Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Thursday, February 20, 2020
From the Texas Department of Public Safety: Texas Crime Analysis (2018)
It seems that crime - property crime anyway - is going down in the state.
- Click here for the analysis.
- Click here for the full report.
Crime affects every Texan in some fashion. Togain a measurement of crime trends, Texas participates in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. UCR makes possible the analysis of crime trends primarily through the Crime Index.
The Crime Index To track the variations in crime, the UCR data collection program uses a statistical summary tool referred to as the Crime Index. Rather than collecting reports of all crimes that were committed in a particular year, UCR collects the reports of seven index crimes. The crimes in this group are all serious, either by their very nature or because of the frequency with which they occur, and present a common enforcement problem to police agencies.
Crimes within this index can be further categorized as violent crimes, which include murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, or as property crimes, which consist of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Although arson and human trafficking are index crimes in that the number of reported offenses is collected, neither is a part of the Crime Index.
During calendar year 2018, there was a reported total of 796,924 index offenses in Texas. The crime volume decreased by 5.4% when compared to 2017. In addition to the above offenses, there were 2,446 cases of arson. There were also 332 human trafficking offenses reported in 2018.
- Click here for the analysis.
- Click here for the full report.
Crime affects every Texan in some fashion. Togain a measurement of crime trends, Texas participates in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. UCR makes possible the analysis of crime trends primarily through the Crime Index.
The Crime Index To track the variations in crime, the UCR data collection program uses a statistical summary tool referred to as the Crime Index. Rather than collecting reports of all crimes that were committed in a particular year, UCR collects the reports of seven index crimes. The crimes in this group are all serious, either by their very nature or because of the frequency with which they occur, and present a common enforcement problem to police agencies.
Crimes within this index can be further categorized as violent crimes, which include murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, or as property crimes, which consist of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Although arson and human trafficking are index crimes in that the number of reported offenses is collected, neither is a part of the Crime Index.
During calendar year 2018, there was a reported total of 796,924 index offenses in Texas. The crime volume decreased by 5.4% when compared to 2017. In addition to the above offenses, there were 2,446 cases of arson. There were also 332 human trafficking offenses reported in 2018.
From the Prison Policy Initiative: Grading the parole release systems of all 50 states
For our look at both criminal justice and interest groups.
- Click here for the article.
From arrest to sentencing, the process of sending someone to prison in America is full of rules and standards meant to guarantee fairness and predictability. An incredible amount of attention is given to the process, and rightly so. But in sharp contrast, the processes for releasing people from prison are relatively ignored by the public and by the law. State paroling systems vary so much that it is almost impossible to compare them.
Sixteen states have abolished or severely curtailed discretionary parole, and the remaining states range from having a system of presumptive parole — where when certain conditions are met, release on parole is guaranteed — to having policies and practices that make earning release almost impossible.
Parole systems should give every incarcerated person ample opportunity to earn release and have a fair, transparent process for deciding whether to grant it. A growing number of organizations and academics have called for states to adopt policies that would ensure consistency and fairness in how they identify who should receive parole, when those individuals should be reviewed and released, and what parole conditions should be attached to those individuals. In this report, I take the best of those suggestions, assign them point values, and grade the parole systems of each state.
Sadly, most states show lots of room for improvement. Only one state gets a B, five states get Cs, eight states get Ds, and the rest either get an F or an F-.
How we graded and what distinguishes a fair and equitable parole system.
To assess the fairness and equity of each state’s parole system, we looked at five general factors:
Whether a state’s legislature allows the parole board to offer discretionary parole to most people sentenced today; (20 pts.)
The opportunity for the person seeking parole to meet face-to-face with the board members and other factors about witnesses and testimony; (30 pts.)
The principles by which the parole board makes its decisions; (30 pts.)
The degree to which staff help every incarcerated person prepare for their parole hearing; (20 pts.)
The degree to which the parole board is transparent in the way it incorporates evidence-based tools. (20 pts.)
- Click here for the article.
From arrest to sentencing, the process of sending someone to prison in America is full of rules and standards meant to guarantee fairness and predictability. An incredible amount of attention is given to the process, and rightly so. But in sharp contrast, the processes for releasing people from prison are relatively ignored by the public and by the law. State paroling systems vary so much that it is almost impossible to compare them.
Sixteen states have abolished or severely curtailed discretionary parole, and the remaining states range from having a system of presumptive parole — where when certain conditions are met, release on parole is guaranteed — to having policies and practices that make earning release almost impossible.
Parole systems should give every incarcerated person ample opportunity to earn release and have a fair, transparent process for deciding whether to grant it. A growing number of organizations and academics have called for states to adopt policies that would ensure consistency and fairness in how they identify who should receive parole, when those individuals should be reviewed and released, and what parole conditions should be attached to those individuals. In this report, I take the best of those suggestions, assign them point values, and grade the parole systems of each state.
Sadly, most states show lots of room for improvement. Only one state gets a B, five states get Cs, eight states get Ds, and the rest either get an F or an F-.
How we graded and what distinguishes a fair and equitable parole system.
To assess the fairness and equity of each state’s parole system, we looked at five general factors:
Whether a state’s legislature allows the parole board to offer discretionary parole to most people sentenced today; (20 pts.)
The opportunity for the person seeking parole to meet face-to-face with the board members and other factors about witnesses and testimony; (30 pts.)
The principles by which the parole board makes its decisions; (30 pts.)
The degree to which staff help every incarcerated person prepare for their parole hearing; (20 pts.)
The degree to which the parole board is transparent in the way it incorporates evidence-based tools. (20 pts.)
From the Sentencing Project: Private Prisons in the United States
For out look at criminal justice
- Click here for the article.
Private prisons in the United States incarcerated 121,718 people in 2017, representing 8.2% of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 39%.
However, the private prison population reached its peak in 2012 with 137,220 people. Declines in private prisons’ use make these latest overall population numbers the lowest since 2006 when the population was 113,791.
States show significant variation in their use of private correctional facilities. Indeed, the New Mexico Department of Corrections reports that 53% of its prison population is housed in private facilities, while 22 states do not employ any for-profit prisons. Data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and interviews with corrections officials find that in 2017, 28 states and the federal government incarcerated people in private facilities run by corporations including GEO Group, Core Civic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America), and Management and Training Corporation.
Eighteen states with private prison contracts incarcerate more than 500 people in for-profit prisons. Texas, the first state to adopt private prisons in 1985, incarcerated the largest number of people under state jurisdiction, 12,728.
Since 2000, the number of people in private prisons has increased 39.3%, compared to an overall rise in the prison population of 7.8%. In six states the private prison population has more than doubled during this time period: Arizona (479%), Indiana (310%), Ohio (277%), Florida (199%), Tennessee (117%), and Georgia (110%).
- Click here for the article.
Private prisons in the United States incarcerated 121,718 people in 2017, representing 8.2% of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 39%.
However, the private prison population reached its peak in 2012 with 137,220 people. Declines in private prisons’ use make these latest overall population numbers the lowest since 2006 when the population was 113,791.
States show significant variation in their use of private correctional facilities. Indeed, the New Mexico Department of Corrections reports that 53% of its prison population is housed in private facilities, while 22 states do not employ any for-profit prisons. Data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and interviews with corrections officials find that in 2017, 28 states and the federal government incarcerated people in private facilities run by corporations including GEO Group, Core Civic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America), and Management and Training Corporation.
Eighteen states with private prison contracts incarcerate more than 500 people in for-profit prisons. Texas, the first state to adopt private prisons in 1985, incarcerated the largest number of people under state jurisdiction, 12,728.
Since 2000, the number of people in private prisons has increased 39.3%, compared to an overall rise in the prison population of 7.8%. In six states the private prison population has more than doubled during this time period: Arizona (479%), Indiana (310%), Ohio (277%), Florida (199%), Tennessee (117%), and Georgia (110%).
From the Texas Tribune: As the Texas prison population shrinks, the state is closing two more lockups
A consequence of lighter jail sentences?
- Click here for the article.
Following a declining inmate population and dangerous understaffing in Texas prisons, the state is closing two of its more than 100 lockups.
State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, announced Thursday that the Garza East prison in Beeville and the Jester I Unit in Sugar Land would be closing soon. He said in a statement that all employees at the closing prisons would be offered jobs at nearby facilities, “preventing the loss of any jobs while also addressing understaffing at other units.” A prison spokesperson said the Beeville unit would close in mid-May, and the Sugar Land prison would close this summer.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s executive director, Bryan Collier, said diversion, treatment and education programs, as well as a low rate of people getting sent back to prison, led to the decision.
“This decreasing demand for secure housing and projected stability in the offender population makes possible the decision to reduce state spending through the closure of excess correctional capacity,” Collier said in a statement. “The agency can close these facilities without negatively affecting public safety or causing any loss of jobs.”
- Click here for the article.
Following a declining inmate population and dangerous understaffing in Texas prisons, the state is closing two of its more than 100 lockups.
State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, announced Thursday that the Garza East prison in Beeville and the Jester I Unit in Sugar Land would be closing soon. He said in a statement that all employees at the closing prisons would be offered jobs at nearby facilities, “preventing the loss of any jobs while also addressing understaffing at other units.” A prison spokesperson said the Beeville unit would close in mid-May, and the Sugar Land prison would close this summer.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s executive director, Bryan Collier, said diversion, treatment and education programs, as well as a low rate of people getting sent back to prison, led to the decision.
“This decreasing demand for secure housing and projected stability in the offender population makes possible the decision to reduce state spending through the closure of excess correctional capacity,” Collier said in a statement. “The agency can close these facilities without negatively affecting public safety or causing any loss of jobs.”
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
U.S. Supreme Court cases mentioned in the first five chapters of the Mora - Ruger textbook
This may be incomplete
- Bond v United States
- McCullough v. Maryland
- Wickard v Filburn
- U.S. v Windsor
- Perry v Schwarzenner
- Obergefell v Hodges
- Baker v Carr
- Reynolds v Sims
- Evenwel v. Abbott
- Bush v Vera
- Hunt v. Cromartie
- LULAC v. Perry
- Perry v. Perez
- Shelby County v. Holder
- Hopwood v Texas
Patterson - 2305
- Gideon v Wainwright
- McCullough v Maryland
- Gibbons v Ogden
- Scott v Sanford
- Plessy v Ferguson
- Hammer v Dagenhart
- Lochner v New York
- Schechter Poultry Corp. v United States
- United States v Butler
- Bond v United States
- McCullough v. Maryland
- Wickard v Filburn
- U.S. v Windsor
- Perry v Schwarzenner
- Obergefell v Hodges
- Baker v Carr
- Reynolds v Sims
- Evenwel v. Abbott
- Bush v Vera
- Hunt v. Cromartie
- LULAC v. Perry
- Perry v. Perez
- Shelby County v. Holder
- Hopwood v Texas
Patterson - 2305
- Gideon v Wainwright
- McCullough v Maryland
- Gibbons v Ogden
- Scott v Sanford
- Plessy v Ferguson
- Hammer v Dagenhart
- Lochner v New York
- Schechter Poultry Corp. v United States
- United States v Butler
Company Towns
Looking far ahead to our look at local governments.
- Cheapism: 25 Towns Devastated by Losing a Single Company.
- Oxford: Company Towns in the United States.
- Smithsonian Mag: America's Company Towns, Then and Now.
- VCU: Company Towns: 1880s to 1935.
- Wikipedia: Company Town.
- Wikipedia: Company Town #United States.
- Wikipedia: Lists of Company towns in the United States.
- Cheapism: 25 Towns Devastated by Losing a Single Company.
- Oxford: Company Towns in the United States.
- Smithsonian Mag: America's Company Towns, Then and Now.
- VCU: Company Towns: 1880s to 1935.
- Wikipedia: Company Town.
- Wikipedia: Company Town #United States.
- Wikipedia: Lists of Company towns in the United States.
Thursday, February 13, 2020
Executive Power in the various Texas Constitutions
1845: SEC. 1. The supreme executive power of this State shall be vested in a chief magistrate, who shall be styled the governor of the State of Texas
1861: SECTION 1. The supreme executive power of this State shall be vested in the Chief Magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor of the State of Texas.
1866: SECTION 1. The supreme executive power of this State shall be vested in the Chief Magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor of the State of Texas.
1869: SECTION I. The executive department of the State shall consist of a Chief Magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor, a Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Treasurer, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Attorney General and Superintendent of Public Instruction.
1876: SECTION 1. The executive department of the State shall consist of a governor, who shall be the chief executive officer of the State, a lieutenant-governor, secretary of State, comptroller of public accounts, treasurer, commissioner of the general land office and attorney general.
As amended in 1995: SECTION 1. The executive department of the State shall consist of a governor, who shall be the chief executive officer of the State, a lieutenant-governor, secretary of State, comptroller of public accounts, treasurer, commissioner of the general land office and attorney general.
1861: SECTION 1. The supreme executive power of this State shall be vested in the Chief Magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor of the State of Texas.
1866: SECTION 1. The supreme executive power of this State shall be vested in the Chief Magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor of the State of Texas.
1869: SECTION I. The executive department of the State shall consist of a Chief Magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor, a Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Treasurer, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Attorney General and Superintendent of Public Instruction.
1876: SECTION 1. The executive department of the State shall consist of a governor, who shall be the chief executive officer of the State, a lieutenant-governor, secretary of State, comptroller of public accounts, treasurer, commissioner of the general land office and attorney general.
As amended in 1995: SECTION 1. The executive department of the State shall consist of a governor, who shall be the chief executive officer of the State, a lieutenant-governor, secretary of State, comptroller of public accounts, treasurer, commissioner of the general land office and attorney general.
Links - 2/23/20
https://capitol.texas.gov/help/findvoteinfo.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery
https://lrl.texas.gov/legis/ConstAmends/results.cfm?electionDate=Nov%203,%201936
https://www.sunset.texas.gov/reviews-and-reports/agencies
https://www.sunset.texas.gov/impact-sunset-reviews
https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/index.htm
http://www.harriscountytx.gov/
https://liberationist.org/dividing-people-is-the-best-way-to-lead/
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Meglomaniac
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery
https://lrl.texas.gov/legis/ConstAmends/results.cfm?electionDate=Nov%203,%201936
https://www.sunset.texas.gov/reviews-and-reports/agencies
https://www.sunset.texas.gov/impact-sunset-reviews
https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/index.htm
http://www.harriscountytx.gov/
https://liberationist.org/dividing-people-is-the-best-way-to-lead/
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Meglomaniac
From the Texas Tribune 2/13/20
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/12/texas-hhs-director-courtney-phillips-leaving-louisiana-job/
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/13/houston-mayor-sylvester-turner-endorses-michael-bloomberg-president/
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/13/royce-west-democrat-us-senate-flip-texas-coalition/
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/us-senate-primary-voter-guide/?_ga=2.201082734.1104880686.1581607492-736982957.1547583176
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/13/houston-mayor-sylvester-turner-endorses-michael-bloomberg-president/
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/13/royce-west-democrat-us-senate-flip-texas-coalition/
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/us-senate-primary-voter-guide/?_ga=2.201082734.1104880686.1581607492-736982957.1547583176
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
https://www.infoplease.com/primary-sources/government/anti-federalist-papers/president-military-king
https://slideplayer.com/slide/10796572/
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2018/09/18/304541/growing-diversity-in-fort-bend-county-may-make-for-tight-contest-in-tx-22/
https://www.harrisvotes.com/SampleBallot/VoterBallot/R/E/0501-REP.pdf
https://www.harrisvotes.com/SampleBallot/VoterBallot/D/E/0501-DEM.pdf
https://frontloading.blogspot.com/
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/
https://slideplayer.com/slide/10796572/
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2018/09/18/304541/growing-diversity-in-fort-bend-county-may-make-for-tight-contest-in-tx-22/
https://www.harrisvotes.com/SampleBallot/VoterBallot/R/E/0501-REP.pdf
https://www.harrisvotes.com/SampleBallot/VoterBallot/D/E/0501-DEM.pdf
https://frontloading.blogspot.com/
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
For HCC quiz 4
The test will cover both Chapters 4 and 5 in each textbook.
Focus especially in these terms.
2305
due process
establishment
exclusionary rule
imminent lawless action
good faith exemption
prior restraint
right of privacy
selective incorporation
symbolic speech
de-jure discrimination
equal protection clause
reasonable basis test
strict scrutiny
2306
attorney general
board and commissions
budgetary powers
comptroller
impeachment
judicial powers
land commissioner
legislative power
line-item veto
plural executive
secretary of state
Sunset Advisory Commission
appellate courts
grand juries
magistrate functions
onjectivity
partisan election
petit juries
stare decisis
trial courts
Focus especially in these terms.
2305
due process
establishment
exclusionary rule
imminent lawless action
good faith exemption
prior restraint
right of privacy
selective incorporation
symbolic speech
de-jure discrimination
equal protection clause
reasonable basis test
strict scrutiny
2306
attorney general
board and commissions
budgetary powers
comptroller
impeachment
judicial powers
land commissioner
legislative power
line-item veto
plural executive
secretary of state
Sunset Advisory Commission
appellate courts
grand juries
magistrate functions
onjectivity
partisan election
petit juries
stare decisis
trial courts
Regarding Racial Gerrymandering
- Shaw v. Reno.
. . . a landmark United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. On the other hand, bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The redistricting that occurred after the 2000 census, as required to reflect the population’s changes, was the first nationwide redistricting to apply the results of Shaw v. Reno.
- Hunt v. Cromartie.
. . . a United States Supreme Court case regarding North Carolina's 12th congressional district.[1] In an earlier case, Shaw v. Reno, 517 U.S. 899 (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the 12th district of North Carolina as drawn was unconstitutional because it was created for the purpose of placing African Americans in one district, thereby constituting illegal racial gerrymandering. The Court ordered the state of North Carolina to redraw the boundaries of the district.
. . . a landmark United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. On the other hand, bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The redistricting that occurred after the 2000 census, as required to reflect the population’s changes, was the first nationwide redistricting to apply the results of Shaw v. Reno.
- Hunt v. Cromartie.
. . . a United States Supreme Court case regarding North Carolina's 12th congressional district.[1] In an earlier case, Shaw v. Reno, 517 U.S. 899 (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the 12th district of North Carolina as drawn was unconstitutional because it was created for the purpose of placing African Americans in one district, thereby constituting illegal racial gerrymandering. The Court ordered the state of North Carolina to redraw the boundaries of the district.
Regarding Partisan Gerrymandering
From Ballotpedia:
The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. On June 27, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a joint ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.
Notable cases:
- Rucho v. Common Cause
- Lamone v. Benisek
- Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
- Davis v. Bandemer
The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. On June 27, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a joint ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.
Notable cases:
- Rucho v. Common Cause
- Lamone v. Benisek
- Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
- Davis v. Bandemer
Except as otherwise provided by this code, a political party's nominees in the general election for offices of state and county government and the United States Congress must be nominated by primary election, held as provided by this code, if the party's nominee for governor in the most recent gubernatorial general election received 20 percent or more of the total number of votes received by all candidates for governor in the election.
A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection (a), in each subsequent general election following a general election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office.
A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection (a), in each subsequent general election following a general election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office.
Monday, February 10, 2020
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: The politics of paying one Texan’s local sales taxes to another Texan’s city
For 2306 - a look at fiscal policy, the sales tax, local government, and the Comptroller.
- Click here for the story.
Sometimes, the best way to challenge something is to notice it.
Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar has proposed a change in the state’s tax rules that could scramble how online sales taxes are collected across the state. Under current law, local taxes on the things Texans buy online go to cities where the sellers are — or say they are. And those tax proceeds are often split by the cities and the companies. In other words, some companies are collecting sales taxes and then getting a portion of them back because they have a deal with a particular city.
If that sounds like a mutation of “Buy Local,” you’re thinking like Hegar.
“Nobody knows about this,” Hegar says. “This is taxation without representation.”
He has proposed sending the tax money from online sales to the buyer’s location, booting up a discussion that might eventually blossom into a reconsideration of how sales taxes work in Texas.
Right now, it’s stirred confusion. It’s also brought some light to a longstanding practice that doesn’t sit right with some voters — especially if you tag it with slogans like “taxation without representation.”
For more: Analysis: A Texas sales tax rule hinges on a question: What’s local?
- Click here for the story.
Sometimes, the best way to challenge something is to notice it.
Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar has proposed a change in the state’s tax rules that could scramble how online sales taxes are collected across the state. Under current law, local taxes on the things Texans buy online go to cities where the sellers are — or say they are. And those tax proceeds are often split by the cities and the companies. In other words, some companies are collecting sales taxes and then getting a portion of them back because they have a deal with a particular city.
If that sounds like a mutation of “Buy Local,” you’re thinking like Hegar.
“Nobody knows about this,” Hegar says. “This is taxation without representation.”
He has proposed sending the tax money from online sales to the buyer’s location, booting up a discussion that might eventually blossom into a reconsideration of how sales taxes work in Texas.
Right now, it’s stirred confusion. It’s also brought some light to a longstanding practice that doesn’t sit right with some voters — especially if you tag it with slogans like “taxation without representation.”
For more: Analysis: A Texas sales tax rule hinges on a question: What’s local?
Links today - 2/10/2020
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2019/2020-primary-election-ballot/
http://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2018_texas
https://apps.texastribune.org/elections/2018/primary-election-results/
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/current.shtml
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/index.shtml
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.141.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art6.asp
http://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2018_texas
https://apps.texastribune.org/elections/2018/primary-election-results/
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/current.shtml
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/index.shtml
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.141.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art6.asp
From the Brazoria County Clerk: Elections Division
They are responsible for the actual running of elections in the state, according to state laws.
- Click here for it.
- Click here for it.
From the Texas Tribune: El Paso shooting suspect faces nearly 100 federal charges, including hate crimes
An example of how a criminal activity can involve a high number of offenses, this doesn't even take into consideration state charges.
- Click here for the article.
The man accused of killing 22 people during a mass shooting at a Walmart store in the border city last summer has been charged with nearly 100 federal crimes, John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, announced Thursday.
Patrick Crusius, the alleged gunman in the Aug. 3 massacre, already faces state capital murder charges for the racially motivated shooting spree that also wounded dozens.
He is charged federally with 22 counts of hate crimes resulting in death, 23 involving an attempt to kill and 45 charges of firing a weapon in relation to the hate crimes, according to an indictment of Crusius. The U.S. attorney’s office said that upon conviction, prosecutors will seek either the death penalty or life in prison.
Crusius allegedly published a manifesto in which he indicated the crime was motivated by hatred toward Hispanic Americans and immigrants. He also told authorities after he was arrested that he drove 10 hours from his home in Allen to kill Mexicans and ward off what he said was an invasion. Eight of the victims were Mexican nationals.
- Click here for the article.
The man accused of killing 22 people during a mass shooting at a Walmart store in the border city last summer has been charged with nearly 100 federal crimes, John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, announced Thursday.
Patrick Crusius, the alleged gunman in the Aug. 3 massacre, already faces state capital murder charges for the racially motivated shooting spree that also wounded dozens.
He is charged federally with 22 counts of hate crimes resulting in death, 23 involving an attempt to kill and 45 charges of firing a weapon in relation to the hate crimes, according to an indictment of Crusius. The U.S. attorney’s office said that upon conviction, prosecutors will seek either the death penalty or life in prison.
Crusius allegedly published a manifesto in which he indicated the crime was motivated by hatred toward Hispanic Americans and immigrants. He also told authorities after he was arrested that he drove 10 hours from his home in Allen to kill Mexicans and ward off what he said was an invasion. Eight of the victims were Mexican nationals.
Carter G. Woodson - The man who brought you Black History Month
- From Wikipedia:
Carter Godwin Woodson (December 19, 1875 – April 3, 1950) was an American historian, author, journalist, and the founder of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History. He was one of the first scholars to study African-American history. A founder of The Journal of Negro History in 1916, Woodson has been called the "father of black history". In February 1926 he launched the celebration of "Negro History Week", the precursor of Black History Month.
Born in Virginia, the son of former slaves, Woodson had to put off schooling while he worked in the coal mines of West Virginia. He made it to Berea College, becoming a teacher and school administrator. He gained graduate degrees at the University of Chicago and in 1912 was the second African American, after W. E. B. Du Bois, to obtain a PhD degree from Harvard University. Most of Woodson's academic career was spent at Howard University, a historically black university in Washington, D.C., where he eventually served as the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
Also:
https://time.com/4197928/history-black-history-month/
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/commemorative-observations/african-american.php
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/us/history-of-black-history-month-trnd/index.html
The Federal Register
For future use.
- Click here for the page.
Examples of recent proposed rules:
- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum Refinery Sector.
- Pipeline Safety: Valve Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards.
- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews.
- Click here for the page.
Examples of recent proposed rules:
- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum Refinery Sector.
- Pipeline Safety: Valve Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards.
- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Texas Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 56. PROHIBITED LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAWS.
(a) The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law, authorizing:
(1) the creation, extension or impairing of liens;
(2) regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, wards or school districts;
(3) changing the names of persons or places;
(4) changing the venue in civil or criminal cases;
(5) authorizing the laying out, opening, altering or maintaining of roads, highways, streets or alleys;
(6) relating to ferries or bridges, or incorporating ferry or bridge companies, except for the erection of bridges crossing streams which form boundaries between this and any other State;
(7) vacating roads, town plats, streets or alleys;
(8) relating to cemeteries, grave-yards or public grounds not of the State;
(9) authorizing the adoption or legitimation of children;
(10) locating or changing county seats;
(11) incorporating cities, towns or villages, or changing their charters;
(12) for the opening and conducting of elections, or fixing or changing the places of voting;
(13) granting divorces;
(14) creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers, in counties, cities, towns, election or school districts;
(15) changing the law of descent or succession;
(16) regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in any judicial proceeding or inquiry before courts, justices of the peace, sheriffs, commissioners, arbitrators or other tribunals, or providing or changing methods for the collection of debts, or the enforcing of judgments, or prescribing the effect of judicial sales of real estate;
(17) regulating the fees, or extending the powers and duties of aldermen, justices of the peace, magistrates or constables;
(18) regulating the management of public schools, the building or repairing of school houses, and the raising of money for such purposes;
(19) fixing the rate of interest;
(20) affecting the estates of minors, or persons under disability;
(21) remitting fines, penalties and forfeitures, and refunding moneys legally paid into the treasury;
(22) exempting property from taxation;
(23) regulating labor, trade, mining and manufacturing;
(24) declaring any named person of age;
(25) extending the time for the assessment or collection of taxes, or otherwise relieving any assessor or collector of taxes from the due performance of his official duties, or his securities from liability;
(26) giving effect to informal or invalid wills or deeds;
(27) summoning or empanelling grand or petit juries;
(28) for limitation of civil or criminal actions;
(29) for incorporating railroads or other works of internal improvements; or
(30) relieving or discharging any person or set of persons from the performance of any public duty or service imposed by general law.
(b) In addition to those laws described by Subsection (a) of this section in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the Legislature from passing:
(1) special laws for the preservation of the game and fish of this State in certain localities; and
(2) fence laws applicable to any subdivision of this State or counties as may be needed to meet the wants of the people.
(1) the creation, extension or impairing of liens;
(2) regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, wards or school districts;
(3) changing the names of persons or places;
(4) changing the venue in civil or criminal cases;
(5) authorizing the laying out, opening, altering or maintaining of roads, highways, streets or alleys;
(6) relating to ferries or bridges, or incorporating ferry or bridge companies, except for the erection of bridges crossing streams which form boundaries between this and any other State;
(7) vacating roads, town plats, streets or alleys;
(8) relating to cemeteries, grave-yards or public grounds not of the State;
(9) authorizing the adoption or legitimation of children;
(10) locating or changing county seats;
(11) incorporating cities, towns or villages, or changing their charters;
(12) for the opening and conducting of elections, or fixing or changing the places of voting;
(13) granting divorces;
(14) creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers, in counties, cities, towns, election or school districts;
(15) changing the law of descent or succession;
(16) regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in any judicial proceeding or inquiry before courts, justices of the peace, sheriffs, commissioners, arbitrators or other tribunals, or providing or changing methods for the collection of debts, or the enforcing of judgments, or prescribing the effect of judicial sales of real estate;
(17) regulating the fees, or extending the powers and duties of aldermen, justices of the peace, magistrates or constables;
(18) regulating the management of public schools, the building or repairing of school houses, and the raising of money for such purposes;
(19) fixing the rate of interest;
(20) affecting the estates of minors, or persons under disability;
(21) remitting fines, penalties and forfeitures, and refunding moneys legally paid into the treasury;
(22) exempting property from taxation;
(23) regulating labor, trade, mining and manufacturing;
(24) declaring any named person of age;
(25) extending the time for the assessment or collection of taxes, or otherwise relieving any assessor or collector of taxes from the due performance of his official duties, or his securities from liability;
(26) giving effect to informal or invalid wills or deeds;
(27) summoning or empanelling grand or petit juries;
(28) for limitation of civil or criminal actions;
(29) for incorporating railroads or other works of internal improvements; or
(30) relieving or discharging any person or set of persons from the performance of any public duty or service imposed by general law.
(b) In addition to those laws described by Subsection (a) of this section in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the Legislature from passing:
(1) special laws for the preservation of the game and fish of this State in certain localities; and
(2) fence laws applicable to any subdivision of this State or counties as may be needed to meet the wants of the people.
Viewed in class 2/6/20
https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/
https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1876/a3
https://tmd.texas.gov/office-of-the-adjutant-general
https://www.texasagriculture.gov/Home.aspx
https://www.tcjs.state.tx.us/current-members/
http://www.txrc.texas.gov/agency/commission/former_commissioners.php
https://www.sunset.texas.gov/reviews-and-reports
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_elections,_2019
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_elections,_2018
https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1876/a3
https://tmd.texas.gov/office-of-the-adjutant-general
https://www.texasagriculture.gov/Home.aspx
https://www.tcjs.state.tx.us/current-members/
http://www.txrc.texas.gov/agency/commission/former_commissioners.php
https://www.sunset.texas.gov/reviews-and-reports
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_elections,_2019
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_elections,_2018
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
From Wikipedia: White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (AKA - the Mann Act)
The national government starts to become involved in criminal activity.
- Click here for the entry.
The White-Slave Traffic Act, or the Mann Act, is a United States federal law, passed June 25, 1910 (ch. 395, 36 Stat. 825; codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2424). It is named after Congressman James Robert Mann of Illinois.
In its original form the act made it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking, particularly where trafficking was for the purposes of prostitution. It was one of several acts of protective legislation aimed at moral reform during the Progressive Era. In practice, its ambiguous language about "immorality" resulted in it being used to criminalize even consensual sexual behavior between adults. It was amended by Congress in 1978 and again in 1986 to limit its application to transport for the purpose of prostitution or other illegal sexual acts.
For more:
- Congress passes the White Slave Traffic Act, June 25, 1910.
- The ‘White Slavery’ Law That Brought Down Jack Johnson is Still in Effect.
- What is the Mann Act?
- Classification 31: White Slave Traffic Act.
- Click here for the entry.
The White-Slave Traffic Act, or the Mann Act, is a United States federal law, passed June 25, 1910 (ch. 395, 36 Stat. 825; codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2424). It is named after Congressman James Robert Mann of Illinois.
In its original form the act made it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking, particularly where trafficking was for the purposes of prostitution. It was one of several acts of protective legislation aimed at moral reform during the Progressive Era. In practice, its ambiguous language about "immorality" resulted in it being used to criminalize even consensual sexual behavior between adults. It was amended by Congress in 1978 and again in 1986 to limit its application to transport for the purpose of prostitution or other illegal sexual acts.
For more:
- Congress passes the White Slave Traffic Act, June 25, 1910.
- The ‘White Slavery’ Law That Brought Down Jack Johnson is Still in Effect.
- What is the Mann Act?
- Classification 31: White Slave Traffic Act.
From VoteSmart: Government 101: United States Presidential Primary
A primer:
- Click here for it.
The Caucus
Caucuses were the original method for selecting candidates but have decreased in number since the primary was introduced in the early 1900's. In states that hold caucuses a political party announces the date, time, and location of the meeting. Generally any voter registered with the party may attend. At the caucus, delegates are chosen to represent the state's interests at the national party convention. Prospective delegates are identified as favorable to a specific candidate or uncommitted. After discussion and debate an informal vote is taken to determine which delegates should be chosen.
- Click here for it.
The Caucus
Caucuses were the original method for selecting candidates but have decreased in number since the primary was introduced in the early 1900's. In states that hold caucuses a political party announces the date, time, and location of the meeting. Generally any voter registered with the party may attend. At the caucus, delegates are chosen to represent the state's interests at the national party convention. Prospective delegates are identified as favorable to a specific candidate or uncommitted. After discussion and debate an informal vote is taken to determine which delegates should be chosen.
From Vox: Technical difficulties in Iowa caucuses lead to widespread confusion, delayed results
For 2305 and 2306, a story related to parties and elections.
- Click here for the article.
The Iowa caucuses melted down on Monday night after technical difficulties caused significant delays in reporting the results, which have not, as of Tuesday morning, been declared.
A smartphone app, which was reportedly made by a firm called Shadow, appears to be at the center of the confusion. The app was designed to help precinct chairs send the results to the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters, but reports that volunteers were unable to download or properly use the app suggest that this new way of doing things did not go smoothly. A number of volunteers resorted to calling the state party to report results, and many reported being left on hold indefinitely due to busy phone lines.
- Click here for the article.
The Iowa caucuses melted down on Monday night after technical difficulties caused significant delays in reporting the results, which have not, as of Tuesday morning, been declared.
A smartphone app, which was reportedly made by a firm called Shadow, appears to be at the center of the confusion. The app was designed to help precinct chairs send the results to the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters, but reports that volunteers were unable to download or properly use the app suggest that this new way of doing things did not go smoothly. A number of volunteers resorted to calling the state party to report results, and many reported being left on hold indefinitely due to busy phone lines.
Monday, February 3, 2020
From Vox: How the US became the center of global kleptocracy
The reason - according to the author - is federalism.
- Click here for the article.
How US states became masters of the shell game
The biggest single provider of anonymous shell corporations in the world isn’t Panama or the Cayman Islands. It’s not the financial secrecy stalwart Switzerland, or a traditional offshore haven like the Bahamas.
It’s Delaware. And the main reason is federalism.
Thanks to the US’s federal structure, company formation remains overseen at the state level, rather than in Washington.
So if you’re a budding autocrat interested in a bit of easy money laundering, you don’t turn to federal officials in Washington. Instead, you look to state officials in Dover, Cheyenne, or Reno to help construct anonymous shell companies to funnel and clean your illegitimate money.
And these states have taken full advantage. Since there are no regulations in the US requiring that shell companies identify their true owners — known as “beneficial owners” – American states have been under no compunction to try to peel back who may be behind the anonymous shell companies mushrooming across the country.
These states and their constituents are raking in fees — at last check, Delaware made some $1.3 billion annually from its company formation industry — so whenever, say, a human trafficker or extremist network sets up an anonymous company in Wilmington or Laramie or Carson City, they have little incentive to try to figure out who may be behind the companies.
- Click here for the article.
How US states became masters of the shell game
The biggest single provider of anonymous shell corporations in the world isn’t Panama or the Cayman Islands. It’s not the financial secrecy stalwart Switzerland, or a traditional offshore haven like the Bahamas.
It’s Delaware. And the main reason is federalism.
Thanks to the US’s federal structure, company formation remains overseen at the state level, rather than in Washington.
So if you’re a budding autocrat interested in a bit of easy money laundering, you don’t turn to federal officials in Washington. Instead, you look to state officials in Dover, Cheyenne, or Reno to help construct anonymous shell companies to funnel and clean your illegitimate money.
And these states have taken full advantage. Since there are no regulations in the US requiring that shell companies identify their true owners — known as “beneficial owners” – American states have been under no compunction to try to peel back who may be behind the anonymous shell companies mushrooming across the country.
These states and their constituents are raking in fees — at last check, Delaware made some $1.3 billion annually from its company formation industry — so whenever, say, a human trafficker or extremist network sets up an anonymous company in Wilmington or Laramie or Carson City, they have little incentive to try to figure out who may be behind the companies.
From Lawfare: The Mexican-American War and Constitutional War Powers
Very appropriate for both 2305 - presidential powers - and 2306 - Texas history.
- Click here for the article.
On this day in 1848, the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending a two-year war. The treaty set the southern Texas border at the Rio Grande and ceded Mexico’s northern provinces (which now include California and large parts of New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Colorado) to the United States in return for $15 million. In July of that year, the Senate approved the treaty’s ratification.
In discussions of constitutional war powers, it’s the start of the Mexican-American War that gets most of the attention. Congress’s move in 1845 to annex and grant statehood to Texas probably set the countries on a path toward eventual war. Nevertheless, the main constitutional controversy in most accounts of the war is that President James Polk pretextually manufactured a border crisis to pull Congress into declaring war over American blood spilled in the disputed region between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande (which the United States and Mexico, respectively, regarded as the proper national boundary). Polk had sent Army units into the contested territory, essentially baiting Mexican forces into firing the first shot. Polk had also already drafted a war declaration for Congress before word of the skirmish reached Washington in May 1846. When Polk told Congress that Mexico had killed American troops, his allies rushed the declaration through Congress.
The start of the Mexican-American War is only one of many important constitutional dimensions of the conflict, though, and I don’t think it’s the most interesting. I’m writing about this conflict on the anniversary of its end because its outcome—and the means necessary to achieve it—led to the war’s most noteworthy constitutional precedents.
- Click here for the article.
On this day in 1848, the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending a two-year war. The treaty set the southern Texas border at the Rio Grande and ceded Mexico’s northern provinces (which now include California and large parts of New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Colorado) to the United States in return for $15 million. In July of that year, the Senate approved the treaty’s ratification.
In discussions of constitutional war powers, it’s the start of the Mexican-American War that gets most of the attention. Congress’s move in 1845 to annex and grant statehood to Texas probably set the countries on a path toward eventual war. Nevertheless, the main constitutional controversy in most accounts of the war is that President James Polk pretextually manufactured a border crisis to pull Congress into declaring war over American blood spilled in the disputed region between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande (which the United States and Mexico, respectively, regarded as the proper national boundary). Polk had sent Army units into the contested territory, essentially baiting Mexican forces into firing the first shot. Polk had also already drafted a war declaration for Congress before word of the skirmish reached Washington in May 1846. When Polk told Congress that Mexico had killed American troops, his allies rushed the declaration through Congress.
The start of the Mexican-American War is only one of many important constitutional dimensions of the conflict, though, and I don’t think it’s the most interesting. I’m writing about this conflict on the anniversary of its end because its outcome—and the means necessary to achieve it—led to the war’s most noteworthy constitutional precedents.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Block Grants and Medicaid
Coverage of Trump's recent propsals:
- Everything You Need To Know About Block Grants — The Heart Of GOP’s Medicaid Plans.
- The Problematic Law And Policy Of Medicaid Block Grants.
- ‘Block grants’ no more: Trump's Medicaid overhaul has new name, same goals.
- Trump’s audacious new plan to cut Medicaid, explained.
- Everything You Need To Know About Block Grants — The Heart Of GOP’s Medicaid Plans.
- The Problematic Law And Policy Of Medicaid Block Grants.
- ‘Block grants’ no more: Trump's Medicaid overhaul has new name, same goals.
- Trump’s audacious new plan to cut Medicaid, explained.
From Wikipedia: Andrew Wheeler
A great look at the revolving door and the iron triangle.
- Click here for the entry.
Career
EPA
Wheeler's first job between 1991 and 1995 was as special assistant to the Information Management Division Director in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics working on toxic chemical, pollution prevention, and right-to-know issues. Wheeler received the Agency's Bronze Medal in 1993 and twice in 1994.
Senate staff
From January 1995 until January 1997, Wheeler worked as Chief Counsel of Senator Jim Inhofe. In 1997, Wheeler entered his first work in Congress as majority staff director at the US Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, Wetlands, and Nuclear Safety, which Inhofe chaired until 2001; thereafter he was minority staff director under Chairman George Voinovich from 2001 to 2003. From 2003 to 2009, he was chief counsel at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. During this time, Wheeler generally sought to reduce government regulations on industries that generate greenhouse gases. Senator James Inhofe was prominent for his rejection of climate change, and famously brought a snowball to the Senate as alleged proof that climate change was not real.
During his time at the Senate, Wheeler was named by the National Journal as one of the Top Congressional Staff Leaders in 2005 and was a John C. Stennis Congressional Staff Fellow in the 106th Congress.
Lobbyist
From 2009 until 2017, Wheeler was a lobbyist in the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels' energy and natural resources practice. Since 2009, he represented the coal producer Murray Energy, privately owned by Robert E. Murray, a supporter of President Trump.[21] Murray Energy was Wheeler's best-paying client, paying at least $300,000, and possibly as much as $3,300,000 during the period 2009-2017. Wheeler lobbied against the Obama administration's climate regulations for power plants and also sought to persuade the Energy Department to subsidize coal plants. Wheeler set up a meeting between Murray and Energy Secretary Rick Perry in March 2017; at the meeting, Murray advocated for the rollback of environmental regulations and for protections for the coal industry.
EPA Deputy Administrator
In October 2017, Wheeler was nominated by President Trump to become Deputy Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. His nomination was returned to the White House on January 3, 2018 as the Senate had adjourned at the end of 2017 without taking up the nomination (Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6). His nomination was resubmitted and he was confirmed as Deputy Administrator of the EPA on April 12, 2018, by a mostly party-line vote of 53–45, which included three Democratic Senators: Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly.
Since being sworn in, Wheeler has had at least three meetings with former lobbying clients of his in a potential violation of the Trump administration's ethics pledge and the promises that Wheeler made during his confirmation hearing Justina Fugh, an EPA ethics official, said that Wheeler's meetings with former lobbying clients did not violate the Trump administration's ethics pledge, because Wheeler had not worked on their behalf in the two years prior to joining the EPA. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said he was "vigorously opposed" to Wheeler replacing Pruitt.
- Click here for the entry.
Career
EPA
Wheeler's first job between 1991 and 1995 was as special assistant to the Information Management Division Director in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics working on toxic chemical, pollution prevention, and right-to-know issues. Wheeler received the Agency's Bronze Medal in 1993 and twice in 1994.
Senate staff
From January 1995 until January 1997, Wheeler worked as Chief Counsel of Senator Jim Inhofe. In 1997, Wheeler entered his first work in Congress as majority staff director at the US Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, Wetlands, and Nuclear Safety, which Inhofe chaired until 2001; thereafter he was minority staff director under Chairman George Voinovich from 2001 to 2003. From 2003 to 2009, he was chief counsel at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. During this time, Wheeler generally sought to reduce government regulations on industries that generate greenhouse gases. Senator James Inhofe was prominent for his rejection of climate change, and famously brought a snowball to the Senate as alleged proof that climate change was not real.
During his time at the Senate, Wheeler was named by the National Journal as one of the Top Congressional Staff Leaders in 2005 and was a John C. Stennis Congressional Staff Fellow in the 106th Congress.
Lobbyist
From 2009 until 2017, Wheeler was a lobbyist in the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels' energy and natural resources practice. Since 2009, he represented the coal producer Murray Energy, privately owned by Robert E. Murray, a supporter of President Trump.[21] Murray Energy was Wheeler's best-paying client, paying at least $300,000, and possibly as much as $3,300,000 during the period 2009-2017. Wheeler lobbied against the Obama administration's climate regulations for power plants and also sought to persuade the Energy Department to subsidize coal plants. Wheeler set up a meeting between Murray and Energy Secretary Rick Perry in March 2017; at the meeting, Murray advocated for the rollback of environmental regulations and for protections for the coal industry.
EPA Deputy Administrator
In October 2017, Wheeler was nominated by President Trump to become Deputy Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. His nomination was returned to the White House on January 3, 2018 as the Senate had adjourned at the end of 2017 without taking up the nomination (Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6). His nomination was resubmitted and he was confirmed as Deputy Administrator of the EPA on April 12, 2018, by a mostly party-line vote of 53–45, which included three Democratic Senators: Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly.
Since being sworn in, Wheeler has had at least three meetings with former lobbying clients of his in a potential violation of the Trump administration's ethics pledge and the promises that Wheeler made during his confirmation hearing Justina Fugh, an EPA ethics official, said that Wheeler's meetings with former lobbying clients did not violate the Trump administration's ethics pledge, because Wheeler had not worked on their behalf in the two years prior to joining the EPA. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said he was "vigorously opposed" to Wheeler replacing Pruitt.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Testing the Texas political waters by breaking the rules
For our look at primaries and campaign funding.
- Click here for the article.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is skipping the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses in early states. Instead, he is concentrating his efforts on Texas and the other 13 Super Tuesday states, throwing money around like the billionaire that he is, advertising his name and trying to build an organization to wrest the presidential nomination away from the contenders in those earlier contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
Those other Democrats are focused mainly on those four states. That’s the standard operating procedure in presidential campaigns, and it has been since Georgia’s Jimmy Carter surprised other Democrats in 1976, focusing on Iowa while they were focused on the standard operating procedure of the time — campaigning in big states with more electoral juice.
. . . Texas election history is littered with names of wealthy folks who burned wads of their own money on their way to defeat: Clayton Williams Jr., Tony Sanchez Jr. and Ross Perot, to name a Republican, a Democrat and an independent.
Nearly everyone in politics puts his or her own twist on things, but most candidates stick with conventional strategies. Perot, who had to file boxes of petitions to get on the ballot and who advertised his campaign with half-hour infomercials, was an exception. He influenced the outcome of the 1992 presidential race, winning almost 19% of the popular vote. But nobody has turned to his race in the search for best practices, the way they did after Carter won Iowa, the nomination and then a general election against incumbent President Gerald Ford.
Bloomberg is the latest well-financed candidate to really mess with the formula.
- Click here for the article.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is skipping the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses in early states. Instead, he is concentrating his efforts on Texas and the other 13 Super Tuesday states, throwing money around like the billionaire that he is, advertising his name and trying to build an organization to wrest the presidential nomination away from the contenders in those earlier contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
Those other Democrats are focused mainly on those four states. That’s the standard operating procedure in presidential campaigns, and it has been since Georgia’s Jimmy Carter surprised other Democrats in 1976, focusing on Iowa while they were focused on the standard operating procedure of the time — campaigning in big states with more electoral juice.
. . . Texas election history is littered with names of wealthy folks who burned wads of their own money on their way to defeat: Clayton Williams Jr., Tony Sanchez Jr. and Ross Perot, to name a Republican, a Democrat and an independent.
Nearly everyone in politics puts his or her own twist on things, but most candidates stick with conventional strategies. Perot, who had to file boxes of petitions to get on the ballot and who advertised his campaign with half-hour infomercials, was an exception. He influenced the outcome of the 1992 presidential race, winning almost 19% of the popular vote. But nobody has turned to his race in the search for best practices, the way they did after Carter won Iowa, the nomination and then a general election against incumbent President Gerald Ford.
Bloomberg is the latest well-financed candidate to really mess with the formula.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
From Wikipedia: The Center for Disease Control
Another example of cooperative federalism - seemingly built up from an agency established during WW2.
- Click here for the entry.
- Click here for the entry.
The Communicable Disease Center was founded July 1, 1946, as the successor to the World War II Malaria Control in War Areas program of the Office of National Defense Malaria Control Activities.
Preceding its founding, organizations with global influence in malaria control were the Malaria Commission of the League of Nations and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation greatly supported malaria control, sought to have the governments take over some of its efforts, and collaborated with the agency.
The new agency was a branch of the U.S. Public Health Service and Atlanta was chosen as the location because malaria was endemic in the Southern United States. The agency changed names (see infobox on top) before adopting the name Communicable Disease Center in 1946. Offices were located on the sixth floor of the Volunteer Building on Peachtree Street.
. . . The mission of CDC expanded beyond its original focus on malaria to include sexually transmitted diseases when the Venereal Disease Division of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) was transferred to the CDC in 1957. Shortly thereafter, Tuberculosis Control was transferred (in 1960) to the CDC from PHS, and then in 1963 the Immunization program was established.
It became the National Communicable Disease Center (NCDC) effective July 1, 1967. The organization was renamed the Center for Disease Control (CDC) on June 24, 1970, and Centers for Disease Control effective October 14, 1980. An act of the United States Congress appended the words "and Prevention" to the name effective October 27, 1992. However, Congress directed that the initialism CDC be retained because of its name recognition.
Currently, the CDC focus has broadened to include chronic diseases, disabilities, injury control, workplace hazards, environmental health threats, and terrorism preparedness. CDC combats emerging diseases and other health risks, including birth defects, West Nile virus, obesity, avian, swine, and pandemic flu, E. coli, and bioterrorism, to name a few. The organization would also prove to be an important factor in preventing the abuse of penicillin. In May 1994 the CDC admitted having sent several biological warfare agents to the Iraqi government from 1984 through 1989, including Botulinum toxin, West Nile virus, Yersinia pestis and Dengue fever virus.
Preceding its founding, organizations with global influence in malaria control were the Malaria Commission of the League of Nations and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation greatly supported malaria control, sought to have the governments take over some of its efforts, and collaborated with the agency.
The new agency was a branch of the U.S. Public Health Service and Atlanta was chosen as the location because malaria was endemic in the Southern United States. The agency changed names (see infobox on top) before adopting the name Communicable Disease Center in 1946. Offices were located on the sixth floor of the Volunteer Building on Peachtree Street.
. . . The mission of CDC expanded beyond its original focus on malaria to include sexually transmitted diseases when the Venereal Disease Division of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) was transferred to the CDC in 1957. Shortly thereafter, Tuberculosis Control was transferred (in 1960) to the CDC from PHS, and then in 1963 the Immunization program was established.
It became the National Communicable Disease Center (NCDC) effective July 1, 1967. The organization was renamed the Center for Disease Control (CDC) on June 24, 1970, and Centers for Disease Control effective October 14, 1980. An act of the United States Congress appended the words "and Prevention" to the name effective October 27, 1992. However, Congress directed that the initialism CDC be retained because of its name recognition.
Currently, the CDC focus has broadened to include chronic diseases, disabilities, injury control, workplace hazards, environmental health threats, and terrorism preparedness. CDC combats emerging diseases and other health risks, including birth defects, West Nile virus, obesity, avian, swine, and pandemic flu, E. coli, and bioterrorism, to name a few. The organization would also prove to be an important factor in preventing the abuse of penicillin. In May 1994 the CDC admitted having sent several biological warfare agents to the Iraqi government from 1984 through 1989, including Botulinum toxin, West Nile virus, Yersinia pestis and Dengue fever virus.
From Wikipedia: Red Shirts
A look at the use of political violence in the South.
- Click here for the entry.
The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were white supremacist paramilitary terrorist groups that were active in the late 19th century in the last years of, and after the end of, the Reconstruction era of the United States. Red Shirt groups originated in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both whites and freedmen. Similar groups in the Carolinas also adopted red shirts.
Among the most prominent Red Shirts were the supporters of Democratic Party candidate Wade Hampton during the campaigns for the South Carolina gubernatorial elections of 1876 and 1878. The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations, such as the White League in Louisiana, arising from the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s. These groups acted as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."
While sometimes engaging in violent acts of terrorism, the Red Shirts, the White League, rifle clubs, and similar groups in the late nineteenth century worked openly and were better organized than the secret vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They used organization, intimidation and force to achieve political purposes of restoring the Democrats to power, overturning Republicans, and repressing civil and voting rights of freedmen. During the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic Party voters.
- Click here for the entry.
The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were white supremacist paramilitary terrorist groups that were active in the late 19th century in the last years of, and after the end of, the Reconstruction era of the United States. Red Shirt groups originated in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both whites and freedmen. Similar groups in the Carolinas also adopted red shirts.
Among the most prominent Red Shirts were the supporters of Democratic Party candidate Wade Hampton during the campaigns for the South Carolina gubernatorial elections of 1876 and 1878. The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations, such as the White League in Louisiana, arising from the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s. These groups acted as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."
While sometimes engaging in violent acts of terrorism, the Red Shirts, the White League, rifle clubs, and similar groups in the late nineteenth century worked openly and were better organized than the secret vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They used organization, intimidation and force to achieve political purposes of restoring the Democrats to power, overturning Republicans, and repressing civil and voting rights of freedmen. During the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic Party voters.
What are "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
There's debate on the subject.
- Just Security: Justice Joseph Story on “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
- AEI: What Does “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” Mean?
- CRS: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
- The Atlantic: The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
- Just Security: Justice Joseph Story on “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
- AEI: What Does “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” Mean?
- CRS: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
- The Atlantic: The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
Mora and Ruger - Chapters 1 and 2 - Key Terms
Chapter One
Anglo
empresario
Adelsverein Society
land-based economy
economic regions
political action committees
majority-minority
political culture
moralistic
individualistic
traditionalistic
Chapter Two
ballot wording
bill of rights
block grants
categorical grants
checks and balances
confederal systems
constitution
constitutional convention
due process clause
earmarked
equal protection clause
federal system
full faith and credit
initiative
interstate commerce clause
necessary and proper clause
ordinances
plural executive
popular sovereignty
privileges and immunities
separation of powers
social contract theory
statute
supremacy clause
10th amendment
unitary systems
Anglo
empresario
Adelsverein Society
land-based economy
economic regions
political action committees
majority-minority
political culture
moralistic
individualistic
traditionalistic
Chapter Two
ballot wording
bill of rights
block grants
categorical grants
checks and balances
confederal systems
constitution
constitutional convention
due process clause
earmarked
equal protection clause
federal system
full faith and credit
initiative
interstate commerce clause
necessary and proper clause
ordinances
plural executive
popular sovereignty
privileges and immunities
separation of powers
social contract theory
statute
supremacy clause
10th amendment
unitary systems
Patterson - Chapters 1 and 2 - Key Terms
Chapter One
authoritarian government
authority
confirmation bias
constitutionalism
corporate power
critical thinking
democracy
elitism
equality
free-market system
individualism
legal action
liberty
majoritarianism
party polarization
pluralism
political culture
political science
politics
power
public policies
self-government
Chapter Two
anti-federalists
bill of rights
checks and balances
constitution
constitutional democratic republican
democracy (according to the framers)
denials of powers
electoral college
electoral votes
federalists
grants of power
great compromise
inalienable rights
judicial review
liberty
limited government
new jersey plan
primary election
representative government
republic
separated institutions sharing powers
separation of powers
social contract
3/5ths compromise
tyranny of the majority
virginia plan
authoritarian government
authority
confirmation bias
constitutionalism
corporate power
critical thinking
democracy
elitism
equality
free-market system
individualism
legal action
liberty
majoritarianism
party polarization
pluralism
political culture
political science
politics
power
public policies
self-government
Chapter Two
anti-federalists
bill of rights
checks and balances
constitution
constitutional democratic republican
democracy (according to the framers)
denials of powers
electoral college
electoral votes
federalists
grants of power
great compromise
inalienable rights
judicial review
liberty
limited government
new jersey plan
primary election
representative government
republic
separated institutions sharing powers
separation of powers
social contract
3/5ths compromise
tyranny of the majority
virginia plan
Monday, January 27, 2020
From the Texas Tribune: Attorney general tells Galveston City Council it can't stop gun shops from locating near schools and churches
More on the conflict between the state and cities in Texas.
- Click here for the article.
After Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton threatened a lawsuit, the Galveston City Council repealed a local rule this week that aimed to put some space between gun shops and schools.
Galveston previously had on its books some regulations that required a minimum of 200 feet of distance between gun stores and a school, place of worship or public park, reported The Houston Chronicle.
But in a unanimous decision, the city council voted to repeal the regulations on Thursday.
On Dec. 17, Assistant Attorney General Cleve Doty wrote a letter to the city of Galveston stating that the land use regulation violated state law. Doty requested the city rule to be overturned or else face legal retaliation, The Chronicle reports.
“The Office of the Attorney General demands that the City repeal these regulations and any like them immediately,” Doty wrote in the letter. “Rather than file litigation now, we are confident that the City of Galveston intends to comply with Texas law and will rescind regulations that are in violation of Texas law.”
This wouldn’t have been the first time Paxton sued a local government over gun regulations. In 2016 he sued Waller County over its ban on guns at its courthouse. In the same year, he sued the city of Austin for restricting residents from bringing firearms into city hall.
City Council members admitted prior to the vote that they couldn’t do anything about the state law, but some said they were not fond of Paxton’s approach and interference with local rule, reported The Chronicle.
John Paul Listowski, a city council member, told The Chronicle that he doesn’t think a lot of gun stores are going to start popping up, but he doesn’t, “like being forced to do something that we might not want here.”
- Click here for the article.
After Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton threatened a lawsuit, the Galveston City Council repealed a local rule this week that aimed to put some space between gun shops and schools.
Galveston previously had on its books some regulations that required a minimum of 200 feet of distance between gun stores and a school, place of worship or public park, reported The Houston Chronicle.
But in a unanimous decision, the city council voted to repeal the regulations on Thursday.
On Dec. 17, Assistant Attorney General Cleve Doty wrote a letter to the city of Galveston stating that the land use regulation violated state law. Doty requested the city rule to be overturned or else face legal retaliation, The Chronicle reports.
“The Office of the Attorney General demands that the City repeal these regulations and any like them immediately,” Doty wrote in the letter. “Rather than file litigation now, we are confident that the City of Galveston intends to comply with Texas law and will rescind regulations that are in violation of Texas law.”
This wouldn’t have been the first time Paxton sued a local government over gun regulations. In 2016 he sued Waller County over its ban on guns at its courthouse. In the same year, he sued the city of Austin for restricting residents from bringing firearms into city hall.
City Council members admitted prior to the vote that they couldn’t do anything about the state law, but some said they were not fond of Paxton’s approach and interference with local rule, reported The Chronicle.
John Paul Listowski, a city council member, told The Chronicle that he doesn’t think a lot of gun stores are going to start popping up, but he doesn’t, “like being forced to do something that we might not want here.”
From the Texas Tribune: Austin police chief: We will still ticket, arrest for marijuana - The day after the Austin City Council unanimously approved stopping arrests and tickets for low-level marijuana cases, police Chief Brian Manley said he will continue to enforce such laws
Conflict between a city council and law enforcement.
- Click here for the article.
The day after the Austin City Council approved a resolution to stop arresting or ticketing people for most low-level marijuana possession offenses, the police chief made clear he had no plans to do so.
“[Marijuana] is still illegal, and we will still enforce marijuana law if we come across people smoking in the community,” Chief Brian Manley said during a news conference Friday afternoon.
Although cracking down on those in possession of small amounts of marijuana has never been a priority for the department, he said, police will continue to either issue tickets under the city’s “cite-and-release” policy or arrest people if officers “come across it.”
The difference, according to City Council member and resolution sponsor Greg Casar, is that the council's move now guarantees those actions will come with no penalty. Tickets will be meaningless pieces of paper, and any arrests will result in a quick release with no charges accepted from prosecutors, he told The Texas Tribune after the news conference.
“What has changed since yesterday is that enforcement, almost in virtually all cases, is now handing someone a piece of paper with no penalty or no court date,” Casar said.
The move by the City Council came as a direct result of Texas’ new hemp law, which complicated marijuana prosecution across the state. Last summer, when lawmakers legalized hemp, they also changed the definition of marijuana from cannabis to cannabis that contains more than 0.3% THC, the psychoactive ingredient in the plant.
Many prosecutors, including those in Austin’s Travis County, now won’t accept pot cases based on look and smell alone, requiring lab testing to determine THC levels before accepting a case. Such testing is not yet available in public crime labs, though some counties and cities have spent money to obtain test results from private labs.
The council’s resolution prohibited using city funds or personnel to conduct such testing in non-felony marijuana cases. It also directed the elimination, to the furthest extent possible, of arrests or citations for cannabis possession. As Manley also noted, the resolution clarifies it can’t technically decriminalize marijuana, since that is state law.
- Click here for the article.
The day after the Austin City Council approved a resolution to stop arresting or ticketing people for most low-level marijuana possession offenses, the police chief made clear he had no plans to do so.
“[Marijuana] is still illegal, and we will still enforce marijuana law if we come across people smoking in the community,” Chief Brian Manley said during a news conference Friday afternoon.
Although cracking down on those in possession of small amounts of marijuana has never been a priority for the department, he said, police will continue to either issue tickets under the city’s “cite-and-release” policy or arrest people if officers “come across it.”
The difference, according to City Council member and resolution sponsor Greg Casar, is that the council's move now guarantees those actions will come with no penalty. Tickets will be meaningless pieces of paper, and any arrests will result in a quick release with no charges accepted from prosecutors, he told The Texas Tribune after the news conference.
“What has changed since yesterday is that enforcement, almost in virtually all cases, is now handing someone a piece of paper with no penalty or no court date,” Casar said.
The move by the City Council came as a direct result of Texas’ new hemp law, which complicated marijuana prosecution across the state. Last summer, when lawmakers legalized hemp, they also changed the definition of marijuana from cannabis to cannabis that contains more than 0.3% THC, the psychoactive ingredient in the plant.
Many prosecutors, including those in Austin’s Travis County, now won’t accept pot cases based on look and smell alone, requiring lab testing to determine THC levels before accepting a case. Such testing is not yet available in public crime labs, though some counties and cities have spent money to obtain test results from private labs.
The council’s resolution prohibited using city funds or personnel to conduct such testing in non-felony marijuana cases. It also directed the elimination, to the furthest extent possible, of arrests or citations for cannabis possession. As Manley also noted, the resolution clarifies it can’t technically decriminalize marijuana, since that is state law.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: The Texas Senate could become more democratic — for partisan reasons
For 2306 - a story that features a couple key terms in your book: blocking bill and lieutenant governor.
- Click here for the article.
Legislative majorities make the rules, and they almost always contend that the rules are there to protect legislative minorities.
Why is that surprising to anyone? Rules are written to allow the people in charge to get their way while maintaining a reasonable façade of fairness. Want to win? Get a majority. Want to keep your power without a majority? Good luck.
That brings us to the latest from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who suggested Thursday that a loss of Republican seats in the Texas Senate in 2020 would likely result in a change in the rule for how many votes it takes to bring legislation up for debate.
It’s both arcane and important. For a long time, the Texas Senate wouldn’t consider any legislation unless two-thirds of the senators in the room agreed to consider it.
That was a protection racket of sorts, and an effective one. Anything with a bare majority died in the dustbin. A slight majority is often the setting for a nasty and divisive debate — the kind of battle that leaves senators on all sides bruised, battered and open to dangerous voter scorn. And senators, who are allergic to voter scorn, set up the rules to freeze out legislation that less than two-thirds of them wanted to debate.
The upside of that, according to senators who defended it, was that it forced each senator to talk to colleagues to try to win their support — if not for the legislation itself, then at least for the debate over it. Senators are big on collaboration, especially when it keeps them out of trouble with voters and anyone else who’s paying attention.
It also gave them cover on issues they didn’t want to debate. Notably, that included proposed limitations on abortion rights. Most of the Democrats opposed new limitations, and a fair number of Republicans didn’t want to vote on it, stuck between GOP platforms that called for outlawing abortion and their more moderate voters who wanted the law left as it is.
- Click here for the article.
Legislative majorities make the rules, and they almost always contend that the rules are there to protect legislative minorities.
Why is that surprising to anyone? Rules are written to allow the people in charge to get their way while maintaining a reasonable façade of fairness. Want to win? Get a majority. Want to keep your power without a majority? Good luck.
That brings us to the latest from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who suggested Thursday that a loss of Republican seats in the Texas Senate in 2020 would likely result in a change in the rule for how many votes it takes to bring legislation up for debate.
It’s both arcane and important. For a long time, the Texas Senate wouldn’t consider any legislation unless two-thirds of the senators in the room agreed to consider it.
That was a protection racket of sorts, and an effective one. Anything with a bare majority died in the dustbin. A slight majority is often the setting for a nasty and divisive debate — the kind of battle that leaves senators on all sides bruised, battered and open to dangerous voter scorn. And senators, who are allergic to voter scorn, set up the rules to freeze out legislation that less than two-thirds of them wanted to debate.
The upside of that, according to senators who defended it, was that it forced each senator to talk to colleagues to try to win their support — if not for the legislation itself, then at least for the debate over it. Senators are big on collaboration, especially when it keeps them out of trouble with voters and anyone else who’s paying attention.
It also gave them cover on issues they didn’t want to debate. Notably, that included proposed limitations on abortion rights. Most of the Democrats opposed new limitations, and a fair number of Republicans didn’t want to vote on it, stuck between GOP platforms that called for outlawing abortion and their more moderate voters who wanted the law left as it is.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
From Vox: Virginia’s historic gun control fight, explained
For 2305's look at the 2nd Amendment.
- Click here for the article.
Virginia Democrats’ push for new gun control laws has already attracted a huge backlash. Tens of thousands of gun rights supporters rallied in the state capital, Richmond, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day to protest the proposals. The majority of Virginia counties have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” that won’t enforce laws they claim are unconstitutional — a not-so-implicit threat against the new gun control proposals.
Compared to other states, though, the proposals under consideration in Virginia aren’t so radical. They would strengthen gun control laws, but they wouldn’t turn the state into the strictest in the country — far from it.
The bills that currently seem most likely to pass are universal background checks, a purchase limit for one handgun a month, a “red flag” law letting authorities temporarily seize a person’s guns if he’s deemed a threat, and a law giving local governments the ability to ban guns in public spaces during permitted events.
These measures are a far cry from, say, Massachusetts’s laws requiring a license to buy and own a firearm. They’re not anywhere as comprehensive as California’s laws, which, among other measures, ban assault weapons and require a 10-day waiting period for firearm sales. In fact, one of the Virginia proposals — the one-gun-a-month limit — simply brings back a law that was repealed in 2012.
But there are several reasons Virginia became such a focal point in the fight for stronger gun laws. For one, the state is home to the National Rifle Association’s headquarters, a testament to the state’s history as a haven for gun rights.
At the same time, Virginia has swung blue in recent years, with Virginians electing two Democratic governors, including current Gov. Ralph Northam, in a row, and flipping the legislature in 2019 to Democrats for the first time in decades. This blue surge has been fueled in part by Democrats’ very vocal support for gun control, particularly after 2019’s Virginia Beach mass shooting.
- Click here for the article.
Virginia Democrats’ push for new gun control laws has already attracted a huge backlash. Tens of thousands of gun rights supporters rallied in the state capital, Richmond, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day to protest the proposals. The majority of Virginia counties have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” that won’t enforce laws they claim are unconstitutional — a not-so-implicit threat against the new gun control proposals.
Compared to other states, though, the proposals under consideration in Virginia aren’t so radical. They would strengthen gun control laws, but they wouldn’t turn the state into the strictest in the country — far from it.
The bills that currently seem most likely to pass are universal background checks, a purchase limit for one handgun a month, a “red flag” law letting authorities temporarily seize a person’s guns if he’s deemed a threat, and a law giving local governments the ability to ban guns in public spaces during permitted events.
These measures are a far cry from, say, Massachusetts’s laws requiring a license to buy and own a firearm. They’re not anywhere as comprehensive as California’s laws, which, among other measures, ban assault weapons and require a 10-day waiting period for firearm sales. In fact, one of the Virginia proposals — the one-gun-a-month limit — simply brings back a law that was repealed in 2012.
But there are several reasons Virginia became such a focal point in the fight for stronger gun laws. For one, the state is home to the National Rifle Association’s headquarters, a testament to the state’s history as a haven for gun rights.
At the same time, Virginia has swung blue in recent years, with Virginians electing two Democratic governors, including current Gov. Ralph Northam, in a row, and flipping the legislature in 2019 to Democrats for the first time in decades. This blue surge has been fueled in part by Democrats’ very vocal support for gun control, particularly after 2019’s Virginia Beach mass shooting.
From ScotusBlog: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Oral arguments were heard today in a case that involves both civil liberties and civil rights, the establishment clause and the equal protection clause.
- Click here for the article.
Issue: Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.
- Click here for the article.
Issue: Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.
Joshua Foxworth
Meet Randy Weber's opponent in the upcoming Republican Primary.
- Click here for his campaign website.
- Click here for his campaign website.
The Prince - Chapters One and Two
Chapter One
Two types of governments: Republics and Principalities
Two types of principalities: hereditary or new
Two types of new principalities: entirely new, newly acquired by an existing state
The populations in these acquired states are either used to living under a prince, or used to live in freedom
Chapter Two:
He only addresses principalities
How are they to be ruled and preserved?
It is easier to hold onto hereditary states than new ones
Do not alter their customs
Example: Duke of Ferrara.
Ferrara.
Two types of governments: Republics and Principalities
Two types of principalities: hereditary or new
Two types of new principalities: entirely new, newly acquired by an existing state
The populations in these acquired states are either used to living under a prince, or used to live in freedom
Chapter Two:
He only addresses principalities
How are they to be ruled and preserved?
It is easier to hold onto hereditary states than new ones
Do not alter their customs
Example: Duke of Ferrara.
Ferrara.
For today in 2306
- National Democrats target Republican candidate over a child abuse case in battleground state House race.
- CBD products are everywhere in Texas since the state legalized hemp. Experts warn: buyer beware.
- Obama cut women's health money in Texas for the state's targeting of Planned Parenthood. Trump just restored it.
- CBD products are everywhere in Texas since the state legalized hemp. Experts warn: buyer beware.
- Obama cut women's health money in Texas for the state's targeting of Planned Parenthood. Trump just restored it.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Shondor Birns & the Cleveland Mob
If you watch the video starting a 6:50, you'll see mention of Don King, the boxing promoter.
The events it described led to the search of Dollree Mapp, which itself led to the case of Mapp v Ohio and the incorporation of the 4th Amendment's search and seizure clause to the state and local governments.
Texas Constitution - Article 13: Spanish and Mexican Land Titles.
This article was repealed in 1969, but here's a look at what it looked like originally.
- Click here for it.
- Click here for it.
From the East Texas Historical Journal: Civil Law and Common Law in Early Texas
For 2306 - Texas law is based on a mix of Spanish (meaning Roman) and English common law. This article discusses the mixture of the tow.
- Click here for it.
Some of the most significant development.s in Texas legal history occurred during the period of the Republic of Texas. One of them, the blending of the civil law systems of Spain and France with the common law system of Anglo-America, produced a unique legal system peculiar t.o Texas. The Spanish civil law evolved from the grafting of Roman law, principally the Justinian Code, upon the customs and usages of the Visigoths as codified in the Codex Eurici. This draft, the Visigothic Code (Fuero Juzgo), issued in Castilian form in 693, withstood seven centuries of Moorish rule and six revisions, the latest in 1805 (the Novisima Recopilacion). It remained the law of the Spanish world through the middle ages and, in large measure, to the time of Spanish colonization of Texas in the Seventeenth Century.1 It was transmitted to Texas during more than a century of Spanish colonial government and administration under the general direction of the Leyes de los Reino!; de las Indias,2 and more than a decade of Mexican rule.
The French civil law also evolved from the Roman codes, principally the Institutes of Gaius and Justinian; from the glosses of such French commentators as Domat, Pothier, and D'Aquesseau; from Frankish customs and usages, especially those of the north of France; and from decisions of the parle1'nent of Paris. From those sources a Napoleonic commission promulgated the Code Civil in 1814; and from those same sources French settlers in Louisiana evolved their civil codes.3 After the Louisiana Purchase the United States generously allowed the people of Louisiana to retain their codes, and as a result many Texans, immigrants from the Louisiana territory, were thoroughly familiar with their contents.
The English common law developed from custom and usage through the work of the common law courts of Exchequer, Common Pleas, and King's Bench. Though influenced slightly by Roman law from time to time, it was never codified; but in later times it was supplemented by legislation enacted by the British Parliament. The common law was brought to the United States by British settlers, primarily in the form of Blackstone's Commentaries. It was transmitted to Texas after 1820 through the agency of lawyers trained in its precepts in the American states of the Old Southwest.'
- Click here for it.
Some of the most significant development.s in Texas legal history occurred during the period of the Republic of Texas. One of them, the blending of the civil law systems of Spain and France with the common law system of Anglo-America, produced a unique legal system peculiar t.o Texas. The Spanish civil law evolved from the grafting of Roman law, principally the Justinian Code, upon the customs and usages of the Visigoths as codified in the Codex Eurici. This draft, the Visigothic Code (Fuero Juzgo), issued in Castilian form in 693, withstood seven centuries of Moorish rule and six revisions, the latest in 1805 (the Novisima Recopilacion). It remained the law of the Spanish world through the middle ages and, in large measure, to the time of Spanish colonization of Texas in the Seventeenth Century.1 It was transmitted to Texas during more than a century of Spanish colonial government and administration under the general direction of the Leyes de los Reino!; de las Indias,2 and more than a decade of Mexican rule.
The French civil law also evolved from the Roman codes, principally the Institutes of Gaius and Justinian; from the glosses of such French commentators as Domat, Pothier, and D'Aquesseau; from Frankish customs and usages, especially those of the north of France; and from decisions of the parle1'nent of Paris. From those sources a Napoleonic commission promulgated the Code Civil in 1814; and from those same sources French settlers in Louisiana evolved their civil codes.3 After the Louisiana Purchase the United States generously allowed the people of Louisiana to retain their codes, and as a result many Texans, immigrants from the Louisiana territory, were thoroughly familiar with their contents.
The English common law developed from custom and usage through the work of the common law courts of Exchequer, Common Pleas, and King's Bench. Though influenced slightly by Roman law from time to time, it was never codified; but in later times it was supplemented by legislation enacted by the British Parliament. The common law was brought to the United States by British settlers, primarily in the form of Blackstone's Commentaries. It was transmitted to Texas after 1820 through the agency of lawyers trained in its precepts in the American states of the Old Southwest.'
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
From Wikipedia: Avery v. Midland County
Related to the post below about the City of Midland and Midland County.
- Click here for the entry.
Background
Having already held in 1965 in Reynolds v. Sims that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the same logic to local government districts for bodies which also have broad policy-making functions.
The case was brought by Henry Clifton Avery, Jr., more commonly known as Hank Avery, who was Mayor of the City of Midland, Texas. He challenged the districting scheme for the Commissioners Court of Midland County, a five-member county commission with four Commissioners elected in single-member districts and the County Judge elected at-large. One Commissioner's district, which included almost all the City of Midland, had a population of 67,906, according to 1963 estimates. The others, all rural areas, had populations respectively, of about 852; 414; and 828.
Avery brought his case in Texas District Court in Midland. Three of the four commissioners testified at trial that population was not a major factor in the districting process. The trial court ruled for petitioner that each district under the State's constitutional apportionment standard should have "substantially the same number of people." An intermediate appellate court reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that under the Federal and State Constitutions the districting scheme was impermissible "for the reasons stated by the trial court." It held, however, that the work actually done by the County Commissioners "disproportionately concerns the rural areas" and that such factors as "number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads, and taxable values" could justify apportionment otherwise than on a basis of substantially equal populations.
Opinion of the Court
The five justices who struck down local district inequality based their decision on the precedent in Reynolds v. Sims. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Byron White said, "In a word, institutions of local government have always been a major aspect of our system, and their responsible and responsive operation is today of increasing importance to the quality of life of more and more of our citizens. We therefore see little difference, in terms of the application of the Equal Protection Clause and of the principles of Reynolds v. Sims, between the exercise of state power through legislatures and its exercise by elected officials in the cities, towns, and counties."
In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II asserted that the Writ of Certiorari to the Texas Supreme Court was improvidently granted in that the decision was not final, since the Texas court had ordered the County to redistrict. He also resumed his objections to the line of cases started with Reynolds v. Sims saying, "I continue to think that these adventures of the Court in the realm of political science are beyond its constitutional powers, for reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinion in Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 589 et seq."
- Click here for the entry.
Background
Having already held in 1965 in Reynolds v. Sims that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the same logic to local government districts for bodies which also have broad policy-making functions.
The case was brought by Henry Clifton Avery, Jr., more commonly known as Hank Avery, who was Mayor of the City of Midland, Texas. He challenged the districting scheme for the Commissioners Court of Midland County, a five-member county commission with four Commissioners elected in single-member districts and the County Judge elected at-large. One Commissioner's district, which included almost all the City of Midland, had a population of 67,906, according to 1963 estimates. The others, all rural areas, had populations respectively, of about 852; 414; and 828.
Avery brought his case in Texas District Court in Midland. Three of the four commissioners testified at trial that population was not a major factor in the districting process. The trial court ruled for petitioner that each district under the State's constitutional apportionment standard should have "substantially the same number of people." An intermediate appellate court reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that under the Federal and State Constitutions the districting scheme was impermissible "for the reasons stated by the trial court." It held, however, that the work actually done by the County Commissioners "disproportionately concerns the rural areas" and that such factors as "number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads, and taxable values" could justify apportionment otherwise than on a basis of substantially equal populations.
Opinion of the Court
The five justices who struck down local district inequality based their decision on the precedent in Reynolds v. Sims. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Byron White said, "In a word, institutions of local government have always been a major aspect of our system, and their responsible and responsive operation is today of increasing importance to the quality of life of more and more of our citizens. We therefore see little difference, in terms of the application of the Equal Protection Clause and of the principles of Reynolds v. Sims, between the exercise of state power through legislatures and its exercise by elected officials in the cities, towns, and counties."
In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II asserted that the Writ of Certiorari to the Texas Supreme Court was improvidently granted in that the decision was not final, since the Texas court had ordered the County to redistrict. He also resumed his objections to the line of cases started with Reynolds v. Sims saying, "I continue to think that these adventures of the Court in the realm of political science are beyond its constitutional powers, for reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinion in Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 589 et seq."
From NPR: Supreme Court To Hear 'Faithless Electors' Case
For both 2305 and 2306
- Click here for the article.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases challenging state attempts to penalize Electoral College delegates who fail to vote for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
Electoral College delegates are selected by each party, and under state laws, they are pledged to cast their ballots for the candidate who carries the popular vote. But from 1796 to 2016, over 20 presidential elections, 150 electors have not abided by that pledge, according to FairVote, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group.
In fact, 2016 marked the largest number of faithless voters — a total of seven who cast votes for candidates they were not pledged to support.
States have tried to prevent such "faithless elector" votes by enacting laws to remove them or fine them or both.
Now, just as the presidential campaign is heating up, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to such state laws in Washington and Colorado.
"This court should resolve this conflict now, before it arises within the context of a contested election," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor who is the attorney for the Washington state electors, said. "As the demographics of the United States indicate that contests will become even closer, there is a significant probability that such swings could force this court to resolve the question of electoral freedom within the context of an ongoing contest."
- Click here for the article.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases challenging state attempts to penalize Electoral College delegates who fail to vote for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
Electoral College delegates are selected by each party, and under state laws, they are pledged to cast their ballots for the candidate who carries the popular vote. But from 1796 to 2016, over 20 presidential elections, 150 electors have not abided by that pledge, according to FairVote, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group.
In fact, 2016 marked the largest number of faithless voters — a total of seven who cast votes for candidates they were not pledged to support.
States have tried to prevent such "faithless elector" votes by enacting laws to remove them or fine them or both.
Now, just as the presidential campaign is heating up, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to such state laws in Washington and Colorado.
"This court should resolve this conflict now, before it arises within the context of a contested election," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor who is the attorney for the Washington state electors, said. "As the demographics of the United States indicate that contests will become even closer, there is a significant probability that such swings could force this court to resolve the question of electoral freedom within the context of an ongoing contest."
From Time: Can North Carolina Declare an “Official” Religion?
For out look at federalism and the Bill of Rights.
- Click here for the article.
North Carolina legislators made national headlines last week with a bit of high-profile religious extremism. They introduced a resolution declaring that the state has the right to declare an official religion – presumably Christianity. The bill also contended that states are “sovereign” and that federal courts cannot prevent states “from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.”
The North Carolina bill—which appears to be dead for now—was one of two big church-state blow-ups last week. In Tennessee, legislators withdrew a school voucher bill that would have allowed parents to direct taxpayer money to private schools, including Christian academies. The reason they balked: it suddenly occurred to them that the bill would also allow parents to direct tax dollars to Islamic schools.
(MORE: Where Are the Most Religious States in America in 2013?)
State assaults on the separation of church and state are nothing new. What set the North Carolina bill apart, however, is that it was an aggressive attempt to change the constitutional landscape. It made an argument that conservative lawyers have been developing for some time: that the first amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states – and that, as a result, states are allowed to favor a particular religion in a way the federal government cannot.
North Carolina’s “Rowan County, North Carolina Defense of Religion Act of 2013” came about as a response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. The civil liberties group charged that Rowan County was violating the first amendment by opening 97% of its meetings with Christian prayers. In 2011, a federal court ruled that another North Carolina’s county’s public prayers violated the first amendment.
- Click here for the article.
North Carolina legislators made national headlines last week with a bit of high-profile religious extremism. They introduced a resolution declaring that the state has the right to declare an official religion – presumably Christianity. The bill also contended that states are “sovereign” and that federal courts cannot prevent states “from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.”
The North Carolina bill—which appears to be dead for now—was one of two big church-state blow-ups last week. In Tennessee, legislators withdrew a school voucher bill that would have allowed parents to direct taxpayer money to private schools, including Christian academies. The reason they balked: it suddenly occurred to them that the bill would also allow parents to direct tax dollars to Islamic schools.
(MORE: Where Are the Most Religious States in America in 2013?)
State assaults on the separation of church and state are nothing new. What set the North Carolina bill apart, however, is that it was an aggressive attempt to change the constitutional landscape. It made an argument that conservative lawyers have been developing for some time: that the first amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states – and that, as a result, states are allowed to favor a particular religion in a way the federal government cannot.
North Carolina’s “Rowan County, North Carolina Defense of Religion Act of 2013” came about as a response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. The civil liberties group charged that Rowan County was violating the first amendment by opening 97% of its meetings with Christian prayers. In 2011, a federal court ruled that another North Carolina’s county’s public prayers violated the first amendment.
Who is Richard Uihlein?
He is central to the previous story, and perhaps the dominant figure in the Texas Republican Party
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
Political activities
Uihlein has been a Republican donor for decades, and increased his political giving after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Uihlein has supported conservative groups and candidates including Ted Cruz, The Club for Growth, and the Illinois Policy Institute. Uihlein is also a major donor to Liberty Principles PAC, Americas PAC, Scott Walker, and Jeanne Ives. In the 2018 election cycle, Uihlein donated to Republican candidates such as Jeanne Ives, Chris McDaniel, Kevin Nicholson, and Neal Tapio.
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
Political activities
Uihlein has been a Republican donor for decades, and increased his political giving after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Uihlein has supported conservative groups and candidates including Ted Cruz, The Club for Growth, and the Illinois Policy Institute. Uihlein is also a major donor to Liberty Principles PAC, Americas PAC, Scott Walker, and Jeanne Ives. In the 2018 election cycle, Uihlein donated to Republican candidates such as Jeanne Ives, Chris McDaniel, Kevin Nicholson, and Neal Tapio.
From the Texas Tribune: Big bucks — and a big donor — fuel Allen West's bid for Texas GOP chair
A look at the structure of one of Texas' two major parties.
- Click here for the article.
For months, the race for Texas GOP chair has been in full swing, with incumbent James Dickey and his high-profile challenger, Allen West, appearing at a slew of at times feisty forums.
But it was not until last week that the two had to disclose their campaign finances for the first time — and West's report brought something of a bombshell: Not only did the former Florida congressman raise nearly half a million dollars — a large amount for such an election — but $250,000 of it came from a single person. That person: Richard Uihlein, the conservative megadonor and shipping supplies magnate from Illinois.
In recent election cycles, the reclusive Uihlein and his wife Liz have become known for bankrolling insurgent conservative candidates across the country, sometimes serving as their primary patrons. Richard Uihlein gave $37.7 million to outside spending groups during the 2018 cycle, making him the fourth biggest donor to such entities and putting him in the ranks of people like Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
For now, it is not entirely clear why Uihlein has taken such an interest in the race to lead the Texas GOP — a job that entails keeping it well-funded and organized ahead of a crucial November election for state Republicans. West's campaign did not respond to questions for this story, and Uihlein himself has not responded to a message left with his Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin-based company, Uline.
- Click here for the article.
For months, the race for Texas GOP chair has been in full swing, with incumbent James Dickey and his high-profile challenger, Allen West, appearing at a slew of at times feisty forums.
But it was not until last week that the two had to disclose their campaign finances for the first time — and West's report brought something of a bombshell: Not only did the former Florida congressman raise nearly half a million dollars — a large amount for such an election — but $250,000 of it came from a single person. That person: Richard Uihlein, the conservative megadonor and shipping supplies magnate from Illinois.
In recent election cycles, the reclusive Uihlein and his wife Liz have become known for bankrolling insurgent conservative candidates across the country, sometimes serving as their primary patrons. Richard Uihlein gave $37.7 million to outside spending groups during the 2018 cycle, making him the fourth biggest donor to such entities and putting him in the ranks of people like Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
For now, it is not entirely clear why Uihlein has taken such an interest in the race to lead the Texas GOP — a job that entails keeping it well-funded and organized ahead of a crucial November election for state Republicans. West's campaign did not respond to questions for this story, and Uihlein himself has not responded to a message left with his Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin-based company, Uline.
Places we went in GOVT 2306-03 on 1/21/20
https://redistricting.capitol.texas.gov/
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/PlanH358r100.pdf
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/PlanS172r100.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=445Z1Dc5-Rw
https://www.fairvote.org/new_poll_everybody_hates_gerrymandering
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UE9uu9fKSg&t=80s
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/PlanH358r100.pdf
file:///C:/Users/kjefferies/Downloads/PlanS172r100.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=445Z1Dc5-Rw
https://www.fairvote.org/new_poll_everybody_hates_gerrymandering
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UE9uu9fKSg&t=80s
From the Texas Tribune: A ballot box found weeks after Election Day has flipped a $569 million school bond vote in Midland
Wow
For our look at how elections are actually run.
- Click here for the article.
County officials found the missing box in early December. Taking into account those 836 votes, plus one stray ticket found separately from the box that had also been misplaced, the results flipped again. The new version of final results, which Land said should finally lay the issue to rest, was 11,800 votes in favor of the bond and 11,826 against. The result means that Midland ISD will not receive the authority to build two new high schools.
For those scoring at home, the bond passed, then failed, then passed and then failed again. Political groups on both sides of the bond vote will now ask the Midland County judge to cement the most recent results so all sides can “go forward,” Land said.
"Though this is not the result that supporters of the 2019 school bond worked for, it was what we expected and were prepared for," We Choose Our Future, the group in favor of the bond, wrote in a statement on Facebook. "Today’s exercise was an opportunity to build trust in the process for future elections and bring closure to this election so that the work on another bond plan can begin."
For our look at how elections are actually run.
- Click here for the article.
County officials found the missing box in early December. Taking into account those 836 votes, plus one stray ticket found separately from the box that had also been misplaced, the results flipped again. The new version of final results, which Land said should finally lay the issue to rest, was 11,800 votes in favor of the bond and 11,826 against. The result means that Midland ISD will not receive the authority to build two new high schools.
For those scoring at home, the bond passed, then failed, then passed and then failed again. Political groups on both sides of the bond vote will now ask the Midland County judge to cement the most recent results so all sides can “go forward,” Land said.
"Though this is not the result that supporters of the 2019 school bond worked for, it was what we expected and were prepared for," We Choose Our Future, the group in favor of the bond, wrote in a statement on Facebook. "Today’s exercise was an opportunity to build trust in the process for future elections and bring closure to this election so that the work on another bond plan can begin."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)