From Texas Tribune:
- Texas coal companies are leaving behind contaminated land. The state is letting them.
- Texas signed off on the restoration of this old mine. Now a leaky landfill is contaminating groundwater.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/brief_history_congressional_reform_efforts.pdf
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-filibuster-that-almost-killed-the-civil-rights-act/
https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate
https://energycommerce.house.gov/about-ec/membership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay#Speaker_of_the_House
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rule
https://homeland.house.gov/about/committee-history
https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/civil-rights-1964/senate-roll-call.html
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-filibuster-that-almost-killed-the-civil-rights-act/
https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate
https://energycommerce.house.gov/about-ec/membership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay#Speaker_of_the_House
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rule
https://homeland.house.gov/about/committee-history
https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/civil-rights-1964/senate-roll-call.html
Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act
From GOVT THS3 today:
- What is the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act?
- Timeline.
- Congress.gov - H.R.1373 - Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act.
- House votes to permanently ban uranium mines near the Grand Canyon.
- Floor vote.
- What is the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act?
- Timeline.
- Congress.gov - H.R.1373 - Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act.
- House votes to permanently ban uranium mines near the Grand Canyon.
- Floor vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1792
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Census
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/31/707899218/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-2020-census
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2020-census.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Census
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/31/707899218/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-2020-census
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2020-census.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
From CNBC: Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter program gets $34 billion Pentagon contract, its biggest yet
Lobbying pays off.
- Click here for the article.
The Pentagon on Tuesday announced a $34 billion F-35 contract with Lockheed Martin, the largest contract yet for the defense company’s costly fighter program.
The deal is for the delivery of 478 of the aircraft.
The F-35, the crown jewel in the defense giant’s portfolio, has become one of the most challenged programs in the history of the Department of Defense. The laundry list of setbacks includes faulty ejection seats, software delays and significant helmet-display issues. The program had an initial acquisition cost of $406.5 billion.
Yet the Pentagon touted reduced costs and a quicker timetable in its announcement Tuesday.
“This agreement achieves an average 12.7% cost reduction across all three variants and gets us below $80 million for a USAF F-35A by Lot 13 – one lot earlier than planned,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, F-35 program executive officer, said Tuesday.
- Click here for the article.
The Pentagon on Tuesday announced a $34 billion F-35 contract with Lockheed Martin, the largest contract yet for the defense company’s costly fighter program.
The deal is for the delivery of 478 of the aircraft.
The F-35, the crown jewel in the defense giant’s portfolio, has become one of the most challenged programs in the history of the Department of Defense. The laundry list of setbacks includes faulty ejection seats, software delays and significant helmet-display issues. The program had an initial acquisition cost of $406.5 billion.
Yet the Pentagon touted reduced costs and a quicker timetable in its announcement Tuesday.
“This agreement achieves an average 12.7% cost reduction across all three variants and gets us below $80 million for a USAF F-35A by Lot 13 – one lot earlier than planned,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, F-35 program executive officer, said Tuesday.
From the Texas Tribune: Austin ISD sex ed battle could be preview of state-level debate
For our look at local governments and interest groups, among other things.
- Click here for the article.
There was a line down the sidewalk to get into the Austin Independent School District's school board meeting Monday. Under jackets and cardigans, many opponents wore red T-shirts with "AUSTIN SEXXX ED" circled and slashed out.
During a raucous three hours from Monday night into Tuesday morning, about 100 people stepped up to the microphone for a minute each to explain to nine Austin school board members why they should or should not approve a new comprehensive sexual education program for third through eighth grade.
This marks the first time the district has evaluated its sex education curriculum in more than 10 years, and the lessons include topics like gender identity, reproductive anatomy, and body image, tailored for each grade.
Opponents of the program, many organized by conservative statewide advocacy group Texas Values, said the curriculum violated Christian family values and included lessons — including on sexual orientation and sexual health — that parents should tackle at home. Proponents, who showed up to the meeting in smaller numbers, argued the lessons would be valuable tools to help LGBTQ students feel supported by teachers and administrators, and would help all students learn to build healthy relationships.
After midnight, Austin ISD board members unanimously approved the revised curriculum, which is expected to go into effect by next May. The dramatic scene that unfolded in Austin could be a preview a larger battle at the State Board of Education, which is expected next year to revise its policies on how school districts across the state should teach health and sex to students.
The state board last approached the topic in 2004, when it adopted abstinence-only health textbooks. Abstinence-only advocates have successfully kept information on birth control and STD prevention out of textbooks for decades.
Committees of educators and experts are now preparing a set of recommendations for how the board should revise its standards. The board is expected to make a final decision next year, setting the stage for how teachers and textbook publishers will approach the controversial subject in years to come.
Public schools are not required to teach sexual education. But if they do, state law requires they stress abstinence as the preferred choice for unmarried young people and spend more time on it than any other sexual behavior. Parents can opt out of any lesson if they don't feel comfortable with it.
- Click here for the article.
There was a line down the sidewalk to get into the Austin Independent School District's school board meeting Monday. Under jackets and cardigans, many opponents wore red T-shirts with "AUSTIN SEXXX ED" circled and slashed out.
During a raucous three hours from Monday night into Tuesday morning, about 100 people stepped up to the microphone for a minute each to explain to nine Austin school board members why they should or should not approve a new comprehensive sexual education program for third through eighth grade.
This marks the first time the district has evaluated its sex education curriculum in more than 10 years, and the lessons include topics like gender identity, reproductive anatomy, and body image, tailored for each grade.
Opponents of the program, many organized by conservative statewide advocacy group Texas Values, said the curriculum violated Christian family values and included lessons — including on sexual orientation and sexual health — that parents should tackle at home. Proponents, who showed up to the meeting in smaller numbers, argued the lessons would be valuable tools to help LGBTQ students feel supported by teachers and administrators, and would help all students learn to build healthy relationships.
After midnight, Austin ISD board members unanimously approved the revised curriculum, which is expected to go into effect by next May. The dramatic scene that unfolded in Austin could be a preview a larger battle at the State Board of Education, which is expected next year to revise its policies on how school districts across the state should teach health and sex to students.
The state board last approached the topic in 2004, when it adopted abstinence-only health textbooks. Abstinence-only advocates have successfully kept information on birth control and STD prevention out of textbooks for decades.
Committees of educators and experts are now preparing a set of recommendations for how the board should revise its standards. The board is expected to make a final decision next year, setting the stage for how teachers and textbook publishers will approach the controversial subject in years to come.
Public schools are not required to teach sexual education. But if they do, state law requires they stress abstinence as the preferred choice for unmarried young people and spend more time on it than any other sexual behavior. Parents can opt out of any lesson if they don't feel comfortable with it.
Links from 10/29/19
- Congressional Overrides of Presidential Vetoes.
- Star Chamber.
- NRA - Political Victory Fund.
- RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
- Choosing the Nominee: How Presidential Primaries Came To Be and Their Future in American Politics.
- House Committee on Appropriations.
- Senate Committee on Appropriations.
- War Powers Resolution.
- Star Chamber.
- NRA - Political Victory Fund.
- RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
- Choosing the Nominee: How Presidential Primaries Came To Be and Their Future in American Politics.
- House Committee on Appropriations.
- Senate Committee on Appropriations.
- War Powers Resolution.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
From 538: Primary Challenges Might Keep These Republican Senators From Voting To Remove Trump
For our look at elections - primarying.
- Click here for the article.
Much has been made about whether Republicans will ever cut ties with President Trump over his attempt to hold up military aid to Ukraine to get political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. And although there are some signs of the party breaking with Trump, one important reason why we haven’t seen GOP senators break with Trump en masse is because many are up for reelection — in total, there are 23 Republican-held seats up in 2020.
And in five of these races, Republicans face particularly tough reelection battles. Election forecasters have rated these races as the most competitive Senate contests in the 2020 cycle, and in each race, the partisan lean of their states is less than 10 points more Republican than the country as a whole. In fact, in the case of Maine and Colorado, they actually lean slightly Democratic.1 These senators are especially vulnerable in a general election if Trump’s standing declines, but they’re also in a position where they can’t afford to alienate their party’s base.
So a vote on whether to remove Trump from office could really complicate things for them, especially if the current timeline for a vote on impeachment holds. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell anticipates the House will vote by the end of the year, which means the Senate could vote in January or February, before the filing deadlines to mount a bid in most of these races have passed. This means many of these Republicans could find themselves facing a last-minute primary challenger if they voted to remove, making the electoral calculus of casting such a vote even more fraught with peril.
- 2020 United States Senate elections.
- Click here for the article.
Much has been made about whether Republicans will ever cut ties with President Trump over his attempt to hold up military aid to Ukraine to get political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. And although there are some signs of the party breaking with Trump, one important reason why we haven’t seen GOP senators break with Trump en masse is because many are up for reelection — in total, there are 23 Republican-held seats up in 2020.
And in five of these races, Republicans face particularly tough reelection battles. Election forecasters have rated these races as the most competitive Senate contests in the 2020 cycle, and in each race, the partisan lean of their states is less than 10 points more Republican than the country as a whole. In fact, in the case of Maine and Colorado, they actually lean slightly Democratic.1 These senators are especially vulnerable in a general election if Trump’s standing declines, but they’re also in a position where they can’t afford to alienate their party’s base.
So a vote on whether to remove Trump from office could really complicate things for them, especially if the current timeline for a vote on impeachment holds. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell anticipates the House will vote by the end of the year, which means the Senate could vote in January or February, before the filing deadlines to mount a bid in most of these races have passed. This means many of these Republicans could find themselves facing a last-minute primary challenger if they voted to remove, making the electoral calculus of casting such a vote even more fraught with peril.
- 2020 United States Senate elections.
Monday, October 28, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Texas House panel considers fixes for glitches in school finance law
For out look at finance, and the state legislature.
- Click here for it.
Several months after a major school finance law rewired how billions of dollars get funneled into hundreds of school districts across the state, educators and state officials are still trying to untangle the threads.
House Bill 3, an $11.6 billion measure, gave school districts more money for employee salaries and programs like full-day pre-K and dual language. But at a House Public Education hearing Monday, educators and advocates pointed to problems with the way the law was written that have resulted in unexpected increases or decreases in funding for individual school districts.
While lawmakers gave the state education agency power to correct those glitches, it's still unclear exactly how broad that power is. Meanwhile, some school officials are holding back on spending their money until they get more clarity on how much they really have.
"The problem is, districts don't have the data," said Lonnie Hollingsworth, general counsel for the Texas Classroom Teachers Association. "They basically have to guess as to what their funding is going to be."
Educators have been directly affected by this lack of clarity. School districts were required by the new law to use a chunk of their additional money to give teachers and other employees raises. But Hollingsworth said some have chosen to "lowball" those raises until they get final calculations from the state on things like tax revenue and funding for low-income students, promising to increase salaries once there is more financial certainty.
Beyond questions of financial clarity, another question that bubbled up at Monday's hearing was how much power the state’s education agency has to resolve problems in the law now that lawmakers have gaveled out until 2021. HB 3 explicitly gave Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath significant authority to "resolve unintended consequences" if school districts saw unexpected losses or gains in funding. But it requires Morath to provide an explanation to lawmakers and then get approval from the governor and state budget board before making any changes.
Morath himself acknowledged the complicated position he is in: "One thing is what's for y'all to address next session," he said to lawmakers. "And another thing is what's for me to surface as an unintended consequence this interim."
- Click here for it.
Several months after a major school finance law rewired how billions of dollars get funneled into hundreds of school districts across the state, educators and state officials are still trying to untangle the threads.
House Bill 3, an $11.6 billion measure, gave school districts more money for employee salaries and programs like full-day pre-K and dual language. But at a House Public Education hearing Monday, educators and advocates pointed to problems with the way the law was written that have resulted in unexpected increases or decreases in funding for individual school districts.
While lawmakers gave the state education agency power to correct those glitches, it's still unclear exactly how broad that power is. Meanwhile, some school officials are holding back on spending their money until they get more clarity on how much they really have.
"The problem is, districts don't have the data," said Lonnie Hollingsworth, general counsel for the Texas Classroom Teachers Association. "They basically have to guess as to what their funding is going to be."
Educators have been directly affected by this lack of clarity. School districts were required by the new law to use a chunk of their additional money to give teachers and other employees raises. But Hollingsworth said some have chosen to "lowball" those raises until they get final calculations from the state on things like tax revenue and funding for low-income students, promising to increase salaries once there is more financial certainty.
Beyond questions of financial clarity, another question that bubbled up at Monday's hearing was how much power the state’s education agency has to resolve problems in the law now that lawmakers have gaveled out until 2021. HB 3 explicitly gave Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath significant authority to "resolve unintended consequences" if school districts saw unexpected losses or gains in funding. But it requires Morath to provide an explanation to lawmakers and then get approval from the governor and state budget board before making any changes.
Morath himself acknowledged the complicated position he is in: "One thing is what's for y'all to address next session," he said to lawmakers. "And another thing is what's for me to surface as an unintended consequence this interim."
Friday, October 25, 2019
a few links related to the Clinton impeachment
- CUNY: The Clinton Impeachment.
- The Guardian: Clinton impeachment timeline.
- Wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton.
- The Guardian: Clinton impeachment timeline.
- Wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton.
From Texas Monthly: Street Fight: Inside Austin’s Bitter Brawl Over Homelessness
For our look at local government, and their conflict with state government.
- Click here for the article.
Austin’s summer of discontent began with a sixteen-hour city council meeting. Council hearings are often marathon affairs, running into the wee hours, after sense and patience have gone to bed. The June 20 meeting was certainly a slog. By 2:20 a.m., the council had voted to effectively legalize sleeping, camping, and panhandling on sidewalks and in other public spaces. In doing so, city leaders upended an unspoken arrangement with the public that had persisted for more than two decades, one that criminalized homelessness and made the homeless less visible.
Here’s how the bargain had worked: Without enough shelter space to get people off the streets, Austin had tasked the police with enforcing ordinances that made it illegal to aggressively panhandle, sit or lie on sidewalks, and camp in public. In a never-ending game, the police would move the homeless around, sometimes pushing them into out-of-the-way, dangerous places like the banks of creeks. Those who refused to move along were given citations, which often then led to arrest and jail.
The Austin City Council, which has been moving to the left in recent years, deemed this an unacceptable situation. So at the June meeting, the council voted overwhelmingly to weaken the ordinances. Panhandling was now legal as long as supplicants did not engage in “aggressive confrontation.” So was sitting and lying on sidewalks, as long as the person in question didn’t block rights-of-way. Camping was no longer illegal in public spaces, including sidewalks and under bridges, though it was still expressly prohibited in places like public parks.
Proponents sold the move as smart, compassionate policy that would decriminalize homelessness and bring homeless folks out of the shadows, part of a broader push to add hundreds of new shelter beds, expand affordable housing, and increase funding for homeless outreach. Progressive, forward-thinking Austin would lead the way. “You and I spend millions of taxpayer dollars playing this perverse game of moving people around and solving nothing,” wrote Mayor Steve Adler in an op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman. “I refuse to play any longer.” For the first time in a long while, Austin’s homeless were able to get a good night’s sleep. Then all hell broke loose.
- Click here for the article.
Austin’s summer of discontent began with a sixteen-hour city council meeting. Council hearings are often marathon affairs, running into the wee hours, after sense and patience have gone to bed. The June 20 meeting was certainly a slog. By 2:20 a.m., the council had voted to effectively legalize sleeping, camping, and panhandling on sidewalks and in other public spaces. In doing so, city leaders upended an unspoken arrangement with the public that had persisted for more than two decades, one that criminalized homelessness and made the homeless less visible.
Here’s how the bargain had worked: Without enough shelter space to get people off the streets, Austin had tasked the police with enforcing ordinances that made it illegal to aggressively panhandle, sit or lie on sidewalks, and camp in public. In a never-ending game, the police would move the homeless around, sometimes pushing them into out-of-the-way, dangerous places like the banks of creeks. Those who refused to move along were given citations, which often then led to arrest and jail.
The Austin City Council, which has been moving to the left in recent years, deemed this an unacceptable situation. So at the June meeting, the council voted overwhelmingly to weaken the ordinances. Panhandling was now legal as long as supplicants did not engage in “aggressive confrontation.” So was sitting and lying on sidewalks, as long as the person in question didn’t block rights-of-way. Camping was no longer illegal in public spaces, including sidewalks and under bridges, though it was still expressly prohibited in places like public parks.
Proponents sold the move as smart, compassionate policy that would decriminalize homelessness and bring homeless folks out of the shadows, part of a broader push to add hundreds of new shelter beds, expand affordable housing, and increase funding for homeless outreach. Progressive, forward-thinking Austin would lead the way. “You and I spend millions of taxpayer dollars playing this perverse game of moving people around and solving nothing,” wrote Mayor Steve Adler in an op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman. “I refuse to play any longer.” For the first time in a long while, Austin’s homeless were able to get a good night’s sleep. Then all hell broke loose.
From the Washington Post: Trump’s pollster releases the worst impeachment poll ever
This builds on topics covered in 2305's public opinion chapter. The author argues the questions are slanted
- Click here for the article.
Look at the question:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “Impeaching President Trump is a waste of time and tax dollars and it will ultimately go nowhere, so the Democrats should focus on working with Republicans to solve our nation’s problems rather than focusing on trying to impeach President Trump.”
So the options are essentially: Do something that is costly and pointless, or work together to “solve our nation’s problems.” Who wouldn’t choose the latter? The question, of course, ignores that fact that Congress was gridlocked regardless of impeachment, so it’s kind of a false choice. And very few people are going to disagree with the idea that Congress should focus on curing the nation’s ills.
The first finding is that Americans say 52 percent to 36 percent that impeachment is being done for political reasons rather than legal ones. Here, again, the phrasing is something:
Do you think that Nancy Pelosi and the House Demcrats are moving forward with their impeachment inquiry against President Trump mainly for political reasons to stop him from being re-elected or mainly for legal reasons?
This is a neat trick. Other polls have suggested that, regardless of how many Americans support impeachment, they do see it as a political process. And that’s probably because, well, it is. So McLaughlin takes that and adds the phrase “to stop him from being re-elected.” Suddenly, all those people who pretty rightly see this as a political process are also signing on to the premise that Democrats are mostly just trying to unseat Trump. (Which, maybe! But why wouldn’t they want to prevent the reelection of someone they view as having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”?)
The most offensive of the questions, though, is this one. It may sound like an exaggerated paraphrase, but this is how the question was posed, verbatim:
Historic precedent has always been that to begin an impeachment inquiry the House of representatives [sic] has always held a vote. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are now breaking with precedent to conduct a purely partisan impeachment. In your opinion do you think that unless Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats hold a vote, the President is right NOT to cooperate with this inquiry?
Where to even begin? First off, it’s true that the House held votes to launch impeachment inquiries in the cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But it’s less apparent that it was explicitly authorized in the third case, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in the 1860s. Plus, there is very little precedent here, period, and there is no requirement that the House conduct such a vote.
Second, the idea that this is a “purely partisan impeachment” isn’t even in the question; instead, it’s thrown out as an ironclad fact. This is … not how polling is done. If you’re going to assert something like that, you at least give a people a chance to agree or disagree with the premise.
- Click here for the article.
Look at the question:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “Impeaching President Trump is a waste of time and tax dollars and it will ultimately go nowhere, so the Democrats should focus on working with Republicans to solve our nation’s problems rather than focusing on trying to impeach President Trump.”
So the options are essentially: Do something that is costly and pointless, or work together to “solve our nation’s problems.” Who wouldn’t choose the latter? The question, of course, ignores that fact that Congress was gridlocked regardless of impeachment, so it’s kind of a false choice. And very few people are going to disagree with the idea that Congress should focus on curing the nation’s ills.
The first finding is that Americans say 52 percent to 36 percent that impeachment is being done for political reasons rather than legal ones. Here, again, the phrasing is something:
Do you think that Nancy Pelosi and the House Demcrats are moving forward with their impeachment inquiry against President Trump mainly for political reasons to stop him from being re-elected or mainly for legal reasons?
This is a neat trick. Other polls have suggested that, regardless of how many Americans support impeachment, they do see it as a political process. And that’s probably because, well, it is. So McLaughlin takes that and adds the phrase “to stop him from being re-elected.” Suddenly, all those people who pretty rightly see this as a political process are also signing on to the premise that Democrats are mostly just trying to unseat Trump. (Which, maybe! But why wouldn’t they want to prevent the reelection of someone they view as having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”?)
The most offensive of the questions, though, is this one. It may sound like an exaggerated paraphrase, but this is how the question was posed, verbatim:
Historic precedent has always been that to begin an impeachment inquiry the House of representatives [sic] has always held a vote. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are now breaking with precedent to conduct a purely partisan impeachment. In your opinion do you think that unless Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats hold a vote, the President is right NOT to cooperate with this inquiry?
Where to even begin? First off, it’s true that the House held votes to launch impeachment inquiries in the cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But it’s less apparent that it was explicitly authorized in the third case, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in the 1860s. Plus, there is very little precedent here, period, and there is no requirement that the House conduct such a vote.
Second, the idea that this is a “purely partisan impeachment” isn’t even in the question; instead, it’s thrown out as an ironclad fact. This is … not how polling is done. If you’re going to assert something like that, you at least give a people a chance to agree or disagree with the premise.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen won't face criminal prosecution, Brazoria County DA says
For our look at local government and law enforcement.
- Click here for the article.
Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen will not be criminally prosecuted for the things he said during a secretly recorded June meeting with a hardline conservative activist, the district attorney in his hometown announced Thursday.
"As repugnant as Speaker Bonnen's actions and statements are," Brazoria County District Attorney Jeri Yenne said in a statement, "I do not believe there is sufficient evidence from the June 12, 2019 meeting to warrant a criminal prosecution of Speaker Bonnen for Bribery or Solicitation of a Gift by a Public Servant, therefore no criminal charges will be brought."
Bonnen, an Angleton Republican, announced Tuesday he will not seek reelection to the lower chamber — and, consequentially, to the speakership — after activist Michael Quinn Sullivan secretly recorded a meeting with Bonnen in June. In the meeting, Bonnen and a top lieutenant, state Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, asked Sullivan's group, Empower Texans, to target a list of 10 House Republicans in the upcoming primary elections, and said he could get Empower Texans media access to the House floor. Bonnen also made a handful of disparaging comments about House Democrats and local leaders.
In August, the Texas Rangers launched an investigation into the matter and submitted their report to Yenne earlier this week.
A spokesperson for Bonnen said Yenne's decision "deflates Michael Quinn Sullivan's entire reason for going public three months ago — that, according to him, the Speaker solicited a bribe and broke the law."
"Unfortunately, we now live in a political climate where one is guilty until proven innocent, and not only has that thrown the ability of Republicans to hold onto our House majority into jeopardy, it sets a dangerous precedent moving forward," Cait Meisenheimer, the speaker's press secretary, said in a statement. "While justice prevailed today, unfortunately, the damage has been done."
Although Yenne doesn't plan to prosecute the speaker, the speaker could be punished in legislative ways. The House General Investigating Committee, which first asked the Rangers to investigate the matter, recently retained three legal advisers to help members review the final report and advise them "on the most appropriate next steps."
Legal matters aside, Yenne in her statement Thursday didn't hold back on criticizing Bonnen for his inflammatory remarks made during the June meeting.
- Click here for the article.
Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen will not be criminally prosecuted for the things he said during a secretly recorded June meeting with a hardline conservative activist, the district attorney in his hometown announced Thursday.
"As repugnant as Speaker Bonnen's actions and statements are," Brazoria County District Attorney Jeri Yenne said in a statement, "I do not believe there is sufficient evidence from the June 12, 2019 meeting to warrant a criminal prosecution of Speaker Bonnen for Bribery or Solicitation of a Gift by a Public Servant, therefore no criminal charges will be brought."
Bonnen, an Angleton Republican, announced Tuesday he will not seek reelection to the lower chamber — and, consequentially, to the speakership — after activist Michael Quinn Sullivan secretly recorded a meeting with Bonnen in June. In the meeting, Bonnen and a top lieutenant, state Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, asked Sullivan's group, Empower Texans, to target a list of 10 House Republicans in the upcoming primary elections, and said he could get Empower Texans media access to the House floor. Bonnen also made a handful of disparaging comments about House Democrats and local leaders.
In August, the Texas Rangers launched an investigation into the matter and submitted their report to Yenne earlier this week.
A spokesperson for Bonnen said Yenne's decision "deflates Michael Quinn Sullivan's entire reason for going public three months ago — that, according to him, the Speaker solicited a bribe and broke the law."
"Unfortunately, we now live in a political climate where one is guilty until proven innocent, and not only has that thrown the ability of Republicans to hold onto our House majority into jeopardy, it sets a dangerous precedent moving forward," Cait Meisenheimer, the speaker's press secretary, said in a statement. "While justice prevailed today, unfortunately, the damage has been done."
Although Yenne doesn't plan to prosecute the speaker, the speaker could be punished in legislative ways. The House General Investigating Committee, which first asked the Rangers to investigate the matter, recently retained three legal advisers to help members review the final report and advise them "on the most appropriate next steps."
Legal matters aside, Yenne in her statement Thursday didn't hold back on criticizing Bonnen for his inflammatory remarks made during the June meeting.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
John Punch: the "first official slave in the English colonies,"
Interesting story.
- From Wikipedia.
John Punch (fl. 1630s, living 1640) was an enslaved African who lived in the Colony of Virginia. Thought to have been an indentured servant, Punch attempted to escape to Maryland and was sentenced in July 1640 by the Virginia Governor's Council to serve as a slave for the remainder of his life. Two European men who ran away with him were sentenced to longer indentures but not the permanent loss of their freedom. For this reason, historians consider John Punch the "first official slave in the English colonies," and his case as the "first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake." Historians also consider this to be one of the first legal distinctions between Europeans and Africans made in the colony, and a key milestone in the development of the institution of slavery in the United States.
- From Wikipedia.
John Punch (fl. 1630s, living 1640) was an enslaved African who lived in the Colony of Virginia. Thought to have been an indentured servant, Punch attempted to escape to Maryland and was sentenced in July 1640 by the Virginia Governor's Council to serve as a slave for the remainder of his life. Two European men who ran away with him were sentenced to longer indentures but not the permanent loss of their freedom. For this reason, historians consider John Punch the "first official slave in the English colonies," and his case as the "first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake." Historians also consider this to be one of the first legal distinctions between Europeans and Africans made in the colony, and a key milestone in the development of the institution of slavery in the United States.
From Wikipedia: James City County, Virginia
Apparently, this was the first county in the British Colonies
- Click here for the entry.
The Virginia Company of London was granted a proprietorship (charter) by King James I of England to attempt to establish a colony in the area we now know as Virginia. England had been at war with Spain and was seeking both capital funds and income in the form of royalties. In December, 1606, three ships set sail from England, led by Captain Christopher Newport. Upon reaching the New World at Cape Henry, they selected a site to settle about 40 miles (64 km) inland from the coast along a river to be better protected from attacks by sea from other Europeans. Soon after the establishment of Jamestown in 1607 in the new Colony of Virginia, English settlers first explored and then began settling more of the areas adjacent to Hampton Roads and along the James River.
The first five years were very difficult, and the majority of the colonists perished. In 1612, imported strains of tobacco cultivated in Virginia by colonist John Rolfe were successfully exported and a cash crop had been identified.
In 1619, the Virginia Company of London under a new leader, Sir Edwin Sandys, instituted a number of changes, to help stimulate more investment and attract settlers from England. In the long view, foremost among these was the establishment of what became the House of Burgesses, the first representative legislative body in the European settlement of North America, predecessor of today's Virginia General Assembly, first convened by a Royal Governor, Sir George Yeardley, of Flowerdew Hundred Plantation. Also in 1619, the plantations and developed portions of the Colony were divided into four "incorporations" or "citties," as they were then called. These were (east to west) Elizabeth Cittie (initially known as Kecoughtan), James Cittie, Charles Cittie, and Henrico Cittie. Each cittie covered a very large area. Elizabeth Cittie not only included land on both side of the James River, but most of what we now know as South Hampton Roads and also included Virginia's Eastern Shore.
The Virginia Company's "James Cittie" stretched across the Peninsula to the York River, and included the seat of government for the entire colony at Jamestown Island. Each of the four citties extended across the James River, the major thoroughfare of commerce for the settlers, and included land on both the north and south shores. With the incentives of 1619, many new developments, known as "hundreds" were established.
More on the early history of counties from Wikipedia.
- Click here for the entry.
Counties were among the earliest units of local government established in the Thirteen Colonies that would become the United States. Virginia created the first counties in order to ease the administrative workload in Jamestown. The House of Burgesses divided the colony first into four "incorporations" in 1617 and finally into eight shires (or counties) in 1634: James City, Henrico, Charles City, Charles River, Warrosquyoake, Accomac, Elizabeth City, and Warwick River.[11] America's oldest intact county court records can be found at Eastville, Virginia, in Northampton (originally Accomac) County, dating to 1632.[12] Maryland established its first county, St. Mary's, in 1637, and Massachusetts followed in 1643. Pennsylvania and New York delegated significant power and responsibility from state government to county governments and thereby established a pattern for most of the United States, although counties remained relatively weak in New England.[13]
When independence came, "the framers of the Constitution did not provide for local governments. Rather, they left the matter to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." In the twentieth century, the role of local governments strengthened and counties began providing more services, acquiring home rule and county commissions to pass local ordinances pertaining to their unincorporated areas.
- See also: History of County Government.
- Click here for the entry.
The Virginia Company of London was granted a proprietorship (charter) by King James I of England to attempt to establish a colony in the area we now know as Virginia. England had been at war with Spain and was seeking both capital funds and income in the form of royalties. In December, 1606, three ships set sail from England, led by Captain Christopher Newport. Upon reaching the New World at Cape Henry, they selected a site to settle about 40 miles (64 km) inland from the coast along a river to be better protected from attacks by sea from other Europeans. Soon after the establishment of Jamestown in 1607 in the new Colony of Virginia, English settlers first explored and then began settling more of the areas adjacent to Hampton Roads and along the James River.
The first five years were very difficult, and the majority of the colonists perished. In 1612, imported strains of tobacco cultivated in Virginia by colonist John Rolfe were successfully exported and a cash crop had been identified.
In 1619, the Virginia Company of London under a new leader, Sir Edwin Sandys, instituted a number of changes, to help stimulate more investment and attract settlers from England. In the long view, foremost among these was the establishment of what became the House of Burgesses, the first representative legislative body in the European settlement of North America, predecessor of today's Virginia General Assembly, first convened by a Royal Governor, Sir George Yeardley, of Flowerdew Hundred Plantation. Also in 1619, the plantations and developed portions of the Colony were divided into four "incorporations" or "citties," as they were then called. These were (east to west) Elizabeth Cittie (initially known as Kecoughtan), James Cittie, Charles Cittie, and Henrico Cittie. Each cittie covered a very large area. Elizabeth Cittie not only included land on both side of the James River, but most of what we now know as South Hampton Roads and also included Virginia's Eastern Shore.
The Virginia Company's "James Cittie" stretched across the Peninsula to the York River, and included the seat of government for the entire colony at Jamestown Island. Each of the four citties extended across the James River, the major thoroughfare of commerce for the settlers, and included land on both the north and south shores. With the incentives of 1619, many new developments, known as "hundreds" were established.
More on the early history of counties from Wikipedia.
- Click here for the entry.
Counties were among the earliest units of local government established in the Thirteen Colonies that would become the United States. Virginia created the first counties in order to ease the administrative workload in Jamestown. The House of Burgesses divided the colony first into four "incorporations" in 1617 and finally into eight shires (or counties) in 1634: James City, Henrico, Charles City, Charles River, Warrosquyoake, Accomac, Elizabeth City, and Warwick River.[11] America's oldest intact county court records can be found at Eastville, Virginia, in Northampton (originally Accomac) County, dating to 1632.[12] Maryland established its first county, St. Mary's, in 1637, and Massachusetts followed in 1643. Pennsylvania and New York delegated significant power and responsibility from state government to county governments and thereby established a pattern for most of the United States, although counties remained relatively weak in New England.[13]
When independence came, "the framers of the Constitution did not provide for local governments. Rather, they left the matter to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." In the twentieth century, the role of local governments strengthened and counties began providing more services, acquiring home rule and county commissions to pass local ordinances pertaining to their unincorporated areas.
- See also: History of County Government.
From the Brennan Center: New Voting Restrictions in America
- Click here for it.
Here's what they have for restrictions in Texas:
Texas
New law enacted in 2019: Cut back use of mobile early voting sites.
New restriction in place since 2016 election: Photo ID required if a voter has one, but an alternative will be available for those who present a non-photo ID from a preset list and execute an affidavit claiming to have certain, enumerated reasonable impediments to obtaining photo ID. Reasonable impediment alternative is more restrictive than the alternative in place in 2016.
Click here to see the types of ID required under Texas’s law.
New restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2016: Photo ID required if a voter has one, but an alternative will be available for those who have a reasonable impediment to obtaining ID.
Restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2012: Curbed voter registration drives.
Background: In 2012, a federal court blocked the 2011 photo ID law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The state then implemented the requirement after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Section 5 in 2013, and a photo ID was required to vote for the first time in a federal election in 2014.
In July 2016, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the strict photo ID law discriminates against minority voters, and therefore cannot be enforced against those who lack ID. In August 2016, a federal court approved an agreement that will allow voters with an obstacle to obtaining photo ID to cast a regular ballot in November 2016 after showing one of a much larger number of IDs and signing a declaration. In June 2017, in response to the litigation, Texas enacted a new voter ID law that is currently in place.
A Republican-controlled legislature passed the restriction on voter registration drives and the strict photo ID law in 2011, and both were signed by a GOP governor.
Here's what they have for restrictions in Texas:
Texas
New law enacted in 2019: Cut back use of mobile early voting sites.
New restriction in place since 2016 election: Photo ID required if a voter has one, but an alternative will be available for those who present a non-photo ID from a preset list and execute an affidavit claiming to have certain, enumerated reasonable impediments to obtaining photo ID. Reasonable impediment alternative is more restrictive than the alternative in place in 2016.
Click here to see the types of ID required under Texas’s law.
New restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2016: Photo ID required if a voter has one, but an alternative will be available for those who have a reasonable impediment to obtaining ID.
Restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2012: Curbed voter registration drives.
Background: In 2012, a federal court blocked the 2011 photo ID law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The state then implemented the requirement after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Section 5 in 2013, and a photo ID was required to vote for the first time in a federal election in 2014.
In July 2016, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the strict photo ID law discriminates against minority voters, and therefore cannot be enforced against those who lack ID. In August 2016, a federal court approved an agreement that will allow voters with an obstacle to obtaining photo ID to cast a regular ballot in November 2016 after showing one of a much larger number of IDs and signing a declaration. In June 2017, in response to the litigation, Texas enacted a new voter ID law that is currently in place.
A Republican-controlled legislature passed the restriction on voter registration drives and the strict photo ID law in 2011, and both were signed by a GOP governor.
From Wikipedia: Wasted Vote
- Click here for the entry.
Efficiency gap
Wasted votes are the basis for computing the efficiency gap, a measure devised by University of Chicago law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos and political scientist Eric McGhee in 2014. This statistic has been used to quantitatively assess the effect of gerrymandering, the assigning of voters to electoral districts in such a way as to increase the number of districts won by one political party at the expense of another. The heart of the computation is to add up, over all electoral districts, the wasted votes of each party's candidates. The efficiency gap is the difference between the two parties' wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes. Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that in a non-partisan redistricting with two roughly equally popular parties, the efficiency gap would be zero, with an equal number of wasted votes from either party. If the gap exceeded 7%, then Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that this could ensure the party with fewer wasted votes would be able to control the state for the duration of the validity of the district map.
Citing in part an efficiency gap of 11.69% to 13% in favor of the Republicans, a U.S. District Court ruling in Whitford v. Gill in 2016 ruled against the 2011 drawing of Wisconsin legislative districts. It was the first U.S. Federal court ruling to strike down a redistricting on the grounds of favoring a political party. In the 2012 election for the state legislature, Republican candidates had 48.6% of the two-party votes but won 61% of the 99 districts. The court found that the disparate treatment of Democratic and Republican voters violated the 1st and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. The State has challenged the District Court's ruling, and in June 2017, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in this case. The state is expected to challenge the validity of the efficiency gap measure.
Efficiency gap
Wasted votes are the basis for computing the efficiency gap, a measure devised by University of Chicago law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos and political scientist Eric McGhee in 2014. This statistic has been used to quantitatively assess the effect of gerrymandering, the assigning of voters to electoral districts in such a way as to increase the number of districts won by one political party at the expense of another. The heart of the computation is to add up, over all electoral districts, the wasted votes of each party's candidates. The efficiency gap is the difference between the two parties' wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes. Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that in a non-partisan redistricting with two roughly equally popular parties, the efficiency gap would be zero, with an equal number of wasted votes from either party. If the gap exceeded 7%, then Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that this could ensure the party with fewer wasted votes would be able to control the state for the duration of the validity of the district map.
Citing in part an efficiency gap of 11.69% to 13% in favor of the Republicans, a U.S. District Court ruling in Whitford v. Gill in 2016 ruled against the 2011 drawing of Wisconsin legislative districts. It was the first U.S. Federal court ruling to strike down a redistricting on the grounds of favoring a political party. In the 2012 election for the state legislature, Republican candidates had 48.6% of the two-party votes but won 61% of the 99 districts. The court found that the disparate treatment of Democratic and Republican voters violated the 1st and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. The State has challenged the District Court's ruling, and in June 2017, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in this case. The state is expected to challenge the validity of the efficiency gap measure.
From Jurist: Supreme Court rejects oil companies’ bid for stay in Baltimore climate change suit
Another lawsuit by a city against industry.
- Click here for the article.
The US Supreme Court declined to grant a stay to BP Plc and several other oil and gas companies Tuesday in a Baltimore lawsuit against the companies, solidifying a remand order issued by the US District Court for the District of Maryland.
The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore sued in state court last year against BP and 25 other oil companies for contributing to climate-related harm. BP removed to the federal district court, which granted Baltimore’s motion to remand to state court.
The oil companies asked the Supreme Court on October 1 for an emergency stay of the remand order until the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on their appeal of the district court’s decision. This triggered the Federal Officer Removal statute, which allows federal agencies and officials to remove state cases to federal court. Baltimore officials asked the US Supreme Court to deny BP Plc and other oil and gas companies’ attempt to stay Friday.
The oil companies argued that irreparable harm would result from the costs of simultaneously litigating the case in federal and state courts. Baltimore counter-argued that expensive legal proceedings are unlikely given the cases are in early stages and would result in endless requests for review by the Supreme Court.
Justice Sam Alito recused himself from weighing in on this case.
- Click here for the article.
The US Supreme Court declined to grant a stay to BP Plc and several other oil and gas companies Tuesday in a Baltimore lawsuit against the companies, solidifying a remand order issued by the US District Court for the District of Maryland.
The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore sued in state court last year against BP and 25 other oil companies for contributing to climate-related harm. BP removed to the federal district court, which granted Baltimore’s motion to remand to state court.
The oil companies asked the Supreme Court on October 1 for an emergency stay of the remand order until the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on their appeal of the district court’s decision. This triggered the Federal Officer Removal statute, which allows federal agencies and officials to remove state cases to federal court. Baltimore officials asked the US Supreme Court to deny BP Plc and other oil and gas companies’ attempt to stay Friday.
The oil companies argued that irreparable harm would result from the costs of simultaneously litigating the case in federal and state courts. Baltimore counter-argued that expensive legal proceedings are unlikely given the cases are in early stages and would result in endless requests for review by the Supreme Court.
Justice Sam Alito recused himself from weighing in on this case.
From Roll Call: Supreme Court erases Michigan gerrymandering ruling
For our look at the courts, redistricting, gerrymanderings, etc ...
- Click here for the article.
The Supreme Court on Monday officially wiped out a lower court ruling from April that had struck down Michigan’s congressional map as giving an unconstitutional boost to Republicans.
The high court’s move was expected, since the justices decided in June that federal courts can’t rein in politicians who draw political maps to entrench a partisan advantage.
If it had stood, Michigan would have had to redraw state legislative and congressional districts ahead of the 2020 elections, and it could have set up a more favorable battlefield for House Democrats.
In April, a panel of three federal judges had invalidated portions of the state and congressional maps drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2011 as violating the rights of Democratic voters.
After the 2018 midterms, Michigan’s 14-district House delegation was evenly split between the two parties, 7-7. (Republicans have since dropped to six seats after Justin Amash became an independent in July.)
The League of Women Voters and some Democrats challenged the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th districts, and the three-judge panel found that all nine of them were partisan gerrymanders “because they dilute the views of Democratic voters.”
But the ruling never went into effect. Republican members of Michigan’s congressional delegation and state lawmakers appealed to the Supreme Court, which put the ruling on hold as the justices decided two other cases about partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and Maryland.
In June, the justices, in a 5-4 opinion, found the Constitution did not give federal courts the authority to strike down maps as partisan gerrymanders. Instead, the majority wrote, that was a political question and a task for Congress and the states.
- Wikipedia: Gill v Whitford.
- Wikipedia: Rucho v. Common Cause.
- Click here for the article.
The Supreme Court on Monday officially wiped out a lower court ruling from April that had struck down Michigan’s congressional map as giving an unconstitutional boost to Republicans.
The high court’s move was expected, since the justices decided in June that federal courts can’t rein in politicians who draw political maps to entrench a partisan advantage.
If it had stood, Michigan would have had to redraw state legislative and congressional districts ahead of the 2020 elections, and it could have set up a more favorable battlefield for House Democrats.
In April, a panel of three federal judges had invalidated portions of the state and congressional maps drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2011 as violating the rights of Democratic voters.
After the 2018 midterms, Michigan’s 14-district House delegation was evenly split between the two parties, 7-7. (Republicans have since dropped to six seats after Justin Amash became an independent in July.)
The League of Women Voters and some Democrats challenged the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th districts, and the three-judge panel found that all nine of them were partisan gerrymanders “because they dilute the views of Democratic voters.”
But the ruling never went into effect. Republican members of Michigan’s congressional delegation and state lawmakers appealed to the Supreme Court, which put the ruling on hold as the justices decided two other cases about partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and Maryland.
In June, the justices, in a 5-4 opinion, found the Constitution did not give federal courts the authority to strike down maps as partisan gerrymanders. Instead, the majority wrote, that was a political question and a task for Congress and the states.
- Wikipedia: Gill v Whitford.
- Wikipedia: Rucho v. Common Cause.
From ScotusBlog: Recent polls show confidence in Supreme Court, with caveats
For our look at polling, public opinion, and the Supreme Court.
- Click here for the article.
Public faith in government has fallen to historic lows. The Supreme Court, however, appears to have bucked the trend. A number of recent polls demonstrate broad public support for the job the justices are doing, though this approval appears influenced by party alignment.
Surveys of public opinion on the court were released this month by Gallup and the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, and Marquette Law School released another yesterday. Although the results depend to some degree on how the questions are framed, the polls share two central findings: The Supreme Court enjoys an appreciable level of public support, and this support is higher among political conservatives.
Annenberg found that 68 percent of the public trusts the court to act in the public’s best interest, while Gallup found that a more modest 54 percent approve of the job the court is doing. Of respondents to the Marquette survey, 80 percent possess at least “some” confidence in the Supreme Court, while nearly 40 percent rank their confidence level at “quite a lot” or “a great deal.” Marquette also found that, of the three branches of government, 57 percent find the Supreme Court most trustworthy, compared with 22 percent for Congress and 21 percent for the president.
This confidence is split by ideology. According to Marquette’s poll, 52 percent of “very conservative” respondents have high confidence in the court, compared to 31 percent of “very liberal” voters – 36 percent of those “very liberal” voters report low confidence. Gallup found a drastic shift in these relative levels of support under President Donald Trump, with conservative support for the court nearly tripling since 2016 and liberal support reduced by more than half.
- Click here for the article.
Public faith in government has fallen to historic lows. The Supreme Court, however, appears to have bucked the trend. A number of recent polls demonstrate broad public support for the job the justices are doing, though this approval appears influenced by party alignment.
Surveys of public opinion on the court were released this month by Gallup and the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, and Marquette Law School released another yesterday. Although the results depend to some degree on how the questions are framed, the polls share two central findings: The Supreme Court enjoys an appreciable level of public support, and this support is higher among political conservatives.
Annenberg found that 68 percent of the public trusts the court to act in the public’s best interest, while Gallup found that a more modest 54 percent approve of the job the court is doing. Of respondents to the Marquette survey, 80 percent possess at least “some” confidence in the Supreme Court, while nearly 40 percent rank their confidence level at “quite a lot” or “a great deal.” Marquette also found that, of the three branches of government, 57 percent find the Supreme Court most trustworthy, compared with 22 percent for Congress and 21 percent for the president.
This confidence is split by ideology. According to Marquette’s poll, 52 percent of “very conservative” respondents have high confidence in the court, compared to 31 percent of “very liberal” voters – 36 percent of those “very liberal” voters report low confidence. Gallup found a drastic shift in these relative levels of support under President Donald Trump, with conservative support for the court nearly tripling since 2016 and liberal support reduced by more than half.
From Newsweek: THESE CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE GOING AFTER BIG PHARMA IN THE OPIOID CRISIS
Dated 3/12/18
- Click here for the article.
Miami-Dade County announced this week that it was planning to take legal action against drug manufacturers and distributors for their role in the opioid crisis there—and joined a host of counties and cities across the country taking Big Pharma to court in the wake of one of the worst addiction crises in American history.
The county retained a law firm to investigate claims that drug manufacturers and distributors contributed to the opioid crisis and increased health care and policing costs for the community. The law firm, Podhurst Orseck, pointed to the nearly $1 billion in yearly costs to Florida hospitals for treatment of the crisis and Miami's 228 overdose deaths in the year 2016 alone in a release.
"Drug manufacturers and distributors are obligated by federal and state laws to properly monitor and control the supply and distribution of opioids," Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos A. Giménez said in a statement about the investigation. "Their collective failure to do so has flooded our communities with these highly addictive drugs and crippled the resources of our municipalities, which have had to bear the heavy costs."
The state of Florida has long struggled with the opioid crisis, and Governor Rick Scott in May declared a public health emergency in response. Miami-Dade, like many counties and cities, is alleging that drug companies used deceptive marketing that downplayed the dangers of opioids, and is pointing to the costs its community has incurred because of those drugs.
The local momentum builds upon recent federal action taken against the pharmaceutical industry. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Tuesday that he would be filing a statement of interest in a lawsuit against some manufacturers, and announced a new task force that would investigate those companies and the claims against them.
For more:
- OPIOID MANUFACTURERS PAID MILLIONS TO GROUPS THAT LOBBIED FOR MORE OPIOID USAGE, SENATE INVESTIGATION CLAIMS.
- Click here for the article.
Miami-Dade County announced this week that it was planning to take legal action against drug manufacturers and distributors for their role in the opioid crisis there—and joined a host of counties and cities across the country taking Big Pharma to court in the wake of one of the worst addiction crises in American history.
The county retained a law firm to investigate claims that drug manufacturers and distributors contributed to the opioid crisis and increased health care and policing costs for the community. The law firm, Podhurst Orseck, pointed to the nearly $1 billion in yearly costs to Florida hospitals for treatment of the crisis and Miami's 228 overdose deaths in the year 2016 alone in a release.
"Drug manufacturers and distributors are obligated by federal and state laws to properly monitor and control the supply and distribution of opioids," Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos A. Giménez said in a statement about the investigation. "Their collective failure to do so has flooded our communities with these highly addictive drugs and crippled the resources of our municipalities, which have had to bear the heavy costs."
The state of Florida has long struggled with the opioid crisis, and Governor Rick Scott in May declared a public health emergency in response. Miami-Dade, like many counties and cities, is alleging that drug companies used deceptive marketing that downplayed the dangers of opioids, and is pointing to the costs its community has incurred because of those drugs.
The local momentum builds upon recent federal action taken against the pharmaceutical industry. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Tuesday that he would be filing a statement of interest in a lawsuit against some manufacturers, and announced a new task force that would investigate those companies and the claims against them.
For more:
- OPIOID MANUFACTURERS PAID MILLIONS TO GROUPS THAT LOBBIED FOR MORE OPIOID USAGE, SENATE INVESTIGATION CLAIMS.
For our upcoming look at the expansion of the national government (AKA cooperative federalism)
The First New Deal (1933–1934)
Emergency Banking Act
1933 Banking Act
Federal Emergency Relief Administration
Securities Act of 1933
National Recovery Administration
The Second New Deal (1935–1936)
Wagner Act
Works Progress Administration
Social Security Act
United States Housing Authority
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
Emergency Banking Act
1933 Banking Act
Federal Emergency Relief Administration
Securities Act of 1933
National Recovery Administration
The Second New Deal (1935–1936)
Wagner Act
Works Progress Administration
Social Security Act
United States Housing Authority
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
From the NIC: The History of Corrections in America
- Click here for it.
The United States government established the prison system in 1891. The Three Prison Act established funding for Leavenworth, McNeil Island and UPS Atlanta. It appears the first Federal prison was Leavenworth in Kansas. It started housing prisoners in 1906; however, prior to it opening federal prisoners were held at Fort Leavenworth military prison. Prisoners were used to build the facility.
Before the U.S. government passed the Three Prison Act, federal prisoners were held in state prisons. Today the Federal Bureau of Prisons houses inmates convicted of federal crimes. As of today the total number of inmates held in BOP operated facilities is 183,820 in 122 institutions, 27 residential reentry management offices and 11 privately managed facilities.
The United States government established the prison system in 1891. The Three Prison Act established funding for Leavenworth, McNeil Island and UPS Atlanta. It appears the first Federal prison was Leavenworth in Kansas. It started housing prisoners in 1906; however, prior to it opening federal prisoners were held at Fort Leavenworth military prison. Prisoners were used to build the facility.
Before the U.S. government passed the Three Prison Act, federal prisoners were held in state prisons. Today the Federal Bureau of Prisons houses inmates convicted of federal crimes. As of today the total number of inmates held in BOP operated facilities is 183,820 in 122 institutions, 27 residential reentry management offices and 11 privately managed facilities.
From NPR: Your Guide To The Massive (And Massively Complex) Opioid Litigation
A current example of a civil suit - county governments against corporations.
- Click here for the article.
Make no mistake: The legal fight over liability for the U.S. opioid crisis is only heating up.
An 11th-hour settlement Monday morning averted what would have been the first trial in a landmark federal case, one involving thousands of plaintiffs at nearly every level of government and defendants from every link in the chain of opioid drug production. But all the other lawsuits in the broader case remain on track for courtroom confrontations.
And with the costs of the crisis estimated at tens of billions of dollars and with more than 200,000 overdose deaths since the late 1990s, the stakes are immense — even for people who have never heard of this case. What happens with it will largely determine how much money cities and counties nationwide will have to fight the devastating effects of opioid abuse and when they'll get it.
- Click here for the article.
Make no mistake: The legal fight over liability for the U.S. opioid crisis is only heating up.
An 11th-hour settlement Monday morning averted what would have been the first trial in a landmark federal case, one involving thousands of plaintiffs at nearly every level of government and defendants from every link in the chain of opioid drug production. But all the other lawsuits in the broader case remain on track for courtroom confrontations.
And with the costs of the crisis estimated at tens of billions of dollars and with more than 200,000 overdose deaths since the late 1990s, the stakes are immense — even for people who have never heard of this case. What happens with it will largely determine how much money cities and counties nationwide will have to fight the devastating effects of opioid abuse and when they'll get it.
From the Texas Tribune: Clerical concern prompts the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to halt Ruben Gutierrez's execution
- Click here for the article.
Ruben Gutierrez has been fighting to stop his death by requesting DNA testing he claims could prove his innocence in the brutal killing of an elderly woman in Brownsville. But it was a clerical error that prompted the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Tuesday to halt his Oct. 30 execution.
The state’s highest criminal court issued a stay after Gutierrez’s attorneys argued his death warrant didn’t have the proper seal from the court when it was delivered to the sheriff and an attorney, invalidating it.
. . . A large focus of Gutierrez’s appeals has been on DNA testing. At the time of Harrison’s death, police preserved fingernail scrapings, a hair in her hand and blood stains, but DNA was never tested. Gutierrez has fought for a decade to get the evidence tested, claiming it can prove he was not Harrison’s killer. Cameron County prosecutors have argued that because there may have been multiple killers, tested evidence that didn't match him still wouldn’t mark him as innocent.
So far, the courts have rejected such testing. A new filing on the matter is pending at the Court of Criminal Appeals, but the court stopped Gutierrez’s execution on a technical question instead.
When the convicting court sets an execution date, Texas law states that the district clerk must issue an execution warrant “under the seal of the court” within 10 days to the county sheriff, who then delivers it to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The court must also send copies of the warrant to the attorneys in the case and the state’s Office of Capital and Forensic Writs, a state public defender office.
The warrant sent to the public defender office and the sheriff did not have the seal on it, and was sent 12 days after the execution was set, according to the court briefings. County prosecutors said it is wrong to stop Gutierrez’s execution for the clerical errors because the importance of the law is that notice is given fairly to all parties.
Ruben Gutierrez has been fighting to stop his death by requesting DNA testing he claims could prove his innocence in the brutal killing of an elderly woman in Brownsville. But it was a clerical error that prompted the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Tuesday to halt his Oct. 30 execution.
The state’s highest criminal court issued a stay after Gutierrez’s attorneys argued his death warrant didn’t have the proper seal from the court when it was delivered to the sheriff and an attorney, invalidating it.
. . . A large focus of Gutierrez’s appeals has been on DNA testing. At the time of Harrison’s death, police preserved fingernail scrapings, a hair in her hand and blood stains, but DNA was never tested. Gutierrez has fought for a decade to get the evidence tested, claiming it can prove he was not Harrison’s killer. Cameron County prosecutors have argued that because there may have been multiple killers, tested evidence that didn't match him still wouldn’t mark him as innocent.
So far, the courts have rejected such testing. A new filing on the matter is pending at the Court of Criminal Appeals, but the court stopped Gutierrez’s execution on a technical question instead.
When the convicting court sets an execution date, Texas law states that the district clerk must issue an execution warrant “under the seal of the court” within 10 days to the county sheriff, who then delivers it to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The court must also send copies of the warrant to the attorneys in the case and the state’s Office of Capital and Forensic Writs, a state public defender office.
The warrant sent to the public defender office and the sheriff did not have the seal on it, and was sent 12 days after the execution was set, according to the court briefings. County prosecutors said it is wrong to stop Gutierrez’s execution for the clerical errors because the importance of the law is that notice is given fairly to all parties.
Dennis Bonnen Quits
- After a steady rise, Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen's fall came fast.
- Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen's downfall throws House majority fight into uncertainty.
- With a lame-duck speaker, Texas House confronts the work of the interim.
- Analysis: Dennis Bonnen gave Texas legislators a reason to distrust their leaders, too.
- Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen won't seek reelection after recording scandal.
- Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen's downfall throws House majority fight into uncertainty.
- With a lame-duck speaker, Texas House confronts the work of the interim.
- Analysis: Dennis Bonnen gave Texas legislators a reason to distrust their leaders, too.
- Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen won't seek reelection after recording scandal.
River Pirates (Documentary)
Wikipedia: Cave in Rock, Illinois.
Wikipedia: Illinois, Territory.
Wikipedia: River Pirates.
Wikipedia: Flatboats.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
From the House Committee on Oversight and Reform: Emoluments Clause
The committee has been holding a variety of hearings on accusations the the president has violated the clause repeatedly.
- Click here for the list of hearings.
President Trump is defying warnings from Republican and Democratic ethics experts and refusing to do what every previous president has done for decades — divest himself of his ownership interests, liquidate his business assets, and place them in a truly blind trust operated by an independent entity. As a result, Chairman Cummings is conducting oversight to protect against violations of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the President from obtaining any benefit of any kind from foreign governments or affiliated entities “without the consent of Congress.” Potential Emoluments Clause violations could include foreign government officials who buy up entire floors of hotel rooms, pay higher rents at Trump Tower, lower interest rates on loans, speed up permits for development projects, or take all kinds of other inappropriate actions to ingratiate themselves with the new Administration.
- Click here for the list of hearings.
President Trump is defying warnings from Republican and Democratic ethics experts and refusing to do what every previous president has done for decades — divest himself of his ownership interests, liquidate his business assets, and place them in a truly blind trust operated by an independent entity. As a result, Chairman Cummings is conducting oversight to protect against violations of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the President from obtaining any benefit of any kind from foreign governments or affiliated entities “without the consent of Congress.” Potential Emoluments Clause violations could include foreign government officials who buy up entire floors of hotel rooms, pay higher rents at Trump Tower, lower interest rates on loans, speed up permits for development projects, or take all kinds of other inappropriate actions to ingratiate themselves with the new Administration.
Monday, October 21, 2019
From the Texas Association of Counties: 2019 Legislative Analysis Report
- Click here for it.
Texas District & County Attorneys Association
Texas Association of County Auditors
County & District Clerks’ Association of Texas
County Judges & Commissioners Association of Texas
Justices of the Peace & Constables Association of Texas
Sheriffs’ Association of Texas
Tax Assessor-Collectors Association of Texas
County Treasurers’ Association of Texas
Texas District & County Attorneys Association
Texas Association of County Auditors
County & District Clerks’ Association of Texas
County Judges & Commissioners Association of Texas
Justices of the Peace & Constables Association of Texas
Sheriffs’ Association of Texas
Tax Assessor-Collectors Association of Texas
County Treasurers’ Association of Texas
From Harris Votes: ABOUT THE COUNTY CLERK
- Click here for the source.
COUNTY CLERK’S FUNCTIONS AS ADMINISTRATOR OF ELECTIONS
As Chief Election Official of Harris County, the County Clerk has the responsibility of carrying out statutory electoral functions outlined by federal and state laws. Some of the County Clerk’s electoral functions include:
Provide training to all Presiding and Alternate Election Judges to ensure the proper execution of state and federal election law during each county/federal election;
Creating the ballot for county, state and federal elections in a manner provided by the state law.
Establishing the number of early voting locations in Harris County and schedule of voting hours (subject to approval by Commissioners Court);
Securing Election Day polling locations (subject to approval by Commissioners Court);
Securing the County’s election equipment and maintenance of equipment;
Accepting requests for ballots to be sent by mail and processing all returned ballots for tabulation;
Storing official campaign disclosure forms for local candidates;
Archiving official election results and voter histories for Harris County and reporting this information to the Secretary of State for district, statewide, and federal offices;
In short, the County Clerk is the administrator of elections and works with the Commissioners Court, the Tax Assessor Collector, the major political parties and other stakeholders to establish an elections infrastructure that facilitates access to the voting process to the citizenry of the third largest county in the United States.
COUNTY CLERK’S FUNCTIONS AS ADMINISTRATOR OF ELECTIONS
As Chief Election Official of Harris County, the County Clerk has the responsibility of carrying out statutory electoral functions outlined by federal and state laws. Some of the County Clerk’s electoral functions include:
Provide training to all Presiding and Alternate Election Judges to ensure the proper execution of state and federal election law during each county/federal election;
Creating the ballot for county, state and federal elections in a manner provided by the state law.
Establishing the number of early voting locations in Harris County and schedule of voting hours (subject to approval by Commissioners Court);
Securing Election Day polling locations (subject to approval by Commissioners Court);
Securing the County’s election equipment and maintenance of equipment;
Accepting requests for ballots to be sent by mail and processing all returned ballots for tabulation;
Storing official campaign disclosure forms for local candidates;
Archiving official election results and voter histories for Harris County and reporting this information to the Secretary of State for district, statewide, and federal offices;
In short, the County Clerk is the administrator of elections and works with the Commissioners Court, the Tax Assessor Collector, the major political parties and other stakeholders to establish an elections infrastructure that facilitates access to the voting process to the citizenry of the third largest county in the United States.
Federal Criminal Law
DOJ: Federal Criminal Law.
U.S. Code Title 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Clarifacts: FEDERAL CRIMES LIST.
Wikipedia: Federal crime in the United States.
Wikipedia: Criminal law of the United States.
U.S. Code Title 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Clarifacts: FEDERAL CRIMES LIST.
Wikipedia: Federal crime in the United States.
Wikipedia: Criminal law of the United States.
From the Texas Tribune: Greg Abbott says TxDOT could remove homeless camps from Austin's highway underpasses
More on state / local conflict.
- Click here for the article.
Gov. Greg Abbott's office said Friday the Texas Department of Transportation could force homeless Austin residents out from under bridges and overpasses where some of them live or camp if recent changes to city ordinances don't result in less feces and fewer needles by Nov. 1.
Abbott plans to work with homeless shelters in Austin, according to a statement from a spokesman, who said they are currently working out details about when or how the camps will be cleared if such a plan is implemented.
The announcement comes less than a day after the Austin City Council changed its ordinances regarding camping, sitting and lying in public spaces. Camping is now banned on city sidewalks, near homeless shelters in and around downtown, and in high wildfire risk areas. Sitting and lying are no longer permitted within 15 feet of the entrance or exit to a business or residence.
“By reforming its homelessness policy, the city of Austin has taken a meaningful step to address the safety and health of Texans — including the homeless,” Abbott spokesman John Wittman said in a statement Friday afternoon. “The state will monitor how well the new policy actually reduces the skyrocketing complaints about attacks by the homeless and other public safety concerns. The state will also continue to monitor water quality for e-coli and other bacteria.”
The city's change will go into effect Oct. 27, four days before a deadline Abbott gave Austin officials to make a "consequential improvement" with what he called a homelessness crisis in the state's capital. That deadline and this week's changes follow the council's controversial decision earlier this year to relax some ordinances that critics said criminalized homelessness.
News of TxDOT's potential plans, which the Austin American-Statesman first reported, broke as Austin Mayor Steve Adler met with the media. Adler said he had not communicated with the governor, but that it had been suggested to him that Abbott would move people out of encampments under overpasses near state roads.
“I hope he doesn’t do that unless he has somewhere for those people to go,” Adler said, adding that he doesn't want people living under overpasses, but he doesn't want them moved into less public spaces like the woods, either.
Adler also said that he hopes the governor provides people experiencing homelessness with “a housing exit” should Abbott choose to move people into shelters.
- Click here for the article.
Gov. Greg Abbott's office said Friday the Texas Department of Transportation could force homeless Austin residents out from under bridges and overpasses where some of them live or camp if recent changes to city ordinances don't result in less feces and fewer needles by Nov. 1.
Abbott plans to work with homeless shelters in Austin, according to a statement from a spokesman, who said they are currently working out details about when or how the camps will be cleared if such a plan is implemented.
The announcement comes less than a day after the Austin City Council changed its ordinances regarding camping, sitting and lying in public spaces. Camping is now banned on city sidewalks, near homeless shelters in and around downtown, and in high wildfire risk areas. Sitting and lying are no longer permitted within 15 feet of the entrance or exit to a business or residence.
“By reforming its homelessness policy, the city of Austin has taken a meaningful step to address the safety and health of Texans — including the homeless,” Abbott spokesman John Wittman said in a statement Friday afternoon. “The state will monitor how well the new policy actually reduces the skyrocketing complaints about attacks by the homeless and other public safety concerns. The state will also continue to monitor water quality for e-coli and other bacteria.”
The city's change will go into effect Oct. 27, four days before a deadline Abbott gave Austin officials to make a "consequential improvement" with what he called a homelessness crisis in the state's capital. That deadline and this week's changes follow the council's controversial decision earlier this year to relax some ordinances that critics said criminalized homelessness.
News of TxDOT's potential plans, which the Austin American-Statesman first reported, broke as Austin Mayor Steve Adler met with the media. Adler said he had not communicated with the governor, but that it had been suggested to him that Abbott would move people out of encampments under overpasses near state roads.
“I hope he doesn’t do that unless he has somewhere for those people to go,” Adler said, adding that he doesn't want people living under overpasses, but he doesn't want them moved into less public spaces like the woods, either.
Adler also said that he hopes the governor provides people experiencing homelessness with “a housing exit” should Abbott choose to move people into shelters.
From the New Yorker: Who Really Stands to Win from Universal Basic Income?
Some analysis about a popular topic among Democratic presidential candidates.
- Click here for the article.
In 1795, a group of magistrates gathered in the English village of Speenhamland to try to solve a social crisis brought on by the rising price of grain. The challenge was an increase in poverty, even among the employed. The social system at the time, which came to be known as Elizabethan Poor Law, divided indigent adults into three groups: those who could work, those who could not, and those—the “idle poor”—who seemed not to want to. The able and disabled received work or aid through local parishes. The idle poor were forced into labor or rounded up and beaten for being bums. As grain prices increased, the parishes became overwhelmed with supplicants. Terrorizing idle people turned into a vast, unmanageable task.
The magistrates at Speenhamland devised a way of offering families measured help. Household incomes were topped up to cover the cost of living. A man got enough to buy three gallon loaves a week (about eight and a half pounds of bread), plus a loaf and a half for every other member of his household. This meant that a couple with three children could bring home the equivalent of more than twenty-five pounds a week—a lot of bread. The plan let men receive a living wage by working for small payments or by not working at all.
Economics is at heart a narrative art, a frame across which data points are woven into stories about how the world should work. As the Speenhamland system took hold and spread across England, it turned into a parable of caution. The population nearly doubled. Thomas Malthus posited that the poverty subsidies allowed couples to rear families before their actual earnings allowed it. His contemporary David Ricardo complained that the Speenhamland model was a prosperity drain, inviting “imprudence, by offering it a portion of the wages of prudence and industry.” Karl Marx attacked the system years later, in “Das Kapital,” suggesting that it had kept labor wages low, while Karl Polanyi, the economic historian, cast Speenhamland as the original sin of industrial capitalism, making lower classes irrelevant to the labor market just as new production mechanisms were being built. When the Speenhamland system ended, in 1834, people were plunged into a labor machine in which they had no role or say. The commission that repealed the system replaced it with Dickensian workhouses—a corrective, at the opposite extreme, for a program that everyone agreed had failed.
In 1969, Richard Nixon was preparing a radical new poverty-alleviation program when an adviser sent him a memo of material about the Speenhamland experiment. The story freaked Nixon out in a way that only Nixon could be freaked out, and although his specific anxiety was allayed, related concerns lingered. According to Daniel P. Moynihan, another Nixon adviser, who, in 1973, published a book about the effort, Speenhamland was the beginning of a push that led the President’s program, the Family Assistance Plan, toward a work requirement—an element that he had not included until then.
- Click here for the article.
In 1795, a group of magistrates gathered in the English village of Speenhamland to try to solve a social crisis brought on by the rising price of grain. The challenge was an increase in poverty, even among the employed. The social system at the time, which came to be known as Elizabethan Poor Law, divided indigent adults into three groups: those who could work, those who could not, and those—the “idle poor”—who seemed not to want to. The able and disabled received work or aid through local parishes. The idle poor were forced into labor or rounded up and beaten for being bums. As grain prices increased, the parishes became overwhelmed with supplicants. Terrorizing idle people turned into a vast, unmanageable task.
The magistrates at Speenhamland devised a way of offering families measured help. Household incomes were topped up to cover the cost of living. A man got enough to buy three gallon loaves a week (about eight and a half pounds of bread), plus a loaf and a half for every other member of his household. This meant that a couple with three children could bring home the equivalent of more than twenty-five pounds a week—a lot of bread. The plan let men receive a living wage by working for small payments or by not working at all.
Economics is at heart a narrative art, a frame across which data points are woven into stories about how the world should work. As the Speenhamland system took hold and spread across England, it turned into a parable of caution. The population nearly doubled. Thomas Malthus posited that the poverty subsidies allowed couples to rear families before their actual earnings allowed it. His contemporary David Ricardo complained that the Speenhamland model was a prosperity drain, inviting “imprudence, by offering it a portion of the wages of prudence and industry.” Karl Marx attacked the system years later, in “Das Kapital,” suggesting that it had kept labor wages low, while Karl Polanyi, the economic historian, cast Speenhamland as the original sin of industrial capitalism, making lower classes irrelevant to the labor market just as new production mechanisms were being built. When the Speenhamland system ended, in 1834, people were plunged into a labor machine in which they had no role or say. The commission that repealed the system replaced it with Dickensian workhouses—a corrective, at the opposite extreme, for a program that everyone agreed had failed.
In 1969, Richard Nixon was preparing a radical new poverty-alleviation program when an adviser sent him a memo of material about the Speenhamland experiment. The story freaked Nixon out in a way that only Nixon could be freaked out, and although his specific anxiety was allayed, related concerns lingered. According to Daniel P. Moynihan, another Nixon adviser, who, in 1973, published a book about the effort, Speenhamland was the beginning of a push that led the President’s program, the Family Assistance Plan, toward a work requirement—an element that he had not included until then.
Friday, October 18, 2019
Thursday, October 17, 2019
From Wikipedia: Jay Clayton
Some background on the current chair of the SEC.
- Click here for the full page.
From 1993 to 1995, Clayton clerked for Judge Marvin Katz of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.[7]
After being a summer associate at the firm in the summer of 1992, Clayton joined Sullivan & Cromwell full-time in October 1995 and became a partner in January 2001.[6] At Sullivan & Cromwell, Clayton was a member of the firm's management committee and co-managing partner of the firm's General Practice Group.[1][8] He specialized in mergers and acquisitions transactions and capital markets offerings[7] and represented prominent Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs.[9] He served as an adviser to numerous companies regarding issues related to the SEC, Federal Reserve, Department of Justice, and other agencies.[10]
He has also helped multiple corporations raise money through initial public offerings, including Alibaba Group,[11] Ally Financial, Och-Ziff Capital Management, Oaktree Capital Management, Blackhawk Network Holdings, and Moelis & Company.[7] During the financial crisis of 2007–2008, Clayton advised Bear Stearns in its fire sale to JPMorgan Chase in 2007, Barclays Capital in the purchase of Lehman Brothers' assets following their bankruptcy, and Goldman Sachs in connection with the investment by Berkshire Hathaway.[4]
Clayton disclosed to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics that his other corporate clients had included TeliaSonera AB, Ally Financial, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Volkswagen, SoftBank Group, The Weinstein Company, Pershing Square Capital Management, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Clayton's individual clients included Ocwen's former head William Erbey, Paul Tudor Jones, former Attorney General of Ireland Peter Southerland, CDW founder Michael Krasny and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman.[12]
Clayton earned $7.6 million in 2016 from his firm and has a family wealth of at least $50 million. A substantial portion of his holdings were in mutual funds of the Vanguard Group. His investments also included private funds managed by Apollo Global Management, Bain Capital, J.C. Flowers & Co., and Richard C. Perry but he divested these investments upon confirmation.[12]
- Click here for the full page.
From 1993 to 1995, Clayton clerked for Judge Marvin Katz of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.[7]
After being a summer associate at the firm in the summer of 1992, Clayton joined Sullivan & Cromwell full-time in October 1995 and became a partner in January 2001.[6] At Sullivan & Cromwell, Clayton was a member of the firm's management committee and co-managing partner of the firm's General Practice Group.[1][8] He specialized in mergers and acquisitions transactions and capital markets offerings[7] and represented prominent Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs.[9] He served as an adviser to numerous companies regarding issues related to the SEC, Federal Reserve, Department of Justice, and other agencies.[10]
He has also helped multiple corporations raise money through initial public offerings, including Alibaba Group,[11] Ally Financial, Och-Ziff Capital Management, Oaktree Capital Management, Blackhawk Network Holdings, and Moelis & Company.[7] During the financial crisis of 2007–2008, Clayton advised Bear Stearns in its fire sale to JPMorgan Chase in 2007, Barclays Capital in the purchase of Lehman Brothers' assets following their bankruptcy, and Goldman Sachs in connection with the investment by Berkshire Hathaway.[4]
Clayton disclosed to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics that his other corporate clients had included TeliaSonera AB, Ally Financial, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Volkswagen, SoftBank Group, The Weinstein Company, Pershing Square Capital Management, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Clayton's individual clients included Ocwen's former head William Erbey, Paul Tudor Jones, former Attorney General of Ireland Peter Southerland, CDW founder Michael Krasny and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman.[12]
Clayton earned $7.6 million in 2016 from his firm and has a family wealth of at least $50 million. A substantial portion of his holdings were in mutual funds of the Vanguard Group. His investments also included private funds managed by Apollo Global Management, Bain Capital, J.C. Flowers & Co., and Richard C. Perry but he divested these investments upon confirmation.[12]
From Wikipedia: Lockheed Martin
Lobbying
According to the magazine Politico, Lockheed Martin has "a political network that is already the envy of its competitors", and its contracts enjoy wide bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress thanks to it having "perfected the strategy of spreading jobs on weapons programs in key states and congressional districts".[94] The company's 2010 lobbying expenditure by the third quarter was $9.9 million (2009 total: $13.7 million).[95][96]
Through its political action committee (PAC), the company provides low levels of financial support to candidates who advocate national defense and relevant business issues.[97] It was the largest contributor to the House Armed Services Committee chairman, Republican Buck McKeon of California with over $50,000 donated in the election cycle as of January 2011. It also was the top donor to Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee before his death in 2012.[77]
Lockheed Martin Employees Political Action Committee is one of the 50 largest in the country, according to FEC data. With contributions from 3,000 employees, it donates $500,000 a year to about 260 House and Senate candidates.[98]
According to the magazine Politico, Lockheed Martin has "a political network that is already the envy of its competitors", and its contracts enjoy wide bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress thanks to it having "perfected the strategy of spreading jobs on weapons programs in key states and congressional districts".[94] The company's 2010 lobbying expenditure by the third quarter was $9.9 million (2009 total: $13.7 million).[95][96]
Through its political action committee (PAC), the company provides low levels of financial support to candidates who advocate national defense and relevant business issues.[97] It was the largest contributor to the House Armed Services Committee chairman, Republican Buck McKeon of California with over $50,000 donated in the election cycle as of January 2011. It also was the top donor to Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee before his death in 2012.[77]
Lockheed Martin Employees Political Action Committee is one of the 50 largest in the country, according to FEC data. With contributions from 3,000 employees, it donates $500,000 a year to about 260 House and Senate candidates.[98]
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
From Open Secrets: Super PACs
For out look at campaign financing.
- Click here for the article.
Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.
Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis – the super PAC's choice – in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.
As of October 16, 2019, 1,563 groups organized as super PACs have reported total receipts of $177,298,278 and total independent expenditures of $11,684,880 in the 2020 cycle. See more on Outside Spending.
- Click here for the article.
Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.
Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis – the super PAC's choice – in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.
As of October 16, 2019, 1,563 groups organized as super PACs have reported total receipts of $177,298,278 and total independent expenditures of $11,684,880 in the 2020 cycle. See more on Outside Spending.
A few items from the Texas Tribune
- Primary fights few and far between as Texas Republicans focus on November 2020.
- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recuses himself from opinion, citing conflict of interest.
- Analysis: Michael Quinn Sullivan’s torment of Dennis Bonnen could end next week.
- Texas' $7 billion plan to remake Houston highways once again targets homes, businesses in communities of color.
- State Sen. Pat Fallon decides against primary challenge to Cornyn.
- As its U.S. House members of color depart, Texas GOP grapples with its lack of diversity.
- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recuses himself from opinion, citing conflict of interest.
- Analysis: Michael Quinn Sullivan’s torment of Dennis Bonnen could end next week.
- Texas' $7 billion plan to remake Houston highways once again targets homes, businesses in communities of color.
- State Sen. Pat Fallon decides against primary challenge to Cornyn.
- As its U.S. House members of color depart, Texas GOP grapples with its lack of diversity.
Bletchley Park
An interesting story about the man who helped create traffic analysis, which would become the basis for how the internet and the cloud work today. Note the role the military plays in the development of this technology.
- Traffic Analysis.
- Gordon Welchman.
- MITRE Corporation.
From Vox: The Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment is in grave danger from the Supreme Court
More on how the current Supreme Court might change how due process rights in the Constitution are interpreted.
- Click here for the article.
There probably isn’t much doubt how Mathena v. Malvo, a case the Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday, will wind up being resolved.
The “Malvo” in this case is Lee Boyd Malvo, one half of the infamous pair of serial killers who terrorized the Washington, DC area with a sniper rampage in 2002. He was 17 at the time of the rampage, and he claims that the sentencing courts did not follow the proper process for condemning a juvenile offender to life without parole — though it’s doubtful that a majority of the Court will agree with him.
Several of the justices lived in the DC area during the three-week period when residents were scared to go outside for fear that they would be killed by Malvo and his partner, John Allen Muhammad. Malvo’s legal arguments rest on a fairly aggressive reading of a 2012 Supreme Court decision that split the Court 5-4. Notably, former Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the key fifth vote in that decision.
But even in the likely event that Malvo loses, it matters a great deal how Malvo loses. Malvo claims that he was sentenced in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments.” And the Supreme Court signaled just a few months ago that it wants to dramatically roll back the scope of that amendment.
Last April, in Bucklew v. Precythe, the Supreme Court signaled that it plans a wholesale rethinking of how it understands the Eighth Amendment. Malvo is the Court’s first Eighth Amendment case since Bucklew, so it could offer a window into just how deeply the Court’s Republican majority plans to cut into the shield against bizarre and excessive punishments.
Malvo could prove to be a fairly minor case, which simply states that the Court will not apply its 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama — which held that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders” — in the specific way that Malvo seeks. In theory, the case could also end in a victory for Malvo, although that outcome seems unlikely.
- Click here for the article.
There probably isn’t much doubt how Mathena v. Malvo, a case the Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday, will wind up being resolved.
The “Malvo” in this case is Lee Boyd Malvo, one half of the infamous pair of serial killers who terrorized the Washington, DC area with a sniper rampage in 2002. He was 17 at the time of the rampage, and he claims that the sentencing courts did not follow the proper process for condemning a juvenile offender to life without parole — though it’s doubtful that a majority of the Court will agree with him.
Several of the justices lived in the DC area during the three-week period when residents were scared to go outside for fear that they would be killed by Malvo and his partner, John Allen Muhammad. Malvo’s legal arguments rest on a fairly aggressive reading of a 2012 Supreme Court decision that split the Court 5-4. Notably, former Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the key fifth vote in that decision.
But even in the likely event that Malvo loses, it matters a great deal how Malvo loses. Malvo claims that he was sentenced in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments.” And the Supreme Court signaled just a few months ago that it wants to dramatically roll back the scope of that amendment.
Last April, in Bucklew v. Precythe, the Supreme Court signaled that it plans a wholesale rethinking of how it understands the Eighth Amendment. Malvo is the Court’s first Eighth Amendment case since Bucklew, so it could offer a window into just how deeply the Court’s Republican majority plans to cut into the shield against bizarre and excessive punishments.
Malvo could prove to be a fairly minor case, which simply states that the Court will not apply its 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama — which held that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders” — in the specific way that Malvo seeks. In theory, the case could also end in a victory for Malvo, although that outcome seems unlikely.
Monday, October 14, 2019
From the Pew Research Center: Why Americans Don’t Fully Trust Many Who Hold Positions of Power and Responsibility
For our look at both polling and governing institutions.
- Click here for the article.
People invest their trust in institutions and those who have power for a variety of reasons. Researchers have found that people’s confidence in others and organizations can include their judgments about the competence, honesty and benevolence of the organizations or individuals they are assessing, as well as factors such as empathy, openness, integrity and accountability. These perceptions can be seen as building blocks of trust.
Taking account of those insights, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that people offer different judgments about these building blocks of trust when it comes to eight groups of people who hold positions of power and responsibility in America: members of Congress, local elected officials, K-12 public school principals, journalists, military leaders, police officers, leaders of technology companies and religious leaders.
- Click here for the article.
People invest their trust in institutions and those who have power for a variety of reasons. Researchers have found that people’s confidence in others and organizations can include their judgments about the competence, honesty and benevolence of the organizations or individuals they are assessing, as well as factors such as empathy, openness, integrity and accountability. These perceptions can be seen as building blocks of trust.
Taking account of those insights, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that people offer different judgments about these building blocks of trust when it comes to eight groups of people who hold positions of power and responsibility in America: members of Congress, local elected officials, K-12 public school principals, journalists, military leaders, police officers, leaders of technology companies and religious leaders.
From 538: What Happened When 2.2 Million People Were Automatically Registered To Vote
For our look at voter registration.
- Click here for the article.
As recently as 2015, automatic voter registration did not exist in the United States. Yet today, 16 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted (though in several cases, not yet implemented) some version of AVR. Almost overnight, it has become a core part of the agenda for those who want to make it easier for more people to vote. This year alone, AVR bills have been introduced in 39 states.1 Where they can’t convince the legislature, AVR advocates sometimes take their case to the people — Alaska, Michigan and Nevada have all enacted the policy via ballot measure. And someday, AVR could become a national mandate: It was a centerpiece of H.R. 1, the voting-rights bill passed earlier this year by the newly Democratically controlled U.S. House of Representatives.
AVR is meant to help people register to vote without needing to remember to do so — states just automatically register eligible citizens whenever they first interact with a government agency, usually the Department of Motor Vehicles, though some states include other agencies as well. Say you’re in California and you’re renewing your driver’s license. Unless you opt out, you’re going to be on a voter roll by the time you leave the DMV. AVR proponents say this can inject thousands of new voters into the electorate and help achieve near-universal voter registration.
That logic assumes, though, that being unregistered is the main thing that stops some people from voting. There’s another option: that unregistered people are mostly those who were never going to vote anyway. If that’s the case, turnout wouldn’t change much no matter how many more people got registered.
To find out whether states that automatically register voters saw an increase in electoral participation, FiveThirtyEight collected registration and turnout statistics from all eight jurisdictions that implemented AVR in time for the 2018 general election (Alaska, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont). To our knowledge, this is the first time this data has been made public for multiple states, and therefore the first opportunity to see how registration trends changed.
Our analysis shows that people who were registered through AVR do vote — but not necessarily at the same rate as those who register themselves.
- Click here for the article.
As recently as 2015, automatic voter registration did not exist in the United States. Yet today, 16 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted (though in several cases, not yet implemented) some version of AVR. Almost overnight, it has become a core part of the agenda for those who want to make it easier for more people to vote. This year alone, AVR bills have been introduced in 39 states.1 Where they can’t convince the legislature, AVR advocates sometimes take their case to the people — Alaska, Michigan and Nevada have all enacted the policy via ballot measure. And someday, AVR could become a national mandate: It was a centerpiece of H.R. 1, the voting-rights bill passed earlier this year by the newly Democratically controlled U.S. House of Representatives.
AVR is meant to help people register to vote without needing to remember to do so — states just automatically register eligible citizens whenever they first interact with a government agency, usually the Department of Motor Vehicles, though some states include other agencies as well. Say you’re in California and you’re renewing your driver’s license. Unless you opt out, you’re going to be on a voter roll by the time you leave the DMV. AVR proponents say this can inject thousands of new voters into the electorate and help achieve near-universal voter registration.
That logic assumes, though, that being unregistered is the main thing that stops some people from voting. There’s another option: that unregistered people are mostly those who were never going to vote anyway. If that’s the case, turnout wouldn’t change much no matter how many more people got registered.
To find out whether states that automatically register voters saw an increase in electoral participation, FiveThirtyEight collected registration and turnout statistics from all eight jurisdictions that implemented AVR in time for the 2018 general election (Alaska, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont). To our knowledge, this is the first time this data has been made public for multiple states, and therefore the first opportunity to see how registration trends changed.
Our analysis shows that people who were registered through AVR do vote — but not necessarily at the same rate as those who register themselves.
From the Atlantic: A Step Toward Blowing Up the Presidential-Voting System
For our look at elections: ranked choice voting.
- Click here for the article.
The 2016 presidential election pitted the two most disliked candidates in the history of public polling against each other. In the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, millions of Americans found themselves forced to vote for a major-party nominee they plainly couldn’t stand or to risk electing the candidate they hated even more by casting their ballot for a third-party contender.
For the first time next November, a slice of the American electorate will have a way out of that lesser-of-two-evils scenario.
With a law set to take effect in 2020, Maine will become the first state to adopt ranked-choice voting for a presidential election—a method in which people list candidates by order of preference rather than bubbling in just one circle. Maine controls only four electoral votes and splits them in half by congressional district, but the change could have huge consequences if the national presidential race to 270 electoral votes is close.
In 2016, Clinton carried Maine by just three points, but she won just less than 48 percent of the vote in the state—a plurality but not a majority. If ranked-choice voting had been in place at the time, it’s possible the state could have gone to Trump. The format works like an instant runoff: If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the least support is eliminated. Whomever that person’s voters picked as their second choice is then added to the tallies, and the process repeats until one candidate reaches a majority.
Maine’s adoption of ranked-choice voting at the presidential level is the latest boon for an election-reform movement that has gained popularity across the country in recent years. Its proponents hail the method as a way to engage and empower more voters in a highly polarized political environment, while cutting costs in states and municipalities that currently hold runoff elections to ensure that winners secure a majority of the vote. The format played a big role in San Francisco’s high-profile mayoral race last year, and voters in New York City will decide in a ballot referendum this November whether to implement ranked-choice voting in future citywide elections.
- Click here for the article.
The 2016 presidential election pitted the two most disliked candidates in the history of public polling against each other. In the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, millions of Americans found themselves forced to vote for a major-party nominee they plainly couldn’t stand or to risk electing the candidate they hated even more by casting their ballot for a third-party contender.
For the first time next November, a slice of the American electorate will have a way out of that lesser-of-two-evils scenario.
With a law set to take effect in 2020, Maine will become the first state to adopt ranked-choice voting for a presidential election—a method in which people list candidates by order of preference rather than bubbling in just one circle. Maine controls only four electoral votes and splits them in half by congressional district, but the change could have huge consequences if the national presidential race to 270 electoral votes is close.
In 2016, Clinton carried Maine by just three points, but she won just less than 48 percent of the vote in the state—a plurality but not a majority. If ranked-choice voting had been in place at the time, it’s possible the state could have gone to Trump. The format works like an instant runoff: If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the least support is eliminated. Whomever that person’s voters picked as their second choice is then added to the tallies, and the process repeats until one candidate reaches a majority.
Maine’s adoption of ranked-choice voting at the presidential level is the latest boon for an election-reform movement that has gained popularity across the country in recent years. Its proponents hail the method as a way to engage and empower more voters in a highly polarized political environment, while cutting costs in states and municipalities that currently hold runoff elections to ensure that winners secure a majority of the vote. The format played a big role in San Francisco’s high-profile mayoral race last year, and voters in New York City will decide in a ballot referendum this November whether to implement ranked-choice voting in future citywide elections.
Friday, October 11, 2019
From Mount Vernon: Fairfax Family
An early wealthy colonial family, Washington made connections with them as a kid.
- Click here for the article.
The Fairfax family of Fairfax County, Virginia, lived in a splendid brick mansion called Belvoir on the Potomac River four miles downstream from Mount Vernon. In his youth, George Washington developed lifelong friendships with several members of the Fairfax family and established social connections that would propel him to prominence as a young surveyor, soldier, and politician. George Washington fondly remembered his time with the Fairfaxes as "the happiest moments of my life."1
The Fairfaxes were descended from a prominent family based in Yorkshire, England, that had obtained a Scottish peerage from King Charles I in 1627. By 1719, Thomas Fairfax the sixth Baron of Cameron, inherited control of the vast Northern Neck Proprietary, a five million acre land grant between Virginia's Rappahannock and Potomac rivers. In 1734 he asked his cousin William Fairfax to act as his land agent in Virginia. By 1743, William and his family were comfortably settled into their new home on the Potomac. That same year Lawrence Washington married Colonel William Fairfax's eldest daughter Ann and the couple settled down at the newly re-named Mount Vernon, just across Dogue Creek from Belvoir.
Lawrence's younger brother George Washington became a part of the extended Fairfax family. He became a frequent foxhunting companion of Colonel Fairfax, who took an active interest in Washington's career. In 1748, Washington accompanied the Colonel's eldest son George William Fairfax on a surveying expedition across the Blue Ridge Mountains to Lord Fairfax's lands in the Shenandoah Valley.
- Click here for the article.
The Fairfax family of Fairfax County, Virginia, lived in a splendid brick mansion called Belvoir on the Potomac River four miles downstream from Mount Vernon. In his youth, George Washington developed lifelong friendships with several members of the Fairfax family and established social connections that would propel him to prominence as a young surveyor, soldier, and politician. George Washington fondly remembered his time with the Fairfaxes as "the happiest moments of my life."1
The Fairfaxes were descended from a prominent family based in Yorkshire, England, that had obtained a Scottish peerage from King Charles I in 1627. By 1719, Thomas Fairfax the sixth Baron of Cameron, inherited control of the vast Northern Neck Proprietary, a five million acre land grant between Virginia's Rappahannock and Potomac rivers. In 1734 he asked his cousin William Fairfax to act as his land agent in Virginia. By 1743, William and his family were comfortably settled into their new home on the Potomac. That same year Lawrence Washington married Colonel William Fairfax's eldest daughter Ann and the couple settled down at the newly re-named Mount Vernon, just across Dogue Creek from Belvoir.
Lawrence's younger brother George Washington became a part of the extended Fairfax family. He became a frequent foxhunting companion of Colonel Fairfax, who took an active interest in Washington's career. In 1748, Washington accompanied the Colonel's eldest son George William Fairfax on a surveying expedition across the Blue Ridge Mountains to Lord Fairfax's lands in the Shenandoah Valley.
From Wikipedia: Northern Neck Proprietary
A look at the struggle over landownership when the colonies transitioned into states.
- Click here for the entry.
The Northern Neck Proprietary — also called the Northern Neck land grant, Fairfax Proprietary, or Fairfax Grant — was a land grant first contrived by the exiled English King Charles II in 1649 and encompassing all the lands bounded by the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers in colonial Virginia. This constituted up to 5,000,000 acres (20,000 km2) of Virginia's Northern Neck and a vast area northwest of it.
The grant became actual in 1660 when Charles was restored to the English throne. By 1719, these lands had been inherited by Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron (1693-1781). By that time the question of the boundaries of the designated lands had also become highly contentious. It was decided in 1746 that a line between the sources of the North Branch of the Potomac and the Rappahannock River (the "Fairfax Line") would constitute the western limit of Lord Fairfax's lands.
The unsettled portions of his domain were finally confiscated during the American Revolution by the Virginia Act of 1779 and when he died in 1781 the Proprietary effectively ceased to exist. A portion of this estate, however, was later the subject of the landmark Supreme Court case Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816).
- Click here for the entry.
The Northern Neck Proprietary — also called the Northern Neck land grant, Fairfax Proprietary, or Fairfax Grant — was a land grant first contrived by the exiled English King Charles II in 1649 and encompassing all the lands bounded by the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers in colonial Virginia. This constituted up to 5,000,000 acres (20,000 km2) of Virginia's Northern Neck and a vast area northwest of it.
The grant became actual in 1660 when Charles was restored to the English throne. By 1719, these lands had been inherited by Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron (1693-1781). By that time the question of the boundaries of the designated lands had also become highly contentious. It was decided in 1746 that a line between the sources of the North Branch of the Potomac and the Rappahannock River (the "Fairfax Line") would constitute the western limit of Lord Fairfax's lands.
The unsettled portions of his domain were finally confiscated during the American Revolution by the Virginia Act of 1779 and when he died in 1781 the Proprietary effectively ceased to exist. A portion of this estate, however, was later the subject of the landmark Supreme Court case Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816).
Survey of 330 Acres for Edward Hogan, George Washington, 1 November 1749
Washington's initial occupation.
From the Library of Virginia: Surveyors and Mapmakers
I'm on surveying kick
- Click here for the article.
From the founding of the colony, Virginia's surveyors and mapmakers charted westward expansion, internal development, and natural resources. Colonial surveyors were generally literate men who learned their craft from books on surveying or through experience. Among Virginia's early surveyors were John Henry (father of Patrick Henry), Peter Jefferson (father of Thomas Jefferson), and George Washington. Surveyors, especially those who were appointed as surveyors for a county, were key figures in colonial society. George Washington was not the only surveyor to use skill to increase his holdings of land, the basis of wealth and social status in colonial Virginia.
Virginians' pattern of settling land in advance of surveying was common to the southern colonies. A person interested in acquiring a land patent was not required to choose land contiguous to land already surveyed or land of a regular shape. Surveys by metes and bounds created tracts that reflected the owner's desire to choose the best land, no matter its location. The resulting surveys were irregularly shaped. Surveying on the frontier entailed considerable risk to the members of the surveying party as they tramped through unexplored swamps and forests and battled mosquitoes, disease, and snakes.
The Virginia Company of London appointed a surveyor general for Virginia in 1621, and the crown continued to appoint surveyors general after Virginia became a royal colony in 1624. From 1693 until the Revolutionary War, the College of William and Mary was responsible for the Office of the Surveyor General, which appointed official surveyors and received one-sixth of the fees that they collected. The new Commonwealth of Virginia established the Land Office on 22 June 1779, which continued the earlier practice of transferring title to land only after a survey had been executed.
Confusion arose in the case of the Northern Neck Proprietary, more than five million acres controlled by the Fairfax family from about 1685, which the colonial government was forced to recognize after 1660. The Proprietary recognized titles granted previously by the government but maintained a separate land office until 1781. Surveys became part of the legal documentation that determined the boundaries of the Proprietary. Thomas, sixth baron Fairfax, retained control of the Proprietary through the Revolutionary War because he was not recognized as a British loyalist. At his death in 1781, however, the Commonwealth of Virginia considered Fairfax's heirs as loyalists and claimed control over the Proprietary. Ownership of Northern Neck Proprietary was finally decided in favor of Virginia in 1816
- Click here for the article.
From the founding of the colony, Virginia's surveyors and mapmakers charted westward expansion, internal development, and natural resources. Colonial surveyors were generally literate men who learned their craft from books on surveying or through experience. Among Virginia's early surveyors were John Henry (father of Patrick Henry), Peter Jefferson (father of Thomas Jefferson), and George Washington. Surveyors, especially those who were appointed as surveyors for a county, were key figures in colonial society. George Washington was not the only surveyor to use skill to increase his holdings of land, the basis of wealth and social status in colonial Virginia.
Virginians' pattern of settling land in advance of surveying was common to the southern colonies. A person interested in acquiring a land patent was not required to choose land contiguous to land already surveyed or land of a regular shape. Surveys by metes and bounds created tracts that reflected the owner's desire to choose the best land, no matter its location. The resulting surveys were irregularly shaped. Surveying on the frontier entailed considerable risk to the members of the surveying party as they tramped through unexplored swamps and forests and battled mosquitoes, disease, and snakes.
The Virginia Company of London appointed a surveyor general for Virginia in 1621, and the crown continued to appoint surveyors general after Virginia became a royal colony in 1624. From 1693 until the Revolutionary War, the College of William and Mary was responsible for the Office of the Surveyor General, which appointed official surveyors and received one-sixth of the fees that they collected. The new Commonwealth of Virginia established the Land Office on 22 June 1779, which continued the earlier practice of transferring title to land only after a survey had been executed.
Confusion arose in the case of the Northern Neck Proprietary, more than five million acres controlled by the Fairfax family from about 1685, which the colonial government was forced to recognize after 1660. The Proprietary recognized titles granted previously by the government but maintained a separate land office until 1781. Surveys became part of the legal documentation that determined the boundaries of the Proprietary. Thomas, sixth baron Fairfax, retained control of the Proprietary through the Revolutionary War because he was not recognized as a British loyalist. At his death in 1781, however, the Commonwealth of Virginia considered Fairfax's heirs as loyalists and claimed control over the Proprietary. Ownership of Northern Neck Proprietary was finally decided in favor of Virginia in 1816
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)