What are the polls telling us about how each candidate will do in Iowa?

For actual numbers over time:

RCP: Democrats.
RCP: Republicans.

And:

- The Best Pollster In Iowa Just Released Its Final Survey — How Accurate Has It Been?

The final Des Moines Register poll was just released, showing Donald Trump leading the Republican field in Iowa with 28 percent, Ted Cruz with 23 percent and Marco Rubio with 15 percent. Hillary Clinton was ahead of Bernie Sanders, 45 percent to 42 percent, on the Democratic side. The political world — us included — was eagerly awaiting this survey, as Ann Selzer, who has conducted the Register’s polls since the 1988 caucuses, has avery good track record. But just how predictive of the final results have Selzer’s polls been? History suggests they’re a good indicator of what will happen in Monday’s Iowa caucuses, though there is room for a candidate or two to surprise.

From the Texas Almanac: Voter Participation in Texas

I can't find a good way to copy and paste this document, but it deserves to be the subject of an entire lecture - and will be for ACC 2306 students later this semester.

It walks through basic facts associated with voter participation in Texas including turnout and changes in suffrage. It has some surprising facts. For example, until 1954 members of the American armed forces could not vote in Texas.

- Click here for it.

From the Atlantic: What Actually Happens at the Iowa Caucus?

A cute and short - and slightly superficial - video. But a good starting point for what will be going on tomorrow.

- Click here for it.

From Vox: The Iowa caucuses, explained.

For a bit more detail, peruse through these.

- Click here for it.

Texas' current state credit profile

At least according to an analysis from S&P Capotal IQ.

- Click here for the full report.

Here's their specific analysis of Texas. It suggests that recent efforts to diversify the Texas economy - especially following the oil bust in the 1980s - have worked, Texas is more likely to weather the storm than other places.

Which isn't to say that a city like Houston might be more exposed to fallout. I'll look for some analysis along those lines soon.

Texas's limited direct reliance on oil production and natural gas production taxes on general operations and the state's strong reserve levels have positioned the state well through this downturn in oil prices. Oil production taxes comprise only 4% of general revenues in the fiscal 2016-2017 biennial revenue estimate, with natural gas production taxes comprising another 2%. In our view, declines in oil and gas revenues will limit the increases in the economic stabilization fund (ESF)--also known as the rainy-day fund--and state highway fund (SHF), but have a more limited impact on general revenue spending, given the funding formula for the state's ESF and SHF. Under the formulas, 75% of the oil and natural gas tax collections that exceed 1987 collection levels are transferred into those funds, therefore reducing the amount available for general revenue spending. However, there has been a softening of other tax revenues due to the oil price declines, in particular in the state's sales tax revenues, which account for 56% of total net general revenues. As well, there may be a link with expenditure pressures as public assistance has grown by 6.3% in the first four months of the fiscal year compared to the prior year. That said, in our view, the state's reserve position will allow it to manage through these budget pressures during the current biennium. Despite the projected declines in oil and gas collections, the rainy-day fund is projected to increase to $10.4 billion (or approximately 20% of fiscal 2017 general fund expenditures) by the end of the biennium. Furthermore, if we assumed no growth in the ESF, the state still has liquidity in the rainy day fund commensurate with a 'AAA' rating. The state should be releasing an updated revenue forecast for the current biennium later this month.

From CNBC: Falling oil prices put the squeeze on state budgets

For 2306 prior to out look at the state budget.

No surprise that a good chink of revenue comes from taxes on oil and natural gas. And no surprise that the lower the price of a barrel of oil, the less is collected in revenue. This matters in a state - like Texas - that has to run a balanced budget. The effects of the reduction in price is beginning to be felt. This might include a reduction in the state's credit rating.

- Click here for the article.

Several states that are dependent on energy revenue are facing strained budgets due to low oil prices, and at least three — Alaska,Louisiana and New Mexico — are at risk having their credit ratings lowered, according to a report from Standard & Poor's Ratings Services.

"In short, the more aggressive a state was with regard to its assumptions and use of oil-related revenues during the oil boom, the more acute its fiscal pressures now, in the oil price bust," according to S&P. "For states with greater budgetary reliance on oil-related revenue, the unrelenting decline in prices places a larger budget on state lawmakers to identify and enact corrective fiscal measures."

The report, entitled "Collapsing Oil Prices Seep Into State Credit Profiles," suggests that as state lawmakers head into session in the next budget season, their true fiscal situation "could be more intense than what their official forecasts currently anticipate." The report surveys the situation in eight major oil-producing states: Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas andWyoming.

S&P pointed out that all of the states in the survey forecast a higher price for oil than what the ratings agency expects in 2016 ($40 per barrel). For example, Alaska has a fiscal 2016 price assumption of $49.58 per barrel, according to S&P, while Louisiana's is $48.02 per barrel and Texas is $49.48 per barrel. Looking ahead to fiscal 2017, just one state (North Dakota) is identified as having a forecast in line with S&P ($45 per barrel).

Meet the Wilks Brothers

They are Cisco natives named Dan and Farris. They were early adopters of hydraulic fracking and built a company they sold for $3.5 billion. I mention them, because they are helping fund the effort to swing the House even more conservative than it already is by becoming heavily involved in funding the primary campaigns of far right conservatives who want to remove the merely right conservatives currently holding office.

Here's a story related to that effort from the Texas Tribune.

- Fracking Billionaire Emerges as Key Donor in Texas House Races.

A family of West Texas billionaires heavily invested in U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential campaign is also vying to play an outsized role in efforts to steer the direction of the Texas House during the next legislative session, according to the latest campaign finance data.

Campaign finance reports covering the last half of 2015 showed some of the largest donations going to two kinds of races: those involving key lieutenants of House SpeakerJoe Straus and those involving some of his loudest critics. In most of those races, many of the largest donations to the latter group trace back to billionaire Farris Wilks of Cisco or a member of his family.

Empower Texans PAC, the campaign arm of the conservative group that has a history of playing a large role in Republican primaries, took in 70 percent of its donations over the six-month reporting period through a single $500,000 donation from Wilks, who along with his brother Dan, made his fortune during the fracking boom of the last decade. The PAC spread much of that money around to a handful of Republican incumbents who have been critical of Straus, including Jonathan Stickland of Bedford, Tony Tinderholt of Arlington, Molly White of Belton and Matt Rinaldi of Irving, along with Republicans vying to unseat Straus allies.

Members of the Wilks family also made large donations directly to those same candidates, as well as a $50,000 donation to Jeff Judson, one of two candidates challenging Straus in the Republican primary.

So here's the lesson. If you want to become politically powerful in the state of Texas. Make a lot of money and then spend it.

For more on the brothers:

- The Forbes 400's Newest Undercover Billionaires: The Wilks Brothers.
- Meet the Billionaire Brothers You Never Heard of Who Fund the Religious Right.
- Nos. 40 and 41: Dan Wilks and Farris Wilks. 

For 2306 - this and that

- Jared Woodfill Starts Small in Bid to 'Take Back' Texas GOP. The internal struggle between the social conservatives and the "establishment" continues. Woodfill wants to become the chair of the Texas Republican Party, take out Texas Speaker Joe Straus along with other more moderate Republicans, and promote a more socially conservative agenda in the 85th session of the legislature. The article highlights which interest groups are also promoting these efforts. The article links to this previous story about how the current Texas GOP chair got his job.

- In Re-Election Bid, Straus Faces Familiar Tea Party Attacks. A bit more detail on the effort of the far right to unseat the merely right Straus: "the speaker’s opponents insist they’re snatching voters from Straus by demonstrating that his record is out of step with his own party and arguing he has few results to show after years of presiding over the House. They argue Straus is too cozy with House Democrats and point to the demise of GOP-backed initiatives, including legislation to expand school choice, a ban on so-called sanctuary cities and measures to further restrict abortion."

- Select Texas Senate tax committee meets in San Antonio. In November, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick appointed members to the Senate Select Committee on Property Tax Reform and Relief. The official announcement stated that it would "travel the state holding public hearings and look for ways to improve the property tax process as well as reduce the burden on property owners." Critic argue that it was just another attempt by the state to clamp down on local governments. The article discusses a recent hearing in San Antonio.

- Analysis: The Death of Taxes on Illegal Drugs in Texas. Here's an interesting story about the tough on crime days in Texas. It also discusses taxes, double jeopardy, the courts, checks and balances, and statutory code. Plus it has way cool images of tax stamps intended to be put on confiscated drugs. They are collectors items now apparently.

- Abbott lays into legislators, feds in first year review. In this televised interview, the governor - in part - discusses what he would like to see the next session of the Texas Legislature prioritize.

From Vox: How Amazon could destroy college as we know it

I like to post the occasional piece about how college is being transformed, both due to new technologies, a business model that see profit in the enterprise, and a growing sense that the current model does not quite fit the needs of a rapidly changing working population. No surprise that Jeff Bezos is in the middle of it.

- Click here for the article.

For years, pundits have speculated that online instruction could begin to overtake traditional higher education, but too often have offered few details about how this would happen. Already, however, you can see a path through which tech companies could gain a foothold in the higher ed market.

Here's one scenario — told through the vantage point of Amazon's Jeff Bezos in 2030. I don't know if it's going to happen, but as you'll see in the footnotes, Amazon is already making moves that could suggest it would be a potent competitor to existing colleges and universities.

From the Wall Street Journal: How the Iowa Caucuses Work

A helpful primer - the election is this coming Monday.

- Click here for the article.

From Vox: The unsexy truth about why the Arab Spring failed

In 2305 - and to a lesser extent 2306 - were discussing democracy. In passing I mention that we seem to be going through an occasional period where democratic governments are scaling back. A leading researcher of democratization calls this a period of democratic recession. You democracies are reverting into oligarchies.

- Click here for: Facing up to the Democratic Recession.

Vox attempts to explain this recession by looking at the fate of some of the government establ;oshed in the Arab Spring. The author argues that the lack of established and functioning institutions is one of the key reasons this is occurring. It helps illustrate a point we make in class about the governmental system established in the U.S Constitution. It is built up on institutions that were developed over British history. This allowed for a degree of stability, meaning they were able to survive. The countries in the middle east do not have institutions with such a history, which helps explain why they slid back into authoritarian military systems.

- Click here for the article:

In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak began preparing for revolution long before it came. In the three decades of his rule, he systematically ensured that no opposition party or civil society institution grew strong enough to challenge him. But in ensuring that no institutions were powerful or independent enough to threaten his rule, Mubarak also ensured that they were too weak to support a transition to democracy after he fell.

Mubarak stuffed the interior ministry with political loyalists rather than effective public servants, which allowed corruption and brutality to corrode public security. He turned the judiciary into a pro-regime puppet, which gave him a tool to persecute political opponents but left judges dependent and the rule of law weak. He undermined liberal opposition parties and tolerated the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood only enough to let him credibly claim to the world, "It’s me or the Islamists," using frequent crackdowns and careful electoral rules to ensure that they never got real governing experience.

The one institution that gathered strength was the military. Its role in politics expanded under Mubarak far beyond what his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, had permitted, with Mubarak using patronage to buy the military's loyalty as it grew more powerful.

. . . the conditions that Mubarak deliberately engineered to elongate his rule — an excessively powerful military, a weak opposition without governing experience, corrupt security services, hollowed-out civil society, and no effective democratic institutions — have all remained after his fall, and have undermined successive governments as much as they eventually undermined his own.

When you see that, it becomes clear that the real problem was never the degree to which individual protesters did or did not understand grassroots political organizing. That democratic transition isn't merely the absence of a dictator. Rather, it is the presence of democratic rule.

And democratic rule requires something a lot more important, if less obviously visible, than having a good-guy democrat at the top of the government. It requires the institutions of democracy: political parties capable of winning elections, politicians capable of governing, a bureaucracy capable of implementing that governance, and civil society groups able to provide support and stability to those institutions

From the Texas Tribune: Grand Jury Indicts Abortion Foes Behind Undercover Videos

We discuss grand juries in both 2305 ans 2306

- Click here for the story.

A Harris County grand jury on Monday indicted the videographers behind undercover recordings of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Houston and cleared the women's health provider of any wrongdoing.

The indictments — part of the county prosecutor's investigation into allegations that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling fetal tissue — include charges against anti-abortion activists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt for tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony that carries a punishment of up to 20 years in prison. The grand jury handed down a second charge for Daleiden for “Prohibition of the Purchase and Sale of Human Organs," according to the Harris County District Attorney's office. That charge is a class A misdemeanor that carries a punishment of up to a year in jail.

The grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston of breaking any laws.

For more background, also from the Texas Tribune:

- Indictment Sheds Light on Planned Parenthood Sting.

The Texas Penal Code indicates that the mere offer to buy or sell human organs, including fetal tissue, is a violation.

While the sale of fetal tissue is illegal, abortion clinics may donate fetal tissue with a patient’s consent for use in medical research. Federal law allows clinics to be reimbursed for costs “associated with the transportation, implantation, processing preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue” for research purposes — an amount that typically ranges from $25 to $50.

Offering to pay health providers an amount higher than those administrative costs is also a violation of the law.

The charge against Daleiden is a class A misdemeanor that carries a punishment of up to a year in jail.

The misdemeanor charge is one result of the Harris County District Attorney’s criminal investigation into allegations that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling fetal tissue. That investigation — launched at the urging of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — focused on undercover recordings of staff at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston discussing the administrative costs of harvesting fetal organs at various stages of gestation.

From Business Insider: 14 incredible facts about Texas

Just for fun. We'll look through more of these this semester.

- Click here for the article.

This stuck out:

The total weight of catfish consumed in Texas annually is more than the weight of 6.5 Eiffel Towers.

From Trib Talk: How to be heard

The author speculates that one reason political participation might be so low is that governments high and low make it difficult for citizen to meaningfully make their opinions heard. The opportunities that exist are not that easy of most of us to participate in. Maybe attitudes about government would change if this was easier.

- Click here for the story.

Ever been mad at government? Don’t answer that.

But have you ever spoken up? More importantly, have you ever felt heard?

Candidates for office are awfully focused on listening to prospective voters. Once those candidates are elected and in office, they don’t stop listening, but it can be much harder to get through to them — to weigh in on policy options they’re facing in a timely and meaningful enough fashion for it to affect their decision.

Odd, isn’t it? If you’re married or in a committed relationship, you’d probably prefer being consulted on decisions that affect you — where you’ll live, say, or where your kids go to school. It seems unlikely that a marriage or relationship would prosper if one person made major decisions without consulting another.

So, why do governments across Texas, at all levels, make it so difficult for those affected by policy decisions to affect those decisions? Most limit the public’s participation to public hearings (often held so late at night that it can be difficult for some to stay awake to hear the speakers) or generalized public comment periods, which often are monopolized by extremists spouting rhetoric unrelated to the government’s jurisdiction.

These hearings and comment periods may matter, but if they occur right before a vote, it's hard to see how. After all, we expect our politicians to do their homework before voting, so why should we expect them to disregard that homework just because someone makes a nice speech?

This limit on public participation in many communities and state agencies means that a very select few participate — those comfortable enough and able to spend hours waiting for a few minutes to take a stand and make a speech, in public, often televised and/or streamed live. That significantly skews an elected official’s perception of public opinion.

The choreography also works against the public. We structure these events like we would a church, a courtroom, or a lecture hall — with elected officials aloft on a dais, their “congregation” of citizens all wanting their ear but seated for a sermon. That does not convey a spirit of dialogue with the public affected by decisions, an open ear to hearing their views.

From Roll Call: 2016 Race Ratings

For 2305 students who plan to wrote about the congressional campaigns. A look at the odds for each of the congressional races this year.

- Click here for the link.

What positions are up for election this year?

I lifted this list from the website of the Harris County Democratic Party.

These are in addition to the race for the presidency. We should make it a goal that you are familiar with each of these positions by the time the semester is over.

United States Representative
Railroad Commissioner
Supreme Court
Court of Criminal Appeals
State Board of Education
State Senator
State Representative
Court of Appeals
District Judge
District Attorney
Judge, County Court at Law
County Attorney
Sheriff
County Tax Assessor-Collector
County School Trustee
County Commissioner
Justice of the Peace
Constable
County Chair
Precinct Chair

For 2306 - 1/24/16

Some odds and ends for state and local government

Though the Texas Legislature is not meeting right now, standing committees are. Here is a report of one meeting about "sanctuary cities" one of the items that might appear on the agenda of the 85th session nest year. Click here for the story.

The El Paso Times editorializes on the need to address the unique issues of urban schools - especially those with a high number of poor students. An interest group called the Urban Council of Superintendents has reformed in order to push an agenda enhancing the quality of urban schools in the next session of the legislature. Click here for the story.

Two public school advocates criticize Texas' approach to evaluating school quality. The difference between good and bad schools they argue is the degree of poverty the school student's live in. Click here for the story.

The executive director of the Texas Municipal League argues that declined in state support for infrastructure projects - notable transportation projects - places additional burdens on cities. Click here for the story.

The Texas Attorney General has decide that online fantasy sports counts as gambling and is illegal in the state. The industry argues that it is a game of skill, and says its not going anywhere. A variety of issue regarding gambling are perennially argued before the legislature. Click here for the story.

Some police departments are putting signs on their cars stating "In God We Trust" which may or may not raise establishment clause questions. It'll be interesting to see if a lawsuit comes from it, and if the court decides the plaintiff has standing to sue. Click here for the story.

From the NYT: As Frustrations With Mexico’s Government Rise, So Do Lynchings

We'll touch on the need for a stable governing system to minimize mob violence - a key point made by the framers of the constitution.

- Click here for the story.

By some accounts, there were more public lynchings this past year than at any other time in more than a quarter-century. There were at least 78 lynchings last year in Mexico, more than double the number the previous year, according to data collected by Raúl Rodríguez Guillén, a professor and an author of the book “Mexico Lynchings, 1988-2014.”

The mob actions were born of a sense of hopelessness and impotence shared by many in Mexico, where 98 percent of murders go unsolved and the state is virtually absent in some areas. By some estimates, just 12 percent of crimes are even reported in Mexico, largely because of a lack of faith that justice will ever be served.

Such a void, taken to extremes, has found its resolution in violence.

“There is a crisis in terms of the growth of violence and crime and a parallel erosion of authority and the rule of law,” Mr. Guillén said. “These lynchings acquire a double meaning. People lynch both the suspect and the symbol of authority.”

Replacing El Franco Lee

Lee was a Harris County Commissioner - Precinct One - and died about a month ago. The timing of his death has made replacing him problematic. County commissioner is one of the many positions that will be filled in the November election, the competition will be - for all practical purposes - between the candidates offered by the Democratic and Republican Parties. Those candidates will be determined in the upcoming primary election on March 1st. Most attention will be paid to the race for the presidential nomination. County commissioner will be among what are called down ballot races because, despite the impact of the office, few voters really pay attention to them.

As far as the process for replacing Lee in office right now, as well as replacing him on the ballot, we have to look to the Texas Electoral Code. 2306 students will become familiar with it soon enough, 2305 students should note that the rules for primary elections - with few exceptions - are set by the state, meaning by the state legislators, who are also members of each political party. So in reality, each party - through its elected officials - gets to determine the rules associated with elections. The exceptions are related to timing and a few other matters related to the race for the presidential nomination.

Existing law states that the county judge can name the temporary replacement, which was done recently as Judge Ed Emmett named Gene Locke to fill the position until November.

- Click here for New Harris County commissioner sworn in to finish El Franco Lee's term.

For a look at the process for replacing Lee on the ballot, click here and here.

This text is from Carroll Robinson's website.

The Issue

During the past few days, there has been a great deal of speculation about the legal process for selecting someone to replace the late Commissioner El Franco Lee on the November 2016 General Election ballot. (Texas Election Code, Subchapter C. Sections 172.057, 172.058 and 172.054 (1).)

The Primary Ballot – No Options

Under the state election code, Commissioner Lee’s name cannot be removed from the March Democratic Party Primary Election ballot, and the deadline for extending the filing deadline to allow other people to add their name to the primary ballot has passed. (Texas Election Code, Subchapter C, Section 172.058(b) and Subchapter B, Sections 145.035 and 145.036.)

General Election Ballot

Under the Texas Election Code, once the March Primary Election and Run-Off has concluded, the Democratic Precinct Judges in Commissioners Court Precinct 1 will meet to select a replacement candidate to appear on the November ballot for a full four-year term. Under the law, there is no option of a Special Election for selecting a replacement candidate for the November General Election ballot.

Sitting Elected Officials

Under the law, a person’s name cannot appear on the ballot for two positions. This means that currently elected officials up for re-election this year cannot be listed on the ballot for both Commissioner and re-election to their current office.

If A State Legislator Is Selected As The Replacement

In the event a state legislator is selected as the ballot replacement for the Precinct 1 position, his/her legislative office position on the November ballot would become available. To fill that position, a separate appointment process would occur, with the precinct judges of that specific jurisdiction selecting a replacement in the event no other candidate is on the primary ballot for that position. There is some confusion over the eligibility of current officeholders whose existing term would overlap in part or totally. Specifically, the eligibility of a municipal elected official to be appointed to a state legislative position. Under current law, any potential replacement would have to resign from office prior to selection to be considered because of the State holdover provision based on an existing Texas Supreme Court decision to possibly be eligible to succeed the legislator. (Wentworth v. Meyer, 839 S.W. 2nd 766 (Tex. 1992) and Texas Attorney General Letter Opinion No. 95-069 (November 7, 1995).)

The Court’s decision raises a number of questions and does not give full clarity on a state constitutional provision that had historically prohibited sitting elected officials from being elected to the legislature if their term of office would overlap with the term of office of the legislative seat they were planning to seek. (Texas Attorney General Letter Opinion No.95-069 (November 7, 1995).)

Questions Still To Be Answered

- We are still researching answers to the following questions.

- How will the meeting of the Precinct Judges to select the replacement be conducted?

- Who will Chair the meeting and how will the Chair be selected?

- What will be the process for individuals to be considered to be the replacement? 

- Can the Precinct Judges retain counsel to advise them on the questions involved in selecting the replacement?

Summary

1. Commissioner Lee’s name will be the only one on the Democratic Party Primary Ballot.

2. In June, the Democratic Party Precinct Judges, residing in Commissioner Precinct 1, elected in the March primary, will select a replacement candidate to appear on the November General Election ballot. The replacement candidate cannot be selected by Special Election.

For some background, click on the following:

- Democracy inaction.
- The Chron on the El Franco Lee successor selection process.
- Sen. Ellis to seek Commissioner’s position.

The state law related to replacing county commissioners can be found in two places in the state code.

The Electoral Code, click here.
The Local Government Code, click here.

The I Side With Quiz

I asked students to take this quiz for the week one written assignment.

- Click here for it.

It's meant to get students to think about which issues are currently topical, where they might stand on them, and find out which candidates they should consider supporting as a result. I like that the quiz also asks what priority they give to the issue, as well as background info on the issue itself, hopefully that'll help us all become more knowledgeable about them - that'll give us some items to focus on in class. I'll use it to figure out which news stories to highlight as well.

Later this week, I'll compile results so we'll get a sense about which candidates students are - or should - support in the current campaign,

The Citizenship Law of Pericles

I stumbled across this while looking for background info on classical attitudes about the role of a citizen in the a governing system. Pericles is held out to be the most influential of the ancient Athenians and was referred to as the first citizen of Athens. It makes sense then that he would elaborate what qualified as a citizen in Athens and what citizens get that others don't in Athenian society.

- Click here for the source.

In 451 B.C. Pericles introduced one of most striking proposals with his sponsorship of a law stating that henceforth citizenship would be conferred only on children whose mother and father both were Athenians.1Previously, the offspring of Athenian men who married non-Athenian women were granted citizenship. Aristocratic men in particular had tended to marry rich foreign women, as Pericles' own maternal grandfather had done.

Pericles' new law enhanced the status of Athenian mothers and made Athenian citizenship a more exclusive category, definitively setting Athenians off from all others. Not long thereafter, a review of the citizenship rolls was conducted to expel any who had claimed citizenship fraudulently. Together these actions served to limit the number of citizens and thus limit dilution of the advantages which citizenship in Athens' radical democracy conveyed on those included in the citizenry.

Those advantages included, for men, the freedom to participate in politics and juries, to influence decisions that directly affected their lives, to have equal protection under the law, and to own land and houses in Athenian territory. Citizen women2 had less rights because they were excluded from politics, had to have a male legal guardian3(kurios), who, for example, spoke for them in court, and were not legally entitled to make large financial transactions on their own. They could, however, control property and have their financial interests protected in law suits. Like men, they were entitled to the protection of the law regardless of their wealth.

Both female and male citizens experienced the advantage of belonging to a city-state that was enjoying unparalleled material prosperity. Citizens clearly saw themselves as the elite residents of Athens.

I put the last sentence in bold for effect.

For more on Pericles.
- Wikipedia: Pericles.
- Plutarch: The Life of Pericles.

Spurious Correlations

One of the articles in the post below linked to this site. It's worth posting separately because at some point I'll ask students to interpret graphical data. Just because two events move together, which implies that they are connected to each other, does not mean that they are related. The phrase you hear over and over again is "correlation does not imply causation."

- Click here for the site.

Here is one of the - inverse - correlations they highlight. The spike in juvenile arrests for possession of marijuana seems to have been caused by the reduction in honey producing bee colonies. Obviously if you want to reduce the number of juveniles smoking pot we have to increase the number of honeybees. Makes perfect sense.

Policy evaluation in the news: California's Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute

This actually applies to a variety of topics in both 2305 and 2306, including:

- federalism.
- initiatives.
- laboratories of democracy.
- public policy process.

The law converted a variety nonviolent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors and was passed as an initiative presented to voters  in California in November 2014. It's considered to be part of a broad effort to scale back the drug war. There have been efforts to decriminalize nonviolent crime in Texas. Negative assessments of the impact of this change may well impact that trend.

For background read these:

- Wikipedia: California Proposition 47 (2014).
- Ballotpedia: California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (2014).

Much like Texas is dealing with the fallout associated with the implementation of the open carry laws, California is doing the same with the consequences of the reduction in punishment associated with these crimes. Little surprise that police are opposed to the initiative, but here's a look at a variety of groups assess this policy change. Collectively, their assessments will give us a hint abut whether other states will change their policing policies as well.

- California Cops Frustrated With 'Catch-And-Release' Crime-Fighting.
- What we learned from California's Prop 47 in 2015.
- Unintended consequences of Prop. 47 pose challenge for criminal justice system.
- A ‘virtual get-out-of-jail-free card’.
- Did California Prop. 47 Cause State Crime Boost?.

Catching up on money in politics

Open Secrets lists the top donors here: 2016 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups.

They also have a section devoted to spending on the 2016 Presidential Race.

For recent news stories:

- Lobby firms reap benefits of an active Congress.

Many of the nation’s largest lobby firms saw a spike in revenue in 2015, driven by a more productive Congress and the continuing battles over environmental regulations, trade policy, taxes and health care. Seven of the 10 biggest lobby shops by revenue reported year-over-year gains in fees, according to year-end disclosure reports filed with the Senate on Wednesday. 

- Obama weighs whether to force federal contractors to reveal political spending.

President Obama is weighing whether to invoke his executive authority to force federal contractors to disclose political contributions they make to independent groups, according to individuals briefed on the matter. The proposed executive order would require corporations that currently have federal contracts to disclose what they spend on political campaign efforts, including money forwarded through trade associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other advocacy groups.

- The Secrets of Charles Koch’s Political Ascent.

In a recent round of interviews, Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist and political patron, has been stressing that he only recently became involved in politics. As he put it in an interview with Megyn Kelly on October 15, “I’ve never been that fond of politics and only got dragged into it recently kicking and screaming.” But according to what appear to be two never-before-seen documents—a paper Charles wrote in 1976 and an unpublished history of Charles’ political evolution—Charles began planning his ambitious remaking of American politics 40 years ago, transitioning from libertarian ideologue to conservative power broker. For his new movement, which aimed to empower ultraconservatives like himself and radically change the way the U.S. government worked, he analyzed and then copied what he saw as the strengths of the John Birch Society, the extreme, right-wing anti-communist group to which he, his brother David and their father, Fred Koch, had belonged. Charles Koch might claim that his entry into politics is new, but from its secrecy to its methods of courting donors and recruiting students, the blueprint for the vast and powerful Koch donor network that we see today was drafted four decades ago.

- What is political ‘dark money’ — and is it bad?

Why are so many people upset about dark money in politics?

Campaign finance reform activists argue that voters should know who is funding political advertisements. Such information, they assert, is essential to voters’ ability to evaluate the merits of political messages — and to know if certain special interests may be trying to curry favor with politicians. Fred Wertheimer, the founder and president of Democracy 21, for one, has said that “history makes clear that unlimited contributions and secret money are a formula for corruption.” Likewise, the Campaign Legal Center has called the emergence of dark money a “serious threat to our democracy.” In a portion of the controversial Citizens United decision, eight of the nine Supreme Court justices agreedthat disclosure of money in politics was important because “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

- A Banner Year for 'Dark Money' in Politics.

The 2016 presidential campaign not only will feature more money than any since Watergate, but also more secret money than the days when black satchels of illicit cash were passed around.

The so-called dark money, or contributions that don't have to be disclosed, topped more than $300 million in the 2012 presidential race, and some experts believe that the levels may be far higher this time. There also is a risk that foreign money could be surreptitiously funneled into the presidential campaign because it wouldn't have to be publicly disclosed.

This flood of cash is occurring thanks to a ruse that permits political advocacy groups to claim that they are principally social welfare agencies and thus tax exempt and not subject to disclosure. These organizations court interest groups and rich donors, some of whom want the influence that political money brings but not the public association. It's a win for the interest groups and the candidates; the public is kept in the dark.

From Politico: The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter And it’s not gender, age, income, race or religion.

They are authoritarians!

At least according to the author.

Authoritarianism happens to be one of the terms I want student to become familiar with in the early sections of the class, so here's a good introduction to the used in context.

- Click here for the article.

Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.

My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.

What does Robert's Rules of Order and the Galveston Seawall have in common?

Apparently the same person - an engineer - was responsible for both.

Henry Martin Robert was the subject of today's Engines of our Ingenuity.

- Click here for it.

For more from Wikipedia:

- Henry Martin Robert.
- Robert's Rules of Order.
- Galveston Seawall.

From CityLab: 12 of America's Biggest Highway Boondoggles

When we look at budgeting in the state of Texas we'll note that spending on highways - which is listed under economic development - is the very large. We'll look at the numbers soon enough, but high levels of spending does not necessarily mean the money is spent well. Transportation in Texas continues to be primarily oriented around cars and the highways they drive on. When highways get crowded, the standard solution is to expand them, but sometimes that only provides a temporary solution. More cars are purchased, more people move in the affected area, and soon enough traffic is just as bad - or worse.

A recent report suggest that's exactly what happened with the recently completed expansion of I-10 heading west out of Houston. It's prominently featured in a list of ill thought out highway projects recently completed - or underway - in the US.

- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the report.

When Texas expanded the Katy Freeway in Houston a few years back, the expectation was that making the massive road even wider would relieve traffic. Some $2.8 billion later, the 26-lane interstate laid claim to being the “world's widest freeway”—but the drivers who commuted along it every day were no better off. More lanes simply invited more cars, and by 2014, morning and evening travel times had increased by 30 and 55 percent, respectively, over 2011.

The lesson of the Katy Freeway is precisely the one that U.S. PIRG hopes to convey in its new report, “Highway Boondoggles 2,” the sequel to a 2014 effort. Given that expanding highways at great public cost doesn’t improve rush-hour traffic, there are better ways to spend this money, argue report authors Jeff Inglis of Frontier Group and John C. Olivieri of U.S. PIRG. They identify a dozen road projects, costing $24 billion in all, that are “representative” of the problem.

From the Houston Chronicle: Local governments under fire for gun bans

File this one under policy implementation. It also fits under a general discussion of the relationship between state and local governments, in addition to the role of the Texas Attorney General in adjudicating disputes. The struggle over where someone can and cannot openly carry a handgun continues.

- Click here for the article.

Senate Bill 273, which went into effect Sept. 1, allows anyone to file a complaint with the attorney general's office if he believes a state agency or political subdivision is improperly posting the signs where guns are allowed.

Under the law, the complainant first must send a written complaint to the entity. If three days go by without a response, he can file a complaint with Paxton's office. The attorney general then investigates the allegation - which must include proof of the improper signage and lack of local response - and forwards it to the appropriate division if further action needs to be taken.

Governmental entities found in violation of the law have 15 days to remedy the situation; if they do not, Paxton's office can sue, seeking penalties of up to $1,500 for the first day and $10,500 for each subsequent day they are deemed non-compliant. The new law applies only to signs that bar gun owners with a license to carry, or LTC, "from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity." As of Jan. 1, those with an LTC are allowed to carry their handguns openly in a shoulder or hip holster.

The complaints received by Paxton's office since Sept. 1 target a variety of entities, from the Deer Park Community Center to the Dallas Zoo.

Nearly a quarter of the complaints were filed against city halls and other government complexes where signs were posted telling Texans they could not carry handguns anywhere in their buildings. Six were filed against local governmental entities that want to ban guns in their entire courthouse or judicial complexes, and three were lodged against county appraisal districts or tax offices.

Does the president's deferred action immigration policy violate the "take care clause" of the U.S. Constitution?

Or does the executive action fall within the president's ability to implement the law as he see fit? This is classic checks and balances:

For more on the specific actions:

- Wikipedia: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
- Wikipedia: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans.

Here is the Take Care Clause in context: 

Section Three: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

For more on the clause.

- Heritage Foundation: Take Care Clause.

The case is United States v Texas. Oral arguments are

Here are the four issues presented to the court by the case:

(1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action;

(2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and

(4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3.

For more:

- Scotusblog: United States v. Texas.
- Washington Post: Supreme Court to review Obama’s power on deportation policy.
- Slate: John Roberts’ Worst Judicial Nightmare.

From Bloomberg: Obama's Gun Control Initiative Challenged in Federal Lawsuit

We discussed in class whether the expansion of background checks for gun buyers - and more specifically the requirement that gun sellers perform the checks - may or may not be constitutional. We don't really know because the court has never ruled on a such a case.

But now they may have the chance.

To be on the safe side - in case the Second Amendment argument fails - a second argument is being presented, that president did not follow the appropriate federal rule making process.

- Click here for the article.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s expansion of background checks for would-be gun buyers is being challenged in a lawsuit by a political activist who claims the changes violate the Constitution and the federal rule-making process.

Stymied by congress in prior attempts to enact gun-control legislation following mass shootings, the president on Jan. 5 announced a new interpretation of already-existing rules defining who is a firearms dealer. The new definition would subject more transactions -- including sales at gun shows and on the Internet -- to background checks, preventing sales to people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Those measures and others were unveiled by Obama in a sometimes tearful televised speech that drew immediate criticism from gun-rights supporters.

“It is clearly arbitrary and capricious for the defendants, each and every one of them, to now suddenly adopt and implement a new and different interpretation for no other reason than the political preferences of temporary occupants of elected office,” attorney Larry Klayman said in a complaint filed at the U.S. court in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Klayman, the founder of the political watchdog group Freedom Watch, claims the background-check initiative violates the constitution’s Second Amendment, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.Rule Making

Even if constitutional, the redefinition circumvented the federal rule-making process, he said. Klayman, who said he’s a Florida resident and the owner of two 9-millimeter handguns and one .45 caliber weapon, is seeking a court order blocking the executive action and declaring the measures unlawful.

Did the process the ACA (Obamacare) took through Congress violate the origination clause?

The Supreme Court declined to take up a case making that argument, so we will never really know.

See:

- Obamacare dodges another bullet at the Supreme Court.
- Appeals court rejects new test of health care mandate.

Article One, Section Seven of the U.S. Constitution states that:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

The Affordable Care Act was judged by the Supreme Court - when it found the law to be constitutional - to be a tax. An individual who did not want to have to buy insurance sued saying the law was invalid because it did not follow the proper procedure. Tax bills have to originate in the House, the ACA did not. Lower courts did not buy this argument arguing that the revenue collected is not a tax to be collected for the treasury, but to lay for the programs created by the law. Social Security and Medicare are funded in similar ways.

- Click here for the ruling from the DC Circuit court of appeals.

By not accepting the appeal, the Supreme Court in essence chose to implicitly accept the reasoning of the lower court. There's more to the story - click on the links above to dig into it.

For more on the origination clause, click on these:

- Heritage Foundation.
- Legal Information Institute.
- THE FOUNDERS’ ORIGINATION CLAUSE ANDIMPLICATIONS FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

From The Hill: Constitutional lawyer: Cruz ‘right’ about citizenship

A prominent lawyer not only argues that Senator Cruz is likely a "natural born citizen" as stated in the Constitution, he argues the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on the question.

- Click here for the article.

Constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams says Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is on the right side in the argument over whether he can run for president.

“I think Senator Cruz is right that ‘natural-born’ as understood would more likely than not be held to mean someone that didn’t need to be naturalized, didn’t have to go through any procedure to be an American, as of course he did not because he had an American mother,” Abrams told host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970 on Sunday.

Despite his belief that Cruz is a natural-born citizen, Abrams said the Supreme Court likely would not hand down a decision if petitioned in the case.

“I’ll tell you what I think they would say: I think they would say we’re not going to rule,” he said. “I think they would say, we’re going to treat this as what we call a political question. Congress can decide, the public can decide, but we’re not going to pass on the issue of whether these words are of such magnitude as to disqualify someone for the presidency.

“I think that’s where it would be left. I think it will ultimately be, even if Senator Cruz were to be elected president, one that the courts would just stay away from,” he added.

 

2305 topics in the news

These all relate to the presidential campaign.

- How Ted Cruz fixes the Goldman Sachs loan scandal. This applies to our later discussion of campaign finance rules and the Federal Election Commission - as well as the 2016 campaign.

- The two-man race theory. The Republican care may have whittled itself down to two candidates even before the first actual votes are cast. This quite the development considering that over a dozen were running at one point - and many still are, officially.

- Bernie Sanders’ radical past: How the Vermont firebrand started wearing a suit and gave up on taking over big companies. The author traces the route Sanders took from being a actual radical to radicalish.

- Rand Paul's supporters warn him not to skip next GOP debate. Paul is trying to figure out how to draw attention to himself despite polling around three percent nationally

From 538: Beware A GOP Calendar Front-Loaded With States Friendly To Trump And Cruz

We'll be looking at the primary calendar in class, and the impact that will have on who becomes the nominee for either party. Here's an analysis of the impact that the timing of the Republican primaries is likely to have on the eventual winner. The author charts possible paths to victory for the top three candidates - Trump, Cruz, and Rubio - and where each needs to be at which stage of the process in order to win the required number of delegates.

- Click here for the article.

The GOP’s primary calendar is surprisingly front-loaded with states friendly to insurgents like Trump and Cruz. But because of Republican National Committee rules, all but one of these states will award their delegates on a proportional basis, intentionally making it difficult for any one candidate to build a durable or commanding lead.

Instead, Florida and Ohio, which tend to support more conventional Republicans, are likelier to shape the race’s destiny than Iowa or South Carolina. That’s because they will award a whopping 99 and 72 delegates, respectively, in huge winner-take-all primaries on March 15.

These are the findings of a new joint FiveThirtyEight and Cook Political Report project to map out each top GOP contender’s unique route to amassing the 1,237 delegates required to clinch the nomination at the national convention in Cleveland. Although there is still plenty of time for Trump or Cruz to falter or for another candidate to rival Rubio for the mantle of “establishment” front-runner, for now, this is functionally a three-man race.

The project relied on a three-step process. First, we utilized three variables — education, religious affiliation, and state and congressional district partisanship — to model Trump’s, Cruz’s and Rubio’s geographic support in primaries and caucuses from February through June.

Based on recent polling, we assume Trump will fare best in states and districts with small shares of college graduates, while Cruz’s hallmark will be strong support in places with large shares of evangelical protestants. We also assume that Rubio, like previous “establishment” favorites, will perform well in bluer and more highly educated states and districts, but will under perform in caucus states

Expect much more on primary elections as the semester progresses - both for 2305 and 2306.

A Crisis in Civic Education

Click here for the study referred to in the previous post:

- A Crisis in Civic Education.

It'll be worth a look in class.

Here are bullet points from the study:

• Only 20.6% of respondents could identify James Madison as the Father of the Constitution. More than 60% thought the answer was Thomas Jefferson—despite the fact that Jefferson, as U.S. ambassador to France, was not present during the Constitutional Convention.

• College graduates performed little better: Only 28.4% named Madison, and 59.2% chose Jefferson.

• How do Americans amend the Constitution? More than half of college graduates didn’t know. Almost 60% of college graduates failed to identify correctly a requirement for ratifying a constitutional amendment.

• We live in a dangerous world—but almost 40% of college graduates didn’t know that Congress has the power to declare war.

• College graduates were even confused about the term lengths of members of Congress. Almost half could not recognize that senators are elected to six year terms and representatives are elected to two-year terms.

• Less than half of college graduates knew that presidential impeachments are tried before the U.S. Senate. 

• And 9.6% of college graduates marked that Judith Sheindlin—“Judge Judy”—was on the Supreme Court!

From CNN: Report: 10% of college graduates think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court

This helps explain why government classes are required in Texas - to combat ignorance.

Now the question is, do they help?

- Click here for the article.

Nearly 10% of college graduates surveyed in a poll believe Judith Sheindlin, aka "Judge Judy," serves on the Supreme Court.

Sheindlin is an American lawyer made popular as the judge on a court show by the name of "Judge Judy." The show features Sheindlin handling small disputes in a courtroom, but Sheindlin does not serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The poll, conducted by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni in August 2015 but released in January 2016, concluded from the 1,000 surveyed that college graduates "are alarmingly ignorant of America's history and heritage."

The survey also found 28.4% of college graduates correctly identify the father of the Constitution as James Madison. About 59% of college students surveyed believe the father of the Constitution was Thomas Jefferson, who was actually the principal writer for the Declaration of Independence.

It also found that almost 60% of college graduates couldn't correctly identify a requirement for ratifying a constitutional amendment and 40% of college graduates didn't know that Congress has the power to declare war.

Additionally, the poll revealed that less than 50% of college graduates surveyed know that presidential impeachments are tried before the U.S. Senate.

At the Supreme Court today: Heffernan v. City of Paterson

Here's the issue before the court: Whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor's perception that the employee supports a political candidate.

Oyez outlines the facts of the case:

Jeffrey Heffernan was a police officer for the City of Paterson, New Jersey. A fellow police officer observed Heffernan picking up a campaign sign for the mayoral candidate running against the incumbent. When a supervisor confronted him, Heffernan claimed that he was not politically involved, could not vote in the City of Paterson, and was picking up the sign on behalf of his mother. Heffernan was demoted to a walking post because his actions were considered to be “overt involvement in political activities.” Heffernan sued the City of Paterson and claimed that the City had violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech association. However, the City filed a motion for summary judgment on Heffernan’s free association claim. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment because there was no evidence Heffernan associated himself with the political candidate at issue. Heffernan admitted himself, that he was not associated with the candidate, therefore there is no evidence of a violation of free association. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed.

Scotusblog breaks down the controversy:

The First Amendment limits, although does not preclude, patronage in public employment. A public employer cannot take adverse action against a non-political, non-policy-making employee — one holding a position for which political affiliation is not required for effective performance of the public office — because of that employee’s political and associational activity, such as voting for or supporting a candidate for office. But what if the employee suffered adverse action because of what the employer believed to be his political and associational activity, even though he was not actually engaged in any such activity? What if the employer, while explicitly intending to retaliate against the employee because of his political activity, was wrong about that activity?

For a timeline, click here.

From Randy Barnett: The Original Meaning of the Judicial Power

In a 2004 article, Barnett tackles the claims that the framers of the Constitution did not define judicial power to include the power of judicial review. It became common to think that the power originated with John Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison. Looking through the history of the time, Barnett argues that an originalist approach to the use of the terms suggests that the intent was for the judiciary to have that power.

Dual credit students might find this to be a helpful look at this approach to constitutional interpretation, and how lawyers and scholars still wrestle with the meaning of the Constitution.

- Click here for the article.

In this article, I intend to lay to rest any doubt that, at the founding, the judicial power of the United States included the power of judicial rzeview. I hope to refute any claims that judicial review was invented in Marbury v. Madison, or that, because it is contrary to the original meaning of the Constitution, it must be justified by some nonoriginalist interpretive methodology. I will do so, not by discerning the shadowy and often counterfactual “intentions” of the founding generation, but by presenting as comprehensively as I can what the founders actually said during the constitutional convention and in state ratification conventions, and immediately after ratification. These statements, taken cumulatively, leave no doubt that the founders contemplated judicial nullification of legislation enacted by the states and by Congress. In short, I shall demonstrate once and for all that the original meaning of the “judicial power” in Article I, includes the power of judicial nullification.at least is.

From the Tampa Bay Times: Marco Rubio seeks to dismiss court challenge to his eligibility to be president

As pointed out in a previous post, Senator Rubio's eligibility to hold office is also being challenged in court. The Tamps Bay Times lays out the conflict.

- Click here for the article.

Here's the a bit from the article:

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. But Rubio's Cuban immigrant parents did not become U.S. citizens until 1975.

That’s convinced so-called birthers to conclude Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."
. . . Birthers rely on various passages to back up their argument. One is the treatise The

Law of Nations by Swiss philosopher Emer de Vattel, which they say influenced the founding fathers. "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens," Vattel wrote.

They also cite the U.S. Supreme Court, which in the 1875 case Minor vs. Happersett, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to persons who were born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents.

"The arguments aren't crazy," said Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum, an expert in constitutional theory. But, he added, "the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen."

The article points out that Rubio took the claim seriously enough - they go back at least to 2011 - to prepare a legal argument stating that he is a "natural born citizen according to the Constitution. It is contained in his motion to dismiss the lawsuit against his eligibility.

- Click here for it.

I'll note briefly that in page 3, Rubio argues that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the lawsuit forward. They argue - among other things - that standing requires that the plaintiff demonstrate a special injury, which he has not suffered.

More on this as the semester progresses.

Schwartz, et al v. Cruz

Here is a link to the document filed challenging Senator Cruz's eligibility to hold the office of the president - apart from actually running for it of course. 2305 students should expect to pour over this in class.

- Click here for it.

It was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division - click here for the office.

The lawsuit was filed by Houston lawyer Newton Boris Schwartz, Sr. - I can't much on him at the moment. The suit claims that he has filed it:

. . . Individually and/or as (b) Class Representative and/or (c) on behalf of all eligible qualified 50 states and nationally United States Registered, eligible and Qualified Voters for Voting in: (1) all 50 State Caucus and primaries in 2016; (2) the 2016 Texas Primary elections; and (3) General National 2016 Electoral Presidential and Vice president election on November 1, 2016.

The court is pretty picky about standing - who can file a suit and why, is that person suffering an actual harm - so I'm curious whether they would recognize his right to file the suit.

The suits asks for a declaratory judgement - which can be defined as follows:

A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in the matter before the court. A declaratory judgment does not provide for any enforcement, however. In other words, it states the court's authoritative opinion regarding the exact nature of the legal matter without requiring the parties to do anything.

Here is what they are asking the court to do:

This procedural Declaratory Judgment prays for an declaratory Judgment of the (1) status (2) qualifications and (3) eligibility or ineligibility of defendant for election to the office of the President and vice President of the United States under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 as original enacted and adopted and ratified by the requisite number of then thirteen states and not amended or repealed to date.

It is undisputed, by all legal scholars, there is no U S Supreme Court decision or precedent: determinative of the following agreed facts of this case and controversy. “Natural born citizen” has never been defined. This a case of first impression. Harvard professor Laurence Tribe on January 11-12, 2016 national including CNN media program opined “…this question is completely unsettled…”.

The document goes in for another 73 pages - I've yet to gloss through it, but will soon.

This didn't take long - from The Hill: Attorney files 'birther' lawsuit against Cruz

This will be worth following. I assume it will go through the courts quickly, but who knows? The article reports that Marco Rubio's eligibility is also being challenged.

- Click here for the article.

A Texas attorney has filed a lawsuit questioning Ted Cruz’s eligibility to serve as president.

The federal case filed in Texas argues that the question must be presented to the Supreme Court for fair adjudication instead of left up to popular consensus.
“The U.S. Constitution is not a popularity document for fair weather only,” says the lawsuit filed by Newton Schwartz.

“However persuasive one finds each side in this debate, the final decision ultimately rests in the hands of five or more of nine Justices on the Supreme Court as mandated by the Constitution.”

Bloomberg News first reported on the suit, which challenges Cruz’s standing because he was born in Canada to an American mother.

The suit argues that the constitutional mandate that the president must be a “natural-born citizen” has never been settled in court and warned that the “mounting questionings crescendo” must be settled as soon as possible. It goes on to note the “persistent doubt” about President Obama’s eligibility.

In his closing, Schwartz warns that the failure to hear the case could amount to another Bush v. Gore situation, where a contested election ended up in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned Cruz’s eligibility for the White House in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, on Feb. 1. The two sparred over the issue during Thursday night’s debate, with Trump warning that the threat of similar lawsuits could jeopardize the Texas senator's bid.

But Cruz shot back by arguing that by the most extreme “birther” theories, Trump himself wouldn’t be eligible because his mother was born in Scotland.

Critics have also filed a suit in Florida questioning Marco Rubio’s eligibility, arguing that he’s ineligible because his parents were both not citizens at his time of birth in Miami. Rubio’s lawyers rebutted that argument in a legal filing this week.

From Quorum Report: Veteran school finance lawyer casts doubts on constitutionality of new school finance court

Texas has struggled to justify it cuts to K-12 funding back in the 82nd session. It has been argued to violate the Texas Constitution's mandate that education be adequately funded. Their scheme to determine this itself might be unconstitutional according to this story: 

- Click here for Quorum Report:

Buck Wood, who has had a hand in school finance and elections cases for decades, dismisses the idea and says the only legitimate way to create such a court would be through a constitutional amendment approved by voters

Veteran Austin lawyer Buck Wood is convinced the newly created three-judge panel for school finance cases is unconstitutional and would be struck down if the Texas Supreme Court remanded the school finance case back to the lower courts.

Texas lawmakers passed Senate 455 last session, intended to create a three-judge panel to hear school finance cases. Sponsor Rep. Mike Schofield, R-Katy, said the bill was modeled on the federal three-judge panel in redistricting cases: Balancing a Travis County judge with jurists from around the state is more fair and balanced than limiting the findings of fact to a single Austin-centric court, he argued.

Wood, who has had a hand in school finance and elections cases for decades, dismisses the idea that such a strategy is done for anything other than partisan reasons. Lawmakers can create a court – and the state constitution blesses the creation of certain courts – but not a newly constituted court with a three-judge panel, especially one that includes an appellate judge.

Who is Buck Wood - apart from the guy who has one of the most Texas names ever?

- Profile: Randall Buck Wood.
- Texas Monthly: The Devil and Bob Bullock.
- C-Span video with Wood and a few others.

For 2306 - some random items

Some random items about Texas government:

- Ross Ramsey looks at down ballot races in the upcoming Texas Primary and wonders what will impact results in these low information races. People know little about presidential candidates, even less about state and local ones.

- The Texas Tribune reports that the Trump campaign lost one Texas state campaign director, but quickly got another. Here's Trump's press release announcing the change.

- A grand jury is investigating a land deal involving the Texas Attorney General. He's already being investigated for possible securities fraud.

- Ex-Governor Rick Perry has been hired to help a Florida dental insurance company obtain business through the state's Medicaid program. Reports show that the company had donated money to previous campaigns and one of the officers in the company had been appointed by Perry to head the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

The First SOTU

It was - as you hopefully guessed - delivered by George Washington.

- Click here for the text.

For comparison's sake with the one recently delivered, here are a few facts about it:

It was:

- delivered on January 8, 1790.
- given as a speech to a joint session on Congress.
- given at the opening of the second session of the 1st Congress.
- the shortest: 1,083
- delivered at a 20.4 education level.

Give recent attention to gun rights, I found this part interesting:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

The bearing of arms must be disciplined, and - as I read it - there should be a unique source of these arms. I'm not up on the history of that era as it pertains to arms, so I'm not clear at the moment about what that's all about. He does mention this in a section dealing with how the common defense is best provided for - so it seems connected to militias.

As far as other requests, keeping in mind that he has been president a year and he is in a position to make practical requests about items that Congress could provide him that would help him do his job, here's what he asked for:

- means to deal with "certain hostile tribes of Indians."

- executive positions - adequately compensated - that would assist " our intercourse with other nations."

- "Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization."

- "Uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures of the United States."

- "the expediency of giving effectual encouragement as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home."

- " . . . facilitating the intercourse between the distant parts of our country by a due attention to the post-office and post-roads."

- "the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

And there's this bit I want to highlight separately because it suggest that Washington was open to the possibility of establishing a national university at least in part to assist citizens in governing themselves.

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.

This might be worth exploring in class. Some of these issue seem similar to those we deal with today.

From the Guardian: The state of our union is … dumber: How the linguistic standard of the presidential address has declined

The title speaks for itself.

If you click on the article, you'll that the following graphic is dynamic, so you can follow how the reading level for the state of the union had declined over time. The high point was James Madison at 25, the low point was George W Bush at 7. This might be worth a look as we look at the importance of education in a republic.



- Click here for the article.