- Click here for the article.
A question asking Americans whether they’re citizens won’t go on the 2020 census form — for now. Opponents of the citizenship question had argued that the Trump administration violated the law by adding it over the objections of Census Bureau researchers who said that it was likely to discourage households with noncitizens from responding to the decennial count. In an ostensibly unanimous but deeply divided Supreme Court decision Thursday, the court ruled that the Trump administration’s explanation for why it wanted to add the question didn’t pass the sniff test — but the case could have had a very different outcome if the Trump administration hadn’t provided a clearly contrived rationale.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had claimed that the Justice Department needed data from the question to help enforce the Voting Rights Act, but three federal judges have ruled that Ross had already decided to add the question — and that he pressured the Justice Department to provide him with a reason. In a part of the ruling that was joined only by the court’s liberals, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that there was “a significant mismatch between the Secretary’s decision and the rationale he provided.” In other words, the Trump administration had the right to add the question — its downfall was the dubious reason it supplied. The court did, however, leave a path for the question to be added — if the administration can persuade the courts to accept a different explanation in time.
The fate of the question now hinges in large part on when the census forms actually need to be printed. The Supreme Court’s decision sent the case back to the lower court, where the Commerce Department will have an opportunity to respond. The legal battle over the citizenship question has, so far, unfolded under the shadow of a deadline — the Census Bureau is supposed to start printing census forms on Monday. But a government witness suggested during the trial that the agency could, in theory, wait until as late as Oct. 31 to finalize the questionnaire. It’s not clear if this is actually the case, since the scale of the census’s printing project is enormous and the first census forms are due to be distributed in Alaska in January. It’s possible that the Commerce Department could provide a legitimate rationale, and the question could still go on the form. But the Trump administration may not be able to come up with a more convincing explanation — and the department will be racing against the clock.
Meanwhile, a separate legal battle over the question is brewing in the lower courts. Last month, the question’s challengers submitted new evidencefrom the files of a deceased Republican redistricting expert who wrote in a 2015 study that adding the citizenship question could entrench GOP power by allowing state legislators to redistrict using only citizens as the population base, rather than the total population. A case involving the question in Maryland was recently reopened to explore whether this evidence suggests that the Trump administration violated Hispanics’ civil rights by diluting their political power. A court ruling that the question was added with discriminatory intent could also keep it off the census form.
One key point from the ruling, though, is that the citizenship question isn’t inherently unconstitutional. Several lower court judges ruled that the question violated the Constitution’s enumeration clause, which mandates a count of every person, because the question seems likely to result in an undercount of certain populations. The court rejected that argument. So even though the Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for opponents of the question this time around, it also means that a future administration isn’t constitutionally barred from adding the question. So a citizenship question could end up on a future census.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
From 538: Partisan Gerrymandering Isn’t The Supreme Court’s Problem Anymore
- Click here for the article.
The Supreme Court will not end extreme partisan gerrymandering. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, the court ruled Thursday that partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts cannot be limited by federal courts. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, writing that “what the appellees and dissent seek is an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent was scathing. “For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities,” she wrote in her opening sentence. She argued that imposing limits on gerrymandered districts is not beyond the scope of the court: “The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.”
The ruling almost certainly would have been different if Anthony Kennedy were still on the court. Before retiring last year, Kennedy had been the swing justice on previous gerrymandering cases. He had said that partisan gerrymandering was within the purview of the court but that the justices should hold off on ruling any particular gerrymander unconstitutional until a manageable standard for measuring gerrymandering emerged. Since he took that position in 2004, reformers had been attempting to find such a standard. Legal scholars and statisticians developed various measurements to try to win over the court, but without Kennedy, those efforts turned out to be futile.
The Supreme Court will not end extreme partisan gerrymandering. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, the court ruled Thursday that partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts cannot be limited by federal courts. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, writing that “what the appellees and dissent seek is an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent was scathing. “For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities,” she wrote in her opening sentence. She argued that imposing limits on gerrymandered districts is not beyond the scope of the court: “The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.”
The ruling almost certainly would have been different if Anthony Kennedy were still on the court. Before retiring last year, Kennedy had been the swing justice on previous gerrymandering cases. He had said that partisan gerrymandering was within the purview of the court but that the justices should hold off on ruling any particular gerrymander unconstitutional until a manageable standard for measuring gerrymandering emerged. Since he took that position in 2004, reformers had been attempting to find such a standard. Legal scholars and statisticians developed various measurements to try to win over the court, but without Kennedy, those efforts turned out to be futile.
Thursday, June 20, 2019
FromScotusBlog: Opinion analysis: Justices allow “peace cross” to stand
- Click here for the article.
For nearly a century, a 40-foot-tall cross has stood in what is now a traffic median in the suburbs outside Washington, D.C. Erected to honor 49 local soldiers killed in World War I, the cross’s presence on public land drew little attention until 2012, when a group of local residents filed a lawsuit in federal court. They argued that the cross, which is maintained by the state, violates the Constitution’s establishment clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. Today the Supreme Court rejected that argument, with seven of the nine justices agreeing that the cross (and others like it) should be allowed to stand.
The ruling is the latest chapter in the debate over religious symbols in the public sphere. The justices confronted a similar case nearly 15 years ago, when they rejected a challenge to the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state capitol. In that case, Justice Stephen Breyer provided the fifth vote to leave the monument in place, with his concurring opinion providing the governing rule. In 1971, the Supreme Court outlined a test – known as the “Lemon test,” after the case in which it was established, for courts to use to determine whether a law or practice violates the establishment clause: The law or practice is constitutional if it has a secular purpose, its principal effect does not advance or inhibit religion, and it does not create an “excessive entanglement with religion.”
But Breyer declined to use the Lemon test in the Texas case, explaining that there is “no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case.” Breyer reasoned that although the Ten Commandments monument “undeniably has a religious message,” the state intended it to convey a secular message. Indeed, Breyer noted, no one had challenged the presence of the monument at the capitol for 40 years – which, he posited, suggested that the public regards it as part of a “broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court today, in an opinion that once again eschewed the use of the Lemon test. Alito began by explaining that although the cross “came into widespread use as a symbol of Christianity” and continues to have that meaning today, it “has also taken on a secular meaning” in other contexts. In particular, Alito noted, the cross became a “central symbol” of World War I – which likely explains the choice to use a massive cross as the memorial for the Prince George’s County soldiers.
Alito then observed that, if the intent of the Lemon test had been to “bring order and predictability to Establishment Clause decisionmaking,” in practice the test had fallen short. This was particularly true, he noted, in cases – like this one – involving religious symbols or monuments. These symbols and monuments were often established long ago, making it difficult to identify their original purpose. And even when that original purpose can be identified, Alito continued, the purpose or the message conveyed by the monument may expand or change. He cited the example of the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, describing it as both “fundamentally a place of worship” but also “inextricably linked with the very idea of Paris and France.” When this happens, Alito suggested, taking down a monument can be seen not as an act that restores neutrality, but instead as “aggressively hostile to religion.” Taken together, Alito concluded, these different considerations show that at least when the question is whether to keep religious monuments in place, rather than to put up new ones, there should be a presumption that the monuments are constitutional.
That presumption, Alito continued, applies here: Not only did the cross start off with the “added secular meaning” associated with World War I, but it took on “historical importance”: It reminds local residents of the conflict and the sacrifices that area soldiers made. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Jewish soldiers were either “deliberately left off the list on the memorial” or “included on the Cross against the wishes of their families.”
“The cross is a Christian symbol,” Alito concluded, “but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent. For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home,” while for others “it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices for our Nation.” “For many of these people,” Alito stressed, “destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment.”
Justice Stephen Breyer joined all of Alito’s opinion, but he also wrote a separate concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Breyer reiterated his belief that “there is no single formula for resolving Establishment Clause challenges.” Instead, he contended, the most important consideration in each case is “the basic purposes that the Religion Clauses were meant to serve: assuring religious liberty and tolerance for all, avoiding religiously based social conflict, and maintaining that separation of church and state that allows each to flourish in its separate sphere.”
Breyer may have wanted to signal that (at least as far as he was concerned) today’s holding was a relatively narrow one. “The case would be different” for him, he indicated, “if there were evidence that the organizers had deliberately disrespected members of minority faiths or if the Cross had been erected only recently.” “Nor do I understand,” he continued, “the Court’s opinion today to adopt a history and tradition test that would permit any newly constructed religious memorial on public land.” History can provide guidance, Breyer conceded, but the Supreme Court today allowed the cross to stand only after “considering its particular historical context and its long-held place in the community. A newer memorial, erected under different circumstances, would not necessarily be permissible under this approach.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also joined all of Alito’s opinion but had a separate concurring opinion. He expressed even stronger opposition to the Lemon test than did Alito’s opinion for the court. Contending that “the Court’s decisions over the span of several decades demonstrate that the Lemontest is not good law and does not apply to Establishment Clause cases in any of” five categories, Kavanaugh distilled from those cases a test that focuses on whether the practice at issue is coercive, along with (as relevant here) whether it is rooted in history and tradition. Because the cross meets both of those criteria, Kavanaugh agreed that the cross does not violate the Constitution and should be allowed to stand.
Kavanaugh then pivoted to express his “deep respect for the plaintiffs’ sincere objections to seeing the cross on public land” and his “sincere respect for the Jewish war veterans who in a friend-of-the-court brief “say that the cross on public land sends a message of exclusion.” Indeed, Kavanaugh acknowledged, the cross is a “deeply religious” symbol. “A case like this is difficult,” Kavanaugh wrote, “because it represents a clash of genuine and important interests.”
At the same time, Kavanaugh continued, the fact that the Supreme Court has allowed the cross to stand doesn’t mean that the plaintiffs can’t pursue other options to have the cross taken down. For example, he wrote, the Maryland legislature could require the cross to be taken down or it could give the land to a private entity. “These alternative avenues of relief illustrate a fundamental feature of our constitutional structure: This Court is not the only guardian of individual rights in America.”
Justice Elena Kagan joined most, but not all, of Alito’s opinion. But she wrote separately to note that, although she agreed “that rigid application of the Lemon test does not solve every Establishment Clause problem, I think that test’s focus on purposes and effects is crucial in evaluating government action in this sphere—as this very suit shows.”
Justice Clarence Thomas also would have allowed the cross to stand, but for a different reason: He believes that the Constitution’s establishment clause does not apply to the states at all. Even if it did apply to the states, he added, there would still not be any constitutional violation – either because the establishment clause only applies to laws passed by a legislature or because the clause requires actual coercion by the government. And he made clear that he would take what he regarded as “the logical next step and overrule the Lemon test in all contexts.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch also agreed that the cross should be permitted to remain in place, but he argued that the case should be dismissed, because the challengers do not have a legal right, known as “standing,” to bring a lawsuit. Simply being offended by the cross’s presence is not, Gorsuch contended, enough to justify the lawsuit. The idea that an “offended observer” can bring a lawsuit was, Gorsuch suggested, “invented” by the lower courts in response to the Lemon test, which Gorsuch described as a “misadventure”: “It sought a grand unified theory of the Establishment Clause but left us only a mess.”
Gorsuch was, however, also relatively skeptical about Alito’s emphasis in this case on the cross’s age, and he would take a broader view. How old, Gorsuch queried rhetorically, is old enough to qualify for the presumption that a religious monument does not violate the establishment clause – “what about the Star of David monument erected in South Carolina in 2001 to commemorate victims of the Holocaust?” For Gorsuch, “what matters when it comes to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn’t its age but its compliance with ageless principles. The Constitution’s meaning is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a practice consistent with our nation’s traditions is just as permissible whether undertaken today or 94 years ago.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent, which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from the bench – a move that justices generally reserve for opinions expressing strong disagreement with the majority’s ruling. Ginsburg rejected the idea that the cross is merely a secular symbol of World War I: “The Latin Cross,” she wrote, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith,” and using it as a war memorial doesn’t change that. A history of the efforts to bury American war dead in Europe after World War I shows, Ginsburg argued, that the cross “was never perceived as an appropriate headstone or memorial for Jewish soldiers and others who did not adhere to Christianity.” By “maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway,” she argued, the Maryland government “elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.”
For nearly a century, a 40-foot-tall cross has stood in what is now a traffic median in the suburbs outside Washington, D.C. Erected to honor 49 local soldiers killed in World War I, the cross’s presence on public land drew little attention until 2012, when a group of local residents filed a lawsuit in federal court. They argued that the cross, which is maintained by the state, violates the Constitution’s establishment clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. Today the Supreme Court rejected that argument, with seven of the nine justices agreeing that the cross (and others like it) should be allowed to stand.
The ruling is the latest chapter in the debate over religious symbols in the public sphere. The justices confronted a similar case nearly 15 years ago, when they rejected a challenge to the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state capitol. In that case, Justice Stephen Breyer provided the fifth vote to leave the monument in place, with his concurring opinion providing the governing rule. In 1971, the Supreme Court outlined a test – known as the “Lemon test,” after the case in which it was established, for courts to use to determine whether a law or practice violates the establishment clause: The law or practice is constitutional if it has a secular purpose, its principal effect does not advance or inhibit religion, and it does not create an “excessive entanglement with religion.”
But Breyer declined to use the Lemon test in the Texas case, explaining that there is “no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case.” Breyer reasoned that although the Ten Commandments monument “undeniably has a religious message,” the state intended it to convey a secular message. Indeed, Breyer noted, no one had challenged the presence of the monument at the capitol for 40 years – which, he posited, suggested that the public regards it as part of a “broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court today, in an opinion that once again eschewed the use of the Lemon test. Alito began by explaining that although the cross “came into widespread use as a symbol of Christianity” and continues to have that meaning today, it “has also taken on a secular meaning” in other contexts. In particular, Alito noted, the cross became a “central symbol” of World War I – which likely explains the choice to use a massive cross as the memorial for the Prince George’s County soldiers.
Alito then observed that, if the intent of the Lemon test had been to “bring order and predictability to Establishment Clause decisionmaking,” in practice the test had fallen short. This was particularly true, he noted, in cases – like this one – involving religious symbols or monuments. These symbols and monuments were often established long ago, making it difficult to identify their original purpose. And even when that original purpose can be identified, Alito continued, the purpose or the message conveyed by the monument may expand or change. He cited the example of the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, describing it as both “fundamentally a place of worship” but also “inextricably linked with the very idea of Paris and France.” When this happens, Alito suggested, taking down a monument can be seen not as an act that restores neutrality, but instead as “aggressively hostile to religion.” Taken together, Alito concluded, these different considerations show that at least when the question is whether to keep religious monuments in place, rather than to put up new ones, there should be a presumption that the monuments are constitutional.
That presumption, Alito continued, applies here: Not only did the cross start off with the “added secular meaning” associated with World War I, but it took on “historical importance”: It reminds local residents of the conflict and the sacrifices that area soldiers made. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Jewish soldiers were either “deliberately left off the list on the memorial” or “included on the Cross against the wishes of their families.”
“The cross is a Christian symbol,” Alito concluded, “but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent. For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home,” while for others “it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices for our Nation.” “For many of these people,” Alito stressed, “destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment.”
Justice Stephen Breyer joined all of Alito’s opinion, but he also wrote a separate concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Breyer reiterated his belief that “there is no single formula for resolving Establishment Clause challenges.” Instead, he contended, the most important consideration in each case is “the basic purposes that the Religion Clauses were meant to serve: assuring religious liberty and tolerance for all, avoiding religiously based social conflict, and maintaining that separation of church and state that allows each to flourish in its separate sphere.”
Breyer may have wanted to signal that (at least as far as he was concerned) today’s holding was a relatively narrow one. “The case would be different” for him, he indicated, “if there were evidence that the organizers had deliberately disrespected members of minority faiths or if the Cross had been erected only recently.” “Nor do I understand,” he continued, “the Court’s opinion today to adopt a history and tradition test that would permit any newly constructed religious memorial on public land.” History can provide guidance, Breyer conceded, but the Supreme Court today allowed the cross to stand only after “considering its particular historical context and its long-held place in the community. A newer memorial, erected under different circumstances, would not necessarily be permissible under this approach.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also joined all of Alito’s opinion but had a separate concurring opinion. He expressed even stronger opposition to the Lemon test than did Alito’s opinion for the court. Contending that “the Court’s decisions over the span of several decades demonstrate that the Lemontest is not good law and does not apply to Establishment Clause cases in any of” five categories, Kavanaugh distilled from those cases a test that focuses on whether the practice at issue is coercive, along with (as relevant here) whether it is rooted in history and tradition. Because the cross meets both of those criteria, Kavanaugh agreed that the cross does not violate the Constitution and should be allowed to stand.
Kavanaugh then pivoted to express his “deep respect for the plaintiffs’ sincere objections to seeing the cross on public land” and his “sincere respect for the Jewish war veterans who in a friend-of-the-court brief “say that the cross on public land sends a message of exclusion.” Indeed, Kavanaugh acknowledged, the cross is a “deeply religious” symbol. “A case like this is difficult,” Kavanaugh wrote, “because it represents a clash of genuine and important interests.”
At the same time, Kavanaugh continued, the fact that the Supreme Court has allowed the cross to stand doesn’t mean that the plaintiffs can’t pursue other options to have the cross taken down. For example, he wrote, the Maryland legislature could require the cross to be taken down or it could give the land to a private entity. “These alternative avenues of relief illustrate a fundamental feature of our constitutional structure: This Court is not the only guardian of individual rights in America.”
Justice Elena Kagan joined most, but not all, of Alito’s opinion. But she wrote separately to note that, although she agreed “that rigid application of the Lemon test does not solve every Establishment Clause problem, I think that test’s focus on purposes and effects is crucial in evaluating government action in this sphere—as this very suit shows.”
Justice Clarence Thomas also would have allowed the cross to stand, but for a different reason: He believes that the Constitution’s establishment clause does not apply to the states at all. Even if it did apply to the states, he added, there would still not be any constitutional violation – either because the establishment clause only applies to laws passed by a legislature or because the clause requires actual coercion by the government. And he made clear that he would take what he regarded as “the logical next step and overrule the Lemon test in all contexts.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch also agreed that the cross should be permitted to remain in place, but he argued that the case should be dismissed, because the challengers do not have a legal right, known as “standing,” to bring a lawsuit. Simply being offended by the cross’s presence is not, Gorsuch contended, enough to justify the lawsuit. The idea that an “offended observer” can bring a lawsuit was, Gorsuch suggested, “invented” by the lower courts in response to the Lemon test, which Gorsuch described as a “misadventure”: “It sought a grand unified theory of the Establishment Clause but left us only a mess.”
Gorsuch was, however, also relatively skeptical about Alito’s emphasis in this case on the cross’s age, and he would take a broader view. How old, Gorsuch queried rhetorically, is old enough to qualify for the presumption that a religious monument does not violate the establishment clause – “what about the Star of David monument erected in South Carolina in 2001 to commemorate victims of the Holocaust?” For Gorsuch, “what matters when it comes to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn’t its age but its compliance with ageless principles. The Constitution’s meaning is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a practice consistent with our nation’s traditions is just as permissible whether undertaken today or 94 years ago.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent, which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from the bench – a move that justices generally reserve for opinions expressing strong disagreement with the majority’s ruling. Ginsburg rejected the idea that the cross is merely a secular symbol of World War I: “The Latin Cross,” she wrote, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith,” and using it as a war memorial doesn’t change that. A history of the efforts to bury American war dead in Europe after World War I shows, Ginsburg argued, that the cross “was never perceived as an appropriate headstone or memorial for Jewish soldiers and others who did not adhere to Christianity.” By “maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway,” she argued, the Maryland government “elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.”
Monday, June 10, 2019
From the Atlantic: What Two Crucial Words in the Constitution Actually Mean
For out look at the U.S. Constitution.
- Click here for the article.
Is the president a king? The question may sound absurd, but you’d be surprised: A great many lawyers, politicians, judges, and policy experts think the U.S. Constitution builds from exactly that starting point. Their argument relies on the first sentence of Article II, which gives the president “the executive power.” That phrase, they claim, was originally understood as a generic reference to monarchical authority. This means, they say, that the American president must have been given all the prerogatives of a British king, except where the Constitution specifies otherwise. The foreign-relations scholar Philip Trimble states their conclusion plainly: “Unless the [Article II] Vesting Clause is meaningless, it incorporates the unallocated parts of Royal Prerogative.”
The repercussions of this claim ripple across the face of constitutional law. During Senate hearings on legislating an end to the Iraq War, Brad Berenson, who had served as one of President George W. Bush’s top lawyers, told the Senate that the executive-power clause conveys “a vast reserve of implied authority to do whatever may be necessary in executing the laws and governing the nation.” When the Bush administration wanted to defy statutory restrictions on dragnet surveillance, the Justice Department relied on the clause in advising that Congress “cannot restrict the President’s ability to engage in warrantless searches that protect the national security.” And Justice Clarence Thomas put the clause front and center in concluding that “those who ratified the Constitution understood the ‘executive Power’ vested by Article II to include those foreign affairs powers not otherwise allocated in the Constitution.”
These aren’t selective examples. Pick a random recent controversy about presidential power, and you’re almost certain to find the president-as-king claim woven into the debates. During the George W. Bush administration, the argument was used to defend the torture of prisoners, the evasion of habeas corpus, and the claim of authority to invade Afghanistan and Iraq without congressional authorization. During the Obama administration, the argument surfaced in debates about the administration’s defiance of a statute recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and about the use of force against Libya. And supporters of the Trump administration have supercharged the claim, advocating a breathtaking theory of indefeasible imperial prerogative in areas ranging from the Russia investigation and workaday congressional oversight to immigration law and the bombing of Syria.
- Click here for the article.
Is the president a king? The question may sound absurd, but you’d be surprised: A great many lawyers, politicians, judges, and policy experts think the U.S. Constitution builds from exactly that starting point. Their argument relies on the first sentence of Article II, which gives the president “the executive power.” That phrase, they claim, was originally understood as a generic reference to monarchical authority. This means, they say, that the American president must have been given all the prerogatives of a British king, except where the Constitution specifies otherwise. The foreign-relations scholar Philip Trimble states their conclusion plainly: “Unless the [Article II] Vesting Clause is meaningless, it incorporates the unallocated parts of Royal Prerogative.”
The repercussions of this claim ripple across the face of constitutional law. During Senate hearings on legislating an end to the Iraq War, Brad Berenson, who had served as one of President George W. Bush’s top lawyers, told the Senate that the executive-power clause conveys “a vast reserve of implied authority to do whatever may be necessary in executing the laws and governing the nation.” When the Bush administration wanted to defy statutory restrictions on dragnet surveillance, the Justice Department relied on the clause in advising that Congress “cannot restrict the President’s ability to engage in warrantless searches that protect the national security.” And Justice Clarence Thomas put the clause front and center in concluding that “those who ratified the Constitution understood the ‘executive Power’ vested by Article II to include those foreign affairs powers not otherwise allocated in the Constitution.”
These aren’t selective examples. Pick a random recent controversy about presidential power, and you’re almost certain to find the president-as-king claim woven into the debates. During the George W. Bush administration, the argument was used to defend the torture of prisoners, the evasion of habeas corpus, and the claim of authority to invade Afghanistan and Iraq without congressional authorization. During the Obama administration, the argument surfaced in debates about the administration’s defiance of a statute recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and about the use of force against Libya. And supporters of the Trump administration have supercharged the claim, advocating a breathtaking theory of indefeasible imperial prerogative in areas ranging from the Russia investigation and workaday congressional oversight to immigration law and the bombing of Syria.
Thursday, June 6, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Are the billions Texas lawmakers committed for schools and lower property taxes sustainable?
For 2306, and our look at the recently completed legislative session.
- Click here for the article.
2019 may have been the perfect year for lawmakers to pass an ambitious and expensive school finance reform and property tax reduction plan. Now Texas politicians face questions about whether doing so — without raising taxes elsewhere — will be sustainable in less auspicious times.
A confluence of fiscal coincidences made 2019 a cheerful year for budget writers:
- A mostly sunny economic forecast led lawmakers to believe they’d have $10 billion or so more in state funds to spend in this two-year budget compared with the one they passed in 2017.
- A one-year bump in federal reimbursements for the state’s health care costs allowed lawmakers to free up billions of dollars for other programs.
- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling poured another $550 million or so into state coffers by allowing the state to collect additional sales tax revenue from online sales.
- And a historically full state savings account helped pay off pressing infrastructure needs, alleviating pressure on other programs competing for funding in the two-year spending plan.
Lawmakers decided to pump almost all of the new revenue at their disposal into the education portion of the state budget.
The result was a new school finance bill — still awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature — that will cost more than $11.5 billion in 2020 and 2021. Of those funds, about $5 billion go toward cutting property taxes on homes and businesses and $6.5 billion pay for educational reforms, including a 20% hike in schools’ baseline per-student funding.
- Click here for the article.
2019 may have been the perfect year for lawmakers to pass an ambitious and expensive school finance reform and property tax reduction plan. Now Texas politicians face questions about whether doing so — without raising taxes elsewhere — will be sustainable in less auspicious times.
A confluence of fiscal coincidences made 2019 a cheerful year for budget writers:
- A mostly sunny economic forecast led lawmakers to believe they’d have $10 billion or so more in state funds to spend in this two-year budget compared with the one they passed in 2017.
- A one-year bump in federal reimbursements for the state’s health care costs allowed lawmakers to free up billions of dollars for other programs.
- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling poured another $550 million or so into state coffers by allowing the state to collect additional sales tax revenue from online sales.
- And a historically full state savings account helped pay off pressing infrastructure needs, alleviating pressure on other programs competing for funding in the two-year spending plan.
Lawmakers decided to pump almost all of the new revenue at their disposal into the education portion of the state budget.
The result was a new school finance bill — still awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature — that will cost more than $11.5 billion in 2020 and 2021. Of those funds, about $5 billion go toward cutting property taxes on homes and businesses and $6.5 billion pay for educational reforms, including a 20% hike in schools’ baseline per-student funding.
From Governing: How Governments Are Transitioning Their Gender Policies to Nonbinary
An example of policy diffusion, and political culture.
- Click here for the article.
The growing national conversation on gender identity is a divisive and controversial policy issue. Much of the debate up to this point, including over proposed “bathroom bills” in North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and elsewhere, has centered on individuals who fall within society’s existing gender structure -- transgender men and transgender women. Redefining that structure altogether to include nonbinary identities may be a more ambitious battle.
When it comes to issuing IDs, states should prioritize biological accuracy over personal gender preference, say opponents of the efforts to expand gender definition. “Eye color, hair color, height, weight and sex: These are all listed on a driver’s license because these physical characteristics can be independently verified by physical evidence, even if a person is unconscious,” Greg Burt testified to the California Senate in 2017. Burt, who works for the California Family Council, was arguing against a proposed bill to allow for nonbinary government identification. The bill, he said, “advances a falsehood; that being male or female, or no gender at all, is a choice each person must make, not a fact to celebrate and accept.” That bill went on to become the Gender Recognition Act, which was passed and signed into law later that year, making California one of the easiest states in which to change gender on a birth certificate or a driver’s license.
For California and the other states and cities that have opted to allow nonbinary designations, adding an “X” to these documents is only the beginning. Legally recognizing gender as a spectrum sets up a cascade of tough policy questions. Schools, sports, prisons, courts, health care and human services benefits are all gendered systems. Some states, including California and Oregon, are beginning to address those needs; however, they still face challenges.
“Folks are going to start to see people with these IDs, whether it’s someone traveling through [a jurisdiction] or someone who has moved there from another state,” says Shawn Meerkamper, staff attorney with the Transgender Law Center. “There are just so many systems that are currently designed to only have two options for gender markers. More data systems need to catch up.”
- Click here for the article.
The growing national conversation on gender identity is a divisive and controversial policy issue. Much of the debate up to this point, including over proposed “bathroom bills” in North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and elsewhere, has centered on individuals who fall within society’s existing gender structure -- transgender men and transgender women. Redefining that structure altogether to include nonbinary identities may be a more ambitious battle.
When it comes to issuing IDs, states should prioritize biological accuracy over personal gender preference, say opponents of the efforts to expand gender definition. “Eye color, hair color, height, weight and sex: These are all listed on a driver’s license because these physical characteristics can be independently verified by physical evidence, even if a person is unconscious,” Greg Burt testified to the California Senate in 2017. Burt, who works for the California Family Council, was arguing against a proposed bill to allow for nonbinary government identification. The bill, he said, “advances a falsehood; that being male or female, or no gender at all, is a choice each person must make, not a fact to celebrate and accept.” That bill went on to become the Gender Recognition Act, which was passed and signed into law later that year, making California one of the easiest states in which to change gender on a birth certificate or a driver’s license.
For California and the other states and cities that have opted to allow nonbinary designations, adding an “X” to these documents is only the beginning. Legally recognizing gender as a spectrum sets up a cascade of tough policy questions. Schools, sports, prisons, courts, health care and human services benefits are all gendered systems. Some states, including California and Oregon, are beginning to address those needs; however, they still face challenges.
“Folks are going to start to see people with these IDs, whether it’s someone traveling through [a jurisdiction] or someone who has moved there from another state,” says Shawn Meerkamper, staff attorney with the Transgender Law Center. “There are just so many systems that are currently designed to only have two options for gender markers. More data systems need to catch up.”
Tuesday, June 4, 2019
The Texas Tribune: Is Texas really going purple? Our Heat Index shows how competitive your district was — and is.
A significant article.
- Click here for the article.
The 2020 elections will be an acid test for Texas politics. Did the results in 2018 mark a new trend toward more competitive general elections or a one-time swerve away from the steady quarter-century pattern of Republican dominance?
To answer that question, we looked beyond who currently represents each congressional or legislative district and created our own Heat Index — a measure of whether each district generally favors Democrats or Republicans in statewide elections. Statewide elections are those from president down to the top courts in Texas — races decided by all Texas voters, and not just some of them.
- Click here for the article.
The 2020 elections will be an acid test for Texas politics. Did the results in 2018 mark a new trend toward more competitive general elections or a one-time swerve away from the steady quarter-century pattern of Republican dominance?
To answer that question, we looked beyond who currently represents each congressional or legislative district and created our own Heat Index — a measure of whether each district generally favors Democrats or Republicans in statewide elections. Statewide elections are those from president down to the top courts in Texas — races decided by all Texas voters, and not just some of them.
Monday, June 3, 2019
From 538: The Movement To Skip The Electoral College Is Picking Up Steam
For 2305:
- Click here for the article.
The effort to bypass the Electoral College and choose the president via the national popular vote has historically seemed like a long shot. But after an impressive string of legislative victories this year, maybe it should be taken more seriously.
The National Popular Vote initiative aims to create an interstate compact to effectively “abolish” the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. States that join the compact agree to award their electoral votes not to the candidate who wins that state, but to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. (States can do this because there is no national law dictating how they should award their electoral votes; indeed, the Constitution explicitly leaves it to state legislatures to decide.) However, the compact will go into effect only when the states that have signed on are worth 270 electoral votes — enough to ensure that the popular vote winner wins the election.
In the 13 years since the initiative started, support for joining the compact has largely been limited to Democratic-leaning states, probably because the two times in recent history when the Electoral College winner lost the popular vote, the split benefited the Republican candidate. By the end of 2018, the compact had been joined by 12 jurisdictions (11 states and the District of Columbia) that were worth a combined 172 electoral votes. But all of them were safe Democratic jurisdictions, and supporters of the initiative had almost run out of blue states to sign up. There was little indication that they could conscript the purple or red states that the compact needs to take effect.
But then 2019 happened. The compact found three additional states willing to sign on, with three more seemingly on the cusp of doing so. And unlike previous years, the new and pending members include some hard-fought presidential swing states.
- Click here for the article.
The effort to bypass the Electoral College and choose the president via the national popular vote has historically seemed like a long shot. But after an impressive string of legislative victories this year, maybe it should be taken more seriously.
The National Popular Vote initiative aims to create an interstate compact to effectively “abolish” the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. States that join the compact agree to award their electoral votes not to the candidate who wins that state, but to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. (States can do this because there is no national law dictating how they should award their electoral votes; indeed, the Constitution explicitly leaves it to state legislatures to decide.) However, the compact will go into effect only when the states that have signed on are worth 270 electoral votes — enough to ensure that the popular vote winner wins the election.
In the 13 years since the initiative started, support for joining the compact has largely been limited to Democratic-leaning states, probably because the two times in recent history when the Electoral College winner lost the popular vote, the split benefited the Republican candidate. By the end of 2018, the compact had been joined by 12 jurisdictions (11 states and the District of Columbia) that were worth a combined 172 electoral votes. But all of them were safe Democratic jurisdictions, and supporters of the initiative had almost run out of blue states to sign up. There was little indication that they could conscript the purple or red states that the compact needs to take effect.
But then 2019 happened. The compact found three additional states willing to sign on, with three more seemingly on the cusp of doing so. And unlike previous years, the new and pending members include some hard-fought presidential swing states.
From the Texas Tribune: The latest Texas legislative session proves elections have consequences
Might be helpful for 2306 students thinking about their paper.
- Click here for the article.
The biggest change in the Legislature this session was the shift in who the lawmakers fear most.
Just a few years ago, the Tea Party wave put the most conservative factions of the Republican Party in the pilot’s seat. For several legislative sessions, word that those restive activists were watching a vote could — and sometimes did — influence what the Legislature was doing and how it was talking about issues.
But another faction, focused on public schools, has come into power, turning the heads of Republican leaders. A 2018 election put more Democrats in office, changing the temperature in the Capitol. And a fat state bank account made it possible to do the kinds of expensive things that lawmakers rarely get to do.
Many issues dear to the far right got only fleeting attention from the 86th Legislature. Lawmakers passed a bill protecting babies born alive after abortion attempts — a rare circumstance — that was a political goal of anti-abortion groups. But the state didn’t join in efforts — like those in Missouri, Alabama and Georgia — to pass “heartbeat” abortion laws limiting legal abortions to the first few weeks of a woman’s pregnancy. They did succeed with legislation barring cities from doing business with groups that provide abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.
Another skirmish in the culture war was waged via the so-called Chick-fil-A bill, with lawmakers ultimately passing a watered-down measure preventing public entities from acting against businesses and people on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. And an effort to throw out municipal non-discrimination ordinances undermined an otherwise surefire bid to ban sick-leave laws passed by local governments.
Proposals to allow gun owners to carry guns without permits — an idea popularly known as constitutional carry — fell apart after an enthusiastic advocate decided to help the cause by visiting the private homes of legislators while those legislators were in Austin. The lawmakers saw that as threatening behavior and shut down both the visits and the legislation those visits were intended to promote.
- Click here for the article.
The biggest change in the Legislature this session was the shift in who the lawmakers fear most.
Just a few years ago, the Tea Party wave put the most conservative factions of the Republican Party in the pilot’s seat. For several legislative sessions, word that those restive activists were watching a vote could — and sometimes did — influence what the Legislature was doing and how it was talking about issues.
But another faction, focused on public schools, has come into power, turning the heads of Republican leaders. A 2018 election put more Democrats in office, changing the temperature in the Capitol. And a fat state bank account made it possible to do the kinds of expensive things that lawmakers rarely get to do.
Many issues dear to the far right got only fleeting attention from the 86th Legislature. Lawmakers passed a bill protecting babies born alive after abortion attempts — a rare circumstance — that was a political goal of anti-abortion groups. But the state didn’t join in efforts — like those in Missouri, Alabama and Georgia — to pass “heartbeat” abortion laws limiting legal abortions to the first few weeks of a woman’s pregnancy. They did succeed with legislation barring cities from doing business with groups that provide abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.
Another skirmish in the culture war was waged via the so-called Chick-fil-A bill, with lawmakers ultimately passing a watered-down measure preventing public entities from acting against businesses and people on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. And an effort to throw out municipal non-discrimination ordinances undermined an otherwise surefire bid to ban sick-leave laws passed by local governments.
Proposals to allow gun owners to carry guns without permits — an idea popularly known as constitutional carry — fell apart after an enthusiastic advocate decided to help the cause by visiting the private homes of legislators while those legislators were in Austin. The lawmakers saw that as threatening behavior and shut down both the visits and the legislation those visits were intended to promote.
Thursday, May 16, 2019
ANATOMY OF A ROAD 1960s ROAD AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION FILM 78004
I'm really getting into these. The growth of roads across the US fascinates me. Expect more.
It's also a great example of federalism in action - especially fiscal federalism.
It's also a great example of federalism in action - especially fiscal federalism.
From the Dallas News: How police felt stonewalled by Dallas Diocese at every turn in sex abuse investigation
An example of due process, specifically a search and seizure. The back and forth between Dallas police and the Diocese interests me.
- Click here for the article.
An affidavit Dallas police used to obtain a search warrant Wednesday to raid Dallas Catholic Diocese offices laid out allegations against five priests and suggested the church subverted police efforts to obtain more information.
The affidavit, signed by Detective David Clark, who is working full-time on sex abuse allegations within the Diocese, sought to seize Diocese records because the church hadn’t handed over all the records it had about allegations against the priests.
All five priests are on the Diocese’s list of 31 “credibly accused” priests, which the church released in January. That list included only accusations against priests that the Diocese concluded were credible after a review by former law enforcement officials and the Diocean Review Board.
- Click here for the article.
An affidavit Dallas police used to obtain a search warrant Wednesday to raid Dallas Catholic Diocese offices laid out allegations against five priests and suggested the church subverted police efforts to obtain more information.
The affidavit, signed by Detective David Clark, who is working full-time on sex abuse allegations within the Diocese, sought to seize Diocese records because the church hadn’t handed over all the records it had about allegations against the priests.
All five priests are on the Diocese’s list of 31 “credibly accused” priests, which the church released in January. That list included only accusations against priests that the Diocese concluded were credible after a review by former law enforcement officials and the Diocean Review Board.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
From the Texas Municipal League: How Cities Work
A great, informative pamphlet put together by the interest group that represents cities at the state and national level.
- Click for it.
Click here for:
- The Texas Municipal League.
- Legislative Updates.
- National League of Cities.
- State Municipal Leagues.
- Click for it.
Click here for:
- The Texas Municipal League.
- Legislative Updates.
- National League of Cities.
- State Municipal Leagues.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: The Texas Legislature’s unexciting, no drama, very humdrum session
As seems to be intended.
- Click here for the article.
Are you not bored?
And do you not remember that this is what the governor and legislative leaders promised the people of the great state of Texas in January?
They said they were going to get along, that they were all on the same page, that this would be a meat-and-potatoes or bread-and-butter session. (Choose your preferred food group, if it’s in there.) In conversation, elected officials — the Republicans in particular — said they wanted to govern without looking like they had been driving around in a Washington, D.C., clown car. This was going to be a serious, no-nonsense legislative session.
They weren’t kidding.
And for the most part, that’s what they’ve delivered. No "bathroom bill" to bring out the armies of culture warriors. Education bills without fights, or really any conversation at all, about vouchers or other ways to use public money on private schools. Efforts to fan the immigration flames have been relatively scarce, unlike the days of "sanctuary cities" legislation (once deemed an emergency issue by Gov. Greg Abbott). Compared with other states in recent months, this Legislature’s abortion law disputes have been muted. Other than false claims that an election bill would prevent old people from carpooling to the polls, the perennial skirmishes over voting rights have been side issues.
Sure, there are battles. That voter legislation, Senate Bill 9, has plenty of material for snarling, snarky debate. And the state’s misbegotten effort to purge noncitizens from voter rolls ended with a court settlement and, probably, the busted gubernatorial appointment of Texas Secretary of State David Whitley, who oversaw that fiasco. But those wrangles haven’t reached the pitch of years past and certainly haven’t been loud enough to invoke comparisons with Congress.
- Click here for the article.
Are you not bored?
And do you not remember that this is what the governor and legislative leaders promised the people of the great state of Texas in January?
They said they were going to get along, that they were all on the same page, that this would be a meat-and-potatoes or bread-and-butter session. (Choose your preferred food group, if it’s in there.) In conversation, elected officials — the Republicans in particular — said they wanted to govern without looking like they had been driving around in a Washington, D.C., clown car. This was going to be a serious, no-nonsense legislative session.
They weren’t kidding.
And for the most part, that’s what they’ve delivered. No "bathroom bill" to bring out the armies of culture warriors. Education bills without fights, or really any conversation at all, about vouchers or other ways to use public money on private schools. Efforts to fan the immigration flames have been relatively scarce, unlike the days of "sanctuary cities" legislation (once deemed an emergency issue by Gov. Greg Abbott). Compared with other states in recent months, this Legislature’s abortion law disputes have been muted. Other than false claims that an election bill would prevent old people from carpooling to the polls, the perennial skirmishes over voting rights have been side issues.
Sure, there are battles. That voter legislation, Senate Bill 9, has plenty of material for snarling, snarky debate. And the state’s misbegotten effort to purge noncitizens from voter rolls ended with a court settlement and, probably, the busted gubernatorial appointment of Texas Secretary of State David Whitley, who oversaw that fiasco. But those wrangles haven’t reached the pitch of years past and certainly haven’t been loud enough to invoke comparisons with Congress.
100 Years on the Lincoln Highway
This might be a bit cheesy, but I'm fascinated by the gradual process by which roads were built in across the US. From what I can tell, this was the first attempt to create a highway coast to coast. The effort pulled together a variety of governing and political forces. Take note of Eisenhower's involvement in the effort, as well as local governments.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: "People were giving us lip service": Texas cities' legislative efforts have struggled this year
For 2306's look at the relationship between cities and states.
- Click here for the article.
The interest group representing Texas cities used to be one of the most powerful legislative forces at the Capitol. This session, it has become the GOP’s most prominent adversary.
Its members have been harangued at hearings. Targeted by a proposed ban on “taxpayer-funded lobbying.” And seen multiple proposals sail ahead over their protests.
When, around March, one mayor inquired about the reasoning for a controversial provision in a property tax bill, he said an adviser to Gov. Greg Abbott suggested, “You reap what you sow.”
The message was clear, said McKinney Mayor George Fuller: Local officials had been obstructionists in the past.
Although the antagonistic relationship between Texas cities and the state has been building for years, this session has reached the fever pitch of all-out legislative assault, Austin Mayor Steve Adler said in April. Typically, the Texas Municipal League tracks bills it opposes that are gaining momentum in the Legislature. This session, the group had amassed more than 150.
Among them was a bill regarding cable franchise fees authored by state Rep. Dade Phelan, a Beaumont Republican and chair of the powerful State Affairs Committee. After the Texas Municipal League warned its members the proposal could cut into cities’ revenues, Phelan had a concise response for the group, which represents 1,156 of Texas’ roughly 1,200 cities.
“When you are in a hole — you should stop digging,” Phelan recommended in an email obtained by The Texas Tribune.
In an interview, Phelan said he harbored no animus toward the organization but took umbrage with its opposition to legislation his constituents want. The sentiment is widely shared in the Legislature, Phelan said, as evidenced by the support bills on taxpayer-funded lobbying and franchise fees have garnered.
Mentioned in the article:
Lobbying
Governor
Mayor
Republicans in the Legislature
State Affairs Committee
Texas Municipal League
model legislation
conservative think tanks
progressives
Lt. Governor
property taxes
local budgets
House Speaker
- Click here for the article.
The interest group representing Texas cities used to be one of the most powerful legislative forces at the Capitol. This session, it has become the GOP’s most prominent adversary.
Its members have been harangued at hearings. Targeted by a proposed ban on “taxpayer-funded lobbying.” And seen multiple proposals sail ahead over their protests.
When, around March, one mayor inquired about the reasoning for a controversial provision in a property tax bill, he said an adviser to Gov. Greg Abbott suggested, “You reap what you sow.”
The message was clear, said McKinney Mayor George Fuller: Local officials had been obstructionists in the past.
Although the antagonistic relationship between Texas cities and the state has been building for years, this session has reached the fever pitch of all-out legislative assault, Austin Mayor Steve Adler said in April. Typically, the Texas Municipal League tracks bills it opposes that are gaining momentum in the Legislature. This session, the group had amassed more than 150.
Among them was a bill regarding cable franchise fees authored by state Rep. Dade Phelan, a Beaumont Republican and chair of the powerful State Affairs Committee. After the Texas Municipal League warned its members the proposal could cut into cities’ revenues, Phelan had a concise response for the group, which represents 1,156 of Texas’ roughly 1,200 cities.
“When you are in a hole — you should stop digging,” Phelan recommended in an email obtained by The Texas Tribune.
In an interview, Phelan said he harbored no animus toward the organization but took umbrage with its opposition to legislation his constituents want. The sentiment is widely shared in the Legislature, Phelan said, as evidenced by the support bills on taxpayer-funded lobbying and franchise fees have garnered.
Mentioned in the article:
Lobbying
Governor
Mayor
Republicans in the Legislature
State Affairs Committee
Texas Municipal League
model legislation
conservative think tanks
progressives
Lt. Governor
property taxes
local budgets
House Speaker
Monday, May 13, 2019
From the Houston Chronicle: Three articles on the state pof political parties in the state
- GOP fights to keep Texas red amid rifts.
Analysts say the Texas Republican Party is at a critical juncture heading into the 2020 presidential election, with the possibility that an increasingly diverse population will make Texas a swing state. So far the risk is remote, but the number of people of color in Texas is rising. According to the Texas Demographic Center, people of color accounted for 58 percent of the state's population, up from 47 percent in 2000.
November's dismal election results for Republicans were a wake-up call, party officials say. Cruz barely pulled off a victory over O'Rourke, and the party lost two state Senate seats and 12 state House seats to the Democrats.
"I'm warning people: If we don't do the hard work that we must, we will not, nor would we, deserve to retain control of Texas," said James Dickey, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. "We have to continue to earn the votes of rural Texas and increase the numbers in the major metro areas that are growing the fastest."
As Texas Republicans attempt to widen their reach, they're grappling with the party's standard-bearer, Trump, whose anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric has emboldened some of the more extreme members of the party.
Analysts say the Texas Republican Party is at a critical juncture heading into the 2020 presidential election, with the possibility that an increasingly diverse population will make Texas a swing state. So far the risk is remote, but the number of people of color in Texas is rising. According to the Texas Demographic Center, people of color accounted for 58 percent of the state's population, up from 47 percent in 2000.
November's dismal election results for Republicans were a wake-up call, party officials say. Cruz barely pulled off a victory over O'Rourke, and the party lost two state Senate seats and 12 state House seats to the Democrats.
"I'm warning people: If we don't do the hard work that we must, we will not, nor would we, deserve to retain control of Texas," said James Dickey, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. "We have to continue to earn the votes of rural Texas and increase the numbers in the major metro areas that are growing the fastest."
As Texas Republicans attempt to widen their reach, they're grappling with the party's standard-bearer, Trump, whose anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric has emboldened some of the more extreme members of the party.
- Democrats flex in Texas Legislature, with an eye on 2020.
After picking up 14 seats in the midterm elections, Democrats are using their increased numbers this session to derail key Republican priorities in a state where the left has long been out of power.
In flexing their political muscle, Democrats have blocked Gov. Greg Abbott’s embattled secretary of state nominee and helped stop a sales tax hike that GOP leaders had championed in order to cut property taxes.
"This session more than other sessions, the Democratic caucus has stuck together more. We’ve communicated a lot better,” said Senate Democratic Leader José RodrÃguez of El Paso. "I think the midterm elections may have had something to do with the caucus being much more united."
- Texas House passes bill to allow more third-party candidates.
With the memory of a heated 2018 election cycle still fresh, Texas House Republicans and Democrats were divided this week over how to treat third-party candidates who have the potential to siphon votes from the major parties.
After picking up 14 seats in the midterm elections, Democrats are using their increased numbers this session to derail key Republican priorities in a state where the left has long been out of power.
In flexing their political muscle, Democrats have blocked Gov. Greg Abbott’s embattled secretary of state nominee and helped stop a sales tax hike that GOP leaders had championed in order to cut property taxes.
"This session more than other sessions, the Democratic caucus has stuck together more. We’ve communicated a lot better,” said Senate Democratic Leader José RodrÃguez of El Paso. "I think the midterm elections may have had something to do with the caucus being much more united."
- Texas House passes bill to allow more third-party candidates.
With the memory of a heated 2018 election cycle still fresh, Texas House Republicans and Democrats were divided this week over how to treat third-party candidates who have the potential to siphon votes from the major parties.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Cities, School Districts and Special Districts in Brazoria County
I copied these from the Brazoria County Elections Page. They all has elections last week on May 4. The links take you to the ballots presented to the voters.
School Districts
- Alvin ISD
- Angleton ISD
- Brazosport ISD
- Columbia-Brazoria ISD
- Danbury ISD
- Pearland ISD
- Sweeny ISD
Municipalities
- Alvin (City)
- Angleton (City)
- Brazoria
- Brookside Village
- Clute
- Freeport
- Iowa Colony
- Jones Creek
- Oyster Creek
- Pearland (City)
- Richwood
- Surfside Beach
- Sweeny (City)
Other Districts
- Sweeny Hospital
- Brazoria County Emergency Services District No. 6
School Districts
- Alvin ISD
- Angleton ISD
- Brazosport ISD
- Columbia-Brazoria ISD
- Danbury ISD
- Pearland ISD
- Sweeny ISD
Municipalities
- Alvin (City)
- Angleton (City)
- Brazoria
- Brookside Village
- Clute
- Freeport
- Iowa Colony
- Jones Creek
- Oyster Creek
- Pearland (City)
- Richwood
- Surfside Beach
- Sweeny (City)
Other Districts
- Sweeny Hospital
- Brazoria County Emergency Services District No. 6
From The Texas Tribune: Renewable energy proponents brace for last-minute attack on tax breaks for wind and solar
Tax breaks for wind and solar energy are discussed in the policy chapters of 2306.
- Click here for the article.
In the waning days of the 86th legislative session, as House and Senate lawmakers spend hours debating and voting on bills, wind and solar groups are watching for any last-minute attempt to make renewable projects ineligible for a local tax abatement program that benefits all types of industrial and commercial developments.
They have good reason to be on high alert.
Ahead of the legislative session, the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation — the Austin-based policy institute that is an ideological beacon for many Republicans — launched a crusade against renewable energy subsidies at all levels of government. Locally, the foundation has zeroed in on property tax abatements granted under chapters 312 and 313 of the state tax code that cities, counties, school districts and other taxing entities have wielded for almost two decades to lure oil refineries and — more recently — wind farms alike.
The crux of the foundation’s argument against renewable energy subsidies is that they distort the electric market, leading to artificially low prices.
The billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies that have been awarded to renewable projects at the local, state and federal level — $16 billion, according to the foundation — “has allowed renewable energy generators ... to sell their electricity at whatever price they need to get it onto the market, which drives prices low, into negative territory,” Bill Peacock, the foundation’s vice president for research, said in an interview earlier this year.
Still, lawmakers are moving to renew both programs; Chapter 312 would otherwise expire this year, followed by 313 in 2022.
No legislation has been filed that would strip renewables from the abatement programs. But lawmakers always have the option of proposing last-minute amendments to bills just before the House or Senate vote on them.
And that’s what Jeffrey Clark, president of the pro-renewables Advanced Power Alliance, is expecting.
Mentioned in the article:
- 86th legislative session.
- property tax.
- tax abatements
- Texas Public Policy Foundation.
- state tax code.
- subsidies.
- Advanced Power Alliance.
- last-minute amendments to bills.
- University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute.
- corporate welfare.
- school districts.
- Todd Staples.
- Texas Oil and Gas Association.
- Click here for the article.
In the waning days of the 86th legislative session, as House and Senate lawmakers spend hours debating and voting on bills, wind and solar groups are watching for any last-minute attempt to make renewable projects ineligible for a local tax abatement program that benefits all types of industrial and commercial developments.
They have good reason to be on high alert.
Ahead of the legislative session, the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation — the Austin-based policy institute that is an ideological beacon for many Republicans — launched a crusade against renewable energy subsidies at all levels of government. Locally, the foundation has zeroed in on property tax abatements granted under chapters 312 and 313 of the state tax code that cities, counties, school districts and other taxing entities have wielded for almost two decades to lure oil refineries and — more recently — wind farms alike.
The crux of the foundation’s argument against renewable energy subsidies is that they distort the electric market, leading to artificially low prices.
The billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies that have been awarded to renewable projects at the local, state and federal level — $16 billion, according to the foundation — “has allowed renewable energy generators ... to sell their electricity at whatever price they need to get it onto the market, which drives prices low, into negative territory,” Bill Peacock, the foundation’s vice president for research, said in an interview earlier this year.
Still, lawmakers are moving to renew both programs; Chapter 312 would otherwise expire this year, followed by 313 in 2022.
No legislation has been filed that would strip renewables from the abatement programs. But lawmakers always have the option of proposing last-minute amendments to bills just before the House or Senate vote on them.
And that’s what Jeffrey Clark, president of the pro-renewables Advanced Power Alliance, is expecting.
Mentioned in the article:
- 86th legislative session.
- property tax.
- tax abatements
- Texas Public Policy Foundation.
- state tax code.
- subsidies.
- Advanced Power Alliance.
- last-minute amendments to bills.
- University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute.
- corporate welfare.
- school districts.
- Todd Staples.
- Texas Oil and Gas Association.
From the Texas Tribune: Where is Texas’ growing population coming from?
For 2306: a look at the changing demographics in the state.
- Click here for the article.
The state gained 187,545 people from migration between July 2017 and July 2018 — even after accounting for people leaving the state, according to U.S. Census data.
In 2018, the majority of migrants to Texas — 104,976 people — came from other countries, with the rest arriving from other U.S. states.
That marked the second straight year that international migration into the state exceeded domestic migration, said Luke Rogers, chief of the population estimate branch for the U.S. Census Bureau.
Before 2017, domestic migration dominated the story of Texas growth: From 2005 to 2013, 4.8 million of the 5.9 million of people who moved to Texas came from other states, and since 2010 people from other states accounted for 29% of the state's population growth, compared to the 23% that came from international migration. That flipped in 2017, and between 2017 and 2018, international migration increased by 28%, while domestic migration grew by a more modest 22%.
“I think it varies from year to year,” Rogers said. “There are a lot of years going back to 2000 where net domestic migration is larger than the international migration, but there are also years the other way around where international migration is larger than than domestic migration.”
The recent uptick ended a decade-long decline in international migration — particularly from Latin America — that began with the 2008 recession, Potter said.
Meanwhile, Texas has seen an increase in migration from Asian countries, particularly China and India. Potter said around 45% of international migrants came from Asia in 2016.
“Over the 2000s, we saw a pretty significant opening of China and kind of increasing number of Indian students coming over to study,” Potter said. “And I think what happens frequently is once they finish studying, they are able to get sponsored by a company for a work visa … Once they get a green card, then they can start sponsoring their family to come over as well.”
Mentioned in the article:
- Texas Demographic Center.
- Click here for the article.
The state gained 187,545 people from migration between July 2017 and July 2018 — even after accounting for people leaving the state, according to U.S. Census data.
In 2018, the majority of migrants to Texas — 104,976 people — came from other countries, with the rest arriving from other U.S. states.
That marked the second straight year that international migration into the state exceeded domestic migration, said Luke Rogers, chief of the population estimate branch for the U.S. Census Bureau.
Before 2017, domestic migration dominated the story of Texas growth: From 2005 to 2013, 4.8 million of the 5.9 million of people who moved to Texas came from other states, and since 2010 people from other states accounted for 29% of the state's population growth, compared to the 23% that came from international migration. That flipped in 2017, and between 2017 and 2018, international migration increased by 28%, while domestic migration grew by a more modest 22%.
“I think it varies from year to year,” Rogers said. “There are a lot of years going back to 2000 where net domestic migration is larger than the international migration, but there are also years the other way around where international migration is larger than than domestic migration.”
The recent uptick ended a decade-long decline in international migration — particularly from Latin America — that began with the 2008 recession, Potter said.
Meanwhile, Texas has seen an increase in migration from Asian countries, particularly China and India. Potter said around 45% of international migrants came from Asia in 2016.
“Over the 2000s, we saw a pretty significant opening of China and kind of increasing number of Indian students coming over to study,” Potter said. “And I think what happens frequently is once they finish studying, they are able to get sponsored by a company for a work visa … Once they get a green card, then they can start sponsoring their family to come over as well.”
Mentioned in the article:
- Texas Demographic Center.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
From the NCSL: State Partisan Composition
- Click here for the article.
As of April 1st, 2019, the following information is correct:
Legislators: There are 7,383 total legislative seats throughout the states.
Chamber control: While there are 99 total chambers in states because Nebraska is unicameral, we do not include Nebraska’s legislature in this chart because members are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Therefore, this represents partisan control in 98 chambers.
Legislative Control: When the same party holds both chambers, that party has legislative control. When the chambers are held by different parties, it is divided. Nebraska is not included.
State Control: When the same party holds both legislative chambers and the governorship, that party has state control. When any of those three points of power is held by another party, state control is divided. This is based on the number of members of each party, and does not take into account coalitions that might change effective control. Nebraska is not included.
As of April 1st, 2019, the following information is correct:
Legislators: There are 7,383 total legislative seats throughout the states.
Chamber control: While there are 99 total chambers in states because Nebraska is unicameral, we do not include Nebraska’s legislature in this chart because members are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Therefore, this represents partisan control in 98 chambers.
Legislative Control: When the same party holds both chambers, that party has legislative control. When the chambers are held by different parties, it is divided. Nebraska is not included.
State Control: When the same party holds both legislative chambers and the governorship, that party has state control. When any of those three points of power is held by another party, state control is divided. This is based on the number of members of each party, and does not take into account coalitions that might change effective control. Nebraska is not included.
From Ballotpedia: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
- Click here for the article.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact to award member state's presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt the legislation.[1][2]
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to determine how their electoral votes will be awarded: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." This compact does not abolish the electoral college system; rather, the compacts awards all of the electoral votes from the member states to the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide.[1]
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact to award member state's presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt the legislation.[1][2]
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to determine how their electoral votes will be awarded: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." This compact does not abolish the electoral college system; rather, the compacts awards all of the electoral votes from the member states to the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide.[1]
From Open Secrets: Obama-tied operatives and Biden supporters launch $60 million ‘dark money’ group
- Click here for the article.
A new “dark money” group is labeling itself the strategy center for Democrats in 2020.
The recently-launched Future Majority will spend up to $60 million to target voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio in the 2020 election, helping Democrats craft messaging that they are fighting for working people while countering conservative talking points, according to Politico.
The 501(c)(4) nonprofit, run by Democratic strategist Mark Riddle, is not required to disclose its donors. The group will reportedly “spend money through PACs,” potentially feeding a growing trend of dark money-funded super PACs spending to influence elections.
Earlier this year, Democratic fundraiser Matthew Tompkins formed a super PAC called America’s Future Majority Fund PAC. He is also listed as the custodian of records for an identically-named nonprofit run by Riddle and is listed as governor on incorporation records for Future Majority. The two long worked together at New Leaders Council (NLC), a nonprofit that helps recruit young progressive leaders.
The revolving door between the new nonprofit and NLC doesn’t end there. Incorporation records show Future Majority’s incorporator is Cathedral Strategies LLC, a limited-liability company with a paper trail linked to Brett Avery Seifried, who was general counsel of NLC.
With Tompkins, links between Future Majority and presidential contender Joe Biden begin to emerge. The Hill reported that Tompkins recently launched a pro-Biden super PAC, titled For the People PAC, with the aim of raising tens of millions of dollars to support Biden’s campaign.
The group hasn’t emerged in FEC filings yet, but the Washington Free Beacon reported that Tompkins established a committee called Biden PAC on April 26. The same day it was established, the PAC renamed itself to G Street and removed Tompkins as its treasurer.
Several of the operatives tied to Future Majority have long histories in former President Barack Obama’s political circles.
A new “dark money” group is labeling itself the strategy center for Democrats in 2020.
The recently-launched Future Majority will spend up to $60 million to target voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio in the 2020 election, helping Democrats craft messaging that they are fighting for working people while countering conservative talking points, according to Politico.
The 501(c)(4) nonprofit, run by Democratic strategist Mark Riddle, is not required to disclose its donors. The group will reportedly “spend money through PACs,” potentially feeding a growing trend of dark money-funded super PACs spending to influence elections.
Earlier this year, Democratic fundraiser Matthew Tompkins formed a super PAC called America’s Future Majority Fund PAC. He is also listed as the custodian of records for an identically-named nonprofit run by Riddle and is listed as governor on incorporation records for Future Majority. The two long worked together at New Leaders Council (NLC), a nonprofit that helps recruit young progressive leaders.
The revolving door between the new nonprofit and NLC doesn’t end there. Incorporation records show Future Majority’s incorporator is Cathedral Strategies LLC, a limited-liability company with a paper trail linked to Brett Avery Seifried, who was general counsel of NLC.
With Tompkins, links between Future Majority and presidential contender Joe Biden begin to emerge. The Hill reported that Tompkins recently launched a pro-Biden super PAC, titled For the People PAC, with the aim of raising tens of millions of dollars to support Biden’s campaign.
The group hasn’t emerged in FEC filings yet, but the Washington Free Beacon reported that Tompkins established a committee called Biden PAC on April 26. The same day it was established, the PAC renamed itself to G Street and removed Tompkins as its treasurer.
Several of the operatives tied to Future Majority have long histories in former President Barack Obama’s political circles.
From Governing: How Many Local Governments Is Too Many?
- Click here for the article.
It’s not uncommon for one metropolitan area to be home to dozens of local governments. In lots of those places, mayors and other local officials often lament the difficulties of having to coordinate with so many cities, towns and counties.
There’s no agreed-upon definition for this local government "fragmentation," but most researchers measure it by the number of governments per capita. We used that measurement, along with the number of governments per square mile, to see which metro areas and counties are the most fragmented.
Our calculations are based on the latest Census of Governments survey, which is conducted every five years and counted 38,779 cities, counties, towns and other general-purpose local governments (excluding special districts).
According to the study, the Houston metropolitan area has 133 local governments.
It’s not uncommon for one metropolitan area to be home to dozens of local governments. In lots of those places, mayors and other local officials often lament the difficulties of having to coordinate with so many cities, towns and counties.
There’s no agreed-upon definition for this local government "fragmentation," but most researchers measure it by the number of governments per capita. We used that measurement, along with the number of governments per square mile, to see which metro areas and counties are the most fragmented.
Our calculations are based on the latest Census of Governments survey, which is conducted every five years and counted 38,779 cities, counties, towns and other general-purpose local governments (excluding special districts).
According to the study, the Houston metropolitan area has 133 local governments.
From the Washington Post: Who are all the political appointees in Donald Trump’s administration?
- Click here for the article.
Who are all the political appointees in President Trump’s administration?
No one knows because a Government Accountability Office report says that “there is no single source of data on political appointees serving in the executive branch that is publicly available, comprehensive, and timely” for Trump’s and at least the previous two administrations.
Why do we need to know?
“The public has an interest in knowing the political appointees serving and this information would facilitate congressional oversight and hold leaders accountable,” GAO said. “As of March 2019, no agency in the federal government is required to publicly report comprehensive and timely data on political appointees serving in the executive branch.”
GAO issued the report after members of Congress asked the agency how well political appointees are identified and agencies implement their ethics programs. Those questions point to problems on both those fronts in Trump’s administration. He has run through top level appointees at a dizzying pace and came into office doused by an ethical rain that has only grown heavier at the White House and in the agencies.
“Providing a simple list of who the President has appointed to senior positions in the government would make it easier to hold those officials accountable for policy decisions and compliance with ethics and transparency laws,” said House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who requested the report along with Democratic Sens. Gary C. Peters (Mich.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.).
A list would foster accountability by providing insight into “where the channels of political influence spreads,” said Don Kettl, a public affairs professor at the University of Texas and academic director of its Washington Center. “This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be political influence on key policy decisions — that’s why we have elections. But we surely need to know where those channels flow.”
GAO urged Congress to consider legislation requiring administrations to publish the names of political appointees in the executive branch. To show what Trump thinks of that suggestion, his Executive Office of the President (EOP) ignored a GAO request for comment on its draft report.
- GAO: FEDERAL ETHICS PROGRAMS Government-wide Political Appointee Data and Some Ethics Oversight Procedures at Interior and SBA Could Be Improved
Who are all the political appointees in President Trump’s administration?
No one knows because a Government Accountability Office report says that “there is no single source of data on political appointees serving in the executive branch that is publicly available, comprehensive, and timely” for Trump’s and at least the previous two administrations.
Why do we need to know?
“The public has an interest in knowing the political appointees serving and this information would facilitate congressional oversight and hold leaders accountable,” GAO said. “As of March 2019, no agency in the federal government is required to publicly report comprehensive and timely data on political appointees serving in the executive branch.”
GAO issued the report after members of Congress asked the agency how well political appointees are identified and agencies implement their ethics programs. Those questions point to problems on both those fronts in Trump’s administration. He has run through top level appointees at a dizzying pace and came into office doused by an ethical rain that has only grown heavier at the White House and in the agencies.
“Providing a simple list of who the President has appointed to senior positions in the government would make it easier to hold those officials accountable for policy decisions and compliance with ethics and transparency laws,” said House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who requested the report along with Democratic Sens. Gary C. Peters (Mich.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.).
A list would foster accountability by providing insight into “where the channels of political influence spreads,” said Don Kettl, a public affairs professor at the University of Texas and academic director of its Washington Center. “This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be political influence on key policy decisions — that’s why we have elections. But we surely need to know where those channels flow.”
GAO urged Congress to consider legislation requiring administrations to publish the names of political appointees in the executive branch. To show what Trump thinks of that suggestion, his Executive Office of the President (EOP) ignored a GAO request for comment on its draft report.
- GAO: FEDERAL ETHICS PROGRAMS Government-wide Political Appointee Data and Some Ethics Oversight Procedures at Interior and SBA Could Be Improved
Thursday, May 2, 2019
From Lawfare: Constitutional Hardball and Congress’s Oversight Authority
Key words: Separated Powers, Checks and Balances
- Click here for the article.
Over the past week, the president’s statements and the executive branch’s actions in response to congressional oversight requests suggest that the executive branch may have decided to adopt a strategy of maximal resistance to oversight across the board. If so, this would be a dramatic break from the executive branch’s approach to responding to congressional requests for at least the past half-century. Implementing a strategy designed to stonewall meaningful oversight across the board would also be a form of constitutional hardball that significantly increases the stakes in this contest of will between the branches.
At least since Watergate, if not for longer, the executive branch has recognized the important role congressional oversight plays in the constitutional system and has understood itself to have a constitutional obligation to accommodate legitimate oversight requests from Congress. This long-standing executive branch perspective is embodied in a 1982 memorandum to all agency heads regarding how to respond to congressional requests, often referred to as the Reagan memo. This memorandum, which remains in force, explicitly states that it is executive branch policy “to comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch.”
While the Reagan memo recognizes there may be times when it is necessary to withhold information to protect important executive branch confidentiality interests, it emphasizes the expectation that such impasses should be rare and limited to “compelling circumstances.” Instead, the Reagan memo underscores the importance of engaging in a good faith negotiation to accommodate the interests of both branches: “Historically, good faith negotiations between Congress and the Executive Branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege, and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the Branches.” This process of good faith negotiation has become known as the accommodation process.
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company.
-
- Click here for the article.
Over the past week, the president’s statements and the executive branch’s actions in response to congressional oversight requests suggest that the executive branch may have decided to adopt a strategy of maximal resistance to oversight across the board. If so, this would be a dramatic break from the executive branch’s approach to responding to congressional requests for at least the past half-century. Implementing a strategy designed to stonewall meaningful oversight across the board would also be a form of constitutional hardball that significantly increases the stakes in this contest of will between the branches.
At least since Watergate, if not for longer, the executive branch has recognized the important role congressional oversight plays in the constitutional system and has understood itself to have a constitutional obligation to accommodate legitimate oversight requests from Congress. This long-standing executive branch perspective is embodied in a 1982 memorandum to all agency heads regarding how to respond to congressional requests, often referred to as the Reagan memo. This memorandum, which remains in force, explicitly states that it is executive branch policy “to comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch.”
While the Reagan memo recognizes there may be times when it is necessary to withhold information to protect important executive branch confidentiality interests, it emphasizes the expectation that such impasses should be rare and limited to “compelling circumstances.” Instead, the Reagan memo underscores the importance of engaging in a good faith negotiation to accommodate the interests of both branches: “Historically, good faith negotiations between Congress and the Executive Branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege, and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the Branches.” This process of good faith negotiation has become known as the accommodation process.
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company.
-
From U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary: Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism
Key Words: House of Representatives, Oversight, Congressional Committees, Hearings. Nationalism
- Click here for the link.
- Click here for the link.
Monday, April 22, 2019
From Vox: The Supreme Court just took up a set of very big cases on LGBTQ rights
Key terms: equal protection, supreme court, ideology, social policy, writ of certiorari
- Click here for the article.
The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take a trio of cases that will, collectively, help decide the future of gay and transgender rights in America.
The Court agreed to hear three cases that have to do with whether existing federal bans on sex discrimination in the workplace also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In the consolidated Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a skydiving instructor and a child welfare services coordinator, respectively, said they were fired for being gay. And in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a funeral home employee said she was fired because she came out as transgender.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency, has said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The law doesn’t explicitly prohibit anti-gay or anti-trans discrimination, instead banning discrimination based on sex. But advocates argue that bans on sex discrimination should cover anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination as well, because discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is fundamentally rooted in expectations about a person’s sex.
Some lower courts have agreed with the stance. In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, for instance, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared, “It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.”
But some courts have also ruled against LGBTQ rights — like the 11th Circuit Court’s ruling that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.” President Donald Trump’s administration has also argued that Title VII doesn’t prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Supreme Court will now settle the question. It’s unclear how they’ll rule: The Court now has a likely conservative majority on these issues, since former Justice Anthony Kennedy — a strong ally of LGBTQ rights, despite his largely conservative record — retired in 2018. That could be bad news for LGBTQ rights.
- Click here for the article.
The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take a trio of cases that will, collectively, help decide the future of gay and transgender rights in America.
The Court agreed to hear three cases that have to do with whether existing federal bans on sex discrimination in the workplace also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In the consolidated Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a skydiving instructor and a child welfare services coordinator, respectively, said they were fired for being gay. And in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a funeral home employee said she was fired because she came out as transgender.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency, has said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The law doesn’t explicitly prohibit anti-gay or anti-trans discrimination, instead banning discrimination based on sex. But advocates argue that bans on sex discrimination should cover anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination as well, because discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is fundamentally rooted in expectations about a person’s sex.
Some lower courts have agreed with the stance. In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, for instance, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared, “It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.”
But some courts have also ruled against LGBTQ rights — like the 11th Circuit Court’s ruling that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.” President Donald Trump’s administration has also argued that Title VII doesn’t prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Supreme Court will now settle the question. It’s unclear how they’ll rule: The Court now has a likely conservative majority on these issues, since former Justice Anthony Kennedy — a strong ally of LGBTQ rights, despite his largely conservative record — retired in 2018. That could be bad news for LGBTQ rights.
From the Texas Tribune: Senate bill would let felons run for office in Texas only if they've been pardoned
- Click here for the article.
A bill before the Texas Senate would allow felons to seek public office only if they have received pardons.
Current election code says a candidate who has been convicted of a felony must either be pardoned “or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities” — but it doesn’t define resulting disabilities. Senate Bill 466 would remove that clause.
"When someone has committed and has been convicted of a felony ... they have broken their pact with society in a very egregious manner and should not have certain rights restored," the bill's author, state Sen. Pat Fallon, R-Prosper, said during a Senate committee hearing earlier this month.
The legislation is in response to a felon who ran for Austin City Council last year.
Lewis Conway Jr.’s eligibility was challenged because of the ambiguous term. He and his lawyers argued that since he had served his sentence, completed his parole and had his voting rights reinstated, he was “released from the resulting disabilities.” The city clerk allowed him to stay on the ballot, but he didn’t win the District 1 seat.
“When are we going to embrace compassion in regards to electoral politics and agree that a precedent has been set?” Conway said in response to the bill. “Why are we not looking at including people in the electoral process as opposed to excluding people?”
Conway said he thinks more people are engaging with the criminal justice system and realizing that punishment isn’t serving the community.
“There’s a hard line of folks who believe that once you have been in prison, that you are no longer human,” he said, “but then there’s a great number of folks who realize that the criminal justice system pervasively impacts people of color — disproportionately.”
A bill before the Texas Senate would allow felons to seek public office only if they have received pardons.
Current election code says a candidate who has been convicted of a felony must either be pardoned “or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities” — but it doesn’t define resulting disabilities. Senate Bill 466 would remove that clause.
"When someone has committed and has been convicted of a felony ... they have broken their pact with society in a very egregious manner and should not have certain rights restored," the bill's author, state Sen. Pat Fallon, R-Prosper, said during a Senate committee hearing earlier this month.
The legislation is in response to a felon who ran for Austin City Council last year.
Lewis Conway Jr.’s eligibility was challenged because of the ambiguous term. He and his lawyers argued that since he had served his sentence, completed his parole and had his voting rights reinstated, he was “released from the resulting disabilities.” The city clerk allowed him to stay on the ballot, but he didn’t win the District 1 seat.
“When are we going to embrace compassion in regards to electoral politics and agree that a precedent has been set?” Conway said in response to the bill. “Why are we not looking at including people in the electoral process as opposed to excluding people?”
Conway said he thinks more people are engaging with the criminal justice system and realizing that punishment isn’t serving the community.
“There’s a hard line of folks who believe that once you have been in prison, that you are no longer human,” he said, “but then there’s a great number of folks who realize that the criminal justice system pervasively impacts people of color — disproportionately.”
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: Closed on Sundays: A guide to some of Texas' confusing alcohol regulations
Key terms: rulemaking, interest groups, sunset advisory commission, executive agencies, regulatory agencies, federalism, judicial federalism, lobbying, bill making
- Click here for the article.
This session, the Texas Legislature is biting into a once-in-a-dozen years opportunity to overhaul alcohol laws through the Sunset process. Every session, 20 to 30 state agencies are reviewed by the Sunset Advisory Commission, a state agency in charge of evaluating the effectiveness and worth of other state agencies. And this session, it’s the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s turn.
. . . In a process where virtually any reform could be contemplated, here are seven unusual Texas alcohol laws.
Hating on Walmart
Liquor and blood
Sunday sales
Distributors rule
Cash on the barrelhead
Beer to go
Interest groups mentioned in the story:
- Wholesale Beer Distributors
- Beer Alliance of Texas
- Texas Craft Brewers Guild
- Texas Package Stores Association
- Distilled Spirits Council
- Click here for the article.
This session, the Texas Legislature is biting into a once-in-a-dozen years opportunity to overhaul alcohol laws through the Sunset process. Every session, 20 to 30 state agencies are reviewed by the Sunset Advisory Commission, a state agency in charge of evaluating the effectiveness and worth of other state agencies. And this session, it’s the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s turn.
. . . In a process where virtually any reform could be contemplated, here are seven unusual Texas alcohol laws.
Hating on Walmart
Liquor and blood
Sunday sales
Distributors rule
Cash on the barrelhead
Beer to go
Interest groups mentioned in the story:
- Wholesale Beer Distributors
- Beer Alliance of Texas
- Texas Craft Brewers Guild
- Texas Package Stores Association
- Distilled Spirits Council
Monday, April 15, 2019
From the Dallas Morning News: Will fixes to Texas’ broken Medicaid system live or die? Patient groups, insurers draw battle lines
Key terms: Health and Human Services, cooperative federalism, poverty,
- Click here for the article.
A package of bipartisan bills to fix the state's broken Medicaid system got their first hearing Tuesday, setting the stage for a behind-the-scenes battle between influential doctor and patient groups that want change and health care companies that profited from the status quo.
Those bills came in response to an investigation by The Dallas Morning Newslast year that showed how companies that Texas pays to care for millions of sick, disabled and extremely poor people were skimping on treatments and medical equipment to boost profits under a program called "managed care."
A House effort, led by Rep. Sarah Davis, R-Houston, seeks major overhauls. Her bill would broadly expand protections for patients who are denied treatments and extend the state's power to monitor and penalize managed care companies that fail to meet certain standards.
The Senate is taking a more reserved approach, beefing up the way Texas handles patient complaints and cutting red tape for about 6,000 families with medically complex kids who were haphazardly forced into managed care more than two years ago.
Committees in both chambers heard hours of testimony on those bills, almost none of it in opposition.
But despite that public support, patient advocates worry the biggest changes, such as those included in Davis' bill, may already be doomed.
Rep. James Frank, R-Wichita Falls, is the new chairman of the House Human Services Committee, which may decide whether these bills live or die. He told the committee he expects tweaks but hopes to "get the best of these to the floor."
"We will pass, hopefully, some very good [managed care] bills this session," he said.
That's a stark contrast to the resistance patient advocates are hearing in private, says Hannah Mehta, who leads Protect TX Fragile Kids, a group of parents that fought back when lawmakers forced their children into managed care.
"We were told we should treat this as if this is the only managed care hearing we'll get," she said, expressing concern that Davis' bill may not make it out of Frank's committee.
Mehta says that's what she was told by Frank's chief of staff, Jim Johnson, before Tuesday's hearing.
Reached by phone, Johnson told The News, "I don't recall that that's what I said." He declined further comment.
- Click here for the article.
A package of bipartisan bills to fix the state's broken Medicaid system got their first hearing Tuesday, setting the stage for a behind-the-scenes battle between influential doctor and patient groups that want change and health care companies that profited from the status quo.
Those bills came in response to an investigation by The Dallas Morning Newslast year that showed how companies that Texas pays to care for millions of sick, disabled and extremely poor people were skimping on treatments and medical equipment to boost profits under a program called "managed care."
A House effort, led by Rep. Sarah Davis, R-Houston, seeks major overhauls. Her bill would broadly expand protections for patients who are denied treatments and extend the state's power to monitor and penalize managed care companies that fail to meet certain standards.
The Senate is taking a more reserved approach, beefing up the way Texas handles patient complaints and cutting red tape for about 6,000 families with medically complex kids who were haphazardly forced into managed care more than two years ago.
Committees in both chambers heard hours of testimony on those bills, almost none of it in opposition.
But despite that public support, patient advocates worry the biggest changes, such as those included in Davis' bill, may already be doomed.
Rep. James Frank, R-Wichita Falls, is the new chairman of the House Human Services Committee, which may decide whether these bills live or die. He told the committee he expects tweaks but hopes to "get the best of these to the floor."
"We will pass, hopefully, some very good [managed care] bills this session," he said.
That's a stark contrast to the resistance patient advocates are hearing in private, says Hannah Mehta, who leads Protect TX Fragile Kids, a group of parents that fought back when lawmakers forced their children into managed care.
"We were told we should treat this as if this is the only managed care hearing we'll get," she said, expressing concern that Davis' bill may not make it out of Frank's committee.
Mehta says that's what she was told by Frank's chief of staff, Jim Johnson, before Tuesday's hearing.
Reached by phone, Johnson told The News, "I don't recall that that's what I said." He declined further comment.
From the Houston Chronicle: Texas lawmakers propose major reforms for $44B school endowment
Key Terms: education funding, plural executive, SBOE, legislature,
- Click here for the article.
Lawmakers are proposing a wide range of fixes for the state’s public school endowment, which has lost out on billions in growth during the past decade while paying out less to schoolchildren.
One bipartisan bill backed by high-powered legislators would restore the State Board of Education’s control over nearly all of the investments for the $44 billion Texas Permanent School Fund, reverting to the way it was before a 2001 law change.
Another would allow the School Land Board, which now controls about $10 billion of the endowment, to double the amount it can send annually directly to schools — up to $600 million. Yet another would take most of the money away from the feuding boards and create a new nine-member governing body appointed by the governor to decide how the endowment invests and distributes its dollars.
In a year-long investigation, “Broken Trust,” the Houston Chronicle found that the while endowment is far larger than it was 20 years ago, it has grown more slowly than many comparable funds. And it has been paying out less to schools than it did in the previous 20 years in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Last year, the fund distributed only 2.8 percent of its value — roughly half the share paid out by many endowments. If it had paid out 5 percent of a four-year average market value, as many endowments try to, Texas schools would have received $720 million more in 2018.
- Click here for the article.
Lawmakers are proposing a wide range of fixes for the state’s public school endowment, which has lost out on billions in growth during the past decade while paying out less to schoolchildren.
One bipartisan bill backed by high-powered legislators would restore the State Board of Education’s control over nearly all of the investments for the $44 billion Texas Permanent School Fund, reverting to the way it was before a 2001 law change.
Another would allow the School Land Board, which now controls about $10 billion of the endowment, to double the amount it can send annually directly to schools — up to $600 million. Yet another would take most of the money away from the feuding boards and create a new nine-member governing body appointed by the governor to decide how the endowment invests and distributes its dollars.
In a year-long investigation, “Broken Trust,” the Houston Chronicle found that the while endowment is far larger than it was 20 years ago, it has grown more slowly than many comparable funds. And it has been paying out less to schools than it did in the previous 20 years in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Last year, the fund distributed only 2.8 percent of its value — roughly half the share paid out by many endowments. If it had paid out 5 percent of a four-year average market value, as many endowments try to, Texas schools would have received $720 million more in 2018.
From Governing: Marital Rape Isn't Necessarily a Crime in 12 States
Key terms: criminal law, reserved powers, policy diffusion, due process
- Click here for the article.
By day, Minnesota state Rep. Zach Stephenson is a prosecutor. Yet it came as a surprise to him when a constituent said his daughter had been raped by her husband and that a provision in the state’s law prevented him from being prosecuted.
"I don’t normally handle sex crimes, but I thought no way in 2019 in Minnesota do we have a law on the books that makes that OK," says the Democratic lawmaker. "I went back to my office and read through the law and sure enough there is an exception for drugging or having sex with someone mentally incapacitated if they’re married."
Twelve states -- Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia -- have a loophole that legalizes marital rape. In Nevada, being married to the victim is enough to protect someone from prosecution. In Virginia, a husband can avoid criminal charges if he agrees to therapy. In South Carolina, a married victim only has 30 days to report the rape and has to prove threat of physical violence.
The most recent state to close a marital rape loophole was Maryland, in 2017, where the law had required victims to prove there was use of force.
Since then, lawmakers in Ohio have tried and failed to eliminate the state's requirement for proof of threat of force or violence if a couple is married or living together. Ohio state Rep. Kristin Boggs, a Democrat, believed the state had the votes to pass it last year, but the bill didn't make it past committee. Boggs says she intends to refile the bill this year. She'll have to overcome the critics who argue that closing marital rape loopholes would open the door to false allegations during contentious divorce settlements.
"The problems of proof was one concern. This happens between husband and wife in private -- it’s one person’s word against another," John Murphy of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, which has previously opposed the bill, told the Dayton Daily News in 2017.
- Click here for the article.
By day, Minnesota state Rep. Zach Stephenson is a prosecutor. Yet it came as a surprise to him when a constituent said his daughter had been raped by her husband and that a provision in the state’s law prevented him from being prosecuted.
"I don’t normally handle sex crimes, but I thought no way in 2019 in Minnesota do we have a law on the books that makes that OK," says the Democratic lawmaker. "I went back to my office and read through the law and sure enough there is an exception for drugging or having sex with someone mentally incapacitated if they’re married."
Twelve states -- Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia -- have a loophole that legalizes marital rape. In Nevada, being married to the victim is enough to protect someone from prosecution. In Virginia, a husband can avoid criminal charges if he agrees to therapy. In South Carolina, a married victim only has 30 days to report the rape and has to prove threat of physical violence.
The most recent state to close a marital rape loophole was Maryland, in 2017, where the law had required victims to prove there was use of force.
Since then, lawmakers in Ohio have tried and failed to eliminate the state's requirement for proof of threat of force or violence if a couple is married or living together. Ohio state Rep. Kristin Boggs, a Democrat, believed the state had the votes to pass it last year, but the bill didn't make it past committee. Boggs says she intends to refile the bill this year. She'll have to overcome the critics who argue that closing marital rape loopholes would open the door to false allegations during contentious divorce settlements.
"The problems of proof was one concern. This happens between husband and wife in private -- it’s one person’s word against another," John Murphy of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, which has previously opposed the bill, told the Dayton Daily News in 2017.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, other top leaders propose raising the sales tax to provide property tax relief
We might have to change our government notes again.
Key Terms: regressive taxes, unitary government, fiscal policy, local government, Texas constitution
- Click here for the article.
Texas' top three political leaders — Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen — threw their support Wednesday behind a proposal to increase the sales tax by 1 percentage point in order to lower property taxes across the state.
But that's only if lawmakers agree to limit future local property tax increases.
The proposal would raise the state's sales tax from 6.25% to 7.25%, generating billions of additional dollars annually for property tax relief, if voters approve a constitutional amendment. But the idea will be a hard sell to Democrats, since the sales tax is considered regressive, meaning lower-income Texans end up paying a larger percentage of their paychecks than higher-income Texans.
"Today we are introducing a sales tax proposal to buy down property tax rates for all Texas homeowners and businesses, once Senate Bill 2 or House Bill 2 is agreed to and passed by both Chambers. If the one-cent increase in the sales tax passes, it will result in billions of dollars in revenue to help drive down property taxes in the short and long term," said a joint statement from the three Republicans.
Neither chamber has passed HB 2 or SB 2, which would require voter approval of property tax increases over 2.5%.
The House Ways and Means Committee was scheduled to take public testimony on the House's sales tax swap proposal this week but delayed hearing the bills. Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, who authored House Joint Resolution 3 and House Bill 4621, is considering changing the legislation to use a fraction of the additional money generated by the sales tax for public schools — in order to get more Democrats on board.
The bills are intended to provide another revenue source to help significantly cut down local school property taxes, which make up more than half of the local property taxes levied in Texas.
If the Legislature approves the resolution, the constitutional amendment would go to voters to approve in November, and if voters sign on, the tax rate change would apply in January 2020.
Key Terms: regressive taxes, unitary government, fiscal policy, local government, Texas constitution
- Click here for the article.
Texas' top three political leaders — Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen — threw their support Wednesday behind a proposal to increase the sales tax by 1 percentage point in order to lower property taxes across the state.
But that's only if lawmakers agree to limit future local property tax increases.
The proposal would raise the state's sales tax from 6.25% to 7.25%, generating billions of additional dollars annually for property tax relief, if voters approve a constitutional amendment. But the idea will be a hard sell to Democrats, since the sales tax is considered regressive, meaning lower-income Texans end up paying a larger percentage of their paychecks than higher-income Texans.
"Today we are introducing a sales tax proposal to buy down property tax rates for all Texas homeowners and businesses, once Senate Bill 2 or House Bill 2 is agreed to and passed by both Chambers. If the one-cent increase in the sales tax passes, it will result in billions of dollars in revenue to help drive down property taxes in the short and long term," said a joint statement from the three Republicans.
Neither chamber has passed HB 2 or SB 2, which would require voter approval of property tax increases over 2.5%.
The House Ways and Means Committee was scheduled to take public testimony on the House's sales tax swap proposal this week but delayed hearing the bills. Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, who authored House Joint Resolution 3 and House Bill 4621, is considering changing the legislation to use a fraction of the additional money generated by the sales tax for public schools — in order to get more Democrats on board.
The bills are intended to provide another revenue source to help significantly cut down local school property taxes, which make up more than half of the local property taxes levied in Texas.
If the Legislature approves the resolution, the constitutional amendment would go to voters to approve in November, and if voters sign on, the tax rate change would apply in January 2020.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
What is Medicare for all?
A couple explainers from Vox.
Cutting to the chase, lot's of different things. It's much more popular among liberals, sine it promotes equity. Less so among conservatives since it interferes with the market.
- The “pleasant ambiguity” of Medicare-for-all in 2018, explained.
- We read Democrats’ 9 plans for expanding health care. Here’s how they work.
As popular as Medicare-for-all is, the slightly more vexing question is what it actually means.
Historically, Medicare-for-all has meant single-payer health insurance, a national government-run program that covered every American and replaced private coverage entirely, similar to the government-run health care programs in Canada and some European countries.
Then-Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) first introduced the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act in 2003. Conyers has since been disgraced by sexual harassment allegations but the idea lives on. It’s now sponsored by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and it is still a single-payer proposal. So is Sanders’s Medicare-for-all bill, a cornerstone of his unexpectedly resonant 2016 presidential campaign.
But these days, other plans are falling under the Medicare-for-all umbrella. Some progressives, like Green, are even comfortable with the term being applied to the various proposals to allow all Americans buy into Medicare. Some of those plans used to be branded as a “public option”; they would not end private insurance that more than half of Americans get, usually through work, as a true single-payer would. But these plans would also not provide the same guarantee of universal coverage that a single-payer system does.
“For anybody who supports Medicare-for-all single payer, what better way to debunk the right wing lies than to allow millions and millions of Americans to voluntarily opt into Medicare and love it?” Green told me in our interview. “As a political strategy, having Medicare-for-all be a broad umbrella where any candidate can embrace some version of it... that moves the center of gravity in the Democratic party.”
In 2018, with control of Congress at stake, nobody is taking up arms to insist that their version should be orthodoxy. What we know for certain is that Medicare-for-all is popular, and so Democrats of all stripes want to campaign on it. Governing comes later.
- For more: what is a single-payer system?
Cutting to the chase, lot's of different things. It's much more popular among liberals, sine it promotes equity. Less so among conservatives since it interferes with the market.
- The “pleasant ambiguity” of Medicare-for-all in 2018, explained.
- We read Democrats’ 9 plans for expanding health care. Here’s how they work.
As popular as Medicare-for-all is, the slightly more vexing question is what it actually means.
Historically, Medicare-for-all has meant single-payer health insurance, a national government-run program that covered every American and replaced private coverage entirely, similar to the government-run health care programs in Canada and some European countries.
Then-Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) first introduced the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act in 2003. Conyers has since been disgraced by sexual harassment allegations but the idea lives on. It’s now sponsored by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and it is still a single-payer proposal. So is Sanders’s Medicare-for-all bill, a cornerstone of his unexpectedly resonant 2016 presidential campaign.
But these days, other plans are falling under the Medicare-for-all umbrella. Some progressives, like Green, are even comfortable with the term being applied to the various proposals to allow all Americans buy into Medicare. Some of those plans used to be branded as a “public option”; they would not end private insurance that more than half of Americans get, usually through work, as a true single-payer would. But these plans would also not provide the same guarantee of universal coverage that a single-payer system does.
“For anybody who supports Medicare-for-all single payer, what better way to debunk the right wing lies than to allow millions and millions of Americans to voluntarily opt into Medicare and love it?” Green told me in our interview. “As a political strategy, having Medicare-for-all be a broad umbrella where any candidate can embrace some version of it... that moves the center of gravity in the Democratic party.”
In 2018, with control of Congress at stake, nobody is taking up arms to insist that their version should be orthodoxy. What we know for certain is that Medicare-for-all is popular, and so Democrats of all stripes want to campaign on it. Governing comes later.
- For more: what is a single-payer system?
From the Atlantic: Why Europeans Don’t Get Huge Medical Bills
For our look at economic policy, regulations, interest groups, ideology, and health policy
Several European countries have health insurance, just like America does. The difference is that their governments regulate what insurance must cover and what hospitals and doctors are allowed to charge much more aggressively than the U.S. does.When I described surprise medical bills to experts who focus on different Western European countries’ health systems, they had no idea what I was talking about. “What is a surprise medical bill?” said Sophia Schlette, a public-health expert and a former senior advisor at Berlin’s National Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Association. “Seriously, they don’t happen here.”
Almost all Germans are covered by a variety of health-insurance like “sickness funds,” which are financed through taxes. Almost all doctors and hospitals accept these plans. About 90 percent of Germans never see a bill for their doctor’s visit, and the rest are covered by private insurance, which usually reimburses whatever they get charged. According to the researchers Roosa Tikkanen and Robin Osborn at the Commonwealth Fund, there’s a flat copay for people who are hospitalized, capped at a maximum of 280 euros—or about $315 U.S. dollars—for a 28-day stay. And doctors, too, are not allowed to charge more than the payment rates that are negotiated between the sickness funds and the doctors’ associations. A very small number of the country’s physicians are private and don’t accept the sickness funds, but they have to tell patients how much they’ll charge before the patient is treated, removing the surprise element.
In France, there are no provider networks, so no doctor can be “out of network.” Doctors’ associations negotiate their fees with the universal public health-insurance program every few years. As a result, says Paul Dutton, a history professor at Northern Arizona University who has studied the French system, “I’ve walked into an office [in France] with my kids where it’s just a receptionist and a doctor. There’s not these back-office wars” over what to charge patients.
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Bump Stock Ban
We followed this rabbit hole in GOVT 2305 this evening.
- A federal bump stock ban starts today. Here's what that means for owners.
- The US Supreme Court Is Letting The Trump Administration's Bump Stock Ban Take Effect.
- Federal Register: Bump-Stock-Type Devices.
- Wikipedia: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
- Firearms Policy Foundation.
- Hollis v. Lynch.
- A federal bump stock ban starts today. Here's what that means for owners.
- The US Supreme Court Is Letting The Trump Administration's Bump Stock Ban Take Effect.
- Federal Register: Bump-Stock-Type Devices.
- Wikipedia: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
- Firearms Policy Foundation.
- Hollis v. Lynch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)