For 2305, a few links for background:
- Wikipedia: 116th United States Congress.
- Ballotpedia: 116th United States Congress.
- Congress.gov: congressional activity.
- C-Span: Members of the 116th Congress.
Friday, August 30, 2019
The Hartford Convention
In 1814 the Federalists once again tried to change the constitution, though not as radically as they were able to do in 1787. It was an attempt to roll back some of the policies of the Democrat- Republicans, This attempt failed, and ultimately led to the end of the Federalist Party.
- click here for the Wikipedia article on the convention.
Here's a list of their proposals:
- Prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days;
- Requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce;
- Removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South;
- Limiting future presidents to one term;
- Requiring each president to be from a different state than his predecessor. (This provision was aimed directly at the dominance of Virginia in the presidency since 1800.)
- click here for the Wikipedia article on the convention.
Here's a list of their proposals:
- Prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days;
- Requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce;
- Removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South;
- Limiting future presidents to one term;
- Requiring each president to be from a different state than his predecessor. (This provision was aimed directly at the dominance of Virginia in the presidency since 1800.)
From Vox: Here are the states that treat workers the best — and the worst
For our look at federalism - state control of policy - in both 2305 and 2306.
- click here for the article.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19129528/Screen_Shot_2019_08_29_at_1.19.58_PM.png)
- OxFam: BEST AND WORST STATES TO WORK IN AMERICA 2019
- click here for the article.
- OxFam: BEST AND WORST STATES TO WORK IN AMERICA 2019
Elections in Israel 2015
A great example of proportional representation.
The electoral system most commonly used in western democracies.
Proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution that didn't pass the legislature
Texas Disaster Reinvestment Board Bonds Amendment (2019)
Texas Generate Reoccurring Oil Wealth (GROW) Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Legacy Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Mental and Behavioral Health Research Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Power to Invest and Manage Public Funds Amendment (2019)
Texas Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Member Amendment (2019)
Texas Property Tax Freeze for Surviving Spouse of Disabled Person Amendment (2019)
Texas Provide for Daylight Saving Time Referendum Amendment (2019)
Texas Year-Round Standard or Daylight Saving Time Measure (2019
Texas Generate Reoccurring Oil Wealth (GROW) Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Legacy Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Mental and Behavioral Health Research Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Power to Invest and Manage Public Funds Amendment (2019)
Texas Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Member Amendment (2019)
Texas Property Tax Freeze for Surviving Spouse of Disabled Person Amendment (2019)
Texas Provide for Daylight Saving Time Referendum Amendment (2019)
Texas Year-Round Standard or Daylight Saving Time Measure (2019
Thursday, August 29, 2019
A few links related to amendments to the Texas Constitution
2306 students might find these helpful for your essay.
- Texas 2019 ballot measures.
- Constitutional amendments proposedfor November 2019 ballot.
- Analyses of proposed constitutional amendments.
I'll add more as the semester progresses.
- Texas 2019 ballot measures.
- Constitutional amendments proposedfor November 2019 ballot.
- Analyses of proposed constitutional amendments.
I'll add more as the semester progresses.
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
From thre Texas Tribune: A new Texas law criminalizes sending unwanted nudes. Lawyers say it might be difficult to enforce.
More confusion over new laws passed by the legislature this spring.
- Click here for the article.
A few years ago, Dallas resident and mother Brandy Davis was reentering the online dating scene. After matching with a "seemingly nice" man, the two exchanged phone numbers. Then, one afternoon while Davis was at work, the man sent her an unrequested nude photo of himself.
"I remember thinking, 'If this is going to come unexpected like this, it could come at a time when my son has my phone,'" Davis testified during a May Senate hearing. "I was appalled ... because nobody should be subjected to that."
House Bill 2789, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May, aims to put an end to experiences like Davis'. The law goes into effect Sept. 1 and makes the electronic transmission of sexually explicit material a Class C misdemeanor, with a maximum $500 fine, when the recipient hasn't provided consent. The law will make Texas one of the first states to take a stand against sending sexually explicit images, which about 40% of women report receiving without consent.
The law won't apply just to texts, but also to what's sent over other platforms like email, dating apps and social media.
- Click here for the article.
A few years ago, Dallas resident and mother Brandy Davis was reentering the online dating scene. After matching with a "seemingly nice" man, the two exchanged phone numbers. Then, one afternoon while Davis was at work, the man sent her an unrequested nude photo of himself.
"I remember thinking, 'If this is going to come unexpected like this, it could come at a time when my son has my phone,'" Davis testified during a May Senate hearing. "I was appalled ... because nobody should be subjected to that."
House Bill 2789, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May, aims to put an end to experiences like Davis'. The law goes into effect Sept. 1 and makes the electronic transmission of sexually explicit material a Class C misdemeanor, with a maximum $500 fine, when the recipient hasn't provided consent. The law will make Texas one of the first states to take a stand against sending sexually explicit images, which about 40% of women report receiving without consent.
The law won't apply just to texts, but also to what's sent over other platforms like email, dating apps and social media.
The Eleven Year Tyranny
Comparisons are being made ....
- Click here for the article.
The Eleven Year Tyranny was a period of political unrest in England lasting from 1629 to 1640. This was started because King Charles I thought he did not need Parliament to rule his country. Charles’ problem stemmed from personal hubris; he felt that God had chosen him to lead a nation and that he needed absolutism to rule efficiently. This can be linked to Paradise Lost as Satan felt that he was better than God and that he should rule Heaven.
In 1628, Parliament passed the Petition of Right, which limited the amount that the king can spend. This meant that the King needed the consent from parliament before spending any funds for unusual causes. King Charles I believed that this violated God’s decision to make him the King, and that Parliament was just trying to secure more power for themselves. This distaste for each other continued to fester as the separation between the King and Parliament grew. On March 2, 1629 King Charles I dissolved Parliament, and then had them arrested and labeled as traitors to the crown. With this dismissal he assumed all rights to military action and to make any policies that he wanted to. The advantage for the King for this dismissal was that he now had excess funding to go toward his military, instead of funding Parliament. This gave him an edge in public approval because he increased military support in Germany for the War. To the uneducated commoners of England, this was seen as unforeseen prosperity during war. Conversely, things were actually getting worse because the majority of the King’s decisions were failures. This eventually caused political unrest in England.
For more:
- Personal Rule.
- Prorogation.
- Click here for the article.
The Eleven Year Tyranny was a period of political unrest in England lasting from 1629 to 1640. This was started because King Charles I thought he did not need Parliament to rule his country. Charles’ problem stemmed from personal hubris; he felt that God had chosen him to lead a nation and that he needed absolutism to rule efficiently. This can be linked to Paradise Lost as Satan felt that he was better than God and that he should rule Heaven.
In 1628, Parliament passed the Petition of Right, which limited the amount that the king can spend. This meant that the King needed the consent from parliament before spending any funds for unusual causes. King Charles I believed that this violated God’s decision to make him the King, and that Parliament was just trying to secure more power for themselves. This distaste for each other continued to fester as the separation between the King and Parliament grew. On March 2, 1629 King Charles I dissolved Parliament, and then had them arrested and labeled as traitors to the crown. With this dismissal he assumed all rights to military action and to make any policies that he wanted to. The advantage for the King for this dismissal was that he now had excess funding to go toward his military, instead of funding Parliament. This gave him an edge in public approval because he increased military support in Germany for the War. To the uneducated commoners of England, this was seen as unforeseen prosperity during war. Conversely, things were actually getting worse because the majority of the King’s decisions were failures. This eventually caused political unrest in England.
For more:
- Personal Rule.
- Prorogation.
From Vox: Boris Johnson just suspended Parliament over Brexit. Here’s what’s going on.
This cannot happen under our Constitutional system.
- Click here for the article.
Who had “proroguing Parliament” on their Brexit bingo card?
On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked Queen Elizabeth II to suspend — otherwise known as “prorogue” — Parliament until October 14, in what very much looked like an attempt to prevent members of Parliament (MPs) from blocking a no-deal Brexit before the October 31 deadline.
The queen has approved Johnson’s request, which was mostly a formality anyway. (There was practically no chance that the queen, who stays above the political fray, would deny Johnson’s request, though technically she could have.) Now Parliament will be suspended for five weeks, from September 9 at the earliest, or September 12 at the latest, until October 14.
Here’s what this means in practice: Members of Parliament will now have a very narrow window to a) debate, scrutinize, and pass a Brexit deal if there’s one on offer; or b) stop the UK from exiting the European Union without an agreement in place on October 31.
Leaving the EU without a deal is something Johnson has said he’s willing and ready to do, but MPs largely oppose that route because of the potential economic fallout.
Johnson has denied that putting Parliament on a five-week break as the United Kingdom is in the middle of a national crisis over Brexit has anything to do with the national crisis over Brexit. In a letter to lawmakers, the prime minister said this legislative session had to end, as it’s one of the longest in history.
“I therefore intend to bring forward a new bold and ambitious domestic legislative agenda for the renewal of our country after Brexit,” Johnson wrote. “There will be a significant Brexit legislative programme to get through but that should be no excuse for a lack of ambition!”
Not many MPs are buying Johnson’s excuse. Some are accusing him of flinging the UK into a constitutional crisis.
- Click here for the article.
Who had “proroguing Parliament” on their Brexit bingo card?
On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked Queen Elizabeth II to suspend — otherwise known as “prorogue” — Parliament until October 14, in what very much looked like an attempt to prevent members of Parliament (MPs) from blocking a no-deal Brexit before the October 31 deadline.
The queen has approved Johnson’s request, which was mostly a formality anyway. (There was practically no chance that the queen, who stays above the political fray, would deny Johnson’s request, though technically she could have.) Now Parliament will be suspended for five weeks, from September 9 at the earliest, or September 12 at the latest, until October 14.
Here’s what this means in practice: Members of Parliament will now have a very narrow window to a) debate, scrutinize, and pass a Brexit deal if there’s one on offer; or b) stop the UK from exiting the European Union without an agreement in place on October 31.
Leaving the EU without a deal is something Johnson has said he’s willing and ready to do, but MPs largely oppose that route because of the potential economic fallout.
Johnson has denied that putting Parliament on a five-week break as the United Kingdom is in the middle of a national crisis over Brexit has anything to do with the national crisis over Brexit. In a letter to lawmakers, the prime minister said this legislative session had to end, as it’s one of the longest in history.
“I therefore intend to bring forward a new bold and ambitious domestic legislative agenda for the renewal of our country after Brexit,” Johnson wrote. “There will be a significant Brexit legislative programme to get through but that should be no excuse for a lack of ambition!”
Not many MPs are buying Johnson’s excuse. Some are accusing him of flinging the UK into a constitutional crisis.
Monday, August 26, 2019
From the Texas Monthly: Here’s What Texas DAs Think of the New Hemp Law that Effectively Decriminalized Pot
For 2306:
- Click here for the article.
. . . the five most populous counties—Harris, Dallas, Travis, Tarrant, and Bexar—have announced that they’re dismissing hundreds of charges and will decline to prosecute minor marijuana possession in the future. While the reactions of prosecutors in the big cities have garnered most of the headlines, Texas Monthly reached out to prosecutors for every county in Texas seeking to find out how they plan to cope with this new legal landscape.
Officials with 93 of Texas’s 254 counties responded to inquiries. (Officials from the remaining 161 counties either did not respond or declined to comment.) There was a patchwork of responses to the new law from prosecutors across the state. One clear pattern: Urban counties seem to be more eager to drop misdemeanor pot prosecutions than their rural and suburban counterparts. Nine of the state’s twelve most populous counties—representing nearly 15 million people, or more than half of Texas’s total population—will no longer prosecute low-level marijuana cases, and some have pledged to dismiss pending cases.
Perhaps reluctant to shed a tough-on-crime approach popular among Texas conservatives, some officials in smaller counties were critical of their urban peers dismissing cases. Bill Helwig, DA of Yoakum County, a square patch of West Texas with population 8,500, said the new law likely won’t affect how marijuana cases are prosecuted there. “We’re a very conservative county, and I believe that rural counties may view the situation from a slightly different set of glasses,” he said.
Kendall County DA Nicole Bishop, whose county just north of San Antonio has a population of about 45,000, likewise intends to continue misdemeanor marijuana prosecutions. Her office also will request restitution from any defendants who insist on lab testing, including seeking more severe punishment in plea deals. “I will not act as an unelected legislator by unilaterally deciding what laws I deem worth it to enforce,” she said. “I will not abandon my sworn duty to follow the law.”
Yet the new law could disproportionately strain the resources of these smaller counties, which are more likely to lack the equipment and the funds to outsource testing. In Beaumont’s Jefferson County, for example, the crime lab recently requested nearly $500,000 for new equipment, employees, and training for distinguishing marijuana from hemp, according to the Beaumont Enterprise. Steve Houston, the DA in Brewster County in far West Texas, said the Legislature created another unfunded mandate for local governments. “It requires testing, and they didn’t provide funding for testing,” Houston told Texas Monthly. “I’m not paying for a bunch of testing.”
- Click here for the article.
. . . the five most populous counties—Harris, Dallas, Travis, Tarrant, and Bexar—have announced that they’re dismissing hundreds of charges and will decline to prosecute minor marijuana possession in the future. While the reactions of prosecutors in the big cities have garnered most of the headlines, Texas Monthly reached out to prosecutors for every county in Texas seeking to find out how they plan to cope with this new legal landscape.
Officials with 93 of Texas’s 254 counties responded to inquiries. (Officials from the remaining 161 counties either did not respond or declined to comment.) There was a patchwork of responses to the new law from prosecutors across the state. One clear pattern: Urban counties seem to be more eager to drop misdemeanor pot prosecutions than their rural and suburban counterparts. Nine of the state’s twelve most populous counties—representing nearly 15 million people, or more than half of Texas’s total population—will no longer prosecute low-level marijuana cases, and some have pledged to dismiss pending cases.
Perhaps reluctant to shed a tough-on-crime approach popular among Texas conservatives, some officials in smaller counties were critical of their urban peers dismissing cases. Bill Helwig, DA of Yoakum County, a square patch of West Texas with population 8,500, said the new law likely won’t affect how marijuana cases are prosecuted there. “We’re a very conservative county, and I believe that rural counties may view the situation from a slightly different set of glasses,” he said.
Kendall County DA Nicole Bishop, whose county just north of San Antonio has a population of about 45,000, likewise intends to continue misdemeanor marijuana prosecutions. Her office also will request restitution from any defendants who insist on lab testing, including seeking more severe punishment in plea deals. “I will not act as an unelected legislator by unilaterally deciding what laws I deem worth it to enforce,” she said. “I will not abandon my sworn duty to follow the law.”
Yet the new law could disproportionately strain the resources of these smaller counties, which are more likely to lack the equipment and the funds to outsource testing. In Beaumont’s Jefferson County, for example, the crime lab recently requested nearly $500,000 for new equipment, employees, and training for distinguishing marijuana from hemp, according to the Beaumont Enterprise. Steve Houston, the DA in Brewster County in far West Texas, said the Legislature created another unfunded mandate for local governments. “It requires testing, and they didn’t provide funding for testing,” Houston told Texas Monthly. “I’m not paying for a bunch of testing.”
From the Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott selects former appeals court judge Jane Bland for Texas Supreme Court
For 2306
- Click here for the article.
Jane Bland, a former Republican appeals court judge in Houston who lost her seat in November amid a Democratic rout of urban-area appeals courts, is Gov. Greg Abbott’s pick for a vacancy on the Texas Supreme Court, he announced Monday.
Bland will assume the Place 6 seat of Justice Jeff Brown, a Republican who was confirmed late last month to the federal bench, after he formally resigns to begin his new post. Since the Legislature is not in session, she does not require confirmation by the Texas Senate, but will have to stand for election in 2020.
“Jane Bland is an experienced and proven legal expert whose respect for the Constitution is unmatched,” Abbott said. “As she assumes her new role on the Supreme Court, the people of Texas can rest assured that she will uphold the rule of law and be a good steward of the justice system. I am honored to appoint Jane to the highest court in Texas and am grateful for her service to our great state.”
Bland served as a judge for more than 20 years before becoming a partner at Vinson & Elkins, one of the state’s top law firms and a major contributor to Texas Supreme Court justices’ campaigns. A graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas School of Law, Bland became a trial court judge in Harris County in 1997, and was elevated to the appellate bench by an appointment from Gov. Rick Perry in 2003.
- Click here for the article.
Jane Bland, a former Republican appeals court judge in Houston who lost her seat in November amid a Democratic rout of urban-area appeals courts, is Gov. Greg Abbott’s pick for a vacancy on the Texas Supreme Court, he announced Monday.
Bland will assume the Place 6 seat of Justice Jeff Brown, a Republican who was confirmed late last month to the federal bench, after he formally resigns to begin his new post. Since the Legislature is not in session, she does not require confirmation by the Texas Senate, but will have to stand for election in 2020.
“Jane Bland is an experienced and proven legal expert whose respect for the Constitution is unmatched,” Abbott said. “As she assumes her new role on the Supreme Court, the people of Texas can rest assured that she will uphold the rule of law and be a good steward of the justice system. I am honored to appoint Jane to the highest court in Texas and am grateful for her service to our great state.”
Bland served as a judge for more than 20 years before becoming a partner at Vinson & Elkins, one of the state’s top law firms and a major contributor to Texas Supreme Court justices’ campaigns. A graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas School of Law, Bland became a trial court judge in Harris County in 1997, and was elevated to the appellate bench by an appointment from Gov. Rick Perry in 2003.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas leaders: Hemp law did not decriminalize marijuana
- Click here for the article.
Weeks after Texas prosecutors began dropping hundreds of marijuana cases and stopped actively pursuing criminal charges because of complications that arose from legalizing hemp, the state's leaders have stepped into the fray.
Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, all Republicans, sent a letter Thursday to Texas district and county attorneys, emphasizing that a new hemp law does not decriminalize marijuana. They wrote that the prosecutors who have stepped back from marijuana charges after stating they cannot legally distinguish between legal hemp and marijuana without further testing — almost all of those in the state's most 10 populous counties — misunderstand the new law.
"Failing to enforce marijuana laws cannot be blamed on legislation that did not decriminalize marijuana in Texas," stated the letter.
House Bill 1325, which legalized hemp and hemp-derived products like CBD oil, soared through the Texas Legislature this year and was signed into law June 10 by Abbott. Since then, numerous Republican and Democratic district attorneys have said they can no longer actively pursue misdemeanor marijuana cases because the new law changed the definition of marijuana. Before, marijuana was defined as parts of the cannabis plant, but now it is only those parts that contain more than 0.3% of tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that produces a high. Cannabis below that level is now hemp.
The attorneys and forensic experts have said equipment they have in public crime labs can't accurately prove how much THC is in cannabis. Circumstantial evidence, like the smell of marijuana, no longer gives them enough credibility in court, where defendants could claim the substance they possessed was instead hemp.
"The plant is the plant, so the stuff smells the same no matter the THC concentration," Lynn Garcia, general counsel with the Texas Forensic Science Commission, told The Texas Tribune earlier this week.
Weeks after Texas prosecutors began dropping hundreds of marijuana cases and stopped actively pursuing criminal charges because of complications that arose from legalizing hemp, the state's leaders have stepped into the fray.
Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, all Republicans, sent a letter Thursday to Texas district and county attorneys, emphasizing that a new hemp law does not decriminalize marijuana. They wrote that the prosecutors who have stepped back from marijuana charges after stating they cannot legally distinguish between legal hemp and marijuana without further testing — almost all of those in the state's most 10 populous counties — misunderstand the new law.
"Failing to enforce marijuana laws cannot be blamed on legislation that did not decriminalize marijuana in Texas," stated the letter.
House Bill 1325, which legalized hemp and hemp-derived products like CBD oil, soared through the Texas Legislature this year and was signed into law June 10 by Abbott. Since then, numerous Republican and Democratic district attorneys have said they can no longer actively pursue misdemeanor marijuana cases because the new law changed the definition of marijuana. Before, marijuana was defined as parts of the cannabis plant, but now it is only those parts that contain more than 0.3% of tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that produces a high. Cannabis below that level is now hemp.
The attorneys and forensic experts have said equipment they have in public crime labs can't accurately prove how much THC is in cannabis. Circumstantial evidence, like the smell of marijuana, no longer gives them enough credibility in court, where defendants could claim the substance they possessed was instead hemp.
"The plant is the plant, so the stuff smells the same no matter the THC concentration," Lynn Garcia, general counsel with the Texas Forensic Science Commission, told The Texas Tribune earlier this week.
Thursday, August 22, 2019
From the Houston Chronicle: Harris County Flood Control District proposes tunnel idea to drain stormwaters
For 2306, a look at a local government.
- Click here for the article.
The Harris County Flood Control District is exploring the possibility of building several massive, deep tunnels aimed at keeping storm water out of flood-prone neighborhoods and carry it underground for miles to the Houston Ship Channel during major storms.
Never before tried around Houston, the project likely would cost several billion dollars and it is not clear where the money would come from, officials said. Specialized machines methodically digging 100 to 200 feet underground would take several years to complete the tunnels, which would seek to drain floodwaters from bayous across the county.
Officials with the flood control district said the idea could be a bold answer to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey, and dramatically improve Houston’s defenses against deadly floods where other strategies have fallen short.
"What the flood control district has been doing for decades doesn't occur fast enough or it doesn't have the benefits that the public really wants," said Matthew Zeve, director of operations at the flood control district. "We've been challenged to try to think of new ideas and new strategies and this is an answer to that challenge."
Commissioners Court is slated to vote Tuesday on whether to pursue a feasibility study to examine the tunnel proposal in detail, charting out the exact paths of the tunnels, where intake shafts would be located and how to address any environmental or structural constraints.
The full project envisions a network of tunnels across the county to carry water from several of Houston’s waterways, including White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Greens Bayou, Halls Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Clear Creek and Cypress Creek. The goal under the plan would be for those waterways to be able to keep a 100-year storm event within their banks.
See also: Tunnels could be a viable solution to flooding in Houston.
Click here for the Harris County Flood Control District.
- Click here for the article.
The Harris County Flood Control District is exploring the possibility of building several massive, deep tunnels aimed at keeping storm water out of flood-prone neighborhoods and carry it underground for miles to the Houston Ship Channel during major storms.
Never before tried around Houston, the project likely would cost several billion dollars and it is not clear where the money would come from, officials said. Specialized machines methodically digging 100 to 200 feet underground would take several years to complete the tunnels, which would seek to drain floodwaters from bayous across the county.
Officials with the flood control district said the idea could be a bold answer to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey, and dramatically improve Houston’s defenses against deadly floods where other strategies have fallen short.
"What the flood control district has been doing for decades doesn't occur fast enough or it doesn't have the benefits that the public really wants," said Matthew Zeve, director of operations at the flood control district. "We've been challenged to try to think of new ideas and new strategies and this is an answer to that challenge."
Commissioners Court is slated to vote Tuesday on whether to pursue a feasibility study to examine the tunnel proposal in detail, charting out the exact paths of the tunnels, where intake shafts would be located and how to address any environmental or structural constraints.
The full project envisions a network of tunnels across the county to carry water from several of Houston’s waterways, including White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Greens Bayou, Halls Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Clear Creek and Cypress Creek. The goal under the plan would be for those waterways to be able to keep a 100-year storm event within their banks.
See also: Tunnels could be a viable solution to flooding in Houston.
Click here for the Harris County Flood Control District.
From the Atlantic: They Just Wanted to Entertain - AM stations mainly wanted to keep listeners engaged—but ended up remaking the Republican Party.
For 2305, an interesting look at the relationship between the media and political parties.
- Click here for the article.
Although leading Republicans were slow to catch on to the political potential of the medium, by the mid-1990s, talk radio was an integral element of GOP communications strategies. It provided a boost for Republicans as they pushed to enact an agenda and worked to win elections. Republicans, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pumped information to hosts, chatted with them regularly, and generally saw talk radio as an ideal way to reach their base with a message and learn how voters around the country felt about key issues.
Many on the left surmised that the hosts were puppets, plugging whichever policies Gingrich and others wanted them to. But selling the GOP message was never the hosts’ top priority. In my research into the history of conservative talk radio, the executives, producers, and hosts whom I interviewed told me over and over that their main goal was to produce the best radio show each day, one that could command the largest audience possible that tuned in for the longest possible time.
Over time, this focus on the commercial imperatives of AM radio would transform politics. To keep audiences engaged and entertained, hosts grew more and more strident as the years passed, depicting politics as warfare—and started targeting moderates in the Republican Party.
- Click here for the article.
Although leading Republicans were slow to catch on to the political potential of the medium, by the mid-1990s, talk radio was an integral element of GOP communications strategies. It provided a boost for Republicans as they pushed to enact an agenda and worked to win elections. Republicans, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pumped information to hosts, chatted with them regularly, and generally saw talk radio as an ideal way to reach their base with a message and learn how voters around the country felt about key issues.
Many on the left surmised that the hosts were puppets, plugging whichever policies Gingrich and others wanted them to. But selling the GOP message was never the hosts’ top priority. In my research into the history of conservative talk radio, the executives, producers, and hosts whom I interviewed told me over and over that their main goal was to produce the best radio show each day, one that could command the largest audience possible that tuned in for the longest possible time.
Over time, this focus on the commercial imperatives of AM radio would transform politics. To keep audiences engaged and entertained, hosts grew more and more strident as the years passed, depicting politics as warfare—and started targeting moderates in the Republican Party.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
From the Bulwark: New Polls Show That Trump Should Be Afraid. Very Very Afraid.
And this is from a conservative news source. The article taps into much of what we will cover over the semester in 2305.
- Click here for the article.
Here's a small selection from it:
Back in July, when the NBC/WSJ poll had him at 45 percent approval, Trump was not cracking 42 percent in the head-to-head matchups against Democrats. Serious political handicappers should keep a close eye on whether this “inverted yield curve” takes hold and drags down Trump’s re-election prospects.
In addition, pundits should stop making the mistake that Trump can carry the Electoral College while securing under 42 percent of the popular vote, instead focusing far greater attention on the fact that Trump has a hardening majority of the American electorate opposing his re-election. In fact pundits—as well as the president himself—misunderstand how he pulled off the upset in 2016.
The truth is that Trump’s base did not elect him. His base brought him close, but what paved the road for the inside straight that secured his majority in the Electoral College, was a late swing away from Hillary among suburban women, middle-aged Hispanic men, those with some college but not a four year degree, and independents, combined with a drop in the black turnout. Trump is weaker today than he was in November 2016 in each of those demographic subsets, and the economic uncertainty and distress in the bond markets are affecting the investment accounts of those older voters Trump needs to have any chance of mounting a comeback.
Relevant Terms:
political pundits
American electorate
Republicans
Democrats
polling
public opinion
pollsters
sample
approval/disapproval ratings
self described liberals/conservatives
margin of error
Electoral College
factions
demographics
voter turnout
- Click here for the article.
Here's a small selection from it:
Back in July, when the NBC/WSJ poll had him at 45 percent approval, Trump was not cracking 42 percent in the head-to-head matchups against Democrats. Serious political handicappers should keep a close eye on whether this “inverted yield curve” takes hold and drags down Trump’s re-election prospects.
In addition, pundits should stop making the mistake that Trump can carry the Electoral College while securing under 42 percent of the popular vote, instead focusing far greater attention on the fact that Trump has a hardening majority of the American electorate opposing his re-election. In fact pundits—as well as the president himself—misunderstand how he pulled off the upset in 2016.
The truth is that Trump’s base did not elect him. His base brought him close, but what paved the road for the inside straight that secured his majority in the Electoral College, was a late swing away from Hillary among suburban women, middle-aged Hispanic men, those with some college but not a four year degree, and independents, combined with a drop in the black turnout. Trump is weaker today than he was in November 2016 in each of those demographic subsets, and the economic uncertainty and distress in the bond markets are affecting the investment accounts of those older voters Trump needs to have any chance of mounting a comeback.
Relevant Terms:
political pundits
American electorate
Republicans
Democrats
polling
public opinion
pollsters
sample
approval/disapproval ratings
self described liberals/conservatives
margin of error
Electoral College
factions
demographics
voter turnout
From the Texas Tribune: Dustin Burrows resigns as Texas House GOP Caucus chairman amid allegations of targeting Republicans
For 2306 students primarily, a story that highlights the intersection of politics and government.
- Click here for it.
State Rep. Dustin Burrows of Lubbock has resigned as chair of the Texas House GOP Caucus amid allegations that he and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen planned to politically target members from their own party in the 2020 primaries.
Burrows' departure marks the largest fallout yet since the accusations surfaced.
On Friday, the caucus executive committee sent an email to members saying that it had "met and accepted" Burrows' resignation as caucus chair. The email, which also announced that state Rep. Stephanie Klick of Fort Worth had been elevated from vice chair to chair of the caucus, confirmed what two sources had told The Texas Tribune earlier Friday.
Bonnen said in a statement that Burrows, who has served in the House since 2015, "was a strong leader for the caucus." Bonnen added: "I respect his decision and I remain committed to strengthening our majority."
Key terms:
Texas House GOP Caucus
House Speaker
primaries
House Republicans
Empower Texans
Texas Rangers
House General Investigating Committee
Texas Democrats
- Click here for it.
State Rep. Dustin Burrows of Lubbock has resigned as chair of the Texas House GOP Caucus amid allegations that he and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen planned to politically target members from their own party in the 2020 primaries.
Burrows' departure marks the largest fallout yet since the accusations surfaced.
On Friday, the caucus executive committee sent an email to members saying that it had "met and accepted" Burrows' resignation as caucus chair. The email, which also announced that state Rep. Stephanie Klick of Fort Worth had been elevated from vice chair to chair of the caucus, confirmed what two sources had told The Texas Tribune earlier Friday.
Bonnen said in a statement that Burrows, who has served in the House since 2015, "was a strong leader for the caucus." Bonnen added: "I respect his decision and I remain committed to strengthening our majority."
Key terms:
Texas House GOP Caucus
House Speaker
primaries
House Republicans
Empower Texans
Texas Rangers
House General Investigating Committee
Texas Democrats
Thursday, June 27, 2019
From 538: The Supreme Court Stopped The Census Citizenship Question — For Now
- 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.
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.
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.
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)