From 538: Trump’s Approval Rating Is Incredibly Steady. Is That Weird Or The New Normal?

For out look at polling, and approval ratings.

- Click here for the article.




So what explains this lack of movement in recent presidents’ approval ratings?

For starters, Trump is arguably the most polarizing president ever — in his second year in office, an average of 87 percent of Republicans approved of the president while just 8 percent of Democrats did, the widest such gap that Gallup has ever found. But this kind of partisan split was almost as wide under Obama, though not until his final year in office.

As Democrats and Republicans move farther apart politically, the specifics of a president’s job performance may become secondary considerations for voters in forming an opinion of how he’s doing. “People are more likely to judge candidates and policies solely on the basis of their party,” said Christopher Federico, a professor of political psychology at the University of Minnesota. “If everything boils down to party, then there’s less room for other stuff that a president might be held responsible for — like a bad economy or increased casualties in a foreign military engagement — to move that president’s approval around.”

For our look at the coalitional nature of the two parties.

Both from 538

- The Five Wings Of The Republican Party.

The Trumpists

Often join Trump on immigration policy and in attacking institutions; largely avoid criticizing him publicly on foreign policy and trade even if they don’t fully embrace his views on those issues; strongly defend him in almost every instance. Prominent examples: Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Fox News, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, Sen. David Perdue of Georgia.

The Pro-Trumpers

Support the president as a default, but hold views similar to George W. Bush or Paul Ryan on policy issues and not truly aligned with most of the four aspects of Trumpism; occasionally disagree with Trump publicly, particularly on foreign policy, but usually with careful language. Prominent examples: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Charles and David Koch, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Trump-Skeptical Conservatives

Generally aligned with Trump, but tend to break with him in somewhat noisy ways and generally by casting the president as insufficiently conservative. Prominent examples: Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Trump-Skeptical Moderates

Generally aligned with Trump on policy, but wary of Trumpism; often criticize the president sharply and publicly, particularly his anti-institutionalism and his policies and remarks on racial issues. Prominent examples: Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah

Anti-Trumpers

Never really embraced Trump as the leader of the GOP and seem open to supporting a primary challenger to him. Prominent examples: Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, conservative activist Bill Kristol, former Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.


- The Six Wings Of The Democratic Party.

The Super Progressives

Very liberal on economic and identity/cultural issues, anti-establishment. (Anti-establishment is a very fuzzy term, but in this piece, what I’m referring to is people who see part of their role as not just attacking Republicans, but also highlighting what they see as shortcomings of the Democratic Party itself.) Prominent examples: Ocasio-Cortez , Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan

The Very Progressives

Very liberal on economic issues, fairly liberal on identity issues, skeptical of the Democratic establishment. Prominent examples: Bill de Blasio, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.

The Progressive New Guard

Liberal on both economic and identity issues but also somewhat concerned about the “electability” of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence after Barack Obama was elected president. Prominent examples: Stacey Abrams, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, Beto O’Rourke.

The Progressive Old Guard

Solidly center-left on both economic and identity issues, but very concerned about the “electability” of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence before Obama was elected president. Prominent examples: Joe Biden, Cuomo, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer.

The Moderates

More conservative and business-friendly than other Democrats on economic policies; somewhat liberal on cultural issues; anti-establishment. Prominent examples: Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia.

Conservative Democrats

Skeptical of liberal views on both economic and cultural issues, often supportive of abortion limits, generally from conservative-leaning areas. Prominent examples: Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.

From the Texas Tribune: Advocates say the timing is right for independent oversight of Texas prisons

More on checks and balances, executive agencies, interest groups, and bill making.

- Click here for the article.

After a recent slew of damning headlines regarding conditions within Texas prisons, reform advocates and lawmakers are hopeful that the timing is right to get legislation passed creating independent oversight of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

State Rep. Jarvis Johnson, D-Houston, and state Sen. Borris Miles, D-Houston, filed identical bills in their respective chambers last week calling for a governor-appointed, independent ombudsman's office to oversee and investigate complaints against the prison agency. The criminal justice department currently has an ombudsman within the agency, but Johnson and Miles say detaching it from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice would free it to more objectively report findings to lawmakers without repercussions.

“You just can’t have the fox watching the henhouse,” Johnson said. “They’re not doing their job.”

Under the bills, the ombudsman’s office would move under the purview of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, a separate agency overseen by a board appointed by the governor. The commission would provide office space, human resources and budgetary support to the ombudsman's office.

The ombudsman’s office documented resolving over 35,000 issues reported by inmates, their family members and the general public in its latest report — detailing work from October 2016 to September 2017. Complaints ranged from visitation inquiries, access to and denial of medical care and allegations of unprofessional prison staff conduct.

Miles first filed Senate Bill 188 on Nov. 14, and Johnson filed House Bill 363 a day later. The bills mirror those filed by the same legislators in 2017. The Senate bill never received a committee hearing. The House version was passed through the House Committee on Corrections, but only after a complete overhaul that included removing the creation of an independent ombudsman.

Johnson said for the 2019 session, he’s adjusted his approach and has made the bill a top priority for his legislative agenda. Miles and Johnson filed the bills early for this upcoming session, unlike in 2017 when they waited until session had already started. And the Democrats picked up 12 additional seats in the house, potentially providing a little more blue oomph for the bill.

“This time I’m coming back with a lot more energy and emphasis on it,” he said. “There’s a better chance of it passing when you go after it 100 percent.”

Advocacy groups also said that they are optimistic that the timing is right for the idea, since the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has endured a difficult year in the public eye. The Houston Chronicle reported in February that suicide attempts in Texas prisons have more than doubled in the last four years. And over the summer, the agency faced a scandal over a short-lived quota system in which prison officers were punished if they didn't hand out enough disciplinary measures. Four prison workers were indicted in the fallout from that scandal on allegations that they planted a screwdriver in an inmate's cell.

From Vox: Maryland just became the sixth state to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour

More on policy diffusion and interest groups, among other topics.

- Click here for the article.

Maryland is now the third state to phase in a $15 minimum wage so far this year, and the sixth overall. In February, New Jersey and Illinois did so, too.

While Hogan’s veto was not surprising (he has always opposed a $15 minimum), it’s a striking position in a state where the $15 minimum wage is so popular with voters in Maryland and across the country.

The law will benefit about 573,000 workers in Maryland who currently earn less than $15 —about 22 percent of the state’s workforce, according to the National Employment Law Project.

Advocates for the wage hike didn’t get everything they wanted in the bill. For example, it won’t eliminate the lower wage for tipped workers, which is $3.63, and future changes to the minimum wage aren’t tied to inflation. The bill also continues to let businesses pay agricultural workers less than the minimum wage, and allows employers to pay young workers less, too.

But the push for a $15 wage is gaining support across the country, and has even reached Congress. For the first time ever, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are considering a bill that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour — another sign that the public pressure is paying off.

It all started with frustrated McDonald’s workers in Illinois

Passing the $15 minimum wage bill is still a major win for the fast-food workers whose movement helped 5 million workers get pay raises in 2019.

Within five years, they’ve transformed an improbable proposal into a popular policy — one that would address, in part, the slow wage growth American workers are experiencing.

The workers’ movement, called Fight for $15, organized strikes and ralliesall across the country. But they saw little success until 2016, when California became the first state to hike hourly wages to $15, followed by Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC.

Business groups, meanwhile, are not happy about the fight for $15. And neither are their Republican allies in Congress. They’ve long pushed back against any effort to raise the wage floor at the federal level, claiming it would destroy small business and trigger massive job losses.

CNN: Remembering Desert Storm, 20 years later

Here's video we watched in GOVT 2305 today.

From Lawfare: Document: Attorney General Barr Letter on Mueller Report

This is all we know right now about the results of the Mueller investigation.

- Click here for it.

AC in Texas Prisons

All from the Texas Tribune

- Texas officials say it would cost $1 billion to cool prisons – but they’ve grossly overestimated AC costs before.

- A state report says a Texas inmate died from heat last year. Prison officials contest that finding.

- After $7 million legal fight over air conditioning, Texas prison system touts new heat safety policies.

- Texas spent $7 million to fight against A/C in a prison. It may only cost $4 million to install.

For reference ....

From the NCSL: REDISTRICTING AND THE SUPREME COURT: THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CASES

A nice summary of past cases.

- Click here for it.

From the NYT: Justices Display Divisions in New Cases on Voting Maps Warped by Politics

The court again considered whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

The cases are Rucho v. Common Cause, and Lamone v. Benisek.

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court returned to the subject of partisan gerrymandering on Tuesday, appearing largely divided along ideological lines as it considered for a second time in two years whether drawing election maps to help the party in power ever violates the Constitution.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court’s newest member and the one who may possess the decisive vote, expressed uneasiness about the practice.

“Extreme partisan gerrymandering is a real problem for our democracy,” he said. “I’m not going to dispute that.”

He added, though, that recent developments around the nation — including state ballot initiatives establishing independent redistricting commissions, proposed legislation in Congress and State Supreme Court rulings — may make action from the United States Supreme Court less necessary.

Have we really reached the moment, even though it would be a big lift for this court to get involved, where the other actors can’t do it?” he asked.

Much could hang on Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion: A ruling that limited partisan gerrymandering could transform American politics, reshaping House maps in several states, often but not always to the benefit of Democrats.

Justice Kavanaugh was an exceptionally active participant in Tuesday’s arguments, asking probing questions of both sides and displaying particularly detailed familiarity with the geography and voting districts of Maryland, his home state. But his record as an appeals court judge provides few hints about how he will approach the issue.

The other justices seemed largely split along the usual lines, with the more conservative ones wary of announcing constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering and the more liberal ones prepared to try.

There was certainly no consensus on how to fashion a legal standard that would separate acceptable partisanship from the kind that is unconstitutional. Justice Stephen G. Breyer proposed a numerical test, but it did not seem to gain traction with his colleagues.

For More:

- Supreme Court weighs crackdown on gerrymandering.
- Proportionality and the Oral Arguments.

From Congress.gov: H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

- Click here for full info on the bill.

From Vox: House Democrats officially unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal

HR1 - For The People Act - was the first bill introduced in the House by the Democratic majority.

- Click here for the article.

Here are the major components of it:

Campaign finance

- Public financing of campaigns, powered by small donations. Under Sarbanes’s vision, the federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over. The maximum small donation that could be matched would be capped at $200. “If you give $100 to a candidate that’s meeting those requirements, then that candidate would get another $600 coming in behind them,” Sarbanes told Vox this summer. “The evidence and the modeling is that most candidates can do as well or better in terms of the dollars they raise if they step into this new system.”

- Support for a constitutional amendment to end Citizens United.

- Passing the DISCLOSE Act, pushed by Rep. David Cicilline and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, both Democrats from Rhode Island. This would require Super PACs and “dark money” political organizations to make their donors public.

- Passing the Honest Ads Act, championed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Mark Warner (VA) and introduced by Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA) in the House, which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money for political ads on their platforms and share how much money was spent.

- Disclosing any political spending by government contractors and slowing the flow of foreign money into the elections by targeting shell companies.

- Restructuring the Federal Election Commission to have five commissioners instead of the current four, in order to break political gridlock.

- Prohibiting any coordination between candidates and Super PACs.

Ethics

- Requiring the president and vice president to disclose 10 years of his or her tax returns. Candidates for president and vice president must also do the same.

- Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment or discrimination cases.

- Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration requirements. These include more oversight into foreign agents by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

- Creating a new ethical code for the US Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.

Voting rights

- Creating new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out, rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Early voting, same-day voter registration, and online voter registration would also be promoted.

- Making Election Day a holiday for federal employees and encouraging private sector businesses to do the same, requiring poll workers to provide a week’s notice if poll sites are changed, and making colleges and universities a voter registration agency (in addition to the DMV, etc), among other updates.

- Ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections and prohibiting voter roll purging. The bill would stop the use of non-forwardable mail being used as a way to remove voters from rolls.

- Beefing up elections security, including requiring the director of national intelligence to do regular checks on foreign threats.

- Recruiting and training more poll workers ahead of the 2020 election to cut down on long lines at the polls.

From the Texas Tribune: Medical cannabis expansion has high support in the Texas Legislature. But Dan Patrick might stand in the way.

For our look at criminal law, the lieutenant governor, and interest groups in Texas.

- Click here for the article.

. . . a broad coalition of lawmakers plus some powerful lobbyists support expanding access to medical cannabis in Texas. But bills to do so face a major obstacle: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the Senate's presiding officer, who can single-handedly block any legislation from coming up for a vote in the upper chamber.

In a statement to The Texas Tribune, Patrick spokesperson Alejandro Garcia said the lieutenant governor is “strongly opposed to weakening any laws against marijuana [and] remains wary of the various medicinal use proposals that could become a vehicle for expanding access to this drug.”

House Speaker Dennis Bonnen hasn't publicly expressed a position on expanding the Compassionate Use Act, but he voted against the bill in 2015. According to a person familiar with his thinking, he does not plan to get in the way of the chamber if there is support for amending the program.

Klick, who did not respond to request for comment, is one of a handful of lawmakersthis session who has put forth a bill to expand the list of patients eligible for the drug. If passed, her measure would give Texans with multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and spasticity access to medical cannabis.

In addition to Klick’s bill, state Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, filed a bill that would increase the cap on THC levels in medical cannabis legally grown in Texas from 0.5 percent to nearly 1 percent, and allow physicians on the state's Compassionate Use Registry to decide which patients need it rather than restricting it to those with certain conditions. Two other measures filed by Democrats would drastically expand the list of debilitating medical conditions that qualify for the drug.

It’s not unusual for the more conservative upper chamber to stall marijuana-related bills. A Compassionate Use Act expansion bill in 2017 from state Sen. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, never received a hearing.

“I don’t understand why politicians are trying to get between the doctor and the patient on something that doesn’t do anything but help the patient,” said Menéndez, who also filed a bill this session that would expand the list of debilitating medical conditions that qualify for medical cannabis to include illnesses like terminal cancer, autism, Crohn's disease and post-traumatic stress disorder. “Why are we sticking our heads in the sand?

From the Texas Tribune: Justice Department reaches agreement with Harris County to ensure polling place accessibility for disabled voters

For our look at federalism, elections, and civil rights.

- Click here for the article.

Harris County on Tuesday agreed to make its voting locations more accessible to people with disabilities, settling a lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice in which the federal agency alleged that the county was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The 2016 lawsuit alleged many of Harris County’s more than 750 voting places had architectural barriers — like steep ramps or gaps in walkways— that made them inaccessible to voters with mobility or vision disabilities. Under the settlement, Harris County will have to change its current voting program to comply with the ADA.

“I commend Harris County for its decision to enter into this agreement in order to achieve our shared goal of making polling places accessible to all eligible voters,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick in a statement.

As part of the settlement, the county will have to provide curbside voting, create a better system to choose accessible polling places and identify accessibility barriers at current poling places and find temporary solutions — such as mats or ramps— for elections. Harris County is required to conduct accessibility surveys of nearly two thirds of its polling places.

From WalletHub: 2019’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States

More on fiscal federalism.

- Click here for the article.

One big point of difference among state economies is the tax burden of the average citizen. This number varies greatly. But what are the reasons behind why some states tax their residents more or less?

If a state can afford not to tax its residents at high rates, there are multiple explanations. One is that their economic policies are sound and the state economy is doing well. But another is that the state gets disproportionately more funding from the federal government than states with harsher tax codes.

Americans have looked at federal assistance programs with growing scrutiny. According to a 2018 Rasmussen report, 61% of American adults think there are too many people receiving government financial aid. On the other hand, only 9% think not enough people are receiving funds. Regardless of overall trends, though, it is true that some states receive a far higher return on their federal income-tax contributions than others.

Just how big is this difference? And to what extent does it change our perception of state and local tax rates around the country? WalletHub sought to answer those questions by comparing the 50 states in terms of three key metrics. Read on for our findings, commentary from a panel of experts, and a detailed explanation of our methodology.

From Governing: Momentum for Fixing Marijuana's Banking Problem Is Higher Than Ever

The national government is catching up with the states.

- Click here for the article.

New Jersey will likely be the next to legalize recreational marijuana, which would make it the 11th state (plus the District of Columbia) to do so. Medical marijuana is legal in an additional 22 states, meaning that more than half the country permits some form of the drug.

And yet, most growers and sellers can’t get a bank account for their business.

Because the drug is still illegal under federal law, any bank that handles marijuana money can be charged with money laundering. This forces the industry to deal with large amounts of cash, making the businesses targets for violent crime and making it difficult for states to track and collect the tax revenue they're owed.

But, there appears to be more momentum than ever before for addressing this issue.

This month, the SAFE Banking Act was introduced in Congress. It would prevent federal banking regulators from punishing banks for working with legal cannabis businesses.

This is the second time a bill like this has surfaced, but this year, there are 138 bipartisan cosponsors in the House. That’s a notable improvement from 2017 when there were only 95 cosponsors. The SAFE Banking Act is scheduled for committee markup this week, meaning it’s already made it farther in the legislative process than the previous version.

Advocates of the bill, including state treasurers, are optimistic.

“I definitely think it has more momentum this time,” says Illinois State Treasurer Michael Frerichs, who leads the National Association of State Treasurers' bipartisan group supporting the act. “We understand there will always be some opposition to marijuana. ... But we think attitudes are changing.”

Still, even if it passes the Democratic-controlled House, it’s unclear how much traction the legislation would have in the Republican-controlled Senate.

In the meantime, states are seeking out their own solutions.

From Governing: Articles on Fiscal Federalism.

- Inside Trump's Budget: 6 Things State and Local Governments Should Know.

- President Trump's 2020 budget proposes major cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency, Medicaid, food stamps, cash welfare, public housing, transportation, clean energy and economic development.
- State and local organizations are noticeably quiet in response.
- It would run a $1 trillion federal deficit for the next four years.
- The Week in Public Finance: The 10 States That Give More to the Feds Than They Get Back.

WHO GIVES AND WHO GETS?

Most states get more money back from the federal government than they pay out. But 10 states, shown below in red, give more than they receive.



- How Much Do States Rely on Federal Funding?

From Governing: Scott Walker's New Gig: Urging States to Call a Constitutional Convention

An Article V Convention.

- Click here for the article.

A national group says its campaign to convene an unprecedented U.S. constitutional convention to balance the federal budget has a new leader: former Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

The Center for State-led National Debt Solutions on Monday announced Walker will serve as its national honorary chairman.

It marks one of the first efforts by Walker to re-enter the political fray since his November election loss to Gov. Tony Evers.

In 2017, Wisconsin became the 28th state to request an Article V convention -- so named for the article of the U.S. Constitution that sanctions the process.

According to the Constitution, two-thirds of the states (34) must request such a convention for one to occur. Walker will lead an effort to get six more states to make the request. Any constitutional amendments proposed during a convention would have to be ratified by three-fourths of states (38).

The center will focus on 10 states to make a convention a reality, according to a statement.

Walker spokesman Tom Evenson declined in an email Monday to say how much Walker will be paid for the job or whether it will involve lobbying.

"Gov. Walker will help guide the overall 10-state strategy and raise national awareness of the balanced budget amendment effort," Evenson said.

The center's president, Loren Enns, said in a statement that adding Walker to the effort will make an Article V convention a reality.

"With Governor Walker's involvement, the national campaign for a balanced budget amendment finally has the high-profile leader it has lacked," Enns said.

The concept of an Article V convention is controversial, with proponents calling it perhaps the only way to rein in federal debt and deficits. Critics fear a "runaway" convention at which other far-reaching proposals could surface -- even ones that undermine basic constitutional freedoms.

From the Fort Worth Start-Telegram: Conservatives worried about Dems in Texas decide to leave Cornyn alone

For 2305 students and this week's written assignment. hat's going on here? 

- Click here for the article.

Leaders of a deep-pocketed conservative group that spent millions in Texas last election cycle says the state is now at such risk of turning blue in 2020, it will consider helping moderate Republican incumbents once deemed potential targets for its primary efforts.

Despite floating the idea of funding a challenger to Texas Sen. John Cornyn the last time he was on the ballot in 2014, Club for Growth President David McIntosh told the Star-Telegram Friday his group is now concerned about the state’s political future, and would spend money on Cornyn’s behalf if the senator draws a difficult challenge from a Democrat.

“If we get a sense that Cornyn has a vulnerability, then we’ll come back to that and decide whether we should engage,” said McIntosh, whose group has already begun polling in Texas for 2020. “That would be Texas-specific,” he added of his group’s overall strategy for the Senate map this cycle. “Were mainly interested in three states where the Republican primary is key.”

The Club for Growth PAC and Club for Growth Action spent roughly $5 million in Texas in 2018, and considers the state fertile ground for its goal of electing conservative allies to Washington.

In the months following an election in which nine GOP members of Congress received less than 52 percent of the vote, however, it’s been huddling with Republicans of all stripes who are concerned about rapid Democratic gains.

Though the group can’t legally coordinate on strategy with campaigns or the state party, it now heads into the 2020 cycle in lock-step with the Republican Party of Texas, whose leaders it has huddled with in both D.C. and Austin.

“The November results were a reminder to everyone of what’s at stake if we focus too much of our attention inward and not toward the general election in November, so I certainly hope that everyone has gotten the message,” said James Dickey, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.

“In any race we should be considering whether the potential benefit of a possible change is significantly outweighed by the potential risk of a much worse change,” said Dickey.

Sullivan v NYT

From the Pew Research Center: Bipartisan support for some gun proposals, stark partisan divisions on many others

For our look at public opinion and partisanship.

- Click here for the article.

Vox: It took one mass shooting for New Zealand to ban assault weapons

A demonstration of what makes the American governing system different.

Keep in mind that more people live in the Houston metropolitan area than in New Zealand.

- Click here for the article.

The US political system also makes action on guns more difficult

Even if the US did have a president ready to enact stricter gun laws, there’s a good chance that such measures wouldn’t pass. That’s because of how the US political system is structured, with multiple checks in the system presenting several veto points to just about any legislation.

This isn’t hypothetical. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012 (in which a gunman killed 20 children, six adults, and himself), President Barack Obama and Democrats pushed for Congress to enact stronger gun laws. The measure couldn’t even get through the Senate, because a minority of senators blocked the bill from getting through a filibuster.

Consider the basic structure of the US system (as explained by Schoolhouse Rock): For a bill to become a law at the federal level, it has to get through the US House and the Senate, and then the president has to sign off on it.

So before a bill becomes a law, it has to get majority approval from the House and Senate. The Senate is especially tricky because it’s inherently an unrepresentative body (with each state getting equal representation, regardless of population). The increasing use of the filibuster has created an even bigger hurdle in which most legislation needs to get 60 out of 100 votes, instead of a simple majority, to make it through the filibuster and pass. And then, of course, the president could veto the bill anyway, which Congress can only overcome with a two-thirds vote.

This creates multiple points throughout the process in which a bill can die. The only reliable way to overcome this is for a political party to control a majority of the House, 60 percent of the Senate (unless a majority votes to end the filibuster, which is technically possible, or lets a bill pass without it), and the White House. And the party can’t lose many, if any, votes along the way. That’s not easy in a highly polarized, divided country, especially with sensitive issues like gun control.

New Zealand does not face these barriers. In a parliamentary system, voters elect representatives, and then the representatives form a ruling coalition, either with their own political party or with like-minded political parties. This ruling coalition then chooses the prime minister. From that point, the party essentially controls the full agenda until the next election is called.

So in the US, a political movement needs to win the House, Senate, and White House to change the law. In New Zealand, a political movement needs to just win Parliament. (This is especially true in New Zealand, since it’s unicameral — meaning Parliament is only made up of one legislature.)

That means that all New Zealand really needs to do to change its gun laws is get the current leadership — particularly, Prime Minister Ardern and her coalition — on board. It’s a much simpler task than getting the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (a Republican) and at least some Democrats in the Senate (to defeat a filibuster), and President Donald Trump (a Republican).

Parliaments don’t always have it easy. Political coalitions in parliamentary systems can splinter — just look at what’s happening in the UK with continuing battles over Brexit. But the parliamentary system does make it far easier for the ruling coalition to come together and pass its agenda when it wants.

We are now seeing this play out in New Zealand: It suffered a horrible mass shooting, the country’s prime minister within a day vowed to change the gun laws, and, less than a week later, New Zealand’s government is moving to enact those reforms.

Some recenty items from the Texas Tribune.

- State regulators: No 'immediate health concerns' from Deer Park terminal fire.

- Medical cannabis expansion has high support in the Texas Legislature. But Dan Patrick might stand in the way.

- On some big issues this year, Texas lawmakers are going against the polls.

- Laredo officials want to use border wall money to fund a riverfront project.

LBJ's television

From the Texas Tribune: How the Texas Democratic and Republican party platforms compare

For my 2306 students as we look at state parties.

- Click here for it.

ANDREI IANCU v. ERIK BRUNETTI

More on the issue below:

- ScotusBlog: Iancu v. Brunetti.
- FUCT.
- Wikipedia: Lapham Act.
- Lexology: Iancu v. Brunetti: FUCT Trademark Battle Heads to the Supreme Court. 

From The Fashion Law: Supreme Court to Review Goverment Ban on Fuct & Other "Scandalous" Trademarks

Can the Patent Office trademark words that are scandalous and malicious?

- Click here for the article.

When Erik Brunetti first attempted to register the name of his famed streetwear-slash-skatewear brand – in 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") had one word for him: no. As Mr. Brunetti would soon learn the hard way, the USPTO, as the arbitrator of federal trademark registrations in the United States, has the authority to bar the registration of names, logos and other trademarks that it deems to be "immoral" or "scandalous." In the eyes of the USPTO, “fuct" – the name of Mr. Brunetti’s brand – fit squarely within this territory.

. . . the Supreme Court agreed on Friday to review the Federal Circuit’s decision, after the USPTO’s formally requested that the Supreme Court take on the case. At issue, according to the petition filed on behalf of Andrei Iancu, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the Director of the USPTO in September, is whether the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is facially invalid (i.e., unconstitutional) under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

According to the USPTO’s petition, the lower court erred in siding with Brunetti. In the 73-page filing, the USPTO argues that the Lanham Act’s ban on the registration of scandalous marks does not run afoul of the First Amendment because it does not restrict what may be used as trademarks, only what may be registered. In other words, the USPTO may refuse to register a mark (in accordance with the Lanham Act ban) but even then, it does not prevent the trademark application filing party’s use of that mark.

In the U.S. (and other jurisdictions that award trademark rights to parties that are the first-to-use a specific trademark), rights are not gained by way of a registration with the USPTO but through actual and consistent use of the mark on commerce. This means that even if Brunetti (or any other party for that matter) does not register his mark with the USPTO, he still maintains common law (i.e., state law) trademark rights, which he can assert against parties that are using his mark without authorization.

The ban on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks “simply reflects Congress’s judgment that the federal government should not affirmatively promote the use of graphic sexual images and vulgar terms by granting them the benefits of registration,” U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in the USPTO’s petition.

As for Brunetti, he is hardly staying silent. “The scandalous clause is not a content-neutral rule that rejects all profanity, excretory and sexual content,” he has asserted in connection with the Langham Act provision. “Instead, the government is selectively approving or refusing profanity, excretory and sexual content based upon the level of perceived offensiveness.”

From thr Texas Tribune: Former U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall dies

For our look at the transition from the Democratic to Republican Party in Texas.

- Click here for the article.
 Hall was one of the last conservative Texas Democrats to switch over to the GOP and made history as the oldest member of the U.S. House.

He was a veteran of the Texas Senate, and East Texans elected him to the U.S. House in 1980 as a Democrat. He switched to the Republican party in 2004.

Hall served 17 terms in the U.S. House.
. . . Like most people in Texas politics, he was a Democrat early on. He served as a county judge from 1950-62, went to the Texas Senate in 1962 and served there for 10 years.

In 1980, East Texans elected him to Congress. Hall's district stretched from the Dallas suburbs deep into Northeast Texas — all the way to Texarkana — and was the seat once occupied by U.S. House Speaker Sam Rayburn. Rayburn was a close friend of Hall's mother. In the 1950s, a group of Republicans tried to recruit Hall to challenge Rayburn.

"If you do that, where are you going to get breakfast?" Hall's mother told him, according to a 2014 C-SPAN interview with the congressman. "You're not going run against Sam Rayburn."
While a member of the Democratic caucus, he voted often with Republicans. He stayed with the party long after many other high-profile Texans moved to the GOP, including John Connally and Rick Perry. In 2003, Hall voted "present" rather than support the Democrats' new leader, future Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Hall finally made the jump in 2004 amid a GOP redraw of the state congressional map, and Republicans quickly named named him to a senior position on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee. He would easily coast to re-election — until 2014.

Ratcliffe defeated Hall in a 2014 Republican primary. Most of the Texas Republican delegation realized the seriousness of the Ratcliffe threat at the time and rallied behind Hall. Even so, the longtime congressman lost that race.

"When I got up here, I was a Democrat. But I was a conservative Democrat," he said during the C-SPAN interview. "And I didn't really fit. Republicans didn't really want me, and the Democrats didn't like me."

Some recent polls from the Texas Tribune

- Analysis: In step with Texas voters on some things, and out of step on some others.

- Immigration and border security remain the top worries of Texas voters, UT/TT Poll finds.

- Guns are popular with Texans, and so are “red flag” laws, says UT/TT Poll.

- Texas voters deeply divided on voting, a border wall and diversity, says UT/TT Poll.

From the NCSL: Marijuana Overview

More on policy diffusion.

- Click here for article.

States that Have Legalized Recreational Marijuana for Adults

From The Hill: What's socialism anyway?

There seems little consensus on this, and the polls reflect this confusion.

- Click here for the article.

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez may know what they mean by socialism, I sincerely doubt most of the others throwing the label around have any real understanding of the term.

Eduard Bernstein, the preeminent theorist of democratic socialism, made the same point 120 years ago: “If we asked a number of people … to give a brief definition of socialism, most of them would be in some difficulty. … If we consult the literature of socialism itself, we will find very different accounts of the concept. … They will vary from … legal ideas (equality, justice) to … its identification with the class struggle … to the explanation that socialism means cooperative economics.”

Bernstein’s socialist program was so mainstream (i.e., not radical) that much of it was achieved in America long ago: universal suffrage, workers’ rights to form unions, an end to child labor for those under 14 and improved conditions for agricultural workers.

Bernstein explicitly rejected Marx and revolution, preferring evolution, and unlike some current American socialists, opposed “full state maintenance” of the unemployed, saying it was damaging the will to work of those voluntarily unemployed.

Soviet socialism was radically different, as are other visions of socialism. Saint-Simon’s socialism and Proudhon’s and Owens’s and Bakunin’s and Debs’s and Olof Palme’s socialisms were all quite different from each other.

But that’s exactly the point: There’s lots of disagreement, even among socialists, about what constitutes socialism.

So what are polls measuring when they ask about socialism?

From Slate: The U.S. Constitution Is Impossible to Amend

A mistake by the founders?

- Click here for the article.

The problem starts with Article 5 of the Constitution. It provides that an amendment can be proposed either by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate or by a convention, called into being by Congress, after a request from two-thirds of the states. That’s version A and version B of step one. If an amendment makes it through either one, then comes step two: ratification by three-quarters of the states. In other words, an amendment requires a supermajority twice—the pig must pass through two pythons. By contrast, ordinary legislation requires the approval of a simple majority in each house.

The founders made the amendment process difficult because they wanted to lock in the political deals that made ratification of the Constitution possible. Moreover, they recognized that, for a government to function well, the ground rules should be stable. But they also understood that the people will need to change those ground rules as new challenges and problems surface with the passage of time. They didn’t mean for the dead hand of the past to block necessary progress.

But the founders blundered. They made passing an amendment too hard. In the 220-plus years since ratification of the Constitution, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed, but only 27 have been enacted. The first 10 amendments were added immediately to appease critics of the Constitution during the ratification debates. The three critical post­–Civil War amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th), which expanded individual rights, are also a special case because the Southern states were coerced into ratifying them. From 1870 to today, only 12 amendments have been enacted. And since 1971, only a single amendment has been ratified—a trivial change that prohibits Congress from giving itself a raise that takes effect before the following election—and that ratification took place 203 years after the proposed amendment was submitted to the states in 1789.

Still, how do we know that amendment is too hard rather than just hard enough? One reason is that the cumbersome national amendment process in the United States makes us an outlier. Most liberal democracies—including the nice, stable ones in Western Europe—amend their constitutions with great frequency. Germany amends its Basic Law almost once per year, and France a bit more than once every two years. Indeed, most states in the U.S. amend their constitutions every couple of years. Many have completely replaced their original founding documents. The procedures for amendment in states and most liberal democracies are much easier than they are for the U.S Constitution. For example, in Germany, an amendment requires a two-thirds majority in each House, and that’s it. In all these cases, no one complains about the lack of constitutional stability.

More on the National Vote Compact

- www.nationalpopularvote.com
- The Movement To Skip The Electoral College Is About To Pass A Major Milestone.
- National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.- Don’t believe the myths about a national popular vote.

National Popular Vote Explained

From Pitchfork: Chance, Killer Mike, Meek Mill File Legal Brief in Supreme Court Case on Rap Lyrics

For our look at

- Free Speech (limits)
- Criminal Law
- Amicus Briefs
- Interest Groups

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of Jamal Knox v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The case revolves around Knox, a rapper who was 19 when he was sentenced to 2-6 years in prison in 2014. He was charged with terroristic threats and witness intimidation, with prosecutors alleging his lyrics targeted specific police officers in Pittsburgh. The case has made its way to the Supreme Court, where Knox’s lawyers assert that his First Amendment rights are being violated.

Now, Run the Jewels’ Killer Mike and a group of other rappers—including Chance the Rapper, Meek Mill, 21 Savage, Yo Gotti, Styles P, and more—have filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case in support of Knox, as The New York Times reports. The brief contains a “primer on rap music and hip-hop” as well as intricate breakdowns of the lyrics that were condemned as “terroristic threats.”

“In short, this is a work of poetry. It is told from the perspective of two invented characters in the style of rap music, which is (in)famous for its exaggerated, sometimes violent rhetoric, and which uses language in a variety of complex ways,” the brief reads. “It is not intended to be taken literally, something that a reasonable listener with even a casual knowledge of rap would understand.” Find the full brief here.
For More:

- Killer Mike, Chance the Rapper and others file Supreme Court brief to educate justices about rap music.
- Rapper jailed for song threatening police tries a free speech appeal — and loses.

The True Threat Doctrine

- Wikipedia.

Jump to search
A true threat is a threatening communication that can be prosecuted under the law. It is distinct from a threat that is made in jest. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that true threats are not protected under the U.S. Constitution based on three justifications: preventing fear, preventing the disruption that follows from that fear, and diminishing the likelihood that the threatened violence will occur.[1] There is some concern that even satirical speech could be regarded as a "true threat" due to concern over terrorism.[2]

The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States.[3] In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States.[3] The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."[3] Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts.

In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech."[3] The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." [3] In so holding, the Court established that there is a "true threat" exception to protected speech, but also that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected hyperbole. The opinion, however, stopped short of defining precisely what constituted a "true threat." [3]
For more:

- Freedom Forum Institute.
- True Threats and the Limits of First Amendment Protection.
- When Does the First Amendment Protect Threats?

Knox v. Pennsylvania - Amicus Briefs

- Amicus Curiae from Killer Mike, among others.

- Amicus Curiae from the Cato Institute.

- Appeal IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA - WESTERN DISTRICT.

From Bloomberg: Hold the Revolution: Roberts Keeps Joining High Court Liberals

Chief Justices tend to focus on the integrity of the court as an institution.

- Click here for the article.

Chief Justice John Roberts is showing a new willingness to side with the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberal wing after the divisive confirmation fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Roberts joined the liberals Wednesday in two rulings that left the conservatives in dissent. Most notably, he cast the deciding vote to order a new look at the mental competence of a death row inmate who says he can’t remember the crimes he committed.

The votes add to an unmistakable pattern, offering fresh indications that Roberts is in no hurry to oversee a conservative legal revolution. The chief justice has also joined 5-4 orders that blocked President Donald Trump from curbing bids for asylum at the Mexican border and stopped Louisiana from enforcing new abortion restrictions.

“Chief Justice Roberts’s voting pattern this year reflects a change,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston.

It’s too early to say whether the votes mark the beginning of a lasting shift, or merely a pause on the court’s anticipated move to the right after Kavanaugh’s confirmation to succeed the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. Since being appointed in 2005 by Republican President George W. Bush, Roberts, 64, has established himself as a solid conservative, though usually one inclined toward incremental change.

From 2005 through the end of the 2016-17 term, Roberts had provided the fifth vote for a liberal outcome in a case argued before the court only four times, according to Adam Feldman, creator of empiricalscotus.com, which tracks Supreme Court trends. The biggest was Roberts’s 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act, a decision that embittered conservatives who had supported his nomination.

From the Texas Tribune: Will Texas decriminalize marijuana this year? There is growing support.

Texas may join the national trend.

- Click here for the article.

. . . According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, roughly 379,000 Texans have been arrested for possessing 2 ounces or less of marijuana in the past five years. Those criminal charges are for being caught with small amounts of a drug that an estimated 128 million American adults have tried — and that 55 million U.S. residents regularly use, according to a 2017 poll.

Ten states and the District of Columbia have legalized small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Thirteen other states have made possessing small amounts a civil rather than a criminal infraction, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Texas, possession of any amount of marijuana is illegal.

Still, there’s growing public support and bipartisan backing at the Capitol for lessening — or ditching — criminal penalties for what are currently low-level offenses. And some local court officials are already backing off of pursuing charges against some first-time offenders.

Lawmakers this year are pushing a bevy of bills that range from reducing the criminal penalties for those found with small amounts of marijuana to eliminating those criminal penalties altogether. But there remains some lingering political pushback from conservative hardliners and law enforcement groups who fear decriminalizing marijuana will increase crime rates and eventually lead to the legalization of other drugs.

. . . In Dallas County, newly-elected District Attorney John Creuzot said his office is currently declining prosecution for first-time marijuana possession offenders. He said he wants to free his prosecutors up to go after suspects who are accused of violent crimes or infractions that often portend to future violence.

“I don’t know of any research that shows having small amounts of marijuana has any bearing on community safety — certainly not violent crime,” Creuzot said.

Harris County prosecutors, meanwhile, offer a diversion program that gives residents caught with less than four ounces of marijuana the option to take a $130, four-hour class that focuses on decision making and risky behavior. If the class is taken within 90 days, participants will not have criminal charges pressed against them.

Since the program's implementation in March 2017, more than 7,000 people have gone that route as opposed to “the jailhouse or the courthouse,” said Dane Schiller, a spokesman for the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

“Thousands of people have not spent a night in jail, not been booked, fingerprinted, prosecuted and saddled with a record that could shadow them for the rest of their lives,” Schiller said.

From the Texas Tribune: GOP senator, oil industry clash over proposed eminent domain reforms

Oil and Gas versus agriculture, among other groups ...

- Click here for the article.

For years now, Texas Sen. Lois Kolkhorst has aimed to strengthen protections for Texans whose property may be seized by the governmental or private companies building roads, oil pipelines and other projects considered to be for the public good.

The first bill the Brenham Republican ever filed as a state senator in 2015 would have forced the entity seeking to condemn property to reimburse landowners for attorney and professional fees if they were caught making lowball offers for the targeted land; state law requires them to make a good faith offer, but many landowners complain that the initial offers often don’t jibe with the true value of their properties.

The bill never got a vote. In 2017, a similar measure by Kolkhorst passed the Senate but died in the House.

This year, she is trying again with Senate Bill 421, which includes a similar reimbursement provision but is largely limited to private, for-profit entities. The measure also would require condemnors to hold public hearings for more expansive projects and use "standard easement forms."

How Texas regulates eminent domain is more relevant than ever amid a historic oil-and-gas pipeline building spree — which has sparked a fervent backlash in the Texas Hill Country — and a continued push to build a high-speed train between Dallas and Houston. Federal land condemnations also are underway in the Rio Grande Valley to build some of the first sections of President Trump’s border wall.

The issue poses an awkward quandary for Republicans who say they support private property rights, but also assert that taking private land is often necessary for business and border security. Texas GOP officials consistently receive significant campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, which relies on eminent domain to build pipelines and other infrastructure.

From the TSHA: WHITE PRIMARY

Some background on one of the two principle means used in Texas to limit minority voting.

- Click here for the article. 

Following Reconstruction, white political leaders in Texas and other southern states sought to take the vote from black voters. As a disenfranchisement device, the poll tax discouraged poor whites as well as blacks from voting, while enabling blacks who paid the tax to vote. Party rules or state laws that barred blacks from the Democratic primary, however, could virtually disenfranchise all blacks (and only blacks) by keeping them out of the election that generally determined who would hold office in a Democratic-dominated state. When the Texas legislature passed a white primary law in 1923, it thrust Texans and the Texas white primary into the center of a struggle to have the United States Supreme Court declare all white primaries unconstitutional.

In the years immediately following Reconstruction no statewide primaries existed, and virtually all politically involved Texas blacks were Republicans. Especially in East Texas counties with black majorities, blacks often did participate in local politics. The first attempt to end local Republican rule where blacks had a decided majority was in Harrison County, where the so-called Citizen's Party, formed in 1878, managed to upset the county Republicans by stuffing ballot boxes and using intimidation. Similar efforts and occurrences took place in many other counties in the 1870s and 1880s, including Leon, Montgomery, Colorado, DeWitt, Fort Bend, Waller, Wharton, and other counties. When third-party movements, such as the People's party of the 1890s, appealed to black Texans as well as to some white Democrats, black voters also influenced state elections. Even some Democratic candidates sought black votes in response to the Populist challenge.

The Populists soon faded as a significant force, but white leaders began to search for ways of assuring white unity and hegemony. Governor James S. Hogg and state representative Alexander W. Terrell supported legislation to require and regulate primaries. They wished to counter vote fraud and believed that blacks should be excluded from Democratic primaries. Terrell's primary legislation was passed in 1903 and amended frequently thereafter. Some local party leaders adopted rules barring blacks from participating in the primary, but the law was not universally successful in disenfranchising blacks throughout Texas.

When more and more Anglo farmers moved into South Texas, conflict with established Mexican-American ranchers ensued as the two groups struggled for political and economic control of the region. The new farmers sought to eliminate Mexican Texans, who generally supported the old ranchers through the patron system, from the political process. In addition to using the formal and informal devices associated with the White Primary in the rest of Texas, organizations such as Dimmit County's White Man's Primary Association, established in 1914, disfranchised Mexican Americans in local elections and controlled the local labor supply.

From TribTalk: Texas should encourage the right to vote — and protect voters from intimidation

An opinion piece - one at odds with Texas history.

The author heads an advocacy group, The League of Women Voters of Texas.

- Click here for the article.

If you’ve never attended a naturalization ceremony, it’s an incredibly touching event to witness. To paint a picture: enthusiastic flag waving as patriotic new citizens and their proud families and friends are cheering, flowers are handed out and speeches are made. Everyone is smiling, shaking hands, taking photos and offering congratulations.

The League of Women Voters strives to embody its mission of empowering voters and defending democracy. Registering voters is core to our work as a nonpartisan organization, and some of the most rewarding voter registration events are naturalization ceremonies.

New citizens are excited and ready to celebrate their new citizenship by registering to vote. League volunteers stand by to help make the voter registration process easy and accessible, and sometimes register hundreds of new citizens. The feel of patriotic excitement is tangible. It is like a personal July 4 for so many newly naturalized citizens and a great reminder of what it feels like to be part of something greater than oneself.

Recently, state officials announced that a number of individuals voted in elections without the requisite citizenship, knowing the data was not yet reviewed or vetted.

There is not a problem of non-citizens registering and voting in Texas — there is a data problem. Even worse, government officials purposely took advantage of that known data problem to plant doubt about the integrity of the voting system.

The list of individuals in that bad data was made up of licensed drivers and state ID holders, most of whom likely obtained their citizenship after having obtained their state IDs and licenses. Calling this list as proof of “voter fraud,” was definitely inaccurate. This loosely thrown around terminology has a chilling effect on individuals who earnestly and lawfully follow the path to citizenship. This bullying of our newest citizens must stop.

The League regrets that we have to remind our state officials that naturalized citizens have a right to vote and to fully participate in our democracy. We have joined a lawsuit against the Texas Secretary of State and have asked the Senate Democratic caucus to block the nomination of David Whitley to be secretary of state. The League took these unusual actions because Whitley’s actions are not only not in the best interest of voting citizens but also a form of voter intimidation.

Naturalization ceremonies are family celebrations. But this celebratory event can quickly turn to fright and worry when those new citizens get letters from their county voter registrars, sent at the request of the Texas Secretary of State, attempting to invalidate their voter registrations. They included this sentence: “Your registration status is being investigated because there is reason to believe you may not be a United States citizen.” Very little instruction is provided around how individuals can cure the situation by partnering with their county official’s office. These are nothing more than intimidation letters, written in bureaucratic legalese.

The Secretary of State, as the chief election officer for Texas, should protect all citizens’ right to vote. Texans can have a secure and accurate voter registration list in two ways: first, by ensuring government officials prioritize data accuracy; and second, by modernizing to include a safe and secure electronic voter registration system like those currently available in 37 other states.

From the Texas Tribune: Broad Texas school safety bill proposes threat assessment teams, expanded emergency training

More from the legislature.

- Click here for the article.

Texas’ Senate education chairman on Monday unveiled a sweeping school safety measure that touches on strengthening school security, “hardening” school infrastructure and mental health counseling.

Senate Bill 11, filed by Sen. Larry Taylor, R-Friendswood, touches on a number of proposals Gov. Greg Abbott laid out in his 43-page school safety plan that followed the May shooting at Santa Fe High School that left 10 dead and 13 wounded.

Those proposals include beefing up mental health resources in schools by employing mental health professionals in Texas school districts; expanding emergency response training for district employees, including substitute teachers; and establishing threat assessment teams, which would help identify potentially dangerous students and determine the best ways to intervene before they become violent, to serve in Texas schools.

“Though nearly a year has passed since a shooting at Santa Fe High School took the lives of eight children and two teachers, it is critical that the Legislature keeps the topic of school safety at the forefront of our hearts and our conversations,” Taylor said in a news release. “It is my hope that the passage of this bill will help our schools prevent and prepare for similar events.” Taylor's news release said SB 11 would be heard by his committee on Tuesday.

More on the Texas Open Meetings Act

This is the subject of the post below

- texasopenmeetings.com.
- Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
- TML: TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT LAWS MADE EASY.
- Texas Statutes: CHAPTER 551. OPEN MEETINGS - SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
- Texas AG: Open Meetings Handbook.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas' highest criminal court strikes down provision of Open Meetings Act as "unconstitutionally vague"

The more vague the law, the more arbitrary the prosecution of it

- Click here for the article.

In a major blow to the state’s government transparency laws, Texas’ highest criminal court has struck down a significant provision of the Texas Open Meetings Act, calling it “unconstitutionally vague.”

That law, which imposes basic requirements providing for public access to and information about governmental meetings, makes it a crime for public officials to “knowingly [conspire] to circumvent this chapter by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations.” That provision aims to keep public officials from convening smaller meetings — without an official quorum present — to discuss public business outside the view of the taxpayers and the media.

Craig Doyal, the Montgomery County judge, was indicted under that statute for allegedly conducting “secret deliberations” — without a quorum of the commissioners court present — about a November 2015 county road bond. Doyal filed to have the charges dismissed, claiming the statute was unconstitutional. The case eventually made it to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which handed him a victory Wednesday. Two judges on the nine-member, all-Republican court dissented.

“We do not doubt the legislature’s power to prevent government officials from using clever tactics to circumvent the purpose and effect of the Texas Open Meetings Act,” Presiding Judge Sharon Keller wrote for the majority. “But the statute before us wholly lacks any specificity, and any narrowing construction we could impose would be just a guess, an imposition of our own judicial views. This we decline to do.”

A few items covered last week

- Railroad commissioners voice doubts that Permian Basin flaring is more prevalent than reported.

- After Texas' second Supreme Court loss in a death penalty case, reform bill lands key GOP support.

- Texas still doesn't have a law on intellectual disability and the death penalty. Will that change this year?

- After state leaders’ unified rollout, 2.5 percent rollback rate on property tax bill looks unlikely to stick.

- Texas Republicans — and Beto — are more conservative than their national parties.

Will Texas be more competitive in 2020?

Is seems so.

- Analysis: Where control of the next Texas Legislature will be decided.

- Analysis: Political climate changes in Texas congressional districts.

Americans Are Poorly Informed About Basic Constitutional Provisions

More on the irrational public.

- Click here for the article.



What does the First Amendment say?

Nearly half of those surveyed (48 percent) say that freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. But, unprompted, 37 percent could not name any First Amendment rights. And far fewer people could name the other First Amendment rights: 15 percent of respondents say freedom of religion; 14 percent say freedom of the press; 10 percent say the right of assembly; and only 3 percent say the right to petition the government.

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Contrary to the First Amendment, 39 percent of Americans support allowing Congress to stop the news media from reporting on any issue of national security without government approval. That was essentially unchanged from last year. But the survey, which followed a year of attacks on the news media, found less opposition to prior restraint (49 percent) than in 2016 (55 percent).



Many don’t know the branches of government

Only 26 percent of respondents can name the three branches of government (executive, judicial, and legislative), the same result as last year. In the presence of controls, people who identified themselves as conservatives were significantly more likely to name all three branches correctly than liberals and moderates. The 26 percent total was down significantly from APPC’s first survey on this question, in 2011, when 38 percent could name all three.

In the current survey, 33 percent could not name any of the three branches, the same as in 2011.

The phone survey, conducted for APPC by the research firm SSRS, has a margin of error of ±3.7 percent. For more on the methodology and questions click here.

From Wikipedia: National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System

A likely future Supreme Court case.

- Click here for the article.

In the United States, men between the ages of 18 and 25 and residing in the county with limited exception are required to sign up and maintain their registration in the Selective Service System, established by the Military Selective Service Act. Failure to register or maintain that can lead to fines and prison, and prevents one from several government benefits such as federally-backed student loans or employment in the federal sector. Women, not required to serve involuntarily, are not required to register. At the time it was established, the military did not allow women to serve in combat roles. The law was challenged on the basis of gender discrimination, leading to the 1981 Supreme Court case Rostker v. Goldberg. The Supreme Court ruled that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional on the basis that women were restricted from serving in combat roles.

Between 2013 and 2015, the Pentagon abolished their restrictions on women voluntarily serving in combat roles.[1] Based on these changes, the National Coalition for Men, a non-profit men's rights organization, filed a lawsuit against the Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013, arguing that with the Pentagon's change in female participation in combat roles, the rationale behind Rostker no longer applied, and the male-only requirement of the Selective Service System was gender-discriminatory.[2] In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case back to the district court.[3] The case was later moved to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in the 5th Circuit.[4]

In 2016 Congress created the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service and tasked it with evaluating the Selective Service System and recommending whether women should be required to register for the draft, or potentially do away with the Selective Service System to avoid the gender inequality issue. On January 23, 2019, the Commission released an interim report, which suggests numerous options including eliminating the draft, a type of universal service requiring all Americans to participate in some type of military or public service, or increasing efforts to create a volunteer force.[5] The report is due by March 2020.[6]