- Click here for the article.
When Democrat Sri Kulkarni started campaigning in the deep-red Texas district once represented by Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, consultants told him not to even bother trying to get the district’s Asian-American vote.
“I was told, ‘Don’t chase after Asian voters, they don’t vote,’” Kulkarni said in a recent interview with Vox, adding: “Maybe they don’t vote because we don’t bother.”
Kulkarni, a 40-year-old former foreign service official under the Bush and Obama administrations, is doing the opposite of what the consultants told him. “Why don’t we try reaching out in other languages, not just English?” Kulkarni thought. He’s running a campaign with volunteers speaking to voters in 16 languages — aggressively trying to convince the district’s Asian-American voters to cast their ballots for him.
The district sits in the Houston suburbs, a rapidly diversifying part of Texas. The non-Hispanic white population has fallen to 40 percent, while the Asian community now makes up nearly 20 percent of the district.
It’s a simple premise: greeting a voter in his or her native language builds a relationship with that voter and opens a door to the community. Kulkarni already proved it worked in the primary, emerging on top in a field of five candidates. His campaign’s internal numbers suggested their outreach had dramatically increased Asian-American primary turnout, from 6 percent in 2014 to 28 percent in 2018.
“This thing that was a waste of time resulted in a 12-fold increase in people coming out in the Asian community,” Kulkarni told Vox.
Winning against Republican Rep. Pete Olson on Election Day will be tough. But Kulkarni and his campaign believe he has a fighting chance, and are buoyed by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report recently shifting the race to merely “Lean Republican.”
“I’d watch this one,” Cook’s Dave Wasserman tweeted.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Meet the lobbyists of Polan Culley
- Click here for their team of lobbyists.
Here's one:
Kraege Polan has over forty-five years experience in Texas’ legislative and regulatory arenas. He began his career in his early twenties as Administrative Assistant to House Speaker Price Daniel, Jr., where he directed communications and legislation between the 150-member Texas House of Representatives and the Speaker’s office. With a solid background in both politics and legislative procedure, Kraege has built his business and reputation as a skilled legislative advocate.
As a master strategist and an excellent negotiator, Kraege’s efforts have won the solid respect of both Republicans and Democrats as well as plaudits from several legislative publications. The Dallas Morning News, in a survey of Texas Senate and House Committee Chairpersons, named Kraege “one of the ten best lobbyists” in the state. Noted political writer Harvey Kronberg, author of the Quorum Report, called him “first rate… straightforward, low-key and effective.”
In 1992, Kraege founded Polan Culley Inc, originally called Polan Ingram Advocacy Group. The company represents clients ranging from professional business associations to Fortune 100 companies before the legislative and executive branches of Texas government. Kraege’s strong relationships have also garnered projects on the congressional level in Washington. Polan Culley is a charter member of The Advocacy Group, a Washington-based governmental firm, with lobbyists in all fifty states.
In addition to his successful lobby practice, Kraege has utilized his entrepreneurial talent to start several companies. He has served on the boards of banks and publicly traded companies, and founded a non-profit sports foundation.
Kraege is a native Texan and received his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas at Austin. He is married with three sons, and shares his love of hunting and fishing with his family.
Here's one:
Kraege Polan has over forty-five years experience in Texas’ legislative and regulatory arenas. He began his career in his early twenties as Administrative Assistant to House Speaker Price Daniel, Jr., where he directed communications and legislation between the 150-member Texas House of Representatives and the Speaker’s office. With a solid background in both politics and legislative procedure, Kraege has built his business and reputation as a skilled legislative advocate.
As a master strategist and an excellent negotiator, Kraege’s efforts have won the solid respect of both Republicans and Democrats as well as plaudits from several legislative publications. The Dallas Morning News, in a survey of Texas Senate and House Committee Chairpersons, named Kraege “one of the ten best lobbyists” in the state. Noted political writer Harvey Kronberg, author of the Quorum Report, called him “first rate… straightforward, low-key and effective.”
In 1992, Kraege founded Polan Culley Inc, originally called Polan Ingram Advocacy Group. The company represents clients ranging from professional business associations to Fortune 100 companies before the legislative and executive branches of Texas government. Kraege’s strong relationships have also garnered projects on the congressional level in Washington. Polan Culley is a charter member of The Advocacy Group, a Washington-based governmental firm, with lobbyists in all fifty states.
In addition to his successful lobby practice, Kraege has utilized his entrepreneurial talent to start several companies. He has served on the boards of banks and publicly traded companies, and founded a non-profit sports foundation.
Kraege is a native Texan and received his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas at Austin. He is married with three sons, and shares his love of hunting and fishing with his family.
From Vox: How 2018 voters could change America’s criminal justice system
- Click here for the article.
From ballot initiatives to local elections to the state and federal races, the 2018 midterm elections will give voters an opportunity to define the system charged with arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating people in America.
These races usually do not get the attention they deserve, especially state and local elections and particularly races for prosecutors. But they are tremendously important: Despite all the attention that goes to the federal system, the great majority of criminal justice work is done at the local and state level, where America’s police departments operate and most of the people in prison are locked up.
A criminal justice reform movement, galvanized by Black Lives Matter, civil rights issues, and prison spending’s strain on government budgets, has already led to some changes in recent years, from reforming prisons and police to reducing criminal penalties for certain crimes. The 2018 midterms offer an opportunity to continue the momentum behind criminal justice reform.
Here are some of the most pressing criminal justice issues on the ballot this November, covering debates over the war on drugs, mass incarceration, policing, crime victims’ rights, and more.
These races usually do not get the attention they deserve, especially state and local elections and particularly races for prosecutors. But they are tremendously important: Despite all the attention that goes to the federal system, the great majority of criminal justice work is done at the local and state level, where America’s police departments operate and most of the people in prison are locked up.
A criminal justice reform movement, galvanized by Black Lives Matter, civil rights issues, and prison spending’s strain on government budgets, has already led to some changes in recent years, from reforming prisons and police to reducing criminal penalties for certain crimes. The 2018 midterms offer an opportunity to continue the momentum behind criminal justice reform.
Here are some of the most pressing criminal justice issues on the ballot this November, covering debates over the war on drugs, mass incarceration, policing, crime victims’ rights, and more.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Hello Mr President - Documentary about Lyndon Baines Johnson by Charles ...
A good look at the inside of the LBJ presidency.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
From the Texas Tribune: Texas values collide in fight over Houston-Dallas high speed rail
- Click here for the article.
Private developer Texas Central Partners LLC plans to build a train that will shuttle people between Dallas and Houston in 90 minutes along a 240-mile route roughly parallel to a highway corridor that normally takes four hours to drive. This new link between two of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation — home to roughly half of the state’s 28 million residents — will help create “a super economy” says Holly Reed, Texas Central’s managing director of external affairs.
Texas Central sees the line as a mammoth example of a private entity addressing an infrastructure demand that government agencies are increasingly unable to tackle — and a chance to hook Americans on an alternative to highways that’s long connected major cities in Asia and Europe.
“There’s no doubt once people ride this train, they will want trains like this to go other places,” Reed adds.
The company’s ambitious vision has arrived just as American cities are starting to grasp the detrimental side effects and financial unsustainability of car-centric infrastructure that’s dominated urban planning since the end of World War II.
Texas Central officials say they have raised and spent at least $125 million, of which at least $75 million has come from Texas investors and individuals. In September, the company announced that it secured an additional $300 million in loans from two Japanese entities. But before Texas Central can create an interstate high-speed network in the United States, it’s got to prove high-speed rail is viable in Texas. Even as the company pushes forward with development — and brings on construction and operations partners — it faces daunting hurdles.
The company is embroiled in legal and bureaucratic debates about whether a private company can use eminent domain, a process that allows entities to condemn land it needs for a project and forcibly buy it from owners who aren’t willing to sell.
At the state Capitol, the bullet train represents the collision of two things that Republicans — who control Texas government — hold dear: private property rights and an unrestrained free market. And for two legislative sessions in a row, the free market has largely come out on top. The project has emerged relatively unscathed after bills aimed at hamstringing or killing it failed to get much traction.
“Big business is a big deal in the state of Texas,” says Kyle Workman, who heads the grassroots opposition group Texans Against High-Speed Rail, an organization that has galvanized rural Texans to lobby local and state leaders to stop the project. Workman says they’ll keep trying when lawmakers reconvene in January.
The political debate is an outgrowth of a larger question confronting a state where most people now live in urban areas: How much should rural residents have to sacrifice to solve problems born in the cities they intentionally avoided or outright fled?
Private developer Texas Central Partners LLC plans to build a train that will shuttle people between Dallas and Houston in 90 minutes along a 240-mile route roughly parallel to a highway corridor that normally takes four hours to drive. This new link between two of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation — home to roughly half of the state’s 28 million residents — will help create “a super economy” says Holly Reed, Texas Central’s managing director of external affairs.
Texas Central sees the line as a mammoth example of a private entity addressing an infrastructure demand that government agencies are increasingly unable to tackle — and a chance to hook Americans on an alternative to highways that’s long connected major cities in Asia and Europe.
“There’s no doubt once people ride this train, they will want trains like this to go other places,” Reed adds.
The company’s ambitious vision has arrived just as American cities are starting to grasp the detrimental side effects and financial unsustainability of car-centric infrastructure that’s dominated urban planning since the end of World War II.
Texas Central officials say they have raised and spent at least $125 million, of which at least $75 million has come from Texas investors and individuals. In September, the company announced that it secured an additional $300 million in loans from two Japanese entities. But before Texas Central can create an interstate high-speed network in the United States, it’s got to prove high-speed rail is viable in Texas. Even as the company pushes forward with development — and brings on construction and operations partners — it faces daunting hurdles.
The company is embroiled in legal and bureaucratic debates about whether a private company can use eminent domain, a process that allows entities to condemn land it needs for a project and forcibly buy it from owners who aren’t willing to sell.
At the state Capitol, the bullet train represents the collision of two things that Republicans — who control Texas government — hold dear: private property rights and an unrestrained free market. And for two legislative sessions in a row, the free market has largely come out on top. The project has emerged relatively unscathed after bills aimed at hamstringing or killing it failed to get much traction.
“Big business is a big deal in the state of Texas,” says Kyle Workman, who heads the grassroots opposition group Texans Against High-Speed Rail, an organization that has galvanized rural Texans to lobby local and state leaders to stop the project. Workman says they’ll keep trying when lawmakers reconvene in January.
The political debate is an outgrowth of a larger question confronting a state where most people now live in urban areas: How much should rural residents have to sacrifice to solve problems born in the cities they intentionally avoided or outright fled?
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
From Wonkblog: Low voter turnout is no accident, according to a ranking of the ease of voting in all 50 states
- Click here for thew article.
There are a lot of factors that affect voter turnout in the United States — race, income, education, electoral competitiveness, the list goes on and on.
Many of those factors are outside policymakers' control. But there’s one big realm that they have a lot of influence over: voting access laws, which vary significantly from state to state. Is early voting allowed? How about no-excuse absentee voting? Are there strict voter ID laws, lax ones or none at all? Can convicted felons vote?
These laws generally affect how easy it is to cast a ballot in a given election. In a new report, political scientists at Northern Illinois University, Jacksonville University and China’s Wuhan University seek to quantify the net effect of a state’s election laws to determine the “time and effort” it takes to vote there. They call their project the Cost of Voting Index and have published it in the September issue of the Election Law Journal.
To create the index, the researchers collected data on 33 types of election laws that generally fell into seven different categories: voter-registration deadlines, restrictions on registrations and registration drives, preregistration laws that allow people under 18 to register in advance of their first elections, laws governing ease of voting (like early and absentee voting), voter ID requirements and polling hours.
There are a lot of factors that affect voter turnout in the United States — race, income, education, electoral competitiveness, the list goes on and on.
Many of those factors are outside policymakers' control. But there’s one big realm that they have a lot of influence over: voting access laws, which vary significantly from state to state. Is early voting allowed? How about no-excuse absentee voting? Are there strict voter ID laws, lax ones or none at all? Can convicted felons vote?
These laws generally affect how easy it is to cast a ballot in a given election. In a new report, political scientists at Northern Illinois University, Jacksonville University and China’s Wuhan University seek to quantify the net effect of a state’s election laws to determine the “time and effort” it takes to vote there. They call their project the Cost of Voting Index and have published it in the September issue of the Election Law Journal.
To create the index, the researchers collected data on 33 types of election laws that generally fell into seven different categories: voter-registration deadlines, restrictions on registrations and registration drives, preregistration laws that allow people under 18 to register in advance of their first elections, laws governing ease of voting (like early and absentee voting), voter ID requirements and polling hours.
Monday, October 22, 2018
What's going on here?
For this week's GOVT 2305 written assignment.
- Click here for the source (the image will be clearer there).
- Click here for the source (the image will be clearer there).
For and Against Proposition 2
For this week's written assignment, I'm asking my ACC GOVT students to outline the arguments for and against Proposition 2 - which is on the ballot for residents of Houston.
- Click here for the ballot language
For: - Vote for Prop. B to give Houston firefighters the same pay as police officers [Opinion].
Against: - Turner: Vote against Prop. B because firefighters deserve a raise the city can afford [Opinion].
For more:
- Turner Kicks Off Campaign Against Firefighter Pay Parity Amendment.
Turner's opinion piece mentions a 2004 election putting a cap on revenue collection in Houston. Here's more on that:
- Proposition 1 Charter Amendment.
- Houston voters to decide on Proposition 1.
- City Council trims Houston tax rate to comply with revenue cap.
- What has Houston's revenue cap saved you?
- Click here for the ballot language
For: - Vote for Prop. B to give Houston firefighters the same pay as police officers [Opinion].
Against: - Turner: Vote against Prop. B because firefighters deserve a raise the city can afford [Opinion].
For more:
- Turner Kicks Off Campaign Against Firefighter Pay Parity Amendment.
Turner's opinion piece mentions a 2004 election putting a cap on revenue collection in Houston. Here's more on that:
- Proposition 1 Charter Amendment.
- Houston voters to decide on Proposition 1.
- City Council trims Houston tax rate to comply with revenue cap.
- What has Houston's revenue cap saved you?
From the NYT: Senate, for Just the 8th Time, Votes to Oust a Federal Judge
Covered in class this morning. This is the last time a federal official was removed from office.
- Click for the article.
The Senate on Wednesday found Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court in Louisiana guilty on four articles of impeachment and removed him from the bench, the first time the Senate has ousted a federal judge in more than two decades.
Judge Porteous, the eighth federal judge to be removed from office in this manner, was impeached by the House in March on four articles stemming from charges that he received cash and favors from lawyers who had dealings in his court, used a false name to elude creditors and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings. The behavior amounted to a “pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him,” according to the articles against him.
All 96 senators present voted “guilty” on the first article, which concerned his time as a state court judge and his subsequent failure to recuse himself from matters involving a former law partner, with whom he was accused of trading favors for cash.
Tapping his fingers nervously on the table as he looked at the paper where his lawyer kept track of each vote, Judge Porteous waited in vain for a “not guilty” vote. As the last of the senators stood to formally render a decision, a lawyer for the judge reached over to squeeze his arm in consolation.
- Wikipedia: Thomas Porteous.
- Click for the article.
The Senate on Wednesday found Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court in Louisiana guilty on four articles of impeachment and removed him from the bench, the first time the Senate has ousted a federal judge in more than two decades.
Judge Porteous, the eighth federal judge to be removed from office in this manner, was impeached by the House in March on four articles stemming from charges that he received cash and favors from lawyers who had dealings in his court, used a false name to elude creditors and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings. The behavior amounted to a “pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him,” according to the articles against him.
All 96 senators present voted “guilty” on the first article, which concerned his time as a state court judge and his subsequent failure to recuse himself from matters involving a former law partner, with whom he was accused of trading favors for cash.
Tapping his fingers nervously on the table as he looked at the paper where his lawyer kept track of each vote, Judge Porteous waited in vain for a “not guilty” vote. As the last of the senators stood to formally render a decision, a lawyer for the judge reached over to squeeze his arm in consolation.
- Wikipedia: Thomas Porteous.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Fron the Monkey Cage: In the 2018 midterms, many more people are running — and far more seats are contested — than we’ve seen for a generation.
- Click here for the article.
The 2018 elections differ from previous midterms in so many ways. And one, at least, is a good sign for democracy: Many more people are running for office this time around.
Elections are the linchpin of representative government — but only if there’s actual competition among candidates. This year’s midterms are being more vigorously contested than those in the past, mostly because more Democratic women are running for office, particularly in the South.
. . . Nearly all U.S. House seats have been contested in recent years, so this year’s 4 percent uncontested rate isn’t big news. But some key aspects of these contests are different in 2018. Building on a trend, Democrats are challenging Republican incumbents far more often than Republicans are challenging Democratic incumbents. Among the 435 House seats, Democrats are running in 428 while Republicans are running in only 393. And many more of the nominees are female this time around, mainly as Democrats.
Numbers have jumped more dramatically in state legislative elections. As we have noted elsewhere, state legislative seats are usually far more likely to go uncontested. But 2018 has clearly interrupted that trend.
In states with lower-house elections, only 27 percent of the seats aren’t contested this year. Compare that to the rate in 2014, when 35 percent of state lower-house races were uncontested. Yes, that’s a much higher rate of unchallenged seats than we’ve seen for Congress — but this year’s uncontested rate for state legislatures is the lowest in 46 years.
The 2018 elections differ from previous midterms in so many ways. And one, at least, is a good sign for democracy: Many more people are running for office this time around.
Elections are the linchpin of representative government — but only if there’s actual competition among candidates. This year’s midterms are being more vigorously contested than those in the past, mostly because more Democratic women are running for office, particularly in the South.
. . . Nearly all U.S. House seats have been contested in recent years, so this year’s 4 percent uncontested rate isn’t big news. But some key aspects of these contests are different in 2018. Building on a trend, Democrats are challenging Republican incumbents far more often than Republicans are challenging Democratic incumbents. Among the 435 House seats, Democrats are running in 428 while Republicans are running in only 393. And many more of the nominees are female this time around, mainly as Democrats.
Numbers have jumped more dramatically in state legislative elections. As we have noted elsewhere, state legislative seats are usually far more likely to go uncontested. But 2018 has clearly interrupted that trend.
In states with lower-house elections, only 27 percent of the seats aren’t contested this year. Compare that to the rate in 2014, when 35 percent of state lower-house races were uncontested. Yes, that’s a much higher rate of unchallenged seats than we’ve seen for Congress — but this year’s uncontested rate for state legislatures is the lowest in 46 years.
The 2018 elections differ from previous midterms in so many ways. And one, at least, is a good sign for democracy: Many more people are running for office this time around.
Elections are the linchpin of representative government — but only if there’s actual competition among candidates. This year’s midterms are being more vigorously contested than those in the past, mostly because more Democratic women are running for office, particularly in the South.
More candidates running for state legislature
As Steven Rogers noted early in this year’s primary season, the number of candidates is up, especially in elections for state legislatures. Now that the summer primary season has ended, we can revisit Rogers’s preview of the general election with some firm data.
We calculated the rate at which offices go uncontested, comparing it with previous elections. When only one candidate’s name appears on the ballot, with no one running against him or her, that’s an uncontested seat. (For the few states that use multi-member districts, we consider a race uncontested if the number of candidates is not higher than the number of seats up for grabs.)
Nearly all U.S. House seats have been contested in recent years, so this year’s 4 percent uncontested rate isn’t big news. But some key aspects of these contests are different in 2018. Building on a trend, Democrats are challenging Republican incumbents far more often than Republicans are challenging Democratic incumbents. Among the 435 House seats, Democrats are running in 428 while Republicans are running in only 393. And many more of the nominees are female this time around, mainly as Democrats.
Numbers have jumped more dramatically in state legislative elections. As we have noted elsewhere, state legislative seats are usually far more likely to go uncontested. But 2018 has clearly interrupted that trend.
In states with lower-house elections, only 27 percent of the seats aren’t contested this year. Compare that to the rate in 2014, when 35 percent of state lower-house races were uncontested. Yes, that’s a much higher rate of unchallenged seats than we’ve seen for Congress — but this year’s uncontested rate for state legislatures is the lowest in 46 years.
From the Texas Trubune: Did you register to vote in Texas before the deadline but can’t confirm it online? Here’s why.
Texas does not make it easy to vote, continued....
- Click here for the article.
The last-minute efforts to register people to vote by the 30-day deadline ahead of each election typically result in what local election officials have previously described as a paper tsunami.
Whether Texans drop their registration cards into a mailbox or sign up through a volunteer voter registrar, thousands of voter registration cards pour into local elections offices where county workers rush to process them in the short window between the registration deadline and the day Texans begin heading to the polls.
Because Texas does not allow for online voter registration, election officials verifying voter registration cards have to manually enter each new voter’s information into their local voter database — a time-consuming process that often leads to backlogs in the weeks before elections.
Election workers are left to decipher people’s handwriting, which can often be illegible, county workers say. And in some cases, prospective voters leave blanks in their applications, forcing officials to mail out individual notices about incomplete registrations so they can be resolved. When an application is complete, counties must then send the voter file to the secretary of state’s office, which then verifies and adds the voter to its statewide database.
For more:
- How a federal lawsuit could open the door to online voter registration in Texas.
- Click here for the article.
The last-minute efforts to register people to vote by the 30-day deadline ahead of each election typically result in what local election officials have previously described as a paper tsunami.
Whether Texans drop their registration cards into a mailbox or sign up through a volunteer voter registrar, thousands of voter registration cards pour into local elections offices where county workers rush to process them in the short window between the registration deadline and the day Texans begin heading to the polls.
Because Texas does not allow for online voter registration, election officials verifying voter registration cards have to manually enter each new voter’s information into their local voter database — a time-consuming process that often leads to backlogs in the weeks before elections.
Election workers are left to decipher people’s handwriting, which can often be illegible, county workers say. And in some cases, prospective voters leave blanks in their applications, forcing officials to mail out individual notices about incomplete registrations so they can be resolved. When an application is complete, counties must then send the voter file to the secretary of state’s office, which then verifies and adds the voter to its statewide database.
For more:
- How a federal lawsuit could open the door to online voter registration in Texas.
From the Money Cage: The Supreme Court hasn’t followed public opinion for 50 years. Why would it start now?
- Click here for the article.
We argue that understanding how public opinion may affect court decisions depends crucially on the Warren Court era (1953-1969). The Warren Court was historically liberal at a time when overall public opinion was also trending liberal. As a result, court decisions and public opinion were pretty strongly correlated during these years.
But if you set aside the Warren Court era, the picture changes. To show this, we drew on a measure of public opinion created by political scientist James Stimson. This measure combines survey questions about a wide range of topics into a single measure of the relative liberalism or conservatism of the American public. Higher values on this measure indicate a relatively more liberal public. Obviously, public opinion is more complex than this single measure, but it nicely captures the overall ideological “mood” of the country.
We argue that understanding how public opinion may affect court decisions depends crucially on the Warren Court era (1953-1969). The Warren Court was historically liberal at a time when overall public opinion was also trending liberal. As a result, court decisions and public opinion were pretty strongly correlated during these years.
But if you set aside the Warren Court era, the picture changes. To show this, we drew on a measure of public opinion created by political scientist James Stimson. This measure combines survey questions about a wide range of topics into a single measure of the relative liberalism or conservatism of the American public. Higher values on this measure indicate a relatively more liberal public. Obviously, public opinion is more complex than this single measure, but it nicely captures the overall ideological “mood” of the country.
From CNN: Exclusive club: Harvard, Yale and former clerks dominate Supreme Court
- Click here for the article.
The confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh reinforces the elitism of the nine.
Even before the retirement of Anthony Kennedy this summer, all justices had attended either Harvard or Yale law school. But with the addition of Kavanaugh, the high court passed a new marker of exclusivity: For the first time ever, a majority of the sitting justices once served as Supreme Court law clerks.
This amounts to more than a peculiar fact of biography. It demonstrates how narrow and selective the path to the Supreme Court has become. Most of these justices have emerged from insular, privileged backgrounds in the meritocracy. The two most recent justices, Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, attended the same preparatory school in suburban Washington, and Chief Justice John Roberts himself graduated from a prep boarding school in northern Indiana.
Appointed for life, justices like Kavanaugh, who is only 53, are in a position to shape the nation's law for decades. Among the controversies the justices are likely to resolve in coming years are those testing partisan gerrymanders and voting districts; abortion rights and health care; and the reach of environmental, consumer and other regulatory protections.
But unlike some of the litigants who come before the high court, the majority has simply not faced economic hardship or discrimination in their adult lives.
Sonia Sotomayor, who became the first Latina justice in 2009, gave voice to her distinct experience in a 2014 affirmative action case. She referred in a dissenting opinion to the debilitating effects of discrimination.
"Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here,'" Sotomayor wrote.
Also: How John Roberts will manage the Supreme Court's conservative majority
The confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh reinforces the elitism of the nine.
Even before the retirement of Anthony Kennedy this summer, all justices had attended either Harvard or Yale law school. But with the addition of Kavanaugh, the high court passed a new marker of exclusivity: For the first time ever, a majority of the sitting justices once served as Supreme Court law clerks.
This amounts to more than a peculiar fact of biography. It demonstrates how narrow and selective the path to the Supreme Court has become. Most of these justices have emerged from insular, privileged backgrounds in the meritocracy. The two most recent justices, Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, attended the same preparatory school in suburban Washington, and Chief Justice John Roberts himself graduated from a prep boarding school in northern Indiana.
Appointed for life, justices like Kavanaugh, who is only 53, are in a position to shape the nation's law for decades. Among the controversies the justices are likely to resolve in coming years are those testing partisan gerrymanders and voting districts; abortion rights and health care; and the reach of environmental, consumer and other regulatory protections.
But unlike some of the litigants who come before the high court, the majority has simply not faced economic hardship or discrimination in their adult lives.
Sonia Sotomayor, who became the first Latina justice in 2009, gave voice to her distinct experience in a 2014 affirmative action case. She referred in a dissenting opinion to the debilitating effects of discrimination.
"Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here,'" Sotomayor wrote.
Also: How John Roberts will manage the Supreme Court's conservative majority
Chief Justice John Roberts on the Supreme Court (C-SPAN)
Commentary: John Roberts touts collegiality, but Supreme Court's record suggests otherwise.
And from ScotusBlog.
Court-watchers continue to consider the effect of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation on future Supreme Court decisions and on the court as an institution. At CNN, Joan Biskupic writes that although “[i]n the wake of the divisive Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday tried to assure the public that the US Supreme Court serves the whole country, not one political party over another, and that it is committed to collegiality,” “America’s highest court is deeply split along ideological and political lines, and Roberts sometimes fosters that divide.” In an episode of New York magazine Daily Intelligencer’s 2038 podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talks about what the court might look like in 20 years. Focusing on the nearer future, Daniel Hemel points out at Take Care that “Roberts Court doctrines regarding the Commerce Clause, compelled speech, commercial speech, RFRA, federalism, and agency deference don’t always tilt toward the right.” At National Review, Conrad Black maintains that “[n]ow that the dust is settling on the Kavanaugh affair, it is well to remember that much of the concern over the stance he may take as a judge could be unjustified,” and that because “[t]hese are life appointments, and judges’ views change once they are installed,” “[t]he calculation of a solid conservative majority is apt to be fragile in fact.”
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
From Vox: A new study reveals the real reason Obama voters switched to Trump - Hint: It has to do with race.
Race matters.
- Click here for the article.
The study, from three political scientists from around the country, takes a statistical look at a large sample of Obama-Trump switchers. It finds that these voters tended to score highly on measures of racial hostility and xenophobia — and were not especially likely to be suffering economically.
“White voters with racially conservative or anti-immigrant attitudes switched votes to Trump at a higher rate than those with more liberal views on these issues,” the paper’s authors write. “We find little evidence that economic dislocation and marginality were significantly related to vote switching in 2016.”
This new paper fits with a sizeable slate of studies conducted over the past 18 months or so, most of which have come to the same conclusions: There is tremendous evidence that Trump voters were motivated by racial resentment (as well as hostile sexism), and very little evidence that economic stress had anything to do with it.
This isn’t just a matter of historical interest or ideological ax-grinding. Understanding the precise way in which racism affected the 2016 election should shape how we think about the electorate in the run-up to the 2018 midterms. More broadly, it helps us understand the subtleties of America’s primordial divide over race — and why racism will continue to fracture the country politically for the foreseeable future.
- Click here for the article.
The study, from three political scientists from around the country, takes a statistical look at a large sample of Obama-Trump switchers. It finds that these voters tended to score highly on measures of racial hostility and xenophobia — and were not especially likely to be suffering economically.
“White voters with racially conservative or anti-immigrant attitudes switched votes to Trump at a higher rate than those with more liberal views on these issues,” the paper’s authors write. “We find little evidence that economic dislocation and marginality were significantly related to vote switching in 2016.”
This new paper fits with a sizeable slate of studies conducted over the past 18 months or so, most of which have come to the same conclusions: There is tremendous evidence that Trump voters were motivated by racial resentment (as well as hostile sexism), and very little evidence that economic stress had anything to do with it.
This isn’t just a matter of historical interest or ideological ax-grinding. Understanding the precise way in which racism affected the 2016 election should shape how we think about the electorate in the run-up to the 2018 midterms. More broadly, it helps us understand the subtleties of America’s primordial divide over race — and why racism will continue to fracture the country politically for the foreseeable future.
Monday, October 15, 2018
The Enforcement Act of 1870
An early effort by the national government to enforce the 15th Amendment. It also focused on the Ku Klux Klan
- Click here for the wikipedia entry on it.
The Enforcement Act of 1870 prohibited discrimination by state officials in voter registration on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It established penalties for interfering with a person's right to vote and gave federal courts the power to enforce the act. The act also authorized the President to employ the use of the army to uphold the act and the use of federal marshals to bring charges against offenders for election fraud, the bribery or intimidation of voters, and conspiracies to prevent citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.
See also: Enforcement Acts.
- Click here for the wikipedia entry on it.
The Enforcement Act of 1870 prohibited discrimination by state officials in voter registration on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It established penalties for interfering with a person's right to vote and gave federal courts the power to enforce the act. The act also authorized the President to employ the use of the army to uphold the act and the use of federal marshals to bring charges against offenders for election fraud, the bribery or intimidation of voters, and conspiracies to prevent citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.
See also: Enforcement Acts.
Immigrant Voting Rights
It was not uncommon aqt one point. Texas allowed it until 1921.
- Click here for SJR 1.
- DEMOCRACY FOR ALL?: THE CASE FOR RESTORING IMMIGRANT VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.
Americans are usually surprised to learn that immigrants enjoyed voting rights for most of our history and throughout the vast majority of the country. In fact, from 1776 to 1926, forty states and federal territories permitted noncitizens to vote in local, state and even federal elections. Noncitizens also held public office, such as alderman, coroner, and school board member. In practice, immigrant voting promoted civic education and citizenship. Immigrants learned civics by practice. Immigrant voting was also an effective method for facilitating the incorporation of immigrants. The notion that noncitizens should have the vote is older, was practiced longer, and is more consistent with democratic ideals than the idea that they should not. Curiously, this 150-year history has been eviscerated from American national memory.
Nor is immigrant voting merely a relic of the distant past. Noncitizens currently vote in local elections in over a half dozen cities and towns in the U.S., most notably in Chicago’s school elections and in all local elections in six towns in Maryland. In addition, campaigns to expand the franchise to noncitizens – primarily in local elections – have been launched in more than a dozen other jurisdictions during the past decade, including in New York, Massachusetts, Washington D.C, California, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, and Texas. These campaigns propose to restore voting rights for immigrants in local elections; only a few have contemplated state level elections, and none would grant voting to immigrants in any federal/national election. There are slight variations in which categories of noncitizens can vote. Some cities and towns allow all immigrants to vote, including the undocumented or so-called “illegal” (Chicago and Maryland), while other places grant suffrage only to the documented or “legal” immigrants (Massachusetts). Differences also exist regarding which elections noncitizens can vote in, such as in school board elections, municipal elections, or state races. Although different terms are used to describe immigrant voting, including “noncitizen voting,” “resident voting,” “local citizenship,” and “alien suffrage,” they all mean essentially the same thing: enfranchising or restoring voting rights to those who are excluded from the electorate — immigrants who are not U.S. citizens.
- Click here for SJR 1.
- DEMOCRACY FOR ALL?: THE CASE FOR RESTORING IMMIGRANT VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.
Americans are usually surprised to learn that immigrants enjoyed voting rights for most of our history and throughout the vast majority of the country. In fact, from 1776 to 1926, forty states and federal territories permitted noncitizens to vote in local, state and even federal elections. Noncitizens also held public office, such as alderman, coroner, and school board member. In practice, immigrant voting promoted civic education and citizenship. Immigrants learned civics by practice. Immigrant voting was also an effective method for facilitating the incorporation of immigrants. The notion that noncitizens should have the vote is older, was practiced longer, and is more consistent with democratic ideals than the idea that they should not. Curiously, this 150-year history has been eviscerated from American national memory.
Nor is immigrant voting merely a relic of the distant past. Noncitizens currently vote in local elections in over a half dozen cities and towns in the U.S., most notably in Chicago’s school elections and in all local elections in six towns in Maryland. In addition, campaigns to expand the franchise to noncitizens – primarily in local elections – have been launched in more than a dozen other jurisdictions during the past decade, including in New York, Massachusetts, Washington D.C, California, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, and Texas. These campaigns propose to restore voting rights for immigrants in local elections; only a few have contemplated state level elections, and none would grant voting to immigrants in any federal/national election. There are slight variations in which categories of noncitizens can vote. Some cities and towns allow all immigrants to vote, including the undocumented or so-called “illegal” (Chicago and Maryland), while other places grant suffrage only to the documented or “legal” immigrants (Massachusetts). Differences also exist regarding which elections noncitizens can vote in, such as in school board elections, municipal elections, or state races. Although different terms are used to describe immigrant voting, including “noncitizen voting,” “resident voting,” “local citizenship,” and “alien suffrage,” they all mean essentially the same thing: enfranchising or restoring voting rights to those who are excluded from the electorate — immigrants who are not U.S. citizens.
Carrington v. Rash
The US Supreme Court case overturned restrictions in the Texas Constitution from voting in Texas.
- Click here for it.
From the majority decision.
A provision of the Texas Constitution prohibits "[a]ny member of the Armed Forces of the United States" who moves his home to Texas during the course of his military duty from ever voting in any election in that State "so long as he or she is a member of the Armed Forces." 1 [380 U.S. 89, 90] The question presented is whether this provision, as construed by the Supreme Court of Texas in the present case, 2 deprives the petitioner of a right secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Texas decided that it does not and refused to issue a writ of mandamus ordering petitioner's local election officials to permit him to vote, two Justices dissenting. 378 S. W. 2d 304. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 812 .
The petitioner, a sergeant in the United States Army, entered the service from Alabama in 1946 at the age of 18.[380 U.S. 89, 91] The State concedes that he has been domiciled in Texas since 1962, and that he intends to make his home there permanently. He has purchased a house in El Paso where he lives with his wife and two children. He is also the proprietor of a small business there. The petitioner's post of military duty is not in Texas, but at White Sands, New Mexico. He regularly commutes from his home in El Paso to his Army job at White Sands. He pays property taxes in Texas and has his automobile registered there. But for his uniform, the State concedes that the petitioner would be eligible to vote in El Paso County, Texas.
Texas has unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot. Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 . There can be no doubt either of the historic function of the States to establish, on a nondiscriminatory basis, and in accordance with the Constitution, other qualifications for the exercise of the franchise. Indeed, "[t]he States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised." Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 50 . Compare United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 ; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . "In other words, the privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals in violation of the Federal Constitution." Pope v. Williams, supra, at 632.
This Texas constitutional provision, however, is unique. 3 Texas has said that no serviceman may ever [380 U.S. 89, 92] acquire a voting residence in the State so long as he remains in service.
. . . We deal here with matters close to the core of our constitutional system. "The right . . . to choose," United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314 , that this Court has been so zealous to protect, means, at the least, that States may not casually deprive a class of individuals of the vote because of some remote administrative benefit to the State. Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 . By forbidding a soldier ever to controvert the presumption of nonresidence, the Texas Constitution imposes an invidious discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. "[T]here is no indication in the Constitution that . . . occupation affords a permissible basis for distinguishing between qualified voters within the State." Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380 .
We recognize that special problems may be involved in determining whether servicemen have actually acquired a new domicile in a State for franchise purposes. We emphasize that Texas is free to take reasonable and adequate steps, as have other States, 6 to see that all applicants for the vote actually fulfill the requirements of bona fide residence. But this constitutional provision goes beyond such rules. "[T]he presumption here created is . . . definitely conclusive - incapable of being overcome by proof of the most positive character." Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 324 . All servicemen not residents of Texas before induction come within the provision's sweep. Not one of them can ever vote in Texas, no matter how [380 U.S. 89, 97] long Texas may have been his true home. "[T]he uniform of our country . . . [must not] be the badge of disfranchisement for the man or woman who wears it." 7
- Click here for it.
From the majority decision.
A provision of the Texas Constitution prohibits "[a]ny member of the Armed Forces of the United States" who moves his home to Texas during the course of his military duty from ever voting in any election in that State "so long as he or she is a member of the Armed Forces." 1 [380 U.S. 89, 90] The question presented is whether this provision, as construed by the Supreme Court of Texas in the present case, 2 deprives the petitioner of a right secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Texas decided that it does not and refused to issue a writ of mandamus ordering petitioner's local election officials to permit him to vote, two Justices dissenting. 378 S. W. 2d 304. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 812 .
The petitioner, a sergeant in the United States Army, entered the service from Alabama in 1946 at the age of 18.[380 U.S. 89, 91] The State concedes that he has been domiciled in Texas since 1962, and that he intends to make his home there permanently. He has purchased a house in El Paso where he lives with his wife and two children. He is also the proprietor of a small business there. The petitioner's post of military duty is not in Texas, but at White Sands, New Mexico. He regularly commutes from his home in El Paso to his Army job at White Sands. He pays property taxes in Texas and has his automobile registered there. But for his uniform, the State concedes that the petitioner would be eligible to vote in El Paso County, Texas.
Texas has unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot. Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 . There can be no doubt either of the historic function of the States to establish, on a nondiscriminatory basis, and in accordance with the Constitution, other qualifications for the exercise of the franchise. Indeed, "[t]he States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised." Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 50 . Compare United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 ; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . "In other words, the privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals in violation of the Federal Constitution." Pope v. Williams, supra, at 632.
This Texas constitutional provision, however, is unique. 3 Texas has said that no serviceman may ever [380 U.S. 89, 92] acquire a voting residence in the State so long as he remains in service.
. . . We deal here with matters close to the core of our constitutional system. "The right . . . to choose," United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314 , that this Court has been so zealous to protect, means, at the least, that States may not casually deprive a class of individuals of the vote because of some remote administrative benefit to the State. Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 . By forbidding a soldier ever to controvert the presumption of nonresidence, the Texas Constitution imposes an invidious discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. "[T]here is no indication in the Constitution that . . . occupation affords a permissible basis for distinguishing between qualified voters within the State." Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380 .
We recognize that special problems may be involved in determining whether servicemen have actually acquired a new domicile in a State for franchise purposes. We emphasize that Texas is free to take reasonable and adequate steps, as have other States, 6 to see that all applicants for the vote actually fulfill the requirements of bona fide residence. But this constitutional provision goes beyond such rules. "[T]he presumption here created is . . . definitely conclusive - incapable of being overcome by proof of the most positive character." Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 324 . All servicemen not residents of Texas before induction come within the provision's sweep. Not one of them can ever vote in Texas, no matter how [380 U.S. 89, 97] long Texas may have been his true home. "[T]he uniform of our country . . . [must not] be the badge of disfranchisement for the man or woman who wears it." 7
About the right of military personnel to vote
It hasn't always been
- Washington Post: Should soldiers’ votes get counted? That’s not as easy as you’d think.
For most of U.S. history, military personnel have not been able to vote. State laws and constitutions often specifically restricted military personnel from participating in the franchise. Attitudes about voting soldiers started to change when the Civil War called large numbers of citizens for military service—but action was tempered by partisan politics.
Some states let Civil War soldiers vote, despite fears of fraud
The Civil War was the first time the United States had large numbers of soldiers deployed during a presidential election. Politicians of both parties were convinced that the army would vote for the commander-in-chief, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican. As a result, most states with Republican governors and legislatures passed laws enabling soldiers to vote, while most states led by Democrats did not. Those voting soldiers probably helped Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and influenced a few local elections in various states.
Here was the problem: Then as now, voting was usually conducted in local precincts. The idea that someone not physically present in their home county could cast a ballot was essentially unheard of. Many believed that absentee ballots invited election fraud.
Also:
- Military Voting and the Law.
- Washington Post: Should soldiers’ votes get counted? That’s not as easy as you’d think.
For most of U.S. history, military personnel have not been able to vote. State laws and constitutions often specifically restricted military personnel from participating in the franchise. Attitudes about voting soldiers started to change when the Civil War called large numbers of citizens for military service—but action was tempered by partisan politics.
Some states let Civil War soldiers vote, despite fears of fraud
The Civil War was the first time the United States had large numbers of soldiers deployed during a presidential election. Politicians of both parties were convinced that the army would vote for the commander-in-chief, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican. As a result, most states with Republican governors and legislatures passed laws enabling soldiers to vote, while most states led by Democrats did not. Those voting soldiers probably helped Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and influenced a few local elections in various states.
Here was the problem: Then as now, voting was usually conducted in local precincts. The idea that someone not physically present in their home county could cast a ballot was essentially unheard of. Many believed that absentee ballots invited election fraud.
Also:
- Military Voting and the Law.
Friday, October 12, 2018
From USA Today: Death knell for capital punishment? Washington becomes 20th state to ban executions
I'm asking my HCC 2306 students whether this trend might eventually come to Texas.
- Click here for the article.
On the surface, Thursday’s decision by the state of Washington’s Supreme Court declaring its death penalty unconstitutional might seem to impact only the folks tucked away in the nation's northwestern corner.
After all, as the 20th state to ban or suspend capital punishment, Washington remains in the minority. And the state’s highest court did not rule the death penalty illegal in and of itself, but rather the way it has been carried out, saying it is “imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner.’’
Legal scholars, however, see this as the latest step toward the continued abolition of the punishment, its death knell, so to speak, and believe Washington’s move toward commuting death sentences to life in prison will become more the rule than the exception across the United States.
“It is part of a very clear trend over the last 10 years of states abolishing the death penalty, either through their legislature, like in New Jersey, or through their courts, like in Washington, New York and some of the other states,’’ said Ellen Kreitzberg, a Santa Clara University law professor who has written extensively about capital punishment.
Since a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty was lifted in 1976, executions in the U.S. peaked at 98 in 1999 but have declined at a fairly steady rate since then, to 23 in 2017 and 18 so far this year, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
- States with and without the death penalty.
- Click here for the article.
On the surface, Thursday’s decision by the state of Washington’s Supreme Court declaring its death penalty unconstitutional might seem to impact only the folks tucked away in the nation's northwestern corner.
After all, as the 20th state to ban or suspend capital punishment, Washington remains in the minority. And the state’s highest court did not rule the death penalty illegal in and of itself, but rather the way it has been carried out, saying it is “imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner.’’
Legal scholars, however, see this as the latest step toward the continued abolition of the punishment, its death knell, so to speak, and believe Washington’s move toward commuting death sentences to life in prison will become more the rule than the exception across the United States.
“It is part of a very clear trend over the last 10 years of states abolishing the death penalty, either through their legislature, like in New Jersey, or through their courts, like in Washington, New York and some of the other states,’’ said Ellen Kreitzberg, a Santa Clara University law professor who has written extensively about capital punishment.
Since a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty was lifted in 1976, executions in the U.S. peaked at 98 in 1999 but have declined at a fairly steady rate since then, to 23 in 2017 and 18 so far this year, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
- States with and without the death penalty.
From the Atlantic: Of Mice And Men: The Execution of Marvin Wilson
I received a few questions about Wilson's execution from my ACC 2306 classes.
Wilson was "mentally retarded," which shoudl have exempted him from execution following the Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, but Texas found a loophole in the majority decision.
- Click here for the article.
At 6:26 p.m local time last night, an hour or so after the last appeal was denied, Texas executed a mentally retarded black man named Marvin Wilson, a man who could not handle money or navigate a phone book, a man who sucked his thumb and could not always tell the difference between left and right, a man who, as a child, could not match his socks, tie his shoes or button his clothes, a 54-year-old man with an IQ of 61* which, his attorneys were quick to point out, is "below the first percentile of human intelligence."
. . . One of the members of the Court's majority in Atkins was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She's long gone, replaced by the arch-conservative Samuel Alito. Another in the majority in Atkins was Justice Anthony Kennedy. Three years later, It was Justice Kennedy who authored Roper v. Simmons, a 2005 case which outlawed the execution of juvenile offenders. In the intervening seven years, and even last term, Justice Kennedy has consistently sought to narrow the scope of sentencing. Yet Tuesday he was silent.
Can you explain that? I cannot. How can it be possible that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a mentally retarded man with a IQ of 59 but not a mentally retarded man with a IQ of 61? Alas, here we must turn to the other part of Atkins, what the execution of Wilson informs us now is the most important part of Atkins, the part that immediately undermined the scope of the remedy granted in the case. After all, in Atkins, didn't Justices Stevens, O'Connor, and Kennedy all sign on to this language?:
To the extent there is serious disagreement about the execution of mentally retarded offenders, it is in determining which offenders are in fact retarded... Not all people who claim to be mentally retarded will be so impaired as to fall within the range of mentally retarded offenders about whom there is a national consensus. As was our approach in Ford v. Wainwright, with regard to insanity, we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences.
It was the last sentence which spelled doom last night for Marvin Wilson. Since 2002, those words have allowed states like Texas, and Georgia, to nurture and protect statutes and case law that directly contradict the spirit, if not the letter, of Atkins. For example, Georgia relies upon a statute which makes the mentally retarded inmate prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he warrants protection under Atkins, a burden no jury ever gets to weigh. Instead, prison doctors and state judges, the same folks who steered pre-Atkins law, get to decide when a condemned man has proven enough retardation to be spared.
For more:
- ABA: Executing the Mentally Ill.
- ACS: Executing the Mentally Ill.
- NYT: Does the U.S. Execute People with Mental Illness? It's Complicated.
Wilson was "mentally retarded," which shoudl have exempted him from execution following the Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, but Texas found a loophole in the majority decision.
- Click here for the article.
At 6:26 p.m local time last night, an hour or so after the last appeal was denied, Texas executed a mentally retarded black man named Marvin Wilson, a man who could not handle money or navigate a phone book, a man who sucked his thumb and could not always tell the difference between left and right, a man who, as a child, could not match his socks, tie his shoes or button his clothes, a 54-year-old man with an IQ of 61* which, his attorneys were quick to point out, is "below the first percentile of human intelligence."
. . . One of the members of the Court's majority in Atkins was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She's long gone, replaced by the arch-conservative Samuel Alito. Another in the majority in Atkins was Justice Anthony Kennedy. Three years later, It was Justice Kennedy who authored Roper v. Simmons, a 2005 case which outlawed the execution of juvenile offenders. In the intervening seven years, and even last term, Justice Kennedy has consistently sought to narrow the scope of sentencing. Yet Tuesday he was silent.
Can you explain that? I cannot. How can it be possible that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a mentally retarded man with a IQ of 59 but not a mentally retarded man with a IQ of 61? Alas, here we must turn to the other part of Atkins, what the execution of Wilson informs us now is the most important part of Atkins, the part that immediately undermined the scope of the remedy granted in the case. After all, in Atkins, didn't Justices Stevens, O'Connor, and Kennedy all sign on to this language?:
To the extent there is serious disagreement about the execution of mentally retarded offenders, it is in determining which offenders are in fact retarded... Not all people who claim to be mentally retarded will be so impaired as to fall within the range of mentally retarded offenders about whom there is a national consensus. As was our approach in Ford v. Wainwright, with regard to insanity, we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences.
It was the last sentence which spelled doom last night for Marvin Wilson. Since 2002, those words have allowed states like Texas, and Georgia, to nurture and protect statutes and case law that directly contradict the spirit, if not the letter, of Atkins. For example, Georgia relies upon a statute which makes the mentally retarded inmate prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he warrants protection under Atkins, a burden no jury ever gets to weigh. Instead, prison doctors and state judges, the same folks who steered pre-Atkins law, get to decide when a condemned man has proven enough retardation to be spared.
For more:
- ABA: Executing the Mentally Ill.
- ACS: Executing the Mentally Ill.
- NYT: Does the U.S. Execute People with Mental Illness? It's Complicated.
The (Still) Mysterious Death of Edgar Allan Poe
Was it related to voter fraud?
- Click here for the article.
2. Cooping
Others believe that Poe fell victim to a practice known as cooping, a method of voter fraud practiced by gangs in the 19th century where an unsuspecting victim would be kidnapped, disguised and forced to vote for a specific candidate multiple times under multiple disguised identities. Voter fraud was extremely common in Baltimore around the mid 1800s, and the polling site where Walker found the disheveled Poe was a known place that coopers brought their victims. The fact that Poe was found delirious on election day, then, is no coincidence.
Over the years, the cooping theory has come to be one of the more widely accepted explanations for Poe’s strange demeanor before his death. Before Prohibition, voters were given alcohol after voting as a sort of reward; had Poe been forced to vote multiple times in a cooping scheme, that might explain his semi-conscious, ragged state.
Around the late 1870s, Poe’s biographer J.H. Ingram received several letters that blamed Poe’s death on a cooping scheme. A letter from William Hand Browne, a member of the faculty at Johns Hopkins, explains that “the general belief here is, that Poe was seized by one of these gangs, (his death happening just at election-time; an election for sheriff took place on Oct. 4th), ‘cooped,’ stupefied with liquor, dragged out and voted, and then turned adrift to die.”
- Click here for the article.
2. Cooping
Others believe that Poe fell victim to a practice known as cooping, a method of voter fraud practiced by gangs in the 19th century where an unsuspecting victim would be kidnapped, disguised and forced to vote for a specific candidate multiple times under multiple disguised identities. Voter fraud was extremely common in Baltimore around the mid 1800s, and the polling site where Walker found the disheveled Poe was a known place that coopers brought their victims. The fact that Poe was found delirious on election day, then, is no coincidence.
Over the years, the cooping theory has come to be one of the more widely accepted explanations for Poe’s strange demeanor before his death. Before Prohibition, voters were given alcohol after voting as a sort of reward; had Poe been forced to vote multiple times in a cooping scheme, that might explain his semi-conscious, ragged state.
Around the late 1870s, Poe’s biographer J.H. Ingram received several letters that blamed Poe’s death on a cooping scheme. A letter from William Hand Browne, a member of the faculty at Johns Hopkins, explains that “the general belief here is, that Poe was seized by one of these gangs, (his death happening just at election-time; an election for sheriff took place on Oct. 4th), ‘cooped,’ stupefied with liquor, dragged out and voted, and then turned adrift to die.”
Voter registration on Waller County
From a conversation in one of my GOVT 2306 classes.
- Waller County Elections Office Denies Rejecting Voter Registrations from Prairie View A&M Students.
- Campaign Worker Arrested After IDing His Candidate As Democrat.
- Symm v. United States.
- Waller County Elections Office Denies Rejecting Voter Registrations from Prairie View A&M Students.
- Campaign Worker Arrested After IDing His Candidate As Democrat.
- Symm v. United States.
From the NCSL: FELON VOTING RIGHTS
More on variances in voter eligibility laws across the states.
- Click here for the article.
Restoration of Voting Rights for Felons
It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice.
This page contains key information about the 2018 state legislative elections and statewide ballot measures.
Currently, state approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. NCSL has divided states into four categories, as detailed in Table 1 below.
In all cases, "automatic restoration" does not mean that voter registration is automatic. Typically prison officials automatically inform election officials that an individual's rights have been restored. The person is then responsible for re-registering through normal processes. Some states, California is one example, require that voter registration information be provided to formerly incarcerated people.
In summary:
- In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.
- In 14 states and the District of Columbia, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.
- In 21 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.
- In 13 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, or face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) before voting rights can be restored.
- Click here for the article.
Restoration of Voting Rights for Felons
It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice.
This page contains key information about the 2018 state legislative elections and statewide ballot measures.
Currently, state approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. NCSL has divided states into four categories, as detailed in Table 1 below.
In all cases, "automatic restoration" does not mean that voter registration is automatic. Typically prison officials automatically inform election officials that an individual's rights have been restored. The person is then responsible for re-registering through normal processes. Some states, California is one example, require that voter registration information be provided to formerly incarcerated people.
In summary:
- In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.
- In 14 states and the District of Columbia, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.
- In 21 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.
- In 13 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, or face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) before voting rights can be restored.
From ScotusBlog: Federal government asks justices to intervene in census dispute
- Click here for the article.
The federal government went to the Supreme Court today, requesting a halt to the depositions of two senior Trump administration officials – Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and John Gore, the acting head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division – in a challenge to Ross’ decision to bring back a question about citizenship on the 2020 census. The depositions are scheduled for early October, with a trial to follow in early November, but the government is asking the justices to put them on hold.
The challenge to the citizenship questions was filed in federal district court in New York by 17 states, along with (among others) the District of Columbia and several major U.S. cities and counties. From 1820 until 1950, the census had generally asked about citizenship, and from 1960 until 2000, the census asked some respondents whether they were U.S. citizens. But Ross announced this year that the 2020 census would ask all respondents about their citizenship; the data, he explained, would help the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce federal voting rights laws.
The challengers contend that asking about citizenship may result in the population count being too low, because undocumented immigrants – fearing repercussions such as deportation – may be reluctant to respond. They have alleged, as U.S. solicitor general Noel Francisco explained in the government’s filing today, that Ross’ “decision was driven by secret motives, including animus against racial minorities,” and the district court ruled that they could depose both Ross and Gore on this question.
The federal government went to the Supreme Court today, requesting a halt to the depositions of two senior Trump administration officials – Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and John Gore, the acting head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division – in a challenge to Ross’ decision to bring back a question about citizenship on the 2020 census. The depositions are scheduled for early October, with a trial to follow in early November, but the government is asking the justices to put them on hold.
The challenge to the citizenship questions was filed in federal district court in New York by 17 states, along with (among others) the District of Columbia and several major U.S. cities and counties. From 1820 until 1950, the census had generally asked about citizenship, and from 1960 until 2000, the census asked some respondents whether they were U.S. citizens. But Ross announced this year that the 2020 census would ask all respondents about their citizenship; the data, he explained, would help the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce federal voting rights laws.
The challengers contend that asking about citizenship may result in the population count being too low, because undocumented immigrants – fearing repercussions such as deportation – may be reluctant to respond. They have alleged, as U.S. solicitor general Noel Francisco explained in the government’s filing today, that Ross’ “decision was driven by secret motives, including animus against racial minorities,” and the district court ruled that they could depose both Ross and Gore on this question.
For background:
- Politifact: What you need to know about the Census’ citizenship question.
- Pew Research Center: What to know about the citizenship question the Census Bureau is planning to ask in 2020.
- NYT: Wilbur Ross Changes Story on Discussions of Citizenship Question for Census.
- Politifact: What you need to know about the Census’ citizenship question.
- Pew Research Center: What to know about the citizenship question the Census Bureau is planning to ask in 2020.
- NYT: Wilbur Ross Changes Story on Discussions of Citizenship Question for Census.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
The Houston City Charter
- Click here for it.
And here's the city council map
The HCC Spring Branch campus is in District C
Ellen Cohen represents it.
The HCC Alief Hayes campus is in District G
And here's the city council map
The HCC Spring Branch campus is in District C
Ellen Cohen represents it.
The HCC Alief Hayes campus is in District G
What do elections cost in the United States? Not campaigns, the actual administration of the election itself.
To address questions raised in class recently.
From the NCSL: ELECTION COSTS: WHAT STATES PAY.
Pinning down how much it costs to administer an election is notoriously difficult. Part of the difficulty is that several levels of government—states, counties, municipalities and even special districts—have a hand in running (and paying for) elections.
Elections in the U.S. are usually run at the county level, though in several New England and Midwestern states they are run at the city or township level. This means that there are more than 10,000 jurisdictions that have primary responsibility for running elections in the country--and that’s not counting the subdivisions within those jurisdictions.
From the NCSL: THE PRICE OF DEMOCRACY: SPLITTING THE BILL FOR ELECTIONS.
Elections are in the news, and it is not just the upcoming midterm elections.
Questions about security, in particular whether our elections systems protect us from bad actors at home and abroad, are making headlines.
How much influence Russians and others may have had during the 2016 campaign period is very much on the minds of those concerned about the security of our voting systems. As well, questions persist about what efforts—thwarted though they were—were made to tamper with voter registration systems and elections more broadly.
The news on cybersecurity breaches is still evolving. It has legislators, the key decision-makers on elections policy, taking notice. They’re focused on security, of course, but also on election administration more generally: Who runs elections, and by extension, who pays for elections?
The short answer is that the states and territories run elections. The answer to who pays for them is more complicated. In the sections below, NCSL's new report, “The Price of Democracy: Splitting the Bill for Elections,” offers 10 key takeaways about election costs for legislators and other policymakers.
From the NCSL: ELECTION COSTS: WHAT STATES PAY.
Pinning down how much it costs to administer an election is notoriously difficult. Part of the difficulty is that several levels of government—states, counties, municipalities and even special districts—have a hand in running (and paying for) elections.
Elections in the U.S. are usually run at the county level, though in several New England and Midwestern states they are run at the city or township level. This means that there are more than 10,000 jurisdictions that have primary responsibility for running elections in the country--and that’s not counting the subdivisions within those jurisdictions.
From the NCSL: THE PRICE OF DEMOCRACY: SPLITTING THE BILL FOR ELECTIONS.
Elections are in the news, and it is not just the upcoming midterm elections.
Questions about security, in particular whether our elections systems protect us from bad actors at home and abroad, are making headlines.
How much influence Russians and others may have had during the 2016 campaign period is very much on the minds of those concerned about the security of our voting systems. As well, questions persist about what efforts—thwarted though they were—were made to tamper with voter registration systems and elections more broadly.
The news on cybersecurity breaches is still evolving. It has legislators, the key decision-makers on elections policy, taking notice. They’re focused on security, of course, but also on election administration more generally: Who runs elections, and by extension, who pays for elections?
The short answer is that the states and territories run elections. The answer to who pays for them is more complicated. In the sections below, NCSL's new report, “The Price of Democracy: Splitting the Bill for Elections,” offers 10 key takeaways about election costs for legislators and other policymakers.
From the Washington Post: Child marriage in the U.S. is surprisingly prevalent. Now states are passing laws to make it harder.
This may be the next state policy area to receive national attention.
Just as there is a nationally defined uniform minimum drinking age, should there be a nationally defined uniform minimum age to get married? If so, how would this be imposed?
- Click here for the article.
For related info:
- Age of Marriage in the United States.
- Why America still permits child marriage.
Based on the dates on many recent news articles, this may be a growing issue.
The 85th Texas Legislature passed a bill banning child marriage in the state.
- Abbott signs measure that tightens state law on child brides.
The bill was SB 1705. Click here for its legislative history.
Just as there is a nationally defined uniform minimum drinking age, should there be a nationally defined uniform minimum age to get married? If so, how would this be imposed?
- Click here for the article.
For related info:
- Age of Marriage in the United States.
- Why America still permits child marriage.
Based on the dates on many recent news articles, this may be a growing issue.
The 85th Texas Legislature passed a bill banning child marriage in the state.
- Abbott signs measure that tightens state law on child brides.
The bill was SB 1705. Click here for its legislative history.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Texas’ school finance problem in one pesky chart
A good look at funding in the state. Notice the percentages from local, state, and national sources. The article points to the over all decrease in funding - Total Constant Dollars - and the increase in local revenue, ie., property taxes.
- Click here for article.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/691454f8ae89d5743aece2e8b74d3a2f/pre-k-12-funding.png)
- Click here for article.
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
From Vox: Registered to vote? Here are the voter registration deadlines in all 50 states.
- Click here for the article.
The 2018 midterm elections are less than a month away, which means that in many states, voter registration deadlines are fast approaching — or, in some cases, end Tuesday. October 9 is the last day to register to vote in 13 states: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. It’s the last day to register by mail or in person in Louisiana, but you still have until October 16 to register online.
Voters on the left and right are energized to go to the polls on November 6.
Among Democrats, there’s been buzz of a blue wave, with polls showing that progressives are excited to go to the ballot box. A historic number of women are on the ballot this year, especially Democrats, and women could lead enthusiasm in the left.
Among Republicans, voter enthusiasm has been more of an open question, but some GOP leaders think the bruising battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court may have lit a fire under their base. Polling evidence suggests the Kavanaugh fight could help Republicans in the Senate, but in the House of Representatives, it could have the opposite effect.
In 12 states and the District of Columbia, you can register up to and on the day of the election, though you’ll avoid certain levels of bureaucratic hassle if you meet earlier registration deadlines ahead of time. The deadline to vote in Alaska and Rhode Island has already passed.
Wonder when the last day is to register to vote in your state? Here’s a list with links to learn more about voting in each state.
The 2018 midterm elections are less than a month away, which means that in many states, voter registration deadlines are fast approaching — or, in some cases, end Tuesday. October 9 is the last day to register to vote in 13 states: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. It’s the last day to register by mail or in person in Louisiana, but you still have until October 16 to register online.
Voters on the left and right are energized to go to the polls on November 6.
Among Democrats, there’s been buzz of a blue wave, with polls showing that progressives are excited to go to the ballot box. A historic number of women are on the ballot this year, especially Democrats, and women could lead enthusiasm in the left.
Among Republicans, voter enthusiasm has been more of an open question, but some GOP leaders think the bruising battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court may have lit a fire under their base. Polling evidence suggests the Kavanaugh fight could help Republicans in the Senate, but in the House of Representatives, it could have the opposite effect.
In 12 states and the District of Columbia, you can register up to and on the day of the election, though you’ll avoid certain levels of bureaucratic hassle if you meet earlier registration deadlines ahead of time. The deadline to vote in Alaska and Rhode Island has already passed.
Wonder when the last day is to register to vote in your state? Here’s a list with links to learn more about voting in each state.
Monday, October 8, 2018
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/6a8016e666e9ee73e7b43a17d2337161/Yard_sign_Sid_Miller_FB_TT.jpg)
From the Texas Tribune: Federal judge in Texas strikes down Indian Child Welfare Act
For this week's 2305 written assignment for ACC, A story that combines federalism, checks and balances, and the equal protection clause.
Outline the issues presented here. Why might the Texas Attorney General want to weigh in on it?
- Click here for it.
A federal judge in Texas has struck down the Indian Child Welfare Act, a decades-old federal law aimed at keeping Native American families together.
Backed by the state of Texas, Chad and Jennifer Brackeen — a non-Native American couple with two biological children — sued last October for the right to adopt a Native American toddler they had fostered for more than a year. A state court had denied their adoption petition; the federal law gives adoption placement preference to biological family members of Native American children, other members of the child’s tribe, or other Native American families.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the Brackeens, arguing that the law unlawfully “elevates a child’s race over their best interest.”
The Brackeens have since adopted the child and settled their case, but the challenge to the law itself pressed on. Texas, along with Louisiana and Indiana, argued that the law unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of race and infringed on states’ rights to oversee their own child welfare proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor on Thursday sided with Texas, ruling that the law is unconstitutional.
Passed in 1978, the law aims to preserve the integrity of Native American tribes. It came at a time when as many as one-third of tribal children were forcibly removed from their biological families in state welfare proceedings, a group of tribal leaders said Friday. Many of those removals were “wholly unjustified,” said representatives from the Cherokee Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Oneida Nation and Quinalt Indian Nation in a statement condemning O’Connor’s decision.
“These policies devastated tribal communities and we refuse to go back to those darker days,” the group leaders said. “If ICWA is struck down in whole or in part, the victims will be our children and our families, Native children and Native families.”
The leaders, who had intervened in the case, said they are “exploring all available options,” including a stay to maintain the status quo temporarily, as well as an appeal to a higher court.
The Indian Child Welfare Act has long been a controversial law, seeking to balance tribal integrity and thorny child welfare decisions. In 2013, an Oklahoma case involving the law made it to the Supreme Court; the case left the law intact.
Paxton cheered O’Connor’s decision, arguing it protects state sovereignty as well as “the best interest of Texas children.”
Outline the issues presented here. Why might the Texas Attorney General want to weigh in on it?
- Click here for it.
A federal judge in Texas has struck down the Indian Child Welfare Act, a decades-old federal law aimed at keeping Native American families together.
Backed by the state of Texas, Chad and Jennifer Brackeen — a non-Native American couple with two biological children — sued last October for the right to adopt a Native American toddler they had fostered for more than a year. A state court had denied their adoption petition; the federal law gives adoption placement preference to biological family members of Native American children, other members of the child’s tribe, or other Native American families.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the Brackeens, arguing that the law unlawfully “elevates a child’s race over their best interest.”
The Brackeens have since adopted the child and settled their case, but the challenge to the law itself pressed on. Texas, along with Louisiana and Indiana, argued that the law unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of race and infringed on states’ rights to oversee their own child welfare proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor on Thursday sided with Texas, ruling that the law is unconstitutional.
Passed in 1978, the law aims to preserve the integrity of Native American tribes. It came at a time when as many as one-third of tribal children were forcibly removed from their biological families in state welfare proceedings, a group of tribal leaders said Friday. Many of those removals were “wholly unjustified,” said representatives from the Cherokee Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Oneida Nation and Quinalt Indian Nation in a statement condemning O’Connor’s decision.
“These policies devastated tribal communities and we refuse to go back to those darker days,” the group leaders said. “If ICWA is struck down in whole or in part, the victims will be our children and our families, Native children and Native families.”
The leaders, who had intervened in the case, said they are “exploring all available options,” including a stay to maintain the status quo temporarily, as well as an appeal to a higher court.
The Indian Child Welfare Act has long been a controversial law, seeking to balance tribal integrity and thorny child welfare decisions. In 2013, an Oklahoma case involving the law made it to the Supreme Court; the case left the law intact.
Paxton cheered O’Connor’s decision, arguing it protects state sovereignty as well as “the best interest of Texas children.”
From The Texas Tribune: Analysis: When the Texas House and Senate fight, legislative agencies squirm
For this week's written assignment for ACC's 2306 classes: A look at both bicameralism and checks and balances in Texas, along with the Legislative Budget Board.
Tell me what's going on in the article.
- Click here for it.
We already knew the Legislature was going to start its January session without a House Appropriations Committee; naming a new budget-writing panel will follow the election of a new speaker of the House.
Now there’s a new kink in the preparation of the state’s next two-year budget: Ursula Parks, the beleaguered director of the obscure but critical Legislative Budget Board, is retiring at the end of the month.
Her departure is notable for a couple of reasons that have nothing to do with Parks and everything to do with the finances at the heart of state government. The LBB has played the part of the rope in a fierce tug-of-war between the House and the Senate.
Parks’ departure caps a series of tense moments between lawmakers and a prominent agency that belongs not to the executive branch, like most agencies, but to the Legislature itself.
And it beheads the third of those agencies, adding to vacancies at the top of the State Auditor’s Office and the Sunset Advisory Commission. Both the LBB and the SAO are co-chaired by the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the House; Sunset is run by a board directly and indirectly appointed by those two officials.
While those agencies are set up to serve state senators and representatives — the Texas Legislative Council and the Texas Reference Library are in this category, too — they’re also in the sometimes-uncomfortable position of serving two masters.
Over the last two legislative sessions, their masters have been pulling their leashes in different directions
Tell me what's going on in the article.
- Click here for it.
We already knew the Legislature was going to start its January session without a House Appropriations Committee; naming a new budget-writing panel will follow the election of a new speaker of the House.
Now there’s a new kink in the preparation of the state’s next two-year budget: Ursula Parks, the beleaguered director of the obscure but critical Legislative Budget Board, is retiring at the end of the month.
Her departure is notable for a couple of reasons that have nothing to do with Parks and everything to do with the finances at the heart of state government. The LBB has played the part of the rope in a fierce tug-of-war between the House and the Senate.
Parks’ departure caps a series of tense moments between lawmakers and a prominent agency that belongs not to the executive branch, like most agencies, but to the Legislature itself.
And it beheads the third of those agencies, adding to vacancies at the top of the State Auditor’s Office and the Sunset Advisory Commission. Both the LBB and the SAO are co-chaired by the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the House; Sunset is run by a board directly and indirectly appointed by those two officials.
While those agencies are set up to serve state senators and representatives — the Texas Legislative Council and the Texas Reference Library are in this category, too — they’re also in the sometimes-uncomfortable position of serving two masters.
Over the last two legislative sessions, their masters have been pulling their leashes in different directions
From the Austin American - Statesman: Texas judges’ misdeeds often kept secret by oversight commission
Some background on an issue covered in the textbook on Texas Government.
- Click here for the article.
- Complete page for sunset review of the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
- Click here for the results of the sunset review.
Highlights:
Final Results from Last Sunset Report
The following material summarizes the results of the 2012-2013 Sunset review of the Commission, including statutory changes made through Senate Bill 209 and Senate Joint Resolution 42. For additional information see the State Commission on Judicial Conduct Sunset Final Report with
Legislative Action.
Range of Sanctions
Authorizes the Commission to use its full range of sanctions following open, formal proceedings.
Authorizes a Court of Review to hear appeals of sanctions following formal proceedings based on a review of the record, in the same manner as it hears appeals of censures.
Procedural Rules
Requires the Commission to report to the Supreme Court as needed on suggested changes to update the Commission’s procedural rules.
Complaint Dismissals
Requires the Commission, after dismissing a complaint, to provide the individual who filed the complaint with the reason(s) in plain language why the allegation made in the complaint failed to meet the definition of judicial misconduct.
Public Input
Requires the Commission to hold an open hearing once every two years to allow the public to offer input on the Commission’s mission and operations.
State Agency Status
Clarifies that the Commission is a state agency for the administration of judicial discipline, and does not have the power and authority of a court.
Future Sunset Reviews
Requires the Commission to provide Sunset staff with access to observe its closed meetings and review its confidential records to ensure a complete and thorough evaluation of the Commission’s activities.
Requires a Sunset review in six years, rather than the standard 12-year period.
Maintains in law the requirement for the Commission to distribute an annual report on its activities to protect the public from judicial misconduct.
- Click here for the article.
- Complete page for sunset review of the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
- Click here for the results of the sunset review.
Highlights:
Final Results from Last Sunset Report
The following material summarizes the results of the 2012-2013 Sunset review of the Commission, including statutory changes made through Senate Bill 209 and Senate Joint Resolution 42. For additional information see the State Commission on Judicial Conduct Sunset Final Report with
Legislative Action.
Range of Sanctions
Authorizes the Commission to use its full range of sanctions following open, formal proceedings.
Authorizes a Court of Review to hear appeals of sanctions following formal proceedings based on a review of the record, in the same manner as it hears appeals of censures.
Procedural Rules
Requires the Commission to report to the Supreme Court as needed on suggested changes to update the Commission’s procedural rules.
Complaint Dismissals
Requires the Commission, after dismissing a complaint, to provide the individual who filed the complaint with the reason(s) in plain language why the allegation made in the complaint failed to meet the definition of judicial misconduct.
Public Input
Requires the Commission to hold an open hearing once every two years to allow the public to offer input on the Commission’s mission and operations.
State Agency Status
Clarifies that the Commission is a state agency for the administration of judicial discipline, and does not have the power and authority of a court.
Future Sunset Reviews
Requires the Commission to provide Sunset staff with access to observe its closed meetings and review its confidential records to ensure a complete and thorough evaluation of the Commission’s activities.
Requires a Sunset review in six years, rather than the standard 12-year period.
Maintains in law the requirement for the Commission to distribute an annual report on its activities to protect the public from judicial misconduct.
A few stories covered last week
- "Don't panic": Texas Education Agency sends instructions on police interaction curriculum.
- Senate passes bill requiring schools to teach teens about interacting with police.
- The Texas Commision on Law Enforcement.
- Here’s what Texas voters should know for the 2018 midterms.
- Legislation and procedural changes affectingTexas Commission on Law Enforcement.
- Oyez: Gill v Whitford.
- Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case.
- Senate passes bill requiring schools to teach teens about interacting with police.
- The Texas Commision on Law Enforcement.
- Here’s what Texas voters should know for the 2018 midterms.
- Legislation and procedural changes affectingTexas Commission on Law Enforcement.
- Oyez: Gill v Whitford.
- Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case.
The Living New Deal
This site might help make sense of the concept of cooperative federalism.
It has a map with links to the various projects funded by the national government.
- Click here for the site.
- For New Deal sites in Texas click here.
It has a map with links to the various projects funded by the national government.
- Click here for the site.
- For New Deal sites in Texas click here.
Friday, October 5, 2018
Sample Ballots
For perusal prior to election day
- Brazoria County.
- Fort Bend County.
- Galveston County.
- Harris County.
- Brazoria County.
- Fort Bend County.
- Galveston County.
- Harris County.
From the Texas Tribune: Army Corps set to propose hurricane protection plan for Houston
For 2306, a national response - not to Harvey, but to Ike.
- Click here for the article.
- Background: The Army Corp of Engineers.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/images/Galveston-IkeDike.png)
The Army Corps estimates that the cost of the recommended plan will range between $22 billion and $30 billion. The Houston-area barrier may cost as much as $17 billion with the rest going toward ecosystem restoration projects.
Members of the public — even those living outside Texas — will have until Jan. 9 to weigh in on the Army Corps’ chosen plan. Six public meetings are in the works, although the Army Corps also plans to take feedback online and via mail. Three meetings will be held in the Houston-Galveston area, the others in communities further down the coast that would be impacted by the ecosystem restorations projects.
The Army Corps may tweak the plan based on public feedback, Burks-Copes said. The final version is expected to be complete by 2021, when it will be eligible for funding by Congress.
How soon that could happen is anyone’s guess given the uncertainty of politics, though several members of Texas’ congressional delegation — including Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican — have championed the cause.
- Click here for the article.
- Background: The Army Corp of Engineers.
The Army Corps estimates that the cost of the recommended plan will range between $22 billion and $30 billion. The Houston-area barrier may cost as much as $17 billion with the rest going toward ecosystem restoration projects.
Members of the public — even those living outside Texas — will have until Jan. 9 to weigh in on the Army Corps’ chosen plan. Six public meetings are in the works, although the Army Corps also plans to take feedback online and via mail. Three meetings will be held in the Houston-Galveston area, the others in communities further down the coast that would be impacted by the ecosystem restorations projects.
The Army Corps may tweak the plan based on public feedback, Burks-Copes said. The final version is expected to be complete by 2021, when it will be eligible for funding by Congress.
How soon that could happen is anyone’s guess given the uncertainty of politics, though several members of Texas’ congressional delegation — including Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican — have championed the cause.
Thursday, October 4, 2018
From the NYT: Planning to Vote in the November Election? Why Most Americans Probably Won’t
No news here.
- Click for the article.
This year’s election carries enormous political stakes, but if history is any guide, the vast majority of eligible voters will stay home on Election Day. Slightly more than a third of eligible voters turned out across the country in the last midterm elections, the lowest share since 1942, according to Michael McDonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida, who runs the United States Elections Project that tracks voting data back to 1789.
And while turnout has been higher in this season’s special elections and primaries, experts say that in November it is still unlikely to break out of the middling range it has been stuck in for nearly a century.
People typically cite one of two reasons for why they do not vote in midterm elections: they are either too busy or not interested, according to Dr. McDonald’s analysis of responses to the Census Bureau from 2000 to 2016.
“The costs of voting are not terribly high compared to the way they’ve been at times in American history,” said Benjamin Highton, a political scientist at the University of California at Davis, who has studied voter ID laws. “People simply have other things they are more interested in, like making ends meet on a day-to-day basis.”
- Click for the article.
This year’s election carries enormous political stakes, but if history is any guide, the vast majority of eligible voters will stay home on Election Day. Slightly more than a third of eligible voters turned out across the country in the last midterm elections, the lowest share since 1942, according to Michael McDonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida, who runs the United States Elections Project that tracks voting data back to 1789.
And while turnout has been higher in this season’s special elections and primaries, experts say that in November it is still unlikely to break out of the middling range it has been stuck in for nearly a century.
People typically cite one of two reasons for why they do not vote in midterm elections: they are either too busy or not interested, according to Dr. McDonald’s analysis of responses to the Census Bureau from 2000 to 2016.
“The costs of voting are not terribly high compared to the way they’ve been at times in American history,” said Benjamin Highton, a political scientist at the University of California at Davis, who has studied voter ID laws. “People simply have other things they are more interested in, like making ends meet on a day-to-day basis.”
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
From Vox: Brett Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court’s drastic shift to the right, cartoonsplained President Trump’s pick to replace Anthony Kennedy will lead to a much more conservative Court.
This should help explain why the conflict over the Kavanaugh appointment is so heated.
- Click here for the article.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11665903/top.png)
- Click here for the article.
From Vox: The Trump administration’s threat against safe injection sites is working No US city has opened a safe injection site. The Trump administration wants to keep it that way.
California is to Trump what Texas was to Obama.
Background: What Is Harm Reduction?
- Click here for the article.
Background: What Is Harm Reduction?
- Click here for the article.
The idea: While in an ideal world, no one would use dangerous and potentially deadly drugs, many people do. So it’s better to give these people a space where they can use drugs with some sort of supervision. It’s a harm reduction approach.
Brown was unreceptive to this idea, describing it as “enabling illegal drug use.” But he also cited another concern: “[A]lthough this bill creates immunity under state law, it can’t create such immunity under federal law. In fact, the United States Attorney General has already threatened prosecution and it would be irresponsible to expose local officials and health care professionals to potential federal criminal charges.”
Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the Trump administration — particularly the US Department of Justice — has threatened states and cities looking to open supervised consumption sites. Rosenstein recently published an op-ed in the New York Times criticizing the sites; he also issued a warning to city officials and potential beneficiaries of supervised consumption sites on the NPR member station WHYY in Philadelphia.
“It remains illegal under federal law,” Rosenstein said. “And people engaged in that activity remain vulnerable to civil and criminal enforcement.”
To defend its position, the Justice Department has cited a law originally meant to stop crack houses, noting, “It is a crime, not only to use illicit narcotics, but to manage and maintain sites on which such drugs are used and distributed.”
This threat appears to have deterred Brown from allowing supervised consumption sites in his own state, citing the possibility of federal prosecution. In other words, the threat is working.
Monday, October 1, 2018
From the New York Times: How a Conservative TV Giant Is Ridding Itself of Regulation
A look at the increasing influence of media company that owns a large number of television stations around the nation.
Related items:
Sinclair Broadcast Group.
Ajit V. Pai.
Federal Communications Commission.
Tribune Media.
National Association of Broadcasters.
- Click here for the article.
The day before President Trump’s inauguration, the top executive of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the nation’s largest owner of television stations, invited an important guest to the headquarters of the company’s Washington-area ABC affiliate.
The trip was, in the parlance of the business world, a deal closer.
The invitation from David D. Smith, the chairman of Sinclair, went to Ajit V. Pai, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission who was about to be named the broadcast industry’s chief regulator. Mr. Smith wanted Mr. Pai to ease up on efforts under President Barack Obama to crack down on media consolidation, which were threatening Sinclair’s ambitions to grow even bigger.
Mr. Smith did not have to wait long.
Within days of their meeting, Mr. Pai was named chairman of the F.C.C. And during his first 10 days on the job, he relaxed a restriction on television stations’ sharing of advertising revenue and other resources — the exact topic that Mr. Pai discussed with Mr. Smith and one of his business partners, according to records examined by The New York Times.
“These are invaluable and effective tools, which were taken away by the commission,” according to a summary of their meeting filed with the F.C.C.
It was only the beginning. Since becoming chairman in January, Mr. Pai has undertaken a deregulatory blitz, enacting or proposing a wish list of fundamental policy changes advocated by Mr. Smith and his company. Hundreds of pages of emails and other documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal a rush of regulatory actions has been carefully aligned with Sinclair’s business objectives.
The moves, which include easing a cap on how many stations a broadcaster can own, have opened up lucrative opportunities for Mr. Smith, among them a $3.9 billion bid to buy Tribune Media, another large owner of stations.
Related items:
Sinclair Broadcast Group.
Ajit V. Pai.
Federal Communications Commission.
Tribune Media.
National Association of Broadcasters.
- Click here for the article.
The day before President Trump’s inauguration, the top executive of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the nation’s largest owner of television stations, invited an important guest to the headquarters of the company’s Washington-area ABC affiliate.
The trip was, in the parlance of the business world, a deal closer.
The invitation from David D. Smith, the chairman of Sinclair, went to Ajit V. Pai, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission who was about to be named the broadcast industry’s chief regulator. Mr. Smith wanted Mr. Pai to ease up on efforts under President Barack Obama to crack down on media consolidation, which were threatening Sinclair’s ambitions to grow even bigger.
Mr. Smith did not have to wait long.
Within days of their meeting, Mr. Pai was named chairman of the F.C.C. And during his first 10 days on the job, he relaxed a restriction on television stations’ sharing of advertising revenue and other resources — the exact topic that Mr. Pai discussed with Mr. Smith and one of his business partners, according to records examined by The New York Times.
“These are invaluable and effective tools, which were taken away by the commission,” according to a summary of their meeting filed with the F.C.C.
It was only the beginning. Since becoming chairman in January, Mr. Pai has undertaken a deregulatory blitz, enacting or proposing a wish list of fundamental policy changes advocated by Mr. Smith and his company. Hundreds of pages of emails and other documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal a rush of regulatory actions has been carefully aligned with Sinclair’s business objectives.
The moves, which include easing a cap on how many stations a broadcaster can own, have opened up lucrative opportunities for Mr. Smith, among them a $3.9 billion bid to buy Tribune Media, another large owner of stations.
Is social media to blame for political polarization?
Research seem to suggests it does not.
Vox - Something is breaking American politics, but it's not social media.
Pew Research Center: APSA conference roundup: Research on political polarization on social media and the U.S. Congress.
What if social media isn’t driving rising polarization in American politics?
That’s the conclusion of a new paper by Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse Shapiro. Their study, released recently through the National Bureau of Economic Research, tests the conventional wisdom about polarization on social media nine ways from Sunday and finds that it’s wrong, or at least badly incomplete.
Their approach is simple. Using data from the American National Election Survey, they compare the most web-savvy voters (the young, where 80 percent used social media in 2012) and the least web-savvy voters (the old, where fewer than 20 percent used social media in 2012) on nine different tests of political polarization. The measures cover everything from feelings about political parties to ideological consistency to straight-ticket voting, and the data shows how polarization changed among these groups between 1996 and 2012.
The results? On fully eight of the nine measures, “polarization increases more for the old than the young.” If Facebook is the problem, then how come the problem is worst among those who don’t use Facebook?
Polarization is happening mostly among old folks.
Vox - Something is breaking American politics, but it's not social media.
Pew Research Center: APSA conference roundup: Research on political polarization on social media and the U.S. Congress.
What if social media isn’t driving rising polarization in American politics?
That’s the conclusion of a new paper by Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse Shapiro. Their study, released recently through the National Bureau of Economic Research, tests the conventional wisdom about polarization on social media nine ways from Sunday and finds that it’s wrong, or at least badly incomplete.
Their approach is simple. Using data from the American National Election Survey, they compare the most web-savvy voters (the young, where 80 percent used social media in 2012) and the least web-savvy voters (the old, where fewer than 20 percent used social media in 2012) on nine different tests of political polarization. The measures cover everything from feelings about political parties to ideological consistency to straight-ticket voting, and the data shows how polarization changed among these groups between 1996 and 2012.
The results? On fully eight of the nine measures, “polarization increases more for the old than the young.” If Facebook is the problem, then how come the problem is worst among those who don’t use Facebook?
Polarization is happening mostly among old folks.
Voter Participation in Texas
We'll go over this chart in class, several times.
- Click here for it.
For more on turnout and election results in general, click on these below:
- Texas Almanac.
- United States Elections Project.
- Click here for it.
For more on turnout and election results in general, click on these below:
- Texas Almanac.
- United States Elections Project.
From the CBO: Federal Grants to State and Local Governments
This is an old report - 2013, I'll look for a newer version - but it'll give us a good look at the precise nature of the grants states and local governments get from the federal government.
- Click here for the report.
- And here.
Note the top areas of spending
1 - Health
2 - Income Security (welfare)
3 - Education
4 - Transportation
Neither Social Security nor Medicare are included since both are run by the national government.
- Click here for the report.
- And here.
Note the top areas of spending
1 - Health
2 - Income Security (welfare)
3 - Education
4 - Transportation
Neither Social Security nor Medicare are included since both are run by the national government.
From The Texas Tribune: Texas spent less on students with disabilities. But did it break the law?
Covered in 2306 this morning. More conflict between Texas and the national government.
- Click here for the article.
. . . the U.S. government says Texas violated an unambiguous federal law requiring states to maintain the same amount of funding each year for special education services in order to continue to be eligible for federal special education grants. Steering clear of literary devices to argue its case, the federal government is claiming in court that Texas needs to be stripped of $33.3 million in federal funds — the same amount that the state cut.
A panel of three judges will hear from both sides Wednesday morning in New Orleans, and determine whether Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos' decision to take away Texas' funding should stand. Texas lost its challenge at the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Hearings and Appeals in May, and in July successfully petitioned the 5th Circuit to take up the case.
If Texas fails to defend its decrease in spending, it stands to lose the equivalent of about 3 percent of its annual federal special education grant.
This week's argument comes months after the U.S. Department of Education, in a separate investigation, found Texas was failing to provide many students with disabilities with an adequate education and effectively denying services to thousands of students who needed extra support. State education officials are now tackling a long list of federally mandated reforms to special education, including closely monitoring and supporting schools struggling to properly educate kids with disabilities.
Many educators told federal investigators that they saw evaluating students for special education services as a "last resort" for students having trouble learning, a major violation of federal law. Texas spent less in 2011-12 in part because its percentage of kids in special education dropped that year to 8.6 percent — the lowest rate in the country.
- Click here for the article.
. . . the U.S. government says Texas violated an unambiguous federal law requiring states to maintain the same amount of funding each year for special education services in order to continue to be eligible for federal special education grants. Steering clear of literary devices to argue its case, the federal government is claiming in court that Texas needs to be stripped of $33.3 million in federal funds — the same amount that the state cut.
A panel of three judges will hear from both sides Wednesday morning in New Orleans, and determine whether Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos' decision to take away Texas' funding should stand. Texas lost its challenge at the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Hearings and Appeals in May, and in July successfully petitioned the 5th Circuit to take up the case.
If Texas fails to defend its decrease in spending, it stands to lose the equivalent of about 3 percent of its annual federal special education grant.
This week's argument comes months after the U.S. Department of Education, in a separate investigation, found Texas was failing to provide many students with disabilities with an adequate education and effectively denying services to thousands of students who needed extra support. State education officials are now tackling a long list of federally mandated reforms to special education, including closely monitoring and supporting schools struggling to properly educate kids with disabilities.
Many educators told federal investigators that they saw evaluating students for special education services as a "last resort" for students having trouble learning, a major violation of federal law. Texas spent less in 2011-12 in part because its percentage of kids in special education dropped that year to 8.6 percent — the lowest rate in the country.
From the Washington Post: The Trump administration is suing California to quash its new net neutrality law
Covered in 2305 this morning, this covers lots that we've hit on this semester.
A few relevant links:
- net neutrality.
- FCC.
- common carrier.
- Click here for the article.
The Trump administration said Sunday it will sue California in an effort to block what some experts have described as the toughest net neutrality law ever enacted in the United States, setting up a high-stakes legal showdown over the future of the Internet.
California on Sunday became the largest state to adopt its own rules requiring Internet providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to treat all web traffic equally. Golden State legislators took the step of writing their law after the Federal Communications Commission scrapped nationwide protections last year, citing the regulatory burdens they had caused for the telecom industry.
Mere hours after California’s proposal became law, however, senior Justice Department officials told The Washington Post they would take the state to court on grounds that the federal government, not state leaders, has the exclusive power to regulate net neutrality. DOJ officials stressed the FCC had been granted such authority from Congress to ensure that all 50 states don’t seek to write their own, potentially conflicting, rules governing the web.
A few relevant links:
- net neutrality.
- FCC.
- common carrier.
- Click here for the article.
The Trump administration said Sunday it will sue California in an effort to block what some experts have described as the toughest net neutrality law ever enacted in the United States, setting up a high-stakes legal showdown over the future of the Internet.
California on Sunday became the largest state to adopt its own rules requiring Internet providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to treat all web traffic equally. Golden State legislators took the step of writing their law after the Federal Communications Commission scrapped nationwide protections last year, citing the regulatory burdens they had caused for the telecom industry.
Mere hours after California’s proposal became law, however, senior Justice Department officials told The Washington Post they would take the state to court on grounds that the federal government, not state leaders, has the exclusive power to regulate net neutrality. DOJ officials stressed the FCC had been granted such authority from Congress to ensure that all 50 states don’t seek to write their own, potentially conflicting, rules governing the web.