https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/assessing-the-federal-governments-covid-19-relief-and-response-efforts-and-its-impact_part-ii
https://www.apta.com/advocacy-legislation-policy/
https://www.iaem.org/History-of-IAEM
https://ttd.org/
https://www.houstontx.gov/council/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684
https://www.alvinisd.net/cms/lib03/TX01001897/Centricity/Domain/289/SBAC%20General%2011-9-15.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-11/suits-against-states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Pitman
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/30/texas-abortion-law-legal-challenges/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Western_District_of_Texas
https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/tobacco-in-colonial-virginia/
https://www.alvin-tx.gov/upload/page/0041/docs/Council_Districts_2012.pdf
Thursday, September 30, 2021
Wednesday, September 29, 2021
Background on the authors of the Federalist Papers
- James Madison:
James Madison, Jr. was born on March 16, 1751 (March 5, 1750) Old Style) at Belle Grove Plantation near Port Conway in the Colony of Virginia, to James Madison Sr. and Nelly Conway Madison. His family had lived in Virginia since the mid-1600s.[1] Madison grew up as the oldest of twelve children,[2] with seven brothers and four sisters, though only six lived to adulthood.[3] His father was a tobacco planter who grew up on a plantation, then called Mount Pleasant, which he had inherited upon reaching adulthood. With an estimated 100 slaves[1] and a 5,000 acres (2,000 ha) plantation, Madison's father was the largest landowner and a leading citizen in the Piedmont. Madison's maternal grandfather was a prominent planter and tobacco merchant.[4] In the early 1760s, the Madison family moved into a newly built house that they named Montpelier.
- Alexander Hamilton:
Hamilton became a clerk at Beekman and Cruger, a local import-export firm that traded with New York and New England.[24] He and James Jr. were briefly taken in by their cousin Peter Lytton; however, Lytton took his own life in July 1769, leaving his property to his mistress and their son, and the Hamilton brothers were subsequently separated.[23] James apprenticed with a local carpenter, while Alexander was given a home by Nevis merchant Thomas Stevens.[25] Some clues have led to speculation that Stevens was Alexander Hamilton's biological father: his son Edward Stevens became a close friend of Hamilton, the two boys were described as looking much alike, both were fluent in French and shared similar interests.[23] However, this allegation, mostly based on the comments of Timothy Pickering on the resemblance between the two men, has always been vague and unsupported.[26] Rachel Faucette had been living on St. Kitts and Nevis for years at the time when Alexander was conceived, while Thomas Stevens lived on Antigua and St. Croix; also, James Hamilton never disclaimed paternity, and even in later years, signed his letters to Hamilton with "Your very Affectionate Father."[27][28]
Hamilton, despite being only in his teenage years, proved capable enough as a trader to be left in charge of the firm for five months in 1771 while the owner was at sea.[29] He remained an avid reader and later developed an interest in writing. He began to desire a life outside the island where he lived. He wrote a letter to his father that was a detailed account of a hurricane that had devastated Christiansted on August 30, 1772. The Presbyterian Reverend Hugh Knox, a tutor and mentor to Hamilton, submitted the letter for publication in the Royal Danish-American Gazette. The biographer Ron Chernow found the letter astounding for two reasons; first, that "for all its bombastic excesses, it does seem wondrous [that a] self-educated clerk could write with such verve and gusto," and second, that a teenage boy produced an apocalyptic "fire-and-brimstone sermon" viewing the hurricane as a "divine rebuke to human vanity and pomposity."[30] The essay impressed community leaders, who collected a fund to send Hamilton to the North American colonies for his education.
- John Jay:
The Jays were a prominent merchant family in New York City, descended from Huguenots who had come to New York to escape religious persecution in France. In 1685, the Edict of Nantes had been revoked, thereby abolishing the rights of Protestants, and the French Crown proceeded to confiscate their property. Among those affected was Jay's paternal grandfather, Auguste Jay. He moved from France to Charleston, South Carolina and then New York, where he built a successful merchant empire.[2] Jay's father, Peter Jay, born in New York City in 1704, became a wealthy trader in furs, wheat, timber, and other commodities.[3]
Jay's mother was Mary Van Cortlandt, of Dutch ancestry, who had married Peter Jay in 1728 in the Dutch Church.[3] They had ten children together, seven of whom survived into adulthood.[4] Mary's father, Jacobus Van Cortlandt, was born in New Amsterdam in 1658. Cortlandt served in the New York Assembly, was twice elected as mayor of New York City, and also held a variety of judicial and military offices. Both Mary and his son Frederick Cortlandt married into the Jay family.
Jay was born on December 23, 1745 (following the Gregorian calendar, December 12 following the Julian calendar), in New York City; three months later the family moved to Rye, New York. Peter Jay had retired from business following a smallpox epidemic; two of his children contracted the disease and suffered blindness.
From the Texas Tribune: How much Texas gets from multistate, $26 billion opioid settlement hinges on how many local governments sign on
More state / local conflict in the state.
- Click here for the article.
The state's top lawyer is pressing local governments to join a multibillion-dollar legal settlement that would partially fund responses to the opioid epidemic, but also protect drug companies from future lawsuits.
The distributors, which are supposed to monitor prescription drug shipments, are accused in hundreds of lawsuits of turning a blind eye while pharmacies across the country ordered millions of pills for people over the last two decades. Johnson & Johnson is accused of downplaying the addictive properties of its opioid products to doctors as well as patients.
From 1999 to 2019, nearly half a million people died from overdoses involving opioids, including prescription drugs and illegal street opioids, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last year, opioid overdose deaths hit a record high of more than 93,000. All four companies participating in the settlement have denied wrongdoing.
“We recognize the opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue, and we have deep sympathy for everyone affected. This settlement will directly support state and local efforts to make meaningful progress in addressing the opioid crisis in the United States,” Michael Ullmann, executive vice president and general counsel for Johnson & Johnson, said in a statement after the settlement agreement.
From the Texas Tribune: Matthew Dowd, former George W. Bush strategist, to run as Democrat for Texas lieutenant governor
Hints of a possible realignment in the state?
- Click here for the article.
Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for George W. Bush’s presidential reelection campaign who later split with the former president publicly, is running for lieutenant governor as a Democrat.
In a two-and-a-half minute campaign announcement video, Dowd said GOP politicians have failed the state, zeroing in on Patrick, who he called “cruel and craven” and denounced as a divisive figure who puts his political ambitions over the needs of everyday Texans.
From the Texas Tribune: Days after disclosing election “audits” in four Texas counties, secretary of state’s office gives some details of their scope
- Click here for the article.
In the five days since the Texas secretary of state’s office announced it is auditing the 2020 general election in four counties, local officials indicated they were in the dark about what the reviews would entail.
On Tuesday night, the state agency that oversees elections offered the first glimpse of what it has dubbed a “full forensic audit” of the election in Harris, Dallas, Tarrant and Collin counties, but it appears the scope of the effort may be more limited than what the term may suggest. The secretary of state's documentation explaining the parameters of the reviews notes the first phase includes partial manual counts of ballots and security assessments, which all counties are already required to undergo.
The second phase, which is slated for “spring 2022,” will be an examination of election records “to ensure election administration procedures were properly followed.” That includes reviews of records of voting machine accuracy tests, rosters for early voting, forms detailing chain of custody for sealed ballot boxes and other election materials maintained by the counties.
But the secretary of state also indicates it will review records that counties already provide to the office, including the “reasonable impediment declarations” filled out by voters who indicate they lack one of the photo IDs the state requires voters to present to cast a ballot.
The reviews were announced last week hours after former President Donald Trump pressed Gov. Greg Abbott to add a “Forensic Audit of the 2020 Election” to the agenda for the ongoing special legislative session. The ask served as a continuation of his baseless effort to cast doubts on the outcome of the election despite no evidence of widespread fraud — as well as his victory in the state.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/29/matthew-dowd-texas-lieutenant-governor/
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/29/texas-opioid-settlement-cities-counties/
https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#Early_life_and_university_career
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1997/jun/15/pro-se-tips-and-tactics-declaratory-relief/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison#Early_life_and_education
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divide%20and%20conquer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule#:~:text=During%20the%20Gallic%20Wars%2C%20Caesar,tactic%20to%20counter%20the%20rebels.
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule
Tuesday, September 28, 2021
http://proximityone.com/sd/1/sd1954841100.htm
http://proximityone.com/aad_48_41100.htm
https://www.divorcereality.com/houston-area-school-districts/
https://www.springbranchisd.com/about/board-of-trustees/elections/current-elections
https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/page/address-hours-phone-information
From ABC13: Spring Branch ISD has never elected a minority to its school board, lawsuit aims to change that
An example of federalism, voting rights, and the 14th Amendment, among other things.
- Click here for the story.
Every parent wants the best education for their child, and in Spring Branch ISD, that desire for whatever defines "the best," has frothed into a battle being waged in the courtroom, in front lawns, and at school board meetings.
Allegations of racism, classism and elitism are typed up in court documents and flash across phones in GroupMe chats.
The unofficial dividing line for the two sides: I-10 running through the district.
With two boys in the district, Carla Cooper-Molano has seen the battle scars, and she wants someone on the school board who represents her family living north of I-10.
"If I communicate to the board, these are my needs, this is what I need, this is what my community at school needs, they are drowned by a much larger vested interest from the south," said Cooper-Molano.
Cooper-Molano said the majority of SBISD students come from lower-income, working-class families, whose struggles range from paying rent to buying school supplies, to putting food on the table every night.
The disconnect comes when you look at the makeup of the current SBISD school board. According to a recently filed federal civil rights lawsuit, the majority of SBISD's board members live south of I-10, in more affluent and less diverse neighborhoods. In fact, a person of color has never won a seat on the school board. According to the district's own data, SBISD's student body is 59% Hispanic, and 27% white.
Let's walk through the lawsuit in class.
- Click here for it.
District Population Analysis with County Subtotals
For detail on each of the proposed districts:
- Click here.
Catching up on redistricting in Texas - 9/28
All From the Texas Tribune:
- Texas reduces Black and Hispanic majority congressional districts in proposed map, despite people of color fueling population growth.
- Democrat Lizzie Pannill Fletcher is about to find out how badly Texas Republicans want her out of Congress.
- After losing to a Democrat in 2020, former GOP state Sen. Pete Flores seeks election in newly drawn Republican district.
- GOP state Rep. Phil King announces he'll run for new Republican-friendly Senate seat held by Democrat Beverly Powell.
Monday, September 27, 2021
Links 9/27/21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
https://www.restoringjustice.org/
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/pdf/CR.11.pdf
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/cn/htm/cn.1.htm
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/27/texas-border-migrants-jail/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Rio,_Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Verde_County,_Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinney_County,_Texas
https://www.trla.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
Sunday, September 26, 2021
From History,com: How Coffee Fueled Revolutions—And Revolutionary Ideas
- Click here for it.
Sultan Murad IV decreed death to coffee drinkers in the Ottoman Empire. King Charles II dispatched spies to infiltrate London’s coffeehouses, which he saw as the original source of “false news.” During the Enlightenment, Voltaire, Rousseau and Isaac Newton could all be found talking philosophy over coffee. The cafés of Paris sheltered revolutionaries plotting the storming of the Bastille and later, served as the place authors like Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre plotted their latest books.
. . . Pasqua Rosée opened the first coffee house in London in 1652, prompting a revolution in London society. “British culture was intensely hierarchical and structured. The idea that you could go and sit next to someone as an equal was radical,” says Markman Ellis, author of The Coffee House: A Cultural History. The defining feature of English coffee houses were communal tables covered with newspapers and pamphlets where guests would gather to consume, discuss and even write the news. “Coffeehouses were the motor of the news industry in 18th-century London,” Ellis explains.
King Charles II’s father, Charles I, had been decapitated during the English Civil War, so he was understandably paranoid about his subjects gathering to talk politics. On June 12, 1672, Charles II issued a proclamation to “Restrain the Spreading of False News, and Licentious Talking of Matters of State and Government,” which read in part: “men have assumed to themselves a liberty, not onely in Coffee-houses, but in other Places and Meetings, both public and private, to censure and defame the proceedings of State by speaking evil of things they understand not."
From Wikipedia: Alien and Sedition Acts
The first step to a legal two party system.
- Click here for the entry.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were four acts passed by the Federalist-dominated 5th United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798.[1][a] They made it harder for an immigrant to become a citizen (Naturalization Act), allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens who were deemed dangerous ("An Act Concerning Aliens", also known as the "Alien Friends Act" of 1798)[2] or who were from a hostile nation ("Alien Enemy Act" of 1798),[3] and criminalized making 'false statements' critical of the federal government ("Sedition Act" of 1798).[4] The "Alien Friends Act" expired two years after its passage, and the "Sedition Act" expired on 3 March 1801, while the "Naturalization Act" and "Alien Enemies Act" had no expiration clause.
The Naturalization Act increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to fourteen years. At the time, the majority of immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the political opponents of the Federalists.[1] The Alien Friends Act allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" at any time, while the Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to do the same to any male citizen of a hostile nation above the age of fourteen during times of war. Lastly, the controversial Sedition Act restricted speech that was critical of the federal government. Under the Sedition Act, the Federalists allowed people who were accused of violating the sedition laws to use truth as a defense.[6] The Sedition Act resulted in the prosecution and conviction of many Jeffersonian newspaper owners who disagreed with the government.[6]
The acts were denounced by Democratic-Republicans and ultimately helped them to victory in the 1800 election, when Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent, President Adams. The Sedition Act and the Alien Friends Act were allowed to expire in 1800 and 1801, respectively. The Alien Enemies Act, however, remains in effect as Chapter 3; Sections 21–24 of Title 50 of the United States Code.[7] It was used by the government to identify and imprison allegedly "dangerous enemy" aliens from Germany, Japan, and Italy in World War II. (This was separate from the Japanese internment camps used to remove people of Japanese descent from the West Coast.) After the war they were deported to their home countries. In 1948 the Supreme Court determined that presidential powers under the acts continued after cessation of hostilities until there was a peace treaty with the hostile nation. The revised Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today.
From the Legislative Information Institute: Right of Association
- Click here.
“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.”601 It appears from the Court’s opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition,602 although it has at times been referred to as an independent freedom protected by the First Amendment.603 The doctrine is a fairly recent construction, the problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in the context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party membership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise to any separate theory of association.604
Freedom of association as a concept thus grew out of a series of cases in the 1950s and 1960s in which certain states were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the first case, the Court unanimously set aside a contempt citation imposed after the organization refused to comply with a court order to produce a list of its members within the state. “Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.”605 “[T]hese indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association,”606 may be abridged by governmental action either directly or indirectly, wrote Justice Harlan, and the state had failed to demonstrate a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce.
Applying the concept in subsequent cases, the Court, in Bates v. City of Little Rock,607 again held that the disclosure of membership lists, because of the harm to “the right of association,” could be compelled only upon a showing of a subordinating interest; ruled in Shelton v. Tucker608 that, though a state had a broad interest to inquire into the fitness of its school teachers, that interest did not justify a regulation requiring all teachers to list all organizations to which they had belonged within the previous five years; again struck down an effort to compel membership lists from the NAACP;609 and overturned a state court order barring the NAACP from doing any business within the state because of alleged improprieties.610 Certain of the activities condemned in the latter case, the Court said, were protected by the First Amendment and, though other actions might not have been, the state could not infringe on the “right of association” by ousting the organization altogether.
From the Constitution Center: Right to Assemble and Petition
- Click here for it.
Assembly
The right of assembly often involves non-verbal communication (including the message conveyed by the very existence of the group). A demonstration, picket-line, or parade conveys more than the words on a placard or the chants of the crowd. Assembly is, moreover, truly “free,” since it allows individuals to engage in mass communication powered solely by “sweat equity.”
The right to assemble has been a crucial legal and cultural protection for dissenting and unorthodox groups. The Democratic-Republican Societies, suffragists, abolitionists, religious organizations, labor activists, and civil rights groups have all invoked the right to assemble in protest against prevailing norms. When the Supreme Court extended the right of assembly beyond the federal government to the states in its unanimous 1937 decision, De Jonge v. Oregon, it recognized that “the right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.”
Petition
The right to “petition the Government for redress of grievances” is among the oldest in our legal heritage, dating back 800 years to the Magna Carta, and receiving explicit protection in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, long before the American Revolution. Ironically, the modern Supreme Court has all but read the venerable right to petition out of the Bill of Rights, effectively holding that it has been rendered obsolete by an expanding Free Speech Clause. As with assembly, however, the right to petition is not simply an afterthought to the Free Speech Clause.
The right to petition plays an important role in American history. The Declaration of Independence justified the American Revolution by noting that King George III had repeatedly ignored petitions for redress of the colonists’ grievances. Legislatures in the Revolutionary period and long into the nineteenth century deemed themselves duty-bound to consider and respond to petitions, which could be filed not only by eligible voters but also by women, slaves, and aliens. John Quincy Adams, after being defeated for a second term as President, was elected to the House of Representatives where he provoked a near riot on the House floor by presenting petitions from slaves seeking their freedom. The House leadership responded by imposing a “gag rule” limiting petitions, which was repudiated as unconstitutional by the House in 1844.
One of the risks of representative democracy is that elected officials may favor the narrow partisan interests of their most powerful supporters, or choose to advance their own personal interests instead of viewing themselves as faithful agents of their constituents. A robust right to petition is designed to minimize such risks. By being forced to acknowledge and respond to petitions from ordinary persons, officials become better informed and must openly defend their positions, enabling voters to pass a more informed judgment.
Congressional Research Service: The First Amendment: Categories of Speech
To set up our look at the development of political institutions.
- Click here for it.
Here's a relevant chunk:
Political and Ideological Speech The Supreme Court has long considered political and ideological speech to be at the core of the First Amendment, including speech concerning “politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Political speech can take other forms beyond the written or spoken word, such as money, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), or symbolic acts, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). A government regulation that implicates political or ideological speech generally receives strict scrutiny in the courts, whereby the government must show that the law is narrowly.
Links:
- W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette
- Buckley v. Valeo
- Texas v. Johnson
- Strict Scrutiny.
For more on the Congressional Research Service, click here.
- And click here for CRS Reports.
Thursday, September 23, 2021
Links - 9/23/21
https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/felony-disenfranchisement-laws-map
https://www.google.com/search?q=tumult&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS972US972&oq=tumult&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i67i433l2j0i131i433i512l2j0i433i512j0i131i433i512j0i512l3.672j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Texas
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:113th_US_Congress_House_districts_color.svg
https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/About/Lexicon/Pages/seats.aspx
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/pdf/EL.11.pdf
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.6.pdf
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/23/ken-paxton-attorney-general-republican-primary-2022/
_____
https://www.brazoriacad.org/municipal-utility-districts.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections#/media/File:Voter_turnout_2020_Map_.jpg
https://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/race-and-voting-in-the-segregated-south
https://my.lwv.org/texas/about/timeline-voting-elections-texas
https://mycounties.com/texas/
https://www.texascooppower.com/texas-stories/history/the-dukes-of-duval-county
https://texasalmanac.com/sites/default/files/images/topics/prezturnout.pdf
https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas-1876-en/article-6-suffrage
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_Conservation_and_Reclamation_District_Laws,_Proposition_2_(1964)
https://www.brazoriacountyclerk.net/home/showpublisheddocument/9162/637661786228470000
https://www.brazoriacountyclerk.net/departments/elections/sample-ballots
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/current-elections-information.shtml
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.6.pdf
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Links for 9/22/21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Pendergast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shame_of_the_Cities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
https://uselectionatlas.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Voting_Rights_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Monday, September 20, 2021
https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/Constitutional_Amendments/amendments87_HRO_2021-11-02.pdf
https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/c.php?g=813324&p=5803235
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.3.pdf
https://www.senate.gov/senators/Class_II.htm
https://www.boe.ca.gov/
https://ballotpedia.org/Marijuana_on_the_ballot
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative,_Amendment_64_(2012)
https://ballotpedia.org/Gavin_Newsom_recall,_Governor_of_California_(2019-2021)
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_2021_ballot_measures
https://www.brazoriacountyclerk.net/departments/elections/current-election-information
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/index.shtml
Friday, September 17, 2021
Operating Budget University of Houston System
https://www.uh.edu/office-of-finance/budget-office/operating-budget/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.15.htm
https://law.jrank.org/pages/10113/Sedition.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/fiscalnotes/pdf/HB03979F.pdf#navpanes=0
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979F.pdf#navpanes=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrate
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468
https://edinburgpolitics.com/2018/09/07/law-protect-texans-minor-traffic-tickets-fewer-arrest-warrants/
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ramirez-v-collier/
https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-42-the-public-health-and-welfare/chapter-21c-protection-of-religious-exercise-in-land-use-and-by-institutionalized-persons/section-2000cc-protection-of-land-use-as-religious-exercise.
https://ballsandstrikes.org/court-reform/shadow-docket-brutal-efficiency/
Thursday, September 16, 2021
Links from 9/16/21 lectures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._National_Geodetic_Survey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act_of_1938
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westheimer_Road
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/fm518-sh288-to-sh35.html
https://mobility.tamu.edu/texas-most-congested-roadways/
https://www.pearlandtx.gov/departments/engineering-and-capital-projects/projects-division/project-updates/txdot-projects/fm-518-widening
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm-to-market_road
Wednesday, September 15, 2021
From the Texas Tribune: We annotated Texas’ near-total abortion ban. Here’s what the law says about enforcement.
For an in-depth look at the law . . .
- Click here for the article.
Monday, September 13, 2021
From the National Conference of State Legislatures: Road Use Charges
A look at how states are looking at shifting away from a gas tax, which would address the problems caused by electric cars.
- Click here for the article.
Road usage charges (RUCs)—also known as mileage-based user fees (MBUFs) or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fees—are transportation funding mechanisms that seek to more closely link transportation taxes to the actual use of the roadways by a driver, as compared to traditional fuel taxes.
A RUC goes one step further, potentially eliminating the need for a gas tax altogether, by charging drivers on a per-mile-driven basis. Proponents see this as a way to increase transportation revenues even as fuel purchases decrease and vehicle miles traveled increases, due to improved vehicle efficiency.
From the Texas Standard: Should Electric Car Owners Pay A Fee To Use Texas Roads?
We discussed today how the state of Texas will make up lost revenue to the increased use of electric cars.
It mentions that Texas is looking to how California has dealt with this, which is an example of policy diffusion.
- Click here for the article.
The idea of the fee is that since electric vehicle drivers aren’t paying gas taxes, the government needs an alternative way to get money to fund infrastructure maintenance.
“If we’re moving into an electric future, then a gas tax is a really terrible way to pay for our roads and bridges and other infrastructure that vehicles need,” said Sebastian Blanco, contributing editor for Car and Driver magazine. “Instead of the way it works today, which is every time you gas up, some of your money goes to pay for those roads and bridges and things, the idea would be to just charge EV drivers an annual fee and so that … the state can collect money from them just the way it does from gas powered vehicle drivers today.”
Some electric vehicle drivers say that the fee that Texas wants to charge is unfair, because it is disproportionate to the amount that gas vehicle drivers pay through gas taxes. But the state does need to raise money for infrastructure maintenance. Blanco said there are several alternatives other states are trying out, including something called a road use charge.
“Exactly how this would be calculated is being tested in a lot of different places, particularly on the West Coast, in the Pacific Northwest or sort of western states that are kind of trying to figure this out where you would simply pay a set fee per each mile you drive,” Blanco said. “And one of the issues with that is some people don’t want to tell the government each year how many miles they put on their vehicle.”
Still, environmental advocates and electric vehicle drivers say that Texas’ approach disincentives green tech and “punishes” EV ownership.
“And I think that there’s a good case to be made for that point of view. You can look at a place like California that has a very high gas tax and also big incentives for EVs, and they lead the country in the number of EVs on the road,” Blanco said. “So a state like Texas that would be looking at raising fees on an electric vehicle but not doing the same for gas powered vehicles is sending a very strong message to its residents which vehicles they should be most interested in.”
From the Texas Tribune: Texas lawmakers’ novel approach to skirting Roe v. Wade leaves abortion rights advocates without a legal playbook
File this under civil law, new federalism, and policy diffusion.
- Click here for the article.
Texas' new law prohibiting most abortions is unprecedented — and so is the legal standoff currently keeping the restrictions in place.
In a late-night, 5-4 decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to strike down Texas’ new ban on abortions once fetal cardiac activity is detected — which can occur as early as six weeks, before many people know they’re pregnant. The court did so without ruling whether it’s constitutional for Texas’ Senate Bill 8 to allow anyone to sue providers, doctors or even Uber drivers who “aid and abet” someone getting an abortion past that threshold.
That means the large majority of the abortions previously performed in the state — experts estimate over 85% — are now outlawed through a mechanism that makes providers and those who help people get abortions subject to lawsuits. Some providers have stopped providing abortions altogether, even before fetal cardiac activity is detected, for fear that litigation could cause financial ruin, despite there being no known lawsuits filed since the law went into effect Sept. 1.
“No, the court did not formally declare Roe overruled, but the practical effect of the decision is to basically make Texas feel as though it is pre-Roe or in a post-Roe world,” said Melissa Murray, a professor at the New York University School of Law.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas on Thursday in an effort to overturn the law and block its enforcement. Before the lawsuit was filed, legal experts expressed doubts as to how it might succeed in ways that pending litigation so far hasn’t. The law’s construction has caused experts to be dubious about how the legal saga will play out in courts.
Trying to exactly predict the federal lawsuit’s fate is “a little bit like looking at a crystal ball,” Dallas attorney Michelle Simpson Tuegel said.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Texas and the U.S., lawyered up and ready to go to court
Filed under "federalism"
- Click here for the analysis.
Expect more lawsuits like that — and soon — with the state’s restrictive new voting law taking effect and with Texas about to draw new political districts in a special session on redistricting that starts later this month. Those issues combine long histories of civil and voting rights litigation and lawmaking, constitutional issues and deep partisan divides.
Blend in the mutual disdain of the federal and state governments. Add the Republican Party’s dominance in Austin and the Democratic Party’s dominance in Washington, D.C. The outcome was predetermined: Somebody was going to sue somebody.
This isn’t new. Texas has a governor and an attorney general hell-bent on opposing the feds at every turn.
The state’s steady barrage of legal challenges to the federal government abated with a Republican in the White House, but picked up considerably when Democrat Joe Biden became president.
Attorney General Ken Paxton promised as much in a tweet from his state account on the day Biden took office: “Congrats, President Biden. On Inauguration Day, I wish our country the best. I promise my fellow Texans and Americans that I will fight against the many unconstitutional and illegal actions that the new administration will take, challenge federal overreach that infringes on Texans’ rights, and serve as a major check against the administration’s lawlessness. Texas First! Law & Order always!”
Texas has sued the feds over a diverse set of issues so far this year, including health care funding, coal rules, oil pipelines, immigration policy and deportations.
Now the state is getting a taste of its own medicine.
Sunday, September 12, 2021
What is Peonage?
- From Britannica:
Peonage, form of involuntary servitude, the origins of which have been traced as far back as the Spanish conquest of Mexico, when the conquerors were able to force the poor, especially the Indians, to work for Spanish planters and mine operators. In both the English and Spanish languages, the word peon became synonymous with labourer but was restricted in the United States to those workers compelled by contract to pay their creditors in labour. Although the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution and congressional legislation after the American Civil War prohibited any such involuntary servitude in the United States, the former slaveholding states of the South devised certain legislation to make labour compulsory. Under those state laws, employers could induce or deceive men into signing contracts for labour to pay their debts or to avoid fines that might be imposed by the courts.
-From LII:
Notwithstanding its early acknowledgment in the Slaughter-House Cases that peonage was comprehended within the slavery and involuntary servitude proscribed by the Thirteenth Amendment,24 the Court has had frequent occasion to determine whether state legislation or the conduct of individuals has contributed to re-establishment of that prohibited status. Defined as a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor is compelled to labor against his will in liquidation of some debt or obligation, either real or pretended, peonage was found to have been unconstitutionally sanctioned by an Alabama statute, directed at defaulting sharecroppers, which imposed a criminal liability and subjected to imprisonment farm workers or tenants who abandoned their employment, breached their contracts, and exercised their legal right to enter into employment of a similar nature with another person. The clear purpose of such a statute was declared to be the coercion of payment, by means of criminal proceedings, of a purely civil liability arising from breach of contract.
- From TSHA: Raymondville Peonage Cases.
The Raymondville peonage cases, which were the first of their kind in Texas history, were tried in the Nueces County federal court in January 1927. Residents of Willacy County were arraigned for violation of federal statutes prohibiting peonage. Among the defendants were Sheriff Raymond Teller, Carl Brandt, Frank Brandt, Justice of the Peace Floyd Dodd, L. K. Stockwell, C. S. Stockwell, Roger F. Robinson, Deputy Sheriff William Hargrove, C. A. Johnson, and R. D. Riesdorph. Although the practice was illegal, peonage labor was used during the early twentieth century in some counties of South Texas, where it had become common to force laborers, usually Mexican or African Americans but also Whites, to work off debts owed to farmers. During times of labor shortage the practice included charging individuals with vagrancy in order to force them into labor; "friendly farmers" paid off their fines and then had the prisoners work off the debt by picking cotton, often under armed guard. The government investigation found more than 400 such vagrancy cases filed in the Raymondville court.
From the TSHA: Matrimonial Property Act of 1967 [Marital Property Act of 1967]
Specifically for HCC classes, but useful for our future look at civil rights policy.
- Click here for the entry.
The Matrimonial Property Act equalized spousal rights, liabilities, responsibilities, including management and control of community property, child custody, and financial responsibilities to the family. Often called the Marital Property Act of 1967, the bill was part of a larger set of reforms proposed initially by the State Bar of Texas as an alternative to passing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Texas Constitution (TERA).
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s the State Bar officially opposed the TERA, in part, because they argued that it would create a domino effect of “havoc and uncertainty” with other laws without statutory reform. To modernize Texas’s laws regarding families and meet demands for spousal equality, the State Bar tasked their Family Law Section team with drafting the Matrimonial Property Act of 1967 and other legislation that revised and modernized laws regarding divorce, marriage, annulment, guardianship and adoption, custody, paternity, juvenile delinquency, and the family court system (see WOMEN AND THE LAW). By the mid-1970s the committee created the first modern comprehensive unified Family Code in the world. Louise B. Raggio chaired the drafting committee, whose members included attorneys W. Dewey Lawrence, Edwin Nesbitt, Richard H. Cory, William Carssow, and law professors Joseph W. McKnight, Eugene L. Smith, William O. Huie, William Fritz, Angus McSwain, and Loy Simpkins.
For More
- LOUISE B. RAGGIO (1919–2011).
- FAMILY CODE: TITLE 1. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP: SUBTITLE B. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES: CHAPTER 3. MARITAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES.
- Women and the Law.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That's the text of the 9th Amendment. What rights might it refer to?
- The Right to Travel.
- The Right to Education.
- The Right to Marriage.
- The Right to Privacy.
- The Right to Vote.
From PISD: Pearland ISD Voter Approval Tax Rate Election
Coming this November.
- Click here for info.
Friday, September 10, 2021
Thursday, September 9, 2021
From ABC News: 4 of the 5 counties with the most death penalty executions are in Texas: Data
For out look at political culture and criminal justice, among other things.
- Click here for the article.
Wednesday, September 8, 2021
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/08/texas-execution-john-ramirez/
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/07/texas-special-session-redistricting/
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/01/31/execution-halted-man-convicted-corpus-christi-stab/
https://www.crf-usa.org/images/pdf/HistoryoftheDeathPenaltyinAmerica.pdf
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/09/22/states-of-innovation
https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/localpol
https://www.state.gov/innovation-policy/
Tuesday, September 7, 2021
From the Lehrman Institute: The Founders and the Pursuit of Land
Land formed America’s Founders – just as the Founders helped form the land, but for more than two centuries, America had been primarily a series of coastal settlements. Historian Forrest McDonald observed: “Of the Middle States, only Pennsylvania had a continuous line of settlement deep into the interior, and even in that state three-fourths of the population was concentrated in a small area near Philadelphia.”4
Still, Americans hugged the Atlantic coast. Theirs was relatively unique experience – divorced as they were from the “motherland.” George Washington clearly foresaw that the situation would change as colonists sought cheap land to plant and develop. That, in turn, would challenge the unity of the country’s disparate settlements and the leadership of the new government of an independent America. In the decade before the Revolutionary War, the westward movement of Americans suddenly accelerated. Max Farand noted: “Twenty years before the Revolution the expanding population had reached the mountains and was ready to go beyond. The difficulty of crossing the mountains was not insuperable, but the French and Indian War, followed by Pontiac’s Conspiracy, made outlying frontier settlement dangerous if not impossible.”5 Peace opened possibilities that warfare had prevented and postponed.
From the Texas Tribune: Justice Department exploring ways to challenge Texas’ abortion ban, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland says
Federalism!
- Click here for the article.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said Monday the Department of Justice is “urgently” exploring ways to challenge Texas’ strict new abortion law, but did not specify what options were being considered.
The Supreme Court stated it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the law but was refusing to block it at this point.
Twenty abortion providers originally filed the lawsuit against the state in July to try and shield themselves from the law, which allows private citizens to sue providers and others suspected of helping women get what are now illegal abortions. Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 8 into law in May, after abortion providers already began sounding alarms about its potential impacts.
In his statement Monday, Garland also said that federal officials will rely on the decades-old Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act to “protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services.” That federal law bans threats of force or physical obstruction against those seeking such health services.
“The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack,” the statement said.
Garland said DOJ officials have contacted U.S. attorneys’ offices and FBI field offices to “discuss our enforcement authorities.”
From Wikipedia: Postal Service Act
I'm on a roll
This is the bill that took the constitutional power and turned it into a federal institution.
- Click here for it.
William Goddard, a Patriot printer frustrated that the royal postal service was unable to reliably deliver his Pennsylvania Chronicle to its readers or deliver critical news for the paper to Goddard, laid out a plan for the "Constitutional Post" before the Continental Congress on October 5, 1774.[2] Congress waited to act on the plan until after the Battle of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. Benjamin Franklin promoted Goddard's plan and was appointed as the first postmaster general under the Continental Congress beginning on July 26, 1775,[3] nearly one year before the Congress declared independence from the British Crown. Franklin's son-in-law, Richard Bache, took over the position on November 7, 1776, when Franklin became an American emissary to France.
Samuel Osgood held the postmaster general's position in New York City from 1789, when the U.S. Constitution came into effect, until the government moved to Philadelphia in 1791. Timothy Pickering took over [5] and, about a year later, the Postal Service Act gave his post greater legislative legitimacy and more effective organization. Pickering continued in the position until 1795, when he briefly served as secretary of war, before becoming the third U.S. secretary of state.
Because news was considered crucial to an informed electorate, the 1792 law distributed newspapers to subscribers for 1 penny up to 100 miles and 1.5 cents over 100 miles; printers could send their newspapers to other newspaper publishers for free. Postage for letters, by contrast, cost between 6 and 25 cents depending on distance.[6] This subsidy amounted to roughly 0.2 percent of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to McChesney and Nichols.[7]
The postmaster general's position was considered a plum patronage post for political allies of the president until the Postal Service was transformed into a corporation run by a board of governors in 1971 following passage of the Postal Reorganization Act.
From the National Pony Express Association: the 190 stations along the way
Monday, September 6, 2021
Early Roads and Trails of Massachusetts
From Wikipedia: 1st United States Congress
A good look at how the US constitution was institutionalized.
- Click here for it.
From the Kaiser Family Foundation: Medicaid Financing: How Does it Work and What are the Implications?
One of the major types of federal grants.
- Click here for the page.
Medicaid represents $1 out of every $6 spent on health care in the US and is the major source of financing for states to provide coverage to meet the health and long-term needs of their low-income residents. The Medicaid program is jointly funded by states and the federal government. There has been renewed interest in how Medicaid is financed in light of the additional federal financing for the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as well as ongoing budget discussions at the federal level. This brief reviews how the Medicaid program is financed as well as the implications for budgets, responsiveness to state policy choices and need, the links between Medicaid spending and state economies.
From the Texas Comptroller's Office: Federal Funding in Texas
About 35.5 percent of Texas’ net revenue for fiscal 2016 came from the federal government.
- Click here for the link.
Texans sent the federal government $261 billion in taxes in 2016, and the state government received $39.5 billion in grants in return, or about 15 percent of our total federal tax tab. Those grants were the state’s second-largest revenue source, providing more than a third of its net revenue in that year. (State taxes, by contrast, supplied nearly 44 percent.)
What are federal grants?
These are central to the expansion of nation power during the period you book calls "cooperative federalism." By and large they give the funds to states to implement federal laws - and often the states then send these down to the counties.
- From Federal Grants Wire:
. . . a federal grant is an award of money or economic aid provided by the United States Government out of the funds available in the general federal revenue. The money provided can be a loan, a portion of a certain project or organization's cost, or a complete funding of a particular project, research or other undertaking. Grants are available from both the government as well as outside sources, (including foundations, non-profit charities or non-profit corporations), although the government alone offers nearly 1,000 different grant programs to qualified businesses and individuals, distributed by 26 grant-specific agencies, and divided into 21 separate categories.
When it comes to receiving funds, all grants are divided into two generalized classifications, direct grants and pass-through grants. A direct grant means that the recipient receives the money directly from the federal government, with no intermediary in between. These grants are beneficial as there is no additional red tape to wade through - just a single application and subsequent agreement with the federal government.
A pass-through grant is first given to the state by the federal government, which in turn distributes the funds to local applicants. This essentially means that applicants have fewer competitors for the grants, just the other organizations or possible recipients in their state, and applicants simply have to make a trip to their state capital for in-person clarification, appearances, or any other communications that would benefit from personal contact.
From these general guidelines, federal grants fall into a few specific types which identify their purpose and the ways which they can ultimately be distributed and used.
A Project Grant consists of funds distributed by the government for a specific "project" or area of research. Project grants are often given to members of the science, education and technology communities, provided that the applicants qualify and meet a few prerequisite guidelines. Generally, an applicant must have completed certain criteria or qualifications beforehand, (which is outlined in detail for the specific grant desired), and project grants generally have an end day when the funding discontinues. The average duration period for a project grant is around three years.
A Categorical Grant is slightly more specific, and can only be used for precise and spelled-out purposes. Recipients of these grants must often "match" the funds provided by the government, or at least provide a portion of the overall cost. These are the most common grants provided, and an estimated 90% of grants distributed by the US Government fall into the categorical grant realm.
There are also several grants that are geared more towards specific locales or communities. A Block Grant is generally comprised of smaller, categorical grants, and is therefore a larger grant that is given to recipients to use as they see fit. Block grants are formula grants, and are often distributed to state or local governments for large-scale community projects and maintenance. Formula Grants distribute funds as predefined by the law. A formula grant is determined by pre-existing factors such as population, poverty level, taxes, or even housing density, and where a community or potential recipient falls on this formulaic spectrum indicates the amount of funds they are qualified to receive.
Earmark Grants are the last type of grant that the government doles out, although these grants have come under fire in recent years. The grants are determined by appropriations of the US Congress and are often secured with the help of high paid lobbyists. Recent research into the distribution of Earmark Grants conducted by the Congressional Research Service in the Fiscal Year 2006 found that over 12,852 earmark grants were dispersed for a total cost of $64 billion dollars.
While it can be initially daunting to determine which type of grants an applicant or community can qualify for or should even pursue, the best first step is to narrow down the specific field of interest. Potential applicants can search through the government's extensive database of grants available, and narrow down their criteria by applicant type, assistance type or even subject area.
Having a handle on the basic definitions of federal grants as well as the restrictions or qualifications each grant type carries is a good start to being eligible for federal aid, regardless of an applicant's locale or ambition. With a little bit of research, and a well-written proposal, an applicant can easily take the initial first steps to obtaining federal assistance, and ultimately reaching their final end goal.
A few terms for 9/7
Be prepared to discuss these terms:
grants in aid
reserved powers
10th amendment
dual federalism
state and local control
delegated powers
concurrent powers
confederation
unitary government
individual rights
McCullough v Maryland
judicial review
national supremacy
cooperative federalism
commerce
infrastructure
nationalism
public education
policy diffusion
new federalism
race to the bottom
granted powers
implied powers
federal control
progressive federalism
coercive federalism
Great Depression
New Deal
categorical grants
block grants
Sunday, September 5, 2021
From the National Association of Counties: County teams rushed in as Ida made landfall
I'll be posting a lot of material related to counties over the semester.
- Click here for the article.
Friday, September 3, 2021
Thursday, September 2, 2021
From the Texas Tribune: GOP bill targeting how race, slavery and history are taught in Texas schools heads to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk
The bill in question is SB 3, click here for it.
- Click here for the article.
As the Texas Legislature's special session wound down Thursday, lawmakers sent Gov. Greg Abbott a reworked version of the GOP’s so-called “critical race theory” bill, which aims to restrict how race and history are taught in schools.
Abbott had already signed into law a “critical race theory” bill during the regular session but declared at the time that more needs to be done to “abolish” critical race theory in Texas classrooms. The current law, House Bill 3979, already restricts how current events and America’s history of racism can be taught in Texas schools but also includes provisions authored by Democrats that required teaching that white supremacy is morally wrong and required readings from prominent people of color in American history.
The Right to Privacy
The basis of the Roe decision.
But what is it?
From the Cornell Law School:
“private right of action”
A key component of the Texas Abortion law. Money is offered to people who report on women seeking abortions.
What is it?
A private right of action is when a private individual or entity, as opposed to the state, government or a public body, has the legal right to assert legal rights under the law. When we say that the right is “private”, it relates to an individual, person, entity or organization that is anyone but the state. When we say “action”, we refer to a lawsuit or the enforcement of legal rights. In essence, a private right of action is when a person (other than the government or the state) has the right to commence legal proceedings or file a lawsuit against another under the law. You can define a private right of action as the right granted to a private plaintiff to bring legal action against another party based on the Constitution, public statute or federal common law.
There you go.
From the U.S. Supreme Court: WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL.
The supreme court declines to hear a request of injunctive relief of Texas' recently passed abortion law.
There was no majority decision. Each of the four dissenters offered their own reasons for why they would have allowed it.
- Click here for the decision.
The decision doe not impact Roe v Wade, but this one might.
What is injunctive relief?
Injunctive relief, also known as an injunction, is a remedy which restrains a party from doing certain acts or requires a party to act in a certain way. It is generally only available when there is no other remedy at law and irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted. The purpose of this form of relief is to prevent future wrong. Such orders, when issued before a judgement, are known as preliminary injunctions that can be punished as contempt if not obeyed. Due to its coercive force, a grant of injunctive relief is subject to immediate review by an appellate court. The standard for review is an abuse of discretion. As such, an injunctive relief will be overturned if the appellate court finds that the trial court issued the relief based on an misapplication of the law or an erroneous factual finding.
