Wednesday, September 30, 2020
The New Left in the 1960s
Another factor weakening the New Deal Coalition.
The rise of social issues - as well as anti-war sentiment.
- Click here for the entry.
The Vietnam War conducted by liberal President Lyndon B. Johnson was a special target across the worldwide New Left. Johnson and his top officials became unwelcome on American campuses. The anti-war movement escalated the rhetorical heat, as violence broke out on both sides. The climax came at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
The New Left also accommodated the rebirth of feminism. As the original leaders of the New Left were largely white men, women reacted to the lack of progressive gender politics with their own social intellectual movement. The New Left was also marked by the invention of the modern environmentalist movement, which clashed with the Old Left's disregard for the environment in favor of preserving the jobs of union workers. Environmentalism also gave rise to various other social justice movements such as the environmental justice movement, which aims to prevent the toxification of the environment of minority and disadvantaged communities.By 1968, however, the New Left coalition began to split. The anti-war Democratic presidential nomination campaign of Kennedy and McCarthy brought the central issue of the New Left into the mainstream liberal establishment. The 1972 nomination of George McGovern further highlighted the new influence of Liberal protest movements within the Democratic establishment. Increasingly, feminist and gay rights groups became important parts of the Democratic coalition, thus satisfying many of the same constituencies that were previously unserved by the mainstream parties.
From Wikipedia: The Southern Strategy
Another wedge driven through the New Deal Coalition
- Click here for the entry.
In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.
From Wikipedia: Law and order (politics)
One of the political themes that drove a wedge through the New Deal Coalition in the 1968 campaign.
- Click here for the entry.
Both the concept and the exact phrase "Law and order" became a powerful political theme in the United States during the late 1960s. The leading proponents were two Republicans, the governor of California Ronald Reagan and presidential candidate Richard Nixon. Nixon targeted, among others, working class White ethnics in northern cities to turn against the Democratic Party, blaming it for being soft on crime and rioters.
Flamm (2005) argues that liberals were unable to craft a compelling message for anxious voters. Instead, they either ignored the crime crisis, claimed that law and order was a racist ruse, or maintained that social programs would solve the "root causes" of civil disorder, which by 1968 seemed increasingly unlikely and contributed to a loss of faith in the ability of the government to do what it was sworn to do—protect personal security and private property. Conservatives rejected the liberal notions. "How long are we going to abdicate law and order," House GOP leader Gerald Ford demanded in 1966, "in favor of a soft social theory that the man who heaves a brick through your window or tosses a firebomb into your car is simply the misunderstood and underprivileged product of a broken home?"
Flamm (2005) documents how conservatives constructed a persuasive message that argued that the Civil Rights Movement had contributed to racial unrest and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society had rewarded rather than punished the perpetrators of violence.
History of the City of Houston’s Drinking Water Operations
It is what it says it is. A look at one of the essential functions of local government.
- Click here for the article.
In the second half of the 20th Century, new wells were drilled to supply water to the city’s pump stations, but it was soon apparent that Houston leaders would need to develop longrange solutions, and identify additional water resources to meet the demands of an exploding, post World War II population. City officials responsible for water production had the foresight to obtain the rights to nearby surface water sources (lakes and rivers) to insure a plentiful and dependable supply for the future. Two federally funded World War II era canals that flow from the San Jacinto River to the Ship Channel were purchased in 1945 and in 1954, and a dam was constructed across the San Jacinto River to create Lake Houston.
With a reservoir of 160,000 acre-feet, Lake Houston is a dependable supply of raw water for the nearby metropolitan area. Houston’s first water purification plant (the East Water Purification Plant) processes water from Lake Houston that travels to the plant via the twelve mile long West Canal. The City of Houston now holds a percentage of the water rights to Lake Livingston (constructed in 1969) and Lake Conroe (constructed in 1973). In 1990, the Southeast Water Purification Plant began pumping water and in 2005 the newest treatment plant, the Northeast Water Purification Plant, opened its valves. As the nation’s fourth largest municipal water provider, Houston will eventually provide water not only to the city, but to several counties adjoining Harris County.
From Wikipedia: Slave patrols
One of the origins of policing in the United States.
- Click here for the entry.
Slave patrols first began in South Carolina in 1704 and spread throughout the thirteen colonies, lasting well beyond the American Revolution. As the population of enslaved black people boomed, especially with the invention of the cotton gin, so did the fear of resistance and uprisings by the enslaved. The development of slave patrols began when other means of slave control failed to quell enslaved people's resistance. Their biggest concern were the enslaved being held against their will on the plantations since that is where enslaved populations were highest. Initially, incentives were offered to whites such as tobacco and money to urge whites to be more vigilant in the capture of runaway enslaved persons that had escaped. When this approach failed, slave patrols were formally established.
Laws were put into place to regulate the activities of both blacks and whites. Black persons were subjected to questioning, searches, and other harassment. Slaves who were encountered without passes from their white "master" were expected to be returned to their owners, as stated in the slave code. Punishment for runaway slaves, such as whippings and beatings, could be expected. More than floggings and beatings, however, enslaved people feared the threat of being placed on the auction block and being separated from their families. If caught by patrols and returned to their masters, being placed on the auction block was an option for masters who no longer wanted to deal with their "non-compliant" slaves. During these times, slaves were often neglected and mistreated despite having permission to travel.
From EKU: The History of Policing in the United States
- Click here for it.
These “modern police” organizations shared similar characteristics: (1) they were publicly supported and bureaucratic in form; (2) police officers were fulltime employees, not community volunteers or case-by-case fee retainers; (3) departments had permanent and fixed rules and procedures, and employment as a police officers was continuous; (4) police departments were accountable to a central governmental authority (Lundman 1980).
In the Southern states the development of American policing followed a different path. The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the “Slave Patrol” (Platt 1982). The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704 (Reichel 1992). Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules. Following the Civil War, these vigilante-style organizations evolved in modern Southern police departments primarily as a means of controlling freed slaves who were now laborers working in an agricultural caste system, and enforcing “Jim Crow” segregation laws, designed to deny freed slaves equal rights and access to the political system.
The key question, of course, is what was it about the United States in the 1830s that necessitated the development of local, centralized, bureaucratic police forces? One answer is that cities were growing. The United States was no longer a collection of small cities and rural hamlets. Urbanization was occurring at an ever-quickening pace and old informal watch and constable system was no longer adequate to control disorder. Anecdotal accounts suggest increasing crime and vice in urban centers. Mob violence, particularly violence directed at immigrants and African Americans by white youths, occurred with some frequency. Public disorder, mostly public drunkenness and sometimes prostitution, was more visible and less easily controlled in growing urban centers than it had been rural villages (Walker 1996).
But evidence of an actual crime wave is lacking. So, if the modern American police force was not a direct response to crime, then what was it a response to? More than crime, modern police forces in the United States emerged as a response to “disorder.” What constitutes social and public order depends largely on who is defining those terms, and in the cities of 19th century America they were defined by the mercantile interests, who through taxes and political influence supported the development of bureaucratic policing institutions.
For a look at the various departments of city government:
look at the one's in Houston.
- Click here for them.
From the Texas Tribune: Federal court orders Texas prison system to provide hand sanitizer for some geriatric inmates during pandemic
More on federalism. The national government forcing the state government to comply with national rules.
- Click here for the article.
After a weekslong trial that started in July, U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison ruled that Texas Department of Criminal Justice officials acted with deliberate indifference toward the inmates’ medical needs and recklessly disregarded obvious health risks during the pandemic.
“The Court acknowledges that [TDCJ officials] have taken a number of steps to address the spread of COVID-19 … at the Pack Unit,” Ellison wrote in his ruling. “But the Court views these measures as the most basic steps that TDCJ could have taken to prevent mass death within the prison walls on an unimaginable scale. Designing a policy and implementing some of the measures therein does not automatically satisfy Defendants’ constitutional obligations, especially in the face of an unprecedented public health crisis.”
Jeremy Desel, a TDCJ spokesperson, said the department continues to take precautions to slow and stop the spread of the virus inside prisons.
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
What is the Texas Alliance for Retired Americans?
From Wikipedia: New Deal coalition
For our look at political parties.
- Click here for the entry.
The New Deal coalition was the alignment of interest groups and voting blocs in the United States that supported the New Deal and voted for Democratic candidates from 1932 until the late 1960s. It made the Democratic Party the majority party nationally during that period. Democrats lost control of the White House only to Dwight D. Eisenhower, a pro-New Deal Republican and war hero, in 1952 and 1956; they also controlled both Houses of Congress for most of the period. Franklin D. Roosevelt forged a coalition that included the Democratic state party organizations, city machines, labor unions, blue collar workers, minorities (including Jews, Southern and Eastern Europeans, and African-Americans), farmers, white Southerners, people on relief, and intellectuals. This coalition provided Roosevelt with popular support for the many large-scale government programs that were enacted during the New Deal. The coalition began to fall apart with the bitter factionalism during the 1968 election, but it remains the model that party activists seek to replicate.
Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections
For perusal this week as we walk through the results of presidential elections.
- Click here for it.
From the Texas Tribune: Houston Republicans sue to limit in-person and absentee voting options in Harris County
Elections, parties, interest groups, counties, and the judiciary - all in one article.
- Click here for it.
A litigious conservative activist in Houston, the Harris County Republican party, and a number of Republican officials and candidates are asking the Texas Supreme Court to limit in-person and absentee voting options for Harris County voters during the pandemic.
Prominent activist Steve Hotze, as well as Wendell Champion, a Republican candidate for Congress; Sharon Hemphill, a Republican candidate for judge; and the local GOP chair, are suing to stop that, arguing Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins is overreaching the bounds of state election law. They’re asking the state’s highest civil court to order Harris County to not begin early voting until Oct. 19 — the date set by state law that Abbott extended by executive order, citing safety concerns — and not accept absentee ballots delivered in person until Nov. 3.
Monday, September 28, 2020
Competing theories of political conflict
- Elite theory.
Through positions in corporations or on corporate boards, and influence over policy-planning networks through financial support of foundations or positions with think tanks or policy-discussion groups, members of the "elite" exert significant power over corporate and government decisions.
The basic characteristics of this theory are that power is concentrated, the elites are unified, the non-elites are diverse and powerless, elites' interests are unified due to common backgrounds and positions and the defining characteristic of power is institutional position.
- Pluralism.
Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The central question for classical pluralism is how power and influence are distributed in a political process. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups. There may be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out by the various forms and distributions of resources throughout a population. Any change under this view will be slow and incremental, as groups have different interests and may act as "veto groups" to destroy legislation. The existence of diverse and competing interests is the basis for a democratic equilibrium,[1] and is crucial for the obtaining of goals by individuals.
From Justia: Opinions Authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Could be worth a perusal.
- Click here for it.
Supreme Court Cases involving no-knock warrants
First - English common law:
Semayne's case - established the knock and announce rule.
Wilson v. Arkansas - incorporated to the states.
Hudson v. Michigan - violations of the no-knock warrants does not trigger the exclusionary rule.
From Wikipedia: No-knock warrant
A definition
- Click here for the entry.
In the United States, a no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell. In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully enter the property. It is issued under the belief that any evidence they hope to find can be destroyed during the time that police identify themselves and the time they secure the area, or in the event where there is a large perceived threat to officer safety during the execution of the warrant.
Critics argue that no-knock warrants were prone to lead to deadly use of force by police and the deaths of innocent people. No-knock warrants also conflict with the right to self-defense, "stand-your-ground" laws, and Castle Doctrine which explicitly permit the use of deadly force against intruders
From the Congressional Research Service: “No-Knock”Warrants and Other Law Enforcement Identification Considerations
- Click here for the report.
A chunk of it:
. . . amid recent calls for legislative changes to police practices, another area that has received attention concerns the authority for law enforcement officers to execute a warrant by entering a home without first seeking consensual entry by announcing themselves and their purpose. As a default, law enforcement officers must comply with the knock and announce rule— an “ancient” common-law doctrine, which generally requires officers to knock and announce their presence before entering a home to execute a search warrant. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement as generally mandating compliance with the knock and announce rule. The knock and announce rule is also codified in a federal statute, but the Supreme Court has interpreted that statute as “prohibiting nothing” and “merely [authorizing] officers to damage property [upon entry] in certain instances.”When officers violate the knock and announce rule, they may be subject to civil lawsuits and “internal police discipline.” However, in Hudson v. Michigan the Supreme Court curtailed the remedies available for knock and announce violations by concluding that evidence obtained following such a violation is not subject to the exclusionary rule, which “prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution.”
From the Pew Research Center: Democrats Made Gains From Multiple Sources in 2018 Midterm Victories
For our look at election results: An explanation of the 2018 national election.
- Click here for the story.
- Click here for a similar study of the 2016 results.
Nonvoters in 2016 who turned out in 2018 voted heavily for Democratic candidates, accounting for about half of the Democratic gains. Additionally, a small share of the gains came from people who voted for third-party candidates in 2016; they favored Democratic candidates over Republican candidates in 2018 by a narrow margin.
Voting patterns in 2018 reflected a great deal of continuity with 2016, though Democratic candidates in 2018 did better among a few groups, notably men, young people and secular voters. Voting patterns among several other large groups changed less, including Black voters, voters ages 65 and older, Protestants, regular churchgoers and women.
Given their relatively lower turnout, midterm elections are not necessarily predictive of what will happen in the next presidential election, when many more American voters will take part.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Republicans sue to stop Gov. Greg Abbott's extension of early voting period during the pandemic
Tension seems to be building with the state party: the party organization v the party in government.
- Click here for the article.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is facing a lawsuit over his extension of early voting for the November election from prominent members of his own party — including state party Chair Allen West, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and members of the Texas Legislature.
It is the latest legal challenge to Abbott's emergency powers, which he has wielded aggressively in dealing with the pandemic.
From the Pew Research Center: Key things to know about election polling in the United States
- Click here for it.
A robust public polling industry is a marker of a free society. It’s a testament to the ability of organizations outside the government to gather and publish information about the well-being of the public and citizens’ views on major issues. In nations without robust polling, the head of government can simply decree citizens’ wants and needs instead.
One way to help avoid a repeat of the skepticism about surveys that followed the last presidential election is to narrow the gap between perception and reality when it comes to how polling works. People have many notions about polling – often based on an introductory statistics class, but sometimes even less – that are frequently false. The real environment in which polls are conducted bears little resemblance to the idealized settings presented in textbooks.
With that in mind, here are some key points the public should know about polling heading into this year’s presidential election.
- Different polling organizations conduct their surveys in quite different ways.
- The barriers to entry in the polling field have disappeared.
- A poll may label itself “nationally representative,” but that’s not a guarantee that its methodology is solid.
- The real margin of error is often about double the one reported.
There is evidence that when the public is told that a candidate is extremely likely to win, some people may be less likely to vote.
- Estimates of the public’s views of candidates and major policies are generally trustworthy, but estimates of who will win the “horse race” are less so.
- All good polling relies on statistical adjustment called “weighting” to make sure that samples align with the broader population on key characteristics.
- Failing to adjust for survey respondents’ education level is a disqualifying shortfall in present-day battleground and national polls.
- Transparency in how a poll was conducted is associated with better accuracy.
- The problems with state polls in 2016 do not mean that polling overall is broken.
- Evidence for “shy Trump” voters who don’t tell pollsters their true intentions is much thinner than some people think.
- A systematic miss in election polls is more likely than people think.
- National polls are better at giving Americans equal voice than predicting the Electoral College.
From the Texas Tribune: Federal judge blocks Texas’ elimination of straight-ticket voting
Very big news - the Texas attorney general has filed an appeal.
- click here for the article.
Less than three weeks before early voting begins in Texas, a U.S. district judge has blocked the state from eliminating straight-ticket voting as an option for people who go to the polls this November.
Marmolejo also found that the GOP-backed law would “impose a discriminatory burden” on Black and Hispanic voters and “create comparatively less opportunities for these voters to participate in the political process.”
She acknowledged the burden the decision could put on local and state election officials, who will have to recalibrate voting machines or reprint ballots. But she reasoned that the potential harm for those suing, including the Texas Alliance for Retired Americans, was “outweighed by the inconveniences resulting.”
The day after the ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released a statement saying that his office filed a motion to stop the judge’s order and intends to file an immediate appeal of the district court’s ruling.
“I am disappointed that the Court departed from its prior reasoning and imposed straight ticket voting only weeks before a general election,” Paxton said.
The popular practice of straight-ticket voting allowed general-election voters to vote for all of the candidates of either party in an election by simply picking a straight-ticket option at the top of the ballot. But Texas Republican lawmakers championed a change to the law during the 2017 legislative session, arguing it would compel voters to make more-informed decisions because they would have to make a decision on every race on a ballot.
Update:
- Federal appeals court temporarily blocks ruling that reinstated straight-ticket voting in Texas.
A federal appeals court on Monday put a temporary hold on a lower court’s ruling last week that reinstated the practice of straight-ticket voting, again casting into uncertainty whether Texas voters will have the option in the Nov. 3 election to vote for every candidate of a political party with one punch. A final ruling is expected after the court weighs the arguments more thoroughly.
. . . Bexar County Election Administrator Jacque Callanen told the Houston Chronicle last week that changing plans this close to the first day of early voting Oct. 13 was “unbelievable.”
“For us right now to have to stop what we’re doing and reprogram and retest, and with the early start of early voting — oh my God,” Callanen said. “I can’t say we won’t do it, but it’s going to take everything in us, and we’re going to have to throw as many people at it as we can.”
Straight-ticket voting is a popular option, generally more so among Democrats in Texas’ 10 largest counties. In the 2018 general election, about two-thirds of Texas voters used the straight-ticket option.
The option makes a particularly meaningful difference in places like Houston, where there may be dozens of local judges on the ballot for voters to select among after they decide on candidates for major federal and statewide offices. Without straight-ticket voting, both Republican and Democratic operatives fear that some of their voters may leave their polling places without making it to the end of their ballots.
From The Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott wants to raise the stakes for protesters during a divisive Texas election
Notice how public opinion polls results tie into the positions the governor is taking prior to the election. This is also an indication of what issues might dominate the next legislative session.
- Click here for the article.
Abbott isn't on the Nov. 3 ballot, but the event was the Republican governor’s latest move in a national political battle during a tumultuous election that has pitted police officers and fears of rising crime against calls for an end to police brutality and systemic racism. Recent Texas protests against police brutality have largely been peaceful as the four-month mark of George Floyd's in-custody death in Minneapolis nears.
“Today, we are announcing more legislative proposals to do even more to protect our law enforcement officers as well as do more to keep our community safe,” said Abbott, who was flanked by police union officials, other Texas leaders and Republican politicians hoping to take Texas House seats from Dallas County Democrats in November.
Abbott's press conference came after a majority of likely Texas voters in a New York Times/Siena College poll said that law and order is more important to them than the pandemic. Yet when asked whether racism in the criminal justice system or riots in American cities were the bigger issue, Texas voters were more likely to choose racism than riots.
- Click here for the poll.
Sunday, September 27, 2020
The United States Elections Project
A great source for voter turnout data.
- Click here for the data.
The Electoral Integrity Project
Since the election is around the corner, this might make for a good discussion. A scholarly look at the integrity of the different election systems across the nation.
- Click here for the project.
- Click here for their report for 2018.
From Vox: Electoral integrity in all 50 US states, ranked by experts
This is from 2016, but probably still accurate today.
- Click here for the article.
Friday, September 25, 2020
What is Citizens United? What is the Federal Election Commission?
From Wikipedia: Citizens United.
- Click here for the entry.
Citizens United is a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization in the United States founded in 1988. In 2010 the organization won a U.S. Supreme Court case known as Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections. The organization's current president and chairman is David Bossie.
From Wikipedia: the Federal Election Commission.
- Click here for the entry.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency of the United States whose purpose is to enforce campaign finance law in United States federal elections. Created in 1974 through amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, the commission describes its duties as "to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections."
- Click here for Wikipedia's entry on Citizens United v FEC.
From Oyez: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
The semi-notorious court case that led to open ending spending on campaigns in the United States.
- Click here for the entry.
By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.
From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Campaign Finance Reform Violates Free Speech Rights Charges U.S. Chamber (1999)
Killing a few birds with one stone here. The Chamber is the largest lobbyists in the US, and here they are advocating the position that spending in political campaigns falls under the "free speech" clause of the Constitution. Meaning that limits on campaign spending also limits speech.
- Click here for the page.
Congressional efforts to limit campaign spending by business are unconstitutional, said the United States Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President Bruce Josten at a press conference with other business groups on the steps of the Supreme Court today.
Concerns about undue influence can be resolved by requiring a full and timely disclosure of contributions, rather than limiting the right to speak out, Josten noted. The Chamber supports reasonable provisions for disclosure by committees, organizations and candidates of political campaign contributions and expenditures.
Campaign contribution limits were set at $1,000 in 1974 and have never been adjusted for inflation. Soft money contributions have grown over the years, because the cap on campaign contributions is unreasonably low, Josten added.
"What's needed is not more regulation, but less," said Josten. "Do away with limits on individual and PAC contributions, but require complete and immediate disclosure. With the Internet, full and timely disclosure will create greater accountability to the public. Other restrictions on campaign contributions will then become unnecessary."
Links for 9/25
From Wikipedia: Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election.
From Congress.Gov: H.R.3295 - Help America Vote Act of 2002.
From Wikipedia: Election Assistance Commission.
From USA.Gov: Historical Election Results.
From Ballotpedia: Important dates in the 2020 presidential race.
Thursday, September 24, 2020
From Open Secrets: Top Lobbying Firms
- Click here for the article.
Here are the top 5:
Akin, Gump et al - $42,800,000
BGR Group - $29,320,000
Squire Patton Boggs - $25,695,000
Holland & Knight - $24,590,000
From Roll Call: US Chamber, the nation’s biggest lobby, is cutting staff
Most of the laid-off employees were tied to the operation of the group’s building, across from the White House, or to putting on in-person events, according to a source familiar with the decisions. The source added that the group was financially “stable” and was likely on track for a break-even year. The chamber disclosed total revenue of more than $167 million on its 2018 tax forms.
Many of the group’s lobbyists will remain, including former House GOP leadership aide Neil Bradley, who will oversee a new unit called strategic advocacy, according to a memo to staff from Suzanne Clark, the chamber’s president. That division, under Bradley, will also include political affairs, though Sara Armstrong continues to run political affairs and federation relations, the memo stated.
Clark added in the memo that another former GOP congressional aide, Jack Howard, would continue to run government affairs.
“To further strengthen our capabilities, we will make targeted investments in new talent within the Strategic Advocacy group — primarily within Government Affairs —to ensure we are fully equipped for the battles ahead, which increasingly occur at the state and local levels,” she wrote in the memo. “Altogether, this strategic alignment will add new firepower to our advocacy and strengthen the Chamber’s influence and impact for our members.”
From the Texas Tribune: High-speed train between Dallas and Houston gets federal approval
For our look at transportation policy:
- Click here for the article.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration issued the two key rulings, which provide the regulatory framework and the environmental review for the high-speed train, that Texas officials were waiting on to move forward with the project, according to the company. The announcement was first reported by the Houston Chronicle.
Texas Central expects to start construction in the first half of 2021.The federal Surface Transportation Board still must approve the project before construction can begin.
The rulings announced Monday brought cheers from leaders in Dallas and Houston, but criticism from project opponents along the path the train could take to connect the cities.
Although the company had to layoff 28 workers due to the coronavirus-related financial crisis in March, Texas Central Railroad had described the project as “shovel ready” and waiting for the federal government’s approval.
“This is the moment we have been working towards,” said Carlos Aguilar, CEO of Texas Central Railroad in a statement. “The release of the final (approvals) by the Federal Railroad Administration represents years of work by countless individuals, affirming a very thorough and careful federal regulatory process that will make the Texas Central Railroad the first high-speed rail system to be implemented in the United States.”
From the Texas Tribune: How years of underfunding public health left Texas ill prepared for the pandemic
- Click here for the link.
In the spring, as public health officials were beginning to see the novel coronavirus spreading in Texas, Danny Updike had bad news and good news for health care workers in the San Angelo region where he works in emergency response.
The bad news was that the pandemic had brought a sudden shortage of masks, gowns, gloves and sanitizer as demand soared and imports from China ground to a halt. Prices on the private market were skyrocketing, and most of what remained in the shipping container that housed the region’s modest cache of personal protective equipment had expired after years of budget cuts prevented new purchases. Rubber parts were disintegrated, elastic bands rotted.
The good news: Some of the decade-old personal protective equipment was salvageable, and it had not yet been thrown away — another result of budget cuts.
“There really wasn’t a lot of money to pay to dispose of all that, so they had never done it, which turned out to be good,” said Updike, a former coordinator for the Hospital Preparedness Program in the region. “Most of the PPE in the Concho Valley, the first two months or month or so, they used mainly out of that.”
Wednesday, September 23, 2020
From Roll Call: Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is unlikely to shake up the presidential race
People have mace up their minds already who to vote for.
- Click here for the article.
In the middle of huge breaking news stories, it can be hard to remember that the country is incredibly polarized and the race between President Donald Trump and former vice president Joe Biden has been remarkably stable.
After a series of other historic events — impeachment, a global pandemic, an economic crisis, the national conversation about racism and high-profile instances of violent protests — Biden’s 7-point national advantage is about the same as it was six months ago, according to Inside Elections’ latest Presidential Snapshot in Time series.
That means when it comes to analyzing the electoral impact of events, it’s best to assume that nothing matters until proved otherwise. It’s a difference between historic events and political game-changers.
Tuesday, September 22, 2020
From Wikipedia: Top 100 Contractors of the U.S. federal government
Note that military contractors dominate.
- Click here for the entry.
From ScotuBlog: Profile of a potential nominee: Amy Coney Barrett
This is not the first time that Barrett’s name has been mentioned in connection with a possible Supreme Court seat: Barrett was reportedly also on the shortlist to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018. Although that seat was eventually filled by now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump reportedly told advisers that he was “saving” Barrett in case Ginsburg stepped down during his presidency. Barrett became a hero to many religious conservatives after her 2017 confirmation hearing for her seat on the court of appeals, when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee – most notably, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California – grilled her on the role of her Catholic faith in judging.
Two more from the Texas Tribune
- Texas courts must start telling tenants how a federal eviction moratorium can keep them housed.
Texans facing eviction must be informed in court citations about how they can remain housed under a national eviction moratorium, the Texas Supreme Court ordered Thursday. The measure clarified aspects that housing lawyers said were unclear after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its moratorium on evictions this month.
- Republican U.S. House campaign arm cancels $2 million in Houston-area advertising.
The Houston region is home to several contested congressional elections, including the 7th Congressional District, which is represented by U.S. Rep. Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, a Democrat. Fletcher unseated Republican John Culberson in 2018, and she is one of two Democratic incumbents who Republicans have been targeting in Texas this year.
The $2 million was intended to cover advertising in the last two weeks of the election, according to the sources.
Monday, September 21, 2020
What is a Super PAC?
From Ballotpedia:
- Click here for the entry.
Super PACs
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that individuals cannot be prevented from spending unlimited sums of money on political messaging. With two 2010 rulings, the United States Supreme Court lifted restrictions on corporation and union spending in politics. Individuals, corporations and unions may now legally donate and spend unlimited amounts on independent political speech; they may also donate unlimited amounts to groups that make independent expenditures
What is a Political Action Committee?
From Wikipedia:
- Click here for the entry.
In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The legal term PAC has been created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. This term is quite specific to all activities of campaign finance in the United States. Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition (see political finance). At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act). At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.
History:
The political action committee emerged from the labor movement of 1943. The first PAC was the CIO-PAC, formed in July 1943 under CIO president Philip Murray and headed by Sidney Hillman. It was established after the U.S. Congress prohibited unions from giving direct contributions to political candidates. This restriction was initially imposed in 1907 on corporations through the Tillman Act. The Smith-Connally Act extended its coverage to labor unions in 1943.[10] A series of campaign reform laws enacted during the 1970s facilitated the growth of PACs after these laws allowed corporations, trade associations, and labor unions to form PACs
ELECTION CODE TITLE 11. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS CHAPTER 192. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS AND CANDIDATES SUBCHAPTER A. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS
How to become a presidential elector in Texas.
- Click here for it.
Critical language:
Sec. 192.003. METHOD OF BECOMING ELECTOR CANDIDATE. To become a presidential elector candidate, a person must be nominated as a political party's elector candidate in accordance with party rules or named as an elector candidate by an independent or write-in candidate for president.
Sec. 192.005. VOTE REQUIRED FOR ELECTION. The set of elector candidates that is elected is the one that corresponds to the candidates for president and vice-president receiving the most votes.
(a) The electors shall convene at the State Capitol at 2 p.m. on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election and shall perform their duties as prescribed by federal law.
(b) The secretary of state shall arrange for the meeting place, notify the electors, and call the meeting to order. The secretary shall act as temporary chair of the meeting until the electors elect a chair from among themselves.
(c) If an elector is absent at the time for convening the meeting, the electors may declare the elector position vacant by a majority vote of those present at the meeting.
The Critical Elections
Elections which led to shifts in power over American history.
- 1800: The first election that involved a shift in power from one party to the other.
- 1828: The election of the candidate of the newly formed Democratic Party after the expansion of suffrage to non-property owning white males over 21 in each of the states.
- 1860: The election of the candidate of the newly formed Republican Party,
- 1896: After decades of tight competition with the agrarian oriented Democratic Party, the business oriented Republican Party dominates until the Great Depression.
- 1932: The election that brought in FDR, the New Deal, the New Deal Coalition, and cooperative federalism.
- 1968: The south begins to shift to the Republican Party, an an uneasy balance of power is maintained between the two major parties.
From Roll Call: Supreme Court’s legitimacy at stake in wake of Ginsburg’s death
An opinion piece that I've assigned 2305 students for their weekly written assignment.
- Click here for it.
For a Supreme Court that seeks to defend the legitimacy of its rulings as rooted in the law and not political ideology, what unfolds over the next few months is poised to be a historic test of its reputation.
The appointee, who Trump says will be a woman announced this week, would deepen the court’s conservative tilt potentially with immediate consequences for divisive areas such as abortion, gun control and more.
A case set for argument Nov. 10, just days after the election, threatens the whole 2010 health care law known as Obamacare, which the court has upheld in previous challenges.
And the justices could be called on to decide the heated presidential election, where Trump already has challenged the integrity of the outcome if he loses to Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
How the justices act in those situations — and how much the public retains confidence in them throughout — could wind up galvanizing calls from some Democratic lawmakers and their allies to change Senate rules to remake the high court in the coming years.
The Supreme Court plays a key role in the government because it makes many difficult decisions the political branches are unable to make, said Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center, a veteran litigator before the court.
The public accepts those Supreme Court decisions “because they view the court as something other than a purely political institution,” Smith said. “At the court, if it loses that completely, it will cease to function in the way it needs to.”
A move by Senate Republicans to confirm a third Trump appointee to the court in a presidential election year, when four years earlier they blocked President Barack Obama’s nominee ahead of the election, already drew calls for changes to the structure of the court such as additional justices or eliminating their lifetime tenure.
A few recent articles regarding elections and voting in Texas
All from the Texas Tribune:
- New voter registrations plummeted during the pandemic in Texas, where you can’t register online.
- Democratic allies fighting to flip Texas House join forces for $1.1 million digital ad campaign.
- Polls suggest Joe Biden has a shot at winning Texas. How he fares here could reshape the state’s politics.
- Texas needs more poll workers this year because of the pandemic. Here's how to become one.
- Conservative megadonor backs Shelley Luther for Texas Senate with $1 million loan.
Contents of the City of Houston's Code of Ordinances
A look at the functions of cities - this case Houston - in a federalist system.
- See for yourself.
Alcoholic Beverages
Ambulances
Amusements
Animals and Fowl
Antique Dealers, etc...
Automobile Dealers and Auto Wreckers
Aviation
Buildings and Neighborhood Protection
Burglar and Fire Alarms
Convention and Entertainment Facilities
Emergency Management
Civil Service
Contract
Municipal Courts
Equal Rights
Ethics and Financial Disclosure
Floodplain
Food and rugs
Health
Street Vendors
Lake Houston
Libraries
Special Events
Parking
Mini-Warehouses
Manufactured Homes an Recreational Vehicles
Noise and Sound Level Regulation
Oil and Gas Wells
Parks and Recreation
Planning and Development
Police and Fire Protection
Prisoners and Prison Farm
Public Charities and Trust
Public Utilities
Railroads
Solid Waste and Litter Control
Streets and Sidewalks
Street Names and Site Addresses
Subdivisions, Development and Platting
Pool and Spa Safety
Taxation
Traffic
Vehicles for Hire
Water and Sewers
Sunday, September 20, 2020
The man who rejected RBG for a clerkship on the Supreme Court
Meet Felix Frankfurter.
- Click here for his Wikipedia entry.
From RBG's Page:
At the start of her legal career, Ginsburg encountered difficulty in finding employment. In 1960, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter rejected Ginsburg for a clerkship position due to her gender. She was rejected despite a strong recommendation from Albert Martin Sacks, who was a professor and later dean of Harvard Law School. Columbia law professor Gerald Gunther also pushed for Judge Edmund L. Palmieri of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to hire Ginsburg as a law clerk, threatening to never recommend another Columbia student to Palmieri if he did not give Ginsburg the opportunity and guaranteeing to provide the judge with a replacement clerk should Ginsburg not succeed. Later that year, Ginsburg began her clerkship for Judge Palmieri, and she held the position for two years.
Saturday, September 19, 2020
Rational Basis Review, Intermediate Review, and Strict Scrutiny
Tuck this away somewhere. We will discuss this further when we get to civil liberties and what justifies unequal treatment before the law.
- Rational Basis Review:
Rational basis review tests whether the government's actions are "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest. The Supreme Court has never set forth standards for determining what constitutes a legitimate government interest. Under rational basis review, it is "entirely irrelevant" what end the government is actually seeking and statutes can be based on "rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data." Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand rational basis review. Judges following the Supreme Court's instructions understand themselves to be "obligated to seek out other conceivable reasons for validating" challenged laws if the government is unable to justify its own policies.
- Intermediate Review:
In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.
. . . In the context of sex-based classifications, intermediate scrutiny applies to constitutional challenges of equal protection and discrimination.
An example of a court using intermediate scrutiny came in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), which was the first case in the United States Supreme Court which determined that statutory or administrative sex-based classifications were subject to an intermediate standard of judicial review.[4]
In Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan in 1982, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the burden is on the proponent of the discrimination to establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for sex-based classification to be valid. As such, the court applied intermediate scrutiny in a way that is closer to strict scrutiny and in recent decisions the Court has preferred the term "exacting scrutiny" when referring to the intermediate level of Equal Protection analysis. For example the court applied similar exacting intermediate scrutiny when ruling on sex-based classifications in both J.E.B. v. Alabama (concerning specific strikes against male jurors during jury composition) and United States v. Virginia (concerning male-only admission to the Virginia Military Institute).
- Strict Scrutiny:
In American constitutional law, strict scrutiny is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review, and results in a judge striking down a law unless the government can demonstrate in court that a law or regulation:
- is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and
- uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose.
U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification", such as race or national origin.
Craig v. Boren
- Click here for the link.
Background:
Oklahoma passed a statute prohibiting the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 but allowed females over the age of 18 to purchase it. The statute was challenged as Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause violation by Curtis Craig, a male who was over 18 but under 21, and Carolyn Whitener, an Oklahoma vendor of alcohol. The nominal defendant was David Boren, who was sued ex officio by virtue of his serving as Governor of Oklahoma at the time of the lawsuit. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, working as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, advised the plaintiff's attorney, submitted an amicus brief, and was present at counsel table during oral argument before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a statute that denied the sale of beer to individuals of the same age based on their gender violated the Equal Protection Clause. Also, the Supreme Court examined for jus tertii (third-party rights), in this case the vendor of the 3.2% beer.
Decision:
The Court held that the gender classifications made by the Oklahoma statute were unconstitutional because the statistics relied on by the state were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the statute and the benefits intended to stem from it.
The Court instituted a standard, dubbed "intermediate scrutiny," under which the state must prove the existence of specific important governmental objectives, and the law must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.
As to third-party rights, the court, expanding on the doctrine of standing, held that the vendors of 3.2% beer would be economically affected by the restrictive nature of the sales to males between 18 and 20. To have standing, one must show a "nexus" of the injury to oneself and the constitutional violation of the statute. In this case, the statute directly affected Whitener only economically, but the Supreme Court explained that Whitener and other vendors have standing to assert concomitant rights of other parties, such as Craig.
The Court acknowledged that parties economically affected by regulations may challenge them "by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function."
Reed v. Reed
The case that made Ginsburg, Ginsburg.
It involves the use of the equal protection clause to override a section of Idaho's Probate Code.
- From Wikipedia:
After a series of appeals by both Sally and Cecil Reed, the Supreme Court considered the case and delivered a unanimous decision that held the Idaho Code's preference in favor of males was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled for the first time in Reed v. Reed that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited differential treatment based on sex.
Because the Idaho Code made a distinction based on sex, the court reasoned that "it thus establishes a classification subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause" and using the generic standard of scrutiny—ordinary or rational basis review—asked "whether a difference in the sex of competing applicants for letters of administration bears a rational relationship to a state objective."
Chief Justice Burger's opinion said:
To give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whatever may be said as to the positive values of avoiding intrafamily controversy, the choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex.
What is probate law?
- Click here.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the ACLU
Ginsburg volunteered to write the brief for Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), in which the Supreme Court extended the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to women
For more on the Women's Rights Project click here.
In 1961 the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a jury selection system that discriminated against women on the grounds that "women are at the center of home and family life." The observation reflected dominant social values at the time, but the Court was unable then to see how such values thwarted the promise of equality for women implicit in the Constitution.
A decade later, the newly established ACLU Women's Rights Project took the case of Reed v. Reed to the Supreme Court, challenging the automatic preference of men over women as administrators of estates. Congress had already passed statutes such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring some forms of sex discrimination, and the women's movement had become recognized as a major political force. In Reed, the Supreme Court saw sex discrimination in a new light, and agreed with the ACLU. For the first time, the Court held that a classification based on sex was unconstitutional, in violation of the equal protection clause.
That legal breakthrough set the stage for the Women's Rights Project's systematic effort over the next several years to urge the courts to treat sex discrimination in the same constitutional terms as race discrimination, to attack various forms of sex discrimination permitted by law, and to fashion strategies to overcome practices which, even if they were not explicitly sanctioned by the law, effectively denied true equality to women.
Who was Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
From the Wikipedia:
- Click here for the entry.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg; born Joan Ruth Bader; March 15, 1933 – September 18, 2020), was an American jurist who was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1993 until her death in 2020. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton and was generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the Court. Ginsburg was the second woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, after Sandra Day O'Connor. During her tenure Ginsburg wrote notable majority opinions, including United States v. Virginia (1996), Olmstead v. L.C. (1999), and Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000).
What is the American Civil Liberties Union?
Background from Wikipedia
- Click here for the entry.
Part of the description:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1920 "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".Officially nonpartisan, the organization has been supported and criticized by liberal and conservative organizations alike. The ACLU works through litigation and lobbying and it has over 1,200,000 members and an annual budget of over $300 million. Local affiliates of the ACLU are active in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases when it considers civil liberties to be at risk. Legal support from the ACLU can take the form of direct legal representation or preparation of amicus curiae briefs expressing legal arguments when another law firm is already providing representation.
Some history:
The ACLU was founded in 1920 by a committee including Helen Keller, Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Walter Nelles, Morris Ernst, Albert DeSilver, Arthur Garfield Hays, Jane Addams, Felix Frankfurter, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Rose Schneiderman. Its focus was on freedom of speech, primarily for anti-war protesters. It was founded in response to the controversial Palmer raids, which saw thousands of radicals arrested in matters which violated their constitutional search and seizures protection. During the 1920s, the ACLU expanded its scope to include protecting the free speech rights of artists and striking workers, and working with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to decrease racism and discrimination. During the 1930s, the ACLU started to engage in work combating police misconduct and supporting Native American rights. Many of the ACLU's cases involved the defense of Communist Party members and Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1940, the ACLU leadership voted to exclude communists from its leadership positions, a decision rescinded in 1968. During World War II, the ACLU defended Japanese-American citizens, unsuccessfully trying to prevent their forcible relocation to internment camps. During the Cold War, the ACLU headquarters was dominated by anti-communists, but many local affiliates defended members of the Communist Party.
Friday, September 18, 2020
U.S. Code, Texas Code, and the Pearland Code of Ordinances
A look at the titles in each gives an indication of the powers each focuses on.
- U.S. Code.
- Texas Code.
- Pearland Code of Ordinances.
From the ACLU: 2020 Supreme Court Term - FEATURED CASES
- Click here for the list.
Thursday, September 17, 2020
From Wikipedia: Wright brothers patent war
An entire entry on the struggle over owned the patent on flying machines - specifically the technology necessary to navigate them.
The ability to issue patents and copyrights are a delegated power.
- Click here for it.
The Wright brothers patent war centers on the patent they received for their method of an airplane's flight control. The Wright brothers were two Americans who are widely credited with inventing and building the world's first flyable airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight on December 17, 1903.[1][2][3]
Even after Wilbur Wright had died, and Orville Wright had retired in 1916 (selling the rights to their patent to a successor company, the Wright-Martin Corp.), the patent war continued, and even expanded, as other manufacturers launched lawsuits of their own—creating a growing crisis in the U.S. aviation industry.[4][5]
The patent war stalled development of the U.S. aviation industry.[4][6][7][5][8] (This claim has been disputed in research.[9]) As a consequence, airplane development in the United States fell so far behind Europe[4] that in World War I American pilots were forced to fly European combat aircraft, instead.[10][11][12][13] After the war began, the U.S. Government pressured the aviation industry to form an organization to share patents.