A look at a major source of revenue for the national government prior to the Civil War. Texas too.
- Click here for the article.
During the 19th century, about 871.2 million acres of lands held
in common by the federal government were transferred to private
individuals, businesses, and state governments. The privatization of
public lands began in 1796, when the public domain amounted to
approximately 233 million acres. Between 1796 and 1923, private
parties purchased nearly 279.3 million acres of public land. Even
though the total amount of federal land holdings grew enormously,
the government sold off more acreage than had been included in its
original holdings. Most of these sales occurred before 1862; from
1800 until the beginning of the Civil War, proceeds from the sale of
public lands constituted a major source of revenue for the federal
government, accounting for 48 percent of net receipts in 1836.
Denationalization of the public domain was not limited to privatization via sales. By 1923, nearly 592 million additional acres of the
public domain were transferred to individuals, railroad companies,
and state governments through grants; the overwhelming proportion
of these transfers occurred after 1862. What had begun as a major
revenue-generating device for the U.S. Treasury had evolved into an
immense transfer program. A system of allocating scarce resources
via auction had been transformed into one of political allocation
based on rent seeking, with large sections of the public domain being
transferred to politically favored groups.
Wednesday, October 7, 2020
From the Cato Institute:THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND NINETEENTH CENTURY TRANSFER POLICY
Regarding the Ken Paxton Allegations
All from the Texas Tribune.
- Who is Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general accused of bribery and abuse of office?
What do we know about the most recent allegations against him?
- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says he won't resign after accusations of criminal activity by top aides.
In his limited public statements on the allegations, Paxton has pointed the finger back at the top deputies accusing him of wrongdoing. But Paxton claimed Monday that he was merely investigating a case that had been sent to the agency, as is his responsibility. “The Texas attorney general’s office was referred a case from Travis county regarding allegations of crimes relating to the FBI, other government agencies and individuals. My obligation as attorney general is to conduct an investigation upon such referral,” Paxton said. “Because employees from my office impeded the investigation and because I knew Nate Paul I ultimately decided to hire an outside independent prosecutor to make his own independent determination.”
- As Ken Paxton faces criminal allegations, an agency at war with itself must carry on the state’s business.
Even before the latest accusations against Paxton, the attorney general’s office has seen turnover and bad press in recent weeks. In addition to the departures of Rylander and Moutos, Katherine Cary, the agency’s chief of staff, was expected to depart this fall. Those are yet more challenges for a busy agency now enmeshed in a public relations disaster and potentially a criminal morass. Current and former employees describe an agency run through a strict hierarchy, where staffers check with their division chiefs, who check with the deputy attorney general they serve under, who would often check with Mateer or someone else in the top brass, before initiating an investigation or filing a legal document.
Any shakeup in that hierarchy “puts the agency in a very hard predicament,” said one longtime employee who declined to speak on the record about the fallout from the Paxton allegations in fear of professional retaliation. “I don’t know how they’re going to handle questions like that — who’s going to give permission for what and to whom?” the employee said. “If executive administration is losing so many people, how is the agency going to run?”
According to the Houston Chronicle, former top aides to Paxton have alleged that the attorney general inappropriately appointed a special prosecutor to target “adversaries” of Paul, who donated $25,000 to Paxton’s reelection campaign in 2018. Those “adversaries” appear to include agents who raided Paul’s home and business office, though Paxton has confirmed only that he authorized an investigation into “allegations of crimes relating to the FBI, other government agencies and individuals” and that the investigation involved Paul.
From Vox: Claudia Conway’s TikToks, explained
Another social media app pushing information.
- Click here for the story.
Meet Lewis Cass: The first man Texans supported for president after statehood.
The year was 1848,
- From Wikipedia.
Born in Exeter, New Hampshire, he attended Phillips Exeter Academy before establishing a legal practice in Zanesville, Ohio. After serving in the Ohio House of Representatives, he was appointed as a U.S. Marshal. Cass also joined the Freemasons and would eventually co-found the Grand Lodge of Michigan. He fought at the Battle of the Thames in the War of 1812 and was appointed to govern Michigan Territory in 1813. He negotiated treaties with Native Americans to open land for American settlement and led a survey expedition into the northwest part of the territory.
Cass resigned as governor in 1831 to accept appointment as Secretary of War under Andrew Jackson. As Secretary of War, he helped implement Jackson's policy of Indian removal. After serving as ambassador to France from 1836 to 1842, he unsuccessfully sought the presidential nomination at the 1844 Democratic National Convention; a deadlock between supporters of Cass and former President Martin Van Buren ended with the nomination of James K. Polk. In 1845, the Michigan Legislature elected Cass to the Senate, where he served until 1848. Cass's nomination at the 1848 Democratic National Convention precipitated a split in the party, as Cass's advocacy for popular sovereignty alienated the anti-slavery wing of the party. Van Buren led the Free Soil Party's presidential ticket and appealed to many anti-slavery Democrats, possibly contributing to the victory of Whig nominee Zachary Taylor.
From Wikipedia: National Origins Formula
The policy overturned in the immigration law mentioned below.
- Click here for it.
The National Origins Formula was an American system of immigration quotas, used between 1921 and 1965, which restricted immigration on the basis of existing proportions of the population. It aimed to reduce the overall number of unskilled immigrants (especially from Southern Europe, Eastern Europe and Asia), to allow families to re-unite, and to prevent immigration from changing the ethnic distribution of the largely Protestant population of Northwestern European Americans.
The 1921 Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration to 3% of foreign-born persons of each nationality that resided in the United States in 1910.
The Immigration Act of 1924, also called the National Origins Act, provided that for three years the formula would change from 3% to 2% and the basis for the calculation would be the census of 1890 instead of that of 1910. After June 30, 1927, total immigration from all countries will be limited to 150,000, with allocations by country based upon national origins of inhabitants according to the census of 1920. The quota system applied only to non-Asian immigrants. It aimed to reduce the overall number of unskilled immigrants, to allow families to re-unite, and to prevent immigration from changing the ethnic distribution of the population. The 1924 Act also included the Asian Exclusion Act, which limited immigration to persons eligible for naturalization. As a result, East Asians and South Asians were effectively banned from immigrating. Africans were also subjected to severe restrictions.[1] Immigration from North and South America was not restricted.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 retained but relaxed the National Origins Formula. It modified the ratios to be based on the 1920 census and eliminated racial restrictions, but retained restrictions by national origin. President Harry Truman vetoed it because of its continued use of national quotas, but the Act was passed over his veto. The quotas were in addition to 600,000 refugees admitted from Europe after World War II.
The National Origins Formula was abolished by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which marked a significant change in American immigration policy. It replaced the system with two quotas for the Western and Eastern hemispheres.
From Roll Call: US adversaries could seize on Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis to spread disinformation
One of our key terms is in the title.
- Click here for it.
The security implications of President Donald Trump’s contraction of the novel coronavirus are more likely to involve a stepped-up Russian disinformation campaign than any military event, several former top government officials said.
While more fake stories on social media would almost certainly not lead to war, they could roil an already tense and divided America just a few weeks ahead of the Nov. 3 election.In what would seem a positive sign about Trump’s health, the president returned to the White House on Monday evening after spending three days at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in the nearby Maryland suburbs.
But officials have acknowledged to reporters that Trump’s condition has been serious. He was given supplemental oxygen to help him breathe on Oct. 2. His blood oxygen levels plummeted suddenly on two occasions in recent days. And he was given a steroid that experts have said is normally reserved for those with extreme cases of COVID-19.
If the president's health does not worsen considerably, little of consequence is likely to change in the realm of national security. The president is 74, though, placing him at greater risk than most people of getting worse and even dying. And the virus can worsen in the second week and even after it has shown signs of subsiding, doctors have said.
Monday, October 5, 2020
Regarding John Peter Zenger
All from Wikipedia:
- John Peter Zenger:
... a German printer and journalist in New York City. Zenger printed The New York Weekly Journal. He was accused of libel in 1734 by William Cosby, the royal governor of New York, but the jury acquitted Zenger, who became a symbol for freedom of the press.
In 1733, Zenger began printing The New York Weekly Journal, which voiced opinions critical of the colonial governor, William Cosby. On November 17, 1734, on Cosby's orders, the sheriff arrested Zenger. After a grand jury refused to indict him, the Attorney General Richard Bradley charged him with libel in August 1735.
Zenger's lawyers, Andrew Hamilton and William Smith, Sr., successfully argued that truth is a defense against charges of libel.
- The New York Weekly Journal:
...a weekly journal, printed by John Peter Zenger, from November 5, 1733 to March 18, 1751. It was the second journal in New York City and the only one that criticized New York Royal governor William Cosby, for which reason the journal was burned in its first year and John Zenger was put in prison. Zenger was released without charges, this being one of the earliest cases where a fight for the freedom of press led to a victory in America.
- German Palatines:
The German Palatines were early 18th-century emigrants from the Middle Rhine region of the Holy Roman Empire, including a minority from the Palatinate, by which the entire group was known. They immigrated to England as refugees and were both Protestant and Catholic farmers. Towards the end of the 17th century and into the 18th, the wealthy region was repeatedly invaded by French troops during the religious wars. They imposed continuous military requisitions, causing widespread devastation and famine. The winter of 1708 was notably cold, resulting in further hardships. The term "Poor Palatines" referred to some 13,000 Germans who emigrated to England between May and November 1709, seeking refuge. Their arrival in England, and the inability of the British Government to integrate them, caused a highly politicized debate over the merits of immigration. The English tried to settle them in England, Ireland and the North American colonies to strengthen their position abroad.
During his short term as governor, Cosby was portrayed as one of the most oppressive royal placeholders in British Colonial America. In 1735, Cosby accused publisher John Peter Zenger of sedition and libel for publishing unflattering reports about Cosby. In spite of Cosby's efforts, Zenger was acquitted of all charges and the case helped to establish the concept of freedom of the press.
- William Bradford:
an early English printer in North America. He is best known as "the pioneer printer of the Middle colonies" and the head of a family that included publishers for 140 years. He was also known for controversies regarding freedom of the press.
From Wikipedia: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
Detail on the law mentioned below.
- Click here for the article.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart–Celler Act, is a federal law passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law abolished the National Origins Formula, which had been the basis of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s. The act removed de facto discrimination against Southern and Eastern Europeans, Asians, and other non-Northwestern European ethnic groups from American immigration policy.
The National Origins Formula had been established in the 1920s to preserve American homogeneity by promoting immigration from Northwestern Europe. During the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, this approach increasingly came under attack for being racially discriminatory. With the support of the Johnson administration, Senator Philip Hart and Congressman Emanuel Celler introduced a bill to repeal the formula. The bill received wide support from both northern Democratic and Republican members of Congress, but strong opposition from Southern Republicans and Democrats, the former mostly voting Nay or Not Voting.
This issue served as an inter-party commonality amongst constituents and reflects the similar Congressional District and Representative voting patterns. President Johnson signed the Hart–Celler Act into law on October 3, 1965. In opening entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than Northwestern European and Germanic groups, the Act significantly altered immigration demographics in the U.S. Some sources assert that this alteration was intentional; others assert that it was unintentional.
From Vox: How the Immigration and Nationality Act transformed America, in one chart
A 2015 article that provides an alternative theory about why things changed back in the 1960s.
- Click here for the article.
The Immigration and Nationality Act replaced this with the legal immigration system we still use today. There's a flat cap on how many immigrants per country can immigrate each year, but individual immigrants aren't approved or denied based on where they come from. Instead, they're admitted largely through family members in the US; temporary work permits for specific employers; or refugee status or asylum (along with assorted other, smaller categories).
You can see the results in the chart above, which displays the number and origins of immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal immigrants, and unauthorized immigrants — living in the United States during the 1960 census (before the INA) and during each decade after.
In 1960, immigrants to the US were overwhelmingly European. Furthermore — at least partly because so few eastern and southern Europeans had been allowed into the country under the quota system — Jewish and Italian Americans had largely assimilated into the US, and were considered white in a way they weren't in the 1920s. But really, there were relatively few immigrants in the US at all.
The INA opened the door to millions of immigrants. The percentage of the US population that is foreign-born is almost as large today as it was during the peak of US immigration at the turn of the 20th century — when unlimited numbers of immigrants from Europe could come to the United States, but when there were only half as many people living in the US as there are today.
From Wikipedia: Shelby County v. Holder
The case that weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
- Click here for the entry.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.
On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.In its wake, the ruling has made it easier for state officials to make it harder for ethnic minority voters to vote. Research shows that preclearance led to increases in minority congressional representation and increases in minority turnout. Five years after the ruling, nearly 1,000 polling places had been closed in the U.S., with many of the closed polling places in predominantly African-American counties. Research shows that the changing of voter locations and reduction in voting locations can reduce voter turnout. There were also cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls and imposition of strict voter ID laws. A 2020 study found that the jurisdictions which had previously been covered by preclearance massively increased the rate of voter registration purges after the Shelby decision. Virtually all restrictions on voting subsequent to the ruling were by Republicans.
From Wikipedia: Smith v. Allwright
Smith v. Allwright questioned whether or not states had the constitutional right to deny voters based on party membership. The Democratic Party of Texas denied Smith the right to vote on the basis of his skin color. Smith was attempting to cast his vote for a Democratic primary in which candidates for the House of Representatives, Senate, and Governor were being nominated, in addition to other state officers. The Texas Constitution states that every person qualified by residence in a district or county, in addition to other factors that are not relevant, "shall be deemed a qualified elector" in Article VI, §2, and Chapters Twelve and Thirteen of the statutes require primary elections for Senators, Representatives, and state officers. The Democratic Party of Texas was a "voluntary association" and protected from interference from the state except "in the interest of fair methods and a fair expression by their members of their preferences in the selection of their nominees, the State may regulate such elections by proper laws," which is a right that is protected in the Bill of Rights of Texas.
The party is allowed to determine its own policies and membership according to Waples v. Marrast, and adopted a policy that all white citizens qualified to vote in Texas were eligible for membership, therefore allowing only white citizens to vote. Holding policies that only allow citizens of a particular race or color to vote is an inherently discriminatory practice. The Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments protect against such actions from any state. The argument, however, is whether the Texas Democratic Party is independent from the state and free to make policies as it pleases. Smith was not allowed to vote in a Democratic primary election on the basis of his skin color. He, the petitioner, argues that since he was not allowed to participate in a state election, the Party is not independent of the state. There were two conflicting Supreme Court decisions that were impeding the judicial precedent for this case: Grovey v. Townsend and United States v. Classic.
From the American Prospect: Trump's Curious Coalition
From 2018, so perhaps dated.
- Click here for it.
Trump's strategy for keeping power is to build up his coalition of America's white working class and the nation's ownership class.
It's a curious coalition, to say the least. But if Democrats don't respond to it, it could protect Trump from impeachment and even re-elect him. It just might create a permanent Republican majority around an axis of white resentment and great wealth.Two decades ago, Democrats and Republicans competed over the middle class. They battled over soccer moms and suburban “swing” voters.
Since then the middle class has shrunk while the working class has grown, and vast wealth has been accumulated by a comparative few who now own a large portion of America. Some of their wealth has taken over American politics.
Enter Trump.
Counties whose voters shifted from Obama to Trump in 2016 had lost economic ground to the rest of America, even more than did solidly-Republican counties. Trump is counting on the unwavering support of these mostly white working class voters.
Meanwhile, much of the ownership class has come over to Trump. He's counting on it to bankroll Republican politicians who are loyal to him.
Since becoming president, Trump has sought to reward both sides of this coalition—tossing boatloads of money to the ownership class, and red meat to the white working class.
One boatload is the corporate and individual tax cut, of which America's richest 1 percent will take home an estimated 82 percent by 2027, according to the Tax Policy Center.
Another boatload is coming from government itself, which Trump has filled with lobbyists who are letting large corporations do whatever they want—using public lands, polluting, defrauding consumers and investors, even employing children—in order to push profits even higher.
Trump's red meat for the white working class is initiatives and tirades against unauthorized immigrants and foreign traders—as if they're responsible for the working class's lost ground—and other symbolic gestures of economic populism, along with episodic racist outbursts, and support for guns and evangelicals.
Every time Trump sends more money to the wealthy he sends more red meat to his base.
From the First Amendment Encyclopedia: False Speech
Probably appropriate given the nature of the times.
- Click here for it.
Because the First Amendment is designed to further the pursuit of truth, it may not protect individuals who engage in slander or libel, especially those who display actual malice by knowingly publishing false information or publishing information “with reckless disregard for the truth.”
Government does not stand as definer of truthAs a general rule, however, the government does not stand as the definer of truth, which is designed to emerge from the clash of opinions rather than from government fiat. Legally, it is difficult to identify a false opinion, although courts are consistently called upon to weigh factual evidence in both civil and criminal cases.
Court said Stolen Valor Act violated First Amendment
In United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ____ (2012), the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which was designed to punish individuals who made false claims, not about others, but about their own military service. In striking down the law, the Supreme Court thus refused to expand the limited number of categories, like obscenity, true threats, and libel, where it permitted restrictions on the actual content of speech. Essentially, the justices thought that this was an issue that should be resolved in free and open debate rather than by government action.
The Court has taken similar positions with regard to statements made by political candidates who are running for office.
From the First Amendment Encyclopedia: Actual Malice
What it takes for a public figure to successfully sue for libel.
- Click here for it.
Actual malice is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court for libel cases to determine when public officials or public figures may recover damages in lawsuits against the news media.
Beginning with the unanimous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court has held that public officials cannot recover damages for libel without proving that a statement was made with actual malice — defined as “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
The decision in Sullivan threw out a damage award against the New York Times, but only six of the nine justices fully agreed with Justice William J. Brennan Jr.’s use of the actual malice standard, which he derived from a Kansas Supreme Court ruling, Coleman v. MacLennan (Kan. 1908). Justices Hugo L. Black and Arthur J. Goldberg, joined by Justice William O. Douglas, thought the Court should go farther to protect criticism of public officials and debate about public affairs.
See also: Public Figures and Officials.
The Media and Polarization over Vietnam
This brings a few items together. Conflict over American involvement in Vietnam helped break apart the New Deal Coalition.
- Click here for it.
The media also played a substantial role in the polarization of American opinion regarding the Vietnam War. For example, In 1965 a majority of the media attention focused on military tactics with very little discussion about the necessity for a full scale intervention in Southeast Asia. After 1965, the media covered the dissent and domestic controversy that existed within the United States, but mostly excluded the actual view of dissidents and resisters.
The media established a sphere of public discourse surrounding the Hawk versus Dove debate. The Dove was a liberal and a critic of the war. Doves claimed that the war was well–intentioned but a disastrously wrong mistake in an otherwise benign foreign policy. It is important to note the Doves did not question the U.S. intentions in intervening in Vietnam, nor did they question the morality or legality of the U.S. intervention. Rather, they made pragmatic claims that the war was a mistake. Contrarily, the Hawks argued that the war was legitimate and winnable and a part of the benign U.S. foreign policy. The Hawks claimed that the one-sided criticism of the media contributed to the decline of public support for the war and ultimately helped the U.S. lose the war. Author William F. Buckley repeatedly wrote about his approval for the war and suggested that "The United States has been timid, if not cowardly, in refusing to seek 'victory' in Vietnam." The hawks claimed that the liberal media was responsible for the growing popular disenchantment with the war and blamed the western media for losing the war in Southeast Asia as communism was no longer a threat for them.
Sunday, October 4, 2020
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s top aides want him investigated for bribery and other alleged crimes
Part of the Texas plural executive. He has also been under indictment since 2015.
- Click here for the article.
The senior staff members, including Jeff Mateer, who resigned from his post as Paxton’s top aide this week after several years leading the agency, notified the agency’s human resources director that they sought the investigation.
“We have a good faith belief that the attorney general is violating federal and/or state law including prohibitions related to improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential criminal offenses,” seven agency leaders wrote in a one-page letter obtained by the Statesman.
The brief letter, dated Oct. 1, says the officials notified law enforcement of a potential crime on Sept. 30, but does not provide detailed accusations. The officials also say they notified Paxton himself of the accusation via text message on Oct. 1.
From the Texas Tribune: Voters, voting rights groups sue Gov. Greg Abbott over order to close ballot drop-off locations
As to be expected.
- Click here for the article.
Voting rights advocates and civic groups have filed two separate federal lawsuits to block Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's last-minute order that allows Texas counties to provide no more than one drop-off location for voters casting absentee ballots.
“The impact of this eleventh-hour decisions is momentous, targets Texas’ most vulnerable voters—older voters, and voters with disabilities—and results in wild variations in access to absentee voting drop-off locations depending on the county a voter resides in,” attorneys in the LULAC suit argued. “It also results in predictable disproportionate impacts on minority communities that already hit hardest by the COVID-19 crisis.”
Friday, October 2, 2020
Recent Coalitions - post New Deal
Wikipedia: The Reagan Coalition.
The Reagan Democrats were Democrats before the Reagan years and afterwards, but who voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and for George H. W. Bush in 1988, producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white socially conservative blue-collar workers who lived in the Northeast and were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion and to his hawkish foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not generally used to describe the Southern whites who permanently changed party affiliation from Democrat to Republican during the Reagan administration and they have largely remained Republican to this day.
Wikipedia: New Democrats (The Clinton Coalition)
New Democrats, also known as centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats, or moderate Democrats, are a centrist ideological faction within the Democratic Party in the United States. As the Third Way faction of the party, they support cultural liberalism but take moderate or fiscal conservative stances. New Democrats dominated the party from the late-1980s through the mid-2010s
. . . The landslide 1984 presidential election defeat spurred centrist Democrats to action and the DLC was formed. The DLC, an unofficial party organization, played a critical role in moving the Democratic Party's policies to the center of the American political spectrum. Prominent Democratic politicians such as Senators Al Gore and Joe Biden (both future Vice Presidents) participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacies for the 1988 Democratic Party nomination. However, the DLC did not want the Democratic Party to be "simply posturing in the middle". The DLC instead framed its ideas as "progressive" and as a "Third Way" to address the problems of its era. Examples of the DLC's policy initiatives can be found in The New American Choice Resolutions.
From RCP: Assessing the Obama Coalition.
The Democratic Party is really a coalition of several semi-distinct parts. At its core, it is comprised of urban progressives and racial minorities, both of which were relative latecomers to the coalition. Layered over this base, with varying degrees of loyalty to the modern Democratic Party, are white working class voters (added by FDR in the 1930s), suburbanites (added by Clinton in the 1990s), and the oldest portion of the Democratic Party, rural voters.
Part of the key to the modern Democratic Party's success, especially at the Presidential level, has been the Democrats' ability to maintain at least residual strength among the very first Democrats: rural "Jacksonian" Democrats in Appalachia (western Virginia, West Virginia, Northern Alabama, etc.) and in areas of the country first settled by Appalachians (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, etc.). But as I noted a year ago, the Democrats in 2008 essentially traded away Jacksonian Democrats at the Presidential level for an improved showing in the suburbs and increased turnout among minorities. This allowed President Obama to become the first Democrat since the founding of the Republican Party to win the Presidency without any electoral votes from West Virginia, Tennessee or Kentucky.
From 538: We’ve Had 56 Statewide Elections During The Pandemic. Here’s What We Learned From Them.
- Click here for it.
The 2020 primary season finally ended last month, meaning there have now been 56 statewide elections (presidential primaries, state-level primaries and even the occasional runoff) since the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in mid-March — dress rehearsals of sorts for opening night on Nov. 3. And while, through mid-July, these “pandemic primaries” had an inconsistent record of success, more recent elections have settled into more of a groove.
Here are three takeaways from a primary season like no other, and what they could mean for the general election:
1. Mail voting is still way up, but more people are voting in person
2. The pandemic isn’t depressing turnout
3. Fewer problems are being reported
For a look at Texas finances
From the Texas Comptrollers Office
- A Field Guide to the Taxes of Texas.
- The Biennial Estimate for 2020-21.
From the Legislative Budget Board
- The Fiscal Size Up.
Thursday, October 1, 2020
From the Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott limits counties to one absentee ballot drop-off location, bolstering GOP efforts to restrict voting
Expect a legal challenge soon - likely in the federal courts
- Click here for the article.
The Republican governor issued a proclamation directing counties to designate just one location for ballot drop-offs, and allowing political parties to install poll watchers to observe the process.
An unprecedented number of absentee ballots are expected to be cast this year as voters who qualify under Texas’ unusually strict vote-by-mail rules opt to avoid the health risks of voting in person. Republican officials have aggressively fought Democratic efforts to expand access to mail-in ballots during the pandemic.
From the Cato Institute: THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND NINETEENTH CENTURY TRANSFER POLICY
A look at an early source of revenue collection nationally (this also applies to Texas)
- Click here for the article.
During the 19th century, about 871.2 million acres of lands held
in common by the federal government were transferred to private
individuals, businesses, and state governments. The privatization of
public lands began in 1796, when the public domain amounted to
approximately 233 million acres. Between 1796 and 1923, private
parties purchased nearly 279.3 million acres of public land. Even
though the total amount of federal land holdings grew enormously,
the government sold off more acreage than had been included in its
original holdings. Most of these sales occurred before 1862; from
1800 until the beginning of the Civil War, proceeds from the sale of
public lands constituted a major source of revenue for the federal
government, accounting for 48 percent of net receipts in 1836.
The Right to Retire
Apparently its been a thing for a while.
Here's an opinion piece promoting it.
- Retirement should be a right. But it’s in danger of becoming a privilege for the rich.
Like all of us, older people have been hit by the rise in living costs, and some are forced to keep working beyond the retirement age to avoid falling into poverty. The decision to retire is, for many, an individual one, and an awareness that your financial situation remains precarious, and that working while you can is your only prospect of topping up your savings and pensions, is likely to weigh heavily on any decisions to stop work. Pensioner poverty has fallen from its peak in the mid-1990s but has begun to rise again in the years following the financial crash, with 16% of pensioners living in poverty, despite benefits for over-65s having been protected against cuts.
From the Texas Tribune: No straight-ticket voting for Texas' 2020 election, federal appeals court says
Not a surprise.
- Click here for the article.
Texas voters will not be able to select every candidate of a major political party with one punch, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday, upholding a 2017 state law that ends the popular practice of straight-ticket voting for this year’s general election.
The Texas Legislature acted years ago to end straight-ticket voting in time for the 2020 presidential contest, but a federal judge reinstated the practice earlier this month, citing complications to the voting process caused by the pandemic.A three-judge panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision Wednesday, ruling that the law ending the one-punch option should go into effect even as voters and election administrators contend with the coronavirus pandemic, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s “emphasis that courts should not alter election rules on the eve of an election.”
“The Texas Legislature passed HB 25 in 2017, and state election officials have planned for this election accordingly. The state election machinery is already well in motion,” the judges wrote. Upholding the law and eliminating straight-ticket voting, they wrote, “will minimize confusion among both voters and trained election officials.”
Tammany Hall and Puck
Political machines and the early magazine that exposed them.
- Tammany Hall.
- Puck.
Wednesday, September 30, 2020
The New Left in the 1960s
Another factor weakening the New Deal Coalition.
The rise of social issues - as well as anti-war sentiment.
- Click here for the entry.
The Vietnam War conducted by liberal President Lyndon B. Johnson was a special target across the worldwide New Left. Johnson and his top officials became unwelcome on American campuses. The anti-war movement escalated the rhetorical heat, as violence broke out on both sides. The climax came at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
The New Left also accommodated the rebirth of feminism. As the original leaders of the New Left were largely white men, women reacted to the lack of progressive gender politics with their own social intellectual movement. The New Left was also marked by the invention of the modern environmentalist movement, which clashed with the Old Left's disregard for the environment in favor of preserving the jobs of union workers. Environmentalism also gave rise to various other social justice movements such as the environmental justice movement, which aims to prevent the toxification of the environment of minority and disadvantaged communities.By 1968, however, the New Left coalition began to split. The anti-war Democratic presidential nomination campaign of Kennedy and McCarthy brought the central issue of the New Left into the mainstream liberal establishment. The 1972 nomination of George McGovern further highlighted the new influence of Liberal protest movements within the Democratic establishment. Increasingly, feminist and gay rights groups became important parts of the Democratic coalition, thus satisfying many of the same constituencies that were previously unserved by the mainstream parties.
From Wikipedia: The Southern Strategy
Another wedge driven through the New Deal Coalition
- Click here for the entry.
In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.
From Wikipedia: Law and order (politics)
One of the political themes that drove a wedge through the New Deal Coalition in the 1968 campaign.
- Click here for the entry.
Both the concept and the exact phrase "Law and order" became a powerful political theme in the United States during the late 1960s. The leading proponents were two Republicans, the governor of California Ronald Reagan and presidential candidate Richard Nixon. Nixon targeted, among others, working class White ethnics in northern cities to turn against the Democratic Party, blaming it for being soft on crime and rioters.
Flamm (2005) argues that liberals were unable to craft a compelling message for anxious voters. Instead, they either ignored the crime crisis, claimed that law and order was a racist ruse, or maintained that social programs would solve the "root causes" of civil disorder, which by 1968 seemed increasingly unlikely and contributed to a loss of faith in the ability of the government to do what it was sworn to do—protect personal security and private property. Conservatives rejected the liberal notions. "How long are we going to abdicate law and order," House GOP leader Gerald Ford demanded in 1966, "in favor of a soft social theory that the man who heaves a brick through your window or tosses a firebomb into your car is simply the misunderstood and underprivileged product of a broken home?"
Flamm (2005) documents how conservatives constructed a persuasive message that argued that the Civil Rights Movement had contributed to racial unrest and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society had rewarded rather than punished the perpetrators of violence.
History of the City of Houston’s Drinking Water Operations
It is what it says it is. A look at one of the essential functions of local government.
- Click here for the article.
In the second half of the 20th Century, new wells were drilled to supply water to the city’s pump stations, but it was soon apparent that Houston leaders would need to develop longrange solutions, and identify additional water resources to meet the demands of an exploding, post World War II population. City officials responsible for water production had the foresight to obtain the rights to nearby surface water sources (lakes and rivers) to insure a plentiful and dependable supply for the future. Two federally funded World War II era canals that flow from the San Jacinto River to the Ship Channel were purchased in 1945 and in 1954, and a dam was constructed across the San Jacinto River to create Lake Houston.
With a reservoir of 160,000 acre-feet, Lake Houston is a dependable supply of raw water for the nearby metropolitan area. Houston’s first water purification plant (the East Water Purification Plant) processes water from Lake Houston that travels to the plant via the twelve mile long West Canal. The City of Houston now holds a percentage of the water rights to Lake Livingston (constructed in 1969) and Lake Conroe (constructed in 1973). In 1990, the Southeast Water Purification Plant began pumping water and in 2005 the newest treatment plant, the Northeast Water Purification Plant, opened its valves. As the nation’s fourth largest municipal water provider, Houston will eventually provide water not only to the city, but to several counties adjoining Harris County.
From Wikipedia: Slave patrols
One of the origins of policing in the United States.
- Click here for the entry.
Slave patrols first began in South Carolina in 1704 and spread throughout the thirteen colonies, lasting well beyond the American Revolution. As the population of enslaved black people boomed, especially with the invention of the cotton gin, so did the fear of resistance and uprisings by the enslaved. The development of slave patrols began when other means of slave control failed to quell enslaved people's resistance. Their biggest concern were the enslaved being held against their will on the plantations since that is where enslaved populations were highest. Initially, incentives were offered to whites such as tobacco and money to urge whites to be more vigilant in the capture of runaway enslaved persons that had escaped. When this approach failed, slave patrols were formally established.
Laws were put into place to regulate the activities of both blacks and whites. Black persons were subjected to questioning, searches, and other harassment. Slaves who were encountered without passes from their white "master" were expected to be returned to their owners, as stated in the slave code. Punishment for runaway slaves, such as whippings and beatings, could be expected. More than floggings and beatings, however, enslaved people feared the threat of being placed on the auction block and being separated from their families. If caught by patrols and returned to their masters, being placed on the auction block was an option for masters who no longer wanted to deal with their "non-compliant" slaves. During these times, slaves were often neglected and mistreated despite having permission to travel.
From EKU: The History of Policing in the United States
- Click here for it.
These “modern police” organizations shared similar characteristics: (1) they were publicly supported and bureaucratic in form; (2) police officers were fulltime employees, not community volunteers or case-by-case fee retainers; (3) departments had permanent and fixed rules and procedures, and employment as a police officers was continuous; (4) police departments were accountable to a central governmental authority (Lundman 1980).
In the Southern states the development of American policing followed a different path. The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the “Slave Patrol” (Platt 1982). The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704 (Reichel 1992). Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules. Following the Civil War, these vigilante-style organizations evolved in modern Southern police departments primarily as a means of controlling freed slaves who were now laborers working in an agricultural caste system, and enforcing “Jim Crow” segregation laws, designed to deny freed slaves equal rights and access to the political system.
The key question, of course, is what was it about the United States in the 1830s that necessitated the development of local, centralized, bureaucratic police forces? One answer is that cities were growing. The United States was no longer a collection of small cities and rural hamlets. Urbanization was occurring at an ever-quickening pace and old informal watch and constable system was no longer adequate to control disorder. Anecdotal accounts suggest increasing crime and vice in urban centers. Mob violence, particularly violence directed at immigrants and African Americans by white youths, occurred with some frequency. Public disorder, mostly public drunkenness and sometimes prostitution, was more visible and less easily controlled in growing urban centers than it had been rural villages (Walker 1996).
But evidence of an actual crime wave is lacking. So, if the modern American police force was not a direct response to crime, then what was it a response to? More than crime, modern police forces in the United States emerged as a response to “disorder.” What constitutes social and public order depends largely on who is defining those terms, and in the cities of 19th century America they were defined by the mercantile interests, who through taxes and political influence supported the development of bureaucratic policing institutions.
For a look at the various departments of city government:
look at the one's in Houston.
- Click here for them.
From the Texas Tribune: Federal court orders Texas prison system to provide hand sanitizer for some geriatric inmates during pandemic
More on federalism. The national government forcing the state government to comply with national rules.
- Click here for the article.
After a weekslong trial that started in July, U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison ruled that Texas Department of Criminal Justice officials acted with deliberate indifference toward the inmates’ medical needs and recklessly disregarded obvious health risks during the pandemic.
“The Court acknowledges that [TDCJ officials] have taken a number of steps to address the spread of COVID-19 … at the Pack Unit,” Ellison wrote in his ruling. “But the Court views these measures as the most basic steps that TDCJ could have taken to prevent mass death within the prison walls on an unimaginable scale. Designing a policy and implementing some of the measures therein does not automatically satisfy Defendants’ constitutional obligations, especially in the face of an unprecedented public health crisis.”
Jeremy Desel, a TDCJ spokesperson, said the department continues to take precautions to slow and stop the spread of the virus inside prisons.
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
What is the Texas Alliance for Retired Americans?
From Wikipedia: New Deal coalition
For our look at political parties.
- Click here for the entry.
The New Deal coalition was the alignment of interest groups and voting blocs in the United States that supported the New Deal and voted for Democratic candidates from 1932 until the late 1960s. It made the Democratic Party the majority party nationally during that period. Democrats lost control of the White House only to Dwight D. Eisenhower, a pro-New Deal Republican and war hero, in 1952 and 1956; they also controlled both Houses of Congress for most of the period. Franklin D. Roosevelt forged a coalition that included the Democratic state party organizations, city machines, labor unions, blue collar workers, minorities (including Jews, Southern and Eastern Europeans, and African-Americans), farmers, white Southerners, people on relief, and intellectuals. This coalition provided Roosevelt with popular support for the many large-scale government programs that were enacted during the New Deal. The coalition began to fall apart with the bitter factionalism during the 1968 election, but it remains the model that party activists seek to replicate.
Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections
For perusal this week as we walk through the results of presidential elections.
- Click here for it.
From the Texas Tribune: Houston Republicans sue to limit in-person and absentee voting options in Harris County
Elections, parties, interest groups, counties, and the judiciary - all in one article.
- Click here for it.
A litigious conservative activist in Houston, the Harris County Republican party, and a number of Republican officials and candidates are asking the Texas Supreme Court to limit in-person and absentee voting options for Harris County voters during the pandemic.
Prominent activist Steve Hotze, as well as Wendell Champion, a Republican candidate for Congress; Sharon Hemphill, a Republican candidate for judge; and the local GOP chair, are suing to stop that, arguing Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins is overreaching the bounds of state election law. They’re asking the state’s highest civil court to order Harris County to not begin early voting until Oct. 19 — the date set by state law that Abbott extended by executive order, citing safety concerns — and not accept absentee ballots delivered in person until Nov. 3.
Monday, September 28, 2020
Competing theories of political conflict
- Elite theory.
Through positions in corporations or on corporate boards, and influence over policy-planning networks through financial support of foundations or positions with think tanks or policy-discussion groups, members of the "elite" exert significant power over corporate and government decisions.
The basic characteristics of this theory are that power is concentrated, the elites are unified, the non-elites are diverse and powerless, elites' interests are unified due to common backgrounds and positions and the defining characteristic of power is institutional position.
- Pluralism.
Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The central question for classical pluralism is how power and influence are distributed in a political process. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups. There may be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out by the various forms and distributions of resources throughout a population. Any change under this view will be slow and incremental, as groups have different interests and may act as "veto groups" to destroy legislation. The existence of diverse and competing interests is the basis for a democratic equilibrium,[1] and is crucial for the obtaining of goals by individuals.
From Justia: Opinions Authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Could be worth a perusal.
- Click here for it.
Supreme Court Cases involving no-knock warrants
First - English common law:
Semayne's case - established the knock and announce rule.
Wilson v. Arkansas - incorporated to the states.
Hudson v. Michigan - violations of the no-knock warrants does not trigger the exclusionary rule.
From Wikipedia: No-knock warrant
A definition
- Click here for the entry.
In the United States, a no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell. In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully enter the property. It is issued under the belief that any evidence they hope to find can be destroyed during the time that police identify themselves and the time they secure the area, or in the event where there is a large perceived threat to officer safety during the execution of the warrant.
Critics argue that no-knock warrants were prone to lead to deadly use of force by police and the deaths of innocent people. No-knock warrants also conflict with the right to self-defense, "stand-your-ground" laws, and Castle Doctrine which explicitly permit the use of deadly force against intruders
From the Congressional Research Service: “No-Knock”Warrants and Other Law Enforcement Identification Considerations
- Click here for the report.
A chunk of it:
. . . amid recent calls for legislative changes to police practices, another area that has received attention concerns the authority for law enforcement officers to execute a warrant by entering a home without first seeking consensual entry by announcing themselves and their purpose. As a default, law enforcement officers must comply with the knock and announce rule— an “ancient” common-law doctrine, which generally requires officers to knock and announce their presence before entering a home to execute a search warrant. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement as generally mandating compliance with the knock and announce rule. The knock and announce rule is also codified in a federal statute, but the Supreme Court has interpreted that statute as “prohibiting nothing” and “merely [authorizing] officers to damage property [upon entry] in certain instances.”When officers violate the knock and announce rule, they may be subject to civil lawsuits and “internal police discipline.” However, in Hudson v. Michigan the Supreme Court curtailed the remedies available for knock and announce violations by concluding that evidence obtained following such a violation is not subject to the exclusionary rule, which “prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution.”
From the Pew Research Center: Democrats Made Gains From Multiple Sources in 2018 Midterm Victories
For our look at election results: An explanation of the 2018 national election.
- Click here for the story.
- Click here for a similar study of the 2016 results.
Nonvoters in 2016 who turned out in 2018 voted heavily for Democratic candidates, accounting for about half of the Democratic gains. Additionally, a small share of the gains came from people who voted for third-party candidates in 2016; they favored Democratic candidates over Republican candidates in 2018 by a narrow margin.
Voting patterns in 2018 reflected a great deal of continuity with 2016, though Democratic candidates in 2018 did better among a few groups, notably men, young people and secular voters. Voting patterns among several other large groups changed less, including Black voters, voters ages 65 and older, Protestants, regular churchgoers and women.
Given their relatively lower turnout, midterm elections are not necessarily predictive of what will happen in the next presidential election, when many more American voters will take part.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas Republicans sue to stop Gov. Greg Abbott's extension of early voting period during the pandemic
Tension seems to be building with the state party: the party organization v the party in government.
- Click here for the article.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is facing a lawsuit over his extension of early voting for the November election from prominent members of his own party — including state party Chair Allen West, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and members of the Texas Legislature.
It is the latest legal challenge to Abbott's emergency powers, which he has wielded aggressively in dealing with the pandemic.
From the Pew Research Center: Key things to know about election polling in the United States
- Click here for it.
A robust public polling industry is a marker of a free society. It’s a testament to the ability of organizations outside the government to gather and publish information about the well-being of the public and citizens’ views on major issues. In nations without robust polling, the head of government can simply decree citizens’ wants and needs instead.
One way to help avoid a repeat of the skepticism about surveys that followed the last presidential election is to narrow the gap between perception and reality when it comes to how polling works. People have many notions about polling – often based on an introductory statistics class, but sometimes even less – that are frequently false. The real environment in which polls are conducted bears little resemblance to the idealized settings presented in textbooks.
With that in mind, here are some key points the public should know about polling heading into this year’s presidential election.
- Different polling organizations conduct their surveys in quite different ways.
- The barriers to entry in the polling field have disappeared.
- A poll may label itself “nationally representative,” but that’s not a guarantee that its methodology is solid.
- The real margin of error is often about double the one reported.
There is evidence that when the public is told that a candidate is extremely likely to win, some people may be less likely to vote.
- Estimates of the public’s views of candidates and major policies are generally trustworthy, but estimates of who will win the “horse race” are less so.
- All good polling relies on statistical adjustment called “weighting” to make sure that samples align with the broader population on key characteristics.
- Failing to adjust for survey respondents’ education level is a disqualifying shortfall in present-day battleground and national polls.
- Transparency in how a poll was conducted is associated with better accuracy.
- The problems with state polls in 2016 do not mean that polling overall is broken.
- Evidence for “shy Trump” voters who don’t tell pollsters their true intentions is much thinner than some people think.
- A systematic miss in election polls is more likely than people think.
- National polls are better at giving Americans equal voice than predicting the Electoral College.
From the Texas Tribune: Federal judge blocks Texas’ elimination of straight-ticket voting
Very big news - the Texas attorney general has filed an appeal.
- click here for the article.
Less than three weeks before early voting begins in Texas, a U.S. district judge has blocked the state from eliminating straight-ticket voting as an option for people who go to the polls this November.
Marmolejo also found that the GOP-backed law would “impose a discriminatory burden” on Black and Hispanic voters and “create comparatively less opportunities for these voters to participate in the political process.”
She acknowledged the burden the decision could put on local and state election officials, who will have to recalibrate voting machines or reprint ballots. But she reasoned that the potential harm for those suing, including the Texas Alliance for Retired Americans, was “outweighed by the inconveniences resulting.”
The day after the ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released a statement saying that his office filed a motion to stop the judge’s order and intends to file an immediate appeal of the district court’s ruling.
“I am disappointed that the Court departed from its prior reasoning and imposed straight ticket voting only weeks before a general election,” Paxton said.
The popular practice of straight-ticket voting allowed general-election voters to vote for all of the candidates of either party in an election by simply picking a straight-ticket option at the top of the ballot. But Texas Republican lawmakers championed a change to the law during the 2017 legislative session, arguing it would compel voters to make more-informed decisions because they would have to make a decision on every race on a ballot.
Update:
- Federal appeals court temporarily blocks ruling that reinstated straight-ticket voting in Texas.
A federal appeals court on Monday put a temporary hold on a lower court’s ruling last week that reinstated the practice of straight-ticket voting, again casting into uncertainty whether Texas voters will have the option in the Nov. 3 election to vote for every candidate of a political party with one punch. A final ruling is expected after the court weighs the arguments more thoroughly.
. . . Bexar County Election Administrator Jacque Callanen told the Houston Chronicle last week that changing plans this close to the first day of early voting Oct. 13 was “unbelievable.”
“For us right now to have to stop what we’re doing and reprogram and retest, and with the early start of early voting — oh my God,” Callanen said. “I can’t say we won’t do it, but it’s going to take everything in us, and we’re going to have to throw as many people at it as we can.”
Straight-ticket voting is a popular option, generally more so among Democrats in Texas’ 10 largest counties. In the 2018 general election, about two-thirds of Texas voters used the straight-ticket option.
The option makes a particularly meaningful difference in places like Houston, where there may be dozens of local judges on the ballot for voters to select among after they decide on candidates for major federal and statewide offices. Without straight-ticket voting, both Republican and Democratic operatives fear that some of their voters may leave their polling places without making it to the end of their ballots.
From The Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott wants to raise the stakes for protesters during a divisive Texas election
Notice how public opinion polls results tie into the positions the governor is taking prior to the election. This is also an indication of what issues might dominate the next legislative session.
- Click here for the article.
Abbott isn't on the Nov. 3 ballot, but the event was the Republican governor’s latest move in a national political battle during a tumultuous election that has pitted police officers and fears of rising crime against calls for an end to police brutality and systemic racism. Recent Texas protests against police brutality have largely been peaceful as the four-month mark of George Floyd's in-custody death in Minneapolis nears.
“Today, we are announcing more legislative proposals to do even more to protect our law enforcement officers as well as do more to keep our community safe,” said Abbott, who was flanked by police union officials, other Texas leaders and Republican politicians hoping to take Texas House seats from Dallas County Democrats in November.
Abbott's press conference came after a majority of likely Texas voters in a New York Times/Siena College poll said that law and order is more important to them than the pandemic. Yet when asked whether racism in the criminal justice system or riots in American cities were the bigger issue, Texas voters were more likely to choose racism than riots.
- Click here for the poll.