From Lawfare: The United Nations and the Accidental Rise of Covert Intervention

America shifted from over to covert intervention following the founding of the United Nations, and the requirement that nations respect each others territorial integrity.

- Click here for the article.

On June 26, 1945, the victors of World War II convened in San Francisco to sign the United Nations Charter. One of its most notable provisions was Article 2(4), which required members to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This was a significant and unprecedented prohibition. As Ian Hurd describes it, “For the first time in the history of the Westphalian interstate system, war was made explicitly illegal for all states.” Prior treaties outlawing war, such as the Paris Peace Pact of 1928, included only a subset of states.

With the recent passage of the U.N. Charter’s 75th anniversary, it is a good time to take stock of its effect on world politics. The persistence of militarized interventions in particular has left many observers skeptical of the relevance of the charter’s flagship provision. According to Erik Voeten, “there is no record of the UN actively restricting states from using force, let alone the United States.” Many legal scholars agree. Thomas Franck, the former president of the American Society of International Law, wrote in 1970 that “the high-minded resolve of Article 2(4) mocks us from its grave.”

In a recent book—“In the Shadow of International Law: Secrecy and Regime Change in the Postwar World”—I find that the effect of the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on forcible intervention, at least when it comes to the United States, is more complicated than skeptics allow. Although it has rarely prevented policymakers from intervening abroad, it has had a major influence on how those interventions looked. Concern about openly violating nonintervention often incentivized leaders to rely on covert action, even when doing so jeopardized mission success. Counterintuitively, then, the charter is partly responsible for the rise of secret interventions starting in the mid-20th century.

Links in the article.

- UN Charter.

- Platt Amendment.
- Roosevelt Corollary.

J.P. Morgan Documentary: How One Man Financed America

Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The justices held that the CFPB's leadership by a single director removable only for inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance violates the separation of powers.

- From ScotusBlog: 

Holding: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership by a single Director removable only for inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance violates the separation of powers.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 29, 2020. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I, II and III, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which Justices Alito and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor joined.

- From Oyez: 

Question

1 - Does the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violate the separation of powers principle?

2 - If it does, is 12 U.S.C. § 5491(c)(3) severable from the Dodd-Frank Act?

June Medical Services v. Russo

The justices struck down a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at nearby hospitals.

- From ScotusBlog.

Louisiana's Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, is unconstitutional.

- From Oyez.

Question: Does the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, below, upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflict with the Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt?

- From Vox: Why conservative Chief Justice Roberts just struck down an anti-abortion law - Roberts didn’t save abortion rights, he told future litigants how to bury them.

Only one thing has changed between June Medical and Whole Woman’s Health. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a relatively moderate conservative who cast the key fifth vote to strike down the Texas law, is no longer on the Court. And his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, opposes abortion rights. Kavanaugh dissented in June Medical.

So abortion opponents apparently bet that the replacement of Kennedy with Kavanaugh would allow them to litigate Whole Woman’s Health all over again — but with a different result. They bet wrong.

The fact that June Medical is almost entirely identical to Whole Woman’s Health forms the basis of Roberts’s opinion. “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided,” the chief justice writes. Nevertheless, “the question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.”

Ultimately, Roberts concludes that the principle of stare decisis — the doctrine that courts should generally be bound by their prior decisions — compels him to strike down Louisiana’s law. “The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law,” Roberts concludes.

As a practical matter, that means the constitutional right to an abortion is likely to survive for at least another year or two. But Roberts also signals that he’s open to a lawsuit challenging this right on other grounds.

The takeaway from Roberts’s opinion isn’t that the right to an abortion is safe. It’s that Roberts is reluctant to bend the Court’s ordinary procedures to hand abortion opponents a victory in this particular case.

A few items related to education in Texas

- Texas Education Timeline.

- TSHA: EDUCATION.

- Wikipedia: Morrill Land-Grant Acts.

From Roll Call: Parties publish dirty laundry so the right people can air it

For a look at the complicated - and often hidden - world of campaigning.

- Click here for the article.

More than a dozen opposition research books are available on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s website, detailing planned lines of attack on Republican candidates in some of the most competitive races. But the committee wasn’t hacked, it wasn’t an accident, and it’s not new. Posting the documents was entirely intentional and just the beginning of a biennial, bipartisan tradition.

The books are typically a few hundred pages, but the ones available as of Wednesday varied in length from the 10 pages about Republican consultant Jim Bognet, who is running in Pennsylvania’s 8th District, to the 942-page, Robert Caro-esque volume on former GOP Rep. David Valadao, who is running to reclaim California’s 21st District after losing reelection in 2018.

Just the term “opposition research” conjures up images of dumpster-diving in the shadows for sensitive discarded documents that can then be used for surprise attacks in television ads. Posting the opposition research online, however, is just one example of how both parties publicly share information to avoid illegal coordination with outside groups and running afoul of campaign finance laws. And it’s been happening for nearly a decade. (see “IE strategy borders on art form,” in CQ Roll Call eight years ago.)

Since the official campaign committees can’t coordinate with their independent expenditure arms or with outside groups, strategists on both sides of the aisle use public signals to keep the party on the same page and avoid duplication of resources, such as paying twice for the same background information.

Publicly available opposition research is also evidence that there are few surprises in modern campaigns, where races are more likely to be decided by execution and quality of ads, money to put them in front of voters, the partisanship of a district, and the national political environment.

From the Texas Tribune: Here’s your Texas 2020 July runoff ballot

Early voting starts today. This is a good review for 2306 students. It covers primary elections along with various elected offices in the state.

- Click here for it.

You might also want to  read: Early voting starts Monday for the primary runoff in Texas. Here’s what you need to know.

Today in the Texas Tribune

For 2306, mostly:

Texans begin voting Monday in runoff elections. Officials are doing what they can to make it safe.

Key terms

- primary runoff
- elections administrator
- voting
- statewide election
- low turnout
- party nominations
- congressional, legislative, local offices
- incumbent
- U.S. Senate
- Bexar County
- election judges and workers
- voting by mail
- early voting
- voting booths


Texas education officials consider changing state’s sex education policy for first time in 23 years.

Key  Terms

- political culture
- Texas State Board of Education
- state’s health education standards
- Republican-dominated board
- Texan Freedom Network
- federal data

From Congress.gov: H.R.7120 - George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020

Some ongoing bill-making.

- Click here for it.

- Click here for a fact sheet.

From Lawfare

Some random stories involving governing institutions.

These are useful for review.

- D.C. Circuit Orders District Court Judge to Drop Flynn Case.

- Trump Broke Law by Using Military Funding for Border Wall, Ninth Circuit Rules.

- House Homeland Security Committee Holds Hearing on the Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

- Justice Department Attorneys Claim Political Interference in Prosecutorial Decisions.

- House Judiciary Hearing on Political Interference at the Department of Justice.

Anglo-Powhatan Wars | 3 Minute History

The first of many conflicts with native populations in the new world.

When India And Communist China Became Enemies | Mao's Cold War | Timeline

This is timely since these guys might be going to war.

Russia's Geography Problem

A Geopolitical Tour of the World

China's Geography Problem

A look at contemporary geopolitics.

Much a nation's foreign policy is conditioned by geography, this includes the US.

Education is not a fundamental right in the U.S. Constitution

So said the U.S. Supreme  Court in 1973.

- Click here for Oyez.

- Click here for Wikipedia.

- Click here for TSHA.

The foundation of qualified immunity: Harlow v. Fitzgerald

For more on the 1982 Supreme Court case: 

- Wikipedia.

In an 8 to 1 decision, the court held that government officials other than the president were generally entitled to qualified immunity. An official can obtain absolute immunity, but must "first show that the responsibilities of his office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield from liability. He must then demonstrate that he was discharging the protected function when performing the act for which liability is asserted."

Despite its immediate application to White House aides in the case at bar, the case is regarded as most important for its revision of the qualified immunity standard that is applicable to government actors more generally. The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

From the Archives: Texas Supreme Court Rules School Funding System is Constitutional

For our look at the controversy over public school funding in Texas.

- Click here for the article.

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday issued a ruling upholding the state’s public school funding system as constitutional, while also urging state lawmakers to implement "transformational, top-to-bottom reforms that amount to more than Band-Aid on top of Band-Aid."

But without a court order directing the Legislature to fix specific provisions in the system, school groups worry that lawmakers will either do nothing or something outside the box.

“Our Byzantine school funding ‘system’ is undeniably imperfect, with immense room for improvement. But it satisfies minimum constitutional requirements,” Justice Don Willett wrote in the court’s 100-page opinion, which asserts that the court’s “lenient standard of review in this policy-laden area counsels modesty.”

There were no dissenting opinions; Justices Eva Guzman and Jeff Boyd delivered concurring ones.

"Good enough now ... does not mean that the system is good or that it will continue to be enough," Guzman wrote. "Shortfalls in both resources and performance persist in innumerable respects, and a perilously large number of students is in danger of falling further behind."

From Forbes: Colorado Passes Landmark Law Against Qualified Immunity, Creates New Way To Protect Civil Rights

Mostly commentary, but still useful.

- Click here for the article.

In a fitting tribute to Juneteenth, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed a sweeping law enforcement reform bill on Friday that marks one of the most significant changes to policing amidst the protests over the brutal killing of George Floyd. Among the new law’s many reforms, which include banning chokeholds and the use of deadly force for nonviolent offenses, the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act (SB20-217) allows plaintiffs to bypass “qualified immunity,” one of the biggest barriers to holding government agents accountable in court.

Ever since Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to combat the Ku Klux Klan, people who have had their rights violated by local and state government officials could sue them for damages in federal court. But in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court created qualified immunity, which shields officers from any legal liability, unless the rights they violated were “clearly established.” Thanks to qualified immunity, countless victims have been unable to vindicate their civil rights in federal court.

From NPR: Supreme Court Hands Federal Worker Major Win In Age Discrimination Case

For a look at civil rights and the Supreme Court.

- Click here for the article.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with older federal workers on Monday, making it easier for those over 40 to sue for age discrimination.

The 8-to-1 ruling rejected a Trump administration position that sought to dramatically limit the legal recourse available to federal workers.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, noted that federal law "demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age." So if age were a factor here as alleged, the process was not free from discrimination. But, he said, the relief available to individuals who have been discriminated against may be different, depending on the circumstances. If age discrimination was one of the factors during the process, but not the only factor, then employees may not be entitled to damages and back pay, but they are entitled to prospective relief, like eligibility for a promotional exam, or for a job promotion.

The case was brought by Noris Babb, a clinical pharmacist who worked for the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Bay Pines, Fla., for 16 years. In that time, she qualified to practice disease management, saw patients and prescribed medication without consulting a physician. And she had received consistently high marks for performance, according to her lawyers.

This is why the federal government requires regular bridge inspections

The Silver Bridge disaster

This is why school buses are yellow

Colorado Experience: Pleasant Hill Bus Tragedy

Criminal Justice Reform in Texas

Each from the Texas Tribune: 

- After defeats in 2019, a group of Texas lawmakers is teaming up to push criminal justice reform.

- Texas House approves bail reform bill after removing amendment that could keep more poor people in jail.

- Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says Senate won't pass bill to lower penalties for marijuana.

- Despite bipartisan support, Texas bill tackling intellectual disability in death penalty cases fails.

From The First Amendment Encyclopedia: City of Houston v Hill

Its OK to mouth off to the police.

- Click here for the story.

In City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), the Supreme Court found a city ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers to be unconstitutionally overbroad and a criminalization of protected speech.

Hill was arrested under law prohibiting verbal abuse of police

Houston police had arrested Raymond Wayne Hill for yelling “Why don’t you pick on somebody your own size?” when a police officer arrested a friend of his.

The police then arrested Hill for violating an ordinance determining that “It shall be unlawful for any person to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty, or any person summoned to aid in making an arrest.”

After his acquittal in municipal court, Hill filed a federal lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment of the Houston law as unconstitutional. A federal district court rejected his claim, but a federal appeals court reversed, finding the ordinance to be unconstitutionally overbroad and criminalizing a substantial range of protected speech and conduct.
Court invalidated ordinance on First Amendment grounds

On appeal, the Supreme Court invalidated the ordinance by an 8-1 vote.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr., who authored the Court’s opinion, wrote that “the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”

He added that the “freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” He reasoned that the ordinance could not be read only to prohibit disorderly conduct or fighting words.

- Click here for the decision.

From the LBB: The Fiscal Size-Up 2020-2021

For a look at the current Texas Budget, click here.

From the Texas Tribune: Houston officials increase police budget as Dallas and Austin officials consider decreases in wake of police brutality protests

A look ahead at criminal justice policy, and a look back at local governments.

- Click here for the article.

As nationwide calls for defunding law enforcement grow in the wake of historic protests against police brutality, Houston officials increased their spending on police Wednesday.

But Dallas and Austin officials appear supportive of pulling money from their police department budgets and reallocating that money toward community investments.

The Houston City Council increased its police budget Wednesday from $945 million last year to $964 million for the upcoming fiscal year. That came after the failure of council member Letitia Plummer's amendment that aimed to redistribute some of the money to other areas, including mental health programs and loans for businesses owned by people of color. Wednesday's vote came after Mayor Sylvester Turner announced that he will be launching a task force focusing on police accountability and transparency.

"We started the conversation on police reform. Not one of my amendments passed but I know that I stand on the right side of history," Plummer said on Twitter. "That is the most important take away. I answer to the people who elected me. I will be holding the task force accountable."

Bill Kelly, director of government relations for Turner, said that the increase in police funding was mainly related to "fixed costs," including pensions and pending pay rises. He also added that part of the police funding goes to its already existing mental health program, which includes outreach teams and training for officers.

"Houston has invested a considerable amount in better service for our population that has had to turn to law enforcement for public health crisis," King said in an email.

From the TAC: The 2020-2021 State Budget

- A look at the budget from the perspective of counties.

From the Comptroller: The 2020-2021 Biennial budget estimate.

- Click here for the source.

From the Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott says he supports making to-go alcohol sales permanent in Texas

An example of policymaking - how do things become law? In this case, the quarantine.

- Click here for the article.

During shutdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Texans have been able to purchase alcoholic beverages to go from restaurants, including liquor. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wants to make the change permanent.

Abbott originally signed a waiver March 18 allowing to-go alcohol sales, in an effort to support struggling restaurants after they closed their dining areas. The waiver was originally to last until May 1, but it was extended indefinitely. Abbott teased that this change could be permanent, tweeting at the time, “From what I hear from Texans, we may just let this keep on going forever.”

Abbott again tweeted late Saturday that he supports the idea of extending his temporary waiver. State Rep. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, replied, saying that he will file a bill in the upcoming legislative session to make it happen, also advocating to allow restaurants to continue selling bulk retail food items to go.

The 87th Texas legislative session begins Jan. 12, 2021.

From the Texas Tribune: U.S. Supreme Court blocks elimination of DACA, protecting more than 100,000 Texans from immediate threat of deportation

More on federalism and immigration policy.

- Click here for the article.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against the Trump administration's efforts to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, declaring in a 5-to-4 opinion that the 2012 initiative was inappropriately terminated by the Trump administration.

The court's decision comes nearly three years after Trump announced he was terminating the policy, known as DACA, that has protected more than 130,000 Texans from deportation since its inception, the second-highest total of any state after California. As of December 2019, there were about 107,000 Texans with DACA permits, according to federal statistics.

Trump's reason for ending the program echoed what many Republicans, including some in Texas, said when it was enacted: immigration law is under the purview of the U.S. Congress and that former President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he initially enacted DACA.

The program has provided a legal shield to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were brought into the U.S. as children; it was open to undocumented immigrants who came to the country before they were 16 and who were 30 or younger as of June 2012. The program gave them a renewable, two-year work permit and a reprieve from deportation.

From the Texas Tribune: In Zapata County, local government is fighting the federal government to stop one piece of the border wall

More federalism in action - this also  touches on immigration policy and imminent domain.

- Click here for the article.

The Trump administration’s ambitious, election-year goal to build hundreds of miles of barriers on the southern border could face a roadblock in one South Texas county.

The commissioners court in Zapata County, a rural community that sits between Laredo and the Rio Grande Valley, is digging in and challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in federal court over the government’s attempt to gain access to a small tract of county-owned land. The access would allow federal officials the right to survey property for possible future construction projects and is considered a procedural first step.

But that’s not how the county sees it, said attorney Carlos Flores, who is representing the county.

“For the [Trump administration] it’s just a routine matter. But the county has taken the position that they are not going to approach it that way,” he said. “Zapata County is not looking to reach an agreement, but rather challenge the authority of the federal government to do this."

The action in Zapata comes during a busy eight months in Texas for an administration trying to make good on the president's campaign promise to build a "big, beautiful" wall on the border. In November, the administration moved ahead with construction of new barriers in the Rio Grande Valley. That was followed by notices to landowners in Webb County telling them that DHS officials were moving ahead with surveys on private land.

And last month, the administration announced it was waiving several environmental policies to help fast track construction of about 70 miles of new barrier from north of Laredo to Zapata County.

Now Zapata County is trying to protect a roughly four-acre tract of land that’s home to a bird sanctuary in the town of San Ygnacio, which lies about 35 miles south of Laredo.

From Lawfare: What Is Qualified Immunity, and What Does It Have to Do With Police Reform?

Revising qualified immunity is one of the proposed police reforms.

- Click here for the article. 

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force—for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law. Both 42 U.S.C. § 1983—a statute originally passed to assist the government in combating Ku Klux Klan violence in the South after the Civil War—and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) allow individuals to sue government officials for money damages when they violate their constitutional rights. Section 1983 applies to state officials, while Bivens applies to federal officials. Because damages are often the only available remedy after a constitutional violation has occurred, suits for damages can be a crucial means of vindicating constitutional rights. When government officials are sued, qualified immunity functions as an affirmative defense they can raise, barring damages even if they committed unlawful acts. (Qualified immunity is not, however, a defense to claims for injunctive relief.)

The Supreme Court has generally traced qualified immunity back to the immunities available to government actors when officials were sued for common law torts during the 19th century. The basic idea is that when Congress enacted § 1983 in 1871, it incorporated the then-existing immunities into the statute, which the Supreme Court has also extended to Bivens suits. However, recent scholarship has called into question the Supreme Court’s account of the government immunities available in 1871, whether Congress intended them to be defenses to § 1983 claims, and the coherence of the relationship between the history and the modern doctrine.

3 U.S. Code Title 3—THE PRESIDENT

1. CHAPTER 1—PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES (§§ 1 – 21)
   
2. CHAPTER 2—OFFICE AND COMPENSATION OF PRESIDENT (§§ 101 – 115)
3. 
   [CHAPTER 3—REPEALED] (§§ 201 – 206)
4. 
   CHAPTER 4—DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS (§§ 301 – 303)
5. 
   CHAPTER 5—EXTENSION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS TO PRESIDENTIAL OFFICES (§§ 401 – 471)

From Politico: Trump signs executive order incentivizing police reforms

Executive orders are discussed in the chapter on the presidency.

- Click here for the article. 

- Click here for the order itself.

From the Guardian: Trump administration sues to block publication of John Bolton's book

An attempt at prior restraint, which we covered in Chapter 4.

- Click here for the article.

In a statement, Simon & Schuster said the lawsuit “is nothing more than the latest in a long-running series of efforts by the Administration to quash publication of a book it deems unflattering to the president”.

The lawsuit alleges that Bolton’s manuscript is “rife with classified information” and alleges that Bolton backed out of a White House vetting process for the book.

The justice department is requesting that a federal court order Bolton to “instruct or request” that his publisher further delay publication of the book to allow for a completion of the national security review process and to “retrieve and dispose” of existing copies in a manner acceptable to the government. The justice department also is asking a federal court to grant it the rights to all proceeds Bolton earns from the publication of the book.

Bolton’s lawyer Charles Cooper has said that the administration’s efforts to block publication are “a transparent attempt to use national security as a pretext to censor Mr Bolton, in violation of his constitutional rights to speak on matters of the utmost public import”. Cooper has said Bolton worked for months with classification specialists to avoid releasing classified material.

The widely anticipated book is set to make explosive claims about the Trump White House, including that the president has committed “Ukraine-like transgressions” across his entire foreign policy.

From KHOU 11: More Houston neighborhoods have old racist deed restrictions

A blast from the (maybe) past:

- Click here for it.

Momentum is growing in one of Houston’s oldest neighborhoods to change racist deed restrictions that say only people of Caucasian race can live in or own a home.

“There’s anger, there’s hurt, there’s outrage," said Sally Walden, an Oak Forest resident and realtor.

She's been doing her own digging into Houston's past.

“I want to say I found it in 10 to 12 (neighborhoods) so far,” Walden said.

The neighborhoods, like Oak Forest, were all established before the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The language is unenforceable, but neighbors are now organizing to get it off the books.

Gregory Cagle is the author of Texas Homeowners Association Law. He says changes to deed restrictions can not be changed by a simple vote of the HOA board. The change has to be agreed on by the property owners. Cagle says it can be initiated by the HOA, but that's not the only way.

"It can also be initiated by the property owners without the HOA," he said.

Cagle is also an attorney and founding partner at the law firm Cagle Pugh.

“There have been some efforts by the Texas legislature to create amendment procedures where non exist or make it easier to amend those documents where it was historically very difficult," he said.

In 2011, Texas lawmakers passed a bill saying 67 percent of owners need to agree to change deed restrictions if there is mandatory membership.

If there's not mandatory membership, The Texas Property Code requires 75 percent of owners to agree to the change.

Sandra Bland Arrest Footage

Two from the Texas Tribune: Both involving the federal courts.

For 2306, think about judicial federalism.

- Texas Democrats ask U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on voting by mail.

After a series of losses in state and federal courts, Texas Democrats are looking to the U.S. Supreme Court to expand voting by mail during the coronavirus pandemic.

The Texas Democratic Party asked the high court Tuesday to immediately lift the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' block on a sweeping ruling that would allow all Texas voters who are seeking to avoid becoming infected at in-person polling places to instead vote by mail. Early voting for the July 14 primary runoff election begins June 29.

The fight to expand who can qualify for a ballot they can fill at home and mail in has been on a trajectory toward the Supreme Court since Texas Democrats, civil rights groups and individual voters first challenged the state's rules months ago when the new coronavirus reached Texas. Under existing law, mail-in ballots are available only if voters are 65 or older, cite a disability or illness, will be out of the county during the election period or are confined in jail.

- U.S. Supreme Court halts Texas execution of Ruben Gutierrez during legal fight over religious advisers' access to death chamber.

Last week, a federal district judge stayed, or stopped, Gutierrez's execution while she reviewed his latest appeal. In it, Gutierrez said the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's new policy banning religious advisers in the execution room with inmates violated his religious freedom. Last year, TDCJ changed its policy that allowed prison chaplains in the chamber after the Supreme Court stopped another execution after a claim of religious discrimination. That inmate was Buddhist and wanted an adviser of his faith, but TDCJ only has Christian and Muslim clerics on staff and said outside advisers could not enter the room for security reasons.

On Friday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the district judge's stay, saying Gutierrez was unlikely to succeed on the appeal. But the nation's high court again stopped the execution just before 5 p.m. Tuesday, and told the district judge to swiftly order a ruling in the appeal.

"The District Court should promptly determine, based on whatever evidence the parties provide, whether serious security problems would result if a prisoner facing execution is permitted to choose the spiritual adviser the prisoner wishes to have in his immediate presence during the execution," the Tuesday order said.

The order said the stay would be lifted if the federal judge rejects Gutierrez's appeal, but if that does not occur Tuesday, the execution would need to be reset at least 90 days in the future. One of Gutierrez's lawyers told The Texas Tribune he did not expect a ruling from the district court Tuesday night.

From the City of Houston's 2017 Legislative report: The Sarah Bland Act

More on the act, this time from the perspective of cities.

- Click here for the report.

For the entire report, click here. 

For 2019's report, click here.

From the Texas Association of Counties: SB 1849 "Sandra Bland Act" Implementation Timeline

For our look at policy implementation, in addition to local governments, criminal juctice, etc . . . 

- Click here for the article.

For more on TAC's work with the legislature, click here.

Legislative History of SB 1849 - The Sarah Bland Act

For a look at the legislative process in the Texas Legislature.

- Click here for the info.

From the Texas Tribune: The Texas lawmakers who led the Sandra Bland Act are pushing to reinstate the police reforms stripped from their original bill

Consider this to be part of the policy adoption formation process.

- Click here for the article. 

In 2017, the version of the bill that made it into law included jail reforms like diverting inmates with mental health and substance abuse issues into treatment and mandating that independent law enforcement agencies investigate jail deaths.

But the original version also would have required officer training on racial profiling and implicit bias, suspension for any officer found to have repeatedly engaged in racial profiling, and limiting arrests for offenses that at most would end in a fine with no jail time. Those measures stalled the bill’s progress because of opposition from law enforcement groups and lawmakers concerned about unfunded mandates.

After Whitmire removed much of the language related to police encounters —though deescalation training remained — the bill passed both chambers. The version of the Sandra Bland Act signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott had become mostly a mental health and jail reform bill, and it lost support from Bland’s family.

A second attempt to pass a bill to limit nonjailable offenses in 2019 as a follow-up to the Sandra Bland Act was again killed after opposition by one of Texas’ largest police unions, confusion and procedural snafus in the House, and an apparent disinterest among Senate leadership.

How a bill becomes a law

- Click here for a fancy graph.

The Legislative History of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

- Click here for it.

The conclusion in Andrus

Let's unpack this last paragraph in the per curiam opinion in Andrus v Texas

We conclude that Andrus has shown deficient performance under the first prong of Strickland, and that there is a significant question whether the Court of Criminal Appeals properly considered prejudice under the second prong of Strickland. We thus grant Andrus’ petition for a writ of certiorari and his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and remand the case for the court to address the prejudice prong of Strickland in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion. 

- prongs: A prong would be one point in a statute or legal theory that must be proved in conjunction with other prongs.

(as far as I can tell, these are the two prongs at issue: To show deficiency, a defendant must show that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” And to establish prejudice, a defendant must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”) 

- writ of certiorari: A type of writ, meant for rare use, by which an appellate court decides to review a case at its discretion. The word certiorari comes from Law Latin and means "to be more fully informed." A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it.

- in forma pauperis: A Latin term meaning "in the manner of a pauper." Allowing a poor person to bring suit without liability for the costs of the suit.

- vacate: to render inoperative; deprive of validity; void; annul:

- remand: to send back.

TERENCE TRAMAINE ANDRUS v. TEXAS

As is not unusual, Texas is criticized by the U.S. Supreme Court for not providing adequate counsel for a poor criminal defendant. This violates the defendants 6th Amendment right to counsel.

- Click here for the per curiam decision.

- Coverage in the Texas Tribune. 

- ScotusBlog.

- Law and Crime.

The case mentions Strickland v Washington as precedence.

2 U.S. Code Title 2—THE CONGRESS

CHAPTER 1—ELECTION OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 1 – 9)

CHAPTER 2—ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS (§§ – 30b)

CHAPTER 3—COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES OF MEMBERS (§§ 31 – 59h)

CHAPTER 4—OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 60 – 130l)

CHAPTER 5—LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (§§ 131 – 185)

CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS (§§ 190 – 199)

CHAPTER 7—CONTESTED ELECTIONS (§ 201)

CHAPTER 8—FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES (§§ 241 – 252)

CHAPTER 8A—REGULATION OF LOBBYING (§ 261)

CHAPTER 9—OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL (§§ 271 – 282e)

CHAPTER 9A—OFFICE OF LAW REVISION COUNSEL (§§ 285 – 285g)

CHAPTER 9B—LEGISLATIVE CLASSIFICATION OFFICE (§ 286)

CHAPTER 9C—OFFICE OF PARLIAMENTARIAN OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 287 – 287d)

CHAPTER 9D—OFFICE OF SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL (§§ 288 – 288n)

CHAPTER 10—CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 291 – 303)

CHAPTER 10A—PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§§ 331 – 336)

CHAPTER 11—CITIZENS’ COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND COMPENSATION (§§ 351 – 364)

CHAPTER 12—CONTESTED ELECTIONS (§§ 381 – 396)

CHAPTER 13—JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS (§ 411)

CHAPTER 14—FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS (§§ 431 – 457)

CHAPTER 15—OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (§§ 471 – 481)

CHAPTER 16—CONGRESSIONAL MAILING STANDARDS (§§ 501 – 506)

CHAPTER 17—CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (§§ 601 – 613)

CHAPTER 17A—CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND FISCAL OPERATIONS (§§ 621 – 665)

CHAPTER 17B—IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL (Subchapters I – III)

CHAPTER 18—LEGISLATIVE PERSONNEL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS (§ 701)

CHAPTER 19—CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PROGRAM (§§ 801 – 811)

CHAPTER 19A—JOHN HEINZ COMPETITIVE EXCELLENCE AWARD (§ 831)

CHAPTER 20—EMERGENCY POWERS TO ELIMINATE BUDGET DEFICITS (§§ 900 – 922)

CHAPTER 20A—STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO (§§ 931 – 939)

CHAPTER 21—CIVIC ACHIEVEMENT AWARD PROGRAM IN HONOR OF OFFICE OF SPEAKER OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (§ 1001)

CHAPTER 22—JOHN C. STENNIS CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT (§§ 1101 – 1110)

CHAPTER 22A—OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER (§ 1151)

CHAPTER 22B—HUNGER FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM (§ 1161)

CHAPTER 23—GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE RIGHTS (§§ 1201 – 1223)

CHAPTER 24—CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY (§§ 1301 – 1438)

CHAPTER 25—UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM (§§ 1501 – 1571)

CHAPTER 26—DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (§§ 1601 – 1614)

CHAPTER 27—SOUND RECORDING PRESERVATION BY THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (§§ 1701 – 1743)

CHAPTER 28—ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL (§§ 1801 – 1881d)

CHAPTER 29—CAPITOL POLICE (§§ 1901 – 1982)

CHAPTER 30—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CAPITOL COMPLEX (§§ 2001 – 2186)

CHAPTER 31—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER (§§ 2201 – 2281)

CHAPTER 41—CONGRESSIONAL OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION (§§ 4101 – 4132)

CHAPTER 43—CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES (§§ 4301 – 4338)

CHAPTER 45—CONGRESSIONAL PAY AND BENEFITS (§§ 4501 – 4595)

CHAPTER 47—CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS (§§ 4701 – 4728)

CHAPTER 49—CONGRESSIONAL PAGES (§§ 4901 – 4931)

CHAPTER 51—HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LEADERSHIP (§§ 5101 – 5162)

CHAPTER 53—HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBERS (§§ 5301 – 5352)

CHAPTER 55—HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION (§§ 5501 – 5624)

CHAPTER 61—SENATE LEADERSHIP (§§ 6101 – 6160)

CHAPTER 63—SENATE MEMBERS (§§ 6301 – 6320)

CHAPTER 65—SENATE OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION (§§ 6501 – 6654)

This afternoon's readings

From Roll Call.

- DC statehood bill set for June 26 House vote.

- CIA suffered historic data loss from lax cybersecurity, report says.

- Fintechs try old bank charters as ‘everything old is new again’.

- Police overhaul, parks bill take center stage: Road Ahead.

From the Texas Constitution: Sec. 56. PROHIBITED LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAWS

A good look at the separation that exists between the local and state governments. These are the functions of local government that the state of Texas cannot, constitutionally, interfere with.

Sec. 56. PROHIBITED LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. (a) The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law, authorizing:

(1) the creation, extension or impairing of liens;

(2) regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, wards or school districts;

(3) changing the names of persons or places;

(4) changing the venue in civil or criminal cases;

(5) authorizing the laying out, opening, altering or maintaining of roads, highways, streets or alleys;

(6) relating to ferries or bridges, or incorporating ferry or bridge companies, except for the erection of bridges crossing streams which form boundaries between this and any other State;

(7) vacating roads, town plats, streets or alleys;

(8) relating to cemeteries, grave-yards or public grounds not of the State;

(9) authorizing the adoption or legitimation of children;

(10) locating or changing county seats;

(11) incorporating cities, towns or villages, or changing their charters;

(12) for the opening and conducting of elections, or fixing or changing the places of voting;

(13) granting divorces;

(14) creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers, in counties, cities, towns, election or school districts;

(15) changing the law of descent or succession;

(16) regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in any judicial proceeding or inquiry before courts, justices of the peace, sheriffs, commissioners, arbitrators or other tribunals, or providing or changing methods for the collection of debts, or the enforcing of judgments, or prescribing the effect of judicial sales of real estate;

(17) regulating the fees, or extending the powers and duties of aldermen, justices of the peace, magistrates or constables;

(18) regulating the management of public schools, the building or repairing of school houses, and the raising of money for such purposes;

(19) fixing the rate of interest;

(20) affecting the estates of minors, or persons under disability;

(21) remitting fines, penalties and forfeitures, and refunding moneys legally paid into the treasury;

(22) exempting property from taxation;

(23) regulating labor, trade, mining and manufacturing;

(24) declaring any named person of age;

(25) extending the time for the assessment or collection of taxes, or otherwise relieving any assessor or collector of taxes from the due performance of his official duties, or his securities from liability;

(26) giving effect to informal or invalid wills or deeds;

(27) summoning or empanelling grand or petit juries;

(28) for limitation of civil or criminal actions;

(29) for incorporating railroads or other works of internal improvements; or

(30) relieving or discharging any person or set of persons from the performance of any public duty or service imposed by general law.

(b) In addition to those laws described by Subsection (a) of this section in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the Legislature from passing:

(1) special laws for the preservation of the game and fish of this State in certain localities; and

(2) fence laws applicable to any subdivision of this State or counties as may be needed to meet the wants of the people.

(Amended Nov. 6, 2001.)

STATE BAR OF TEXAS LEGISLATIVE TIMETABLE 2020-2021

The State Bar of Texas gears up for the 87th Session of the legislature next year.

- Click here for the document.

From more: Teach the Vote.

This mornings readings

All from the Texas Tribune.

- As Texas coronavirus hospitalizations rise, local officials can recommend precautions but they can't enforce many of them.

- Watch Gov. Greg Abbott address hospital capacity as coronavirus cases continue to rise statewide at 1 p.m.

- U.S. Supreme Court rules Texas death row inmate had an ineffective lawyer, orders new review.

- With coronavirus cases climbing, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says "no real need" to scale back business reopenings.

- Reversing course, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn signals openness to removing Confederate names from military bases.

- Texas attorney general asks for power to investigate police who kill people.

From Wikipedia: List of police reforms in the United States related to the killing of George Floyd

- Click here for the entry.

Here's a list of what is being proposed: 

- end qualified immunity
- establish national police standards
- ban on chokeholds
- redirecting police funds to community initiatives
- bans on tear gas

From the Texas Tribune: Austin City Council unanimously limits police officers' use of force and asks for cuts to department budget

Let's start looking at some of the specific things being proposed to reform police departments.

- Click here for the article.

The Austin City Council unanimously approved a set of measures Thursday meant to limit police officers' use of force, which include restrictions on use of deadly force and a ban on using “less lethal” munitions during protests. The council also directed the city manager to propose reductions to the department’s budget next year.

The moves come in the wake of nationwide protests over police brutality against people of color, including in Austin. Many of those national and local demonstrations have included calls for reforms on police tactics and the defunding of law enforcement in favor of redistributing funds to social services and alternative public safety programs.

"I hope that we don’t miss this moment. Our community is at a boiling point," said Mayor Pro Tem Delia Garza. "We cannot move past this without change, we cannot. I will do my best to remain hopeful."

Decreasing police funding has also gained momentum in Dallas. Houston leaders increased that city’s police budget by almost $20 million for the upcoming fiscal year, though officials attributed that move to fixed costs like pension obligations and pay raises.

From Vox: The Supreme Court’s landmark LGBTQ rights decision, explained in 5 simple sentences

A good look at "textualism," a conservative approach to deciding what a law or constitutional phrase means.

- Click here for the article.  

Bostock v. Clayton County, a landmark Supreme Court decision holding that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers, was a test of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s principles. He passed.

Gorsuch is a vocal proponent of “textualism,” the belief that the meaning of a law turns on its words alone, not on the intentions of the law’s drafters. And Bostock forced Gorsuch to decide between his own conservative politics and following the broad language of a landmark civil rights law. Gorsuch didn’t simply honor his textualist approach in Bostock, he wrote the majority opinion.

In Bostock, the Court considered Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids employment discrimination that occurs “because of [an employee’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Though there is little doubt that the people who drafted this law in 1964 did not believe they were enacting a ban on LGBTQ discrimination, the thrust of Gorsuch’s opinion is that the expectations of lawmakers in 1964 simply does not matter.

Only the text of Title VII matters. And, as Bostock explains at length, that text clearly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Gorsuch lays out why in just five crisp sentences on the first page of his majority opinion:

In Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

For a look at all of the titles of the bill - which we will be getting into next week

- click here.

Title I—voting rights

Title II—public accommodations

Title III—desegregation of public facilities

Title IV—desegregation of public education

Title V—Commission on Civil Rights

Title VI—nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs

Title VII—equal employment opportunity

Title VIII—registration and voting statistics

Title IX—intervention and removal of cases

Title X—Community Relations Service

Title XI—miscellaneous

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The interpretation of this statute is at the heart of the Bostock case today.

- Click here for it.

The law also established the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission.

- Click here for that.

From Scotus: BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that:

An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964].

- Click here for the opinion.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

- Click here for info from Oyez. 

From the Texas Tribune: Texas Democrats urge Abbott to call special session as details emerge showing Javier Ambler’s death at the hands of sheriff's deputies

This hits multiple areas we cover in class, including parties in the legislature, local governments, and the power of the governor to call special sessions.

- Click here for the article. 

Local and state leaders are calling for the resignation of Williamson County Sheriff Robert Chody and for the deputies involved in Javier Ambler’s death to be fired. They’re raising alarm about yet another case of a black person dying at the hands of police officers as people across the nation continue to march in protest of police brutality and racial injustice, sparked by the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

Some Texas Democrats are urging Gov. Greg Abbott to call a special legislative session to pass laws on policing and criminal justice and asking why the governor hasn’t yet publicly acknowledged the Ambler case even as he condemned Floyd’s death as a “horrific act of police brutality” that he said must be prevented in Texas.

Last year, Williamson County deputies pursued Ambler in a car chase for 22 minutes, after trying to pull him over for not dimming his headlights. After he crashed Ambler was held down and shocked with a Taser by the deputies four times before his body went limp. Ambler told the officers he had congestive heart failure and couldn’t breath, according to The Austin American-Statesman, which first reported on the newly available body camera footage this month. Ambler died in a hospital about an hour after he was last shocked with a Taser. He was unarmed and body camera footage showed he wasn’t resisting.

From the Pew Research Center: Amid Protests, Majorities Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Express Support for the Black Lives Matter Movement

- Click here for the article.

From the Hill: Police unions face lobbying fights at all levels of government

A good way to tie the info on interest groups with the chapters on governing institutions.

- Click here for the article. 

Police unions are gearing up for their biggest lobbying fights in years as lawmakers at all levels of government push to reform law enforcement practices and protections.

In Congress, the brewing battle comes as House Democrats have introduced sweeping legislation to overhaul aspects of the criminal justice system, with Senate Republicans expected to unveil their proposal in the coming week.

The National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the country's largest police group that represents over 330,000 officers, is expected to play a major role, much like it did in 2014 when it tried to protect access to military equipment following the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.

“There seems to be a lot of variation in how police unions are handling the situation, ranging from just the outright opposition and in some cases vile statements coming out of union heads to … union heads that are open to reforms,” said Jake Rosenfeld, a professor at the Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in unions.

The FOP, which has in-house lobbyists, said it spent $55,000 on lobbying activities in the first quarter of 2020, a relatively low amount compared to unions in other sectors. In 2019, it spent $220,000.

An FOP spokesperson declined to comment on any plans for expanding lobbying in light of the new legislation.

From the Pew Research Center: Fewer Americans now say media exaggerated COVID-19 risks, but big partisan gaps persist

More on partisan difference in attitudes.

- Click here for the article. 

. . . as the toll from the coronavirus has grown dramatically over time, there has been movement in the share of Americans who say the news media have greatly or slightly exaggerated the risks it poses – with that percentage dropping from 62% in March to 48% in April. That includes a decline in the portion saying the media have greatly exaggerated the risks, from 37% to 24%. At the same time, the portion of respondents who say the media have gotten the COVID-19 risks about right grew by 9 percentage points – from 30% to 39%. 

Underlying these overall numbers are deep partisan divisions about the media’s coronavirus coverage – divisions that were evident in March and remain so in April. Most recently, more than half of Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party (54%) say the media have covered COVID-19 somewhat or very well in the April survey, a number that swells to about eight-in-ten among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%).

And, while about two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners (68%) in the April survey say the media slightly or greatly exaggerated COVID-19 risks, that is true of only three-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Political Generations

From the Pew Research Center: As Millennials Near 40, They’re Approaching Family Life Differently Than Previous Generations

And another on political generations.

- Click here for it.

Millennials have been slower than previous generations to establish their own households.

A new analysis of government data by Pew Research Center shows that Millennials are taking a different path in forming – or not forming – families. Millennials trail previous generations at the same age across three typical measures of family life: living in a family unit, marriage rates and birth rates.

From the Pew Research Center: On the Cusp of Adulthood and Facing an Uncertain Future: What We Know About Gen Z So Far

Info about the latest political generation. This adds to the info in the public opinion chapter on political generations.

- Click here for it.

. . what do we know about this new generation? We know it’s different from previous generations in some important ways, but similar in many ways to the Millennial generation that came before it. Members of Gen Z are more racially and ethnically diverse than any previous generation, and they are on track to be the most well-educated generation yet. They are also digital natives who have little or no memory of the world as it existed before smartphones.

Still, when it comes to their views on key social and policy issues, they look very much like Millennials. Pew Research Center surveys conducted in the fall of 2018 (more than a year before the coronavirus outbreak) among Americans ages 13 and older found that, similar to Millennials, Gen Zers are progressive and pro-government, most see the country’s growing racial and ethnic diversity as a good thing, and they’re less likely than older generations to see the United States as superior to other nations.

A look at how Gen Z voters view the Trump presidency provides further insight into their political beliefs. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in January of this year found that about a quarter of registered voters ages 18 to 23 (22%) approved of how Donald Trump is handling his job as president, while about three-quarters disapproved (77%). Millennial voters were only slightly more likely to approve of Trump (32%) while 42% of Gen X voters, 48% of Baby Boomers and 57% of those in the Silent Generation approved of the job he’s doing as president.

From the Aspen Institute: Glossary for Understanding the Dismantling Structural Racism/Promoting Racial Equity Analysis

A nice look at some of the terms being used regarding institutional and systemic racism.

- Click here for it.

Structural Racism: A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist.

Hot off the presses: Fiscal Size-up 2020–21 Biennium

From the Legislative Budget Board

- Click here for it.

From the NWHM: Woman Suffrage Timeline (1840-1920)

Not only related to the expansion of suffrage, this contains mention of a variety of interest groups established to promote it.

- Click here for the article.

Policing Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability

From the US House Judiciary Committee: Oversight Hearing on Policing Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability

Fits within our look at checks and balances, interest groups, and the legislative power.

- Click here for it.

- Click here for Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo's opening statement.

From the Pew Research Center: 10 things we know about race and policing in the U.S.

This cover interesting ground about racial difference in attitudes about the police.

- Click here for it.

From the Cato Institute: America’s Criminal Justice System Is Rotten to the Core

Cato is perhaps the nation's largest libertarian advocacy group.

- Click here for the article.

As I will explain below, I see three fundamental pathologies in America’s criminal justice system that completely undermine its moral and political legitimacy and render it a menace to the very concept of constitutionally limited government. Those three pathologies are: (1) unconstitutional overcriminalization; (2) point‐​and‐​convict adjudication; and (3) near‐​zero accountability for police and prosecutors.

From Ballotpedia: Texas Elections, 2020

For a look at what will be on the ballot in November.

- Click here for the entry.

From the Texas Tribune: Joe Biden tells Texas Democrats “we have a real chance to turn the state blue”

Unlikely, but not impossible. Republicans have dominated state wide elections for almost 30 years, but Democrats have been  getting stronger in the cities - which are growing.

- Click here for the article.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Saturday renewed his vow to help flip Texas as the state gets increased attention heading into November.

“Texas is an important battleground state for our campaign in 2020,” he said on Facebook Live addressing the state Democratic Party's convention, which went online-only this year because of the coronavirus pandemic. “I think we have a real chance to turn the state blue because of the work all of you have done.

“We have to keep the House of Representatives. We have to win over the United States Senate. We have to flip the Texas House. We have to lead and deliver meaningful change for people who are hurting all across this nation.”

I'll try to find a clearer version of this

U.S. Code

In case you'd like an overview of the types of laws the national government has passed.

This would be a full a list of the delegated and implied powers as we are likely to find.

- Click here for it.

TITLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
TITLE 2 - THE CONGRESS
TITLE 3 - THE PRESIDENT
TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
TITLE 5a - FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
TITLE 6 - DOMESTIC SECURITY
TITLE 7 - AGRICULTURE
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
TITLE 9 - ARBITRATION
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
TITLE 11 - BANKRUPTCY
TITLE 11a - BANKRUPTCY RULES
TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING
TITLE 13 - CENSUS
TITLE 14 - COAST GUARD
TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION
TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 18a - UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OR RECEIPT OF FIREARMS
TITLE 19 - CUSTOMS DUTIES
TITLE 20 - EDUCATION
TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
TITLE 22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
TITLE 23 - HIGHWAYS
TITLE 24 - HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS
TITLE 25 - INDIANS
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
TITLE 27 - INTOXICATING LIQUORS
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 28a - JUDICIAL PERSONNEL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
TITLE 29 - LABOR
TITLE 30 - MINERAL LANDS AND MINING
TITLE 31 - MONEY AND FINANCE
TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
TITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
TITLE 34 - CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
TITLE 35 - PATENTS
TITLE 36 - PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS
TITLE 37 - PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES
TITLE 38 - VETERANS’ BENEFITS
TITLE 39 - POSTAL SERVICE
TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS
TITLE 41 - PUBLIC CONTRACTS
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
TITLE 45 - RAILROADS
TITLE 46 - SHIPPING
TITLE 47 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TITLE 48 - TERRITORIES AND INSULAR POSSESSIONS
TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
TITLE 50a - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE [ELIMINATED] Current through 114–86u1
TITLE 51 - NATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL SPACE PROGRAMS
TITLE 52 - VOTING AND ELECTIONS
TITLE 53 - [RESERVED]
TITLE 54 - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

From History.com: Why We Have the Third Amendment—and Why It Rarely Comes Up in Court

More on the U.S. Bill of Rights.

This also illustrates checks and balances and constitutional interpretation.

- Click here for the article.

Since the Third Amendment’s ratification in 1791, the U.S. Supreme Court has only mentioned it a couple of times. One instance is the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer. In order to sabotage a national steel strike during the Korean War, President Harry Truman had issued an executive order to seize and operate the country’s steel mills.

The court ruled the president didn’t have the authority to seize private property without an act of Congress. In the majority opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson used the Third Amendment, which prohibited forcible quartering during wartime without congressional approval, to illustrate the court’s decision: “even in war time, his seizure of needed military housing must be authorized by Congress.”

. . . In the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the court argued that the First, Third, Fourth and Ninth Amendments suggested a right to privacy, and that this gave married couples the right to use contraception.

“The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy,” wrote Justice William O. Douglas in the majority opinion.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never weighed in on who counts as a “soldier” under the Third Amendment, a couple of lower courts have, creating precedents that the Supreme Court could cite in future cases.

In the 1982 case of Engblom v. Carey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the governor of New York didn’t violate the rights of striking correctional officers at New York’s Mid-Orange Correctional Facility when he evicted them from their prison residences and reassigned those residences and their jobs to National Guard troops.

However, the court did rule that National Guard members are “soldiers” under the Third Amendment, and that “the Third Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment for application to the states.”

In 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada cited this ruling while considering whether police officers violated a plaintiff’s Third Amendment right when they forcibly occupied his house in Mitchell v. City of Henderson, Nevada. That court sided with the police, ruling that they aren’t “soldiers” under the Third Amendment.

From the Pew Research Center: In Changing U.S. Electorate, Race and Education Remain Stark Dividing Lines

For our look at party identification.

- Click here for the article.