For 2305 today - 3/31

- First United States Congress.

- United States Executive Departments.

- The Judiciary Act of 1789.

- United States Courts: Role and Structure.

From Axios: Civil rights groups sue Georgia over new law restricting voting access

Easily predicted

- Click here for the article.

Several civil rights groups filed a lawsuit against Georgia election officials challenging Republican-crafted voting restrictions signed into law by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp on Thursday.

Why it matters:

The lawsuit from New Georgia Project, Black Voters Matter Fund and Rise alleges that the restrictions violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 14th Amendment by inflicting "unjustifiable burdens" that disproportionately affect people of color and young, poor and disabled citizens.

The Georgia law imposes new ID requirements, limits the use of ballot drop boxes, changes early voting hours, prohibits third parties from collecting absentee ballots and bans non-poll workers from giving food and water to voters in line, among other restrictions.

Kemp said at the signing of the bill on Thursday that it will ensure Georgia’s elections are "secure, accessible and fair."

But, but, but: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, one of the defendants in the lawsuit, has repeatedly said his office found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, despite baseless claims to the contrary by former President Trump.

The big picture: Georgia is the first battleground state to enact sweeping new legislation rolling back voting rights in the wake of the 2020 election, which saw record levels of mail-in and early voting due to the pandemic. Dozens of GOP-led state legislatures have proposed similar voting restrictions, infuriating Democrats and voting rights activists.

Regarding Georgia's "Election Integrity Act of 2021"

 For this week's written assignment for both 2305 and 2306

- Click here for the bill.

Read through the bill - feel free to look up info that describes it - and describe what it actually does. Try finding out on your own. Then predict what potential conflicts might arise when it is implemented. Think about the intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Might here be litigation against this bill?  
If so, from what groups? 
What arguments might be made against it? 
What arguments might be made  in favor of it?

GOVT 2306 - Key terms section 3

Chapter 3 - Texas Legislature
- bicameral
- size
- regular session
- special session
- supermajority
- rights and privileges
- legislative immunity
- citizen / professional legislature
- redistricting
- turnover
- term limits
- representation
- delegate
- trustee
- politico
- demographics
- single member districts
- one person one vote
- gerrymandering
- LRB
- independent commission
- majority minority district
- lieutenant governor
- president pro-tempore
- LBB
- Speaker of the House
- party legislative caucus
- party caucus
- floor leader
- Other caucuses
- standing committees
- substantive /  procedural
- amendment 
- markup
- oversight
- bill
- fiscal note
- calendar
- resolution
- blocking bill
- floor debate
- killer amendment
- rider
- filibuster
- chubbing
- quorum
- roll call vote
- line-item veto
- emergency clause

Chapter 4 - Texas Governors
- qualifications
- roles of the governor
- plural executive
- succession
- impeachment
- appointment power
- patronage
- recess appointment
- senatorial courtesy
- removal power
- executive order
- budget power
- line-item veto
- agenda setting
- state of the state address
- emergency legislation
- special session
- veto power
- post-adjournment veto
- pardon
- ceremonial duties
- crisis manager
- informal powers
- popular mandate
- political ambition ladder

Chapter 5 
- General Land Office
- plural executive
- lieutenant governor
- attorney general
- comptroller of public accounts
- agriculture commissioner
- secretary of state
- boards and commissioners
- bureaucracy
- TXDoT
- Department of State Health Agencies
- Railroad Commission of Texas
- Texas Department of Criminal Justice
- State Board of Education
- elected board
- appointed regulatory commission
- patronage system
- merit-based civil service system
- sunshine laws
- sunset commission
- sunset review process

Chapter 6 - Texas Judicial System
- judicial federalism
- jurisdiction
- original jurisdiction
- appellate jurisdiction
- exclusive jurisdiction
- criminal case
- civil case
- concurrent jurisdiction
- magistrate functions
- de novo
- court state and local structure
- probate
- affirm
- reverse
- remand
- majority opinion
- concurring opinion
- dissenting opinion
- per curiam
- en banc
- straight-ticket voting
- name recognition
- incumbency advantage
- prosecutor
- criminal defendant
- grand jury
- indictment
- enhanced penalties
- petit jury
- beyond a reasonable doubt
- plaintiff
- civil defendant
- preponderance of evidence
- compensatory damage
- punitive damage

GOVT 2305 - Key terms section 3

Chapter 10 - Congress

- 116th Congress
- bicameralism
- House
- Senate
- Delegate
- Trustee
- Representation
- Filibuster
- Congressional Caucus
- Reapportionment
- Congressional leadership
- Speaker of the House
- President pro tempore
- staff members
- standing committees
- bill making process
- hearings
- markup
- oversight
- unanimous consent
- filibuster
- cloture
- voice vote
- roll call vote
- veto
- partisan polarization
- divided government
 
Chapter 11 - The Presidency
- Expressed powers
- the take care clause
- delegated powers
- inherent powers
- executive privilege
- unitary executive
- imperial presidency
- commander in chief
- WW2 / Department of Defense
- War Powers Act
- Diplomacy
- State Department of State
- NATO
- legislative power
- state of the union message
- veto / override
- signing statements
- bureaucrat
- political appointments
- civil service
- executive orders
- economic powers
- head of state / party leader
- bully pulpit
- managing the public - 24/7
- presidential approval
- presidential advising
- cabinet
- Executive Office of the President
- Office of Management and Budget
- White House Office / Chief of Staff

Chapter 12 - The Bureaucracy
- number of federal workers
- hidden workforce
- spoils system
- universalistic system
- Pendleton Civil Service Act
- the bureaucratic model
- bureaucratic pathologies
- rulemaking
- proposed rule
- final rule
- implementation
- street level bureaucrat
- civil servants
- cabinet department
- rotating bureaucracy
- independent regulatory commissions
- regulatory capture
- private contractors
- who controls the bureaucracy?
- overhead democracy
- Congress: funding, oversight, authorization
- principal agency theory
- interest groups: iron triangles
- autonomy
- whistle blowers
- freedom of information act

Chapter 13 - The Judicial Branch
- litigation
- adjudication
- civil suits
- criminal cases
- mediation
- judicial federalism
- state and local courts
- judicial selection
- district courts
- circuit courts
- specialized courts
- diversity
- judicial review
- activism and restraint
- Marbury v Madison
- judicial process - trials
- due process
- common law
- precedent
- civil law
- criminal law
- plaintiff
- defendant
- power "least dangerous branch"
- appellate process
- writ of certiorari
- oral arguments
- amicus curiae - friend of the court
- rule of four
- legitimate controversy
- standing
- moot
- majority opinion
- concurrent opinion
- dissent
- confirmation

From Wikipedia: The Federal Election Commission

- Click here for the entry.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency of the United States whose purpose is to enforce campaign finance law in United States federal elections. Created in 1974 through amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, the commission describes its duties as "to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections."

The commission was unable to function from late August 2019 to December 2020, with an exception for the period of May 2020 to July 2020, due to lack of a quorum. In the absence of a quorum, the commission could not vote on complaints or give guidance through advisory opinions. As of May 19, 2020, there were 350 outstanding matters on the agency's enforcement docket and 227 items waiting for action.

From Wikipedia: Taxation in the United States

 - Click here for the entry.

The United States of America has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2010, taxes collected by federal, state, and municipal governments amounted to 24.8% of GDP. In the OECD, only Chile and Mexico are taxed less as a share of their GDP.[1]

Taxes fall much more heavily on labor income than on capital income. Divergent taxes and subsidies for different forms of income and spending can also constitute a form of indirect taxation of some activities over others. For example, individual spending on higher education can be said to be "taxed" at a high rate, compared to other forms of personal expenditure which are formally recognized as investments.

Taxes are imposed on net income of individuals and corporations by the federal, most state, and some local governments. Citizens and residents are taxed on worldwide income and allowed a credit for foreign taxes. Income subject to tax is determined under tax accounting rules, not financial accounting principles, and includes almost all income from whatever source. Most business expenses reduce taxable income, though limits apply to a few expenses. Individuals are permitted to reduce taxable income by personal allowances and certain non-business expenses, including home mortgage interest, state and local taxes, charitable contributions, and medical and certain other expenses incurred above certain percentages of income. State rules for determining taxable income often differ from federal rules. Federal marginal tax rates vary from 10% to 37% of taxable income

From Wikipedia: Jim Crow laws

- Click here for the entry.

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. These laws were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Southern Democrat-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by black people during the Reconstruction period. The Republican Party lily-white movement supported the exclusion of African Americans. Jim Crow laws were enforced until 1965.

In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America and in some others, beginning in the 1870s. Jim Crow laws were upheld in 1896 in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, in which the U.S. Supreme Court laid out its "separate but equal" legal doctrine for facilities for African Americans. Moreover, public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South after the Civil War in 1861–65.

The legal principle of "separate but equal" racial segregation was extended to public facilities and transportation, including the coaches of interstate trains and buses. Facilities for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to facilities for white Americans; sometimes, there were no facilities for the black community at all. As a body of law, Jim Crow institutionalized economic, educational, and social disadvantages for African Americans living in the South.

Jim Crow laws and Jim Crow state constitutional provisions mandated the segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains between white and black people. The U.S. military was already segregated. President Woodrow Wilson, a Southern Democrat, initiated the segregation of federal workplaces in 1913.

In 1954, segregation of public schools (state-sponsored) was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education. In some states, it took many years to implement this decision, while the Warren Court continued to rule against the Jim Crow laws in other cases such as Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964). Generally, the remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

From Roll Call 3/26

Senate Democrats welcome Biden ‘signal’ on nixing filibuster if Republicans obstruct.

President Joe Biden on Thursday agreed with his former boss Barack Obama that the Senate filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era, and he opened the door to eliminating it if Republicans block Democrats’ agenda. But Biden isn’t ready to go there yet, suggesting Senate Democrats focus first on more obtainable changes like returning to a talking filibuster.



Sanders rolls out nearly $3 trillion in tax increase proposals.

Senate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders unveiled proposals to raise taxes by at least $2.8 trillion in a pair of bills he introduced Thursday that the Vermont independent said would “end our rigged tax code” and reduce income inequality by making corporations and billionaires pay more.

“We can no longer tolerate many large corporations making billions of dollars a year in profits to pay nothing, zero, in federal income taxes,” Sanders said at a Thursday hearing that coincided with the release of his double-barreled package aimed at mega-corporations and large estates.

One draft bill would raise at least $1.3 trillion over a decade by setting the corporate tax rate back at 35 percent, where it was before the 2017 GOP tax overhaul dropped it down to 21 percent. The measure would also generate $1.02 trillion over 10 years by changing the way multinationals are taxed, according to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. The draft estate tax bill would raise $430 billion during that time frame.



FEC: Lawmakers may use campaign money for ‘bona fide’ bodyguards.

After a three-hour debate, members of the Federal Election Commission approved, by a 5-1 vote, an advisory opinion Thursday allowing lawmakers to use campaign funds to pay for security expenses to protect themselves and their immediate families. But it likely won’t be the last word from the agency, as it also set in motion a rule-making process on the matter.

The decision Thursday was in response to a request from the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which had asked the FEC, amid increasing threats and after a violent assault on the Capitol, to determine whether hiring personal bodyguards constituted an appropriate use of political money.

But the issue took a controversial and partisan turn, as commissioners debated language to define what types of security personnel would be appropriate after Democratic House and Senate campaign arms raised concerns Wednesday. Democratic election lawyer Mark Elias wrote that the FEC needed to specify that only “bona fide” guards could be reimbursed, or it could open “the door to the improper use of campaign funds to compensate fringe militia groups under the guise of a legitimate security expense.”

Checks and Balances for today

- The Veto.

- List of United States presidential vetoes.

- List of positions filled by presidential appointment with Senate confirmation.

- Judicial review in the United States.

- Congressional Oversight.

For 3/25

From the Texas Legislature Online

- Today's Bill Analysis.

From the Texas Tribune

- Alcohol to go from restaurants gets closer to becoming permanent as Texas House gives approval.

- After Atlanta and Colorado mass shootings, Texas GOP leaders double down on protecting gun owners.

From the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

- "Power Struggle: Examining the 2021 Texas Grid Failure"

From Wikipedia: American Legislative Exchange Council

 A key source of conservative state legislative proposals.

- Click here for the entry.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who draft and share model legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States.

ALEC provides a forum for state legislators and private sector members to collaborate on model bills—draft legislation that members may customize and introduce for debate in their own state legislatures. ALEC has produced model bills on a broad range of issues, such as reducing regulation and individual and corporate taxation, combating illegal immigration, loosening environmental regulations, tightening voter identification rules, weakening labor unions, and opposing gun control. Some of these bills dominate legislative agendas in states such as Arizona, Wisconsin, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Maine. Approximately 200 model bills become law each year. ALEC also serves as a networking tool among certain state legislators, allowing them to research conservative policies implemented in other states. Many ALEC legislators say the organization converts campaign rhetoric and nascent policy ideas into legislative language.

ALEC's activities, while legal, received public scrutiny after news reports from outlets such as The New York Times and Bloomberg Businessweek described ALEC as an organization that gave corporate interests outsized influence. Resulting public pressure led to a number of legislators and corporations withdrawing from the organization.

From the Texas Tribune

California cities banned natural gas in new buildings. Texas wants to outlaw those bans.

Texas lawmakers are quickly moving a bill forward that attempts to stop cities from banning natural gas as a fuel source for new construction and utility services — a trend in progressive California cities that some state lawmakers say would restrict consumer choices if Texas cities move to do the same.

At least a dozen similar bills have been filed in states including Kansas, Minnesota and Ohio. But in Texas, the bill has been pushed as a response to the power outages caused by last month’s winter storm.

Now labeled a priority for lawmakers, House Bill 17 would bar cities and municipalities from banning, limiting, restricting or “discriminating” against the type or source of energy used for utility connections. It was included in a slate of bills that the Texas House State Affairs Committee quickly voted out of committee Thursday that are intended to address the storm-related power outages, which left more than 4.8 million people without electricity and killed dozens of people in Texas.

The bill was first filed in January as House Bill 1282. It’s sponsor, state Rep. Joe Deshotel, D-Beaumont, said the legislation is a response to “what is happening on the West coast” where cities have passed energy efficiency plans that prohibit new subdivisions from offering natural gas heating, requiring instead that new homes be heated by electricity.

Analysis: Not all emergencies are priorities in the Texas Capitol.

In 2019 and 2020, 110 people were killed in mass shootings in Texas and another 266 were injured, according to the Gun Violence Archive, an online database of incidents of gun violence.

There were two substantiated cases of election fraud in Texas during those two years, according to the Heritage Foundation’s database of election fraud cases.
Guess which topic state leaders consider to be an emergency?

The latest additions to the appalling, steady stream of mass shootings in America came in the last few days — in three Atlanta-area massage parlors, where eight were killed last week, including six Asian women, and then in a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, where 10 were killed on Monday.

Those out-of-state shootings reignited a familiar set of arguments about gun violence in a state where new limits on gun ownership and possession are unlikely.

It’s not that lawmakers aren’t thinking about weaponry: In the current session, they’ve filed 22 bills that contain the word “firearm” and 45 bills — there’s some overlap — containing the word “gun.” They run the gamut: regulating sales at gun shows, prohibiting people from carrying guns while intoxicated, allowing unlicensed carry of guns, creating an annual sales tax holiday for gun sales and more. Many of those are up for consideration on Thursday in the House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee.

From Wikipedia: Cloture

The debate about the filibuster is really a debate about cloture, what it takes to stop debate and go to a vote on a specific bill. 

- Click here for the entry.

On 8 March 1917, during World War I, a rule allowing cloture of a debate was adopted by the Senate on a 76–3 roll call vote at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare. This was successfully invoked for the first time on 15 November 1919, during the 66th Congress, to end a filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.

The Senate's cloture rule originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof. For example, if all 100 senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some senators were absent and only 80 senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor. However, it proved very difficult to achieve this. The Senate tried 11 times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster use was particularly heavy by Democratic senators from southern states to block civil rights legislation.

In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to attain a strength of 61 (with an additional independent senator caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those senators "present and voting" to those senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would take only 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass.

The new version of the cloture rule requiring three-fifths (60%) rather than two-thirds (66.7%) approval, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture.[citation needed] Even so, a successful cloture motion on legislation is uncommon.

Bills considered under the reconciliation process established in 1974 (certain bills concerning spending and the budget) cannot be filibustered and therefore don't require a supermajority cloture vote.

The U.S. House of Representatives does not have a cloture procedure, since filibustering is not possible in that body.

From Wikipedia: Filibuster in the United States Senate

An internal check within the Senate that's been in the news a bit recently.

- Click here for the entry.

A filibuster is a parliamentary procedure used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when one or more senators attempt to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (currently 60 out of 100) vote to bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

The ability to block a measure through extended debate was a side effect of an 1806 rule change, and was infrequently used during much of the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1970, the Senate adopted a "two-track" procedure to prevent filibusters from stopping all other Senate business. The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item. As a result, "the contemporary Senate has morphed into a 60-vote institution — the new normal for approving measures or matters — a fundamental transformation from earlier years".

Efforts to limit the practice include laws that explicitly limit the time for Senate debate, notably the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that created the budget reconciliation process. Changes in 2013 and 2017 now require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on nominations, although most legislation still requires 60 votes.

At times, the "nuclear option" has been proposed to eliminate the 60 vote threshold for certain matters before the Senate. The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the Senate to override one of its standing rules, including the 60-vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority (51 votes if the Senators are equally divided and all 100 Senators are present - the Vice President casting the tie-breaking vote), rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules.

One or more senators may still occasionally hold the floor for an extended period, sometimes without the advance knowledge of the Senate leadership. However, these "filibusters" usually result only in brief delays and do not determine outcomes, since the Senate's ability to act ultimately depends upon whether there are sufficient votes to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote on passage. However, such brief delays can be politically relevant when exercised shortly before a major deadline (such as avoiding a government shutdown) or before a Senate recess

Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: Crash Course Government an...

From the Legal Information Institute: SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES

 - Click here for it.

When the colonies separated from Great Britain following the Revolution, the framers of their constitutions were imbued with the profound tradition of separation of powers, and they freely and expressly embodied the principle in their charters.2 The theory of checks and balances, however, was not favored, because it was drawn from Great Britain, and, as a consequence, violations of the separation-of-powers doctrine by the legislatures of the states were commonplace prior to the convening of the Convention.3 Theory as much as experience guided the Framers in the summer of 1787.4

The doctrine of separation of powers, as implemented in drafting the Constitution, was based on several generally held principles: the separation of government into three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial; the conception that each branch performs unique and identifiable functions that are appropriate to each; and the limitation of the personnel of each branch to that branch, so that no one person or group should be able to serve in more than one branch simultaneously. To a great extent, the Constitution effectuated these principles, but critics objected to what they regarded as a curious intermixture of functions, in, for example, the veto power of the President over legislation and to the role of the Senate in the appointment of executive officers and judges and in the treaty-making process. It was to these objections that Madison turned in a powerful series of essays.5

Madison recurred to “the celebrated” Montesquieu, the “oracle who is always consulted,” to disprove the contentions of the critics. “[T]his essential precaution in favor of liberty,” that is, the separation of the three great functions of government, had been achieved, but the doctrine did not demand rigid separation. Montesquieu and other theorists “did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or control over, the acts of each other,” but rather liberty was endangered “where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department.”6 That the doctrine did not demand absolute separation provided the basis for preservation of separation of powers in action. Neither sharply drawn demarcations of institutional boundaries nor appeals to the electorate were sufficient.7 Instead, the security against concentration of powers “consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” Thus, “[a]mbition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”8

Institutional devices to achieve these principles pervade the Constitution. Bicameralism reduces legislative predominance, while the presidential veto gives to the President a means of defending his priorities and preventing congressional overreaching. The Senate’s role in appointments and treaties checks the President. The courts are assured independence through good-behavior tenure and security of compensation, and the judges through judicial review will check the other two branches. The impeachment power gives to Congress the authority to root out corruption and abuse of power in the other two branches. And so on.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas Republicans begin pursuing new voting restrictions as they work to protect their hold on power

Similar efforts are being made nation-wide, as we have already noted.

- Click here for the article.

Republican lawmakers in Texas are attempting to cement more bricks into the wall they hope will shield their hold on power from the state's changing electorate.

After more than 20 years in firm control, the GOP is seeing its dominance of Texas politics slowly slip away, with some once reliable suburbs following big cities into the Democratic party's fold.

This legislative session, Republicans are staging a sweeping legislative campaign to further tighten the state's already restrictive voting rules and raise new barriers for some voters, clamping down in particular on local efforts to make voting easier.

If legislation they have introduced passes, future elections in Texas will look something like this: Voters with disabilities will be required to prove they can't make it to the polls before they can get mail-in ballots. County election officials won’t be able to keep polling places open late to give voters like shift workers more time to cast their ballots. Partisan poll watchers will be allowed to record voters who receive help filling out their ballots at a polling place. Drive-thru voting would be outlawed. And local election officials may be forbidden from encouraging Texans to fill out applications to vote by mail, even if they meet the state’s strict eligibility rules.

Those provisions are in a Senate priority bill that was set to receive its first committee airing Monday, but Democrats delayed its consideration by invoking a rule that requires more public notice before the legislation is heard. Senate Bill 7 is part of a broader package of proposals to constrain local initiatives widening voter access in urban areas, made up largely by people of color, that favor Democrats.

The wave of new restrictions would crash up against an emerging Texas electorate that every election cycle includes more and more younger voters and voters of color. They risk compounding the hurdles marginalized people already face making themselves heard at the ballot box.

From the Texas Tribune: Court Delivers Maps for Texas House, Congress

From way back in 2012: 

- Click here for the article.

It explains the current legislative districts in the state.

Getting a handle on the US House and Senate:

Their respective websites

- The House of Representatives.
- The Senate.

The Wikipedia entries on each.

- The House of Representatives.
- The Senate.

Let's use these to get comfortable with their current configurations.

And here's a reminder about how they are designed in the U.S. Constitution: 

- Article One.

From Congress.gov: H.R.1319 - American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

- Click here for it.

- And here for the Wikipedia entry on it.

For perusal in GOVT 2306

We will spend some time checking out what we can find here: 

- Texas Legislature Online.
- Texas Legislative Reference Library.
- Texas Legislative Council.

The bulk of the rest of the semester will be spent following what the legislature is up to.

For this coming week: Federalist 51

 We will read it in its entirety

- Click here for it.

From an upcoming ACC written assignment - some graphs

 

when we get back from spring break

We're going to go over the governing institutions.

Here's a taste of what that will be all about for both 2305 and 2306.

- Federalist 51.
- Wikipedia: Federalist 51.

2305
- US Constitution (Articles 1, 2, and 3)
- US Code.
- US House.
- US Senate.
- White House.
- US Supreme Court.

2306
- Texas Constitution (Articles 3, 4, and 5)
- Texas Statutes.
- Texas House.
- Texas Senate.
- Texas Governor.
- Texas Courts.

From CNBC: Trump tells donors to give money to him, not Republicans ‘in name only’

Conflict between candidate and party.

- Click here for the article.

Former President Donald Trump is competing with the GOP’s fundraising operation and lashing out at its members, further complicating his status as a Republican Party leader.

“No more money for RINOs,” Trump said in a fundraising email Monday night, referring to “Republicans in name only,” a term used to bash moderate GOP politicians accused of governing like Democrats.

Trump, without specifying his targets by name, asserted that they “do nothing but hurt the Republican Party and our great voting base — they will never lead us to Greatness.”

In an apparent attempt to elaborate, Trump issued a follow-up statement Tuesday afternoon, saying, “I fully support the Republican Party and important GOP Committees, but I do not support RINOs and fools.”

Trump added that “it is not their right to use my likeness or image to raise funds” — a reference to his growing feud with the Republican Party over its use of his name and likeness in its fundraising efforts.

Both statements were sent by Trump’s political action committee, Save America, and both statements urged his supporters to donate to that PAC. “So much money is being raised and completely wasted by people that do not have the GOP’s best interests in mind,” Trump’s latest statement claimed.

Those requests echoed Trump’s recent speech in Orlando — his first post-presidency public remarks — where he told a crowd of supporters that his own PAC was the only way to “elect ‘America First’ Republican conservatives.”

From Vox: In a victory for progressives, the DCCC ends its consultant blacklist

Regarding political consultants and their relationship with the major parties

- Click here for the article.

When current New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez secured a stunning win in her 2018 Democratic primary over longtime Rep. Joe Crowley, progressives and digital consultants alike celebrated. Her historic campaign combined youth outreach with innovative digital marketing strategy, and a cottage industry of progressive, high-tech consulting groups popped up in her wake.

But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — House Democrats’ campaign fundraising arm — had a different reaction. Under a controversial 2019 policy known as the “DCCC blacklist,” consultants and firms that worked with primary challengers were barred from contracting with the DCCC in a bid to protect incumbents and help reelect existing Democratic House members.

Now, newly elected chair Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) has followed through on a campaign promise to reverse the policy, as first reported by Politico’s Ally Mutnick.

“This policy change means that the only criteria for a vendor to be listed in the directory are our standards for fair business practices related to use of organized labor, critical diversity and inclusion standards, and other minimum qualifications,” DCCC spokesperson Chris Taylor told Vox in a statement.

For two years, groups like Justice Democrats, a progressive political action committee that supported the successful challenges of Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Jamaal Bowman, and Middle Seat Consulting, a digital consulting firm that has successfully used social media and text message canvassing in electing progressives like Reps. Ayanna Pressley and Cori Bush, were sidelined from working with or being recommended by the DCCC.

Justice Democrats created a website naming 30 groups that were on the blacklist. Progressives decried the policy for discouraging women and people of color from running for office or consulting on campaigns. And Ocasio-Cortez declined to pay DCCC dues altogether, creating her own PAC to support her preferred candidates.

Progressive members of Congress and consultants praised Maloney’s decision.

Two views - from two different think tanks - about the John Lewis Voting Advancement Act.

From The Brennan Center: 

- How to Restore and Strengthen the Voting Rights Act.

The VRA is an extraordinarily high priority for the Brennan Center. We’re very proud of the work we did alongside our partners to preserve the VRA pre-Shelby and we are very proud to be with a group of dedicated civil rights organizations working to restore the VRA.

The Shelby effort required a nationwide amicus and public campaign that so many civil rights organizations mobilized for. But there was also a predecessor case — NAMUDNO v. Holder — that teed up Shelby, and many of us were active there as well.

When Shelby came down, we and our partners jumped into gear to try and come up with a new proposal that was responsive to the Court and its criticisms. That effort still continues. We’re still pushing for the legislation, trying to do research that demonstrates its importance, still working with our partners on it, still talking to staffers and members on the Hill about it either in small groups or via testimony, and still doing a lot of public education on the importance of the VRA. We’re making the case whenever we can to whoever will listen (and even some who may not) that we need a strong and robust Voting Rights Act.

And, importantly, these efforts fit together with another Brennan Center legislative priority — the For the People Act.

The For the People Act (H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate) deals with a lot of nuts-and-bolts election administration issues, while the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act deals with the particular pathology of racial discrimination in voting. The For the People Act is likely to help communities of color, which are typically the hardest hit by the burdens that get imposed as a result of election administration or voter suppression problems. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act directly targets the issue of racism and discrimination in our electoral process.

It is important for our country’s culture, progress, advancement, unity, and healing to recognize that we still have racial discrimination in voting and that we are going to say in one very clear and resounding voice as a country: We don’t want it. It’s not something we’re going to tolerate. It’s not something we think is OK.

From the Heritage Foundation:

- Against the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

In the latest attempt to amend the Voting Rights Act, Senator Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) recently introduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. It sounds great until you realize it will be used to achieve partisan political gains rather than prevent racial discrimination.

The real aim is to reverse the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder and to give the political allies of Democrats—the radicals who inhabit the career ranks of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department (where I used to work), and advocacy groups such as the ACLU—control over state election rules.

It is a dangerous bill that violates basic principles of federalism. It also illustrates what could happen if Demo­crats gain control of Congress and the White House, to the detriment of secure, fair elections administered by the states.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is probably one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. It helped eliminate the widespread discriminatory practices that were preventing African Americans from registering and voting in the 1960s. There are no longer any such barriers or practices that block black Americans (or anyone else) from registering and voting, despite the mythical claims of “voter suppression” promulgated by the Left. In the 2012 presidential election, for example, blacks voted at a higher rate than whites nationally (66.2 percent vs. 64.1 percent), according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The main provision of the VRA is Section 2, which prohibits any voting “standard, practice or procedure . . . which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color” or membership in certain language-minority groups. It is permanent, applies nationwide, and can be enforced by the Justice Department as well as private parties. It was also completely unaffected by the Shelby County decision and remains in full force today.

Shelby County was—and the Leahy bill is—about another provision in the VRA: Section 5. Section 5 was originally an emergency five-year provision that required “covered” jurisdictions to get preapproval of any changes in their voting laws and practices (even simple changes such as the location of a polling place) from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, D.C., a process known as “preclearance.” Section 5 was renewed for an additional five years in 1970; for an additional seven years in 1975; for an additional 25 years in 1982; and finally for an additional 25 years in 2006. At the time of the Shelby County decision in 2013, Section 5 covered nine states and parts of six others.

rom the Texas Tribune: Legislation backed by casino giant would allow casinos, sports gambling in Texas

 A powerful interest wants an opportunity in the state.

- Click here for the article.

Two Texas lawmakers on Tuesday filed legislation backed by the gaming empire Las Vegas Sands that would legalize casino gambling in Texas.

The legislation was filed by Rep. John Kuempel, R-Seguin, in the House and Sen. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston, in the Senate. Rep. Toni Rose, D-Dallas, was later added as a joint author on the House proposal.

The proposals would create special casino licenses for four "destination resorts" in the state's four largest metropolitan areas: Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and Austin. At the same time, it would establish a Texas Gaming Commission to regulate the casinos, tax table games and slot machines and separately legalize sports betting.

The legislation would require amending the Texas Constitution, which currently bans most gaming in Texas. That is only possible with a two-thirds vote of lawmakers in both chambers, and then voter approval in the November election.

From COngress.gov: S.4263 - John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

- Click here for it.

From the Texas Tribune: Twitter sues Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, asks court to halt his investigation of the social media company

More on our top legal officer.

- Click here for the article. 

Twitter filed a lawsuit against Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a California federal court Monday and asked a judge to halt the state’s top lawyer from investigating the company.

The social media giant’s court filings include a request for a temporary restraining order that would keep Paxton and his office from enforcing a demand that seeks documents revealing the company’s internal decision making processes for banning users, among other things.

Paxton, a fervent supporter of former President Donald Trump, sent the company a civil investigative demand after it banned Trump from its platform following January’s deadly siege at the U.S. Capitol.

Twitter wrote that it seeks to stop Paxton from “from unlawfully abusing his authority as the highest law-enforcement officer of the State of Texas to intimidate, harass, and target Twitter in retaliation for Twitter’s exercise of its First Amendment rights.” The company claimed Paxton’s “retaliatory” investigation violated the First Amendment as an inappropriate use of government authority.

A spokesperson for Paxton did not immediately respond for comment.

Before Democratic President Joe Biden's inauguration, Paxton filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the election results in four battleground states. It was considered a long shot, but drew support from the Republican attorneys general of 17 other states before the U.S. Supreme Court briskly rejected it.

The attorney general is among Texas Republican leaders who have launched a campaign against technology and social media companies after officials and followers faced repercussions for sowing the election doubts that fueled the Capitol insurrection.

A look at the constitutional amendments which have been introduced to the Texas Legislature thus far.

-  Click here for them.

From Congress.gov: H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2021

This the latest coronavirus relief packet.

- Click here for official details on it.

From Wikipedia: For the People Act.

The For the People Act (also known as H.R 1) is a bill in the United States Congress to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders.

The act was originally introduced by John Sarbanes on January 3, 2019, on behalf of the newly elected Democratic majority in the United States House of Representatives as the first official legislation of the 116th United States Congress. The House passed the bill on March 8, 2019, by a party-line vote of 234–193. The bill is viewed as a "signature piece of legislation" from the Democratic House majority. After the House passed the bill in 2019, it was blocked from receiving a vote by the Republican-controlled Senate, under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

In 2021, in the 117th Congress, congressional Democrats reintroduced the act as H.R. 1 and S. 1. On March 5, 2021, the bill passed the House of Representatives on a near party-line vote of 220-210, advancing to the Senate, which is split 50–50 between Democrats and Republicans, with Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris holding the tie-breaking vote. However, Republicans can block the bill from proceeding to a vote with a filibuster.

From the Texas Scorecard: Legislative Priorities Tracker - An updated listing of where Republican and Democrat priorities are in the Texas Legislature.

How are the legislative priorities of the Texas Republican and Democrat parties faring in the 2021 legislative session? Texas Scorecard tracks the progress of bills in the House and Senate to show you the movement of each party’s legislative priorities.

Republican priorities are taken from the legislative priorities passed during the 2020 Texas GOP Convention, while Democrat priorities are taken from the 2020 Texas Democrat Party platform.

- Click here for it.

From the Texas Tribune: Cat Parks paves own path as Texas GOP vice chair under bombastic Allen West

A look at the office of county and state party chairs.

- Click here for it.

Four years ago, the chair of the Republican Party in Hamilton County, a rural county about an hour west of Waco, was getting ready to retire. Around that time, Cat Parks’ husband was sitting on the porch of his ranch one evening, drinking whiskey with a neighbor, when the neighbor asked if he knew anyone up for the job.

“If you could get Cat to do it, she’s the one,” he replied, as she tells it.

Before long, Parks was being sworn in as the next chair of the Hamilton County GOP — and within a few years, she was taking over as vice chair of the state party, a swift rise in a world of Texas GOP politics that tends to reward players with much longer resumes inside the party. Now Parks is turning heads again as she paves her own path at the state party under Allen West, the bombastic former Florida congressman who has alienated some fellow Republicans with his sharp-elbowed leadership as chair.

“She came out of nowhere,” said Bunni Pounds, a veteran party activist who worked with Parks when she chaired the Texas GOP’s Candidate Recruitment Task Force last election cycle.

Pounds and others who have worked with Parks praised her as organized, efficient and goal-oriented, a reassuring force in the volatile West era. She can be hard-charging, they say, but takes a less confrontational approach than West and appears more focused on the nuts and bolts of the party, including building a younger and more diverse GOP.

Pounds said Parks “gives people comfort that someone is looking over the party as their primary focus, and she is very focused on the party and not distracted.”

While the state party chair and vice chair are elected independently from one another every even-numbered year at the state convention, they tend to be more political allies than adversaries. The moments of daylight between Parks and West have been small but significant: The day after West made comments flirting with Texas secession, Parks said that “now is not the time to turn our back on our amazing union.” Later in December, she congratulated the Republican winner of a hard-fought state Senate special election after West pointedly declined to give him kudos.

And last month, in a more bold move, she issued a long statement urging Republicans to think more broadly than the party’s eight legislative priorities, which feature several hot-button socially conservative issues and which West was using as a rallying cry as the session was getting underway.

- Click here for more on Hamilton County.

From Roll Call: Factions on the left and right are standing down for now

"Factions"

We've been using that word alot.

- Click here for the article. 

Factionalism is the bane of leaders and the latest CQ Roll Call Capitol Insiders Survey, a poll of congressional staffers, finds aides of both parties worry internal divisions could blow up in 2021.

As yet, that hasn’t happened, even considering West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin III's protest on Friday.

When it comes to the workings of Congress, lawmaking and confirming executive branch appointees, rank-and-file lawmakers are mainly doing what their leaders want them to.

As embarrassing as Manchin's last-minute bid to reduce the generosity of an unemployment benefits extension was for Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, it did not derail the $1.9 trillion relief bill. Nor did it significantly alter it.

Every Democrat voted for the bill when the Senate passed it 50-49 on Saturday along party lines, with no Republicans crossing the aisle in support.

Barring an unforeseen eruption of factionalism, it now appears that Democrats will succeed in passing the coronavirus relief plan proposed by President Joe Biden. It’s a feat that will have required near-unanimity among Democratic representatives and senators, given the unity in opposition of Republicans.

Still, when CQ Roll Call polled aides at the end of last month, nearly 4 in 10 Democratic respondents said they believed that disagreements between progressives and moderates would make it difficult for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer to govern.

From Fox News: Conservative group to invest $10M on effort to tighten election security laws in 8 swing states

 An interest group - and its affiliated advocacy group - are the subject of this article. 

- The Heritage Foundation.
- Heritage Action.

- Click here for the article.

Heritage Action for America, a conservative nonprofit tied to the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, on Monday will announce that it plans to spend $10 million on efforts to tighten election security laws in eight key swing states.

The details of the effort, first obtained by Fox News, will include digital and television ads, volunteer issue advocacy campaigns and lobbying state legislatures directly. Heritage Action will target Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Texas and Wisconsin, all considered key swing states after the 2020 election.

"Fair elections are essential for every policy debate in the future," Heritage Action Executive Director Jessica Anderson said in a statement. "We are working to help state lawmakers restore trust in our elections, ensure transparency, and protect the rights of every American to a fair election. This is our number one priority, and we are committed to doing whatever it takes."

State election systems came under close scrutiny during the coronavirus pandemic, which caused nationwide lockdowns beginning approximately one year ago.

The later races in the Democratic presidential primary took place primarily by mail ballot to limit in-person contact as the virus spread. But Republicans said that mail voting is less secure than in-person voting.

States generally kept or even expanded their mail ballot systems for the general election. The speedy implementation of these processes raised concerns of ballot harvesting, that ballots could be mailed to voters who no longer live at a certain location due to outdated voter rolls, and more.

Shifting election rules were some of the key gripes from former President Donald Trump and those who supported his false claims that he won the presidential election. But despite intense scrutiny, no fraud widespread enough to overturn the result in any individual state was found.

Congressional Democrats are aiming to make permanent some of the widespread changes that states put in place for the 2020 presidential election.

Key Terms - Module 2 - ACC GOVT 2306

Campaign and Elections
- voter registration
- racial disparities
- democracy
- voter qualifications
- Motor Voter Act
- Voting Rights Act of 1965
- Shelby v Holder
- suffrage
- grandfather clause
- literacy test
- poll tax
- general election
- white primary
- primary election
- equal protection clause
- voter id laws
- presidential preference primary
- closed primary
- open primary
- blanket primary
- ranked choice voting
- majority election
- runoff election
- plurality election
- instant runoff
- cross filing
- roll off
- party line voting
- early voting
- Help American Vote Act
- electronic voting
- voter turnout
- down ballot
- independent candidate
- party primary
- incumbent
- position taking
- credit claiming
- blame avoidance
- casework
- campaigns
- public financing
- private financing
- disclosure

Political Parties
- patronage
- party machines
- party competition
- safe seats
- political party
- responsible party model
- electoral competition model
- straight ticket voting
- chronic minority
- temporary party organization
- permanent party organization
- grassroots organization
- runoff primary
- precinct chair
- county chair
- convention
- county convention
- senatorial convention
- party platform
- plank
- state party chair
- executive committee
- allocation

Organized Interests
- lobbying
- organized interests
- interest group formation
- disturbance theory
- collective  goods
- free-rider problem
- solidary benefits
- expressive benefits
- selective incentives
- labor union
- professional associations
- trade association
- public interest groups
- single issue interest groups
- intergovernmental lobby
- electioneering
- PAC
- Independent political expenditures
- Super PAC
- dark money
- activism
- litigation
- grassroots lobbying
- grasstops lobbying
- Astroturf lobbying
- revolving door
- pluralist perspective
- hyperpluralism

Key Terms - Module 2 - ACC GOVT 2305

Campaign and Elections
- Times, Place, and Manner Clause
- PACs 
- SuperPACs
- bundling
- 527 Groups
- Caucus
- Closed Primary
- Open Primary
- Super Tuesday
- Winner - Take - All
- proportional representative
- electoral bounce
- incumbency advantage
- midterm elections
- midterm loss
- reapportionment
- gerrymandering
- safe district
- call list
- open seats
- candidate centered elections
- name recognition
- negative campaigning

Interest Groups and  Political Parties
- special interest
- interest group
- lobbyist
- pluralism
- hyperpluralism
- power elite theory 
- reverse lobbying
- iron triangles
- revolving door
- issue networks
- non partisan elections
- party system
- party boss
- party machine
- New Deal
- GOP
- party identification
- straight ticket voters
- split ticket vote
- base voters
- factions
- party platform
- party organization
- party in government
- party in the electorate
- party caucus
- partisanship
- divided government
- gift ban

Media, Technology and Government
- new media
- loud signal
- public watchdog
- policy agenda
- priming
- framing
- mass media
- personal presidency
- infotainment
- fake news
- watergate scandal
- public ownership
- fairness doctrine
- consolidation
- Telecommunications Act of 1996
- sound bite

From Wikipedia: Phil Gramm

Represented the 6th US Rep District in Texas from 1979 - 1985 when he won election to the Senate.

He was one of the first conservative Democrats to switch parties

- Click here for the entry.

Born in Fort Benning, Georgia, Gramm taught economics at Texas A&M University after earning a doctorate in economics from the University of Georgia. He won election to the United States House of Representatives in 1978, becoming one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. After being thrown off the House Budget Committee, Gramm resigned from Congress, joined the Republican Party, and won a special election to fill the vacancy caused by his resignation. He won election to the United States Senate in 1984.

Gramm became a member of the Senate Banking Committee in 1999, serving as chairman until 2001. He cosponsored the 1985 Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act, which sought to reduce the U.S. federal budget deficit. He also supported deregulation, sponsoring the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. The latter act repealed provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act which had separated banking, insurance, and brokerage activities.

Gramm sought the presidential nomination in the 1996 Republican primaries but dropped out after the first set of primaries. Gramm retired from Congress in 2002. He became a lobbyist for UBS and founded a public policy and lobbying firm, Gramm Partners. He was a senior economic adviser to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign.

From Wikipedia: Olin E. Teague

The representative of the 6th US District of Texas from August 24, 1946 –December 31, 1978.

- Click here for the entry.

While in Congress, he was the veteran's champion, authoring more veterans' legislation than any congressman before him. He was one of the majority of the Texan delegation to decline to sign the 1956 Southern Manifesto opposing the desegregation of public schools ordered by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. However, Teague voted against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968, as well as the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

He proposed 50 amendments in Congress, including: Providing for the election of President and Vice President; to abolish the electoral college (1953), Provides representation for the people of the District of Columbia (1957), Relative to appointment of postmasters (1959), Proposal with respect to the appointment of postmasters (1961), Empowering Congress to grant representation in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President to the people of the District of Columbia (1950 and 1951 and 1953), Equal rights regardless of sex (1967).

He was instrumental in improving benefits for servicemen's survivors. In 1956, he helped overhaul the survivor's benefits, with the creation of the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. He was also chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs (1955–1972), and chairman of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics (1973–1978). Before 1973, he also chaired the Manned Space Flight Subcommittee and in that capacity oversaw NASA's efforts to place a man on the moon. In 1976, Teague was pivotal in establishing the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas schools won't lose state funding this academic year for coronavirus attendance declines

For our look at public policy and finance

- Click here for the article.

Texas will fully fund school districts that have seen student attendance drop during the pandemic, as long as they maintain or increase the rate of students learning in person, Gov. Greg Abbott and state education officials announced Thursday.

School superintendents have been awaiting the news for months, with the pandemic and switch to virtual learning causing student enrollment and attendance to drop by more than 150,000 students statewide between January 2019 and 2021. Texas funds its public schools based on the number of students who attend, whether they are learning in person or virtually.

As of this January, 56% of Texas public school students were learning in person.

"As more districts return to in-person instruction, we are ensuring that schools are not financially penalized for declines in attendance due to COVID-19," Abbott said in the release. "Providing a hold harmless for the remainder of the 2020-2021 school year is a crucial part of our state's commitment to supporting our school systems and teachers and getting more students back in the classroom."

School districts will be funded based on the number of students who attended before the pandemic, according to the release. It is not yet clear whether state or federal money will be used to pay for the cost, Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath told school superintendents on a call Thursday.

The announcement follows two other big developments this week that will impact Texas public education: School staff are now eligible for vaccines, and school boards can opt out of requiring masks on campuses.

State leaders had agreed to fund districts for the first 18 weeks of the academic year based on their projected attendance numbers instead of actual student counts. But as the reprieve neared its end in mid-December, Morath and other state leaders delayed a decision on whether to extend it.

From Texas Tribune: Analysis: How Gov. Greg Abbott's attack on "defunding the police" has divided Texas Democrats

Fed 10 territory - divide and conquer.

- Click here for the article.

Even before Gov. Greg Abbott made it official in his State of the State speech last month, it was clear that policing or, more euphemistically, “public safety,” was emerging as a major partisan flashpoint in the current legislative session.

Republican candidates pounced on the “defund the police” slogan that emerged from protests following the killing of George Floyd in the custody of Minneapolis police last summer, and it has become an article of faith among both Democrats and Republicans that this — and the “Back the Blue” response to it — contributed to GOP candidates’ ability to hold the line in the 2020 election in Texas.

Some fundamental premises about Democratic voters’ views of this are oversimplified or just plain wrong. Whether the assumptions result from poor political communication by hapless Democrats, opportunistic and effective framing by Republicans or some mixture, Democrats created an opportunity for Abbott to amplify a divide in their coalition. Before that, the overwhelming focus — in the wake of the GOP’s generally poor handling of the pandemic and Donald Trump’s graceless defeat — had been on the divisions within the Republican Party.

Pivoting from a focus on racism and policing to an emphasis on police funding and public safety creates cross-pressures for Texans of color — particularly those who are Democrats. Those voters’ attitudes, according to public opinion polling in Texas, are more mixed and complex than common assumptions about Democratic orthodoxy on police issues.

From Roll Call: Klobuchar leads call for Biden to prioritize Violence Against Women Act programs in budget

This is legislation that led to a court case that helped narrow the court's interpretation of the commerce clause, which helped bring on the era of new federalism.

- Click here for the article.

Senate Democrats are urging President Joe Biden to provide strong backing for the Violence Against Women Act in his fiscal 2022 budget request, in light of increased reports of domestic violence during the pandemic and lack of supplemental funding for the law’s programs.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., along with 26 other Senate Democrats sent a letter to Biden on Friday, asking the president to prioritize support for Justice Department programs that provide services for survivors of gender-based violence in his fiscal 2022 budget request to Congress.

“We are very concerned that, as a result of the pandemic, cases of domestic violence and sexual assault have increased in communities across the country. Local law enforcement report more domestic violence-related calls and rape crisis centers are seeing increased need for services,” the senators wrote. “The pandemic has also made it more difficult for service providers to respond to the increased need for crisis intervention, legal services, and transitional housing.”

Biden was the original sponsor of the measure in the Senate when it was first passed in 1994.

While Congress passed a slate of emergency funding bills last year to address an array of crises linked to the pandemic, no additional funding was provided for VAWA programs at the Justice Department. Supplemental funding was included for programs authorized under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, but not VAWA.

From Roll Call: Senate in for another long night, and day, on pandemic relief

 More on the bill making process.

- Click here for the article.

The Senate planned to begin voting on amendments to a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package Friday after clerks pull an all-nighter reading the text of the 628-page measure aloud on the floor.

The insistence of a reading by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., ensured a slow start to deliberations on a mammoth coronavirus aid package that Republicans appeared to uniformly oppose.

"So often we rush these massive bills that are hundreds of thousands of pages long," Johnson said Thursday. "How can you craft effective amendments on a bill that you haven't even seen or haven't been given time to read?"

The “vote-a-rama” on amendments was likely to begin around midday Friday, senators were told Thursday night. That estimate assumes senators would forgo some of the 20 hours allotted for general debate under the rules of budget reconciliation, the process used to avoid a Republican filibuster.

But signs emerged late Thursday that Republicans might be willing to move more expeditiously once the amendment process begins. “Once we get our top 40 amendments in … then you'll see diminishing returns set in and probably some movement towards concluding it,” Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., told reporters.

- What is "vote-a-rama?

From The District Policy Group.

Definition: A series of stacked votes in short succession.

History: Senate rules allow for special consideration of amendments during the budget process. After 50 hours of debate on the budget, Senators may bring any remaining amendments, as long as they are germane (relevant to the legislation at hand), to the floor for a vote. The budget is not subject to filibuster and only 51 votes are needed to pass a measure. When a vote-a-rama starts, Senators are given a few minutes to introduce their amendment and state their case. The opposition is usually then given a short period of time to present their argument. Then the Senate votes; each vote lasts about ten minutes. This process repeats for each amendment presented and ruled germane. Amendments may be filed any time before the vote-a-rama begins, or they may be presented any time before the voting concludes.

U.S. Senate: "Vote-aramas" (1977 to Present)

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections

 - Click here for it.

US and Texas Election Code

US Code:
- TITLE 2 - THE CONGRESS
- TITLE 3 - THE PRESIDENT
- TITLE 52 - VOTING AND ELECTIONS

Texas Code: 
- Election Code.
- Local Government Code.

From the Texas Tribune: 23 candidates join the race to replace late U.S. Rep. Ron Wright

Subject: Special Election 

- Click here for the article.

A crowd of 23 candidates — including 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats — has filed for the May 1 special election to fill the seat of the late U.S. Rep. Ron Wright, R-Arlington, according to the secretary of state's office.

The filing deadline was 5 p.m. Wednesday. The race also attracted one independent and one Libertarian.

The GOP field saw a last-minute surprise. With less than an hour until the deadline, Dan Rodimer, the former professional wrestler who ran as a Republican for Congress last year in Nevada, arrived at the secretary of state's office in Austin to file for the seat.

"We need fighters in Texas, and that’s what I’m coming here for," Rodimer told The Texas Tribune. "I’m moving back to Texas. I have six children and I want them to be raised in a constitutional-friendly state."

From Wikipedia: Texas's 6th congressional district.

From the Houston Chronicle: Opinion: Texas youth are fed up with the Legislature and fighting for a livable world

Written by one our very own students!

Contact her if you want to get involved - I'll send details later.

- Click here for the opinion.

In the unrelenting claws of ice, Texas grinds to a shuddering halt. Climate change has done to Texas what even a global pandemic could not: the state is shut down.

As the cold seeped into my bones, I curled into an icy bed. Had I not been shivering, I would have told you I shook only from the burning anger and blistering outrage. Our government let us freeze. After deregulating the energy market and scorning federal recommendations to weatherize, Texas legislators now attempt to slink away as heads roll at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.

Unfortunately for them, young people will not so easily forget the chilling fear and cold despair with which we looked out at the unadulterated black that descended upon our cities. Under a starry night visible from within Houston, our entire electric grid flirted with total collapse. This world you would leave for us is dystopian.

A decade ago, the Texas environment I knew in elementary school was parched clay ground with foot-deep cracks that webbed across the playground and twisted our ankles. Since then, we have been ravaged by storms and floods we claim are once in 500 years but return every year. In between storm seasons of carrying out rotting waterlogged furniture, year after year of record-shattering temperatures mark the increasingly unbearable summers. Then, we were held hostage by a frigid cold that drives hours-long lines for water and desperate prayers for warmth.

Like most of my generation — and unlike my elected officials — I realize the devastating impact of climate change on us. Growing up in Texas, we see how year after year our suffering is enhanced by the unflinching climate denialism and inaction from our lawmakers. From city councils to the Texas Legislature to the U.S. Congress, the fears and futures of younger generations are cast away and sold for profit. The land they intend to leave us is rotten, pillaged and little more than scorched, sodden and frigid earth.

We do not accept.

Instead, we act. We organize strikes, sit-ins and protests to reclaim our space in the public narrative. We write letters, host town halls and lobby elected officials to demand climate action. Together, we’re building a movement.

Yet, there is no glory in youth organizing for climate action. Composing the waves of climate strikes and rumbles of protests, we are children whose childhoods have been robbed by decades of irresponsibility. As storms and strikes steal away precious days of school and summer, we desperately fight tooth and nail to confront the same institutions that we are taught protect us. We’re terrified, exhausted and possess neither the resources nor the expertise of the older generations who had the privilege of inheriting a livable world.

Four years ago I would’ve asked for a livable world to inherit.

But now — having counted every hour without power, every city without water, every time we’ve patched ourselves together after yet another climate disaster — I’m fighting for a livable world to grow up in. We cannot continue like this. To our parents, mentors, friends and leaders of the older generations: stand with us. Demand a crisis response to the climate crisis — if not for our sake, then for your own.

There is nothing to be gained and a world to be lost with the continued election of leaders who line their pockets at our expense. For now, we must resign ourselves to emailing, writing and calling their offices to demand climate action. But come their re-election, we should vote like our representatives left us out in the cold, because they did.

If we don’t act now, then when? If the collapse of functionality in Texas is not enough to persuade our lawmakers, then we — young and young-at-heart alike, liberals and conservatives alike — must either stand together to replace them or reckon with the consequences of how low they set the bar.

I, for one, have never been good at limbo.