From the Crystal Ball: The 2020 Electoral College: Our First Look

Were are within a year of the primaries.

- Click here for the article. 

With an approval rating in the low-to-mid 40s — and, perhaps more importantly, a disapproval rating consistently over 50% — it would be easy to say that President Trump is an underdog for reelection.The president won only narrowly in 2016 and did so while losing the national popular vote, making his national coalition precarious. He has done little to appeal to people who did not vote for him, and a Democrat who can consolidate the votes of Trump disapprovers should be able to oust him unless the president can improve his approval numbers in a way he has demonstrably failed to do in the first half of his term.

At the same time, the president’s base-first strategy could again deliver him the White House, thanks in large part to his strength in the nation’s one remaining true swing region, the Midwest. He’s an incumbent, and incumbents are historically harder to defeat (although it may be that incumbency means less up and down the ticket in an era defined by party polarization). Still, Crystal Ball Senior Columnist Alan Abramowitz’s well-regarded presidential “Time for Change” model, which projects the two-party presidential vote, currently projects Trump with 51.4% of the vote based on the most recent measures of presidential approval and quarterly GDP growth (the model’s official projection is based off those figures in the summer of 2020). Arguably, the state of the economy is the most important factor: If perceptions of its strength remain decent, the president could win another term. If there is a recession, his odds likely drop precipitously. Meanwhile, it’s not a given that the Democratic nominee can consolidate the votes of Trump disapprovers, particularly if a third party candidate (Howard Schultz?) eats into the anti-Trump vote.

As it stands, the state of the economy next year remains unknowable, as does the identity of Trump’s challenger (Trump himself remains very likely to be the GOP nominee, although there’s always the possibility that someone else may ultimately be the candidate). So what’s there to say about the Electoral College right now?

From the Hill: Ohio city votes to give Lake Erie same legal rights as a person

A slight twist on the concept of civil rights.

- Click here for the article.

Voters in Toledo, Ohio, approved the Lake Erie Bill of Rights on Tuesday, granting the body of water the same legal rights as a human being.

The measure was approved during a special election and passed with 61 percent approval, according to the Sandusky Register.

Under the measure, residents are granted the right to take legal action on behalf of the lake when its right to "flourish and naturally evolve" has been violated.

Supporters of the measure say the law is the first of its kind in the U.S. and will guarantee the body of water protection from significant environmental harm.

Crystal Jankowski, an organizer with Toledoans for Safe Water, said it took years for the grass-roots group to establish the lake's bill of rights and get the measure on the ballot.

"It was definitely a long, hard struggle to get to this day, but all the hard work and countless volunteer hours by everyone in our local community group has paid off,” she told the Register.

“We started this more than two years ago and had to overcome election board decisions and protests in court just to get on the ballot,” she continued.

The legislation was met with its first lawsuit Wednesday morning, according to a local ABC station.

Drewes Farms in Custar, Ohio, reportedly filed a lawsuit challenging the voter-approved measure in U.S. District Court, claiming that the measure is unconstitutional and puts the farm at risk of liability if any fertilizer enters the lake’s watershed.

The push to obtain such rights for the lake comes on the heels of the 2014 Toledo water crisis, United Press International reported. Toxic algae blooms in the lake, which were caused by chemical fertilizer runoff from local farms, reportedly became so thick that drinking water from the lake was unsafe.

- Click here for the Lake Erie Bill of Rights.

From CNBC: Arguments over WWI cross showcase stark religious divide at Supreme Court, and possible split between Trump's two justices

Changes might be in store for the Lemon Test.

- Click here for the article.

A fiery debate at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday showcased a stark divide among the justices over which monuments containing religious symbolism should be permitted stand on public ground.

The justices sparred over the meaning of a Latin cross erected in 1925 that looms large over a crowded Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation's capital. The cross, put up to memorialize men who died in the First World War, was envisioned by mothers of the fallen but is now maintained by a government agency.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of three Jewish justices, took a firm stance on the sectarian meaning of the cross, noting that people wear them "to show their devotion" to their religion. In response to arguments that the cross was tied to the World War I war dead, Ginsburg remarked that she herself had traveled to Flanders Fields.

"Are there not graves marked by Stars of David?" Ginsburg asked rhetorically.

Meanwhile, the two newest members on the bench, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch seemed split in their thinking, with Gorsuch expressing skepticism about whether those opposing the cross even have standing and Kavanaugh asking tough questions of the cross' defenders.

The nation's top court has never established a clear and enduring test for when such displays violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which stipulates that Congress may not pass a law "respecting an establishment of religion" and has been interpreted in different and at times conflicting forms.

From Scousblog: American Legion v. American Humanist Association

The case presents a challenge to the Lemon Test.

- Click here for the article.

Issues: (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.

- Click here for coverage from Oyez.

From the Texas Tribune:Texas community colleges warn they may consider tuition hikes in the face of property tax reform

As discussed in class, a consequence of the ongoing weakness of groups representing the interests of community college students.

- Click here for the article.

The community colleges that educate about half the state’s higher education students are warning of possible tuition hikes if the Texas Legislature enacts its sweeping property tax proposal.

The high-priority legislation would slow the growth of property tax revenue, which makes up an average 40 percent of community colleges’ funding, according to an association that represents them. The share for state appropriations for the schools, meanwhile, has plummeted from 66 percent in the 1980s to near 23 percent today.

“Community colleges are alarmed,” said Brenda Hellyer, chancellor of San Jacinto College. While she understands the need for property tax reform, she said, “The concern is you've got two revenue sources — your state revenue source is pretty much capped. And now, if you put a very tight cap on your property taxes, what can you do other than increase tuition and fees or cut your services?”

Touted by Republican leaders as a needed check on spiraling property tax bills, the proposal would require taxing units to receive voter approval before raising property tax revenue 2.5 percent more than the previous year. It would apply to municipalities and special districts for hospitals and community colleges — and, depending on yet-to-be-filed legislation, to school districts, which levy the bulk of property taxes statewide. New developments don't count toward the 2.5-percent cap.

From the Texas Tribune: Houston judge tosses same-sex marriage benefits challenge, but plaintiffs pledge to appeal

This a case in the state, not national, courts.

- Click here for the article.

A Houston judge has thrown out the six-year-old lawsuit a pair of Houston taxpayers filed to keep the city from paying spousal benefits to the same-sex spouses of municipal employees. But the long-running legal saga is far from over, according to the side handed a loss this week.

The lawsuit dates to 2013, when the Rev. Jack Pidgeon and accountant Larry Hicks sued the city to end the policy. In 2015, after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the landmark Obergefell ruling that opened up marriage rights to same-sex couples in all states, Pidgeon and Hicks continued to pursue the lawsuit, arguing that the decision did not extend to the right to city spousal benefits.

In June 2017, the Texas Supreme Court agreed, ruling unanimously that while same-sex marriage had been made legal, there is still room for state courts to explore the “reach and ramifications” of the landmark Obergefell ruling. The all-Republican high court sent the case back to a Houston trial court for further consideration.

Nearly two years later, Judge Sonya Heath threw out the case Monday, ruling for Houston in what the city has touted as a major win.

“This is a victory for equality, the law of our nation and human rights,” Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said in a statement Thursday evening. “I thank our Legal Department for its diligent work defending common sense and fairness, and I’m glad we get to continue the policy established by the city 6 years ago.”

Still, that win won’t go unchallenged. Jared Woodfill, the lawyer who represents Pidgeon and Hicks, said Thursday night that his clients will appeal the ruling — and that he expects the case to land again before the Texas Supreme Court and that it could eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case is one of the earliest headline rulings from a Houston judiciary that saw a major Republican rout in the 2018 elections. Heath, a Democrat, was elected as part of that sweep — a fact Woodfill highlighted, noting that under a Republican trial judge, his clients’ arguments had won more favor.

But other changes to the country’s judiciary may work to his clients' advantage, Woodfill suggested, referring to President Donald Trump's two appointees to the nation's highest court.

“Just like the trial court has changed in the interim, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed — now we have [Justice Neil] Gorsuch on the court, now we have [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh on the court,” he noted. “It’s going to be interesting.”

More on the Voter Citizenship Review

Altogether these provide a nice look at the interplay and conflict between the national, state, and local governments.

- Federal judge directs more counties to halt voter citizenship review efforts as lawsuits proceed.

- "This relationship is in tatters": How Texas' voter citizenship review frayed its relationship with local officials.

- Eight Texas counties agree to halt voter citizenship reviews while lawsuits proceed.

This week's written assignments

For 2305: What is the Green New Deal anyway?

- Wikipedia.
- The Green New Deal, explained.
- Nine Key Questions About the Green New Deal.

For 2306: What's up here? Tell me how much of what we've covered in class so far is contained in this article. 

- All 12 Senate Democrats oppose Texas Secretary of State David Whitley. That's more than enough to block his nomination.

The Blocker Bill!!!

It's SB 409: Relating to the creation, purpose, implementation, and funding of the County Park Beautification and Improvement Program.

- Click here for it.

- Detail form the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Skirting the rules in the Texas Senate — but doing it by the book

From the Texas Secretary of State: Starting a Party and Nominating Candidates

In case you're curious.

- Click here for the page.

The page covers the following:

- Candidate Eligibility
- Procedures for Establishing a Minor Party
- Nomination by Convention Method
- Minimum of Precinct Participants Required
- Financial Disclosure Requirements

For 2305 - Three stories from Vox

- Democrats welcome an increasingly diverse America; Republicans aren’t so sure.

Related items: polling, public opinion, party identification

- North Carolina elections board orders new House election after ballot tampering scandal.

Related items: state agencies, elections, campaigning, absentee ballots

- Judge issues gag order in Roger Stone case after Instagram post controversy.

Related items: the judiciary, judges, trials, free press, gag orders

From the Texas Tribune: Texas police made more than $50 million in 2017 from seizing people’s property. Not everyone was guilty of a crime.

This relates to the previous post about Timbs v. Indiana.

- Click here for the article.

Under a process known as civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement can take cash and property they believe to be related to criminal activity, even if the person involved is never charged with a crime. Prosecutors then file suit against the property, and if successful, police may keep much of it for their own purposes.

Civil asset forfeiture is a tool supported by law enforcement leaders, who say it is necessary for fighting crime, but panned by both liberals and conservatives who see it as a violation of Americans’ civil liberties and sometimes refer to it as “policing for profit.” It’s a longstanding, nationwide practice that has regained steam under the Trump administration but faces constitutional challenges in court.

When police seize a person’s property, the onus falls on the owner to prove the property was “innocent,” or not linked to a crime. If a person doesn’t fight the seizure in court — which is what happens in the majority of cases — they lose their property automatically. Many cases involve property worth no more than a few thousand dollars, and attorneys’ fees can end up being more costly than the value of the property itself.

Last year alone, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors throughout Texas grew their coffers more than $50 million by seizing cash, cars, jewelry, clothing, art and other property they claimed were linked to a crime. That includes property seized under both criminal forfeiture — which requires someone to first be found guilty of a crime — and civil forfeiture, which allows the state to sue the property itself and doesn’t require a criminal charge. The Texas Attorney General’s Office, which tracks these figures, does not distinguish between the two.

The excessive fines clause has been incorporated to the states

About time.

The case in question is Timbs v Indiana.

- Commentary from ScotusBlog:

The Supreme Court today ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose luxury SUV was seized after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin. It is also a blow to state and local governments, for whom fines and forfeitures have become an important source of funds.

The case began back in 2015, when Tyson Timbs sold heroin to an undercover police officer. He pleaded guilty to drug charges and was sentenced to one year of home detention, living with his aunt, followed by five years on probation. The state court also ordered Timbs to forfeit his 2012 Land Rover, which he had purchased for approximately $42,000 with the proceeds of his father’s life insurance policy, on the theory that he had used the car to transport drugs.

Timbs challenged the forfeiture of his Land Rover as a violation of the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines, and a state trial court agreed. It reasoned that because the SUV was worth four times more than the maximum fine that the state could impose, requiring Timbs to forfeit it would be “grossly disproportional to the gravity” of Timbs’ crime.

An intermediate appeals court upheld that decision, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed. It ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically said that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines – part of the Bill of Rights, which was originally interpreted as applying only to the federal government – applies to the states.

Timbs asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, and today the justices held that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines does indeed apply to the states. In an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court seemed to regard the basic question before it as an easy one. The justices explained that the “historical and logical case for concluding that” the ban on excessive fines applies to the states through the 14th Amendment – which bars states from depriving anyone “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” – is “overwhelming.”

Even Indiana, the court noted, did not seriously challenge whether the ban on excessive fines applies to the states. Instead, it argued that the ban applies only to payments imposed as punishment and does not apply to this case, which involves the forfeiture of property used to violate the law, a procedure that was not traditionally regarded as a fine. But because the state did not make that argument in the Indiana Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized today, the court would not consider it. And it doesn’t matter whether the ban on excessive forfeitures of property was traditionally regarded as fundamental, the court explained; what matters is that the broader right to be protected from excessive fines has been regarded that way.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed that the ban on excessive fines applies to the states, but he would have reached that result in a different way. Instead of relying on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Thomas would hold that the ban on excessive fines is “one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed that thought in a separate opinion, but (unlike Thomas) he joined the court’s opinion, stressing that “nothing in the case turns on that question, and, regardless of the precise vehicle, there can be no serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect the freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment.”

McKee v. Cosby

This is the case referred to in the post below. The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari, meaning they decided to not hear the appeal of McKee against Cosby. I'm not aware of denials of certiorari being accompanied by opinions justifying it, but I'm not a Supreme Court lawyer.

- Click here for the 1st Circuit court decision - the one that was not challenged by the Supreme Court.

- Click here for Thomas' opinion.

- Click here for Scotusblog's summary of the case.

Here is the issue presented in it: Whether a victim of sexual misconduct who merely publicly states that she was victimized (i.e., #metoo) has thrust herself to the forefront of a public debate in an attempt to influence the outcome, thereby becoming a limited-purpose public figure who loses her right to recover for defamation absent a showing of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

From the LA Times: Clarence Thomas agrees with Trump that libel laws should be eased

This would reverse NYT v Sullivan, but no one signed onto his opinion, which suggests the current rule on libel laws is safe.

This fits within our discussion of freedom of the press, libel, original intent, and concurring opinions.

- Click here for NYT v Sullivan.

- Click here for the article.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a solo opinion Tuesday that should appeal to President Trump. He said the high court should make it easier for public figures to sue for libel.

Thomas said the court made a mistake in 1964 when it set a high barrier for public officials to sue the press for defaming them with a false story. That was later expanded to include famous individuals and people who inject themselves into big news stories.

In essence, public officials must show the publishers knew the report was false or otherwise displayed a “reckless disregard” for the truth.

Thomas argued that the framers of the Constitution did not intend such protection when they adopted the 1st Amendment, which forbids “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.”

“We should not continue to reflexively apply this policy-driven approach to the Constitution,” he wrote in McKee vs. Cosby. At some time, “we should reconsider our jurisprudence in this area.”

Some explainers regarding the 25th Amendment

For more on the amendment:

- Constitution Center.
- Applications and implications of the 25th Amendment.
- The 25th Amendment Makes Presidential Disability a Political Question.

The Full Text of the 25th Amendment

Since this is topical, its worth a review in class:

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

From Slate: At Least 13 States Will Join Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Emergency Declaration

California leads the way. The key argument is the Trump has violated the separated powers by spending money in violation of the appropriations  clause.

- Click here for the article.

California and at least a dozen other states will be joining a lawsuit to challenge President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Monday. “The president admitted that there’s not a basis for the declaration, he admitted there’s no crisis at the border, he’s now trying to rob funds that were allocated by Congress legally to the various states and people of our states,” Becerra told MSNBC. “The separation of powers is being violated, we’re going to go out there and make sure that Donald Trump cannot steal money from the states and people who need them, since we paid the taxpayer dollars to Washington, D.C. to get those services.”

Speaking on CNN, Becerra said the lawsuit is imminent. “We should be filing sometime today,” Becerra said. “We’re going to try to halt the President from violating the Constitution, the separation of powers, from stealing money from Americans and states that has been allocated by Congress, lawfully.”

This marks the latest effort to challenge Trump’s emergency declaration in the courts. Earlier, three environmental and advocacy groups joined a lawsuit against the emergency declaration. The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit over the weekend arguing that the White House doesn’t have the authority to use emergency funds to build a wall along the Mexico border. “The only emergency here is Trump’s assault on the Constitution,” said Brian Segee, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. “Separation of powers is at the heart of our democracy and the power of the purse is a critical check on the president. Trump’s authoritarian attempt to build his destructive border wall is a flagrant abuse of that constitutional structure. If he gets his way, it’ll be a disaster for communities and wildlife along the border, including some of our country’s most endangered species.” This came after the advocacy group Public Citizen also filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Texas landowners and an environmental group. The American Civil Liberties Union also said it was preparing a lawsuit claiming that Trump doesn’t have the authority to redirect taxpayer money to build a wall.

From the Texas Tribune: Here’s your property tax cut, maybe. Heads up — it’s expensive.

More on a dominant issue in this legislative session.

- Click here for the article.

Willing to give up some sales tax exemptions to pay for a cut in your local property taxes?

That proposition, from state Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, is the first serious stab at a statewide property tax cut in the current Texas legislative session.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate are already working on legislation designed to slow the growth of property taxes. But those bills, pushed by the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the House, wouldn’t lower existing taxes; instead, they would require voter approval for tax revenue increases of more than 2.5 percent.

Springer wants cuts. But it would cost a small fortune, more than $6 billion a year, and he’s a Republican, and he certainly doesn’t want to try to persuade a conservative Legislature to raise taxes. He wouldn’t actually cut them, either: He’s proposing a swap, cutting local school property taxes by getting rid of some popular exemptions to state taxes.

Springer wants to raise $6.4 billion a year, mostly by getting rid of sales tax exemptions and rules that are in current law. The list has some darlings on it — popular exemptions that might be hard sells in the Legislature and in lawmakers’ districts. Springer would tax sales of motor fuel, on top of existing gasoline taxes; over-the-counter and nonprescription drugs; “non-nutritional” foods, like potato chips, coffee and tea; newspapers and magazines; cuts and stylings at beauty and barber shops; and auto maintenance and repair. The proposal would also end things like prompt payment discounts for retailers remitting sales taxes and the loophole for hybrid and electric vehicle registrations.

Each of those things has a constituency: sometimes a mob of people who’d be affected, sometimes a small group of powerful people who would lose a business advantage.

Previous runs at sales tax exemptions have fallen to pieces under resistance from taxpayers — or, to be more precise, nontaxpayers — who benefit.

But with his other hand, Springer is offering prizes for property taxpayers. Springer says he would give a 50-percent homestead exemption on school property taxes, exempt retail inventories from property taxes and use the balance to “compress” school property taxes by 10 cents — or to 90 cents per $100 property valuation, whichever is higher.

From the Texas Tribune: How the federal government abused its power to seize property for a border fence

Suddenly topical again. This is mostly for 2305, since it is a national policy, but it impacts homeowners in Texas obviously.

- Click here for the article.

Some highlights from the investigation.

An investigation by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune shows that Homeland Security cut unfair real estate deals, secretly waived legal safeguards for property owners, and ultimately abused the government’s extraordinary power to take land from private citizens.

The major findings:

- Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values.

- Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests.

- The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. Landholders spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the government’s mistakes.

- The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties, an oversight that added months to the compensation process.

- On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners.

- Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. The government has already taken their land and built the border fence. But it has not resolved claims for its value.

The errors and disparities played out family by family, block by block, county by county, up and down the length of the border fence.

From Governing: Tennessee Becomes 1st Southern State With Hate Crime Protections for Transgender People

An example of policy diffusion

- Click here for the article.
Tennessee has become the first state in the South with a hate crime statute protecting transgender individuals.

State Attorney General Herbert Slatery issued an opinion Feb. 8 in response to a question posed by Rep. Mike Stewart, D-Nashville.

"A defendant who targets a person for a crime because that person is transgender has targeted the person because of his or her gender within the meaning" of the current state law that outlines sentence enhancements for hate crimes, Slatery wrote.

Tennessee does not have an explicit hate crime charge, though the General Assembly in 2000 added a hate crime factor to judges' sentencing rules for crimes targeting a person based on race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or gender.

Slatery's decision affirms that transgender individuals should be covered under the existing law, but must still be tested in court in a case involving bias against a transgender victim.

From Governing: The Growing Need for Opposition Research -- on Yourself -- in Today's Political World

For our look at campaigns

- Click here for the article.

The past is never dead. For all the warnings millennials have received about making sure their social media accounts are kept clean so they won't come back to haunt them later in their careers, lately it's been baby boomers and Gen Xers tripped up by analog documents from the past.

The series of recent scandals in Virginia was kicked off by the emergence of a 35-year-old yearbook page from Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam's medical school days. Back in September, members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee grilled then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about entries in his high school yearbook and the calendar he kept as a student.

Now reporters all over the country are scouring old yearbooks, looking for more examples of racist or otherwise disturbing images or language from the deep past of politicians. Last week, the Virginian-Pilot reported that Virginia Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment served as managing editor for a Virginia Military Institute yearbook edition that was filled with racial slurs and blackface photos.

 

From The Texas Tribune: Sen. Angela Paxton files bill that would allow her husband, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, to issue exemptions from securities regulations

More on the plural executive, and perhaps checks and balances as well.

- Click here for the article.

In what state Sen. Angela Paxton describes as an effort to safely expand Texas’ burgeoning financial tech industry, the freshman Republican from McKinney has filed a bill that would empower the office of her husband, Attorney General Ken Paxton, to exempt entrepreneurs from certain state regulations so they can market “innovative financial products or services.”

One of those exemptions would be working as an “investment adviser” without registering with the state board. Currently, doing so is a felony in Texas — one for which Ken Paxton was issued a civil penalty in 2014 and criminally charged in 2015.
Senate Bill 860, filed Friday, would create within the attorney general’s office an entirely new program — what the bill calls a “regulatory sandbox” — that would allow approved individuals “limited access to the market … without obtaining a license, registration, or other regulatory authorization.” The bill, based on a 2018 Arizona law hailed as the first of its kind, aims to cut red tape for the growing financial tech sector, allowing businesses to market new products for up to two years and to as many as 10,000 customers with scant regulation.

In doing so, the bill would grant broad powers to the attorney general’s consumer protection division, allowing it to accept or reject entrepreneurial applicants who seek to hawk innovative products outside of the state’s current standards and regulations.

Fro this week's written assignments

For ACC anyway.

2305: Does Trump’s National Emergency Set A Problematic Precedent For Conservatives?

2306: Texas' school finance system is unpopular and complex. Here's how it works.

From the Hill: Rule change sharpens Dem investigations into Trump

For 2305's future look at Congress.

- Click here for the article.

A change to House rules is putting sharper teeth into Democratic investigations of President Trump and his administration.

The change allows staff of House committees to conduct depositions without any lawmakers present, freeing up the panels to move through witnesses in their investigations quickly without the constraints of the previous Congress.

The change will offer Democrats on powerful House committees including Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and Judiciary substantial momentum as they open wide-ranging probes into Trump, producing new headaches for the White House as the president readies his reelection bid.

“It’s more teeth, faster legs, longer breath, greater strength and just bigger,” said Steven Cash, a former staffer and counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“The other thing it signals is this isn’t the political theater of the Benghazi hearings. They’re not really interested in what comes out on television. They want sworn testimony. That indicates to me they’re looking for facts and not show,” added Cash, who is now a lawyer at Day Pitney specializing in criminal and national security law.

A fight has been percolating between House Democrats and the president since the November midterm elections, when Democrats captured the majority in the lower chamber and took control of all of the oversight and investigative powers that come with it.

Now, Democrats are preparing expansive investigations into the Trump administration on everything from Russia’s election interference to the White House security clearance process to Trump’s own financial dealings.

Some elements of these investigations are likely to happen behind closed doors, in the form of private interviews with administration officials or others that are transcribed and under oath — often referred to as a deposition.

In the previous Republican-led Congress, House committees were permitted to conduct depositions, but the chamber’s rules required that at least one member be present during the proceeding.

The new House rules unveiled by Democrats in January removed that requirement, allowing committee staff to conduct depositions without a member present.

From Vox: 2 women were detained solely for speaking Spanish. Now they’re suing the Border Patrol.

A story involving the 4th and 14th Amendments, in addition to the broad authority of the Border Patrol.

- Click here for the article.

Two Montana women are suing US Customs and Border Protection officers for detaining them at a gas station last year because they were speaking Spanish — the latest legal challenge to the agency’s broad authority to patrol the border zone.

Ana Suda and Martha Hernandez were questioned in May by a uniformed officer as they waited in line to buy eggs and milk at a convenience store in Havre, Montana — a tiny town 35 miles from the US border with Canada. The officer then detained the two women, who are American citizens, for 30 to 40 minutes outside by his patrol car.

Suda filmed the heated encounter on her cellphone, making headlines across the country when it went viral on social media.

Both women are nurse’s assistants and have been living and working in Havre for several years, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in Montana federal court. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs, says the Border Patrol officer violated their constitutional right to equal protection (and treatment) under the law, as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Their lawyers also say the matter amounted to an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Their argument boils down to this: Detaining someone solely for speaking Spanish is the same thing as stopping someone solely because of their race — which is illegal.

From Wikipedia: Freedom suits

This adds helpful info to the Dred Scott case. His suit for freedom was not unusual, the decision by the court to throw it out was. As with the "knock and announce" rule discussed earlier, it is based on British common law.

- Click here for the article.

Freedom suits were lawsuits in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States filed by enslaved people against slaveholders to assert claims to freedom, often based on descent from a free maternal ancestor, or time held as a resident in a free state or territory.

The right to petition for freedom descended from English common law and allowed people to challenge their enslavement or indenture. Petitioners challenged slavery both directly and indirectly, even if slaveholders generally viewed such petitions as a means to uphold rather than undermine slavery. Beginning with the colonies in North America, legislatures enacted slave laws that created a legal basis for "just subjection;" these were adopted or updated by the state and territorial legislatures that superseded them after the United States gained independence. These codes also enabled enslaved persons to sue for freedom based on wrongful enslavement.

From Wikipedia: The Shame of Minneapolis

A story that highlights the problems of patronage. This is what the Progressives were trying to eradicate with civil service reform.

- Click here for the story.

After entering office, Ames consolidated his power over the city's police department (the one area of city government which the mayor had full control over). He fired nearly half of the city's officers and replaced them with political allies and henchmen. He installed his brother Frederick W. Ames, "a weak, vacillating individual," as the city's police chief. Norman W. King, a gambler and underworld figure, became the city's chief of detectives. Medical student and confidant Irwin A. Gardner was put in charge of the city's vice squad.[1]:344–345[6]

Ames and the Minneapolis police began operating as an organized crime syndicate, extorting protection money and "fines" from illegal businesses of various kinds. The money collected was turned over to Ames and divided between him and his associates. Minneapolis was promoted as an "open city" to criminals across the country and criminals were released from the city's jail. Illegal businesses such as opiumjoints, gambling parlors, and houses of prostitution blossomed, many in the Gateway district. It was speculated that women were setting up candy stores to run a legitimate business to children and workers out front, but providing the services of prostitutes in the back.[1]:345–346[7]

After a year in office, Ames' organization began to swirl out of control. Ames was drinking heavily and the various police and politicians under him began to fight among themselves, withholding money from Ames or developing their own extortion schemes without his approval. Attempts by the Hennepin County sheriff to crack down on the widespread criminal activities were quashed, but even average citizens were aware of the city's descent into corruption.

From Bloomberg: Sleazy Journalism Can Serve the Public Good

Commentary on the fight between Jeff Bezos and the National Enquirer

- Click here for the article.

There are plenty of reasons to sympathize with Jeff Bezos in his battle with the National Enquirer. If true, the accusations of blackmail brought by the billionaire founder of Amazon would be just the latest outrage from the tabloid, which has made a specialty of scabrous reporting and ethically questionable tactics and techniques.

But that doesn’t mean we should always applaud the campaigns of powerful moguls to silence sleazy newspapers. History shows that even the most odious publications and the worst practices of scandal sheets can inadvertently play an important role in maintaining the freedom of the press. There’s no better illustration than the sordid story of the Saturday Press.

It's worth a read

Catching up with the Rainy Day Fund

Expect more.

- Texas’ savings account is poised to hit $15 billion. How much will lawmakers spend?

More than in any legislative session since the Great Recession, Texas lawmakers are signaling a willingness this year to dip into the state’s massive savings account.

As the Legislature debates costly investments in property tax reduction and public schools, and with big bills coming due for retired teachers’ pensions and Hurricane Harvey recovery, Texas’ Economic Stabilization Fund is taking center stage in budget negotiations.

Left untouched, the savings account, also known as the rainy day fund, would reach an unprecedented $15 billion over the next two years, according to official estimates.

State lawmakers have proposed an ambitious and expensive legislative agenda for 2019, and with economists raising concerns that an oversized savings account will lose value over time and weigh down the economy, Texas’ Republican leadership appears eager to dip into the piggy bank.

“I think we all are realistic that we may have to tap into the rainy day fund for one-time expenditures, more than we have in the past,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said at a recent hearing.
- Texas lawmakers indicate they may use rainy day fund for school security, hurricane recovery and teachers' pensions.

A group of state leaders with huge influence over what public services receive funding said Friday they were prepared to make a significant withdrawal from the state’s savings account.

At a public hearing, House and Senate leaders listed myriad needs they could pay for out of the savings account, including leftover costs from Hurricane Harvey, a bill coming due for retired teachers’ pensions and unspecified public school safety improvements. That savings account, known formally as the Economic Stabilization Fund and colloquially as the rainy day fund, is projected to reach an unprecedented $15 billion in the coming budget cycle if left untouched.

“I think we all are realistic that we may have to tap into the rainy day fund for one-time expenditures, more than we have in the past,” said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick at the end of a roughly 10-minute meeting of the state’s Legislative Budget Board.

That would include money for Hurricane Harvey recovery — something the state will “for sure” pay for out of the rainy day fund, said state Sen. Jane Nelson, the upper chamber’s lead budget writer.

From the Texas Tribune: With eager candidates waiting in the wings, Texas Supreme Court slot sits open

A look at the governor's power to appoint members to the Texas courts - especially the Texas Supreme Court.

- For a look at recent appointments, click here.

- Here is the retirement that made this possible.

- Click here for the article.

In the past three months, Gov. Greg Abbott’s appointments have included a new director of the Office of State-Federal Relations, a new chair of the Family and Protective Services Council, three Parks and Wildlife commissioners, several appellate court justices and two members of the Texas State Board of Acupuncture Examiners.

But in the months since Texas Supreme Court Justice Phil Johnson announced his retirement, Abbott has not named a successor to fill the vacancy on the state’s highest civil court. Friday marks three months since Johnson announced — just days after a slew of lower-court Republican justices lost their elections to Democrats in big city districts — that he would retire, effective Dec. 31, after 13 years on the high court’s bench.

That vacancy leaves the all-Republican court liable to split 4–4 — an impasse that might require the governor to appoint an interim judge as tiebreaker — and, perhaps more significantly, adds to the hefty workload of the eight justices sitting on the bench. Operating one member down could make it more difficult for the high court to clear its docket by the unofficial end-of-June deadline, a productivity marker that has been a priority for Chief Justice Nathan Hecht.

Hecht said the vacancy has yet to hurt the court’s workflow, though “eventually it might.” It’s not the first time the court has been down a justice, he noted, and Johnson worked to get out several opinions before retiring last year.

Property Tax Bill in the Texas Senate

One of the governor's emergency items gets moving.

The bill in question is Senate Bill 2.

- Days after heated meeting, Texas Senate property tax committee passes 2.5-percent rollback rate bill.

The Texas Senate’s new Property Tax Committee on Monday moved with breakneck speed to advance a controversial proposal on one of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s top legislative priorities: slowing property tax growth.

In a 4-0 vote, the committee passed an amended version of Senate Bill 2, a complex bill that would further limit the amount local governments like cities, counties, school districts and special districts can spend without voters stepping in. (All four Republicans on the panel voted for the bill, while Democrat Juan "Chuy" Hinojosawas present but didn't vote.)

SB 2 would require an election when local governments want to collect an additional 2.5 percent or more in tax revenues from existing properties, regardless of the total taxable values assigned to properties. The cap limits the amount of total revenue a local government can rake in without voter approval, even if its tax rate is not increased.
- Analysis: The challenge of reining in property taxes at no cost to schools.

The Texas Senate’s property tax fervor shouldn’t come as a surprise. That’s where state-imposed limits on local tax increases got traction two years ago, and the leaders there — Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Paul Bettencourt, who replaced Patrick in the Senate — were both flying the property tax flag for years before they were elected to state office.

Voters want cuts. Texas, with no income tax to lean on, had the 13th-highest per capita property taxes in the country in fiscal year 2015 and the 9th-highest per capita sales taxes, according to the Tax Foundation. That outfit also ranks Texas 46th among the states for overall state-and-local tax burden, a fact that doesn’t seem to do much to temper the outrage.

No surprise here: The property tax activist at the head of the Texas Senate appointed a Committee on Property Tax that reflects his activism, with four Republicans and one Democrat. Texans will find out in a matter of weeks whether the full Senate is willing to go along with what the committee appears certain to approve as early as Monday.

From the Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott names school finance, property tax reform emergency items

One of the governor's constitutions powers over the legislature.

- Click here for the article.

Gov. Greg Abbott, in his biennial State of the State address on Tuesday, stayed on message about education and taxes, continuing state leaders’ so-far unified focus on bread-and-butter policy reforms in a forum where he has in the past served up red meat.

Speaking in the Texas House to both chambers of the Legislature, Abbott named as emergency items the consensus priorities of school finance reform, teacher pay raises and property tax relief, the issues he and the state’s other top two Republican leaders have trumpeted almost single-mindedly in the months since the midterm elections.

Also topping the governor’s priority list: school safety, disaster response and mental health programs. Abbott’s designation of those priorities allows lawmakers to take up such measures sooner, lifting the usual constitutional limitation that prevents the Legislature from passing bills within the first 60 days of the session.

“Our mission begins with our students,” Abbott said as he began to lay out his legislative priorities. To improve lackluster student outcomes — only 40 percent of third graders reading at grade level by the end of their third grade year, he said; and less than 40 percent of students who took the ACT or SAT being prepared for college — “we must target education funding.”

From tyhe Texas Tribune: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is seeking more power this session to prosecute voter fraud and abortion-related crimes

More attempts to expand state power over cities in Texas.

- Click here for the article.

As he begins his second term, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is looking to expand the prosecutorial power of his office, asking the Legislature for more resources and expanded jurisdiction to go after crimes related to abortion and voter fraud.

The Republican attorney general’s office has asked lawmakers for millions more in funding to prosecute election fraud and human trafficking crimes. The agency has also requested expanded jurisdiction over abortion-related crimes, which are currently the purview of local officials.

Paxton’s office, which didn’t return multiple requests for comment for this story, says additional resources — and the additional grants of authority — are necessary to ensure laws are uniformly, and firmly, enforced across the state. But in Texas, most criminal enforcement falls to local prosecutors unless they seek the state’s help. And many of those prosecutors say there’s no need for the state to take over work they’re already handling.

Critics also point to the contested areas where two of Paxton’s major requests focus — abortion and election fraud — as evidence that he’s motivated by politics, not law.

From the Texas Tribune: Courts have called Texas bail practices unconstitutional. Will that push this year's reform efforts to success? Two years after a bail reform bill died in the Legislature, new bail legislation has other factors working in its favor.

One of a variety of bills related to criminal justice reform in Texas this session.

- Click here for the article.

A lot has changed in Texas and the country since state lawmakers failed to pass a bail reform law in 2017.

There have been a number of largely successful lawsuits against Texas counties over their bail practices. Two of Texas’ largest counties — Harris and Dallas — have been at the forefront of those lawsuits — with federal judges calling their practices unconstitutional.

Those cases, along with recent jail deaths and the governor’s recent involvement on the issue, are expected to be front and center this year as state lawmakers renew a fight to reform the Texas bail system.

State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, and state Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, announced Monday at the Capitol that they have again filed legislation that would implement a risk-assessment tool for judges to use when making bail decisions, among other proposals. Joining them in support of the legislation were the state’s two top judges, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht — who has publicly called for a change to Texas’ system for years — and Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller.

“I don’t believe I’ve seen anything more broken in the criminal justice system than our current bail bond process,” Whitmire said. “If we do not fix it, ladies and gentlemen, the federal courts will.”

Bail is a legal mechanism to ensure defendants appear in court for their hearings after being charged with a crime. The most common practice is money bail, in which judicial officers set a bond amount that defendants must pay in order to be released. In the last few years, lawsuits have popped up all over the country — including in Texas — arguing that the system wrongfully detains poor defendants until their case is resolved while similar defendants with cash are allowed to go free.

In a speech to the 2017 Legislature, Hecht argued for reforms by noting that 75 percent of people in Texas jails have not been convicted. To illustrate what he considers a flawed system, he cited the case of a grandmother who was kept in jail for about two months on a $150,000 bond after allegedly shoplifting $105 worth of clothes for her grandchildren.

As with most legislation, vested interests are involved in it.

Whitmire blamed his 2017 bill’s failure on the powerful bail bond industry, which includes companies that front the full cost of a bail bond at a fee of about 10 percent. (A defendant being held on a $1,000 bond, for example, could pay $100 to a bail bond company to be released.) He said last session that bail bond companies opposed the bill because it would cut into their cash flow, but those in the industry have argued the measure would lessen a judge’s discretion and threaten public safety by letting more people out of jail.

The Texas Alliance for Safe Communities, a nonprofit organization that's opposed to bail reform, issued a statement after the bills were filed, claiming risk assessment tools lean too much toward letting people leave jail, even if it’s unsafe. The group cited multiple crimes committed by those who were out on bail bonds, including an Austin murder where the suspect was out on bond on robbery charges at the time.

“Algorithm-based bail policies remove these critical decisions from our elected judges, in some cases needlessly endangering law enforcement and Texans, and do nothing to support and provide accountability to defendants to ensure they don’t spiral into a cycle of crime,” the statement said.

The lawmakers acknowledged there will continue to be strong opposition from the industry this session, but Murr said elected officials and the general public have learned a lot more about the issue since 2017.

"Sometimes it takes more than one swing of an ax to chop a tree down," he said.

From the Texas Tribune: Naturalized citizens suing over Texas voter citizenship review, calling it conspiracy to single out foreign-born Texans The plaintiffs allege the state's move to flag tens of thousands of registered voters for citizenship reviews violates the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.

This was easy to foresee.

- Click here for the article.

The lawsuit was filed a week after the Texas secretary of state’s office said it was sending out the names of approximately 95,000 registered voters who had provided the Department of Public Safety with some form of documentation — such as a green card or work visa — that indicated they were not citizens when they obtained a driver’s license or ID card.

Almost immediately, civil rights groups and election administrators raised the prospect that the state’s list likely included voters who had become naturalized citizens after obtaining their driver’s licenses or IDs. Texans are not required to update DPS if their citizenship status changes in between renewing those state-issued IDs, which don’t have to be updated for several years.

In the days following the state’s announcement, the secretary of state’s office informed counties that it had mistakenly included legitimate voters who had proved they were citizens when they registered to vote at DPS offices. And election officials have since confirmed that the remaining list includes naturalized citizens who didn’t register to vote at DPS offices.

But officials have “neither withdrawn the list of suspect voters nor advised the counties to refrain from acting on the flawed information” even though the data has since proven to be flawed and likely includes tens of thousands of naturalized citizens, the complaint reads.

One of the plaintiffs, Julieta Garibay, has confirmed with Travis County election officials that she is on the list they received from the state. Five others believe they were included on the state's list. Another plaintiff, Elena Keane, received a notice from Galveston County stating, “There is reason to believe you may not be a United States citizen,” and asking for proof of citizenship within 30 days to remain on the voter rolls.

But wait, there's more:

- Another group of civil rights organizations sues Texas over voter citizenship review: The ACLU and others are asking a federal court to block counties from sending notices requiring certain voters to prove their citizenship.

From the Texas Monthly: A No-Knock Raid in Houston Led to Deaths and Police Injuries. Should Police Rethink the Practice?

Recent events have put a particular type of warrant in the news.

- Click here for the article.

. . . On Wednesday, Acevedo released parts of the search warrant that allowed for the raid. According to the affidavit, the narcotics squad had been investigating the house for two weeks when they enlisted a confidential informant to go into the house and attempt to buy drugs (Acevedo said at a press conference Thursday that police received a tip earlier in January from an anonymous caller, who said her daughter had been inside the house doing heroin and that there were guns inside). At that point investigators did not know the names of anyone who lived inside the house, only that there was a man inside who looked to be around 55 years old. On Sunday, the officers met with the informant, gave him some money, and sent him inside the house to try to buy drugs. He returned with “brown powder” that later tested positive for heroin.

According to the affidavit, the informant said he bought the powder from the middle-aged man, who called it “boy,” a street name for heroin. The informant also said that the man carried a gun, and that there was more of the brown powder at the house, “packaged in a large quantity of plastic baggies.” The author of the affidavit wrote that the informant had “proven to be credible and reliable on many prior occasions” and he asked a municipal court judge “to enter the suspected place and premises without first knocking and announcing the presence and purpose of the officers executing the warrant.” As probable cause for the no-knock raid, the investigator wrote that because there was heroin inside and the man there was armed, it was reasonable to believe that the suspect would use the gun to defend himself or to buy time to destroy the drugs if he knew beforehand that police were going to enter the house. The order was signed at 1:30 p.m. on Monday. Within three and a half hours police had arrived at the house, armed and ready.

. . . The Fourth Amendment protects against unannounced searches, except when law enforcement can show beforehand that there is a risk of violence or the destruction of evidence. Judges in Texas typically approve warrants for no-knock raids, and the tactic is frequently employed by police departments across the country, with mixed results. According to a 2014 ACLU study of twenty police departments, “no-knock warrants were used (or probably used) in about 60 percent of the incidents in which SWAT teams were searching for drugs, even though many resulted in the SWAT team finding no drugs or small quantities of drugs.” Many no-knock searches yield only enough drugs to charge suspects with misdemeanors, according to a 2017 New York Times investigation.

It’s a dangerous tactic. The Times found that between 2010 and 2016, 31 civilians and eight officers died during no-knock raids, while “scores of others were maimed or wounded.” The most notorious no-knock raid left a seven-year-old girl, Aiyana Jones, dead in Detroit in 2011. The ACLU’s 2014 report found that 42 percent of the subjects of SWAT search warrant raids were black and 12 percent were Hispanic. The Times also found that in some of the searches in which an officer was killed, “suspects with no history of violence, found with small quantities of drugs, have wound up facing capital murder charges, and possible death sentences.”

For more:

- Execution of Warrants.
- Cops do 20,000 no-knock raids a year. Civilians often pay the price when they go wrong.
- No-knock warrant.

Worth a look, from Wikipedia:

English common law has required law enforcement to knock-and-announce since at least Semayne's case (1604), and in Miller v. United States (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that police must give notice before making a forced entry.[1] In the U.S. federal criminal law, the rule generally requiring knock-and-announce is codified at 18 U.S.C § 3109.

However, in Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) the Court created an exception to prevent the destruction of evidence and in Hudson v. Michigan (2006) the Court, by a 5-4 vote, held the exclusionary rule does not require the suppression of evidence police seize during an illegal forced entry

From the Texas Tribune: Many see "Robin Hood" as a villain. But lawmakers rely on it to pay for schools. Even outspoken critics of Robin Hood, the controversial program that redistributes money among school districts, acknowledge that they need it to avoid future school finance lawsuits.

For 2306 - a look at an item on the agenda of the Texas Legislature.

It's also an example of a reserved power, fiscal policy, checks and balances and the role of the courts in setting public policy. Oh, and the equal protection clause.

- Click here for the article.

For some in the debate over how to fund Texas' schools, "Robin Hood" is decidedly a villain.

The program, baked into state education law since 1993, requires the state to take funding from school districts with higher property values within their boundaries and give it to poorer school districts that can't raise much money. It's become a symbol of everything that's wrong with the state's school finance system, invoked regularly by politicians promising to help tamp down rising tax bills.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted this month that Texas will "begin dismantling the flawed Robin Hood scheme that has failed our schools." State Rep. Kyle Biedermann, R-Fredericksburg, pitched legislation to "stop excessive Robin Hood theft" and limit how much the state can take from wealthier districts. A couple of lawmakers have filed bills to completely strike the program from state law.

But even some of the system's biggest critics admit that completely eliminating the program will be next to impossible this session. That's because the state has set up a school funding structure that relies heavily on property taxes, and property values are unequal across the state. Without Robin Hood, schools in property-wealthy school districts would have a lot more money to educate their students than those in areas with low property values, likely exposing the whole system to more lawsuits.

And given the alternatives — like, say, a state income tax or raising other forms of taxes — lawmakers are unlikely to adopt a new system in which property taxes play a smaller role.

"The state needs a 12-step program, and the first step is to publicly admit, 'I am the state of Texas and I am addicted to local property taxes,'" said David Thompson, a lawyer who has represented both the state and school districts in lawsuits over school funding.

State Rep. Brooks Landgraf, R-Odessa, is one of the lawmakers who filed a bill that would eliminate Robin Hood, which is known formally "recapture." But he said the legislation is designed to spark a conversation about how Texas funds its schools — and that he's not sincerely leading a campaign to nix the program.

"We all understand that we have to have equity in our school funding," he said.

From Vox: The White House quietly rolled back workplace safety rules during the shutdown Public health groups are suing the Trump administration for blocking a rule requiring employers to report details of workplace injuries.

An example of an implied power. There's nothing about workplace safety in the U.S. Constitution. This is likely to be constitutional through the commerce clause.

It also fits our look at rulemaking, interest groups, checks and balances and judicial review.

- Click here for the article.

The partial government shutdown may have disrupted air travel and triggered financial hardship, but it didn’t stop the White House from continuing to dismantle regulations meant to protect US workers.

On Friday, the Trump administration gutted a 2016 rule that required most employers to electronically submit detailed reports of all workplace injuries to the Department of Labor each year — reports they’ve long been required to keep, but never required to submit.

The Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses rule would have allowed the government, for the first time, to get more complete data on how many US workers are injured on the job and how those injuries happened. Enacted under the Obama administration, it was supposed to help inspectors identify dangerous work conditions, and in turn pressure businesses to comply with workplace safety laws.

But in 2017, the Trump administration put the electronic reporting rule on hold, then amended it this summer to let employers off the hook. Employers would no longer have to submit the detailed injury reports — just a summary report.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which reviews regulations before they are published, then rushed the amendment through the three-month review process in just six weeks — even though the office was closed during the shutdown and two-thirds of the office’s employees were furloughed. By Friday, the changes were finalized and published.

The move caught labor leaders off-guard and drew sharp criticism from public health researchers, who rely on injury data to analyze health risks and develop prevention programs. Public Citizen, a nonprofit group that promotes research-based policies to improve occupational health, immediately filed a lawsuit with two other public health groups to block the changes. The AFL-CIO labor federation accused the department of ramming through the controversial changes as a favor to big business groups, who oppose the rule.

“The process was totally opaque, not transparent, and clearly rushed,” Peg Seminario, the AFL-CIO’s safety and health director, told me. “The only reason this was rushed through was because the Trump administration wanted to relieve employers of having to report their injury data.”

From the Texas Tribune: Despite beer and lobby ties, Speaker Dennis Bonnen sees no need for recusals or new disclosures Bonnen, who married into a beer distributing family, says he doesn't need to recuse himself on alcohol issues and won't name the lobbyists who own a piece of his bank — a list that is much longer than previously reported.

For 2306 - this highlights the conflicts created by a "citizen" legislature.

- Click here for the article.

When Republican state Rep. Dennis Bonnen was looking to raise money for his bank a decade ago, he turned to familiar faces for some of the investment capital: lobbyists who get paid to influence people like him.

More recently, when a restaurant in Tyler was concerned about the slow processing of its liquor permit, members of Bonnen’s beer-distributing family sought assistance on its behalf — and soon the Angleton lawmaker’s office asked state regulators what was taking so long.

Now that the bank CEO has risen to one of the highest offices in state government — speaker of the Texas House — his financial ties to lobbyists and the permit "status check" he provided at the request of his wife’s family highlight two potentially fraught areas for the new GOP leader, particularly during a legislative session in which alcohol laws could undergo major revision.

Bonnen told The Texas Tribune he sees no conflicts of interest, no reason to take any formal steps to distance himself from beer or banking issues, and no need to tighten disclosure rules that make it impossible for Texans to know for sure which lobbyists have invested in his Heritage Bank of Pearland — a list that is much larger than what has previously been reported.

“We’re a citizen legislature, and what our constitution and what the people of Texas have wanted for over a hundred years is people to be elected, come to Austin for a short period of time, and live and work under the laws that we pass,” Bonnen said in an interview at the Capitol last week.

But ethics watchdogs say that at a minimum, Bonnen should disclose the full list of lobbyists and Texas lawmakers who invested in Heritage while taking clear steps to distance himself from any legislative issues that could conflict with any personal or family business.

“Texans have a right to know who has the potential to influence legislators,” said Carol Birch, legislative counsel for the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen of Texas. “If the disclosure requirements aren't requiring that type of information, then we’ve got a problem.”