https://txssc.txstate.edu/tools/tde-toolkit/drill-requirements

https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/laws-and-rules/texas-administrative-code/texas-administrative-code-title-19-part-2

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=SB11

From the Texas Tribune: 666 new Texas laws go into effect Sept. 1. Here are some that might affect you.

ominous right?

- Click here for the article. 

Six hundred and sixty-six new Texas laws will go into effect this Wednesday. Debated, passed and signed during the 87th Texas Legislature, these laws include changes to public safety, health care and K-12 education.

Not every bill signed into law during the regular session will go into effect Sept. 1. Some bills went into effect as soon as they were signed. For example, Senate Bill 968, which banned “vaccine passports” in Texas, became law when Gov. Greg Abbott signed it in June. Other bills, like one that revises eminent domain negotiations between landowners and companies, will become law on Jan. 1, 2022.

The legislature is currently in its second special session, which Abbott primarily called to advance the GOP-backed voting restrictions bill. Lawmakers are discussing other topics, including changes to the bail system and limits on transgender Texans from competing on school sports teams. At least one more special session will be called this fall to address redistricting.

For GOVT 2306 - UH

We The People 13e

 Chapter One – American Political Culture

Government
Autocracy
Oligarchy
Democracy
Constitutional Governments
- limited
- popular sovereignty
authoritarian
totalitarian
- arbitrary and capricious
political power
representative democracy
republic
direct democracy
pluralism
political knowledge
citizenship
political efficacy
political culture
liberty
limited government
laissez-faire capitalism
equality of opportunity
political equality
popular sovereignty
majority rule
minority rights

Chapter 2 – The Founding and the Constitution

Articles of Confederation
confederation
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
Great Compromise
3/5th Compromise
bicameral
checks and balances
Bill of Rights
expressed powers
elastic powers
judicial review
supremacy clause
Federalists
Anti-Federalists
Federalist Papers
Tyranny
limited government
amendment

Chapter 3 – Federalism

federalism
unitary system
intergovernmental relations
expressed powers
implied powers
necessary and proper clause
reserved powers
police power
concurrent powers
full faith and credit clause
privileges and immunities
home rule
dual federalism
commerce clause
grants-in-aid
categorical grants
cooperative federalism
regulated federalism
preemptions
states’ rights
devolution
block grant
new federalism
general revenue sharing
diffusion
unfunded mandates
redistributive programs

Governing Texas 5e

Chapter 1 – The Political Culture, People, and Economy of Texas

political culture
traditionalistic individualistic political culture
provincialism
privatization of public property
NAFTA
empresarios
poll tax
urbanization

Chapter 2 – Texas Constitution

constitutions
separation of powers
checks and balances
tyranny
federalism
supremacy clause
necessary and proper clause
unicameral
bicameral
confederacy
presidential reconstruction
congressional reconstruction
radical republicans
grange
limited government
republican government
plural executive
impeachment

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: The partisan debate over voting laws is a prologue to redistricting

- Click here for the article.

The 2022 elections in Texas favor Republican candidates. They haven’t lost a statewide election for more than a quarter of a century, and they’ve been in the majority of the Texas House and Senate for two decades. Republicans quashed Democratic efforts to gain ground in the 2020 elections.

All that’s left is to fortify their position, a two-step exercise that starts with restrictions on voting laws, an effort nearing completion in the Legislature’s ongoing special session, and ends with new political maps based on the 2020 census, which will be the subject of a special session after the current one.

The stakes were evident a year ago, when Democrats were pouring money into legislative races and boasting in advance that they would gain enough seats in the Texas House to force bipartisan compromise on redistricting and other issues. There was even some very loopy fantasizing that the two parties could end up with the same numbers in the House if Democrats were able to win eight of the seats they had targeted.

It didn’t happen. Republicans won the day, the year and the chance to draw the political maps for the next decade. Now they’re just cashing in their winnings.

First, they’re going after election practices used in Harris County in 2020 that turned out to be particularly popular with voters of color, like drive-thru voting and 24-hour early voting. The legislation that shot out of the Senate and then remained largely unscratched in the House on Thursday and Friday would outlaw those practices, make it illegal for election officials to send vote-by-mail applications to voters who haven’t asked for them, and tighten voter ID requirements at the polls.

That’s the legislation that prompted House Democrats to decamp to Washington, D.C., for more than a month this summer. The U.S. House passed a voting rights bill and the Texans claimed some credit for that, but they failed to stop the Republican juggernaut, which is now within days of getting the changes in voting law it has been seeking all year.

Media Bias Chart

 

- Click here for the source.

1817 James Monroe - Land Speculators in Alabama

The first great resource made available to economic interests in the U.S.

- Click here for the article.

Under President Thomas Jefferson, Congress passed he Land Act of 1804, superseding the Harrison Land Act of 1800. Both the act of 1800 and that of 1804, were passed to make migration to the western United States more attractive. The Harrison Act defined the minimum amount of land that could be purchased at 640 acres, while the 1804 act permitted the government to auction the land on credit with a standard 25% down payment and 6% interest. Much of the land available was in the Mississippi territory and was very well suited to growing cotton, much more fertile than the over-farmed lands of South Carolina. But in the immediate years after the land act of 1804, the market for English textiles and American cotton was depressed due to the trade embargoes enacted by the British and French. When Jefferson, responded with the Embargo Act of 1807, dealing a death blow to the industrial New England, it left the South with even less demand for their cotton, and kept the prices of land in the Mississippi territory low.

Despite, the low demand for Cotton and Indian hostilities in the area, settlers and speculators purchased over 77,000 acres of land in 1810. In 1809, President Madison had ordered land sales in what was to become the state of Alabama, and Americans living in crowded eastern states were drawn to the fertile lands and freedoms of the open territory. But soon, many more would follow them due to two major events. First, during the war of 1812, as a result of the Battle of Horsehoe Bend, the Creek tribes were signed the Treaty of Fort Jackson and ceded 23 million acres of their territory in Alabama and Georgia to the United States Government. Second, in 1815 with the final defeat of Napoleon and the collapse of the France's Continental blockade the demand for English textiles exploded, driving imports of Cotton into Europe causing it's prices to climb from 20 cents per pound in 1815 to 30 cents in 1817. As cotton prices rose, so did the demand for these fertile lands including the newly acquired 23 million acres, driving prices up. In Madison County, Alabama the prices increased from $2 per acre in 1817 to $7.40 per acre by 1818, with reports for some acres going for as high as $78. With rising prices, came land speculators. These were wealthy capitalists who were buying large tracts of land at low prices in expectation that the prices would rise.

In late 1817, President James Monroe was well aware of the land speculation, and he wanted to make it clear to Congress, that it was the nation and the public, not land speculators that ought to be benefiting from the increase in land value. In his first State of the Union address, Madison asked Congress to consider what new provisions could be made to the land acts of 1800 and 1804 to ensure that the land was used for emigration and that profits were returned to the public. Monroe began by reminding Congress that the nation had admitted into the Union several new states for which there was much vacant land soon, and demand for this land would likely increase with the termination of Indian hostilities. Monroe wrote that "the public lands are a public stock, which ought to be disposed of to the best advantage for the nation" and "the nation should therefore derive the profit proceeding from the continual rise in their value". Monroe explained that settlers or "emigrants" should be encouraged to compete and purchase the the land at a fair price, but that that the main objective should be to maximize the profit of the nation over the individual. While, there is no real way to stop wealthy capitalists from benefiting under any mode of sale, he warned against allowing forward looking speculators who might amass "vast bodies" of lands at low prices. Aside from taking profit, which should be left to the public, these speculators would also have the power to "control the emigration and settlement in such a manner as their opinion of their respective interests might dictate". And with this, Monroe asked Congress consider "such further provision may be made in the sale of the public lands, with a view to the public interest".

From the Encyclopedia Britannica: The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

Notice the relationship between political power and education. 

- Click here for the entry.

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), legal-aid resource and activist organization established in 1968 by Mexican American lawyers in San Antonio, Texas, with help from a grant by the Ford Foundation. Modeled on the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) was created to bring test cases in the courts and to encourage and train Mexican American lawyers in civil rights law. In addition, it engages in advocacy, offers educational scholarships, and lobbies for legislation. With headquarters in Los Angeles and several regional offices across the United States, it has become one of the country’s most prominent organizations working for Latino and immigrant rights.

MALDEF originated as a law firm born of the lawyers’ frustration with the discrimination that Mexican Americans faced within the legal system. With an initial $2.2 million Ford Foundation grant, MALDEF sought to provide legal protection for the civil rights of Mexican Americans. Because the organization suffered from a paucity of Mexican American attorneys with experience in civil rights law, the Ford grant included funding for scholarships for Mexican American law-school students, and MALDEF encouraged attorneys to establish law offices in Mexican American communities.

Such activities did not, however, help establish legal precedents or prime the courts for civil rights advances, so by the early 1970s MALDEF had begun to focus more on the litigation of constitutional issues. In particular, the organization turned its attention to education and transnational civil rights. MALDEF attorneys faced a setback in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez in 1973, when they failed to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that Texas had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by not providing equal educational opportunities to poor children. Greater selectivity and patience in developing test cases resulted in important victories, such as Plyler v. Doe in 1982, in which the Court accepted MALDEF’s argument that Texas could not exclude the children of undocumented illegal immigrants from public schools. In 1994 MALDEF successfully challenged California’s Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that denied public education, social services, and health services to undocumented immigrants. MALDEF has also argued successfully against at-large election systems—redistricting practices that minimize minority political influence—and (in state courts) against some school funding formulas. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, MALDEF began concentrating on issues of civil liberties and immigrant rights in the new context of homeland security. MALDEF’s activities have defined a legacy of legal tactics for the Latino community and have contributed to the inclusion of Latinos in civil rights policies and protections since the 1960s.

From the U.S. Census: Census of Governments

For a full look at the number of governments - especially local governments - in the United States.

- Click here for the link.

The numbers as of 2017

National - 1
State - 50
County - 3,031
Municipal - 19,495
Townships - 16,253
School Districts - 12,754
Other Special Districts - 38,542

From TAMU: Explaining Policy Differences Using Political Culture

- Click here for it.

 

Texas Culture, Part IV

From the Economist: Global democracy has a very bad year

 

- Click here for the source.

- U.S. Constitution.

- U.S. Code.

- Texas Constitution. 

- Texas Statutes.

- Houston City Charter.

- Houston Code of Ordinances.

From the Texas Tribune: New Texas voting laws, political maps could once again require federal approval under U.S. House bill named after John Lewis

A great look at federalism and voting rights.

- Click here for the article. 

The U.S. House on Tuesday passed a bill that could complicate both the coming round of redistricting in Texas and a voting restrictions bill currently under consideration in the state Legislature.

Known as the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, the bill would reinstate sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that were written to protect people of color. Over the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back some of that landmark law’s provisions.

The bill passed along party lines, meaning all Democratic Texans in the U.S. House supported it and all Republican delegation members opposed it.

Should the bill also pass the U.S. Senate, it could put states like Texas that have a history of voter discrimination back under a process called federal preclearance. That would require the state to once again obtain federal approval of its political maps and elections changes, like the controversial voting restrictions bill that is currently under consideration in the state Legislature. Preclearance is meant to ensure that any new election laws or rounds of redistricting do not harm people of color.

The federal legislation is one of two bills Texas House Democrats have been advocating for since they fled to Washington, D.C., in July to block the state voting bill poised for passage in the Republican-controlled Legislature. Democratic state lawmakers lobbied Congress to pass federal legislation that would supersede attempts in Texas to restrict voting access.

Is democracy still viable in the United States? How about Texas?

Recently we have witnessed the subtle growth of a movement questioning the viability of democracy as a form of government. This had led to some speculating whether it is still possible for the nation to govern under its three basic requirements

1 - universal adult suffrage
2 - majority rule
3 - minority rights

I want you to investigate this question and report back to me in an essay that meets these requirements:

- 1000 word minimum - you can write as much as you wish
- At least three sources
- Use an acceptable format.
- Make it pleasant to read.

You can take this in any direction you like. For example, you may wish to question the premise of the question: Perhaps democracy is not under threat. Whatever approach you choose to take, please defend it.

From Wikipedia: The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021

- Click here for the entry.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (H.R. 4) is proposed legislation that would restore and strengthen parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain portions of which were struck down by the United States Supreme Court decision of Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, and was weakened further by Brnovich v. DNC in 2021. Particularly, it would restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965's requirement that certain states pre-clear certain changes to their voting laws with the federal government. It was re-introduced in the 117th Congress, and is named after late Georgia Representative and voting rights activist John Lewis. On August 24, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a margin of 219 to 212, though it still needs approval by the U.S. Senate before it can be sent to the president to be signed into law.

- Click here for info on H.R. 4.

This is what the bill seeks to accomplish: 

This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices may take effect. Preclearance is the process of receiving preapproval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making legal changes that would affect voting rights.

A state and all of its political subdivisions shall be subject to preclearance of voting practice changes for a 10-year period if

- 15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the state during the previous 25 years;
- 10 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years, at least 1 of which was committed by the state itself; or
- 3 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years and the state administers the elections.

A political subdivision as a separate unit shall also be subject to preclearance for a 10-year period if three or more voting rights violations occurred there during the previous 25 years.

States and political subdivisions that meet certain thresholds regarding minority groups must preclear covered practices before implementation, such as changes to methods of election and redistricting.

Further, states and political subdivisions must notify the public of changes to voting practices.

Next, the bill authorizes DOJ to require states or political subdivisions to provide certain documents or answers to questions for enforcing voting rights.

The bill also outlines factors courts must consider when hearing challenges to voting practices, such as the history of official voting discrimination in the state or political subdivision.

Public Laws passed - so far - by the 117th Congress

- Click here for it. 

Temporary UH Syllabus

 This is a preliminary syllabus. The final version will be available once the class is set up on blackboard

Department of Political Science
University of Houston
GOVT 2306 – 05 – 13464
GOVT 2306 – 06 – 18610
US and Texas Constitutional Politics

_____________

Professor: Kevin Jefferies
Office:
Office Hours:
Class Time and Place:
GOVT 2306 – 05 – 13464: MW 1-230pm SW 101
GOVT 2306 – 06 – 18610: MW 230-4pm SW 101
Phone:
Email: kejeffe2@central.uh.edu
Blog: The Weaker Party.
_____________

Textbooks:

US GOVT 2306: U.S. and Texas Constitution and Politics, University of Houston, Ebook
- We The People 13e
- Governing Texas 5e

Try This Link: https://digital.wwnorton.com/wtp13govtex5govt2306

________________

Grading:

25% - Average of weekly quizzes
25% - Average of weekly 150 word written assignments
25% - Average of four tests and a final exam
25% - Class Essay

Here’s more detail on each:

1 – Chapter Quizzes. There will be an online quiz for each chapter. You can find each on the left hand column of blackboard under “quizzes.” The quiz questions will be pulled randomly from the book’s test bank. They can be any format. The will have 25 questions, and you will have two hours to complete them. They are intended to guide you through the chapters. All the quizzes will be opened at the beginning of the semester, and close the last day of class. Until then, you can take them as many times as you like. You will receive the highest grade you score.

2 – Written Assignments. Three written assignments will be opened on Blackboard at the beginning of class. They will be all due at the end of the semester. Each is to be at least 150 words long – but you may go over. The subject matter will cover some aspect of the week’s news, especially as it reflects on that week’s material.

3 –Tests and Final Exam. There will be a test after each module. They will contain 80 questions and you will have 60 minutes to complete them. The questions will be presented to you one at a time, and you will not be able to backtrack. You will have only one chance to take each test – but you may use your book and notes. The final will be comprehensive. It will have 120 multiple choice and true / false questions.

4 – A 1000 Word Critical Essay. Look on blackboard for your topic I want this to be well researched (three sources at minimum) and objective. This is not an opinion piece. You don’t learn anything rehashing your opinions. You will be graded on quality, length, grammar, depth, and all that. As college students you should know what makes a paper great, good, adequate, or bad. 

The grading categories are as follows:
93-100             A
90-92.99          A-
87-89.99          B+
83-86.99          B
80-82.99          B-
77-79.99          C+
73-76.99          C
70-72.99          C -
67-69.99          D+
63-66.99          D
60-62.99          D -
0-59.99            F

________________

Course Calendar

August 30, 2021 – Last day to add a class

Week of August 23:
- Fed Chapter 1: American Political Culture
- TX Chapter 1: The Political Culture, People, and Economy of Texas

Week of August 30:
- Fed Chapter 2: The Founding and the Constitution
- TX Chapter 2: The Texas Constitution

Week of September 6:
- Fed Chapter 3: Federalism
- TX Chapter 3: Texas in the Federal System

September 6, 2021 – Labor Day Holiday
September 8, 2021 – Official Reporting Day

Week of September 13:
- Fed Chapter 4: Civil Liberties
- Test One

Week of September 20:
- Fed Chapter 10: Campaigns and Elections
- TX Chapter 5: Campaigns and Elections

Week of September 27:
- Fed Chapter 9: Political Parties

Week of October 4:
- TX Chapter 4: Political Parties

Week of October 11:
- Fed Chapter 11: Groups and Interests
- TX Chapter 6: Interest Groups and Lobbying
 -Test Two

Week of October 18:
- Fed Chapter 8: Political Participation and Voting

Week of October 25: The Media
- Fed Chapter 7: The Media

Week of November 1:
- Fed Chapter 6: Public Opinion

November 4, 2021 – Last day to drop with a W

Week of November 8:
- Fed Chapter 5: Civil Rights
- Test Three

Week of November 15:
- TX Chapter 12: Public Policy

Week of November 22:
- TX Chapter 11: Public Finance

November 24-26 – Thanksgiving Holiday

Week of November 29:
- TX Chapter 13: Crime, Corrections, and Public Safety

Week of December 3:
- TX Chapter 14: Building the Future: Public Policies for a Changing Texas
- Test Four

December 4, 2021 – Last Day of Classes
December 7-15, 2021 – Final Exam Period
December 15, 2021 – Official Closing

The Legislative Reference Library of Texas

 An all purpose source of legislative info

- Click here for the site.

From the Texas Tribune: Federal judge rules for Texas, temporarily restores federal health care funding extension

For our look at federalism: 

- Click here for the full article. 

A federal district judge on Friday temporarily reinstated a 10-year extension of a federal health care program that Texas uses to help pay for health care for uninsured Texans and is worth billions of dollars annually.

The agreement was set to expire next year after federal health officials in April rescinded the Trump-era extension to the 1115 waiver agreement — which Texas has had with the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services since 2011 and is up for review every few years — and ordered Texas to collect public input, as the agreement requires, while it renegotiates a new extension beyond its original October 2022 expiration date.

The decision did not stop the funding for the current waiver, which provides $3.87 billion in annual funding to partly offset free care provided by Texas hospitals to the uninsured, and to pay for innovative health care projects that serve low-income Texans, often for mental health services.

In his order Friday, U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Parker granted a preliminary injunction sought by Texas to block the federal government from rescinding the original Trump-era agreement. The decision removes the requirement, at least for now, for Texas to negotiate its deal with CMS if it wants 1115 funding beyond October 2022.

The decision by CMS was “likely unlawful” and resulted in “turmoil in the state’s Medicaid program,” in part because the state had already begun “reassigning staff, making plans, appropriating money, passing regulations, and engaging stakeholders to work towards implementing the necessary changes” allowed by the original deal, which was confirmed in January before it was rescinded by the Biden administration in April, Barker said in the order.

On Friday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who had sued to reinstate the 10-year deal, applauded Barker’s decision, calling the April action of the CMS “capricious” and a political ploy by President Joe Biden to pressure the state into expanding Medicaid.

San Fernando, Texas

- Click here for it.

The 1,446 cities in Texas in order of population

From Houston to San Fernando

- Click here for it.

From the Texas Tribune: People of color make up 95% of Texas’ population growth, and cities and suburbs are booming, 2020 census shows

Something that will likely lie behind the upcoming redistricting.

- Click here for the article. 

Setting the stage for what is expected to be a bruising battle over political representation, the results of the 2020 census released Thursday showed that Texas’ explosive growth over the past decade was again powered by people of color.

And it is the state’s cities and suburbs that are booming, with Texas home to three of the country’s 10 largest cities and four of the fastest-growing.

Texas gained the most residents of any state since 2010, and its Hispanic population is now nearly as large as the non-Hispanic white population, with just half a percentage point separating them. Texas gained nearly 11 Hispanic residents for every additional white resident since 2010.

Texans of color accounted for 95% of the state’s population growth. The 2020 census puts the state’s population at 29,145,505 — a 16% jump from 25.1 million in 2010. Hispanic Texans were responsible for half of that increase.

Non-Hispanic white Texans now make up just 39.8% of the state’s population — down from 45% in 2010. Meanwhile, the share of Hispanic Texans has grown to 39.3%.

interesting resource on local government in Texas

Pete McRae’s Rising LoneStars

- Click here to check it out.

 

From the National Conference of State Legislatures: Census and Redistricting Data FAQs

 Everything you need to know about how states will redraw districts based on recent numbers.

- Click here for it.

From the Census Bureau: Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data

This is the data that will be used by state legislatures to redraw legislative districts this fall. 

- Click here for it.

Public Law 94-171 refers to the current law governing how the census bureau will do so.

- Click here for the relevant info.

It lives in section 141 of title 13, United States Code, which you can find here.

- Click here for a map of the Middle East.

The history of Afghanistan summarized

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/call-of-the-house/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capias_ad_respondendum

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.418.htm

https://www.houstontx.gov/courts/pdf/COH_MCA_Mon_Dkt.pdf

https://www.houstontx.gov/courts/index.html

https://www.wdmtoolkit.org/business-processes/warrant-process-flow/warrant-types

The latest on the battle over local mask mandates

- Texas universities, committed to full returns, face fall terms with surging COVID-19 numbers and no mask mandates.

- As coronavirus rages again in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott resists statewide action, hamstrings local leaders.

- Texas won’t require schools to notify parents of COVID-19 cases.

- Gov. Greg Abbott’s order banning mask mandates in Texas schools faces lawsuit, defiance by big-city districts.

- Dallas County, Bexar County officials fight Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s ban on mask mandates in court.

- Texas judges temporarily allow officials in Bexar and Dallas counties to issue mask mandates, despite Gov. Greg Abbott’s ban.

The latest on quorum

- Austin judge signs order to block arrests of Democrats who refuse to return to Texas Capitol for special session.

- Lawmaker relationships fray as Texas Democrats’ quorum bust to block voting bill drags on.

- Texas House, just shy of a quorum, issues order to lock members inside the chamber.

- Texas Supreme Court allows for arrest of Democrats who don’t show up to Legislature.

- Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan signs 52 arrest warrants for absent Democrats in bid to end chamber’s weekslong stalemate.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp

https://uscode.house.gov/

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/

https://www.sunset.texas.gov/

https://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Publications/Fiscal_SizeUp/Fiscal_SizeUp_2020-21.pdf

https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances

Gov. Greg Abbott announces special legislative session starting Saturday, covering elections, federal COVID-19 funding, quorum rules

 - Click here for the article. 

BREAD AND ROSES An Electoral Organization for both New Socialists and Non-Socialists, One with a Strong Utopian and International Orientation, One in Pursuit of a New American Dream.

 - Click here for it,

A proclamation calling an extraordinary session of the 87th Legislature, to convene in the City of Austin. commencing at 12 p.m. noon on Saturday. August 7, 2021.

 https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/PROC_second_called_session_87th_legislature_IMAGE_08-05-21.pdf

 

From the Texas Tribune: Here's how Texas voted in every presidential election since 1976

 - Click here for the article.

1980 Presidential Election Results

 

2020 Presidential Election Results

 

Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

For our look Texas' shift from statewide Democratic to Republican power.

- Click here for it.

Energy industry showers Gov. Greg Abbott, other Texas politicians with campaign cash after they passed power grid bills

 https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/04/texas-energy-industry-donations-legislature/

Local mask mandates pop up in defiance of Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order banning COVID-19 restrictions

 https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/04/texas-mask-mandate-greg-abbott-covid/

Corrections Budget and Prison Operations

 https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/08/16095232/Corrections-Budget-and-Prison-Operations.pdf

Brendan Bracken: The Man Behind Winston Churchill | Churchill's Secret S...

Interesting story about a political operative

 

 

From Texas Public Radio: About A Million Texans Have Registered To Vote Online Since Court Ruling On Motor Voter Laws

- Click here for the article. 

After a lengthy court battle, the Texas Department of Safety has started allowing voters to update their voter information at the same time they update their driver’s license information online.

The Texas Civil Rights Project filed a federal lawsuit against the state on behalf of three voters in Texas who thought they had updated their addresses on their voter registration through the DPS website. They later found out that never happened because online voter registration is illegal in Texas.

The plaintiffs in the case were Jarrod Stringer, Nayeli Gomez and John Harms, as well as two organizations, MOVE Texas and the League of Women Voters of Texas.

The lawsuit claimed Texas was violating the National Voter Registration Act — which includes federal motor voter laws — and the U.S. Constitution. The Texas Civil Rights Project first sued the state five years ago, but the lawsuit was thrown out on a technicality. The group sued again shortly after.

A federal judge sided with the Texas Civil Rights Project and ordered the state to change its practices last year, forcing Texas to “create the first-ever opportunity for some Texans to register to vote online” starting in September, the group said in a press release.

Mimi Marziani, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project, told KUT that DPS data shows that about a million voter registration transactions have occurred in the past ten months.

“That means that’s an average of a 100,000 Texans per month are now registering to vote — or updating their voter registration — with their online drivers’ transaction,” she said. “That’s a lot of people.”

For years, DPS had been treating voters who wanted to change their information online differently than people who do so in person at a DPS office. Voting groups said that violated the voting rights of some Texans.

Abbott V Feds

- Gov. Greg Abbott draws criticism for ordering state troopers to pull over vehicles with migrants, saying it will stem COVID-19 risk.

- U.S. attorney general blasts Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s latest border directive and threatens a legal battle.

- Justice Department sues Texas over Gov. Greg Abbott's order for law enforcement to pull over vehicles with migrants.

- Gov. Greg Abbott's border security initiative rolls out with confusion, missteps and a whole lot of state troopers in Val Verde County.

WILLIAMS BROTHERS

A look at the people who build the bulk of our regional highways.

- Click here for the site.

- About us: 

Williams Brothers Construction Company is a Houston-based firm that was founded in 1955 by J.K. Williams, C.K. Williams and J.D. (Doug) Pitcock, Jr. In the following year, the Interstate Highway Act was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Williams brothers were bought out in 1964 and 1984, respectively, leaving Doug Pitcock as the sole shareholder. Since 1998, the company has been in the process of converting to an employee-owned corporation.

The company has performed all of its work under the open, competitive bid process, with 95% of that work done for its principal client, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Williams Brothers has completed over 350 projects with a total value of over $12 billion making it one of the largest highway contractors in the United States as well as the largest in Texas.

- The bio of their owner (it is a private business)

Doug Pitcock (A&M ’49), with Claude and John Williams, formed Williams Brothers Construction Company in 1955. Mr. Pitcock is owner, Chairman of the Board, and CEO. Under his leadership, Williams Brothers has become one of the largest highway/heavy contractors in the nation.

Mr. Pitcock has been a prominent transportation leader for over 40 years. He served as chairman of the Houston Chamber of Commerce transportation committee, and has twice been president of the Texas Highway Branch of the Associated General Contractors. In 1984 he was National President of the Associated General Contractors of America.

President Ford named Doug to serve on the National Transportation Policy Study Commission, and Governor Smith appointed him to serve on the Texas State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers.As testament to his abilities to advance transportation issues, a 1984 Engineering News Record cover story referred to Mr. Pitcock as the “gentle persuader.” Doug was inducted into the Texas Good Roads/Transportation Association’s Hall of Fame and into the Texas Transportation Institute’s Hall of Honor. He was named one of the “Top 100 Private Sector Transportation Construction Professionals of the 20th Century” by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. Doug is a Distinguished Civil Engineering Alumnus of Texas A&M University)

- Trade Business Association Memberships: 

The Associated General Contractors of Texas
American Road and Transportation Builders of America
Associated General Contractors of America
Texas Good Roads
Texas Asphalt Pavement Association
Houston Contractors Association
TRIP: A National Transportation Study Group

From the Texas Tribune: San Antonio built a pipeline to rural Central Texas to increase its water supply. Now local landowners say their wells are running dry.

A look at water use policy in the state.

- Click here for the article.

When the water finally arrived, San Antonio’s leadership could relax. The roughly 150-mile long water pipeline to the northeast guaranteed the city’s economic future and freed residents from the stress of droughts.

“We have water security for decades to come,” said Robert Puente, president and CEO of the San Antonio Water System. The project, what Puente called the “biggest achievement in our lifetimes” to secure water for the city, helped conserve the sensitive Edwards Aquifer, upon which San Antonio has historically depended for water.

But less than a year after the pipeline began to suck water from a different aquifer in Central Texas for delivery to 1.8 million people, some residents in that rural area turned on their taps only to be greeted by air.

“All so that the people in the city of San Antonio can water their lawns,” said Bob Scouras, 72, a landowner in Lee County.