The emerging field of political intelligence - the fastest growing field you've never heard of

The Dish had a recent post telling how to profit from boring subcommittee meetings.

Hire yourself out to large businesses who want quick information about what is happening in these meetings.

From Mother Jones:

As Wall Street has pursued ever more complex ways to make a buck, the political-intelligence industry has boomed, bringing in $402 million in 2009, according to Integrity Research Associates, which tracks the PI sector. That's still small potatoes compared to the $3.3 billion lobbying industry, but it has caught the eye of critics who worry that it amounts to selling special access to the public's business. "This is basically the kind of thing that America hates," says former lobbyist-turned-reformer Jack Abramoff.

Heather Podesta, a corporate lobbyist who once proudly sewed a scarlet "L" on her dress at a Democratic convention party, recalls the moment several years ago when she realized political intel had taken on a life of its own. Hedge funders had packed the audience at a Senate hearing on asbestos legislation. They had no interest in the policy implications; they just wanted to find out first so they could place their bets for or against the asbestos makers. "The whole thing," Podesta tells me at the power-lunch staple Charlie Palmer, "was just so sleazy." Yet so long as they don't veer into insider trading or Abramoff-style shenanigans, the political-intelligence firms aren't breaking any laws. "All they're doing is discovering the information and conveying it," concedes Abramoff, whose influence-peddling schemes swept up a half-dozen Republican lawmakers and landed him in prison. "I'm not even sure if you made it illegal there's any way to enforce it. It's ingenious."

The political-intelligence industry began to take shape in the early 1980s. As federal regulatory power expanded, big business wanted to know what happened in obscure subcommittee hearings—and didn't want to wait for the next day's papers to read about it. In 1984, investment banker Ivan Boesky hired lobbyists to attend committee hearings about a big oil merger and report back to him. It paid off: Boesky made a cool $65 million just by finding out first and buying low. "Investors started to realize that there was money to be made by knowing what was going on in Washington and knowing it as quickly as possible," says Michael Mayhew, the founder of Integrity Research Associates.

Click here for a link to Integrity Research Associates.

From New York Magazine: Senate Republicans: All Obama Judges Are Bad

Senate Republicans are filibustering a third Obama nominee to the DC Circuit Court. Democrats are once again weighing the opinion of changing Senate rules to scale back the filibuster.

For reasons that remain unclear, Senate Republicans have since decided to block Obama’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court, the country’s second-most-powerful court, en masse. “There is no reason to upset the current makeup of the court,” argues Charles Grassley. Democrats have “admitted they want to control the court so it will advance the president’s agenda,” says Mitch McConnell.

This – unlike many of the arguments of convenience deployed in such fights — is a perfectly blunt account of both side’s beliefs. Democrats want to nominate judges who share the Democratic legal philosophy, which tends to treat the Democratic policy agenda as constitutional. Republicans want to keep the courts as Republican as possible, because Republican judges are more likely to strike down laws passed by Democrats.

The bluntness of the account reveals its radicalism. Previous judicial fights have revolved around the question: How personally or ideologically unacceptable must a judge be to merit rejection? Republicans are now arguing that Obama’s nominating judges to vacancies on the court is illegitimate per se.

From the Washington Post: Capital gains: Spending on contracts and lobbying propels a wave of new wealth in D .C.

For our look at money in politics available to people who know the inside game:

The avalanche of cash that made Washington rich in the last decade has transformed the culture of a once staid capital and created a new wave of well-heeled insiders.

The winners in the new Washington are not just the former senators, party consiglieri and four-star generals who have always profited from their connections. Now they are also the former bureaucrats, accountants and staff officers for whom unimagined riches are suddenly possible. They are the entrepreneurs attracted to the capital by its aura of prosperity and its super-educated workforce. They are the lawyers, lobbyists and executives who work for companies that barely had a presence in Washington before the boom.

. . . big companies realized that a few million spent shaping legislation could produce windfall profits. They nearly doubled the cash they poured into the capital.

From the Washington Post: Another way to explain who we are: The 15 types of communities that make up America

A companion piece to the one about the 11 "nations" within the US. This looks at the 15 unique cultures of the various counties across the country.

From the New Yorker: On the Face of It: The Psychology of Electability

We just finished talking about how personal characteristics can influence voters. When we cover the media, we will see the impact that television has had on how candidates are evaluated.

Looks matter.

Here's a more exhaustive look at these factors:

In 2003, the Princeton psychologist Alexander Todorov began to suspect that, except for those people who have hard-core political beliefs, the reasons we vote for particular candidates could have less to do with politics and more to do with basic cognitive processes—in particular, perception. When people are asked about their ideal leader, one of the single most important characteristics that they say they look for is competence—how qualified and capable a candidate is. Todorov wondered whether that judgment was made on the basis of intuitive responses to basic facial features rather than on any deep, rational calculus. It would make sense: in the past, extensive research has shown just how quickly we form impressions of people’s character traits, even before we’ve had a conversation with them. That impression then colors whatever else we learn about them, from their hobbies to, presumably, their political abilities. In other words, when we think that we are making rational political judgments, we could be, in fact, judging someone at least partly based on a fleeting impression of his or her face.

Starting that fall, and through the following spring, Todorov showed pairs of portraits to roughly a thousand people, and asked them to rate the competence of each person. Unbeknownst to the test subjects, they were looking at candidates for the House and Senate in 2000, 2002, and 2004. In study after study, participants’ responses to the question of whether someone looked competent predicted actual election outcomes at a rate much higher than chance—from sixty-six to seventy-three per cent of the time. Even looking at the faces for as little as one second, Todorov found, yielded the exact same result: a snap judgment that generally identified the winners and losers. Todorov concluded that when we make what we think of as well-reasoned voting decisions, we are actually driven in part by our initial, instinctive reactions to candidates.

From The Dish: Police State Watch

Andrew Sullivan reports on a case where a drug sniffing dog made the wrong call. Police were led to believe - incorrectly - that a person they pulled over had hidden drugs up his backside, and took invasive procedures to try to find them. Which they did not, since there were none.

He was billed for the services.

The person searched seems to have limited ability to because policy have qualified immunity from lawsuits.

Is there a "drug war exception" to the Fourth Amendment?

These incidents raise troubling questions about how the criminal justice system and medical establishment could allow for such extreme and invasive measures based on such little suspicion for nonviolent drug offenses. Oddly, according to constitutional scholars and medical ethicists I've consulted, the indignities imposed upon Eckert and Young were both illegal and unethical. And yet it also may be that (a) none of the law enforcement officials or medical personnel responsible for the violations are likely to be held accountable in any way, and (b) they could probably do it all again tomorrow, and still wouldn't likely be held accountable.

The Legal Issues

Any discussion of the legal issues involved in these cases needs to begin with the general evisceration of the Bill of Rights wrought by the drug war. There's a reason why some constitutional law scholars refer a "drug war exception" to the Fourth Amendment. Over the last 45 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has generally taken the approach that drugs are such an existential threat to American society that some basic and inherent rights need to be suspended in order to facilitate their eradication.

From the Death Penalty Information Center: The 2% Death Penalty: How a Minority of Counties Produce Most Death Cases At Enormous Costs to All

Some of this we already knew, but according to this report a small number of counties are responsible for most of the death penalty cases in the United States.

Harris County makes the list, but the report raises questions about the fairness of the system and whether the HPD crime lab has produced tainted evidence for prosecutors. Some people convicted of murder have since been exonerated.

Story probably helps illustrate how the political culture in the local area differs from that elsewhere and nationally.

The Huffington Post reviews the report:

The county that's home to Houston is also the most execution-friendly county in America. Under former District Attorney Johnny B. Holmes and his infamous handlebar mustache, Harris County by itself sent more people to death row (more than 200) than all 49 states other than Texas. When reform-minded District Attorney Pat Lykos (a pro-death penalty Republican, by the way) took over in 2008, she set out to look for innocent people convicted under the lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key approach of her predecessors. Since 2008, there have been 11 exonerations Harris County.

The county has also been beset by scandals at its crime lab. In 2002, an investigation "found cases in which lab results appeared to have been changed to bolster police testimony in criminal cases." As Houston defense attorney John T. Floyd explains, five years later ...

On June 13, 2007, former U.S. Justice Department Inspector Michael Bromwich issued a 400-page report that concluded the crime lab’s DNA and serology departments had made hundreds of “serious and pervasive” mistakes in homicide and sexual assault cases. Bromwich two-year investigation examined more than 3500 cases processed by the crime lab over the previous quarter century. 135 of those were DNA cases handled by the crime lab between 1992 and 2002, Bromwich’s investigators found “major issues” in 43 of those cases, and, even more disturbing, found “major issues” in 4 of the 18 death penalty cases it examined . . .

For more than two decades forensic analysts with the lab appear to have deliberately presented false or misleading testimony designed to satisfy the District Attorney’s Office need for a conviction. And when the analysts were not giving false testimony, they were neglecting to conduct tests that would have either exonerated the accused or cast doubt on the test findings the prosecution needed for conviction.

As late as April 2013, Harris County was investigating how a crime lab technician remained on the job for years, helping to win convictions in thousands of cases, despite "a high error rate," and "a dubious understanding of the chemistry involved in the job."

Lykos was defeated last year in her bid for reelection, in part because of her efforts to divert first-time DWI offenders, and a policy of not pressing felony charges for "trace" amounts of drugs. Former state judge Mike Anderson beat Lykos in the Republican primary with a promise to return to "the good old days," by which he presumably meant Holmes and his death penalty machine.

In a training session for his assistant district attorneys, conducted earlier this year, Anderson was captured on video giving tribute to Holmes. At one point, he celebrated how Holmes didn't press criminal charges against the Houston police officers who shot and killed Pedro Navaro in 1998. Navarro was unarmed. The police shot the 22-year-old man 21 times during a botched drug raid -- nine times in the back.

Anderson then referred to the Innocence Project -- a group that works to get innocent people out of prison and off death row -- as the "enemy" of prosecutors. He also went on to praise prosecutors who fought against DNA testing in innocence cases. Harris County was already known among prosecutors for negotiating the destruction of DNA evidence into plea bargains, meaning that innocent suspects coerced into false confessions couldn't later ask for the tests that could clear their names. The Houston Chronicle editorialized that the video confirmed critics' "worst fears" about returning to the conviction culture that we now know produced so many exonerations.

Anderson passed away in October. His widow Devon was appointed to replace him, and now serves as the Harris County DA.

Written Assignment #5 - 8 week classes

Get me a rough draft of your 1000 word essay by November 29th.

The sooner you get it to me, the sooner I can get comments to you so you can make the necessary revisions.

Its dangerous to get in the way Houston

The Houston Chronicle has a fun photo spread on some old towns that were swallowed up by an ever expanding Houston.

It helps explain many of the names of neighborhoods and highways around the city.

It reminds me that one of the many aspects of municipal government that we did not get into this semester was extra territorial jurisdiction, which refers to the rules related to annexation - something Houston has done since its inception in 1836.

Some related stories:

- Annexation Plan - Houston.
- Control in the ETJ.
- Katy plans to talk with Houston about annexation.

Jobs, Growth & Freedom Fund

Also in 2305, we covered campaign finance and discussed the rise of political action committees (PACs) as a response to limits on campaign donation from labor unions and corporations in the

We mentioned a couple different types of PACs - Super PACs and Leadership PACs - and I suggested that our junior Senator Ted Cruz very likely has one set up. I was right - its called the Jobs, Growth & Freedom Fund. Its an indication that the senator intends to build influence over others in Congress. The more he has in his PAC, the more money he raise, the more he can distribute to his allies in Congress. Or potential allies.

As a reminder, here is a definition of a Leadership PAC:

Politicians collect money for their own campaigns — we all know that. But many of them also raise a separate pot of money, commonly called a leadership political action committee, to help other politicians. By making donations to members of their party, ambitious lawmakers can use their leadership PACs to gain clout among their colleagues and boost their bids for leadership posts or committee chairmanships. Politicians also use leadership PACs to lay the groundwork for their own campaigns for higher office. And some use their PACs to hire additional staff—sometimes even their family members—and to travel around the country or eat in some of Washington's finest restaurants. The limits on how a politician can spend leadership PAC money are not especially strict.

The Center for Responsive Politics has detail about the money the PAC has on hand and what it has spent:

Total Receipts	$313,323
Total Spent	$129,786
Begin Cash on Hand	$0
End Cash on Hand	$183,537
Debts	$0
Date of last report	June 30, 2013

Click here for info on Ted Cruz.

For more on the PAC, click on these:

- Cruz gears up fundraising machine
- Ted Cruz raises $1.19 million in third quarter.
- A late invitation to a fundraiser - we missed it, sorry.
- Ted Cruz Joins Freshmen Forming Leadership PACs
- The Ted Cruz Filibuster Paid Off — for Ted Cruz!

From The American Prospect: Fifty Shades of Purple

Recently in 2305 we discussed the two party system and its decentralized nature. We toyed with the possibility that since each party has a presence in each of the fifty states, it might be best to say that the United States has a 100 party system (50 states x 2 parties in each - in case you didn't figure this out yourself). Each state party has a degree of autonomy and can determine for itself what it stands for - usually this is determined by which groups are especially powerful in the state, and what issue positions help win elections.

But even though each party has a presence in each state, they are not competitive in each. Republicans dominate some states (like Texas) while Democrats dominate others (like California). There are only a handful of states where there is a close balance between the two - Florida and Ohio for example.

This author from the American Prospect thinks this is a problem and that democracy would be better served if each party was competitive in each of the fifty states. The roots of government dysfunction might be found in this lack of competition:

The real winner, if the parties started competing for votes across the map, wouldn’t be Republicans or Democrats; it would be small-d democracy. Voter turnout would surely rise. When only one party is courting them, voters disconnect. In 2012 battleground states, where both parties poured resources into voter outreach and engagement, turnout was high. In Ohio, 65 percent of the voting-eligible population cast a ballot; in Virginia, 66 percent did; and in Colorado, a whopping 70 percent turned out. But one-party states like Texas (50 percent) and California (55 percent) were both below the national average.

Voters can’t hold elected officials accountable if their party affiliation virtually assures their re-election. A weak opposition party can’t serve as an effective watchdog on those in power, either. Politicians in unchallenged parties also tend to move to ideological extremes. When general elections are largely decided in party primaries, as they are in Illinois and Texas, small numbers of highly motivated voters can carry the day; that’s how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party in states like Texas. It’s what elected Ted Cruz and what emboldened him to orchestrate an unpopular government shutdown without having to worry about his own political future. In the strange world that noncompetitive politics has wrought, Cruz is doing precisely what Republican primary voters back home elected him to do.

Neither party, of course, will pursue a 50-state strategy because it thinks such a plan is good for democracy. But we’re at a juncture when both believe they can benefit from talking to voters they’ve long ignored. If the parties embraced 50-state strategies, rather than putting most of their resources into a handful of battlegrounds like Ohio and Florida, who would gain the most by 2020 or 2030? It’s impossible to say. Democrats would win over a lot of people simply by giving them a reason to vote. Republicans might acquire even more converts by revising their message to appeal to Latinos and other voters who have written them off. One thing’s for sure, though: American politics would be a lot healthier.

Its doesn't matter if the Tea Party is unpopular, it is still powerful

Thus concludes The Dish in comparing two articles. One points out that 56% of Americans hold a negative view of the Tea Party, the other points out that 2/3rds of those who report voting in the Republican primaries consider themselves members of the movement.

We discussed this in 2305 last week. Turnout is power.

A LIVING DEATH Life without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses

A report from the ACLU.

Pennsylvania paper retracts 1863 editorial critical of the Gettysburg Address

After 150 years they decided it was ok after all.

The original editorial is worth a read. It reminds us how divisive a figure Lincoln was at the time.

From the Houston Chronicle: Political donors paying way

Chronicle writer Patricia Kilday Hart points out the unopposed incumbent legislators still receive a healthy campaign donations and live very well off them.

State Sen. Troy Fraser’s 2012 campaign disclosure reports read like a script from “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.” There’s the private airplane, the expensive automobile lease, the lush Hill Country country club, not to mention swanky dinners at Austin’s Eddie V’s, or Venice, Italy’s Trattori do Forni.

The bills were all paid by someone else, namely campaign donors such as gambling interests, payday lenders and the Koch Industries political action committee, which gave nearly $400,000 to Fraser’s political account in 2012.

There’s just one catch: Fraser, a Republican from Horseshoe Bay, didn’t have a political opponent in 2012, either in the primary or general election. He is one of 40 lawmakers identified by the Houston Chronicle to have avoided any political opposition during that election cycle.

Despite the lack of a political threat, this group of legislators collectively raised $9.4 million in campaign dollars and spent $5.8 million. Much of the money paid for cellphones, plane trips, meals, car leases, car washes and Austin apartments in a year between legislative sessions. Campaigns even picked up the tab for charitable donations, wedding and graduation gifts, and funeral flowers.

“Lawmakers are living high on the hog at their contributor’s expense,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “And the contributors are inevitably repaid in favors done on the floor of the House and Senate — or more frequently in back rooms where bills are scheduled or killed when nobody is looking.”

Campaign rules in Texas limit the ability of campaign funds to be used for personal purposes, but its a limit that is easily ignored. The Texas Ethics Commission has a very loose definition of personal use.

Not a nation of moderates - and little evidence of a political realignment

The Dish flags a paper by some political scientists who challenge the idea that we are a nation of moderates. It depends on how you measure moderation. They also argue against the notion the recent elections - like Obama's reelection in 2012 - indicate a political realignment is underway that will likely favor the Democratic Party. These two arguments are related.

If you measure it alone one dimension - for example social or economic ideology - then moderates rule, but reality is more complex. The political world not contains your standard liberals and conservatives, it also contains libertarians, populists and moderates. The former two complicate things. Libertarians are liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, populists are the reverse. People may be moderate on economic issues, but extreme on social issues, or vice versa. People who are moderate on both social and economic issues are very rare.

This graph purports to explain that fact:

From The American Prospect: The Forty Year Slump

A sobering look at the decline in middle and lower class wages over past 40 years.

Written Assignment #12 - 16 week classes

I posted this yesterday on blackboard, but in case you missed it I want you to submit a rough draft of your 1000 word report by next Monday the 25th.

From the Congressional Research Service: Membership of the 113 th Congress: A Profile

Here's a demographic breakdown of the members of the 113th Congress.

Here's a chunk of what you'll find in the document. It concerns what occupations members of Congress had prior to election:

• at least 100 congressional staffers (20 in the Senate, 80 in the House), as well as
8 congressional pages (4 in the House and 4 in the Senate);
• 5 Peace Corps volunteers, all in the House;
• 3 sheriffs and 1 deputy sheriff, 2 FBI agents (all in the House), and a firefighter
in the Senate;
• 2 physicists, 6 engineers, and 1 microbiologist (all in the House, with the
exception of 1 Senator who is an engineer);
• 5 radio talk show hosts (4 House, 1 Senate), 6 radio or television broadcasters (5
House, 1 Senate), 7 reporters or journalists (5 in the House, 2 in the Senate), and
a radio station manager and a public television producer (both in the House);
• 9 accountants in the House and 2 in the Senate;
• 5 software company executives, all in the House;
• 3 pilots, all in the House, and 1 astronaut, in the Senate;
• a screenwriter, a comedian, and a documentary film maker, all in the Senate, and
a professional football player, in the House;
• 29 farmers, ranchers, or cattle farm owners (25 House, 4 Senate);
• 2 almond orchard owners, both in the House, 1 cattle farm owner (a Senator), 1
vintner (a House Member), 1 fisherman (a House Member), and 1 fruit orchard
worker (a House Member);
• 7 social workers in the House and 2 in the Senate; and
• 9 current members of the military reserves (8 House, 1 Senate), and 6 current
members of the National Guard (all in the House)

From the TSHA: Historic World War II pipelines sold

The Texas State Historical Association tells us that on this day in 1947 the Big Inch and Little Inch pipelines were sold by the US government to a private company - Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, which was headquartered in Houston. Both pipelines also connected Houston with the northeast, which helped solidify Houston as the center of the oil and gas industry.

This might be an interesting read for both 2305 and 2306 students. 2305 students should consider the interplay of interests involved in the construction of the pipeline before and during WW2, and the decision about what to do with the pipeline once the war was over. 2306 students ought to think about the role government policies played in the development of the local area and the degree to which local power brokers were able to ensure that these policies benefited them, as well as the local area.

WW2 was very good for the local economy and the business interests located here.

Here's the note sent out by the TSHA:

On this day in 1947, the Big Inch and Little Big Inch, two strategic pipelines laid during World War II from East Texas to the Northeast, were sold by the U.S. government to a private company. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes realized as early as 1940 that shipment of petroleum to the Northeast by tankers would be impossible in time of war because of German submarines. In 1941, at Ickes's urging, oil industry executives began to plan the building of two pipelines. One, twenty-four inches in diameter, called the Big Inch, transported crude oil. The other, twenty inches in diameter, called the Little Big Inch, transported refined products. The Big Inch ran from Longview to Southern Illinois, thence to Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. Twenty-inch lines continued from there to New York City and Philadelphia. The Little Big Inch began in the refinery complex between Houston and Port Arthur and ended in Linden, New Jersey. Together the pipelines carried over 350 million barrels of crude oil and refined products to the East Coast before the war in Europe ended in August 1945.

And from the TSHA entry on the Big Inch and Little Inch Pipelines:

After the war, the pipelines became the focus of a clash of interest groups, with the oil and gas industry wanting to convert them to natural-gas pipelines and the railroad and coal industries opposing this. The Surplus Property Administration, given the task of determining future use, hired an engineering firm to study options; this study recommended that the pipelines be converted to natural-gas transmission. At the same time the United States Senate held hearings on their future use. In January 1946 the SPA recommended that first preference should be to continue use as in the war to ensure availability of the lines in a national emergency. However, by June 1946 the War Assets Administration announced an auction for the lines. All bids were ultimately rejected because no defined use preference had been established. After a strike by coal miners in November 1946 the WAA solicited bids to lease the lines, with Tennessee Gas and Transmission Company awarded a lease for natural-gas use to run from December 3, 1946, to April 30, 1947. Once it was established that the lines were viable for natural-gas transmission, the WAA again offered them for auction. The high bid of $143,127,000 came from a new corporation, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, formed by George Rufus and Herman Brown and their partners. The purchase was final on November 14, 1947. As of 1993, Texas Eastern had its headquarters in Houston.

Newspapers may not be so resilient

From the Washington Post, another story pointing out the difficulties newspapers face in the digital age:

Earlier this year, Rupert Murdoch's media empire -- spanning television, newspapers, and Web sites across America and the Commonwealth -- split into two. Investors had pushed for the change, figuring that the broadcasting assets could do better without being shackled to the financially challenged publishing side. Murdoch finally acquiesced, but put a positive spin on it, declaring that the future of newspapers was bright.

Well, maybe, but there's not much evidence of it yet. The resulting television-focused company, 21st Century Fox, earlier this month reported strong revenue growth with profits hampered only by new investments in a sports network designed to rival ESPN. And Monday, the severed Newscorp disappointed analysts' already low expectations, with revenue declining 3 percent overall after poor advertising sales and a particularly huge drop in its Australian newspapers.

"We collectively recognize the need to evolve," said chief executive Robert Thomson, on the company's earnings call, talking up how the company is making progress on mobile and introducing new subscription models.

The resilience of radio

We will be looking at the press and the media in 2305 soon enough and here's a story pointing out that most everyone uses a media technology that's over 100 years old. This despite the fact that its death has been predicted many times.

A TED talk on the impact of markets on civil life

A political philosopher argues that using market mechanisms for providing more and more services and good compounds the problem of inequality in society.

It's a good way to spend 15 minutes, give it a listen.

Wage theft vote scheduled for Houston city council

Salon reports on the vote - which was one of the items Mayor Parker announced would be on her agenda when she was re-elected last week:

“It looks like we do have the votes that we need to pass this, and there has been a lot of interest from council members across the aisle,” Laura Perez-Boston, who directs the Fe Y Justicia (Faith and Justice) Worker Center, told Salon Monday. Still, Perez-Boston said the group was “worried about” the impact of recent testimony against the bill by business groups. “So you know, we’re just trying to make sure that council members are really listening to their constituents,” she said, “and seeing the value of how putting this type of a protection in place would really protect responsible businesses, working families, and just the general economy.” She noted it was also possible that a member would use a “tag” to delay the vote for a week.

As I’ve reported, wage theft scrutiny and activism is on the rise, spurred in part by the growth of non-union low-wage workers’ groups using media, legal, political and workplace pressure to try to improve jobs. Chicago last year passed one of the country’s strongest municipal ordinances to address the issue, threatening convicted wage theft violators with the loss of their business licenses. In interviews with advocates, academics and the progressive National Employment Law Project in 2008, 68 percent of low-wage workers in the country’s three largest cities reported wage theft in the prior week. The term can refer to legal violations like requiring workers to work off the clock, or not paying overtime. University of Oregon labor economist Gordon Lafer wrote in a report last month for the progressive Economic Policy Institute that the statistics suggest “the amount of money stolen out of employees’ paychecks every year is far greater than the combined total stolen in all the bank robberies, gas station robberies, and convenience stores robberies in the country

Chicago passed a similar ordinance earlier this year:

“Now the bosses are going to know that the workers have rights, too,” said Maria Garcia, a member of the labor group Arise Chicago, which spearheaded the campaign to pass the law. Interviewed in Spanish, Garcia said she’d experienced wage theft at both of the past two restaurants where she’d worked.

“Wage theft” encompasses a range of offenses. Garcia said that in her case, it had included unpaid overtime and hourly rates below the minimum wage. The term was popularized by labor activists seeking to stir moral outrage at the all-too common issue: “Wage theft” suggests that refusing to pay wages that workers have earned is a form of robbery, rather than a mere accounting dispute. Recent years have seen increasing traction for campaigns to strengthen wage theft penalties and remedies. Those efforts have also inspired a counter-attack: Last year, Florida Republicans and big businesses pushed a bill that would have overridden local wage theft measures. “We believe the existing court system is the best place for these claims,” a spokesperson for the Florida Retail Federation told the Huffington Post.

But in Florida, business groups have gone to the state legislature to try to override these local ordinances.

Labor’s wage theft efforts elsewhere have provoked pushback from big business. As Lafer noted in his EPI paper, Republicans in the Florida Legislature repeatedly tried to override local wage theft ordinances like a landmark law passed by Miami-Dade County, which created a streamlined process for wage theft claims and offered wronged workers double damages. The message of such preemption efforts, Lafer argued to Salon, is “we don’t want you to have any viable mechanism by which to get back wages that were stolen from you.”

Can Elizabeth Warren drive a wedge within the Democratic Party?

Most of our attention in class has been focused on the wedge between the business and Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, but the Massachusetts Senator might do something similar to the Democratic Party.

Business interests have been as cozy with centrist Democrats as they have been with Republicans. Bill Clinton - and presumably Hillary - have been supported by them, and have each beaten back attempts by the left wing in the party to impose restrictions on business activities. Warren's repeated attacks on the financial sector - and the support they've enjoyed - have raised the possibility that a left wing populist movement might emerge to challenge Clinton, and perhaps divide the party.

We've used to drive home the idea that each of the two parties are coalitions composed of various factions that more or less see eye to eye - though they come into conflict often about what the party should stand for and how it should achieve its objectives.

Some readings:

- Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton?
- Elizabeth Warren’s populist insurgency enters next phase

From Wonkblog: Obamacare is in much more trouble than it was one week ago

A list of 12 problems the ACA faces according to WP's Ezra Klein.

"The Eleven States of Violence"

That's the title Andrew Sullivan gave to this study in Tufts Magazine which tries to uncover the roots of the different responses to violence across the states. The approach should sound familiar to 2306 students - its similar to the approach to political culture we looked at in the beginning of the class. Different areas respond in different ways, and these differences can be traced back to the circumstances of the settlement in each area:

. . . the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regions—dividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest—masks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines don’t respect state boundaries. To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established.

The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Isles—and from France, the Netherlands, and Spain—each with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitors—for land, capital, and other settlers—and even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.

There’s never been an America, but rather several Americas—each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.

Texas is in four distinct regions. We are in the Deep South. Here's what that means:

Established by English slave lords from Barbados, Deep South was meant as a West Indies–style slave society. This nation offered a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. Its caste systems smashed by outside intervention, it continues to fight against expanded federal powers, taxes on capital and the wealthy, and environmental, labor, and consumer regulations.

Sullivan argues that this map proves that the US must be a federal system if it is to survive. There are too many differences within the nation for it to survive as a unitary system.

Can the Tea Party recruit competitive candidates?

Apart from Texas and a few other states where Tea Party views seem more mainstream - the movement seems to not be able to attract candidates who can win general elections. This spells trouble for the ability of the party to take advantages of opportunities to gain control of the Senate and expand their lead in the House:

Jonathan Bernstein:

. . . three election cycles in, it’s pretty clear that nominating a candidate favored by Tea Partyers over what they consider “establishment” candidates is a formula for risking Republican disaster. And that it’s not going to change any time soon.

So it was for Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle in 2010. So it was with Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock in 2012. And so it’s likely to be with the 2014 crop.

The thing is, four years is plenty of time to develop solid, seasoned candidates. Indeed, once upon a time Marco Rubio was one of those solid, seasoned candidates. Rubio was a successful Florida Republican who had risen rapidly to become speaker of the Florida House; he then adopted the emerging Tea Party and went on to easily win an open U.S. Senate seat. But Rubio’s Tea Party credentials were tarnished because he actually tried to legislate on immigration; while it’s much too early to declare his career in trouble and it wouldn’t be surprising if he still ran a solid race for the Republican presidential nomination, it’s also very easy to imagine him having to fend off a Tea Party primary of his own if he runs for reelection instead of the White House in 2016.

So what do Republicans have for 2014? Matt Bevin, taking on Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, is a first-time candidate; should he win, Republicans would probably lose that seat. In Georgia, Paul Braun in particular is thought by many to be a particularly weak candidate, capable of losing that open seat to Democrat Michelle Nunn if he emerges as the nominee. In Louisiana, Republicans had settled on a solid candidate to challenge Mary Landrieu, but Tea Partyer Rob Maness has jumped in with plenty of serious organizational support.

This is more evidence of the factional basis of parties in the United States, and the ongoing struggle within each over what the party stands for and what tactics they choose to use to advance their agenda.

You probably already know this but . . .

. . . its tough being young and broke: 

Poverty is an astonishingly common experience here in the world's richest country. As I wrote this morning, almost 40 percent of American adults experience it for at least a year by age 60.

But you know who poverty is especially common among? Young adults.

Opportunity in Texas: #1 for business, #38 for people

Two studies which purport top measure opportunity across each state have different things to say about Texas.

CNBC has had Texas #1 in recent surveys for business opportunity, but the measures used as part of the Opportunity Index - which focus on the factors that impact people, not businesses - place Texas far lower among the states.

This illustrates a few things we cover in 2306, namely the types of public policy priorities in the state and the impact of the state's individualistic political culture on state priorities.

From the Washington Monthly:

The Opportunity Index ranks states based on sixteen indicators that Measure of America codirector Kristen Lewis says are essential to the “infrastructure of opportunity” for individuals. These indicators include not just the basics—the availability of jobs, affordable housing, and quality education—but also what a growing body of research shows is critical to upward mobility: social capital and civic life. These factors make up, at the individual level, the equivalent of the “business-friendly” environment that company-focused rankings measure.

The outcomes under the Opportunity Index approach, needless to say, are radically different from those of CNBC. Under the 2013 Opportunity Index, Texas—top ranked in opportunities for business by CNBC—ranks thirty-eighth in opportunities for people. Meanwhile, Vermont, which invests nearly double what Texas does per pupil in K-12 education ($15,096 versus $8,562), ranks first on the Opportunity Index and thirty-second by CNBC.

. . . While some structural differences—such as the level of church membership—are less susceptible to public policy, federal, state, and local policy choices can have profound impacts on whether people have access to the building blocks of upward mobility: decent schools, safe streets, and even access to grocery stores with affordable healthy food. In some neighborhoods of Houston, says a report by Children at Risk, “areas as large as 10 miles have been identified as containing a single food source—gas stations that sell tobacco, alcohol and fatty snacks.” As a tragic—but unsurprising—consequence, as many as 47 percent of Harris County children are obese or overweight.

In the same way that the rankings of the U.S. News & World Report have influenced—for better or for worse—the investments and choices that colleges have made to improve their standings, it’s likely that the multiplicity of business-focused rankings have skewed the policy choices of states eager to attract companies within their borders. Texas, for example, spends $19 billion a year on tax incentives to woo companies to the state, according to the New York Times—at the same time, it cut education spending by $5.4 billion last year. In the last legislative session, Texas lawmakers passed yet more tax cuts, exempting small businesses from franchise taxes, lowering franchise tax rates, and creating a special tax break for data centers doing business in the state. Texas was also among the first states to develop a so-called war chest—the Texas Enterprise Fund—aimed at offering companies incentives to move to the state, along with a smorgasbord of other goodies, including grants and low-cost loans to businesses.

For my 8 week classes: week four's written assignment has been cancelled

Use this time to work on your 1000 word essay.

It's due in less than a month.

From the National Journal: The Whigs Are Partying Like It's 1856

A blast from the past:

The Whigs are making a comeback.

Well, sort of. On Tuesday, 36 Philadelphia voters elected Whig candidate Robert Bucholz as the judge of election for the Fifth Division of the 56th Ward. He beat Democratic opponent Loretta Probasco, who secured 24 votes.

The Whigs haven't been a major political party in the United States since the mid-1800s. The Whigs produced four U.S. presidents in their brief history—William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore—and had several national leaders among its members, including Henry Clay and Daniel Webster.

The party, however, dissolved following the failed presidency of Fillmore that ended in 1853. It also showed deep divides in the party on the issue of slavery.

But in 2007, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans wanted to change that and started the Modern Whig Party.

Its symbol an owl, the party is based in Washington and claims it has 30,000 members across the country. While many of the issues for the party have changed in the last 150 years or so, party members claim its basic political philosophy is the same: moderation and compromise.

. . . A closer comparison of the platforms of the party from 150 years ago to today shows many similarities:

1852:
- Emphasize states rights on most issues.
- Limit foreign entanglements.
- Modernize the economic system through the markets and industrialization.
- Promote higher tariffs on trade, not higher taxes.
- Support a national bank.
- Use government-funded programs to expand the road and canal systems throughout Middle America.
- Create public schools and promote private institutions, like colleges and charities.

2013:

- Give states the power to handles budget issues.
- Develop alternative energy resources and reduce dependency on foreign oil.
- Reform education and add an emphasis on space, oceans, medicine, and nanotechnologies in the public and private sectors.
- Be progressive on social issues, advocating the government stay out of "legislating morality."
- Give veterans proper benefits.

Does Houstons' city charter need to be revised?

This ran a month ago in the Houston Chronicle.

A couple members of Houston's city council think the current design of Houston's government makes governing the city too difficult and would like to see changes which modernize it. They would like to see a Charter Review Commission established to study possibilities. This seems to me a reaction to the limit on government placed when term limits were added a couple decades back as well as an attempt for the city council to assert more control of city government affairs. Perhaps they believe the mayor is too strong.

This is from an editorial written by the council members:

Over the past few years there has been a great deal of discussion among City Hall insiders about amending the city charter to change term limits for mayor, city controller and council members from two-year to four-year terms.

Two-year terms of office, combined with a six-year limit, hurt city government. The churn of frequent turnover disallows sufficient development of institutional knowledge and process know-how that are critical to effective policymaking. Changing the city charter to provide for two four-year terms for city-elected officials may reduce the number of city elections, but it won't make fundamental changes to the local governance process - including operations and the structure of city government - to address accountability and to meaningfully improve long-range infrastructure, financial, emergency and environmental planning in Houston.

But rather than limit ourselves to considering a term-limits charter change amendment, Houston needs a Charter Review Commission to review, update and propose recommendations to the voters to modernize our charter, the structure and operations of city government, with specific attention paid to the budget process.

. . . The commission's membership should be former city elected officials, academic and legal experts on Texas municipal governance, finance and infrastructure issues as well as local business leaders and entrepreneurs. No current elected city official or employee should be allowed to serve on the commission. The work of the commission should not be a political exercise.

Here are the specific questions they would like to see questions addressed by the commission:

- Should one council meeting per month be held in a city multi-service center in the evening, similar to how city Capital Improvement Process meetings are scheduled?

- Should all of Houston's 16 City Council seats go to single-member districts?

- Should the City of Houston consider a city manager form of government?

- Should the five at-large council members be elected to designated positions based on expertise in certain respective policy areas, such as position No. 1 budget and fiscal affairs, No. 2 public safety, No. 3 business development and international affairs, No. 4 transportation and general mobility, and No. 5 housing, land use and community development?

- Should the City Council nominate and elect the mayor pro tem, as this person would succeed the mayor if the person holding office were unable to serve out an unexpired term? If nominated and elected by council, should the mayor pro tem organize council committees by nominating committee members and chairs/vice chairs to be ratified by the full council?

- Should council members, or at least some designated number of council members, have authority to place items on the council agenda? Should all items approved by a council committee be automatically placed on the full council agenda within 30 days of having been voted out of committee?

- Should a budget calendar, with dates and times set for public discussion, be established earlier in the fiscal year?

- Should district council members have a council district service budget to be able to quickly address minor neighborhood issues?

- Should candidates for the City Council, mayor and city controller be required to attend a class or training session on Houston city government organized by a consortium of local universities as a condition for qualifying for the ballot, similar to the filing fee, signature or residency requirements?

If this happens, it will be very instructive to follow the process as it goes forward.

Now that Houston's mayor has been re-elected to a third term, what will she do?

Charles Kuffner weighs in here.

Here's a list of items she intends to take to city council, They are more controversial than items discussed earlier this year - the local agenda can be bland prior to elections. No need to stir the pot excessively. Now that the election is over these can be talked about again (perhaps this is an argument against 2 year terms).

- wage theft
- restrictions on payday and auto lenders
- regulations for food trucks
- nondiscrimination ordinance protecting gay and transgendered residents
- reduce chronic homelessness
- Bayou Greenways
- moving the crime lab from HPD to an independent lab
- develop a city-council inmate center and close two existing facilities
- obtain negotiating authority for city's firefighter pension system
- water conservation

Debt-At-A-Glance

The comptroller's office has unveiled a site which helps determine the level of debt different cities, counties and special districts in Texas have accumulated over time.

Click here for Debt-At-A-Glance.

Here's the info for Alvin Community College.

From the Texas Tribune: Texans Like Parts of Federal Health Law

While the law is unpopular in the state - mostly among Republicans - aspects are popular.

Prominent conservative David Barton will not primary John Cornyn.

We discussed this technique ideologues in each party use to pull candidates to either extreme and simultaneously punish moderates.

From the National Review:

Controversial Evangelical author David Barton just announced that he won’t challenge Senator John Cornyn in the 2014 Texas Senate primary. On Glenn Beck’s radio show this morning, he told Beck’s listeners that, though the primary is “winnable,” the timing isn’t right for him.

“What can I do to talk you into this?” asked Beck, disappointed.Texas tea-party activists had been hankering for Cornyn to get a primary challenger ever since he removed his name from Mike Lee’s letter urging his Senate colleagues to refuse to support a CR that funded the Affordable Care Act. But finding a candidate with the requisite name recognition, connections, and willingness was a tall order.

Now they are looking for Louie Gohmert to run

Esquire wonders why this is happening.

There's a whole book out now on the subject of primarying.

All nine constitutional amendments passed

Story in the Texas Tribune.

They are almost always passed. And I have no idea why. That might be worth investigating.

From the Texas Tribune: What's the most important problem facing Texas today?

Here goes: 



And for good measure:

From ScotusBlog: Court won’t rule on RU-486 abortions

In a case that might give an indication about how the Supreme Court might rule on Texas' abortion laws, the court decided to not rule on whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court made a mistake in overturning a state law against the use of abortion inducing drugs.

Here is the issue presented to the court:

Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court erred in holding – without analysis or discussion – that the Oklahoma law requiring that abortion-inducing drugs be administered according to the protocol described on the drugs’ FDA-approved labels is facially unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Okla. Stat., Tit. 20, §1601 et seq. (West 2002), respectfully certifies to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma the following question: Whether H.B. No. 1970, Section 1, Chapter 216, O.S.L. 2011 prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies. Further proceedings in this case are reserved pending receipt of a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

For Texas, the issue is whether the ban on the procedure can be put in place while the challenge works its ways through the courts:

. . . a group of women’s health clinics and doctors in Texas asked that the Court block at least temporarily a new Texas law that forbids doctors to perform abortions at a clinic unless those physicians have professional privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of that site.  The Fifth Circuit Court on Thursday allowed that requirement to go into effect, resulting in closing a number of abortion clinics across the state.  The application to set aside that order was filed initially with Justice Antonin Scalia, who is the Circuit Justice for the geographic area that includes Texas.  He has the authority to decide the issue himself, or share it with his colleagues.

The application is Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services v. Abbott (13A452).  Justice Scalia immediately asked for the state to respond by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12.   The new Texas law also involved a broad restriction on doctors’ option of performing medical abortions with the drug RU-486 and other medications, and that, too, has been allowed to take effect at least in part.  The abortion providers’ request to the Supreme Court on Monday, however, did not ask the Justices to take any action on that provision.

Marsh v. Chambers,

The case discussed below will likely be decided based on the precedence established in Marsh v. Chambers - which concerned whether funding for chaplains that open legislative sessions with a prayer violated the establishment clause.

The court argued that it did not. From wikipedia:

. . . the position of chaplain has been closely tied to the work of state and federal legislatures. "This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged."

And from Oyez Project:

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court upheld the chaplaincy practice. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger abandoned the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, which had been the touchstone for cases involving the Establishment Clause. In its place, Burger rested the Court's opinion on historical custom. Prayers by tax-supported legislative chaplains could be traced to the First Continental Congress and to the First Congress that framed the Bill of Rights. As a consequence, the chaplaincy practice had become "part of the fabric of our society." In such circumstances, an invocation for Divine guidance is not an establishment of religion. "It is," wrote Burger, "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

From the dissent:

The Court makes no pretense of subjecting Nebraska's practice of legislative prayer to any of the formal "tests" that have traditionally structured our inquiry under the Establishment Clause. That it fails to do so is, in a sense, a good thing, for it simply confirms that the Court is carving out an exception to the Establishment Clause, rather than reshaping Establishment Clause doctrine to accommodate legislative prayer. For my purposes, however, I must begin by demonstrating what should be obvious: that, if the Court were to judge legislative prayer through the unsentimental eye of our settled doctrine, it would have to strike it down as a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.

The majority in other words was making an exception for legislative prayer in a manner that it did not for other similar cases.

When does a public prayer become an endorsement of a state religion?

The Supreme Court will try to make that determination in the Town of Greece v. Galloway. It heard oral arguments on the case this week.

The Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a legislative prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity.

The argument in plain english:

Since 1999, the town of Greece, New York, which is outside Rochester, has started its town council meetings with a prayer led by members of the local clergy or local residents. Today, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Court will hear oral arguments about whether the town’s prayers are constitutional, but its decision could have a wider impact on the law governing the intersection of church and state. Let’s talk about the case in Plain English. For the first eight years after the town started the prayers, all of the people who delivered them were Christian.

The case before the Court today was filed in 2007 by Susan Galloway, a town resident who is Jewish, and Linda Stephens, who is an atheist. They said that the repeated use of Christian prayers made them uncomfortable; in 2008, there were four non-Christian prayers.

. . . A lower court held that the town’s prayer practice violated the Constitution because, taken as a whole, it suggested that the government was endorsing Christianity. That court emphasized that most of the prayers were “uniquely Christian” – referring, for example, to “Jesus,” “Your Son,” or “the Holy Spirit.” And it wasn’t enough for the lower court that clergy from other religions had sometimes offered the prayer; it reasoned that the town had almost always only invited clergy from within the town itself, without making any real effort to let other religions know that they could participate, and it hadn’t reached out to recruit members of other faiths.

. . . Galloway and Stephens argue that the prayers are unconstitutional for two reasons. First, they effectively coerce the town’s residents to participate in the prayers. If you want to participate in local government – for example, when you are looking for a zoning change or trying to get a business permit – you will attend the town council meeting and feel obligated to join in the prayer. This is different from the prayers that the Court approved in Marsh, they reason, because there wasn’t any sign of coercion in that case: Nebraska citizens were just there to watch the proceedings, and legislators “were free to come and go with little comment.” Second, the prayers are “acceptable only to Christians.”

One suggestion was to craft a prayer acceptable to all religions, in oral arguments the court considered this argument, but the National Journal has doubts that is possible:

As part of the oral argument Wednesday, the justices wondered whether there could possibly be one prayer nondenominational enough to be cool with Christians, and, let's say, worshippers of Zeus. They were picking apart the argument of Douglas Laycock, a professor of law and religion at the University of Virginia, who said that prayers could be allowed if they were not sectarian.

"Well, if that is your argument, then you are really saying you can never have prayer at a town meeting," Justice Samuel Alito said. Laycock then tried to defend his position.

The exchange that follows highlights the central problem of the issue: How do you both allow public prayer and be all inclusive? The answer veers into the absurd, dissecting prayers into their least offensive and vaguest components, approving the ones that pass a sniff test, but still implicitly invoke God and therefore will offend someone, somewhere. Justice Antonin Scalia, the staunch Catholic, jumped in wondering whether such a prayer could make devil worshippers happy.

For the record, Lucien Greaves, the communications director of the Satanic Temple, says the answer is no.

"If the question is one of whether or not there can be one public prayer generalized enough to be all-inclusive to every religion, the answer is obviously no," he wrote me via email.

"The discussion regarding some type of all-inclusive public prayer naively assumes one type of religious construct (that of servitude and supernaturalism) while seemingly disregarding not only other religious conceptions, but the presence of those who don't wish to associate themselves with any type of religion whatsoever."

From Governing: Houston: The Surprising Contender in America’s Urban Revival

A good inside look at changes in how Houston wants to develop from the inside and why these are happening:

This popped out:

The Houston Chronicle reported that, at a conference last year, an official with local software company Datacert announced that the firm was struggling to recruit from places like Stanford and Princeton, largely because prospective employees were not happy with the idea of calling Houston home. The company’s solution was to allow telecommuting, ensuring that new recruits wouldn’t have to live anywhere near Houston (many of them chose to live in Portland, Ore.). “Houston will not make it if it’s perceived by people outside of Houston to not only be flat and hot for much of the year, but also ugly and dangerously polluted,” says Stephen Klineberg, co-director of Rice’s Kinder Institute. “The business community knows that, and there’s a business case for planting trees, cleaning the air and downtown revitalization.” So not only is Houston competing against the suburbs for a tax base, but it’s also in competition against big cities nationwide for a workforce. City leaders believe an urban push can help them win on both fronts.

As a result, in recent years, city leaders have proudly rolled out a seemingly endless list of programs and policies they say will make Houston denser and more “livable” in an effort to capitalize on the growing fascination with urban living. Planning officials here tend to avoid terms like “smart growth” and “New Urbanism”—long in vogue in the planning community but often saddled with political baggage. Yet those terms convey the spirit of what Houston civic leadership is trying to do.

Gallup: In U.S., Voter Registration Lags Among Hispanics and Asians

This confirms some points we made in 2305 earlier today about ethnic disparity in registration and voting.

U.S. Hispanics and Asians are much less likely to be registered to vote than whites or blacks. Whereas more than eight in 10 blacks and whites are registered, and therefore able to vote in elections, 60% of Asians and barely half of Hispanics are currently able to participate in the electoral process.

The relevance of greater Hispanic and Asian participation in the political process is clear. Both Hispanics and Asians have decidedly Democratic political leanings. Notably, Hispanics and Asians who are registered to vote are even more Democratic than those who are not registered.

From Governing: Which States, Districts Are Most Gerrymandered?

Here's an analysis - from a year ago - which attempts to measure which congressional districts are the most gerrymandered. It highlights four ways to measure it, many try to determine how compact a districts is. The less compact, the more it is gerrymandered.

The state with the most gerrymandered districts? Maryland

Maryland stood out in the report, with the state’s new boundaries registering the lowest average compactness score for three out of four measures. Analysts identified Maryland’s 6th Congressional District spanning the western part of the state and the 3rd Congressional District, which crisscrosses areas around Baltimore and the western shoreline, as two extremely contorted districts. U.S. District Judge Paul Niemeyer recently dubbed the 3rd District as “reminiscent of a broken-winged pterodactyl, lying prostrate” across central Maryland.

Activists responded by collecting enough signatures to challenge the new map.

Democrats currently hold six of Maryland’s eight U.S. House seats. Gov. Martin O’Malley and other Democratic Party officials endorsed the ballot measure to retain the map, known as Question 5, while Republicans oppose it. If voters reject the measure, lawmakers must go back to the drawing board and establish new boundaries before the 2014 Congressional Elections.

Texas is 15th

The story points out - not surprisingly - that independent commissions produce the least gerrymandered districts, while legislatures produce the most.

Here are the 10 most gerrymandered distritcs in the nation: NC-12, FL-5, MD-3, OH-9, TX-35, NC-4, LA-2, FL-22, MD-6 and NY-10.

Click on the stpry to see the map.

Some random stories about yesterday's election

- Officials report few problems with Voter ID requirement.
- Texas voters have their say at the polls.
- Casinos, pot, secession among US ballot measures.
- Houston suburb votes down $69M HS stadium.
- Texas voters OK massive water plan: What’s next?
- Full Coverage of the 2013 State and Local Elections

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/05/5310043/texas-voters-ok-massive-water.html#storylink=cpy

Written Assignment #11 - 16 week classes

For GOVT 2305 students:

By now you've poured through the bulk of the Constitution and dealt with examples of government dysfunction. Here are links to two articles in the Atlantic that argue in their own ways - that the Constitution written in 1787 is not up to the task of organizing governing in the 21st Century.

- The U.S. Needs a Constitution—Here's How to Write It
- Preserving Liberty Is More Important Than Making a Fetish of the Constitution

I want you to read and digest each and weigh in on their comments. Do they have a point, or does the existing constitutional structure offer benefits they do not take seriously?

For GOVT 2306 students:

This Tuesday is election day. Among the items on the ballot will be the nine proposed amendments to the state constitution. One that I have misgivings about - though I don't know that I oppose it - is Proposition 7.

Here's the language on the ballot:

The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.

This makes it easier for positions in cities to be appointed, rather than elected. It designed to do so when a short period of time exists before an election is scheduled to occur, but I wonder if it might be abused. Will this election allow power to accumulate in the hands of the people given the power to make the appointments? It does allow for efficiency however, so I'm mindful of that, but still...

I want you to familiarize yourself with the amendment and weigh in on this issue. Is Proposition 7 a useful way to increase efficiency in local governments and minimize the costs of elections, or is it a recipe for corruption and a problematic consolidation of power?

No class this Tuesday - 11/5/13

I've announced this to the lecture classes - and the students who attend them (ahem) - but I'll be working one of the polls in Harris County.

It's Precinct 524 in the southwest part of the county - stop by if you want to say hi.

And if you are a registered voter in Harris County you can pick up a little cash working as an election clerk.

Send me an email if you are interested.

Written Assignment #3 - 8 week classes

I want you to write at least 150 words on the the following subject - based on whichever class you are in - and submit it through BlackBoard.

2305 - This week you will begin to look at the legislative branch - Congress - and if you have been following the news and keep up with commentary you know that there are questions about whether the institution is broken. I've complied a handful of posts related to this subject.

- I've put these under the label Is Congress Broken?

I want you to familiarize yourself with the subject and weigh in on the question. First off - Is Congress really broken, or is it functioning as intended? If it is, why is that the case and what can done about it?

2306 - We are witnessing yet another conflict between the national and state governments. This time over the abortion legislation passed in the 83rd legislative session which met this past spring. There are several other areas where the decisions of the state government have been challenged at the national level. These conflicts help illustrate the cultural conflict between Texas and the US. In one of the early set of slides we went over political culture around the nation - the individualistic, traditionalistic and moralistic cultures - and highlighted areas of conflict. We argued that cultural differences help explain the disputes that happen between the Texas and National government.

Using the dispute over access to abortion, as well as any others you may come across, I want you to test these whether it is indeed the case that current conflicts between Texas and the US boil down to cultural differences. Give examples and explain thoroughly.

Good luck and I look forward to what you write.

From Wonkblog: Whom to blame for HealthCare.gov in one flowchart

A summary of the oversight hearings held in Congress recently.

From the Texas Tribune: CPRIT Operations Moratorium Lifted Following Reforms

Another item we covered in 2306 when we read through Article 3 of the Texas Constitution is in the news:

State leadership decided on Wednesday that the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas has restored enough public trust to resume grant operations and finalize remaining contracts following a review of the agency’s processes and major reforms passed in the last legislative session.

On Wednesday, Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus lifted a moratorium on new grants placed on the agency in December 2012.

In 2007, Texas voters approved the use of $3 billion in bonds to create CPRIT and finance cancer research and the development of cancer treatments and prevention programs for 10 years. The institute came under scrutiny last year when a state audit revealed in January that $56 million in grants had been approved without the proper peer review process. Lawmakers grilled former members of the CPRIT oversight committee during the 83rd legislative session and eventually approved Senate Bill 149, which adds more checks and balances to the agency’s grant-making processes to ensure adequate peer review. Lawmakers also budgeted $595 million for the institute in the 2014-15 biennium

.
Note the following appointees to the oversight committee:

State leadership has appointed new members to a CPRIT oversight committee, which guides the work of the institute and approves all grant applications. Perry and Dewhurst have each made their three appointments to the committee. Straus has made two and still has one pending appointment.

Perry appointed Angelos Angelou, founder and principal executive of AngelouEconomics and former vice president of the Austin Chamber of Commerce; Gerry Geistweidt, an attorney who has argued cases before the Texas Supreme Court, among others; and Dr. William Rice, senior vice president of clinical innovation for St. David’s Healthcare and the Central and West Texas Division of the Hospital Corporation of America.

Dewhurst appointed Ned Holmes, a businessman with experience in finance and real estate; Dr. Craig Rosenfeld, a physician and chief executive of Collaborative Medical Development, which develops treatments for neurogenerative and psychiatric diseases; and Amy Mitchell, a cancer survivor and attorney at Fulbright and Jaworski.

Straus appointed Pete Geren, president of the Sid W. Richardson Foundation, which provides grants to educational, health, human service and cultural nonprofit organizations in Texas, and Dr. Cynthia Mulrow, senior deputy editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and a member of the prestigious Institute of Medicine.

The most expensive high school sports venue ever built

That's what registered voters in the Katy Independent School District can approve if they pass a bond approving $69 million for the project.

From the Chron:

At $69 million, the 14,000-seat stadium would surpass by almost $10 million one built specifically for the Allen Eagles two years ago. Supporters say it's not a luxury item inspired by the gridiron success of the Katy High School Tigers, who last year won their fourth state championship since 2000. They say it's simply a matter of growth: One stadium cannot handle the scheduling requirements of seven high schools, especially with two or three more to come.

"We didn't do this to be the most expensive or one-up the guy next door," said John Eberlan, a bond project committee member spearheading the publicity effort. "We wanted a good conservative design that will serve the district for years down the road. This is about serving the entire district."

Opponents balk at the cost, regardless of school trustees' insistence that no taxes would need to be raised were the project to pass.

"A $69 million price tag for a second stadium is excessive on the backs of the taxpayers," said Cyndi Lawrence, the head of a Katy tea party organization that opposes the bond project. "I think the people should vote it down and it should go back to the drawing board. We need another committee, an unbiased committee."

The stadium is part of three major capital projects that make up a Katy ISD bond project of just under $100 million. The proposal includes a new agriculture arena along with support facilities and an education center devoted to the so-called STEM subjects of math, science and engineering. But it's the stadium that carries the most cost and has drawn the most controversy - a familiar scenario in countless Texas communities, with accusations of misplaced priorities running up against demands to modernize and expand.

From the Houston Chronicle: Pasadena voters to face redistricting measure

The story is for subscribers only, but it follows the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby v Holder, which my mini 2 2306 students are focusing on. This is one of the first consequences of the removal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The city wants to cut back on single members districts and expand at large seats. Since single member districts were instituted in order to enhance minority representation, the cutback is taken to be a way to limit it.

The measure, Proposition One, is among the first litmus tests for the high court's June ruling in a Southern state, and if successful could trigger similar redistricting efforts elsewhere.

Four council members from the older, predominantly Hispanic north end oppose the restructuring. They note that the U.S. Justice Department rejected this exact plan as potentially discriminatory, but now the pre-clearance requirement has been voided and opened the door for reconsideration.

"We are standing our ground against the change," said Cody Wheeler, one of two Hispanics on the council.

Opponents contend Proposition One is a "power grab" by the mayor, who was first elected to the council four decades ago and has served off and on ever since. They say the mayor doesn't like the changes that he's seeing in Harris County's second-largest city, population 150,000, that once gained fame for its refineries and Gilley's bar as featured in "Urban Cowboy," starring John Travolta and Debra Winger.

Just as important as the possible racial aspects to the measure is a deep geographic divide, a kind of civil war between the northern, more Hispanic part of town and the more affluent southern end of the city.

Mayor Johnny Isbell and four council members from the more conservative southern side of town argue that the charter change would provide each citizen with more representation. They say each voter would then be able to elect three council members, instead of just one, to represent them.

Here's the sample ballot from Pasadena with the language of Proposition One.

Texas Redistricting.org weighs in.