House Committee meetings today

9:30 am Future Defense Spending
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense

9:30 am Confronting the Coronavirus: Perspectives on the COVID-19 Pandemic One Year Later
Committee on Homeland Security

10:00 am Perspectives from MainStreet: Raising the Wage
Committee on Small Business
Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations

10:00 am Legislative Proposals to Put the Postal Service on Sustainable Financial Footing
Committee on Oversight and Reform

10:00 am Virtual Hearing - Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy
Committee on Financial Services

10:00 am The Need for New Lower Court Judgeships 30 Years in the Making
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

10:00 am The Judiciarys Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2022
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

10:00 am Ready or Not: U.S. Public Health Infrastructure
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies

10:00 am Health and Wellness of Employees and State of Damage and Preservation as a Result of the January 6 Insurrection Hearing
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch

11:00 am Examining Equity in Transportation Safety Enforcement.
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

12:30 pm Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

1:30 pm America Forward: Restoring Diplomacy and Development in a Fracturing World
Committee on Foreign Affairs

2:00 pm The Rise of Domestic Terrorism in America
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

2:00 pm Impact of PFAS Exposure on Service Members
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

3:00 pm Virtual Hearing - How Invidious Discrimination Works and Hurts: An Examination of Lending Discrimination and Its Long-term Economic Impacts on Borrowers of Color
Committee on Financial Services
Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations

The Biographies of the Current PUC Commissioners in Texas

Helpful for our look at the revolving door.

DeAnn T. Walker

Governor Greg Abbott appointed DeAnn T. Walker to serve as chair of the Public Utility Commission of Texas on September 20, 2017, for a term set to expire on September 1, 2021. Before her appointment, Chairman Walker served as the Senior Policy Advisor to Governor Abbott on matters related to regulated industries. Her career in the electric industry began at the Commission in 1988 where she served, first, as an Assistant General Counsel and, later, as an Administrative Law Judge until 1997. Before joining the Governor’s staff, she served as Associate General Counsel and Director of Regulatory Affairs at CenterPoint Energy.

DeAnn is an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas and the Texas Reliability Entity and a member of the Regional State Committee for the Southwest Power Pool. She is a member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, serving on the Electricity Committee, and the Advisory Council of the New Mexico State University Center for Public Utilities.

Arthur D'Andrea

Governor Greg Abbott appointed Arthur D'Andrea to serve as a commissioner on the Public Utility Commission of Texas on November 14, 2017, for a term set to expire on September 1, 2023. Before his appointment, Commissioner D'Andrea served as Assistant General Counsel to Governor Abbott. His career has been primarily focused on the law, including his role as Assistant Solicitor General in the Texas Attorney General’s office where he served as lead appellate counsel in matters including constitutional challenges to state statutes, public-utilities regulation, antitrust, tax disputes, insurance regulation, regulatory takings, and petitions for writ of habeas corpus. There he argued thirteen cases in the Second and Fifth Circuits, the Texas Supreme Court, and in the intermediate state courts of appeals.

Prior to joining the Attorney General's team, Arthur worked in the Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Practice Group for a private law firm where he represented clients before the United States Supreme Court and in federal and state courts of appeals nationwide in matters including white-collar criminal prosecutions, international-trade disputes, patent infringement, trademark disputes, bankruptcy, international arbitration, and securities litigation.

Shelly Botkin

Governor Greg Abbott appointed Shelly Botkin to serve as a commissioner on the Public Utility Commission of Texas on June 11, 2018, for a term set to expire on September 1, 2025. Before her appointment, Commissioner Botkin served as Director of Corporate Communications and Government Relations for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) where she worked to build awareness of the organization’s vital role in managing the electric grid for most of Texas.

Prior to joining ERCOT, Shelly worked ten years in the Texas capitol as a senior policy analyst on business, regulatory, and environmental issues for two state senators and for both the Lieutenant Governor and Speaker of the House.

From Wikipedia: The Public Utility Commission of Texas

Newsworthy

- Click here for the entry.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC or PUCT) is a state agency that regulates the state’s electric, water and telecommunication utilities, implements respective legislation, and offers customer assistance in resolving consumer complaints.

In 1975, the Texas Legislature enacted the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) and created the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) to provide statewide regulation of the rates and services of electric and telecommunications utilities.[1][2] Roughly twenty years later, the combined effects of significant Texas legislation in 1995 and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 resulted in competition in telecommunication’s wholesale and retail services and the creation of a competitive electric wholesale market. Further changes in the 1999 Texas Legislature not only called for a restructuring of the electric utility industry but also created new legislation that ensured the protection of customers’ rights in the new competitive environment. Over the years, these various changes have dramatically re-shaped the PUC’s mission and focus, shifting from up-front regulation of rates and services to oversight of competitive markets and compliance enforcement of statutes and rules. In 2013, the Texas Legislature added[3] water utility regulation to the agency's responsibilities.

Since the introduction of competition in both the local and long distance telecommunications markets and the wholesale and retail electric markets, the PUC has also played an important role in overseeing the transition to competition and ensuring that customers receive the intended benefits of competition.

Appointed by the Texas Governor, the three-member commission also regulates the rates and services of transmission and distribution utilities that operate where there is competition, investor-owned electric utilities where competition has not been chosen, and incumbent local exchange companies that have not elected incentive regulation.

From Wikipedia: The Cabinet of Joseph Biden

Let's catch up with who's who, so far

- Click here for the entry.

For 2306 - 2/24

- Ballotpedia: Voting in Texas.

- Texas Statutory Code: Elections.

- TSHA: Texas Election Laws.

- NCSL: State Elections Resources.

- NCSL: State Elections Legislation Database.

Terms for ACC's GOVT 2305

Campaigns and Elections
- times, places, and manners clause
- political action committees
- Super PACs
- bundling 
- 527 groups
- caucus
- closed primary
- open primary
- Super Tuesday
- winner take all
- proportional representation
- electoral bounce
- incumbency advantage 
- midterm elections
- midterm loss
- reapportionment
- gerrymandering
- safe district
- call list
- open seat
- name recognition
- negative campaigning

Interest Groups and Political Parties
- K Street
- special interests
- interest Groups
- lobbyists
- pluralism
- hyper-partisanship
- power elite3 theory
- reverse lobbying
- iron triangle
- revolving door
- issue network
- nonpartisan election
- party system
- party boss
- party machine
- New Deal
- GOP
- party identification
- straight ticket voting
- split ticket voting
- base voters
- party platforms
- party organization
- party in government
- party in the electorate
- party caucus
- partisanship
- divided government
- gift ban

Media, Technology, and Government
- new media
- loud signal
- public watchdog
- policy agenda
- priming
- framing
- mass media
- personal presidency
- infotainment
- fake news
- watergate sscandal
- public ownership
- fairness doctrine
- consolidation
- Telecommunication Act of 1996
- sound bite

From Wikipedia: Regulatory capture

Also capped agency capture.

Helps explain recent, and upcoming, events.

- Click here for the entry.

. . . regulatory capture (also client politics) is a corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulatory agency is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.

When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies." The theory of client politics is related to that of rent-seeking and political failure; client politics "occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (e.g., industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers)."

From the Texas Tribune: “Power companies get exactly what they want”: How Texas repeatedly failed to protect its power grid against extreme weather

A good way to tie the events of the past week into our discussion of the political institutions.

A key term: agency capture.

- Click here for the article. 

. . . Lawmakers and regulators, including the PUC and the industry-friendly Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the oil and gas industry, have repeatedly ignored, dismissed or watered down efforts to address weaknesses in the state’s sprawling electric grid, which is isolated from the rest of the country.

About 46,000 megawatts of power — enough to provide electricity to 9 million homes on a high-demand day — were taken off the grid last week due to power-generating failures stemming from winter storms that battered the state for nearly seven consecutive days. Dozens of deaths, including that of an 11-year-old boy, have been tied to the weather. At the height of the crisis, more than 4.5 million customers across the state were without power.

As millions of Texans endured days without power and water, experts and news organizations pointed to unheeded warnings in a federal report that examined the 2011 winter storm and offered recommendations for preventing future problems. The report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation concluded, among other things, that power companies and natural gas producers hadn’t properly readied their facilities for cold weather, including failing to install extra insulation, wind breaks and heaters.

Another federal report released three years later made similar recommendations with few results. Lawmakers also failed to pass measures over the past two decades that would have required the operator of the state’s main power grid to ensure adequate reserves to shield against blackouts, provided better representation for residential and small commercial consumers on the board that oversees that agency and allowed the state’s top emergency-planning agency to make sure power plants were adequately “hardened” against disaster.

From Wikipedia: Electric Reliability Council of Texas

Recently worth knowing about

- Click here for the article.

Description: The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (ERCOT) operates Texas's electrical grid, the Texas Interconnection, which supplies power to more than 25 million Texas customers and represents 90 percent of the state's electric load. ERCOT is the first independent system operator (ISO) in the United States and one of nine ISOs in North America. ERCOT works with the Texas Reliability Entity (TRE), one of eight regional entities within the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) that coordinate to improve reliability of the bulk power grid.

As the ISO for the region, ERCOT dispatches power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and more than 550 generation units. According to a ERCOT report, the major sources of generating capacity in Texas are natural gas (51%), wind (24.8%), coal (13.4%), nuclear (4.9%), solar (3.8%), and hydroelectric or biomass-fired units (1.9%). ERCOT also performs financial settlements for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 7 million premises in competitive choice areas.

ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation,  and its members include consumers, electric cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities (transmission and distribution providers), and municipally owned electric utilities.

Power demand in the ERCOT region is typically highest in summer, primarily due to air conditioning use in homes and businesses. The ERCOT region's all-time record peak hour occurred on July 19, 2018, when consumer demand hit 73,259 MW. A megawatt of electricity can power about 200 Texas homes during periods of peak demand

Its History: At the beginning of World War II, several electric utilities in Texas agreed to operate together as the Texas Interconnected System (TIS) to support the war effort. During the war, the grid was interconnected to other states and excess power generation was sent to industries on the Gulf Coast, providing a more reliable supply of electricity for production of metal and other material needed for the war.

Recognizing the reliability advantages of remaining interconnected, TIS members continued to operate and develop the interconnected grid. TIS members adopted official operating guides for their interconnected power system and established two monitoring centers within the control centers of two utilities, one in North Texas and one in South Texas.

In 1970, ERCOT was formed to comply with NERC requirements. However, the Texas grid is not subject to federal regulation, being an intrastate grid without interstate power flows. On May 4th 1976, Central Southwest Holdings, attempted to force the issue, with an event that was later called the "Midnight Connection", where it connected the grid to Oklahoma for a few hours. This caused lawsuits about whether federal regulation then applied, however the judgement was that this was not sufficient.

The deregulation of the Texas electricity market occurred in two phases: the wholesale generation market in 1995 and the rest of the sector in 1999. The 1999 deregulation was aimed at counteracting a shortage of generation capacity in the state. Since deregulation, retail providers and power generators were unregulated, although regulations on transmitters continued to control the placement of electrical lines. The legislation abolished the former system, in which power was both generated and consumed locally. Instead, under the deregulated regime, retailers could contract with providers across the state, creating a complex market. The 1999 deregulation also dropped limits on rate increases. Prior to deregulation, residential electricity rates were significantly below the national average; after deregulation, residential electricity rates increased, rising 64% between 1999 and 2007.

Module Two for ACC - the political institutions

2305
Campaign and Elections
Interest Groups and Political Parties
Media, Technology, and Government

2306
Campaigns and Elections, Texas Style
Political Parties
Organized Interests

From the Texas Tribune: Dan Patrick makes "Star Spangled Banner Act" a legislative priority after the Mavericks go 13 games without the national anthem

For this week's 2306 written assignment.

- Click here for the article.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick announced Wednesday that requiring the national anthem to be played "at all events which receive public funding" will be among his top legislative priorities this session.

The "Star Spangled Banner Protection Act," which has not yet been filed, comes as the Dallas Mavericks are under attack by some GOP Texas lawmakers seizing on a report that team owner Mark Cuban decided to stop playing the national anthem before home games this season. The team will resume playing the anthem before games, the NBA said Wednesday.

"It is hard to believe this could happen in Texas, but Mark Cuban’s actions of yesterday made it clear that we must specify that in Texas we play the national anthem before all major events," Patrick said in a statement. "In this time when so many things divide us, sports are one thing that bring us together — right, left, Black, white and brown. This legislation already enjoys broad support. I am certain it will pass, and the Star Spangled Banner will not be threatened in the Lone Star State again."

Also read: Analysis: A Star-Spangled culture war in Texas.

From Vox: Two Republicans who voted for Trump’s conviction were immediately censured

 For this week's 2305 written assignment.

- Click here for the article.

In the hours after Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy (LA) and Richard Burr (NC) joined five other Republican senators in voting to convict former President Donald Trump on an article of impeachment for his role in inciting the January 6 insurrection, the state Republican parties in Louisiana and North Carolina wasted no time laying down a marker that the GOP still belongs to Trump.

The LAGOP and NCGOP each quickly censured Cassidy and Burr for their votes. In a statement posted to Twitter, the LAGOP wrote that it “condemn[s], in the strongest possible terms, the vote today by Sen. Cassidy to convict former President Trump,” while NCGOP chair Michael Whatley released a statement denouncing Burr’s vote as “shocking and disappointing.”

Trump won both Louisiana and North Carolina in 2020. Cassidy was loyal to Trump throughout Trump’s term in office, but began to distance himself during the impeachment trial, perhaps feeling emboldened by the fact that he just won reelection for another six-year term. Following his vote, he posted a remarkably succinct video statement in which he said, “I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty.”

Three free speech cases

 Covered in class today: 

- Morse v Frederick.
- Matal v. Tam. 
- Iancu v. Brunetti.

The "Hot Pursuit Doctrine"

A new one for me

- From Wikipedia: Hot Pursuit.

Hot pursuit (also known as fresh or immediate pursuit) refers to the urgent and direct pursuit of a criminal suspect by law enforcement officers, or by belligerents under international rules of engagement for military forces. Such a situation grants the officers in command powers they otherwise would not have.

English common law

Hot pursuit has long formed a part of English common law. The principle can be traced back to the doctrine of distress damage feasant, which allowed a property owner to detain animals trespassing on his land to ensure that he was compensated for the damage they had caused. In particular, a case in 1293 held that a property owner could also chase after trespassing animals leaving his land and catch them if he could. Later cases extended this idea to allow a property owner to distrain the goods of a tenant behind on his rent outside his property (in Kirkman v. Lelly in 1314) and peace officers to make arrests outside their jurisdiction.

In 1939, Glanville Williams described hot pursuit as a legal fiction that treated an arrest as made at the moment when the chase began rather than when it ended, since a criminal should not be able to benefit from an attempt to escape.

Because of its pedigree in English law, the principle has been exported to many former colonies of the British Empire, including the United States and Canada.

United States law

Under United States law, hot pursuit is an exigent circumstance that allows police to arrest a criminal suspect on private property without a warrant, which would generally be a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches, seizures, and arrests. The Supreme Court first articulated this principle in Warden v. Hayden in 1967.

From the Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott has set his legislative agenda. These lawmakers could influence how much is accomplished.

 For 2306.

- Click here for the article. 

Gov. Greg Abbott has laid out a bunch of priorities that he hopes lawmakers will take on this legislative session: measures related to criminal justice, protecting businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits and how elections are run in the state. But to get anything done on his list, he’ll need help in the Texas House and Senate.

Abbott works closely with the leaders of each chamber — Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in the Senate and Speaker Dade Phelan in the House — to pursue his agenda. Look closer, though, and there’s a lot more going on in the new Legislature. There are a total of 181 legislators in the Capitol, but the influence is not evenly distributed. Due to the lawmakers’ positions, ideology and tenure, some will have a much bigger say on the biggest issues this session. 

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

 At issue today

- Click here for it.

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Meet Chad Cantella: Texas Lobbyist

 - Click here.

For HCC - Key terms in chapter 2

In order: 

- popular sovereignty
- social contract theory
- separation of powers
- checks and balances
- plural executive system
- bill of rights
- supremacy clause
- statutes
- ordinances
- earmarked revenue
- initiative
- constitutional convention
- ballot wording
- federal system of government
- unitary
- confederal
- 10th Amendment
- necessary and proper clause
- Interstate Commerce Clause
- Equal Protection Clause
- Due Process Clause
- categorial grants
- block grants
- full faith and credit
- privileges and immunities clause

Tanzin v. Tanvir

A current Supreme Court case regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

- Click here for it.

From Wikipedia:

- Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- Employment Division v Smith.

Current supreme court cases regarding due process

All from Oyez: 

- Carney v. Adams.
- Edwards v. Vannoy.
- Jones v. Mississippi.
- Lange v. California.
- Torres v. Madrid. 

From Wikipedia: Jim Hogg

Former Texas Governor and co-founder of Texaco.

Instrumental in shifting Texas from an agrarian to an commercial state.

- Click here for the entry. 

With the support of farmers, ranchers, and small merchants, Hogg won the election for Governor of Texas in 1890. At the same time, voters approved the constitutional amendment allowing for a Railroad Commission by a wide margin. On April 3, 1891, the legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill to create the Railroad Commission. Hogg appointed the three members, with U.S. Senator John H. Reagan, creator of the Interstate Commerce Act, as chairman. Hogg also named his old friend, Captain Bill McDonald, to succeed Samuel A. McMurry as the captain of Texas Rangers Company B, Frontier Battalion, a position that he retained until 1907.

Hogg campaigned for a second term in 1892 on five principles: to uphold the state constitution, to support the Railroad Commission, to stop the railroads from issuing watered stocks, to regulate the issuance of county and municipal bonds, and to regulate alien land ownership. When his opponent for the Democratic nomination, George Clark, realized that Hogg would likely win the nomination, Clark's supporters left the Democratic convention and went to a new location. There they formed a new party, the Jeffersonian Democrats, and nominated Clark for governor. Hogg was easily nominated as the Democratic candidate by the remaining delegates.

The Republican Party endorsed Clark, and the Populist Party nominated lawyer Thomas Lewis Nugent. Hogg won a plurality of the votes to gain a second term as governor, but it was the first time in state history that the winning Democratic candidate did not receive a majority of the votes.

During his second term, Hogg endorsed three constitutional amendments. Voters defeated the proposals to charter state banks and to provide a pension for indigent Confederate veterans, but approved the amendment to allow for public election of the railroad commissioners. At his urging, the legislature passed a law allowing the Railroad Commission to fix rates based on fair valuation and to stop many of the practices the railroad companies had used to manipulate stocks. When the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the commission in Reagan v. Farmers Loan and Trust in 1894, this law helped them to be fully equipped to fight the power of the railroads.

In April 1893, the legislature passed a law requiring that communities which issued bonds should also have a plan to collect sufficient taxes to pay the interest. Hogg's final campaign promise was fulfilled when the legislature passed the Perpetuities and Corporation Land Law, which required private corporations to sell all land they had held for speculative purposes within 15 years. The law was full of loopholes and did not have the effect that Hogg wanted.

In 1894, Texas filed a lawsuit against John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company and its Texas subsidiary, the Waters-Pierce Oil Company of Missouri. Hogg and his attorney general argued that the companies were engaged in rebates, price fixing, consolidation, and other tactics prohibited by the state's 1889 antitrust act. The investigation resulted in a number of indictments, including one for Rockefeller. Hogg requested that Rockefeller be extradited from New York, but the New York governor refused, as Rockefeller had not fled from Texas. Rockefeller was never tried, but other employees of the company were found guilty.

From Roll Call: First day of second Trump impeachment trial will decide constitutionality of trying a former president

Two firsts in this procedure.

- Click here for the article.

President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial kicks off Tuesday with debate and a precedent-setting vote on whether it is constitutional for the Senate to try a former president.

Democrats will have the votes needed to affirm that the trial is constitutional, but the vote will likely prove that there are not enough Republicans willing to consider the case on its merits to convict Trump.

A conviction requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which means 17 Republicans would need to join all 50 Democrats in finding Trump guilty of the House’s charge that he incited insurrection by provoking his supporters to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6. But Tuesday’s vote on whether to dismiss the charge on constitutional grounds is expected to show only a handful of Senate Republicans willing to proceed with the trial and consider the evidence.

Although the House impeached Trump on Jan. 13, a week before he left office, he will be the first former president to be tried in the Senate. That makes Tuesday’s vote more significant because it will serve as a precedent that could guide future impeachment proceedings.

H. RES. 24

The articles of impeachment against President Trump.

- Click here for it.

- Click here for the process.

From the Dallas Morning News: Why Texas cities need lobbyists to represent them in Austin

More on the war on cities. This is an opinion piece written by the mayor of Fort Worth.

 - Click here for the article.

The term lobbyist is a misnomer in this case. Counties and municipalities often join associations and hire advocates to work on behalf of the citizens, just like we are working on behalf of the people who elected us. These advocates are experts in their fields, monitoring hundreds of bills filed each session and alerting us to any that might be potentially bad for our citizens — as well as helping us promote legislation that would benefit our neighbors. Hiring experts to represent our interests is so important that the state of Texas has a lobbyist in Washington, D.C., representing us. 

Even so, these important advocates represent a small budget line in our cities’ budgets. For example, in Fort Worth, our community advocacy expense is only .00082% of the overall annual city budget.

The return on investment is indisputable. Through advocacy, cities often gain funding for important capital and infrastructure projects, including airports, water systems, roadways, and convention and community centers. Not only do these projects provide services to citizens, but, in some cases, revenue back to the cities.

There are 962 cities and towns in our state, each one with its own unique mix of opportunities and challenges. Each one with local leaders who cheer on the same high school football team, worship in the same pews, and shop at the same grocery stores. Many local citizens may not know their state representatives or senators, but they typically know their mayors, council members and school board representatives. They know us, they see us, and they elect us.

Our state legislators have plenty on their plates for the upcoming session setting biennium budget, ensuring that Texas schoolchildren have the best education we can provide them and building policy that continues to fuel our state’s economic development.

One-size public policy does not fit all. That’s why we believe the government closest to the people should continue to have a voice and advocate for what is best for its citizens.

Regarding State Sovereign Immunity

Regarding State Sovereign Immunity, click here.  

- Oyez - Chisholm v Georgia.

- Oyez - Alden v Maine.

- Oyez - Tennessee v. Lane. 

From Wikipedia: Texas State Highway 6

This is why I love Wikipedia.

Building highways is something states do.

- Click here for the entry.

State Highway 6 (SH 6) runs from the Red River, the Texas–Oklahoma boundary, to northwest of Galveston, where it is known as the Old Galveston Highway. In Sugar Land and Missouri City, it is known as Alvin-Sugarland Road and runs perpendicular to I-69/US 59. In the Houston area, it runs north to FM 1960, then northwest along US Highway 290 to Hempstead, and south to Westheimer Road and Addicks, and is known as Addicks Satsuma Road. In the Bryan–College Station area, it is known as the Earl Rudder Freeway. In Hearne, it is known as Market Street. In Calvert, it is known as Main Street. For most of its length, SH 6 is not a limited-access road.

For minutes of the 1917 meeting of the State Highway Department that created the original hiighways in the state: 

- Click here.

For the TSHA background on TXDOT, click here,

Eminent Domain in the US and Texas Constitutions

US: 5th Amendment -

. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Texas Constitution: 

Sec. 17. TAKING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES. (a) No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:

(1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:

(A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or

(B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or

(2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.

(b) In this section, "public use" does not include the taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.

(c) On or after January 1, 2010, the legislature may enact a general, local, or special law granting the power of eminent domain to an entity only on a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.

(d) When a person's property is taken under Subsection (a) of this section, except for the use of the State, compensation as described by Subsection (a) shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.

From Wikipedia: United States congressional delegations from Texas

 - Click here for it.

From Texas Tribune: Texas Congressional Democrats urge Gov. Greg Abbott to let Planned Parenthood stay on Medicaid

Lots going on here, including federalism.

- Click here for the article. 

All 13 Democrats who represent Texas in Congress are calling on Gov. Greg Abbott to reverse a yearslong effort to boot Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program, saying it jeopardizes thousands of low-income Texans’ ability to access nonabortion health services.

Their plea comes just days after a state district judge temporarily stopped the state from excluding Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, a government health insurance program for the poor. A hearing is scheduled for later this month.

“Governor Abbott, your decisions to restrict access to health care providers while our health care system continues to be overloaded with COVID-19 patients is negligent and will cost even more lives,” they wrote in the Feb. 5 letter. “We urge you to stop playing politics with Texans’ health care.”

Planned Parenthood says it plays a large role in serving low-income patients, and that there's a shortage of Medicaid providers in part due to low reimbursement rates. The lawmakers’ letter dismissed the idea that other doctors could quickly absorb the roughly 8,000 Medicaid recipients recently seen at Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas, citing a government report that found many states did not have enough providers before the pandemic.

U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar said in an interview that the El Paso region she represents suffers from a lack of providers and health insurance, and that she’s heard from other safety net health providers that they’re “struggling,” and redirecting resources and staff to provide COVID-19 vaccines.

The state’s Medicaid program has among the lowest income requirements nationwide, excluding nearly all Texas adults except those who are pregnant, have a disability or are parents living below the poverty line. Black and Latino residents, who have been disproportionately killed by the virus, are more likely to rely on the program.

From the ACLU: Featured SC cases.

- Click here for them.

Constitutional Religious Rights - US v Texas

In the US Constitution:

Article 6: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

In the Texas Constitution:

Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Sec. 5. WITNESSES NOT DISQUALIFIED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS. No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any of the Courts of this State on account of his religious opinions, or for the want of any religious belief, but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.

Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

Sec. 7. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES. No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.

Georgia's 14th Congressional District.

This is the district represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Check it out

- Wikipedia.
- Ballotpedia.

From Roll Call: Democrats claim gavels as Senate adopts organizing resolution

The Senate of the 117th Congress takes shape.
 
- Click here for the story.

The Senate broke out of limbo Wednesday, adopting a power-sharing resolution that allows for committees to organize and Democrats to take the gavels after a month of tenuous and divided control.

Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer brought the resolution to the floor Wednesday evening, and it was adopted by unanimous consent.

“I am happy to report this morning that the leadership of both parties have finalized the organizing resolution for the Senate,” the New York Democrat said on the floor earlier in the day.

Schumer named the Democratic members of each committee Tuesday evening, which signaled that negotiations with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were coming to a close.

“Committees can promptly set up and get to work with Democrats holding the gavels,” Schumer said Wednesday.

From Roll Call: Citing converging crises, governance groups push funding boost for Legislative Branch

You get what you pay for. 

- Click here for the article. 

A bipartisan roster of good governance groups is asking congressional appropriators to increase funding for the Legislative Branch by an additional 10 percent or $530.9 million.

On Tuesday, Demand Progress, the Lincoln Network, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington along with many other groups wrote to the top lawmakers on the appropriations committees asking them “to increase the share of discretionary funding available for the Legislative branch both to address the historically diminished resources available to the Legislative branch and to meet the challenges facing Congress in our current time of crisis.”

The groups are asking House Appropriations Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and ranking member Kay Granger, R-Texas, and Senate Appropriations Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking member Richard C. Shelby to increase initial spending allocations, known as 302(b)s.

“We firmly believe that dedicating resources to build a stronger, more capable Congress is of key importance to our democracy and is necessary for it to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities,” the groups wrote. “Therefore, we urge you to increase the 302(b) allocation for the legislative branch by 10 percent as you determine spending levels for FY 2022.”

The fiscal 2021 omnibus spending bill included $5.3 billion in total base discretionary funding for the Legislative Branch. That bill allocated around $515.5 million to the Capitol Police, an increase of roughly $51.2 million.

From Roll Call: Cheney retains House GOP leadership role

 For our look at parties in Congress.

- Click here for the article. 

House Republicans voted 145-61 Wednesday night to keep Conference Chair Liz Cheney in her role as the No. 3 GOP leader in the chamber, fighting back an effort from those who were unhappy with her impeachment vote and criticism of former President Donald Trump.

"We really did have a terrific vote tonight, terrific time this evening laying out where we're going to do going forward as well as making clear we're not going to be divided and we're not going to be in a situation where people can pick off any member of leadership," Cheney told reporters after the vote. "It was very resounding acknowledgment that we need to go forward together and in a way that helps us beat back the really dangerous and negative Democrat policies."

Minority Whip Steve Scalise said the group aired their grievances, but ultimately the conference "came out much stronger," he said.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said he voted for Cheney. “I supported Liz,” Crenshaw told the pool.

Cheney faced a great deal of political blowback among her Republican colleagues most loyal to Trump when she announced she would vote to impeach him. The next day, on Jan. 13, she was joined by nine other Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for his role in the Capitol insurrection that left five people dead. The vote was 232-197 on the single article of impeachment that charged him with "incitement of insurrection.”

Fiscal Policy Terms - ACC GOVT 2306

policy
agenda setting
policy formation
policy adoption
policy implementation
policy evaluation
redistributive policy
distributive policy
regulatory policy
fiscal policy
subsidies
income tax
general sales tax
severance tax
franchise tax
sin tax
excise tax
property tax
ad valorem tax
appraisal
progressive tax
regressive tax
Permanent School Fund
pay as you go system
tax expenditures

Civil Liberties Terms - ACC GOVT 2305

civil liberties
civil rights
selective incorporation
judicial rule
judicial standard
establishment clause
free exercise clause
strict separation 
accommodation
clear and present danger
symbolic expression
hate speech
fighting words
prior restraint
Miller test
exclusionary rule
grand jury
double jeopardy
Miranda warnings

Regarding the development of Des Moines, Iowa

Where the people who settled Iowa Colony came from.

- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.

History: 

Des Moines traces its origins to May 1843, when Captain James Allen supervised the construction of a fort on the site where the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers merge. Allen wanted to use the name Fort Raccoon; however, the U.S. War Department preferred Fort Des Moines. The fort was built to control the Sauk and Meskwaki tribes, whom the government had moved to the area from their traditional lands in eastern Iowa. The fort was abandoned in 1846 after the Sauk and Meskwaki were removed from the state and shifted to the Indian Territory.

The Sauk and Meskwaki did not fare well in Des Moines. The illegal whiskey trade, combined with the destruction of traditional lifeways, led to severe problems for their society. One newspaper reported: "It is a fact that the location of Fort Des Moines among the Sac and Fox Indians (under its present commander) for the last two years, had corrupted them more and lowered them deeper in the scale of vice and degradation, than all their intercourse with the whites for the ten years previous".

After official removal, the Meskwaki continued to return to Des Moines until around 1857.

. . . On September 22, 1851, Des Moines was incorporated as a city; the charter was approved by voters on October 18. In 1857, the name "Fort Des Moines" was shortened to "Des Moines", and it was designated as the second state capital, previously at Iowa City. Growth was slow during the Civil War period, but the city exploded in size and importance after a railroad link was completed in 1866.[26]

In 1864, the Des Moines Coal Company was organized to begin the first systematic mining in the region. Its first mine, north of town on the river's west side, was exhausted by 1873. The Black Diamond mine, near the south end of the West Seventh Street Bridge, sank a 150-foot (46 m) mine shaft to reach a 5-foot-thick (1.5 m) coal bed. By 1876, this mine employed 150 men and shipped 20 carloads of coal per day. By 1885, numerous mine shafts were within the city limits, and mining began to spread into the surrounding countryside. By 1893, 23 mines were in the region.[27] By 1908, Des Moines' coal resources were largely exhausted.

Iowa Colony: A Colony of Iowans

Who Knew? 

- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.

Iowa Colony was founded in 1908 by the Immigration Land Company of Des Moines, Iowa, and received its name from Iowans G. I. Hoffmann and Robert Beard. The community received a post office in 1919, and rice farming was introduced there in 1920. Although not directly on a railroad line, Iowa Colony was served by the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe line through nearby Manvel. The population grew slowly to twenty-seven and remained at that level until the mid-1960s. The discovery of oil in 1948 brought regional employment to the area. By 1961 the Iowa Colony post office had closed, yet during the 1960s the settlement began to grow vigorously as part of the greater Houston area. By 1973 Iowa Colony had been incorporated, and by 1989 the town listed a population of 661. The city hall, community center, and municipal court are all housed in the same building, next to the fire department. In 1990 the population was 675. The population was 1,170 in 2010.

Iowa Colony gained notoriety in the early 1990s as a major speed trap and was an inspiration for a Texas statute limiting municipal profits from speed traps.

GOVT 2305 HCC Key Terms

For Chapter 3 - Federalism
sovereignty
federalism
unitary system
confederacy
enumerated powers
supremacy clause
necessary and proper clause
implied powers
reserved powers
nationalization
dual federalism
commerce clause
cooperative federalism
fiscal federalism
grants-in-aid
categorical grants
block grants
devolution

For Chapter 4 - Civil Liberties
civil liberties
due process clause
selective incorporation
freedom of expression
clear and present danger test
imminent lawless action
symbolic speech
prior restraint
libel
slander
establishment clause
Lemon Test
free exercise clause
right to privacy
procedural due process
exclusionary rule
good faith exception
inevitable discovery exception
plan view exception 

Two cases for HCC 2306

 Both related to federalism and civil rights.

- Oyez: Smith v Allwright.

- Oyez: Sweatt v Painter. 

About the 2022 - 2023 Texas Budget

- LRL - Texas Budget Process.

- Comptroller - Biennial Revenue Estimate. 

For 2305 - 2/3

- Wikipedia: First Congress. 1789 - 1791.

- Wikipedia: Judiciary Act of 1789.

- Oyez - Martin v Hunter's Lessee. 1816. 

- Oyez - McCullough v Maryland. 1819.

- Oyez - Hammer v Dagenhart. 1917.

- Oyez - NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 1937. 

- Oyez - United States v Morrison. 2000.

- Oyez - NFIB v Sebelius. 2012. 

Federalism Terms - ACC GOVT 2305

unitary government
confederation
diffusion
delegated powers
commerce clause
necessary and proper clause
implied powers
supremacy clause
inherent powers
reserved powers
concurrent powers
full faith and credit clause
dual federalism
cooperative federalism
grants in aid
new federalism
block grants
progressive federalism
unfunded mandate
devolution
preemption
civic voluntarism

Moby 1999 - 2005 Chillout Mix

The 1876 Texas Constitution Then and Now

- Then, as originally written.

- Now, after over 500 amendments have been added to it.

From the Texas Senate Research Center: Invisible Government: Special Purpose Districts in Texas

A great look at special districts in the state.

- Click here for the report.

And - Click Here for the Senate Research Center.

Terms for GOVT 2306 - Local Government - ACC Chapter 11

Municipal Utility District
Dillon's Rule
Fiscal Federalism
Administrative Federalism
Commissioners Court
Partisan Election
Sheriff 
County Clerk
County Attorney
Tax Assessor
Justice of the Peace
Constable
Auditor
Merit Based Civil Service System
County Civil Service System
Privatization
Contract Outsourcing
General Law City
Ordinance
Home Rule City
City Charter
Annexation
Machine Politics
Zoning Policy
Municipal Bond

From the Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott unveils legislative priorities, including police funding, "election integrity," expanding broadband access and more

From the Governor's State of the State address.

- Click here for the article.

Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday unveiled a legislative agenda centered on the state’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and a series of more politically charged issues such as police funding and "election integrity."

In his biennial State of the State speech, Abbott declared Texas is “brimming with promise” as it emerges from the pandemic and seeks to return to economic dominance. He pledged “hard-working Texans are at the forefront of our agenda this legislative session as we build a healthier, safer, freer and more prosperous state.”

Abbott designated five emergency items, or items that the Legislature can vote on within the first 60 day of the session, which began Jan. 12. Those items were expanding broadband internet access, punishing local governments that “defund the police” as he defines it, changing the bail system, ensuring what he described as “election integrity” and providing civil liability protections for businesses that were open during the pandemic.

Abbott also asked lawmakers to pass laws that would strengthen civics education in Texas classrooms, further restrict abortion and make Texas a “Second Amendment sanctuary state.” On issues stemming from the pandemic, Abbott called for legislation to permanently expand telemedicine and to prevent “any government entity from shutting down religious activities in Texas.” And Abbott briefly touched on the debate among some in his own party over how aggressively he has wielded his executive powers to respond to the coronavirus.

From Roll Call: Sweeping budget blueprint for pandemic aid readied for floor action

This sets up a fight between the two parties - and the future of the filibuster.

- Click here for the article. 

Democrats on Monday will kick off a convoluted process to try to pass President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 rescue package, through a budget resolution that would direct two dozen House and Senate committees to draft pieces of a filibuster-proof reconciliation bill.

The effort promises to be the most wide-ranging budget reconciliation measure since 1993, when President Bill Clinton in his first year signed a sweeping deficit reduction package passed by a Democratic Congress with policy components written by 25 committees.

The contents were still in flux as of Friday night, but the current plan calls for 11 Senate committees and 13 House panels to receive instructions to develop pieces of the aid package, which the budget would cap at $1.9 trillion over a decade.

One noticeable absence from the list of Senate committees, which generally line up with similar panels of jurisdiction in the House, is Energy and Natural Resources. By contrast, House Energy and Commerce would receive an instruction, according to sources briefed on the proposal.