From the Houston Chornicle:State: Harris County has not done enough to cut jail population

For 2306 when we start looking at criminal justice. This also fits with county government and state - local conflict.

- Click here for the article.

State officials have rejected a request from Sheriff Adrian Garcia to increase the capacity of the Harris County Jail and said local leaders have not done enough in recent years to reduce the inmate population.

The inmate population at the state's largest lockup has fallen in recent months after exceeding building capacity for the first time in two years last September, but the Sheriff's Office says it is too close for comfort. The population is known to swell in the summer months by as much as 1,000 inmates, said spokesman Alan Bernstein, noting that Garcia's request was intended to create some "flexibility" as county leaders work to reduce the jail population.
The building capacity of the county jail system is 9,434; the population on Monday was 8,814.

Garcia last week asked the Texas Commission on Jail Standards for permission to increase the number of supplemental beds used when the population swells, replacing 680 hard plastic cots with 1,064 metal bunk beds. He also asked that the jail still be able to use up to 100 mobile cots known as "boats" or "low-riders."

The Texas Commission on Jail Standards agreed only to let Garcia replace the 680 cots with bunk beds to save 5,000 square feet of floor space, keeping the inmate capacity the same.

Commission Executive Director Brandon Wood said Harris County has "made some great strides in regard to being able to reduce their inmate population." Asked if the county has done enough, though, he said the commission was "not provided definite, specific programs" by the county that "they've actually had up and running for any period of time."

Three stories on Harris County Courts

A small variety for our past look at county government in 2306 and upcoming look at the judiciary:

1 - Third complaint lodged against family court Judge Denise Pratt.

With just days before early voting begins in the GOP primary, Webster family lawyer Greg Enos has filed a third criminal complaint against embattled family court Judge Denise Pratt with the Harris County District Attorney's office.

The complaint, which details one of the 631 cases Pratt dismissed on Dec. 30 and Dec. 31, accuses the freshman Republican judge — who is seeking a second term this year — of backdating an order in open court. It includes sworn affidavits from a couple who say Pratt informed them that she was "backdating this order" and screenshots indicating Pratt signed the order at an April 25 hearing, but dated it March 5.

Enos' second criminal complaint, filed last month, alleges that Pratt broke the law by purging hundreds of cases last month without giving prior notice to lawyers or their clients. His first complaint against the district court judge, filed in October, accuses her of backdating orders in two unrelated cases. That complaint led to the resignation of Pratt's lead clerk and sparked an investigation by the DA's office and a grand jury, which ultimately no-billed her.

Pratt, through her lawyer, blamed the backdating on her court clerks. Enos says it's "totally different" this time.

3 - Why is Harris County just now getting a CPS court?

On Monday, we published a story about a new, but temporary specialty court opening in Harris County in the coming weeks that will hear only Child Protective Services cases, likely those involving children who have been living in foster care for more than a year.
As Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Commissioner John Specia noted in Monday’s story, it takes longer for foster children to find permanent homes in Harris County than any other county in Texas.

At the end of 2012, 40 percent of the more than 4,800 foster children in the CPS system in the county had been there for at least two years, compared to 25 percent statewide.
There is a wide body of evidence indicating that specialty CPS courts help foster children find permanent homes more quickly. Many other Texas counties have created them. But this one — funded only through 2015 — is Harris County’s first. Why?

Interviews with judges and other local officials indicate there exists a variety of conflicting opinions about how, and whether, the structure of the court system in here needs to change — either to address the backlog of CPS cases or the larger backlog problem in the family district courts.

State Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said she initially approached local judges last year about permanently converting a civil district court into a CPS court, but the idea met with fierce resistance.

“I basically told them they needed to address this issue, that we needed to start doing something and I was quite adamant about it, and they just pushed back about creating this court,” said Huffman, a former district judge. “They didn’t like the idea of Austin, the state, telling them at a local level … how they were going to run their courts.”

3 - New CPS court aims to help kids in system the longest

Kristopher Sharp spent nearly half his life in foster care, shuffled from home to home - 28 in all - before aging out of the system in Harris County at 18. In eight years in Child Protective Services, he recalls seeing a judge only twice: once on the way in, and once on the way out.

Sharp's experience helps define much of what ails CPS in Harris County, where 40 percent of the more than 4,800 foster children in the system in 2012 had been there for at least two years, compared to 25 percent statewide.


Sharp and others who have languished in the system have helped provide the impetus for change in Harris County with the creation, at least temporarily, of a court dedicated to Child Protective Services cases. Advocates say the special court will help reduce a serious backlog of CPS cases and find permanent homes for children much more quickly, in part because the judge will have more time to spend on each case.

"There was a time, I say often, where everybody believed that it was OK that when you put a kid in foster care, it was OK if we just kept them safe, warm and dry," said John Specia, head of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and a former San Antonio family court judge. "But now, the focus out of the federal government and out of all the various advocacy organizations is well-being and permanency. The difference between children doing well in foster care and not doing well is that permanent attachment, that permanent forever family."

From Pro-Publica: The Dark Money Man: How Sean Noble Moved the Kochs’ Cash into Politics and Made Millions

Still more on money in politics - this time who gets to profit from it. Take this as career advise:

- Click here for the story.

For a brief, giddy moment, Sean Noble—a little-known former aide to an Arizona congressman—became one of the most important people in American politics.

Plucked from obscurity by libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, Noble was tasked with distributing a torrent of political money raised by the Koch network, a complex web of nonprofits nicknamed the Kochtopus, into conservative causes in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Noble handed out almost $137 million in 2012 alone -- all of it so-called dark money from unnamed donors -- from his perch atop the Center to Protect Patient Rights, a group run out of an Arizona post office box.

Much of it was channeled to obvious destinations: Groups supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, for example.

But with Noble as ringmaster, Koch money also poured into efforts that didn’t surface until long after Election Day: To a political committee backing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker against a recall attempt; to a group blaming President Obama for high gas prices; even to a legal challenge to Arizona’s redistricting plan.
. . . his story shows how the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 Citizens United ruling has given rise to a new breed of power brokers who control a growing pool of money raised in secret and spent to influence politics in ways that voters can’t always trace.

Much of Noble’s work in 2012 remained invisible to the public until the Center and dozens of other Koch-backed nonprofits released their tax returns late last year.

An examination of those tax returns, along with court records and filings with the Federal Election Commission, shows that the Center to Protect Patient Rights bent state election laws and federal tax rules governing how such groups are supposed to operate.

Millions of dollars the Center told the Internal Revenue Service it gave to other groups only for “tax exempt education and social welfare purposes” were actually spent on election ads and other political activities. Experts on nonprofit law said it’s the donor’s responsibility to follow up on grants if they were not spent as required.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of the Koch network’s money was Sean Noble himself, tax documents show. The Center paid three firms owned by Noble almost $24 million for consulting and other services in 2012—or more than $1 of every $6 it spent.

Meet Paul Singer

He's the guy behind the American Opportunity Alliance, the groups that seems intent on pulling the Republican Party back to the middle, which means - shudder - making it more liberal. But he has also supported a range of traditionally conservative Republicans - including W. Bush. Seems to be more of a wildcard now.

We will keep posted.



Some links:

- The obligatory Wikipedia.
- Net Worth on Forbes - #359.
- Hedge-Fund Manager Paul Singer ‘Shocked’ by Bitcoin Popularity.
- Here’s who pays the bills for Ted Cruz’s crusade.
- Vulture funds – the key players.

American Opportunity Alliance

The previous story mentions this group. There's not an awful lot on them at the moment - kinda like the Texas Future Business Alliance mentioned below.

Note that they will be pushing a climate change, gay rights, immigration reform agenda. Very different than what the Tea Party and the recent Republican Party has stood for - certainly what the Texas Republican Party stands for.

Grab the popcorn, this will be fun to watch. There are two story lines that stick out to me. One is the impact that these groups are having within the Republican Party - that's the immediate issues - the send is what long term impact they are having on parties as vital components of the governing system.

This is about all I found so far on the American Opportunity Alliance. The story mentions similar groups. It also points out that there is tremendous fighting between the groups - which, having read Federalist #10, we should see as no surprise.

- The Age of the Single-Issue, Mega-Donor Political Party Has Arrived.

A California environmental activist hopes to raise $100 million to elect politicians who will fight climate change. A center-right Republican is forming a PAC of "mega-donors" who will back Republicans that support gay marriage and immigration reform. With spending rules and political norms loosened, wealthy Americans are adding their own circles to America's political Venn diagram.

Environmentalist / billionaire Tom Steyer has already committed $50 million to the 2014 elections and is hoping to raise $50 million more. As The New York Times' Nicholas Confessore reports, his focus is simple: "pressure federal and state officials to enact climate change measures through a hard-edge campaign of attack ads against governors and lawmakers." His PAC, NextGen Climate Action, will target Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who's facing an uphill reelection campaign in a state that will be at the forefront of higher sea levels from climate change. But his PAC will also consider going after Democratic Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, whose support for the fossil fuel industry and tough reelection fight has made her one of the more moderate Democrats in the Senate.

A little bit on the other side of the Democratic-Republican dividing line is a new PAC organized by New York billionaire Paul Singer. According to Politico, he's pulling donors together to try and push the Republican party to the left — by backing candidates who share his views on issues like gay marriage. Unlike NextGen, Singer's group — American Opportunity Alliance — "is more donor-centric, focusing on comparing notes about one another’s political projects and funneling limited hard-money contributions effectively." But the end result is the same: get people elected who adhere to the group's specific party platform.

From Politico: Exclusive: Mega-donors plan GOP war council

This builds on a theme in previous posts - and it relates to discussions we have had about the efforts of the business sector to increase its influence within the Republican Party and push back against the party's Tea Party wing. It also touches on our ongoing look at the increased influence of money in politics, especially in the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions that have opened the floodgates.

The word of the semester - so far - seems to be "mega-donor."

- Click here for the article.

A group of major GOP donors, led by New York billionaire Paul Singer, is quietly expanding its political footprint ahead of the midterm elections in an increasingly assertive effort to shape the direction of the Republican Party.

The operation was launched discreetly last year, with the previously unreported formation of a club called the American Opportunity Alliance to bring together some of the richest pro-business GOP donors in the country, several of whom share Singer’s support for gay rights, immigration reform and the state of Israel. Around the same time, Singer and his allies also formed a federal fundraising committee called Friends for an American Majority that raised big checks for a select list of the GOP’s most highly touted 2014 Senate hopefuls.

Those candidates are among the big names expected at a two-day retreat organized by the American Opportunity Alliance set for the last week of February at a swanky Colorado resort. The closed-door event — which is also expected to draw House Speaker John Boehner and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, according to Republicans familiar with the plans — is seen in GOP finance circles as a grand debut of sorts for Singer’s still-amorphous club.

. . . the list of big-name pols expected at the American Opportunity Alliance’s upcoming Colorado gathering highlights the influence that only a few big donors can command in the post-Citizens United era, when a small group of wealthy individuals can reorder elections with just a few huge checks. That new reality has shifted some of the power and control once maintained by the parties and their candidates to factions of major donors, like the libertarian-infused Koch network on the right or the Democracy Alliance club of major liberal donors on the left.

GovTrack links to info on Randy Weber

ACC alumnus Randy Weber's district covers a small sliver of ACC, so let's look at the basic info it contains on him.

- Click here for the site.

Weber scores as a conservative, but he's one of the more moderate members of the Republican Conference. Being a freshman - its his first term - he ranks low in leadership.

Other info:

Randy Weber sits on the following committees:

House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Member, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations
Member, Subcommittee on The Middle East and North Africa

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Vice Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
Member, Subcommittee on Environment
Some of Weber’s most recently sponsored bills include...

H.R. 3829: State Marriage Defense Act of 2014
H.Res. 214: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that extensive scientific and technical ...

View All » (including bills from previous years)

• 
  Recent votes:
  

  Vote

  H.R. 3448: Small Cap Liquidity Reform Act of 2013
  Passed 412/4
  Rep. Weber [R-TX14]: Yea
  Feb 11, 2014 5:35 p.m.

  Vote

  S. 540: A bill to designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the “Patricia ...
  Passed 221/201
  Rep. Weber [R-TX14]: Nay
  Feb 11, 2014 5:27 p.m.

  Vote

  S. 25: South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act
  Passed 326/90
  Rep. Weber [R-TX14]: Yea
  Feb 11, 2014 3:09 p.m.

  Vote

  H.Res. 475: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3193) to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to ...
  Passed 223/193
  Rep. Weber [R-TX14]: Aye
  Feb 11, 2014 3:01 p.m.

GovTrack links for info on Pete Olson

As mentioned below, Olson is one of two members of Congress that contain ACC - most of it lies in Olson's district - so its worth knowing what he does in Congress. GovTrack may be the most convenient place to find this info.

- Click here for the direct link.

The story contains a graphic - that I can't seem to copy that shows he's one of the 15 or so most conservative members of the House.

Other relevant info:

Pete Olson sits on the following committees:
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Some of Olson’s most recently sponsored bills include...
H.Res. 411: Impeaching Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, for high ...
H.R. 2993: Taxpayer Conscience Protection Act of 2013
H.R. 2135: Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2013
H.R. 1959: Domestic Alternative Fuels Act of 2013
H.R. 1280: Voter Fraud Prevention Act
H.R. 1209: To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of ...
H.R. 1074: National Diabetes Clinical Care Commission Act

View All » (including bills from previous years)

Recent Votes:

Vote

H.R. 3448: Small Cap Liquidity Reform Act of 2013
Passed 412/4
Rep. Olson [R-TX22]: Yea
Feb 11, 2014 5:35 p.m.

Vote

S. 540: A bill to designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the “Patricia ...
Passed 221/201
Rep. Olson [R-TX22]: Nay
Feb 11, 2014 5:27 p.m.

Vote

S. 25: South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act
Passed 326/90
Rep. Olson [R-TX22]: Yea
Feb 11, 2014 3:09 p.m.

Vote

H.Res. 475: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3193) to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to ...
Passed 223/193
Rep. Olson [R-TX22]: Aye
Feb 11, 2014 3:01 p.m.

From The Houston Chronicle: Court ruling may see super PAC money rise in Texas

Building off a story below, limits on campaign funding have been overturned by a federal court - so we can expect more money to be pumped into political campaigns. We discussed the fact that this spending seems to be compromise the traditional role that political parties play in the electoral process. We may have more to say about this soon it seems.

Click here for the story:

In a state already known for sky-high political spending, so-called super PACS can now begin flexing their campaign muscle in Texas too, according to a published report Monday.

A recent federal court ruling essentially overturned Texas' ban on super PACs, political action committees that can spend lavishly as long as they aren't coordinating directly with political campaigns.

The Austin American Statesman reports (http://bit.ly/1gNfnUv ) that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in October makes Texas law consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which gave rise to super PACs.

The Texas decision makes corporate political spending easier. But more money isn't the only issue because corporations statewide could already spend unlimited amounts on their own political advocacy.

Now, lavish donations to outside groups may mean harder-edge political advertising since the groups won't be held to the same standards as candidates.

Ed Shack, a Texas election-law attorney, predicts there will be a proliferation of groups spreading their message independently.

"Every political consultant in the state will have a super PAC before long," Shack told the newspaper. "You're going to see a lot more spending that isn't coordinated with a particular candidate's campaign."

Until the appeals court decision, Texas political action committees — which spend money on behalf of a candidate or issue — weren't allowed to accept donations from corporations.

The ruling overturned the prohibition, tantamount to making all PACs "super." The groups still have to report where their money comes from, however, unlike 501(c)(4) nonprofits that critics say collect "dark money" from anonymous donors.

Craig McDonald, director of the nonprofit government watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, said the October appeals court ruling attracted little attention since it was expected following the Citizens United decision. He said similar court actions have affected political donations in Wisconsin, California and the District of Columbia.

McDonald also noted that super PACs can receive money from nonprofits that aren't required to disclose donors.

"If you're worried about money from dark corners going into politics, as we are, the future looks more bleak than rosy," he said.

After the Citizens United decision, the Texas Legislature removed the state's prohibition on corporate contributions to political candidates, but the ban on giving to PACs survived, according to the Gober Hilgers law firm.

Two years ago, the firm handled a lawsuit filed by Texans for Free Enterprise. It sued the Texas Ethics Commission, contending the state ban on corporate contributions to PACs was unconstitutional.

The appeals court agreed, noting Texans for Free Enterprise's "ability to speak is undoubtedly limited when it cannot raise money to pay for free speech."

From Mother Jones: More and More Americans Think Astrology Is Science

File this under "is the American Public Rational?"

The data on Americans' astrological beliefs are compiled by NSF but come from a variety of sources; since 2006 they have come from the General Social Survey. Over the years, the GSS and other surveys have asked Americans a recurring question: "Would you say that astrology is very scientific, sort of scientific, or not at all scientific?"

In response, a substantial minority of Americans, ranging from 31 to 45 percent depending on the year, say consider astrology either "very scientific" or "sort of scientific." That's bad enough—the NSF report compares it with China, where 92 percent of the public does not believe in horoscopes—but the new evidence suggests we are also moving in the wrong direction. Indeed, the percentage of Americans who say astrology is scientifically bunk has been declining ever since a high point for astrology skepticism in 2004, when it hit 66 percent.

The recent increase in astrological credulity was most dramatic among those with less science education and less "factual knowledge," NSF reported. In the latter group, there was a staggering 17 percentage point decline in how many people were willing to say astrology is unscientific, from 52 percent in 2010 to just 35 percent in 2012. Also apparently to blame are younger Americans, aged 18 to 24, where an actual majority considers astrology at least "sort of" scientific, and those aged 35 to 44. In 2010, 64 percent of this age group considered astrology totally bunk; in 2012, by contrast, only 51 percent did, a 13 percentage point change.

Here's a breakdown of the changes in Americans' astrology beliefs by age group:

Weekly Written Assignment #6

Its time to think about your 1000 word critical review. Since you've had time to think about your book, draw a topic from it. You can base it on a current event related to the subject matter, or anything else really, as long as it involves a critical analysis.

Give me a thesis statement and, if possible, an introductory paragraph. I'll give you feedback so you can make whatever changes are necessary soon. You aren't committed to your initial proposal, but its best to stick to it so you can get this done quickly.

150 word minimum.

Good luck

On Ted Cruz and the recent debt ceiling vote

Out junior Senator is not making many friends in the Senate among his fellow Republicans. A few stories related to the recent debt limit vote:
- After GOP filibuster bid, Senate votes to suspend Treasury’s borrowing limit.

. . . Wednesday turned into a wild ride in the Senate. All the political unrest that has roiled the Republican Party in recent years — the establishment vs. conservative outsiders who threaten incumbent Republicans with primary challenges from the right — was on full display.

As he has for the past year, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) placed himself at the center of the day’s action. McConnell and Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had sought to allow a simple majority – all Democrats – to approve the suspension of the debt limit until March 2015. But Cruz refused to go along, forcing more complicated procedural moves. That infuriated his Republican colleagues, because it meant that at least five GOP senators would have to vote with the Democrats to end the filibuster.

- The Minority Maker: Ted Cruz hurts his party by forcing a meaningless debt-ceiling vote.

The Senate passed the House debt-limit increase on Wednesday, but not before some needless drama that helps to explain why Republicans remain a minority.

Democrats had enough votes to pass the increase with a simple majority, which means they would have owned the debt increase. But then Senator Ted Cruz —the same fellow who planned the GOP's shutdown fiasco in October—objected on the floor and insisted on a 60-vote majority. This is exactly what Democratic leader Harry Reid wanted because if the bill failed he would have sent the Senate home on recess and returned later this month to join President Obama in flogging the GOP as the debt-ceiling deadline neared.

The 60-vote threshold was reached only after GOP leaders Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and 10 others voted to let the final debt-ceiling vote proceed. All 12 then opposed the increase on final passage, but thanks to Mr. Cruz they had to walk the plank with Democrats on a procedural vote.

- Ted Cruz isn’t planning to be in the Senate for very long.

By forcing the Senate to round up 60 votes to end debate and force a final vote on a clean increase of the debt ceiling, Cruz knowingly complicated things for the top two Republicans in the chamber -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (Texas). Both men face primary challenges from their ideological right and neither relished the idea of helping break a filibuster for a debt ceiling increase with no Republican proposals attached.

It's not news that Cruz cares little for Senate tradition. He ran in 2012 on his willingness to shake up the institution, and time and again -- most notably during his nearly 24 hour talk-a-thon to protest Obamacare -- he has been willing (and gleefully so) to be a fly in the ointment. But, this latest gambit by Cruz may well be the most telling because it directly impacts two men who, if Cruz had any thought of sticking around the Senate for any extended period of time, not only could, but would make life very uncomfortable for him.

- High cost of an ego trip.

Cruz’s ego trip had come at a high cost. He had forced McConnell, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and other Republicans to cast votes that could cause them to lose primaries to weaker general-election candidates, and he had risked getting his party blamed for a default.

The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page dubbed Cruz “the Minority Maker” for making his GOP colleagues “walk the plank” on a “meaningless debt ceiling vote.”

But Cruz doesn’t care about all that. Leaving the chamber, he told reporters McConnell’s fate would be “ultimately a decision . . . for the voters in Kentucky.”

His actions suggest Cruz has put himself before his party and even the nation’s solvency. And in this sense his actions are typical of the 2016 GOP presidential field. Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Rand Paul are mucking up the gears of government in ways that will earn them favorable attention in the primaries.

Testing the limits of free exercise: snake handling

This ties into recent 2305 material on religious liberty. I stumbled on the story while reading about the recent death of a snake handling preacher - from a snake bite.

From the Huffington Post:

An East Tennessee serpent-handling pastor’s legal woes are over for now.

After a hearing on Wednesday (Jan. 8), a grand jury decided not to indict the Rev. Andrew Hamblin on charges of violating a state ban on possessing venomous snakes.

In November, state officials seized 53 serpents — including rattlesnakes, copperheads and exotic breeds — from the Tabernacle Church of God in LaFollette, Tenn., where Hamblin is pastor.

Hamblin and his church say the Bible commands them to handle the snakes in worship. They’ve been featured in a National Geographic television series, “Snake Salvation.”

But state law bans the possession of venomous snakes.

Officials from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency cited Hamblin with 53 counts of violating the ban. Each count carried a maximum sentence of almost a year in jail.

Hamblin argued that the ban violates congregations’ religious liberty.

He was thrilled by the grand jury’s decision.

“I’m ecstatic,” he said in a phone interview Wednesday. “All the headlines should read ‘Snake handlers have religious rights in Tennessee.’”

Hambin said he was allowed to address the grand jury for half an hour at the hearing. His defense was simple. The snakes weren’t his, he said. They belonged to the church, and Hamblin said the wildlife officials had no business raiding a church.

. . . Since 1947, Tennessee law has banned venomous snakes during church services or public settings. The state Supreme Court upheld that ban in the 1970s.

Matt Cameron, a spokesman for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, said its officers acted correctly in raiding Hamblin’s church.

Most of the snakes were in ill health when they were seized, said Cameron. More than half died since the raid, and the rest are being cared for at a Knoxville zoo.

That’s where they will remain, said Cameron.

“As far as returning the snakes — that is not an option,” he said.

State officials don’t plan to take any other action toward the church or Hamblin, said Cameron.

This falls short of establishing a free exercise right to handle snakes from what I can see. He doesn't get his snakes back. He's just not being charged with violating the law. No word on whether he can acquire venomous snakes for religious exercise, or whether the state can confiscate those snakes if he has them.

Here's more on the religious liberty issues raised by snake handing.

- Snake Handling and the Law.
- Tennessee: Where 'Religious Freedom' Frees Snake Handlers to Abuse Animals.
- SACRAMENTAL PRACTICES AND PROVISIONS.

Here's a you tube of Andrew Hamblin speaking after he was no billed.

From the Dallas Morning News: Texas business groups ally to counter tea party influence in GOP primaries

More on the division within the Republican Party between the business and Tea Party factions. This story points out which interest groups are backing which faction.

- Click here for the story.

Some of Texas’ biggest business trade groups are moving to counter tea party and anti-government forces that have dominated recent Republican primaries.

The Texas Future Business Alliance — a mix of 10 major business groups, including the chemical industry, bankers, builders and contractors — is sending out mailers and providing other support on behalf of GOP candidates who have supported water infrastructure development, highway construction and education spending.

Many of the incumbents have been pilloried as big government spenders and liberals by fiscal hawk groups.

The movement mirrors the schism happening nationally between hard right and establishment Republicans. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently pledged $50 million to back pro-business Republicans in U.S. Senate primaries and fight tea party insurgents. Republican leaders, such as House Speaker John Boehner, have castigated hard right groups, accusing them of wanting contributions more than solutions.

“It’s part of the same trend you’re seeing nationally. A lot of the business community is tired of people who don’t want to govern,” said a person involved in the Texas Future Business Alliance, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The group isn’t talking about its efforts. Spokesman David Polyansky, who has worked on campaigns for Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee, said the business alliance aims to “recognize leaders dedicated to keeping Texas as the best state in the nation for business development and job growth.”

Insiders won’t say how much they are investing, but they describe it as the first major stirrings of business interests in GOP primaries.

Business interests are concerned that the Tea Party focus on limiting taxes and shrinking government makes it difficult for necessary infrastructure improvement to be made in the state:

Others see a fight that developed over willingness to invest in economic development projects. In Texas, that means a disagreement over infrastructure.

During last year’s legislative sessions, lawmakers refused to tap the $8 billion in the state’s rainy day fund to help pay for water projects in the drought-plagued state or help relieve crumbling and traffic-clogged highways.

The Republican-dominated Legislature was largely swayed by anti-tax and fiscal hawk groups that opposed increasing the 22-year-old gas tax or fees or diverting some money from the rainy day fund to pay for highways and water projects.

Ultimately, lawmakers punted the decision to voters, who in November overwhelmingly voted to spend $2 billion from the rainy day fund for water projects. Next November, voters will decide whether to divert about $900 million a year to pay for highways. Transportation advocates still complain that billions more are needed.

Republican incumbents have come to fear being labeled “establishment” and facing challenges from the right. In districts that are drawn for one party to have a heavy advantage, the primary is often the only contest that matters. There, candidates must appeal to the party’s base voters.

Lawmakers who worked to pay for water, education and highways found themselves tarred by Sullivan and other fiscal hawks, said Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business.

The association is not part of the Texas Future Business Alliance, but Hammond said he fully supports its goals.

The story makes a point - above - about the impact of politically gerrymandered districts. Ideologically driven voters also tend to be most likely to vote. In districts drawn to elect Republicans, this tends to give an advantage to the more ideologically extreme candidate. This point is repeated regularly.

State Party Organization Links

I have two to add to my list.

The previous story mentions the Association of State Democratic Chairs.

- Click here for the link.

Here's the mission statement:

The Association of State Democratic Chairs’ mission is to help build strong state parties in order to elect Democrats from the State House to the White House. To accomplish this goal, the ASDC focuses exclusively on the current and future needs of State Democratic Parties. It acts as a service organization dedicated to supporting and educating its members, State Party executive directors and staff.

For a similar organization for Republicans, here's the Republican State Leadership Committee.

- Click here for the link.

And here's it mission statement:

The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) is the largest caucus of Republican state leaders in the country and is the only national organization whose mission is electing Republicans to the office of attorney general, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and legislator. The RSLC concentrates on recruiting outstanding candidates and providing them with research, financial support, and assistance in message development and delivery.

From Politico: Last call for state parties?

We discussed state political parties in 2306 last week, and I mentioned that in our federal system states get to draft the rules that determine what parties look alike, which means that each state legislature has the greatest control over the parties. States provide the legal basis for parties. We mentioned that national parties - at best - try to reconcile differences between the states parties, but the later tend to be more powerful politically.

But Politico reports that not only are state parties are having trouble competing with SuperPACs for funds, the PACs are taking over some of the traditional functions performed by state and local parties - like organizing voters.

The article suggests that the reason is that limits on campaign spending by individuals and groups have been found to be unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. In 2305 we will be discussing the campaign financing and the Citizens United decision. One of the consequences appears to be that SuperPACs may now be able to challenge political parties as the dominant political entity in the nation.

Click here for the article:

State party officials across the country say the explosion of money into super PACs, nonprofit groups and presidential campaigns has made fundraising more difficult. And some of those outside groups are starting to take over the traditional local roles state parties play, spending big on voter contact and outreach operations.

The effect is candidates who can be more beholden to national organizations or single-issue groups rather than state party leaders. That’s leading to a change in candidates and their beliefs and the issues that come up in elections and statehouses.

The GOP takeover of North Carolina in 2010 and 2012, for example, was bankrolled largely by the network founded by GOP megadonors Charles and David Koch and primarily directed through the nonprofit Americans For Prosperity. AFP’s former chairman, Art Pope, now serves as North Carolina budget director.

In Texas, two Democratic outside groups have essentially built a party organization outside the official Texas Democratic Party. Several Obama campaign veterans are running the group Battleground Texas as a field and turnout operation, while the Lone Star Project is doing opposition research and tracking against Republicans.

There is a greater incentive now for individual donors with deep pockets to fund these groups, not the state party. Will this indirectly suppress voter participation by limiting the ability of parties to fulfill this traditional function?

Aside from the Citizens United case - which unleashed the amount of money that independent groups can change - campaign finance reform laws passed in 2002 removed a major source of funds that parties had access to - soft money:

Ironically, until Congress closed a key campaign finance loophole in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul, most state parties were flush with cash.

The loophole allowed essentially unlimited funds known as soft money to be raised by the national political parties to be spent on party building activities and issue ads. Between 1992 and 2002, soft money fundraising for both parties skyrocketed — going from from $86 million to nearly $500 million. Much of that cash was spent through state and local party organizations.

In closing the soft-money loophole, the law created a complicated system of rules that state parties had to abide by when working on federal elections.

Under the rules, for example, state-party run phone banks for federal candidates had to be staffed only by volunteers. They could make calls only for presidential elections — not congressional races. Mail, campaign literature and get-out-the-vote operations around federal races were regulated by similarly strict rules, conditions and requirements regulating volunteer time, coordination with the national party and what kind of funds could be spent.

Those rules seem almost quaint now.

Proposals are being floated in Congress to rescind those rules - stay posted.

Party polarization in the Senate in one pretty picture

Click here for the source. It purports to show who votes with whom. Party affiliation matters.

The 22nd Texas Congressional District

This is the district prior to being redrawn a few years back:




I can't locate a good copy of the current district, but we can see it by going to district viewer.

Click here for it.

I'm unaware of places where we can get info on the design of the district - and the degree to which it has been gerrymandered - if at all. But notice that the new district it neatly follows the Fort Bend county line to the west, but that certain parts of Fort Bend in the north are carved out. These happen to be areas with high percentages of African American residents. They are in the 9th District which is represented by Al Green - an African American Democrat. Pete Olson is an Anglo Republican.

The district also contains parts of northern Brazoria County a small piece of southern Harris County. I can't tell from this map, but a previous version of the district contained the Johnson Space Center, which explained Olson's concern with manned space flight.

Alvin Community College straddles two congressional districts

In 2305 we are starting to look at Congress, and one way to approach it is to look at how ACC is represented in Congress. We all reside in a congressional district which - unless it is vacant - is occupied by a person who most likely is a member of one of the two major parties and is also on a standing committee or two. We are also represented by a couple members of the Senate.

So as we look at the behavior of members of Congress and the design of the institution, it might be best to do so by focusing on the people who represent this area.

For ACC, the creates a bit of a problem because the ACC campus is split. Most of it is in the 22nd Congressional district - represented by Pete Olson - bit a tiny piece in the south west part pf the property is in the 14th Congressional district - represented interestingly enough by ACC alumnus Randy Weber. This gives us two members of Congress to look at.

I'm still figuring out the best way to get the right image on the blog, but this link to District Viewer allows you to hone in on the local area: Click here to play around with it.

From the NYT: After G.O.P. Leaders Step In, Senate Votes to Raise Debt Ceiling

Now the bill goes to the president for a signature.

Students should note the mention of

Click here for the article:

Senate Republican leaders on Wednesday rescued a measure to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, overcoming a threatened filibuster from members of their own party and averting a potential shock to the economy.

A vote to cut off debate on the debt ceiling measure passed 67 to 31, after a dramatic scene on the floor when Republicans managed to muster 12 votes in support, clearing the way for final approval.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the Republican whip, waited nearly a half-hour as their Republican colleagues refused to vote to end debate on the bill. When it was clear that the debt ceiling increase would fail, they stepped forward in tandem to deliver the deciding votes.

The Senate then quickly voted to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, without any conditions, until March 2015, sending the legislation to President Obama to be signed. The passage ended the possibility of a calamitous debt default, as lawmakers scrambled to get out of town before a snowstorm rolled in.

The 55-to-43 vote, largely along party lines, ended three years of fiscal brinkmanship in which the threat of a default hung over acrimonious debt ceiling negotiations, and came a day after the Republican-controlled House passed the same legislation by relying almost entirely on Democratic votes.

The legislation required 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle and break a threatened filibuster after Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, said he planned to object to any effort to raise the debt ceiling with a minimum of 51 votes. But he failed in his attempt to unite Senate Republicans to prevent the increase.

Texas Congressional districts in the 113th Congress

FYI

From the NYT: House Approves Higher Debt Limit Without Condition

For our look at the budgeting process - though the debt ceiling is more about paying for items that have already been authorized in the budget.

It also gives an opportunity to look at the bill making process, the consequences of a bicameral Congress, parties in Congress, and the Speaker - among other things.

Click here for the article.

Ending three years of brinkmanship in which the threat of a devastating default on the nation’s debt was used to wring conservative concessions from President Obama, the House on Tuesday voted to raise the government’s borrowing limit until March 2015, without any conditions.

The vote — 221 to 201 — relied almost entirely on Democrats in the Republican-controlled House to carry the measure and represented the first debt ceiling increase since 2009 that was not attached to other legislation. Only 28 Republicans voted yes, and only two Democrats voted no.

Simply by holding the vote, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio effectively ended a three-year Tea Party-inspired era of budget showdowns that had raised the threat of default and government shutdowns, rattled economic confidence and brought serious scrutiny from other nations questioning Washington’s ability to govern. In the process, though, Mr. Boehner also set off a series of reprisals from fellow Republican congressmen and outside groups that showcased the party’s deep internal divisions.

. . .The vote was a victory for President Obama, Democrats and those Senate Republicans who have argued that spending money for previously incurred obligations was essential for the financial standing of the federal government. “Tonight’s vote is a positive step in moving away from the political brinkmanship that’s a needless drag on our economy,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.

But outside Republican groups were sharply critical of the speaker. Both the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America, for example, had put out a “key vote” alert urging members to vote against the measure.

“A clean debt ceiling is a complete capitulation on the speaker’s part and demonstrates that he has lost the ability to lead the House of Representatives, let alone his own party,” said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. “It is time for him to go.”

From the Dish: Digital Stakeouts Are Dirt Cheap

Andrew Sullivan points out that technology is making surveillance cheaper and easier - which raises the appropriate civil liberties concerns.

- Click here for the story.

If unreasonable searches are easier to do, one assumes they will be done.

A related story: It Costs the Government Just 6.5 Cents an Hour to Spy on You

In United States v. Jones, five Supreme Court justices held that a man’s reasonable expectation of privacy was breached after police tracked his movements on public roads for 28 days using a GPS device. The majority in the 2012 opinion, however, stopped short of articulating a clear rule other than Justice Alito’s finding that “the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark.”

Using the Jones ruling as a baseline, Bankston and Soltani calculated and compared the costs of different location tracking methods used by police. Traditional surveillance methods like covert foot and car pursuits cost $250 and $275, respectively, per hour per target, according to their estimates. Another common method, which the Supreme Court has approved, involves two agents tracking a suspect’s movements from their police vehicle through a radio-based transmitter affixed to a target’s car or slipped in his bag at a cost of $105 to $113 per hour.
Newer surveillance technologies were significantly cheaper, they found. The total price tag of tracking a suspect using a GPS device, similar to the one in Jones, for instance, came out to $10 an hour over one day, $1.43 per hour over a week and $0.36 per hour over a month. Another relatively new technique, obtaining a suspect’s location through his or her cellphone signal with the carrier’s assistance, yielded similar results. As of August 2009, fees for obtaining cellphone location data from carriers ranged from $0.04 to $4.17 per hour for one month of surveillance. After tabulating their results, Bankston and Soltani concluded that the total cost of using a GPS device to track a suspect over 28 days (the method rejected in Jones) was roughly 300 times less expensive than the same tracking using a transmitter (technology approved by the Supreme Court) and 775 times less expensive than using the five-car pursuit method (also approved). Meanwhile, the cost of using transmitter-surveillance technology was only 2.5 times less expensive than undercover car pursuit.

As data mining, wiretaps and domestic drones become the new norm for police departments at a cost of a few cents a day, we need to have a frank discussion about where our Fourth Amendment protections are heading. In advocating their cost-based approach for determining the legality of different surveillance technologies, the researchers say they do not “equate police efficiency with unconstitutionality” but rather attempt to preserve the degree of privacy that existed in the Framers’ era. As Justice Alito quipped in Jones, we must remember that absent “a very tiny constable … with [the] incredible fortitude and patience” hiding out in the trunk of a carriage, it would have been impossible for George Washington’s colonial law enforcement authorities to have carried out anything near the level of surveillance that today’s police forces can do at the drop of a dime.

ScotusBlog: US v. Jones.

The Supreme Court to consider whether to hear a case involving Texas' concealed handgun laws

From ScotusBlog.

The case is National Rifle Association of America v. McCraw.

Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation includes the right to bear arms in public; (2) Whether that right to bear arms extends to responsible, law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults; and (3) whether Texas’s ban on responsible, lawabiding 18-to-20-year-old adults bearing handguns in public for self-defense violates the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

The McGraw mentioned in the case is Steven McGraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. No certainty the Supreme Court will choose to hear the case. Good Second Amendment material besides - this might even though on age discrimination, though that's not the question presented before the court.

Are revolving door lobbyists more likely to come from the federal bureaucracy and the White House, or from Capitol Hill?

This a question addressed by a couple Monkey Cage contributors that was spurred by a comment by Nancy Pelosi in a recent appearance on the Daily Show.

- Click here for the post.

She claimed that most lobbyists - those who began their careers in government and used the revolving door to get a lucrative lobbying job - came from the executive branch, not the legislature.

The contributors happen to have studied the issue and found this not to be the case:

In new article, “Revolving Door Lobbyists and Interest Representation,” we categorize previous employment for 1,600 randomly selected registered lobbyists. Among them, 834 lobbyists had previously worked in the federal government, for a total of 1,495 government jobs, ranging from Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress down to congressional staff assistants.

So, what about Pelosi’s hypothesis? Are revolving door lobbyists more likely to come from the federal bureaucracy and the White House, or from Capitol Hill? About 65 percent of our “lobbyist-job” observations were in Congress, vs. only 23 percent in the bureaucracy, and 9 percent in the White House. (Note: some people may have worked in more than one position in Congress, so we count the “lobbyist-job,” not the lobbyist.)

When we account for people who held jobs in multiple branches of government, we find that congressional experience is by far the most common among lobbyists. More than three-fourths of the sample have worked in Congress. And, when we break these categories down by party — whether a lobbyist’s former employer was a Democrat or Republican — we find no clear partisan bias among revolving door lobbyists across categories. Lobbyists comes from both parties at an equal rate.

So, our data show the exact opposite pattern hypothesized by Pelosi.

The Republican Party establishment tries to undermine Tea Party candidates in state primaries

For our upcoming look at elections, especially primary elections since they are on their way very soon.

The national Republican Party is convinced that its inability to win back the Senate in 2010 or 2012 - and possible the presidency in 2012 - was due to extremist candidates winning primary elections, but then losing the general elections. Extremism works when a small group of like minded voters dominate the election, as happens in primary elections, but not when moderates show up, as happens in general elections.

The party is trying to defeat candidates it judges to be extreme at the primary level by throwing money behind moderates who prioritize fiscal and economic issues over social and moral ones.

The danger for the party is that if they alienate the Tea Party, they could lose their support. They wont be voting for Democrats, but they might just sit the election out. Even if they do decide to vote, they may not supply the energy necessary for victory.

It'll be a tough needle to thread.

Here's detail in the NYT:

The Republican Party establishment, chastened by the realization that a string of unpredictable and unseasoned candidates cost them seats in Congress two elections in a row, is trying to head off potential political hazards wherever it can this year.

In House and Senate races across the country, many of the traditional and influential centers of power within the party are taking sides in primaries, overwhelming challengers on the right with television ads and, in some cases, retaliating against those who are helping the insurgents. In Mr. Black’s case, one by one, powerful Republicans started backing his rival, Barbara J. Comstock, a member of the State House of Delegates. First Mitt Romney endorsed her. Then came Citizens United and the president of Americans for Prosperity, the group financed by the wealthy Koch brothers.

A few day after he announced his candidacy, Mr. Black dropped out. “It was pretty evident that she had all the machinery,” he said in an interview.

One of the biggest challenges for Republican leaders in the 2014 midterm elections will be how to hang on to the Tea Party support that has been so instrumental to the party’s growth, while winning back voters alienated by hard-right candidates. These conflicting goals were evident last week as Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio shelved plans to tackle immigration reform in the House, bowing to pressure from conservatives.

“We’re not picking a fight with the basis for the Tea Party,” said Scott Reed, the senior political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who noted that most Republicans were sympathetic to the free-market, small-government philosophy that inspired the movement. “But some have hijacked the Tea Party model and taken it to an extreme level.”

Attorney General Eic Holder announces that the federal government will begin treating same sex and heterosexual couples the same

This development applies to a variety of topics we cover in 2305. One is civil rights, because it involves equal protection before the law as stated in the 14th Amendment. Another is the Supreme Court since it is up to the court to determine what the equal protection applies to and if this includes sexual orientation, which it did so in United States v. Windsor. And another is the separated powers and checks and balances since the executive branch is essentially responding to the implications of United States v. Windsor, a major court case of last year that gave some recognition to same sex marriages. Finally, this also applies to the bureaucracy's rule-making power. The Justice Department seems to be making these decisions on its own, based on the authority already granted to it.  There's also an element of interest group and electoral politics thrown into the mix.

Here's background from the New York Times:

The federal government will soon treat married same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples when they file for bankruptcy, testify in court or visit family in prison.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was preparing to issue policies aimed at eliminating the distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex married couples in the federal criminal justice system, according to a speech given at a Saturday event organized by a prominent gay-rights group.

“In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages,” Mr. Holder’s said.

The changes were set in motion last year when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to refuse federal benefits to married same-sex couples, a ruling that Mr. Holder supported.

Gay-rights advocates welcomed the changes but had hoped Mr. Holder would use his address before the Human Rights Campaign to announce that the president would sign an order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

ScotusBlog provides more detail about the rationale behind the decision:

This effort, he told a dinner gathering of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, is intended “to give real meaning” to the Supreme Court’s decision last June in United States v. Windsor, striking down a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal marital benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

He did not spell out in full all of the measures his department will take, but did provide a few details on these initiatives:

** Each spouse in a same-sex marriage will gain the right in civil and criminal cases in court to decline to give testimony against the other spouse — the so-called “marital privilege” that is an exception to compelled testimony. That will apply even in states that would not extend the same right to same-sex couples under state law.

** In bankruptcy cases, same-sex couples will be allowed to file jointly for relief from their debts, some debts owed by one spouse or former spouse to another will not be nullified (“discharged,” in legal terms), and domestic support obligations — such as alimony owed to a former spouse — will have to be paid.

** Inmates in federal prisons who are married to a same-sex spouse will have equal rights and privileges, including visitation rights, inmate furloughs to be with a spouse during “a crisis,” a right of a spouse to be escorted to the funeral of an inmate spouse who dies, protection for letters and other communications between spouses, and early release of an inmate from a sentence or a reduction in sentence to allow the inmate to be with a spouse who has become incapacitated.

** If a benefits program is run by the Justice Department — for example, compensation for a spouse’s exposure to radiation and for the loss of a spouse during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 — same-sex couples will become entitled to those benefits.

** If spouse is or was as a police officer, firefighter, or other public safety officer and is killed or gravely injured in the line of duty, the surviving spouse will receive death benefits if the spouse dies and will receive educational benefits.

It does not appear that any of those guarantees of rights or benefits would add to what married same-sex couples had won in the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision, because the part of that law struck down by the Court imposed a ban on equality for same-sex couples in every federal program or activity.

But the new moves by Holder, and similar equality initiatives that a spreading variety of federal agencies have already adopted, are designed to translate that sweeping Court victory into everyday reality.

The Monkey Cage weighs in on media effects on partisan polarization

And the authors come to conclusions that seem to be contradictory. The first argues that exposure to news stories that claim the electorate is polarized leads people to see it that way, even if the facts suggest that is not the case. Polarization draws in viewers, and makes viewers mpre polarized in turn.

The second challenges this idea, or at least the notion that it drives polarization in the electorate - very few people are regularly exposed to partisan media, and Congress started polarizing at least a couple decades before the development of partisan cable TV outlets. Partisan viewers are drawn to polarized shows.

Two related posts:

1 - The media make us think we’re more polarized than we really are.

. . . we note that there is reason to suspect that ordinary citizens think the electorate is more divided than it actually is. Work in social psychology finds that humans tend to over-estimate the distinctiveness of rival groups—men and women, blacks and whites, Israelis and Palestinians, and, in our case, Democrats and Republicans. This stems from the underlying psychology of categorization: merely labeling groups makes people see them as more distinctive than they actually are. So when people think about where “Democrats” and “Republicans” stand, they will tend to place Democrats too far to the left, and Republicans too far to the right, which psychologists term “false polarization.”

. . . we find a large degree of false polarization. That is, when we ask subjects about where they think the “average Democratic voter” and “average Republican voter” stand, they think they are further apart than the average Democratic and Republican voters actually are.

We argue that media coverage of the electorate—which tends to emphasize polarization and discord when discussing voters, a finding first noted by Fiorina and co-authors–will exacerbate false polarization. Using a population-based survey experiment, we find exactly this pattern. We randomly assigned some subjects to read media accounts of a polarized electorate and others to read accounts of a more moderate electorate. When subjects are exposed to media coverage suggesting electoral polarization and division, they perceive greater electoral polarization–as measured by where they place typical Republican and Democratic voters on issue scales (readers interested in the details of the analysis can consult our paper). This suggests that media coverage can make people think the U.S. is a politically polarized country even if it is not.

2 - Why you shouldn’t blame polarization on partisan news.

. . . our finding undermines the claim that partisan news media generated congressional polarization: If Fox News is pushing all members to the right, it isn’t polarizing them. In fact, it’s entirely possible that were it not for Fox News in the 1990s, Congress would have reached today’s level of polarization sooner.

Finally, many implicitly assume that partisan news is inherently more polarizing than mainstream news. The idea here is that we are what we consume. Balanced presentations of news moderate political attitudes, while partisan presentations polarize attitudes. It is an intuitive idea but not necessarily an accurate one. People are motivated to defend cherished worldviews, especially in the realm of politics. Many studies illustrate that people are capable of cherry-picking the facts they wish to believe from balanced presentations.

. . . partisan news viewers are more polarized than mainstream news viewers and entertainment program viewers to begin with. People tune into partisan news because they are partisans. Even without partisan news media, these individuals would likely interpret the world through a partisan lens. Those who are most likely to be polarized by exposure to news — mainstream or partisan — tend to watch something else.

The rise of partisan news media is likely a symptom, not a cause, of elite polarization. Partisan media may reinforce partisan strife, but we should look elsewhere for the ultimate cause.

From Wikipedia: List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment

Can't guarantee how thorough this is, but it looks good to me.

From the ACLU: A summary of the major civil liberites decisions from the 2012 Supreme Court term

Click here for the entire document.

Here are some of the major cases decided - each provides insight on the contemporary nature of civil liberty disputes in the 21st century:

Free Speech

- Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.

. . . the Court struck down a requirement that organizations participating in a federally - funded program to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS must have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts drew a distinction between conditions that affect how federal funds are spent and conditions that reach beyond the funded program. Here, he found, the challenged condition crossed that line because it dictated what organizations could say in parts of their program that are entirely supported by private funds. Moreover, he explained, the government’s willingness to allow grant recipients to create affiliated entities that are not bound by the same condition is unsatisfactory in this context. If the affiliate’s speech can be attributed to the grant recipient, it is merely an invitation to hypocrisy by allowing the same organization to express differing views on the legalization of prostitution. If the affiliate’s speech cannot be attributed to the grant recipient, it does nothing to preserve the First Amendment rights of the grant recipient.

Probable Cause

- Florida v. Jardines.

. . . the Court held that the use of a drug - sniffing dog on the front porch of a home constitutes a search that violates the Fourth Amendment in the absence of consent or a warrant. The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, rested on traditional property notions. It also rejected the dissent’s reliance on the doctrine of implied consent. According to Justice Scalia, the doctrine of implied consent allows visitors to approach the front door without committing trespass but does not extend to an investigative
search by the police who are seeking evidence, not entry. Justice Kagan’s concurring opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, argued that the police conduct in this case violated the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy, as well as his property rights.

- Maryland v. King

. . . the Court upheld DNA testing of arrestees without the need for individualized suspicion. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy characterized DNA testing as an administrative tool for identifying the arrestee and thus legally indistinguishable from photographing and fingerprinting. Applying a rule of reasonableness, he then ruled that the state’s interest in proper identification outweighed the minimal intrusion of a DNA swab. Finally, Justice Kennedy emphasized that Maryland’s law prohibits the use of the DNA sample for any person other than identification. In dissent, Justice Scalia argued that the only sense in which the DNA sample is used for identification is to identify the arrestee as a suspect in an unrelated crime. Because this purpose is part of normal law enforcement it must, in his view, be supported by individualized suspicion linking the person arrested to the unsolved crime. Summing up, Justice Scalia wrote: “I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of or liberties would have been eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

Self Incrimination

- Salinas v. Texas.

. . . the Court ruled that a defendant who does not expressly invoke his Fifth Amendment rights when questioned by the police prior to arrest or other custodial interrogation cannot object when the prosecution comments at trial on his failure to respond to police questioning. Justice Alito’s plurality opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia would have gone further. In their view, the Fifth Amendment never prevents the prosecution from commenting on a defendant’s silence – including a defendant’s decision not to testify at trial – and the Court’s past decisions to the contrary were wrongly decided.

Double Jeopardy

- Evans v Michigan.

. . . the Court held that a trial court’s directed verdict of acquittal bars retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause even if it is based on a misinterpretation of the governing statute or, as here, a misunderstanding of the elements of the offense. Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor explained that a jury verdict of acquittal based on legally erroneous instructions still triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause, and found no meaningful distinction for double jeopardy purposes between a jury verdict and a directed verdict.

Week 5 written assignment cancelled

If you're behind - use this as an opportunity to catch up.

Next week I'll ask you to give me a paper topic so start thinking about it. Remember that it is to be a critical essay on some aspect of your assigned book.

I also adjusted the due date for last week's assignment to fit the syllabus.

Two stories related to transportation policy in the state

Straus wants tolls, higher taxes, Beebe to keep freeways free:

Speaker Joe Straus (R – Dist 121) is a master at kicking the can down the road. After three sessions as Speaker of the Texas House, Straus has failed to properly fund the state highway system. At the commencement of the 83rd regular session last year, he promised to end diversions of the gas tax and to make funding infrastructure – both roads and water – a priority. Neither happened.

Instead, Straus punted the funding of infrastructure to the voters with two constitutional amendment elections. After three expensive special sessions, the Texas legislature finally agreed upon a transportation funding bill that will go to the voters for approval in November. During the second special session, Express-News Austin Bureau Chief Peggy Fikac tweeted that Straus was telling senators he wants a transportation crisis in 2015 to increase pressure for taxes. So crisis creation and crisis management describe Straus’ leadership style.

The Constitutional amendment that passed would divert half of the oil and gas severance tax that funds the state’s emergency fund, or Rainy Day Fund, to roads, giving the highway department a potential boost of $1 billion annually. Lawmakers readily acknowledge it’s a stop gap measure since the agency needs $4 billion more per year.

Last year, Texas voters approved Prop 6 to further raid the Rainy Day Fund for water infrastructure. However, the legislation will largely be used for questionable economic development projects to benefit developers (like shipping water from already water starved rural Texas to urban areas) rather than shore up future water needs for existing residents.

No pain, no gain in U.S. 290 widening:

County and city officials cheered in 2012 when the Harris County Toll Road Authority joined the Texas Department of Transportation to speed up construction along U.S. 290. A $400 million investment meant projects that would have taken 20 years or more could all start by 2017, with many starting much sooner.

Now the expedited excavation and road building is underway, butting up against work that started in 2011 along Loop 610 north and south of U.S. 290.

Many drivers and residents are waiting it out, hoping the hard times are short and the long-term benefits last for a while.

"What I'm afraid of is they'll have to widen it again in five years," said Carol Vogel, 62, as she walked her dog near her home off Pinemont Drive. "Just tell me this time they are fixing it, at least for my lifetime."

View looking outbound of evening traffic on U.S. 290 near Beltway 8 on Monday, Jan. 20, 2014, in Houston. ( Smiley N. Pool / Houston Chronicle )

Freeway expansion often attracts new drivers, meaning the benefit is short-lived as more houses and shops locate on the newly widened freeway. Development, meanwhile, extends farther, giving officials more lanes in need of widening.

Travel times on Interstate 10, for example, are rising, though they are not back to the levels experienced before managed lanes opened in 2009. The road carries about 25,000 more vehicles than it did in 2003, according to TxDOT figures, but with one additional general use lane in each direction. 

From the Texas Tribune: Craft Brewers Celebrate New Beer Laws

The Texas Legislature made selling craft beer much easier last year:

Marking the passage of sweeping Texas beer industry reform, Uncle Billy’s Brew & Que in Austin on Friday will load a keg onto a distributor’s truck, which, for the first time since Prohibition, will transport the beer to a bar six minutes up the street.

It will be the first transaction in what some predict could become a multibillion-dollar industry over the next decade.
Until January 1 of this year, brewpubs like Uncle Billy’s could only sell their product on site: If you wanted an Uncle Billy’s beer, you had to go to Uncle Billy’s. That changed with the passage of Senate Bills 515, 516, 517, 518 and 639 last year, the largest overhaul of the beer industry since the Legislature legalized brewpubs in 1993.

Under the new rules, the cap on brewpub production doubled, growing from 5,000 barrels a year to 10,000. Now, brewpubs can distribute their beer using third-party distributors, and they can sell limited amounts of their own beer directly to retailers.

Rick Engel, the co-founder of Uncle Billy’s, opened Texas’ first brewpub in Houston in 1993, the first year brewpubs were made legal since Prohibition. Since then he has been working with members of the Texas Craft Brewers Guild to pass major reforms to beer laws.

This ties into our look at economic development policy in the state as well as the influence of interest groups in the state.

From the NYT: ‘Aid in Dying’ Movement Takes Hold in Some States

Add this to the list of stories on states as laboratories of democracy. Its a report on the what used to be called doctor assisted suicide, but now is called aid in dying. Put a more positive spin on it. The movement started in Oregon a few years back and seems to be on the move.

From the NYT:

In January, a district court in New Mexico authorized doctors to provide lethal prescriptions and declared a constitutional right for “a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying.” Last May, the Vermont Legislature passed a law permitting it, joining Montana, Oregon and Washington. This spring, advocates are strongly promoting “death with dignity” bills in Connecticut and other states.

Public support for assisted dying has grown in the past half-century but depends in part on terminology. In a Gallup Poll conducted in May, for example, 70 percent of respondents agreed that when patients and their families wanted it, doctors should be allowed to “end the patient’s life by some painless means.” In 1948, that share was 37 percent, and it rose steadily for four decades but has remained roughly stable since the mid-1990s.

Yet in the same 2013 poll, only 51 percent supported allowing doctors to help a dying patient “commit suicide.”
Here's the graph from the Gallup Poll linked to above. Perhaps this movement will join marijuana and same sex marriage as policy areas where major changes are happening on the state level.

The shift might have a lot to do with how the policy is framed. Death with dignity sounds better than suicide.

What might Texas look like if it split into 5 states?

Which it can - as we noted in 2306:

We would be in Gulfland:

Capital: HoustonOther Cities: Corpus Christi, Beaumont, Baytown, GalvestonPopulation (2008 Estimate): 7,494,089 (about as many as Virginia)Congressional Districts: 10 (would increase to 11 following 2010 reallocation)Electoral Votes: 12 (would increase to 13 following 2010 reallocation)Area: 36,547 square miles (14% of former Texas territory, about as large as Indiana)Demographics: 32% Hispanic, 16% Black, 5% AsianEconomic: 32% college degree (adults 25+); 16% below poverty line2008 Vote (Excludes third parties): McCain 1,350,322 (56.1%), Obama 1,058,446 (43.9%)

This somewhat unusually-shaped state, which looks a bit like West Virginia rotated 90 degrees, would contain the Houston metroplex, while then meandering to include nearly the entirety of Texas' Gulf Coast, from the Louisiana border up to (but not including) Texas' southermost reaches in Cameron County. Gulfland's economy would likely be heavily dependant on offshore drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

However, there are a few things for Democrats to like about Gulfland -- it would be a majority-minority state (although barely) and Barack Obama won Houston's Harris County in November (also barely). Gulfland might be incrementally more competitive than Trinity, although very likely only for the Senate and not the Presidency, as Democrats have been gradually losing ground in this part of the country.

The race for the chair of the Harris County Republican Party

The HCRP is the largest local Republican Party in the United States, and the person who has been the party chair - Jared Woodfill for several years is facing a challenger.

A couple conservative bloggers discuss the reasons why a change might be in order:

Texpatriate:

Jared Woodfill, for lack of a better term, has had a rocky and controversial last few months at the helm of the largest victorious County GOP in the country. First, Woodfill made national news (c/oThe Huffington Post) following his office rejecting a candidate for a vacant Precinct Chairmanship on account of the applicant’s sexual orientation. Chris Busby, who applied for the post, was an openly gay man who was also the Vice President of the Houston area Log Cabin Republicans.

Second, Woodfill has made a point of advocating for ideological purity within the party. After State Representative Sarah Davis — a moderate Republican who represents a very moderate constituency– went on the offensive against the omnibus anti-abortion bill, Woodfillpublicly blasted her, saying she “chose to attack our party platform.” This issue is of special significance, because Davis has drawn a fiercely conservative primary challenger –Bonnie Parker– in response to her moderate tone on the abortion issue. In a sign of interesting alignments, I have seen a plethora of homes in my neighborhood (Meyerland) with Sarah Davis and Paul Simpson signs side-by-side. I would reckon this is less because of Simpson’s position on the issue (he is fervently anti-abortion), but because he is more open to dissenting opinions within the party and less obsessed with the aforementioned ideological purity.

Last, but certainly not least, is Woodfill’s bizarre obsession with gay issues. In a time of ballooning debt, falling Presidential approval ratings and an unholy trainwreck that is Obamacare, Woodfill decided to focus this past month on fighting gay rights as the most important political priority of the time. In December, Woodfill sued the City of Houston in an effort to block them from doling out spousal benefits to same-sex couples. Irrespective of one’s opinion on this matter, it is a forgone conclusion at this point that this is a losing strategy. Nationwide acceptance of the LGBT community and same-sex marriage will be here in just a few short years, mark my words.

Rhymes with Right thinks Woodfill has done a poor job organizing the local party in addition to making it more inclusive:

In recent years the party has been controlled by a social conservative faction that has recently been loathe to include anyone who is not purer than Ivory Soap in terms of their support for every jot and tittle of the Texas GOP platform. It would appear that this is a significant factor in Judge Emmett's decision to throw his support behind Paul Simpson's candidacy -- the willingness of Jared Woodfill and those who back him to leave precinct chair positions vacant rather than fill those slots with someone who Ronald Reagan would have defined as friends and allies rather than traitors to the Republican cause. Judge Emmett openly expressed his concern that men like Reagan and Barry Goldwater, a pair who were once the gold standard for what it meant to be a Republican and a conservative, would no longer be considered acceptable candidates for office (even to be precinct chairs) by the current leadership in Harris County.