From Houston Public Media: Report: Mentally Ill, Addicted Left Behind By Texas Refusal To Expand Medicaid

A topic we will discuss when we cover public policy in Texas.

- Click here for the article.

Federal health officials say people with mental illness and addictions are being left behind in Texas because the state hasn’t expanded Medicaid to more low-income adults.

The health care program for the poor is controversial for many Republicans. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that expansion was a voluntary part of the Affordable Care Act, and 19 states have declined to expand it.

A new federal report estimates that expanding Medicaid in Texas could help 406,000 mentally ill and uninsured Texans get treatment, according to Richard Frank, an Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“If states are serious about addressing mental illnesses, opioids, and other substance use disorders, expanding Medicaid offers a unique opportunity to do so,” Frank said in a national conference call with reporters. “It will bring people into effective treatment and is fully paid for under the Affordable Care Act.”

The new federal report discusses how untreated mental illness affects homelessness, job productivity, and jails and prisons. The report says states that did expand Medicaid were able to save money on programs for mental health or the uninsured, or divert the money to other programs.

Bryan Black is a spokesman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. He offered the following statement when asked to respond to the report:

“The Governor and the Legislature have made it clear that expanding Medicaid is not the answer for Texas. Over the past few years, Texas lawmakers have significantly invested in mental health programs across the Lone Star State to ensure Texans receive the critical services they need.”

From Ballotpedia: Texas 1993 ballot measures

Texans reject very few amendments to the Texas Constitution, but in May 1993 they rejected three that would have addressed unequal funding in public schools. This loss led to the establishment of the Robin Hood Plan.

- Click here for some detail on the ballot measures.

For info on the Robin Hood Plan click here.

From the NYT: Victory for Unions as Supreme Court, Scalia Gone, Ties 4-4

We cover agencies fees in some 2306 classes - Texas doesn't allow them. If conservative opponents have their way, no state can.

- Click here for the article.

Under California law, public employees who choose not to join unions must pay a “fair share service fee,” also known as an “agency fee,” typically equivalent to the dues members pay. The fees, the law says, are meant to pay for some of the costs of collective bargaining, including “the cost of lobbying activities.” More than 20 states have similar laws.

Government workers who are not members of unions have long been able to obtain refunds for the political activities of unions, like campaign spending. The case the court ruled on Tuesday, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915, asked whether such workers must continue to pay for any union activities, including negotiating for better wages and benefits. A majority of the justices had seemed inclined to say no.

Relying on a 1977 Supreme Court precedent, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, upheld the requirement that the objecting teachers pay fees. Tuesday’s announcement, saying only that “the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court,” upheld that ruling and set no new precedent.

The unions defending the compulsory fees said the teachers’ First Amendment arguments were a ruse. Collective bargaining is different from spending on behalf of a candidate, the unions said. They said the plaintiffs were seeking to reap the benefits of such bargaining without paying their fair share of the cost.

Limiting the power of public unions has long been a goal of conservative groups, and they seemed very close to victory when the case was argued in January.

In 2014, the court stopped just short of overruling the foundational 1977 decision and declaring that government workers who choose not to join unions may not be forced to pay fees in lieu of dues. In the 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court made a distinction between two kinds of compelled payments.

Forcing nonmembers to pay for a union’s political activities violates the First Amendment, the court said. But it is constitutional, the court added, to require nonmembers to help pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and ensure “labor peace.”

- From Scotusblog: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.

From the Texas Tribune: TPPF Building the Foundation of Texas Conservatism

A look at a dominant - conservative of course - public policy think tank in Texas.


- Click here for the article.

When the Texas Public Policy Foundation moves into its brand-new $20-million building in February, visitors will enter through the “Come and Take It” foyer. Then, perhaps, they'll take in a view of the Texas Capitol — two blocks north on Congress Avenue — from the second-floor "Governor Rick Perry Liberty Balcony."

The six-story, 40,000-plus-square-foot building — nearly six times larger than the foundation's current space — will have the feel of the “epicenter of liberty in Texas,” TPPF’s chief operating officer, Greg Sindelar, said during a recent tour.

The free-market think tank’s staffers see the move as fitting for the times. The nonprofit celebrated its 25th anniversary last year, and the building will open just weeks after one of the most conservative Legislatures in recent Texas memory convenes.

Among the myriad outside groups jockeying for influence on Texas policy, TPPF has claimed its place at the head of the table.

The group brought in more than $5 million in grants and contributions in 2013 (not counting donations for its new building) and now employs 37 people full time. By comparison, the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities pulls in about $2.5 million a year and has 19 full-time staffers. The pro-business Texas Taxpayers and Research Association has six staffers and brings in about $1.3 million annually.

Here's a critic of the TPPF: Lyle Larson: In name of conservatism, Texas lawmakers refuse to think for themselves. 

From Legal Insurrection: Conservative support grows for criminal justice reform

An old story, but it fits with our discussion of public policy in Texas.

- Click here for the article.

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry has signed on to a groundbreaking criminal justice reform movement aimed at increasing transparency, lowering recidivism rates, and making sure that criminal laws on the books actually promote a safer society—and not bigger government.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation’s “Right on Crime” initiative has been making moves to combine small government, conservative principles with efforts to fix an overcrowded, underfunded, and mismanaged corrections system. Over the years they have secured the endorsements of high profile conservatives committed to bringing problems with the criminal justice system out of obscurity and into the spotlight.

USA Today: Religious liberty vs. civil rights: A balancing act

Rights and liberties conflict. Here's the latest: Recent push backs against the expansion of civil rights - notably to gays and lesbians - have been oriented around religious liberty.

- Click here for the article.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer may have ended the latest controversy in her state by vetoing a "religious freedom" bill that threatened gay men and lesbians, but the nation's legislatures and courts are just getting started.

While religious liberty remains a "core value" in Arizona, Brewer said Wednesday, "so is non-discrimination." And therein lies the balancing act that's at the root of several other disputes.

Can the Obama administration force for-profit businesses to provide health insurance for their employees that includes forms of contraception the owners equate with abortion? That case comes to the Supreme Court next month.

Can a New Mexico photographer, an Oregon bakery and a Washington state florist refuse to provide services to same-sex weddings? Those questions are pending before courts and could soon go to voters as well.

Can several states from Mississippi in the South to Utah in the West enact laws similar to the one Brewer vetoed in Arizona, setting up potential conflicts between religious liberty and other freedoms?

The answer isn't simple. Congress and the states often carve out exceptions for religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has consistently made room for religious exercise. And unlike race and gender, sexual orientation is not a protected class — yet.

However, for a religious liberty bill such as Arizona's to pass the smell test, it must show a compelling interest on the part of those who want to flex their religious muscles, and it must not impose undue costs or burdens on others. That is where many such efforts collapse.

For more:

- Redefining Religious Liberty: The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights.
- It’s not as simple as homophobic thugs vs. civil rights in Indiana.
- Religious Freedom vs. Compelling State Interests.

Wallace B. Jefferson - State of the Judiciary - Presented to the 82nd Legislative Session - Austin, Texas - February 23, 2011

He saw judicial elections as a threat to an impartial judiciary and advised against them. The legislature seemingly disagreed.

- Click here for the address.

All that I have discussed depends on an impartial system of justice overseen by the judicial branch. We lost one of that branches greatest leaders, Joe Greenhill, less than two weeks ago. He told me once that he regretted that Texas has continued to elect judges on a partisan basis. I regret it, too. A justice system built on some notion of Democratic judging or Republican judging is a system that cannot be trusted. I urge the Legislature to send the people a constitutional amendment that would allow judges to be selected on their merit.

If we do not reform it completely, judicial elections can at least be changed. And so my final call to action is that we consider common-sense solutions to the problems that plague partisan election of judges. First, I would eliminate straight ticket voting that allows judges to be swept from the bench ... not for poor work ethic, not for bad temperament, not even for their controversial but courageous decisions – but because of party affiliation. We saw this in Dallas County four years ago and in Harris County in the 1990s, in 2008 and just last year. Hordes of judges replaced for no good reason.

Let’s extend terms for state judges, from four years to six for district court judges, and from six years to eight for appellate courts judges. This will avoid some of the overhaul that occurs each election cycle, and drastically slows down the system. And let’s bring sense to the process to allow a judge appointed to an unexpired term to serve a full term before having to face the voters. That will give her or him experience and – this is important – a record to run on. We can do this, if not more.

From Ballotpedia: Texas judicial elections, 2016

Some detail for our discussion.

- Click here for the page.

And click here for their list of Texas district courts.

Here is a list of the district courts in Harris County - remember that if you are a voter in the county you are expected to know something about each of them.

Harris: District 11, District 55, District 61, District 80, District 113, District 125, District 127, District 129, District 133, District 151, District 152, District 157, District 164, District 165, District 174, District 176, District 177, District 178, District 179,District 180, District 182, District 183, District 184, District 185, District 189, District 190, District 208, District 209, District 215, District 228, District 230, District 232, District 234, District 245, District 246, District 247, District 248, District 262,District 263, District 269, District 270, District 280, District 281, District 295, District 308, District 309, District 310, District 311, District 312, District 313, District 314, District 315, District 333, District 334, District 337, District 338, District 339 and District 351

From the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Tort Reform is Killing Trial by Jury

- Click here for the article.

Jury trials are disappearing in the State of Texas.

So-called "tort reform" is killing the people's right to a trial of their peers. Caps on penalties, increasing court costs, and skyrocketing usage of binding mandatory arbitration are taking cases out of the hands of juries and into the hands of judges and arbitrators.

Practically speaking, this means that tons of cases are never making it to a courtroom in the first place. In the last 15 years, Texas has seen a two-thirds drop in the number of jury trials along with a 30% rise in motions for summary judgment, all while the number of lawsuits has gone up by %25. This increases the power of judges and of defendants who have lots of resources (usually that means big bidniss, mmmkay). The little guy is getting shooed out the courthouse door rather than getting his or her day in court.

I believe this has a sinister, less-considered side effect too: ordinary people will forget (or never even know) what jury duty is like. Individuals may breathe a sigh of relief when they don't get picked for jury duty or when a jury trial is called off at the last minute in favor of arbitration, but collectively this hurts our democracy. Jurisprudence belongs to the people and reminds us that ordinary people are the backbone of the country. It's yet another civic duty that we are all too willing to throw away (and that powerful interests are all too happy to help us throw away in the name of efficiency).

Again, I really do doubt that people will be outraged by this, although they should be. The state of American education when it comes to the law and to civics is dismal.
There is no cheerful quip at the end of this blog. Our legal system is in serious trouble and we don't even realize it.

Tort Reform in Texas

For class discussion:

In 2003 Texans approved - 51% to 49% - an amendment limiting damages in medical lawsuits for pain and suffering in mapractice cases to $250,000.

- Click here for info about it from Ballotpedia.

The policy change has been evaluated over the past few years. Here's a taste.

- 10 Years of Tort Reform in Texas Bring Fewer Suits, Lower Payouts.
- Abbott views tort reforms as good for Texas business.
- Texas Justices To Decide If Tort Reform Law Covers Autopsies.
- Ted Cruz: The Ultimate Tort Reform Hypocrite.

From the Houston Chronicle: How a wayward cow could change Texas' tort reform law

Laws can be interpreted creatively if it benefits the client.

- Click here fore the article.

On its face, it is a straightforward case. A west Texas farmer's cattle got out of their pasture, roamed onto a rural road and caused a car crash. A man injured in the crash sued the farmer for negligence.

Thanks to some outlandish logic and an attempt to limit the farmer's liability, attorney Philip Russ has turned the case into somewhat of a referendum on the limits of the 2003 tort reform law, which heavily regulated medical malpractice lawsuits and capped damages for pain and suffering.

Russ is seeking to get the negligence suit against his client dismissed, arguing that since the farmer is a retired doctor and the cows were under his care, it should have been filed as a medical malpractice suit. Because it was not, he argues, his client should not be liable for the injured man's hospital bills.

Besides acting in the best interests of his client, Russ, an Amarillo attorney who more often represents plaintiffs, is hoping his ploy also will illustrate something he says is even more ridiculous: the legal system's current interpretation of the state's landmark tort reform law.

Increasingly, he argues, defense attorneys are resorting to twisted logic to have cases classified as medical malpractice suits as a way of limiting the amount of damages for which their clients would be liable.

From Ballotpedia: Laws governing direct democracy in Texas

Texas does not allow the general population many opportunities to directly impact legislation. Here's a look at what is allowed.

- Click here for it.

Texas citizens have statewide access to just one of the six common forms of direct democracy--they can ratify or reject constitutional amendments to the Texas Constitution placed on the ballot by the Texas State Legislature.

Here is the full list:

- the legislatively referred constitutional amendment,
- the legislatively referred state statute,
- the initiated state statute (direct or indirect),
- the initiated constitutional amendment,
- the veto referendum (sometimes called the citizen referendum or the statute referendum),
- the statute affirmation (available only in Nevada), and
- the statewide recall.

From The Houston Press: Parole Board Member Accused of Blowing Off Prisoner Interviews Gets Indicted Five More Times

We reviewed this position when we covered Article 4 of the Texas Constitution.

- Click here for the article.

If you believe Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles member Pamela Freeman, then you believe that six prisoners declined an interview with her that could have led to their release because it was fried chicken day at the prison cafeteria.

The inmates had been waiting 20 years behind bars for the interview. For many of them, it was the first chance they had to try to persuade somebody how much they've changed in the past two decades, how they've kept busy and how sorry they are for what they did.

But for the six men back in April 2014, that chance passed them by when Freeman allegedly wrote in their case files that they declined that interview. According to Kevin Stouwie, the parole attorney who filed a complaint with the Texas Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General, the men waited outside the parole office in the Wynne Unit for their scheduled interview. Yet Freeman, for some reason, allegedly left without ever saying a word to them — they had never declined anything. Meaning, Stouwie said, that what Freeman wrote in their records was a lie.

Freeman was indicted in Walker County for one count of tampering with a government record in October 2014 — and this past February, she picked up five more indictments for the five other men, as Scott Henson over at the popular criminal justice blog Grits For Breakfast recently pointed out.

The Pew Research Center: Political Polarization & Media Habits

An oldie, but a reminder of the differences between liberals and conservatives in a polarized age.

- Click here for the article.

When it comes to getting news about politics and government, liberals and conservatives inhabit different worlds. There is little overlap in the news sources they turn to and trust. And whether discussing politics online or with friends, they are more likely than others to interact with like-minded individuals, according to a new Pew Research Center study.

The project – part of a year-long effort to shed light on political polarization in America – looks at the ways people get information about government and politics in three different settings: the news media, social media and the way people talk about politics with friends and family. In all three areas, the study finds that those with the most consistent ideological views on the left and right have information streams that are distinct from those of individuals with more mixed political views – and very distinct from each other.

From CityLab: Big Problems With Arizona's Primary Were Avoidable, Yet Inevitable Arizona's chaotic primary election demonstrates what’s bound to happen in light of the now-gutted federal Voting Rights Act.

A weakened VRA seems to be having an impact on voters.

- Click here for the article.

Arizona’s primary election on Tuesday was disastrous, especially for manyblack, Latino, and Native American voters. In Phoenix, people waited hours in line—some past midnight— to vote because the state closed 140 polling places that were open for the 2012 elections. Why would local election supervisors commit to so many closures during one of the most electrifying presidential elections in decades?

Helen Purcell, Maricopa County’s director of the Office of Records, who made that decision, said she was trying to save money, and also that she didn’t expect that many voters would turn out. This miscalculation has triggered an investigation into her office by Arizona Secretary of the State Michele Reagan, who said the long waiting lines were “completely unacceptable.”

Former Maricopa County Attorney Barnett Lotstein, 74, called what happened straight-up “voter suppression” after he and his wife were denied opportunities to vote because they couldn’t stand for hours in line. Some voters had been waiting in line so long that they started ordering pizzas.

From the Pew Research Center: Contested presidential conventions, and why parties try to avoid them

We haven't had one in years. For a very good reason.

- Click here for the article.

Even before primaries and caucuses came to dominate presidential campaigns in the 1970s, parties generally didn’t welcome contested conventions, especially when they went past the first ballot. And for good reason: Candidates who needed multiple ballots to be nominated seldom went on to win the White House.

We looked at all 60 Democratic and Republican nominating conventions from 1868 (the first post-Civil War election) to 1984, the last time a convention presented even a glimmer of uncertainty. Over that time, 18 candidates (eight Republicans and 10 Democrats) were nominated on multiple ballots; of those, only seven were elected president (and four of them were running against another multiple-ballot nominee, so one of them had to win).

All told, of the 22 presidential elections held between 1868 and 1952 – the last multiple-ballot nomination to date, of Adlai Stevenson as the Democratic standard-bearer – 14 featured at least one major-party nominee who’d won on multiple ballots. (These often were referred to as “brokered conventions,” a term we’re avoiding here because of its connotations of shady backroom deals.)

From the New Republic: Who Is the Hillary Voter? The media is obsessed with the Sanders voter and the Trump voter. Yet it is the Hillary voter who may have the last laugh

Maybe the media is getting it all wrong. It's happened before.

- Click here for the article.

The voter we almost never hear about, however, is the Clinton voter. Which is surprising, since Hillary Clinton has won more votes in the primaries than any other candidate so far. She has amassed over 2.5 million more votes than Sanders; over 1.1 million more votes than Trump. Clearly Clinton voters exist, yet there has been very little analysis as to who they are or why they are showing up to vote for her. Sure, there has been talk of Clinton’sdominance among African-American voters, and, to a lesser extent,Hispanic voters. Her voters seem to skew older and more affluent. But these are demographics. (And even demographics have a hard time explaining her commanding win in Ohio, or her wins in Massachusetts and Missouri.) There is almost no discussion of what is motivating these voters. If anything, the media seems to think they are holding their noses as they vote for Hillary. As a recent New York Times article suggested, Clinton is winning “votes, not hearts.”

Trump v The Republican Party

The latest on a continuing topic.

NYT: G.O.P. Gave Voters a Greater Say, and They Said Donald Trump.

The closer Donald J. Trump draws to winning the Republican presidential nomination over opposition from party leaders, the more his detractors ask: How can this happen? There’s no singular answer. One part of the explanation lies in the modern evolution of presidential competition, another in the special talents of Mr. Trump, and a third in the contours of the 21st-centuryRepublican Party. Today, voters across the United States take their influence over presidential nominations for granted. As recently as 1968, however, just 15 nominating contests were held, in which the rank-and-file selected convention delegates.

The Atlantic: The Great Republican Revolt: The GOP planned a dynastic restoration in 2016. Instead, it triggered an internal class war. Can the party reconcile the demands of its donors with the interests of its rank and file?

White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every institution in American society: not only government, but corporations, unions, even the political party they typically vote for—the Republican Party of Romney, Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and sellouts. They are pissed off. And when Donald Trump came along, they were the people who told the pollsters, “That’s my guy.” They aren’t necessarily superconservative. They often don’t think in ideological terms at all. But they do strongly feel that life in this country used to be better for people like them—and they want that older country back.

Politico: Trump shatters the Republican Party: How the 2016 primary will define the GOP for years to come.

. . . it is Trump’s new alliance of angry populists that is ascendant — and on the precipice of dominance. Built on the backs of working-class men and women who feel abandoned, economically and culturally, Trump’s coalition has both brought in new voters and carved out support from the other two. Trump won over evangelicals from Cruz in South Carolina, and even more resoundingly again in Nevada. He then took moderates from the mainstream in New Hampshire and Nevada en route to landslide victories in three consecutive states.

“What Trump is consolidating is the people who are unhappy being in either camp — those who don’t see themselves as conservative insurgents or as mainstream Republicans,” said Yuval Levin, an influential Republican thinker and editor of the quarterly conservative journal National Affairs. “They’re insurgents but they’re not conservatives. And they’re not happy with the system that gave us that binary choice.”

The New Republic: The Republican Party After Donald Trump: Conservatism is only doomed if its leaders insist on being radicals.

One way or another, the Republican Party is about to rupture—the only question is from which side. If Donald Trump wins the GOP presidential primary, as he’s heavily favored to do, he will drive some unknown, but large, number of regulars from the party. If Republican officials manage to wrest the nomination from him for nearing but failing to reach the threshold required to win outright, he will bolt, and take some unknown, but large, number of supporters with him—either into a third party, or into a protest movement that haunts the actual GOP nominee and creates an air of illegitimacy around him.

From CityLab: The Death of Jeffrey Pendleton: A homeless man was found dead in a jail cell in Manchester, New Hampshire. What killed him? The criminalization of poverty.

Something to think about as we cover the due process of the law. I posted a similar story below about whether we have de facto debtor's prisons in the United States. Do criminal justice procedures place additional burdens on the poor?

Might low pay be a civil rights issue?

- Click here for the article.

New Hampshire has no state-set minimum wage, so it abides by the federal government’s woefully low $7.25 per hour rate. State legislators killed bills last month that would have established state-issued minimum wages—livable wages. It can’t be ignored that Pendleton would probably still be alive if he made enough money to afford his bail.
 The federal government has recently come to accept that that the criminal justice system’s policies around bail and court fines are exacerbating the nation’s poverty and incarceration crises.

“When bail is set unreasonably high, people are behind bars only because they are poor,” said U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch at a White House convening last December. “Not because they’re a danger or a flight risk; only because they are poor.”

After dressing down Ferguson, Missouri, for the city’s reliance on fining low-income residents into jail and to death, the U.S. Justice Department realized that Ferguson was no anomaly. Many cities and their court systems have been imposing exorbitant fines and fees on people who’ve been arrested for the pettiest of crimes, like jaywalking. Lynch said at the White House in December that it has become “painfully clear” that “in so many instances, an individual’s access to justice has become predicated on their ability to literally pay for it.”

This point is made more disturbing by the fact that cities are increasingly using criminal justice debt—court fines and fees—to service municipal debt, with low-wage individuals bearing the brunt of these economic burdens. A report from the White House’s “Council of Economic Advisors on Fees, Fines, and Bail” points out the ways this has built up over time:

From the Seattle Times: Hate speech is often free speech, but how can we stop it?

The author does a good job - in my opinion - laying out the dilemma hate speech presents in a free society, but doesn't provide strong solutions. Maybe there are none.

- Click here for the article.

Those who favor laws prohibiting hate speech cite human dignity and the psychological damage it has on its victims, as well as its historical relationship with genocide, as the main reasons for censorship. In the United States, however, free speech is considered an essential component of democracy. In order to govern ourselves effectively, we believe we need access to all ideas regardless of their effect.

In a recent Supreme Court case involving the Westboro Baptist Church, whose members picket the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs reading, “God hates fags,” Chief Justice John Roberts said that hurtful speech on public issues must be protected to ensure that public debate is not stifled. While this argument is valid, it is worth noting that the majority of judges responsible for drawing the fine line between expression and true threats or incitement, have likely not been the targets of hate speech themselves.
The question now is: What do we do about it? We value free expression but loathe government restrictions on speech. How do we address the undeniable impacts of hate speech while preserving the free flow of ideas required for an effective democracy?

Private social-media companies can limit hate speech on their sites. Activist organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center could lobby to expand the current federal statute to punish threats aimed at broader racial or religious groups. On a more personal level, individuals with the privilege to do so can confront the people in their lives who use hate speech.

Regardless of the approach, the time to act is now. Just because hate speech is legal, does not make it right. This presidential election season, and Trump’s candidacy in particular, highlights the need for greater civility in political discourse. And civility is a choice.

From the American Thinker: Trumping Free Speech

The candidate wants to make it easier for people to sue the media - like in Britain. The author thinks this is a bad idea.

- Click here for the article.

The American view is that there are inevitable journalistic errors if we want to give freedom of expression the “breathing space” it needs. The idea is to allow most speech, including some false statements, to be vetted in the “marketplace of ideas.”

In medieval England, as in other cultures, duels, armed raids and other violent retaliation were regarded as natural, honorable responses to defamation.” A peaceful alternative was needed, and so the king's court criminalized political or seditious statements against aristocrats. The law evolved as time went on, but this English notion of criminalizing political or seditious libel was on the minds of those who drafted the U.S. Constitution.

Even in the U.S. there was briefly a law, the Sedition Act of 1798, that made it a crime to write or speak anything “false, scandalous and malicious” against the United States government. If you could prove the allegation was true, you would not be penalized. The Act was attacked as unconstitutional. It expired by its own terms in 1801, but not before it had crystallized the idea that discussion of public matters was guaranteed by the Constitution and that neither good-faith errors nor even libels could overcome this right.

. . . Back to Trump: Would he like to be sued by George W. Bush for claiming that Bush lied to get us to go to war in Iraq? We lose if we suppress speech that in some cases can avert threats to our safety or prevent bad policy.

Ironically, the media itself interferes with its own freedom when for example, out of cultural sensitivity, it describes "jihadist attacks on American citizens at home as ‘work-related accidents’ and, elsewhere, as ‘militant attacks.’" The idea that Islam inspires these attacks is not one that the media wants to spread.

Freedom of speech is not a universal value. Jihadists don't believe in it, Marxists don't believe in it, dictators and their henchmen don't believe in it. Given that it is a core American value, we should be willing to be different than much of the world and accept the tradeoffs that go with it.

From Slate: Samuel Alito’s Sixth Amendment Denialism

For our look at constitutional meaning - apparently there is a dispute on the Supreme Court about what aspects of a trial procedure are and are not covered under the "right to a speedy and public trial."

- Click here for the article.

Monday’s case, Betterman v. Montana, is not strictly about the evils of plea bargaining. Rather, it poses a seemingly simple question: Once a defendant has accepted a plea deal, can the government detain him for 14 months before giving him a sentencing hearing?

You might respond to this question by reciting the Sixth Amendment, which states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Even by the measure of our perpetually clogged-up court system, 14 months is not “speedy,” and so Brandon Thomas Betterman—the defendant here who spent all that time waiting for a hearing—should win. But Montana disagrees, insisting that Betterman’s right to a speedy trial was never violated. That’s because, in Montana’s telling, a sentencing hearing isn’t a trial at all, and so isn’t subject to the Sixth Amendment’s speedy-trial guarantee.

There are two problems with that argument, not including the fact that it would upend 50 years of precedent. The first was highlighted repeatedly throughout the morning by Justice Elena Kagan, whose vim is invigorating on an otherwise torpid court. (I counted at least four catnaps by three justices over the course of the hour.) A delay in court proceedings, Kagan noted, may “impair the defense”: Evidence disappears; witnesses scamper off; memories fade. This problem is present in both conventional trials and sentencing hearings.

“You know,” Kagan tells Montana Solicitor General Dale Schowengerdt, “in most cases these days, most of the actual adjudication of contested issues goes on in sentencing rather than at the trial stage, given that we don’t have very many trials anymore.”

Edgewood v Kirby

Here are a few links relating to a seminal case where the Texas Supreme Court argued Texas' financing scheme for public schools violated the Texas Constitution. It followed on the heals of a less successful case - Rodriquez v. San Antonio ISD - where the US Supreme Court argued that education was not a fundamental right. It led to the Robin Hood plan, which required wealthier school districts to share resources with poorer districts.

- TSHA: Edgewood Independent School District et al. v. Kirby.
- TSHA: Rodríguez et al. v. San Antonio ISD.
- Wikipedia: Robin Hood Plan.
- HRO: Schools and Taxes: A Summary of Legislationof the 2006 Special Session.

Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary - Fiscal Year 2015

Better than any textbook

- Click here if you are a 2306 student still confused about the Texas Judiciary.

Bollea (Hulk Hogan) v Gawker: The latest test of the freedom of the press

We've been looking at the judiciary in most classes - on the state and national level - and here's a case that involves a lot of what we've been covering on the state and national level.

Including:

- free press
- free speech
- the right to privacy
- appeals

For detail, there's this item from the New Yorker's general counsel:

- The Stakes in Hulk Hogan’s Gawker Lawsuit.

On Monday afternoon, a Florida jury added twenty-five million dollars in punitive damages to the hundred and fifteen million dollars it had awarded Hulk Hogan, on Friday, in his invasion-of-privacy case against Gawker Media. Hogan sued Gawker for posting portions of a sex tape it received from an anonymous sender. It’s a shocking amount, not least because it’s forty million dollars more than Hogan (whose real name is Terry Bollea) had demanded.

Verdicts of this size can pose an existential risk to a media company. Gawker has reported that it earned forty-four million dollars in revenue in 2014, and in January Gawker’s owner, Nick Denton, announced that he had sold a portion of his company to investors in order to fund this case. Gawker will certainly appeal the verdict, as it should (after it pays a bond of up to fifty million dollars), arguing that the jury was unreasonable in finding that Hogan’s right to privacy outweighed Gawker’s right to publish the material, which it believed was of public interest. The publication of a videotape of consensual sex between adults is not the most appealing place to plant a First Amendment flag. But it is worth considering the possible effects on publishers if a judgment of this magnitude is allowed to stand.

There appears to be something of a consensus that the jury decision will be overturned on appeal - specifically by an appellate court that does not have the same dislike of the media that a trial jury might have. Hogan claims the tape humiliated him, but he has been up front about details of his sex life before,plus he is a public person. He has less of a claim to privacy than other who are not in the spotlight have. The right to publish newsworthy content seems to generally trump the right to privacy. And there is the complicating factor regarding the impact the decision might have on press on the internet.

For more:

- Jury awards Hulk Hogan $115 million as Gawker looks to appeal.
- Gawker to Appeal Verdict Awarding Hulk Hogan $115 Million.
- Here's Why the Gawker Verdict Should Be—and Likely Will Be—Overturned.
- Trial judge in Hulk Hogan-Gawker case is most reversed in Pinellas.

Here are previous court rulings concerning the question of Hogan's privacy.

- Bollea v. Gawker.
- Gawker v Bollea.

Texas Code of Judicial Conduct

For 2306 classes as we look at the judiciary in the state.

- Click here for it.

It is referred to in Article 5 of the Texas Constitution and is the guideline used by the Texas State Commission for Judicial Conduct in order to determine whether judges are acting in a manner that upholds the integrity of the judiciary.

From Vox: Mass incarceration in America, explained in 22 maps and charts

Fro our look at the criminal justice system.

- Click here for the story.

From ABC News: Paper: Federal Civil Rights Cases Against Officers Are Rare

For our look at due process and civil rights - where 2305 and 2306 overlap. It's tough to prosecute police officers for violating civil so often it doesn't even happen.

- Click here for the article.

The study it refers to can be found here:

- Trib investigation: Cops often let off hook for civil rights complaints.

Federal prosecutors declined to pursue civil rights allegations against law enforcement officers 96 percent of the time since 1995, a newspaper found, with most experts blaming the low prosecution rate on the difficulty of winning such cases.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review said the 12,703 potential civil rights violations turned down nationwide out of 13,233 total complaints from 1995-2015 include high-profile incidents in Chicago, New York and Ferguson, Missouri, but also thousands of incidents the public knows little about.

It said the most frequent reasons cited for declining civil rights complaints involving officers were weak or insufficient evidence, high standards of proof established by Supreme Court rulings, and policies set by the Justice Department.

Many legal and civil rights experts told the newspaper ( http://bit.ly/252UQoo ) that convicting a police officer of a civil rights violation is one of the toughest challenges a prosecutor can face. But some criminal justice experts also said the Justice Department needs to put more resources into the cases, and suggested that the typical partnering of police and prosecutors affects decision-making.

"The standard is high and challenging," said Alan Vinegrad, a former federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York, who oversaw criminal civil rights cases.

"It's got to be a willful deprivation of rights, meaning the police officer intended and wanted to either kill or injure the person," said Vinegrad, now a partner at the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP in New York. "Not just 'it was reckless or negligent' or anything like that."

The U.S. attorney's office in Pittsburgh will open files for even minor accusations that the FBI investigates against a police officer, said Steve Kaufman, chief of the office's criminal division. But, he said, "it's one of the most difficult cases to gather sufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt at trial."

From the Texas Association of Counties: GUIDE TO TEXAS LAWS FOR COUNTY OFFICIALS

This won't make the responsibilities of counties any simpler to understand, but it lays them out. This will be useful for the classes where we're walking through local governments

- Click here for the document.

Some random items on the Texas judiciary

From the Texas Lawyer: Cornyn Pledges to Help Obama Seat Texas Judges.

While Texas' Senior U.S. Senator John Cornyn has pledged to block President Barack Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, the influential Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he'll work with the White House to seat five Texans on U.S. District Court benches.

From the Texas Tribune: Survey Captures Fear Level Among Texas Judges.

Hundreds of Texas judges say they have feared for their safety at least once in the last two years, and a majority didn't know they are required by law to report threats, according to a survey taken after the attempted assassination of a Travis County judge.

From Law 360: Texas Supreme Court Judges Ward Off Primary Challengers.

Three Texas Supreme Court justices running for re-election beat back Republican primary challengers Tuesday, with each incumbent likely earning another six-year term on the state’s highest civil court. Having defended their seats, Justices Debra Lehrmann, Paul Green and Eva Guzman are now set up for the November general elections, where they will each face a Democratic opponent. Republicans have dominated Texas’ statewide elections for more than a decade, and the Texas Supreme Court’s nine seats have been filled by all Republicans since 1999.

From MySA: Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry's abuse-of-power case is not over yet.

The special prosecutor in the abuse-of-power case against Rick Perry said Thursday he still hasn't decided whether to drop the matter a week after the state's highest criminal court ordered that the indictment against the former governor be dismissed.

From KTLV: Judge accused of sexting while sitting on judicial conduct board.

An East Texas judge is facing serious allegations of explicit sexual behavior online while conducting government business. Smith County Judge Joel Baker serves as chief judge for Smith County and served as vice chair on the State Commission for Judicial Conduct(SCJC). The accusations come from a woman who asked to remain anonymous and private investigator, Tim McLemee who specializes in digital evidence.

From the Tyler Morning Telegraph: Smith County Judge Joel Baker resigns from State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Smith County Judge Joel Baker has resigned from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for personal and family reasons, his office announced Monday.

Texas Judicial Branch - and the most recent state of the judiciary address.

Here's a nice resource that contains about tall the info about Texas Courts you would find in a typical textbook on the Texas judiciary, and much more. It's one of the reasons I like to avoid textbooks.

- Click here for it.

I'm highlighting the State of the Judiciary address presented by the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court to the Texas Legislature during the 84th Session.

- Click here for that.

He spent a good part of the address recommending legislative changes to juvenile justice, legal service for the poor, and for veterans. He also requested more funding so the courts can do their assigned work.

Here's a taste:

The Judiciary has assisted the Legislature in passing school ticketing reform. Disruptive conduct thwarts education, and teachers and administrators must have effective means to stop it. But for years, courthouse hallways were lined with youngsters who belonged in school, not in the criminal justice system. Working to balance the interests of children, schools, and the courts, the 83rd Legislature enacted reforms with sweeping results: fiscal year 2014 saw an 83% drop in criminal filings under the Education Code — that’s 90,000 fewer tickets written. Other states have followed Texas’ lead. As a result, more kids are in classrooms and out of courts. The reforms last Session did not extend to truancy and attendance laws, which, while intended to keep kids in school, often operate to keep them out.

The theory is that the threat of punishment will incentivize attendance. But when almost 100,000 criminal truancy charges are brought each year against Texas schoolchildren, one has to think, this approach may not be working. Playing hooky is bad, but is it criminal? A better, more effective solution may be for schools and courts alike to provide prevention and intervention services for at-risk children to actually achieve the goal: getting them back in school. This has led the Texas Judicial Council, a policy-making body for the Judiciary, to call for decriminalizing the failure to attend school. The stakes are high. Our children are our most precious treasures and our future. Education is the key to their success.

Some 40,000 children are in state conservatorship, and courts play a critical role in determining their future. The Supreme Court’s Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth, and Families has recommended legislative changes to improve handling of cases involving Child Protective Services. Indigent parents are entitled to a court-appointed attorney, but when there is no conflict of interest between them and no history of family violence, the Commission recommends that judges be permitted to appoint one attorney for both parents, not an attorney for each, thereby reducing costs and improving efficiency. The Commission also recommends the creation of county or regional programs to help provide attorneys for indigent parents. And the Commission recommends improved procedures for transferring a case from one county to another so that placement of children in a stable environment is not delayed. The Texas Judicial Council has endorsed all these recommendations, and I urge you to consider them.

From Houston Matters: Judges and Party Affiliation

We were talking about partisan judicial elections in Texas in 2306 this week.

A couple pros weigh in:

- Click here for the show.

Across the country, you’ll find different systems in place for naming and retaining judges. In some states, judges are named by the executive branch and approved or rejected by the legislature. In others, judges are named and then face “retention elections” at regular intervals when voters can choose to retain or dismiss the judge. Here in Texas, we have full-fledged elections for fixed terms for both state and appellate judges, and candidates for judge must declare a party affiliation. Some would like to see that changed.

On this edition of Houston Matters, we discuss the history of judicial elections in Texas, and consider whether Texas judges should continue to be associated with political parties.

From the Houston Chronicle: Wharton Co. prosecutor says he was told to keep blacks off juries

For our look at the Texas criminal justice system, and civil rights.

- Click here for the article.

A prosecutor in Wharton County has accused the elected district attorney of working repeatedly to keep blacks off juries in that rural county southwest of Houston.

In a hearing earlier this month, Assistant District Attorney Nathan Wood told a judge that his boss, District Attorney Ross Kurtz, told him to keep black residents off juries in criminal trials in order to improve the prosecution's chances of winning the case.

"I was not 'instructed' to strike black jurors so much as I was advised or encouraged to do so as a matter of trial strategy," Wood recently told a judge. "Whatever the true intentions behind the statements made in our office, they made me feel uncomfortable."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal for attorneys to consider race when deciding who gets on a jury.

Annexation History - Planning and Development Department - City of Houston

From Grits for Breakfast: Debtors prison and the Great Texas Warrant Roundup

Debtors prisons aren't allowed under the Texas Bill of Rights, but they still seem to exist.

- Click here for the article.

The State’s unreasonable traffic ticket scheme and the devastation it can wreak on low-income Texans receive considerably less attention.

Depending on the jurisdiction, a ticket for failing to signal a lane change—the pretext for Sandra Bland’s tragic traffic stop—will cost you around $66. But the State tacks on $103 in court costs and a host of fees, some bordering on Kafkaesque. Texas will charge you a public defender fee, even though courts refuse to appoint a public defender for traffic ticket cases. If your fine is already too expensive to afford, Texas charges a fee to put you on a payment plan. You’ll even pay an “administrative fee” for the privilege of handing money over to the court. For people who are too poor to pay their tickets, that $66 fine can grow to over $500.

If you can’t afford to keep up with these fees, the State will suspend renewal of your driver’s license (add another $30 for the License Renewal Suspension Fee), and you’ll be unable to register your car, making it illegal for you to drive to the job you need to take care of your kids and pay off your spiraling debt. An expired registration means you’re certain to be pulled over and put back at square one, with new tickets, new fines, new fees, and no hope.

Zubik v. Burwell

The latest on the birth control mandate in the ACA.

- Scotusblog: Zubik v. Burwell.

Issue: Whether the HHS contraceptive-coverage mandate and its “accommodation” violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, when the government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest.

Here's some info about the case from NPR:

- Click here for the article.

The rights of the religious and the secular clash again Wednesday at the Supreme Court, this time in the controversial context of Obamacare and birth control.

The health care law sought to equalize preventive health insurance benefits between the genders. That meant free coverage of birth control for women, with an automatic exemption for houses of worship, like churches — but not for nonprofits like religious schools and hospitals. Those nonprofits were given a workaround to accommodate their objections, but some say that accommodation still burdens their free exercise of religion.

There are cases before the court from all over the country. The plaintiffs range from large universities to small service organizations, among them the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that runs homes for the elderly poor.

. . . When it comes to providing birth control insurance coverage for the staff, the Little Sisters have a religious objection, and they believe that the workaround meant to accommodate that objection still makes them complicit in providing contraception for their employees.

The government, in contrast, views the law as a reasonable accommodation.
"Anyone who has a religious objection ... doesn't have to pay for, refer, doesn't have to organize, doesn't have to accommodate that contraception coverage for his or her employees," says former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

"What they are required to do is provide notification to the government or their insurer that they are opting out. That's it."

The government then steps in to fill the gap, and along with the insurer — for example, Blue Cross Blue Shield or a third-party administrator — makes birth control available, without charge, to employees, dependents or students who want birth control coverage.
Sister Constance Veit says she doesn't object to signing the required form or a letter.

"The religious burden is what that signifies, and the fact that the government would, you know, be inserting services that we object to into our plan, and it would still carry our name," she says.

From the Texas Tribune: Courts Rebuff Texas Bid to Slow Foster Care Reform

An area of conflict between Texas and the national government - one that does not involve the environment!

- Click here for the article.

The state of Texas lost two intermediate battles Monday in its fight to block a federal judge's efforts to reform a foster care system that she found has violated children's civil rights by subjecting them to rampant neglect and abuse.

A higher court rejected Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to stop the appointment of "special masters" by U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of Corpus Christi to oversee reforms.

Jack quickly appointed two masters favored by children’s rights advocates: Francis McGovern, a Duke University law professor, and Kevin Ryan, partner at the New Jersey nonprofit Public Catalyst, which advocates for child welfare. Jack rejected candidates nominated by the state.

The masters are expected to study the system and recommend changes, such as hiring more caseworkers to work with foster children and heightened oversight of foster group homes.

“This is a tremendous day for thousands of children in Texas state foster care,” said Paul Yetter, the lead attorney for long-term foster children and their advocates who brought the lawsuit that prompted Jack's ruling. “After years of unsuccessful attempts to address the failings of an undeniably broken system, meaningful reform can finally take root.”

From the Texas Tribune: Oil or Gas Well? The Distinction Costs State Millions

The Railroad Commission is reclassifying wells in the state of Texas, and helping the oil and gas industry save lot's of money. But it's at the expense of the state budget. This gives you an idea of whose interests are actually served by the commission.

- Click here for the article.

A major slowdown in oil drilling may not be the only phenomenon cutting into state revenue in coming years. Efforts by producers to have some of their oil wells reclassified as natural gas wells may cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in tax collections and refunds — and renew scrutiny of Texas’ largest tax incentive for natural gas drilling.

The Texas Railroad Commission, the state’s drilling regulator, reclassified nearly 850 oil wells as natural gas wells during the 2015 budget year. That’s more than triple the number from the previous year and nearly six times the reclassifications in 2013.
The trend means more operators can claim a generous tax credit for natural gas wells, and the growth in reclassifications is drawing the interest of state Comptroller Glenn Hegar and other budget watchers.

“If such reclassifications were expanded, it could adversely affect revenues as a result of refunds and reduced natural gas tax collections,” Hegar wrote this month in his certified revenue estimate.

Operators commonly free up oil and gas from the same well. But Texas law defines wells as either oil or gas — not both. It’s up to the Railroad Commission to sort out where each one falls. The commission’s initial decision, however, isn’t etched in stone. Operators can fill out a one-page request that a well be reclassified, based on how much gas is coming out of the ground.

In 2013, the commission reclassified 145 wells from oil to gas. The number ballooned to 844 in the 2015 fiscal year, according to Railroad Commission data.
Gas-to-oil switches also surged during that period, but on a much smaller scale —from 68 to 239.

The bureaucratic reshuffling might sound unimportant, but it matters plenty for state coffers and helps determine who qualifies for a tax credit covering “high-cost natural gas drilling” that has drawn scrutiny in recent years.

From the Houston Chronicle: City bond rating downgrade reflects oil bust, pension problems

What is impacting the state, is also impacting cities.

- Click here for the article.

The sluggish oil market and Houston's underfunded pension funds led Moody's to downgrade the city's credit rating this week, a move that underscores the challenges Mayor Sylvester Turner faces in wrestling the city's finances into shape. 

The change, the first time Moody's has revised Houston's rating in at least a decade, is expected to marginally increase the city's borrowing costs. But the announcement's real weight, observers said, will be the psychological impact at City Hall. Turner announced Friday about 40 layoffs will be needed to balance the budget he is preparing to submit to the City Council.

"It only reinforces the need for us to address these long term systemic problems we have," said Controller Chris Brown, the city's elected financial watchdog. "It heightens the sense of urgency."

Turner agreed the Moody's report - which chiefly highlighted continued weakness in oil prices, the pension burden, and a cap on city property tax collections - "without question" underscores the need for a fiscal fix.

While Turner said the oil market is outside his control, he pointed to the praise the Moody's analysts gave his administration for beginning work on a longterm plan to shore up the budget.

"They did note ... that we are taking conservative projections," Turner said. "The road map to balance the city's budget is already finished on my part. In the absence of the changes that we have already taken, it probably could have been worse."

Turner said he hopes to present council members with a plan in mid-April explaining how he will bridge a budget deficit that had been estimated at $126 million. Falling sales tax collections have pushed projections as high as $160 million.

The revenue cap, which voters approved in 2004 and modified two years later, lets Houston collect more property taxes each year than the year prior, but limits the increase to the combined rates of inflation and population growth.

For more on the subject:

- Moody’s Downgrades Houston’s Bond Rating, Cites Low Oil Prices & High Debt.
- Moody's Downgrades Houston's Credit but Mayor Turner Has a Plan. Sort Of.
- Houston Undaunted by Downgrades Ahead of $600M Deal.

From the Texas Tribune: Congressmen Want Investigation of Houston Poll Miscues

For our look at how counties manage - or perhaps mismanage - elections. The article also touches on a controversial topic: Does Texas really want higher voter participation?

- Click here for the article.

Two Houston congressmen are asking the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether unequal distribution of voting machines and polling locations in Harris County disenfranchised minority voters during the March 1 primary election.In a letter dated March 15, U.S. Reps. Al Green and Gene Green, both Houston Democrats, blamed insufficient voting machines and polling locations for “excessively long lines” in predominantly Hispanic and black precincts in Harris County. Citing local news reports, the congressmen indicated that long lines “deterred” minority voters from “exercising their right to vote that day.”

“The failure to distribute sufficient voting machines in predominantly Hispanic and African-American precincts in Harris County, in comparison to the resources made available in more affluent, predominantly Anglo precincts in the county, had a discriminatory impact on our constituents’ ability to participate in the political process,” the congressmen wrote.

Though Texas ranks among the bottom for voter turnout rates in the country, voter turnout surged in Texas for the March 1 election with more than 4.2 million ballots cast in the primary election — up from about 2 million in 2012.

In Harris County, the state’s largest county, the number of voters casting ballots increased from 240,466 in the 2012 primary to 557,048 this year.

The increased turnout — fueled by a heated Republican presidential race — left election officials scrambling to deliver additional voting machines to polling locations with long lines on election day. Still, some voters in Houston did not cast their votes until after 9:30 p.m. — hours after polls closed. Others reportedly abandoned their place in line without voting after waiting for hours.

The distribution of polling locations in primary elections is a responsibility of each county’s political party, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, which oversees elections and voting. Using a formula based on previous voter turnout, county parties are charged with estimating voter turnout and determining the number of voting machines and polling locations needed.

In case you are curious, here is the formula:

The formula for estimating turnout for the primary elections is:

A x (B + C) = D

Where:

A = the percentage of voter turnout for the office that received the most votes in the most recent comparable party primary election (percentage is the sum of all votes cast for the office that received the most votes in the most recent comparable party primary election divided by the number of registered voters).
B = the number of registered voters as of October preceding the primary.
C = 25% of the number resulting when you multiply A x B.
D = Preliminary Estimated Turnout.

Millennials and the 2016 election

For classroom discussion - and a written assignment for a small handful of students:

In 2305's section on public opinion we will looks at the concept of a political generation. Most students are members of the millennial generation - though another generation is creeping up behind them. I've heard them referred to as the Homeland Generation, and as Generationi (get it?).

I want you to consider what unique impact each generation is likely to have on the outcome of the 2016 election - but focus especially ion the millennial generation

For info:

- The Whys and Hows of Generations Research.
- How Millennials Will Impact the 2016 Election Without Voting.
- Clinton Maintains Big National Lead, Millennials Optimistic on Sanders.
- Do College Students’ Votes Really Matter in an Election?
- Will Millennials Determine The 2016 Presidential Election? New Poll Looks At Their Voting Plans.

The Tidelands Controversy

The chapter on the Texas Attorney General mentions this controversy, and the role then Attorney General Price Daniels, Sr. played in arguing Texas' side of the case. In case you want more on it:

- TSHA: Tidelands Controversy.

And for more - cause why not?

- TSHA: Price Daniels, Sr.

From the Office of the Texas Attorney General

For discussion in 2306:

- The Texas Attorney General v the U.S.A.

And while we are on the subject, here is the TSHA's description of the office:

- Click here.

As the chief legal officer of the state of Texas, the attorney general protects state interests through judicial proceedings and legal advice. His constitutional authority is broad but briefly stated, and the Texas legislature and the courts may augment his official powers. Whenever the interests of Texas state government are involved in civil law, the attorney general must represent and defend those interests. The state of Texas is represented by the attorney general in the courts of Texas and of the United States. The office influences all Texas government agencies through its advisory-opinion function, whereby the attorney general provides specified officials with guidance on how to perform their duties legally.

The attorney general works with governmental agencies in a variety of functions, such as assisting the secretary of state and the governor in extradition proceedings, approving the form of official papers, appearing before grand juries in an informational capacity, initiating inquiries into suspected illegal activities, examining the legality of bond issues for state and local governments, and preparing legal instruments for state agencies. The attorney general has regulatory or punitive civil powers over corporations and must protect charitable trusts through court action. Taxation and property are two functional areas significant to the work of the attorney general; the attorney general sues for recovery of taxes owed the state of Texas and protects the public interest with respect to abandoned property that escheats to the state. The attorney general acts against persons or corporations violating the environmental-protection laws of Texas or illegally extracting natural resources. The office also enforces the state's antitrust laws and prosecutes persons who mishandle state funds.

From 538: Will Trump Clinch The GOP Nomination Before The Convention?

Seems unlikely.

- Click here for the article.

All of the respondents agree that Trump is not likely to get close to 1,237 delegates before June 7, when California and four other states vote. The closest Trump came was 1,088 delegates. And even the most optimistic Trump projection has him hitting 1,244 after all the states have voted. That leaves Trump with very little room for error to reach a majority of delegates without at least some of the currently unpledged or uncommitted delegates coming to his aid.

Part of the reason we’ll have to wait so long is how the rest of the calendarbreaks down. The month of April, which includes a lot of primaries in the Northeast, should be good for Trump. May has far fewer contests, and Trump is expected to do poorly in Nebraska, Oregon and Washington.

Not surprisingly, our respondents’ estimates differed greatly in a number of states. If you’re looking for the states that could be make-or-break for Trump, then look to Wisconsin, New York, Indiana and California. In all four, Trump’s expected number of delegates won differed by at least 36 among the respondents.

From 538: Manufacturing Jobs Are Never Coming Back

In a word: automation.

The suggests presidential candidates are making promises they cannot deliver. We know where this leads.

- Click here for the article.

A plea to presidential candidates: Stop talking about bringing manufacturing jobs back from China. In fact, talk a lot less about manufacturing, period.

It’s understandable that voters are angry about trade. The U.S. has lost more than 4.5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA took effect in 1994. And asEduardo Porter wrote this week, there’s mounting evidence that U.S. trade policy, particularly with China, has caused lasting harm to many American workers. But rather than play to that anger, candidates ought to be talking about ways to ensure that the service sector can fill manufacturing’s former role as a provider of dependable, decent-paying jobs.|

Here’s the problem: Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago.

Interim Committee Charges Texas House of Representatives 84th Legislature

This is stuff Speaker Straus requested that legislators work on prior to the start of the 85th session.

- Click here for it.

The Texas Standard summarizes it all here.

Highlighted items include:

• Creating opportunity through education
• Continuing to make government more transparent and accountable
• Private sector growth
• The Texas Commission on Jail Standards
• Oilfield theft
• Border security
• Human trafficking of youth
• Renewable energy regulations
• Body cameras and best practices
• Expanding the state parks system
• Juvenile justice penalties
• Dark money and politics
• Best practices for dealing with wildfire, flood and other natural hazards
• Texas workers’ compensation and benefits for injured employees

From Houston Matters: Planning for Future Water Needs

In 2306 - when we walked through Article 3 of the Texas Constitution - we took note of all the bonds sold by the state that pertained to water development projects. The radio show focused on the Texas Water Development Board's recently released 50 year comprehensive plan.

- Click here for the program.

And if you are up for it:

- Water for Texas: 2017 State Water Plan.

From the Texas Observer: Free Lunch

The state of Texas has a robust system of tax incentives available to local communities to lure businesses. Critics call it corporate welfare. The following article focuses on the Texas Economic Development Plan - which is also known as Chapter 313, which is where it can be found in the Tax Code.

The story concerns the efforts of business leaders to develop attract liquified natural gas exporters to the valley.

- Click here for the article.

Property taxes are the largest source of funding for Texas public schools, and big industrial projects can add lots of new money to the school system quickly. Annova’s LNG terminal alone would be worth more than the tax base of one-quarter of Texas school districts. Companies pay most of their tax bill to the local school districts. For certain big projects, though, districts can forgive most of that sum using the Texas Economic Development Act, a 15-year-old program that’s often known by its place in the tax code, Chapter 313. That program actually makes it worthwhile for school districts to give away millions in tax revenue.

Under the law, if a school district grants a tax break for a desirable new project, the state is obliged to cover the difference. The cost of the deal comes out of the state budget. In its application to Point Isabel ISD, Annova said its terminal would be valued at $1.4 billion, but wanted the school district to pretend for the next 10 years that it was worth just $25 million. The tax break, Annova told the district, would be “a key component” in its decision to build. In fact, as local activists learned, the whole point of the Chapter 313 program was to lure business to Texas that might go elsewhere. If the school board rejected Annova’s deal, maybe the company really would pack up and leave. The school board vote, then, wasn’t going to be just another sternly worded resolution — it could be, locals hoped, the Achilles’ heel that could kill the project for good.

Residents knew they had momentum on their side, having won over so many other local officials. But as they had recently learned, schools hardly ever say no to a Chapter 313 deal. No district had ever rejected one this big. In fact, the program is built to encourage schools to give away the state’s money. Schools have no incentive to reject a deal, and often gain millions by handing out tax breaks.

For more:

- What is the Texas Economic Development Act?
- Tax Code. Title 3. Subtitle B. Chapter 313.
- Texas Ahead: Tax Code Chapter 313 — Value Limitation and Tax Credits.
- TTARA: Questions and Answers About the Texas EconomicDevelopment Act: Tax Code Chapter 313.

From Vox: Twilight of the neoconservatives The movement's unlikely 20-year reign over the GOP could now be coming to an end.

The term "neo-conservatism" was featured prominently in one of the early 2305 section - the one on ideology. It is defined as follows:

Neo-conservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism that combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets. Neo-conservatism arose in the United States in the 1970s among intellectuals who shared a dislike of communism and a disdain for the counterculture of the 1960s, especially its political radicalism and its animus against authority, custom, and tradition.

The commonly told story is that these were pro-defense Democrats that grew disaffected with the pro-peace faction within the party, which was becoming increasingly influential. They began to drift over to the Republican Party. Vox reports that that influence appears to be waning, largely due to Trump's reluctance to promote an aggressive use of American power to achieve neo-conservative goals,like the expansion of democracy overseas.


- Click here for the article.

The thing that unifies Trump's foreign policy heresies in the eyes of the GOP establishment — the common theme of his foreign policy divides with the party — is not the positions that are most outlandish, but rather the positions that most diverge from neo-conservatism.

And that hints at something uncomfortable for the party: Its neoconservative foreign policy elites are fighting not just against Trump, but also to hold on to their increasingly fragile dominance of the party itself.

Trump's sins are not just the dangers he would pose to America and the world if elected — though those are real, and earnestly worry neoconservatives — but for what he is exposing: a divide between the party electorate and elite over foreign policy.

It's a divide that, if widened too far, could risk separating neoconservative elites from the party itself. But because elite- and academic-minded neoconservatives seized power by capturing elite institutions — think tanks, policy journals, donors — but not by doing the harder work of attracting voters, this is a divide that may have always been there, just beneath the surface, waiting to be opened by a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.