- Click here for the opinion piece.

In Texas liberty trumps democracy. The Texas Supreme Court itself says so.
In a recent decision, three of the five Justice majority bluntly declared, "(O)ur federal and state charters are not, contrary to popular belief, about 'democracy.'" They are about "liberty's primacy."

The Justices concluded the Texas Constitution gives primacy to liberty because of the sequence of wording "That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established," is how the Constitution begins. The word "liberty" comes first.

Relying on the sequence of words to establish primacy could have gotten the Justices into trouble when it comes to the federal Constitution, a situation they adroitly finessed by quoting only part of the Preamble. "The federal Constitution, in the first sentence of the Preamble, declares its mission to 'secure the Blessings of Liberty,"" opined the Justices. But before securing liberty the Preamble lists several other objectives that would have primacy: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, (and) promote the general Welfare."

Texas politicians love to sprinkle their orations with words like liberty and freedom but even they must concede that all societies establish formal and informal rules governing individual behavior and virtually all interfere to some degree with someone's freedom of action. No matter how extreme our libertarian bent, most of us accept the need for driving licenses and the restrictions one-way streets and stop signs impose. And however reluctantly we agree that the government can take our money even while profoundly disagreeing on how public money should be spent.

Most of us also accept that property rights are not absolute. Just because we own land doesn't mean we can build a 30-story building or a slaughterhouse in an otherwise residential neighborhood.

Who should make the rules? Again I believe most of us prefer that decisions be made closest to those who will feel the impact of those decisions that is, by local government. More remote levels of government should defer to governance closer to the people except in rare circumstances.

Keeping this framework in mind, how did the tension between democracy and liberty play out in this year's Texas legislative session?

Democracy came in a distant second.

This Day in History: Harding publicly condemns lynching

The year is 1921. The story is from History.com, and it compliments our look at the shift parties took on civil rights issues - as well as the relationship between the national and state governments - over the 20th Century.

- Click here for the story.

On this day in 1921, President Warren G. Harding delivers a speech in Alabama in which he condemns lynchings—illegal hangings committed primarily by white supremacists against African Americans in the Deep South.

Although his administration was much maligned for scandal and corruption, Harding was a progressive Republican politician who advocated full civil rights for African Americans and suffrage for women. He supported the Dyer Anti-lynching Bill in 1920. As a presidential candidate that year, he gained support for his views on women’s suffrage, but faced intense opposition on civil rights for blacks. The 1920s was a period of intense racism in the American South, characterized by frequent lynchings. In fact, the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) reported that, in 1920, lynching claimed, on average, the lives of two African Americans every week.

During the 1920 presidential campaign, Harding’s ethnicity became a subject of debate and was used by his opponents to cast him in a negative light. Opponents claimed that one of Harding’s great-great-grandfathers was a native of the West Indies. Harding rebuffed the rumors, saying he was from white “pioneer stock” and persisted in his support of anti-lynching laws. Although the anti-lynching bill made it through the House of Representatives, it died in the Senate. Several other attempts to pass similar laws in the first half of the 20th century failed. In fact, civil rights for blacks were not encoded into law until Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Harding’s public denunciation of lynching would appear insincere if one were to believe allegations that he had actually been inducted into the Ku Klux Klan while in office. In 1987, historian Wyn Wade published The Fiery Cross, in which a former Ku Klux Klan member claimed to have witnessed Harding’s initiation into the Klan on the White House lawn. Scholars have since pored over Harding’s papers, but have found no evidence to support this allegation.

 Wikipedia: Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill.

A look at a literacy test

We looked at the decision in Shelby v Holder in 2305 recently and noted that one of the criteria used to determine whether a state was to have its election laws pre-cleared by federal judges was whether it used literacy or citizenship tests in the 1964 election.

Here are examples of the tests used:

- Slate: Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s.
- Addicting Info: Harvard Students Take 1964 Literacy Test Black Voters Had To Pass Before Voting — They All Failed.

On party polarization

I've had a number previous posts on the subject.

- Click here to peruse them.

Here's a particularly useful graphic. Notice what people refer to when they speak of the disappearing middle.

From Frum Forum: Charles Whalen: Congressman Of The Real Majority

The author of the book discussed below wrote about the Republican member of Congress who seemed to most embody the liberal/moderate Republican who became the target of the more conservative members of the coalition.

- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the Wikipedia on Charles Whalen.

Here's a taste of the article:

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon and his conservative aide Patrick Buchanan believed they had discovered a winning Republican formula. A recent book, The Real Majority by Richard Scammon and Benjamin Wattenberg, had argued that the prototypical American voter was a forty-seven-year-old machinist’s wife from Dayton, Ohio. The authors believed that Democrats could sway this pivotal voter by emphasizing economic issues, but Nixon and Buchanan realized they could counterattack by playing up social issues on which Democrats were vulnerable, including welfare, busing, crime, student radicalism, and drug abuse. Nixon wrote that this new conservative strategy would be aimed “primarily at disaffected Democrats, and blue collar workers, and at working class ethnics. We should set out to capture the vote of the forty-seven-year old Dayton housewife.”

But who in fact was the politician who won the votes of that Dayton housewife? For most of the 1960s and ‘70s it was Congressman Charles W. Whalen, Jr., who was usually considered among the most liberal Republicans in the House. Whalen was perhaps the GOP’s most successful vote-getter, racking up margins of over 70% in most of his elections and running unopposed in 1974, despite running in a district with a two-to-one Democratic registration margin. He was counted among the best and most effective Congressmen in multiple surveys, and even his opponents respected his intelligence and integrity. His heterodox positions angered his local Republican organization, however, and raised the question of how much divergence from a conservative agenda the party ought to tolerate.

It was easy to make the case that the former businessman and economics professor was a liberal. As a member of the Ohio state legislature from 1954 to 1966, Whalen had been an outspoken supporter of civil rights and author of the state’s first fair housing law. From the time of his first Congressional victory in 1966, he became a thorn in the side of the GOP leadership, opposing the military draft and the Vietnam War that the party supported, and calling for a reordering of national priorities to address issues such as air and water pollution, education, urban decay, hunger and welfare. He opposed most new weapons systems, including the Nixon administration’s proposal for an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense. In 1971, he co-authored an amendment to the defense procurement bill that would have prohibited new funds being spent on military involvement in Indochina. The measure failed, but offered the first indication of significant House opposition to the Vietnam War. Whalen also made early and controversial calls to offer diplomatic recognition to Communist China and reestablish ties with Castro’s Cuba.

Whalen himself felt that his advocacy of civil rights, education, and the environment were well within the Republican progressive tradition. His social liberalism was also balanced by a deep and sincere fiscal conservatism. His early battles with the GOP leadership came because of his opposition to tariffs, and indeed he proposed a world free trade association that would have eliminated trade barriers entirely. His belief that government needed to address social problems set him apart from Ohio’s mainly rural conservatives, while his conviction that the cost of government services had to be kept low set him apart from liberals who didn’t really seem to believe that government services had to be paid for.

Will the courts have to determine what the term "reasonable rules" means regarding campus carry?

The Houston Chronicle writes today that SB 11 - the campus carry bill - might be on its way to court. When the bill passed, it contained an allowance that university presidents had the power to determine where guns can be carried, meaning that they can be banned from certain places like classrooms. Proponents of campus carry argue that this was not the intent of the original law and that presidents have limits on the extent of their power to ban concealed weapons.

- Click here for the story.

So this seems headed for the courts. What exactly does the term "reasonable rules" mean and how might the court determine what it means? Keep in mind that we have an elected judiciary. What might the fate be of a judge who decides either way? Are they really free to make an impartial decision?

- Click here for the legislative history of SB 11.
- Campus-carry bill passes, but neither side seems thrilled.

And for more on the story: Texas Tribune: Did You Think Campus Carry Was Settled Law?

For 2306 today

A bit of this and that.

- Chron: Meet the 179 people given state jobs without any public competition.

They range from security guards at The Alamo to receptionists at the Texas Railroad Commission to the governor's chief of staff, but they all have one thing in common: they won their jobs without facing any public competition.

Despite a 1991 state law requiring state agencies to advertise all job openings, Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton, Comptroller Glenn Hegar, Land Commissioner George P. Bush, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, and Railroad Commissioners David Porter, Christi Craddick and Ryan Sitton have bent the rules to hire at least 179 people over the past year,according to a Houston Chronicle investigation.

- Chron: Texas takes final step to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.

Texas officials said Monday they plan to halt Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, citing a recently released undercover video as the justification for taking the final major step in a years long quest to cut off all local, state and federal taxpayer dollars to the national organization's facilities here.

Stuart Bowen, the inspector general of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, announced the decision in a letter to Planned Parenthood, saying the video had revealed "program violations that justify termination," including evidence that employees at a Houston clinic have allowed private citizens to touch fetal remains wearing only gloves and have altered the abortion process to preserve fetal organs so they could be donated for medical research.

- Chron: Planned Parenthood cut is about politics: Medicaid funds family planning services that help make abortions unnecessary.

When he was attorney general, Greg Abbott liked to say that it was his job to go into the office, sue the federal government, and go home. Now that he's governor, the Abbott administration hasn't strayed too far from that model of legislating by lawsuit.

Monday morning, state health officials released a letter stating that all Planned Parenthood affiliates would be cut from Medicaid funding. However, it won't be that easy. Three other states ­- Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana - have tried to cut Planned Parenthood out of their state Medicaid programs only to end up in federal court.

This abortion fight, like so many before it, will likely have Texas taxpayers funding an expensive and drawn-out lawsuit. But this isn't about fighting for taxpayers or setting good policy. It is about politics.

- Chron: Patrick takes aim at HERO, mayor.

With the start of early voting Monday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick began lending his voice and his pocketbook to radio and TV ads urging Houston voters to reject the city's embattled equal rights ordinance.

At a news conference Monday in Houston, Patrick echoed the chief criticism of equal rights ordinance opponents - that the law would allow men to enter women's restrooms - and he blasted Mayor Annise Parker, saying she "ought to be embarrassed" by the ordinance.

In Patrick's TV ad, set to begin Tuesday airing on cable and network stations, he tells voters that "no woman should have to share a public restroom or locker room with a man."

How were moderate and liberal Republicans driven from the party?

When we start getting into political parties - in both 2305 and 2306 - we'll look at the history of party eras. The story varies slightly since we take a more in-depth look in 2305 and focus mostly at Texas in 2306. But we look at the recent shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the states in both classes. I tend to spend more time looking at the Democratic side of the story, the national party's embrace of civil rights which drove southern Democrats away, as well as the shift in the Texas economy from an agrarian to business base.

I don't look at the Republican side of the story as much as I should. Just as progressives in the Democratic coalition drove out the Southern conservatives, ideologically driven conservatives in the Republican coalition did the same to moderate and liberal Republicans and redefined what it means to be a party member.

A recent book - Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party - tries to explain this shift with some detail.

Some recent reviews condense the story.

- Rule and Ruin: When and why did the Republican Party tip so far to the right?
- “Rule and Ruin” by Geoffrey Kabaservice.
- Ancient History.
- The GOP’s Reality-Based Community

- Click here for an interview with the author.

Introducing the Tuesday Group

Just so you know that there are moderate Republicans in the House:

- Wikipedia: The Tuesday Group (of moderate Republican congressmen).
- NRO: The Tuesday Group Still Lives.
- Think Progress: Where Have All The Moderate Republicans Gone?.

What is the House Freedom Caucus?

In short - they are the people responsible for driving John Boehner out of office. More fully, they are the most conservative members of the House Republican Conference and are often argued to be affiliated with the Tea Party. We briefly discussed them in class. They should help you get an idea about what is going on in Congress currently.

Still no front runner for the Speaker.

- The Freedom Caucus’ Unprecedented Insurgency: At least since the Civil War, there hasn’t been a faction fighting both parties at the same time.- What is the House Freedom Caucus, and what do they want?
- Freedom Caucus Forms ‘Fight Club’ in House.
- The Power of the Hard-Line Republicans in the Race for House Speaker.
- The Hard-Line Republicans Who Pushed John Boehner Out.

From Vox: Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble.

The author points out that the party is very weak at the state and local level.

- Click here for the story.

The Democratic Party is in much greater peril than its leaders or supporters recognize, and it has no plan to save itself.

Yes, Barack Obama is taking a victory lap in his seventh year in office. Yes, Republicans can't find a credible candidate to so much as run for speaker of the House. Yes, the GOP presidential field is led by a megalomaniacal reality TV star. All this is true — but rather than lay the foundation for enduring Democratic success, all it's done is breed a wrongheaded atmosphere of complacence.

The presidency is extremely important, of course. But there are also thousands of critically important offices all the way down the ballot. And the vast majority — 70 percent of state legislatures, more than 60 percent of governors, 55 percent of attorneys general and secretaries of state — are in Republicans hands. And, of course, Republicans control both chambers of Congress. Indeed, even the House infighting reflects, in some ways, the health of the GOP coalition. Republicans are confident they won't lose power in the House and are hungry for a vigorous argument about how best to use the power they have.

Not only have Republicans won most elections, but they have a perfectly reasonable plan for trying to recapture the White House. But Democrats have nothing at all in the works to redress their crippling weakness down the ballot. Democrats aren't even talking about how to improve on their weak points, because by and large they don't even admit that they exist.

Instead, the party is focused on a competition between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton over whether they should go a little bit to Obama's left or a lot to his left, options that are unlikely to help Democrats down-ballot in the face of an unfriendly House map and a more conservative midterm electorate. The GOP might be in chaos, but Democrats are in a torpor.

Torpor - definition.

From the Monkey Cage: No, Americans have not become more ideologically polarized

It's not about polarization, its about "sorting."

- Click here for the article.

The polarization of Democrats and Republicans in Congress is so well-known that it seems natural to conclude that the American public is polarizing, too. A recent Pew Research Center report generated headlines such as “Polarization is dividing American society, not just politics.” Ezra Klein called polarization “The single most important fact about American politics.” A prominent political scientist wrote a book titled “The Polarized Public.” And in the pages of this very blog, another prominent political scientist declared, “Americans are so polarized, they’re even polarized about polarization.”

This narrative is badly skewed. In fact, scholars do not agree that the American public has actually become more polarized. Our new research, forthcoming at the Journal of Politics, shows that although Americans disagree about many political issues, they have not become more polarized over the past 60 years.

Our research takes advantage of everything we know about people’s issue positions from the longest running and most respected survey in political science, the American National Election Studies. Unlike previous research, which tends to focus on changes in a few policy attitudes between two time periods, we use all of the survey questions about domestic policy that are available to us in 27 different surveys over 60 years.

Election Dates 2015 and 2016

From the Texas Secretary of State's webpage:

- Important 2015 Election Dates.
- Important 2016 Election Dates.

And for good measure:
- Texas Election Code.
- LOC: Election Law.

How strong is the Texas Governor?

The standard argument is that the office is weak, but it does have a few substantive powers. Often the governor's power depends on the personality of the individual holding the office. We'll cover this in 2306 this week.

Here are a few items to place the issue in perspective:

- Texas Tribune: A Weak Governor System, With a Strong Governor.
- Slate: Is George W. Bush a "Weak" Governor?
- On the issues: Is Texas a "weak governor" state?
- Wall Street Journal: In Texas, a Weak Office Becomes Stronger.
- How much POWER does the Governor of Texas have?
- The Atlantic: Rick Perry, American Caudillo.

Worth a look: Why Strong Governors?

Written Assignment #9 - Visual Communications

This is for both 2305 and 2306. You'll see a link to this post in Blackboard tomorrow (10/18).

One of the more useful skills you can acquire is the ability to read a graph. It might seem simple enough, but they cam be tricky. For example, here are two graphs that seem to tell different stories about the relationship between guns and crime. One positive, one negative. Compare the two and tell me what's going on here.

Might they both be right? How so?

The loner and more comprehensive the better - it's also important that you tell me what these graphs are saying. Accuracy counts.

150 word minimum - turn in through Blackboard - this is due Monday the 25th at noon.

From Quorum Report: Plaintiffs file injunction to keep House, Congressional maps out of 2016 election cycle

This fits our look at the controversies surround how districts are drawn. The Texas legislature is regularly accused of gerrymandering districts in order to benefit the majority party. These accusations continue.

- Click here for the link.

Plaintiffs in the long-standing challenge to Texas redistricting maps this week requested an injunction for the 2016 election cycle. Early voting in the November election starts on Monday, but, more importantly, qualifying candidates for the spring primaries begins on Nov. 14.

The plaintiffs are asking for an injunction of the maps on a number of grounds: The court-created maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, especially as it pertains to the Latino vote in Congressional District 23. The maps should be bailed in under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act because of evidence of racial bias offered during the original trial. A third round of elections under the current maps would prove substantial and irreparable harm to minority voters. And the perceived harm to minority voters outweighs the cost to the state, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued.

“We know as people of color everywhere, we have to fight for many of our rights and especially our voting rights,” Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso, said at last Saturday’s Latino Summit. “Based on the litigation in our state, especially in our district courts and in our federal courts, we know that there are current pending cases that could have significant consequences on the Latino community.”

For background, you may want to read the injunction in question. Note that this is a federal case. The defendants have been accused of violating a federal law.

- This the current map.
- Click here for the Texas Redistricting website.

For a comparison of state turnout rates in 2014 ....

... click here.

Surprisingly, Texas is only second to last according to this ranking. Figures do tend to vary - which makes comparisons problematic, but they tend to tell a consistent story about which states have consistently high turnout and which do not.

For your perusal: The United States Elections Project

This is a great resource for information about national and state electoral turnout, as well as redistricting. I link to it frequently.

- Click here for it.

Here's a popular look at turnout in presidential and midterm elections since day one: