From the Texas Tribune: Education savings accounts and illegal immigration will be part of third special legislative session’s focus

The governor is performing one of his constitutional duties. 

- Click here for the list of legislative sessions held by Texas under the 1876 Constitution.

- Click here for the article.

Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday released his agenda for the third legislative special session of the year, asking lawmakers to pass “school choice” and further crack down on illegal immigration. The special session starts at 1 p.m. Monday.

Abbott also asked lawmakers to outlaw COVID-19 vaccine mandates by private employers.

"I am bringing the Texas Legislature back for Special Session #3 to continue building on the achievements we accomplished during the 88th Regular Legislative Session and two special sessions this summer," Abbott said in a statement.

The special session has long been expected, but it comes at a tense time in Texas politics. Last month, the state Senate acquitted Attorney General Ken Paxton in his impeachment trial, ratcheting up tensions with the House that overwhelmingly voted to impeach him in May. And the special session starts about a month before candidate filing begins for the March primary, heightening implications for members’ reelection prospects.

Abbott has been pushing all year for legislation that would allow parents to use taxpayer funds to help pay for private school tuition, home schooling expenses or private tutoring. He prioritized it during the regular session, but it did not advance out of the House, where Democrats and rural Republicans have long resisted it.

Abbott’s agenda specifically calls for “education savings accounts for all Texas schoolchildren,” or taxpayer-funded accounts that parents could use to subsidize alternative education costs.

“Together, we will chart a brighter future for all Texas children by empowering parents to choose the best education option for their child,” Abbott said.

Notably, Abbott’s agenda does not include any other education issues. That is despite the fact that lawmakers also failed during the regular session to deliver teacher pay raises and an increase in per-student funding earlier this year. Those proposals did not make it across the finish line after getting tied to Abbott’s push for education savings accounts.

From the Houston Chronicle: 2023 Texas Voter Guide - A comprehensive guide to the local races and ballot initiatives that your vote will decide in the Nov. 7 election

A look at what will be on the ballot in a month.

- Click here for it.

- And click here for the polling locations. 

Chris Matthews: McCarthy yielded his power to one guy from Florida

Who are these people? 

- Chris Matthews.

When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C., he worked as an officer with the United States Capitol Police. Subsequently, Matthews served on the staffs of four Democratic Members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. In 1974, Matthews mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Pennsylvania's 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary. Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter Administration, and later worked for six years as Chief of Staff to longtime Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan Administration.

- Joe Scarborough. 

In 1994, Scarborough was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for Florida's 1st congressional district, becoming the first Republican to represent the Florida Panhandle since Reconstruction. The seat had become open when eight-term Democratic incumbent Earl Hutto retired.

. . . In June 2000, during his congressional career, he received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. He signed the Contract with America. Scarborough served on the Armed Services, Judiciary, Government Reform, and Education committees. In 1998 he was named chairman of the Civil Service Committee.

Scarborough was one of a group of about 40 freshmen Republican legislators who dubbed themselves the "New Federalists" after The Federalist Papers. Scarborough was elected political director of the incoming legislators. The New Federalists called for sweeping cuts in the U.S. government, including plans to "privatize, localize, consolidate, [or] eliminate"[23] the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy and Housing and Urban Development. House speaker Newt Gingrich tapped Scarborough to head a Republican task force on education, and Scarborough declared, "Our goal is to get as much money, power, and authority out of Washington and get as much money, power, and authority into the classroom as possible." Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio), then chairman of the House Budget Committee, adopted Scarborough's language eliminating the federal Department of Education in the 1996 House Budget Resolution. The budget passed the House by a vote of 238–193. Scarborough and the group played a pivotal role in pressing Gingrich to keep the GOP's promise to balance the federal budget.

- Tip O'Neill.

O'Neill first became active in politics at 15, campaigning for Al Smith in his 1928 presidential campaign. Four years later, he helped campaign for Franklin D. Roosevelt. As a senior at Boston College, O'Neill ran for a seat on the Cambridge City Council, but lost; his first race and only electoral defeat. The campaign taught him the lesson that became his best-known quote: "All politics is local."

After graduating in 1936, O'Neill was elected at the age of 24 to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, aided by tough economic times among his constituents; the experience made him a strong advocate of the New Deal policies of Roosevelt, which were just then coming to an end. His biographer John Aloysius Farrell said his background in Depression-era working-class Boston, and his interpretation of his Catholic faith, led O'Neill to view the role of government as intervening to cure social ailments. O'Neill was "an absolute, unrepentant, unreconstructed New Deal Democrat," Farrell wrote.[3]

In 1949, he became the first Democratic Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives in its history. He remained in that post until 1952, when he ran for the United States House of Representatives from his home district.

 

Election Results Brazoria County 2023

You can find this info on the Brazoria County website. 

2023 - June 10
- City of Alvin
- City of Manvel

2023 - May 6
- Port Freeport
- Alvin ISD
- Angleton ISD
- Columbia-Brazoria ISD
- Danbury ISD
- Pearland ISD
- Sweeny ISD
- City of Alvin
- City of Angleton
- Village of Bonney
- City of Brazoria
- City of Brookside Village
- City of Clute
- City of Danbury
- City of Freeport
- City of Hillcrest Village
- Town of Holiday Lakes
- City of Iowa Colony
- City of Lake Jackson
- City of Manvel
- City of Pearland
- City of Richwood
- Village of Surfside Beach
- City of Sweeny
- City of West Columbia
- Brazoria County ESD No. 3 Sales Tax Election
- Brazoria County ESD No. 3 Annexation-Voters in district
- Brazoria County ESD No. 3 Annexation-Proposed area
- Brazoria County MUD No. 83

2023 -April 1
- City of Freeport Cumulative
- City of Freeport Canvass Report
- City of Freeport Precinct Detail Report

2023 - February 23
- City of Freeport Cumulative
- City of Freeport Canvass Report
- City of Freeport Precinct Detail Report

From the Texas Tribune: Ken Paxton endorses candidates challenging House Republicans who impeached him

This is what they call political hardball.

- Click here for the story. 

Attorney General Ken Paxton on Friday endorsed a slate of primary challengers to state House Republicans who voted to impeach him, a new front in his political revenge tour since the Texas Senate acquitted him.

Paxton threw his support behind seven challengers, including those running against House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, and Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, chair of the House impeachment managers. Paxton’s campaign described it as an initial round of endorsements and promised more details soon on a “statewide Fall tour,” including campaign stops with the candidates.

“Texas conservatives have seen their State House hijacked by liberal RINO Republicans for far too long,” Paxton said in a statement. “I’m making these endorsements to begin restoring a conservative majority in our state House.”

Phelan's campaign fired back, saying his constituents "will not be swayed by the West Texas billionaires and their cult of out-of-town political puppets seeking to influence southeast Texas."

The West Texas oilmen Tim Dunn and Dan and Farris Wilks have been top donors to House primary challengers over the years and more recently bankrolled efforts opposing Paxton's impeachment.

The endorsements come about three weeks after the Senate acquitted Paxton in his impeachment trial, ratcheting up a civil war among Texas Republicans. The House overwhelmingly voted in May to impeach Paxton, accusing him of abusing his office to help a friend and donor, Nate Paul.

Some background:

- Tim Dunn.

Dunn is influential in state and local politics in Texas and has been called the most effective political donor in Texas. A backer of conservative causes, he has spent millions of dollars encouraging the Texas Republican Party and Texas Legislature to become more conservative. In 2006, he formed the conservative advocacy group Empower Texans and was the group's primary financial contributor. Dunn serves on the board of the Community News Foundation, a media organization that publishes the Texas Scorecard. Dunn is a founding board member of Citizens for Self-Governance, which spearheads the Convention of States project, a national effort seeking to call an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Lucy Burns Institute and vice chairman of the board of directors at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.[9][10]

A 2022 report by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism found that Dunn had provided major funding to the Defend Texas Liberty PAC, which spent over $5 million challenging Republican incumbents it viewed as insufficiently conservative.

As of August 2022, Federal Election Commission data showed that Dunn had made more than 300 political donations since 2008.

- Dan and Farris Wilks.

- The Wilks brothers supported Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz in the 2016 United States presidential election, contributing $15 million to a super political action committee backing Cruz's campaign. 

- They gave $50,000 in 2016 to the candidacy of Jeff Judson, who unsuccessfully challenged fellow Republican Joe Straus, Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, in the District 121 Republican legislative primary in March 2016.

- Farris Wilks gave $75,000 to Jeff Cason in the 2020 Republican primary in the contest to replace Jonathan Stickland in Texas State House District 92. 

- Their Defend Texas Liberty PAC gave more than $3 million to the Don Huffines 2022 Texas gubernatorial campaign.

The Wilks brothers were early investors in political commentator Ben Shapiro's media company The Daily Wire, a conservative news and opinion website in 2015. Additionally, the Wilks Brothers provided early stage funding to Prager University, a YouTube channel and media company started by Dennis Prager to further conservative causes to a young audience. They are major donors to conservative advocacy group Empower Texans.

 https://youtu.be/6YiFMH5EPdI?si=__iu5WZ0NH4XpqpG

From the Texas Tribune: Oilfield companies helped to craft Texas’ new waste rules for 2 years before the public got to see them

A look at the influence interest groups an have on regulatory agencies.

- Click here for the article. 

State regulators on Monday released their draft rules for what to do with all the hazardous oilfield waste that’s left over once a well is drilled. The announcement gives the public one month to comment on the new rules — while some industry representatives started giving input more than two years ago, documents and interviews show.

Oilfield waste executives and consultants helped write the regulations beginning in 2021. Oil and gas business advocates also gave feedback to the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the industry.

The effort was initiated by a commissioner who has investments in oilfield waste companies. Jim Wright, one of the agency’s three elected commissioners, ran for his seat with an eye on rewriting what’s known as Rule 8. Wright owns stock in several hazardous waste management companies in Texas, according to statements filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

In an interview, Wright brushed off critics who suggest his involvement in the industry makes him a biased regulator. He said that he had little to do with re-writing the rules after he became commissioner, and that, if anything, his position on the Commission has hurt his businesses rather than helped it. Few companies want to risk doing business with companies associated with regulators, he said.

“For those who think this is my rule — what Jim Wright wants — that couldn’t be further from the truth,” Wright said. “Even before I came to office, [commission] staff knew we really needed to take a hard look at Rule 8.”

 https://youtu.be/N7KeTyq1DJ4?si=npUB_oXGzm8CWgdC

From the Washington Post: Kevin McCarthy tells House Republicans he won’t run again for speaker

For the first time, a sitting speaker of the has been voted out of office.

- Click here for the article. 

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), after being removed as House speaker Tuesday, told fellow Republican lawmakers that he won’t seek the position again. The vote to remove him was the first such action in congressional history. McCarthy’s ouster was sought by hard-right members of his own party. McCarthy was removed by a 216-210 vote, with eight Republicans joining all Democrats in favor of the removal. The move puts the House in uncharted territory as it searches for a leader.

Who is Kevin McCarthy?

Early political career

McCarthy served on the staff of Congressman Bill Thomas from 1987 to 2002. In 1995, he chaired the California Young Republicans. From 1999 to 2001, he chaired the Young Republican National Federation. From the late 1990s until 2000, he was Thomas's district director. McCarthy won his first election in 2000, as a Kern Community College District trustee. Thomas has since criticized McCarthy in numerous interviews.

McCarthy was elected to the California State Assembly in 2002. He became the Republican floor leader in 2003. In 2006, McCarthy was first elected to the United States House of Representatives as a representative for California's 22nd district. He succeeded his former boss, Bill Thomas, who retired. The district, which was renumbered as the 23rd in 2013 and then 20th in 2023, has had various changes in location, but now covers the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley.

H. RES. 757

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/757

 

From the Texas Tribune: With no opposition in the room, a rural Texas county makes traveling for an abortion on its roads illegal

More challenges to the right to travel.

- Click here for the article. 

Commissioners in this rural Texas county that borders New Mexico on Thursday gave their unanimous blessing to a legally dubious policy that effectively outlaws travel on its local roads to seek an abortion.

The five-member panel in Cochran County, which sits about an hour west of Lubbock, agreed with Mark Lee Dickson, founder of the “sanctuary cities” initiative, who said the ordinance was needed to finish the work started in the state’s near-total ban, often referred to as Senate Bill 8.

“This ordinance would close some of the loopholes that exist in this fight,” Dickson said. “It’s saying the roads, and the airport, could not be used for abortion trafficking into New Mexico.”

County Commissioner Eric Silhan introduced the ordinance to the county’s governing body, saying it’s a way to stand for “the people who can’t speak for themselves.”

There were more than a dozen people in the the county commissioners chambers, all appearing to be in support of the ordinance. Judy Deavours, the former mayor of neighboring Whiteface, spoke in favor of it. Whiteface was one of the first towns in the High Plains to pass the so-called sanctuary city ordinance in 2020, while Deavours was in office.

“We have to finish what we started,” Deavours said. “This is just wrapping it up, and if you vote for this, we’ll have what we need.”

More Asbestos! More Asbestos! (The Simpsons)

Texas Unionists v Secessionists

TSHA; Unionism. 

From the 1840s to the 1870s the nature of the United States and the relationship of Texas to the United States dominated Texas political discussion. Those who defended the United States and advocated stronger or continued ties with their country were called Unionists, and they were opposed by Texas nationalists, secessionists, and Confederates. By the 1850s, when the population of Texas had grown enormously and when the details of annexation had been clearly worked out, most Texans were Unionists. In the 1850s Texans supported the Union because it could better protect the frontier, provide a more stable climate for economic development, and protect existing social and legal relationships. Texans also supported the Union for less pragmatic reasons. Unionism grew from habit and from the almost religious zeal with which some viewed their country. Memories and shared experiences common to Americans, such as the American Revolution and the War of 1812, perpetuated the habit and contributed to the zeal. Party ideology and point of origin also contributed to this Unionism of the heart. In general Whigs from the border states and German refugees of the 1848 revolution were among the most persistent Unionists. Close identification with symbols of the nation, such as Sam Houston's affinity for Andrew Jackson, also contributed.

 

TSHA: Secession.

Like other cotton-growing and slaveholding states, Texas seceded from the Union in early 1861 and joined the Confederate States of America. Texas was the seventh state to secede and the last to secede before the firing at Fort Sumter signaled the start of the Civil War and forced citizens of the upper South to choose between fighting against or with their Southern brethren. The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, to the presidency of the United States and fears that Republican control of the executive branch would threaten slavery and the traditional rights and liberties of Americans precipitated the secession crisis in Texas and elsewhere. South Carolina's decision to secede in December 1860 further encouraged Texas secessionists. Some Texans were slow to accept secession, however, or never accepted it. They did not simply react to the election of Lincoln and emulate South Carolina. Indeed, the timing of the secession of Texas and the motivation behind it are of continued interest because they open up a series of questions about the nature of the Texas economy, the population, political parties, local needs, the role of such Unionists as Sam Houston, and the effects of public

Loyalists v Revolutionaries (Patriots)

Perhaps the first major national conflict.

Should the U.S. even be a nation?

This pitted the loyalists against the revolutionaries. What were the interests of the loyalists?

From Wikipedia: The Loyalist population.

The number of Americans who adhered to the British side after fighting commenced is still debated. An American historian has estimated that about 450,000 Americans remained loyal to Britain during the Revolution. This would be about sixteen percent of the total population or about 20 percent of Americans of European origin. The Loyalists were as socially diverse as their Patriot opponents but some groups produced more Loyalists. Thus they included many Anglicans (Episcopalians) in the North East, many tenant farmers in New York and people of Dutch origin in New York and New Jersey, many of the German population of Pennsylvania, some Quakers, most of the Highland Scots in the South, and many Iroquois Indians. Many people with close business connections to Britain who lived in coastal towns remained loyal. Loyalists were most often people who were conservative by nature or in politics, valued order, were fearful of 'mob' rule, felt sentimental ties to the Mother Country, were loyal to the King or concerned that an independent new nation would not be able to defend themselves.

Some escaped slaves became Loyalists. They fought for the British not out of loyalty to the Crown, but from a desire for freedom, which the British promised them in return for their military service.

- Motives for Loyalism.

 

Yale historian Leonard Woods Larabee has identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative and loyal to the King and to Britain:[10]They were older, better established, and resisted radical change.

- They felt that rebellion against the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.

- They saw themselves as Americans but loyal to the British Empire and saw a rebellion against Great Britain as a betrayal to the Empire. At the time the national identity of Americans was still in formation and the very idea of two separate peoples (nationalities) with their own sovereign states (the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America) was itself revolutionary.

- They felt alienated when the Patriots (seen by them as separatists who rebelled against the Crown) resorted to violence, such as burning down houses and tarring and feathering.

- They wanted to take a middle-of-the-road position and were not pleased when forced by Patriots to declare their opposition.

- They had business and family links with Britain.

- They felt that independence from Britain would come eventually, but wanted it to come about organically.

- They were wary that chaos, corruption, and mob rule would come about as a result of revolution.

- Some were “pessimists” who did not display the same belief in the future that the Patriots did. Others recalled the dreadful experiences of many Jacobite rebels after the failure of the last Jacobite rebellion as recently as 1745 who often lost their lands when the Hanoverian government won.

Other motives of the Loyalists included:

- They felt a need for order and believed that Parliament was the legitimate authority.

- In New York, powerful families had assembled colony-wide coalitions of supporters; men long associated with the French Huguenot/Dutch De Lancey faction went along when its leadership decided to support the crown.

- They felt themselves to be weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender such as the British Crown and Parliament.

- Black Loyalists were promised freedom from slavery by the British.

- They felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and their business operations.

From Wikipedia: Patriots. 

Patriots (also known as Revolutionaries, Continentals, Rebels, or Whigs) were colonists in the Thirteen Colonies who opposed the Kingdom of Great Britain's control over the colonies during the American Revolution. Patriot politicians led colonial opposition to British policies regarding the American colonies, eventually adopting the United States Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. After the American Revolutionary War broke out in 1776, Patriots fought a victorious conflict against the British and their allies, which saw the colonies gain their independence as the United States in 1783.

The beliefs of the Patriots were inspired by English and American republicanism, which rejected monarchy and aristocracy while promoting individual liberty and natural rights and legal rights. Prominent Patriot political theorists such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine spearheaded the American Enlightenment, which was in turn inspired by European thinkers such as Francis Bacon, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Though slavery existed in all of the Thirteen Colonies prior to the American Revolution, the issue divided Patriots, with some supporting its abolition while others espoused proslavery thought.

The Patriots included members of every social and ethnic group in the colonies, though support for the Patriot cause was strongest in the New England Colonies and weakest in the Southern Colonies. The American Revolution divided the colonial population into three groups: Patriots, who supported the end of British rule, Loyalists, who supported Britain's continued control over the colonies, and those who remained neutral. African Americans who supported the Patriots were known as Black Patriots, with their counterparts on the British side being referred to as Black Loyalists.

Catching up with dem aggies

- Can John Sharp protect his maroon empire?

- Federal judge throws out hiring discrimination lawsuit against Texas A&M.

- Texas A&M System’s guidance on the state’s DEI ban shows compliance might be a hard needle to thread.

- Texas A&M student president impeached, removed from office.

- Office of Government Relations. 

Recent lawsuits challenging the Harris County elections of 2022

1/6/23 - See how your neighbors voted in Harris County race between Lina Hidalgo, Alexandra Mealer.

1/6/23 - Mealer, other Republicans challenge results of last November's elections, claiming voter suppression.

1/6/23 - What to know about Alexandra Mealer's plan to contest the results of the Harris County Judge's race.

1/6/23 - What to know about Texas election contests, including Alexandra Mealer's in Harris County.

8/1/23 - Timeline: Key dates for Harris County elections trial aimed at overturning November results.

8/11/23 - Harris County GOP candidate who lost by more than 24,000 votes drops election lawsuit.

8/11/23 - Harris County's November election results in hands of judge as trial concludes.

8/31/23 - Alex Mealer feuding with ex-lawyer over voter fraud allegations in election she lost to Lina Hidalgo.

9/21/23 - Alex Mealer drops election result lawsuit against Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo.

Not completely related to the 2022 elections, but close enough.

- Lawsuit calls for Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo's removal from office during mental health leave.

 

From the Pew Research Center: Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology

Everyone seems to have their own take on how to distinguish between the two major parties. 

Here's one: 

- Click here for the article. 

- - The Republican Coalition.

- - The Democratic Coalition.

20 Facts About The Sons of Liberty, The Secret Revolutionary Organization

For our look at the development of organizations.




- From Wikipedia: Sons of Liberty.

The Sons of Liberty was a loosely organized, clandestine, sometimes violent, political organization active in the Thirteen American Colonies founded to advance the rights of the colonists and to fight taxation by the British government. It played a major role in most colonies in battling the Stamp Act in 1765 and throughout the entire period of the American Revolution.

In popular thought, the Sons of Liberty was a formal underground organization with recognized members and leaders. More likely, the name was an underground term for any men resisting new Crown taxes and laws. The well-known label allowed organizers to make or create anonymous summons to a Liberty Tree, "Liberty Pole", or other public meeting-place. Furthermore, a unifying name helped to promote inter-Colonial efforts against Parliament and the Crown's actions. Their motto became "No taxation without representation."

The Two Party System

What is a party system?

A party system is a concept in comparative political science concerning the system of government by political parties in a democratic country. The idea is that political parties have basic similarities: they control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations. . . . Party systems can be distinguished by the degree of political fragmentation, proportionality of seats-to-votes ratio and barriers to entry to the political competition.

What is a two party system?

A two-party system is a political party system in which two major political parties[a] consistently dominate the political landscape. At any point in time, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature and is usually referred to as the majority or governing party while the other is the minority or opposition party. Around the world, the term has different meanings. For example, in the United States, the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe, the sense of two-party system describes an arrangement in which all or nearly all elected officials belong to either of the two major parties, and third parties rarely win any seats in the legislature. In such arrangements, two-party systems are thought to result from several factors, like "winner takes all" or "first past the post" election systems.

Throughout American history, two major parties have dominated elections both nationally and state wide. Why? 

- Duverger's Law.

In political science, Duverger's law holds that in political systems with only one winner (as in the U.S.), two main parties tend to emerge with minor parties typically splitting votes away from the most similar major party. In contrast, systems with proportional representation, usually have more representation of minor parties in government.

What is a winner take all voter system?

- Ballotpedia; Winner Take All Voter Systems: 

. . . an electoral system in which a single political party or group can elect every office within a given district or jurisdiction.

As a contrast: - Multi Party Systems: 

In political science, a multi-party system is a political system in which multiple political parties across the political spectrum run for national elections, and all have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition. Apart from one-party-dominant and two-party systems, multi-party systems tend to be more common in parliamentary systems than presidential systems and far more common in countries that use proportional representation compared to countries that use first-past-the-post elections. Several parties compete for power and all of them have a reasonable chance of forming government.

- Ballotpedia: Proportional Representation: 

. . . an electoral system in which the number of seats held by a particular political party in a legislature is directly determined by the number of votes the political party's candidates receive in a given election. For example, in a five-winner district with proportional representation, if party A received 40 percent of the vote and party B received 60 percent of the vote, party A would win two seats and party B would win three seats.

These are argued to lead to multi party systems, each party can represent a small faction within the nation. Coalitions of these parties are necessary in order to have a functioning government.

- Example: Israeli Knesset.

Coalitions and Factions

- Factions:  

A political faction is a group of people with a common political purpose, especially a subgroup of a political party that has interests or opinions different from the rest of the political party.

- Coalitions: A coalition is formed when two or more people or groups temporarily work together to achieve a common goal. The term is most frequently used to denote a formation of power in political or economic spaces.

- Pew Research Center: 
- - Republican Coalition.
- - Democratic Coalition.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moody_v._NetChoice,_LLC#NetChoice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)

Could You Make a Living in Medieval London?

From ScotusBlog: Justices take major Florida and Texas social media cases

Very timely for us

- Click here for the article. 

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to weigh in on the constitutionality of controversial laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and X (formerly known as Twitter) control content posted on their sites. The laws were enacted in 2021 in response to legislators’ beliefs that the companies were censoring their users, particularly those with conservative views; the companies contend that the laws violate their First Amendment rights.

The announcement that the justices had granted review in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton came as part of a list of orders from the justices’ Sept. 26 conference, the first conference since late June in which the justices had considered new cases to add to their docket for the 2023-24 term. The justices granted review on Friday in a total of 12 cases; the remaining 10 cases will be covered in a separate story.

The Texas and Florida legislatures passed the laws at the center of the disputes in 2021. The Texas law, known as H.B. 20, bars social-media platforms with at least 50 million active users from blocking, removing, or “demonetizing” content based on the users’ views. The Florida law, known as S.B. 1072 or the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, prohibits social-media companies from banning political candidates and “journalistic enterprises.”

Technology companies went to federal court in Texas and Florida to challenge the laws, arguing (among other things) that the laws violate their First Amendment right to control what speech appears on their platform. The justices put the Texas law on hold last year while the challenges to the law continued in the lower courts. In an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the court did not need to intervene yet. Justice Elena Kagan also indicated, without any additional explanation, that she would have allowed the law to go into effect.

Who was Dianne Feinstein?

Background from Wikipedia: 

- Click here for the entry. 

an American politician who served as a United States senator from California from 1992 to 2023. A member of the Democratic Party, she previously served as Mayor of San Francisco from 1978 to 1988.

. . . A San Francisco native, Feinstein graduated from Stanford University in 1955. She was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1969 and served as the board's first female president in 1978, during which time the assassinations of Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk drew national attention. Feinstein succeeded Moscone as mayor and became the first woman to serve in that position.

. . . After losing a race for governor in 1990, Feinstein was elected to the U.S. Senate in a 1992 special election. In November 1992, she became California's first female U.S. senator; shortly after, she became the state's senior senator after Alan Cranston retired in January 1993. Feinstein was reelected five times.

. . . She was the first woman to have chaired the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee and the first woman to have presided over a U.S. presidential inauguration. Feinstein chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2009 to 2015 and was the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2017 to 2021.

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

- From Wikipedia: 

The Exit, Voice and Loyalty model states that members of an organization, whether a business, a nation or any other form of human grouping, have essentially two possible responses when they perceive that the organization is demonstrating a decrease in quality or benefit to the member: they can exit (withdraw from the relationship); or, they can voice (attempt to repair or improve the relationship through communication of the complaint, grievance or proposal for change). For example, the citizens of a country may respond to increasing political repression in two ways: emigrate or protest. Similarly, employees can choose to quit their unpleasant job, or express their concerns in an effort to improve the situation. Disgruntled customers can choose to shop elsewhere, or they ask for the manager.

Exit and voice themselves represent a union between economic and political action. Exit is associated with Adam Smith's invisible hand, in which buyers and sellers are free to move silently through the market, constantly forming and destroying relationships. Voice, on the other hand, is by nature political and at times confrontational.

While both exit and voice can be used to measure a decline in an organization, voice is by nature more informative in that it also provides reasons for the decline. Exit, taken alone, only provides the warning sign of decline. Exit and voice also interact in unique and sometimes unexpected ways; by providing greater opportunity for feedback and criticism, exit can be reduced; conversely, stifling of dissent leads to increased pressure for members of the organization to use the only other means available to express discontent, departure. The general principle, therefore, is that the greater the availability of exit, the less likely voice will be used. However, the interplay of loyalty can affect the cost-benefit analysis of whether to use exit or voice. Where there is loyalty to the organization (as evidenced by strong patriotism politically, or brand loyalty for consumers), exit may be reduced, especially where options to exit are not so appealing (small job market, political or financial hurdles to emigration or moving). Loyal members become especially devoted to the organization's success when their voice will be heard and when they can reform it.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas’ ban on certain drag shows is unconstitutional, federal judge says

Not a big surprise. I still think this is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

- Click here for the article. 

Texas cannot enforce a new law that restricts some public drag shows, a federal judge said Tuesday in declaring the legislation unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner found Senate Bill 12 “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.” The struck-down law prohibited any performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children.

Hittner ruled that language discriminated based on viewpoint and is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.

“The Court sees no way to read the provisions of SB 12 without concluding that a large amount of constitutionally-protected conduct can and will be wrapped up in the enforcement of SB 12,” the ruling reads. “It is not unreasonable to read SB 12 and conclude that activities such as cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences could possibly become a civil or criminal violation.”

The plaintiffs who sued the state celebrated the order, saying in statements shared by their lawyers that the decision affirmed their rights to express themselves.

“I am relieved and grateful for the court's ruling,” drag performer Brigitte Bandit said. “My livelihood and community has seen enough hatred and harm from our elected officials. This decision is a much needed reminder that queer Texans belong and we deserve to be heard by our lawmakers.”

Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes, who authored SB 12, defended the bill and pledged to challenge the ruling. The Texas Attorney General's Office will appeal the ruling, a spokesperson said.

“Surely we can agree that children should be protected from sexually explicit performances. That’s what Senate Bill 12 is about," Hughes said. "This is a common sense and completely constitutional law, and we look forward to defending it all the way to the Supreme Court if that’s what it takes."

From Wikipedia: Government shutdowns in the United States

Some background 

If the U.S. Congress does not pass the 2024 budget (the 2024 appropriations bill actually) before the start of the 2024 fiscal year, then money cannot be drawn from the Unites States Treasury. Doing so would violate the U.S. Constitution.

Money can still be drawn from the treasuries of state and local government. 

This isn't the first time this has happened. Wikipedia has the details: 

- Click here for the entry.

In the United States, government shutdowns occur when funding legislation required to finance the federal government is not enacted before the next fiscal year begins. In a shutdown, the federal government curtails agency activities and services, ceases non-essential operations, furloughs non-essential workers, and retains only essential employees in departments that protect human life or property. Shutdowns can also disrupt state, territorial, and local levels of government.

Funding gaps began to lead to shutdowns in 1980, when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion requiring it. This opinion was not consistently adhered to through the 1980s, but since 1990 all funding gaps lasting longer than a few hours have led to a shutdown. As of September 2023, ten funding shutdowns have led to federal employees being furloughed.

The most significant shutdowns have included the 21-day shutdown of 1995–1996, during the Bill Clinton administration, over opposition to major spending cuts; the 16-day shutdown in 2013, during the Barack Obama administration, caused by a dispute over implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); and the longest, the 35-day shutdown of 2018–2019, during the Donald Trump administration, caused by a dispute over funding an expansion of barriers on the U.S.–Mexico border.

Shutdowns disrupt government services and programs; they close national parks and institutions. They reduce government revenue because fees are lost while at least some furloughed employees receive back pay. They reduce economic growth. During the 2013 shutdown, Standard & Poor's, the financial ratings agency, said on October 16 that the shutdown had "to date taken $24 billion out of the economy", and "shaved at least 0.6 percent off annualized fourth-quarter 2013 GDP growth".

Previous shutdowns: 

- 1980

- 1981

- 1984

- 1986

- 1990

- 1995–1996

- 2013

- January 2018

- December 2018–January 2019

How will this impact Texas? 

- How the looming government shutdown will affect Texans.

From ABCNews: When's Houston hosting another Super Bowl? Astrodome's unsettled future may hold key to the answer

For local economic policy.

- Click here for the article.

For more than a half century, sports teams and sporting events have been woven into the fabric of Houston. While the venues in which the big games are played have changed, our city's passion for playing host has remained fervent.

Space City is a host city, from the NCAA Final Four to the FIFA World Cup, Super Bowls, and to even BMX events.

"We really try not to make it cookie-cutter," Janis Burke, CEO of the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, revealed about her team's approach to bidding on marquee events. "We really crawl inside the skin of that event. How can we put the Houston thumbprint on it and make it different and special and bigger and better than ever before? We just kept bidding on our reputation."

. . . The venue known most of the time as NRG Stadium has and will host major sporting events for years. But just steps away, the Astrodome has been dormant for decades. But the stadium known to many as the "8th Wonder of the World" just might be keeping its neighbor, NRG Stadium, from hosting its third Super Bowl.

"Greg Grissom, the president of Texans, and I have been talking about the next Super Bowl bid," Burke disclosed. "To be honest, we do need to figure out the Astrodome situation. I know (Harris County) has that on their radar, and they are trying to come up with a solution for that. I think that will matter. So, again, we're strategically looking at how we put that in the mix. Whatever we do, whether it's a renovation or a teardown, but I think that will matter to the NFL."

After being asked if it's safe to say Houston will not bid on another Super Bowl until the Astrodome's future is determined, Burke agreed it was safe to say.

The Astrodome, now stripped and empty, is owned by Harris County. As of 2021, the county paid $400,000 annually for maintenance and insurance. In 2018, the Astrodome became a Texas historical landmark. It's also designated as a State Antiquities Landmark and is part of the National Register of Historic Places.

. . . Ryan M. Walsh, CEO and executive director of NRG Park, provided a statement to ABC13 about the status of the Astrodome and the claim it's impacting Houston's next Super Bowl bid:

"We are working with stakeholders to find the solution that works best for our community. While those high-profile events are great, the County is interested in taking a well-reasoned, thoughtful approach to the re-energizing of NRG Park that will maximize benefit to our entire community for decades to come."

Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia also weighed in on Burke's assertion that the Astrodome's future must be decided before Houston can bid on hosting the biggest football game on the planet.

From Ballotpedia - 9/27/23

- Deadline to run for president, 2024.

- Presidential candidates, 2024.

- Annual State Legislative Competitiveness Report: Vol. 13, 2023.

- Republican presidential primary debate (September 27, 2023).

The ‘Green Bay Sweep’: A Trump adviser’s plot to overturn the 2020 election

A loo at the attempt to override the presidential electoral votes in 2020.



- Wikipedia: Peter Navarro.

- Wikipedia: 

- DOJ: Peter Navarro Indicted for Contempt of Congress.

- Trump adviser Peter Navarro guilty of contempt for dodging Jan 6 subpoena.

Interest Group Formation: Crash Course Government and Politics #43

 https://youtu.be/RykP-UkJ86k?si=NhJnQ2reXabJigQg

Voter suppression in the United States

From Wikipedia

- Click here for the entry.

Voter suppression in the United States consists of various legal and illegal efforts to prevent eligible citizens from exercising their right to vote. Such voter suppression efforts vary by state, local government, precinct, and election. Voter suppression has historically been used for racial, economic, gender, age and disability discrimination. Before and during the American Civil War, most African-Americans had not been able to vote. After the Civil War, all African-American men were granted voting rights, causing some Southern Democrats and former Confederate states to institute actions such as poll taxes or language tests that were ostensibly not in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution at the time, but were used to limit and suppress voting access, most notably African American communities that made up large proportions of the population in those areas, but in many regions the majority of the electorate as a whole was functionally or officially unable to register to vote or unable to cast a ballot. African Americans' access to registration and voting in the South was often difficult until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and continues to be a subject of debate.

In the 21st century, some fear voter suppression has been revived, at least in part due to the 2013 US Supreme Court ruling of Shelby County v. Holder, which ruled that the enforcement of the Voting Right's Act power requiring that the federal government give preclearance to states with a history of voter discrimination was unconstitutional because it used a coverage formula based on over 40 year old data. Since then (and as of March 24, 2021), more than 361 bills that would restrict voting access have been introduced in 47 states according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

From Scotusblog: Court denies Alabama’s request to use voting map with only one majority-Black district

The ongoing attempt to go around the Voting Rights Act, keeps on going . . .

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Alabama’s request to allow it to use a congressional map in the 2024 elections that a lower court had concluded likely violates the Voting Rights Act. The brief unsigned order, from which there were no public dissents, came less than four months after a divided Supreme Court agreed that the 2021 iteration of the map violated federal law by weakening the collective voting power of Black voters in the state.

Tuesday’s order from the Supreme Court means that the redistricting process in Alabama will go forward with court-appointed experts preparing new maps that include a second majority-Black district.

The dispute arises from Alabama’s efforts to draw a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census for its seven seats in the House of Representatives. Nearly 27 percent of the state’s residents are Black, but the map that the state’s legislature enacted in 2021 had just one majority-Black district. That prompted voters and civil rights groups to go to federal court, where they argued that the 2021 map diluted the voting power of Black people.

A federal court in Alabama agreed with the challengers that the 2021 map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting. In February 2022, the Supreme Court temporarily put that order on hold, which allowed Alabama to use its map in the 2022 elections, and agreed to review the lower courts’ decisions.

In June of this year, a divided Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision in favor of the challengers. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the lower court had “faithfully applied our precedents and correctly determined that, under existing law,” the 2021 map violated Section 2. Roberts also rejected what he characterized as Alabama’s efforts to “remake our §2 jurisprudence anew,” by urging the court to hold that maps should be drawn without considering race at all.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged an argument made by Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent: the idea that “even if Congress in 1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under §2 for some period of time,” it cannot do so indefinitely.

The state returned to the drawing board, and in July the legislature enacted a new plan that once again contained only one majority-Black district. Finding it “substantially likely” that the 2023 map violates the Voting Rights Act because it failed to create an additional majority-Black district or “something close to it,” the lower court appointed two experts to draw a new map.

Alabama came back to the Supreme Court on Sept. 11, asking the justices to intervene quickly. It told the Supreme Court that the lower court had rejected the 2023 map solely because it did not contain a second majority-Black district – which, the state argued, the Supreme Court has said is not required. And citing the court’s recent decisions striking down the consideration of race in university admissions, the state contended that the lower court’s rule “has no logical endpoint,” but would instead require it to “have to continue intentionally creating a second majority-black district in lieu of keeping together” local communities indefinitely.

The challengers urged the justices to stay out of the dispute, comparing Alabama’s failure to draw a second district that gives Black voters the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice with the southern states’ resistance to desegregation during the civil rights era. And they cautioned that putting the lower courts’ orders on hold will make it “all but certain” that the state will hold the 2024 elections using “an unlawful, dilutive” plan.

From Coastal Law, LLC: What’s the “Kansas Two-Step?” How Police Trick Motorists into Giving up Their Rights

 Probable cause can be manufactured. Here's how: 

- Click here for the article.

Once an officer has written a ticket and completed the legitimate purpose of the traffic stop, the motorist must be released unless 1) there is reasonable suspicion of further crime like drug activity or 2) the driver gives consent to stay and chat (or have their car searched).

What the ACLU is calling the “Kansas Two-Step” is the practice of handing the driver their ticket or warning, taking two steps toward their patrol car, then turning around again and asking the driver if they don’t mind answering a few more questions:

The idea is that, if the driver says, “sure,” then the traffic stop turns into a consensual encounter. It is no longer a detention because the driver is now agreeing to hang around a bit longer. Therefore, there is no Fourth Amendment violation.

Most people, unwilling to rock the boat and risk making the guy with a gun mad at them, will simply agree. When a person doesn’t agree, the officer detains them anyway and calls for a K-9 unit if one is not already there.

If drugs or money are found, the motorist can’t challenge the search because they consented to it. If no drugs or money are found, no harm done, right? The motorist goes on their way and the officer moves on to the next black or brown person in a rental car with out of state tags…

When the officer completes the legitimate traffic stop and attempts to initiate a second, consensual encounter, they will usually give some version of “the speech.”

“We’ve been having a lot of trouble out here on the interstate with drugs and guns, you don’t have anything like that in your car, do you?” (No, sir, I don’t) “Well, then, you won’t mind if we have a look, would you?”

At this point, with few exceptions, the officer is going to search the person’s car. The only questions are 1) Does the officer have probable cause to search, or 2) did the person consent to the search?

If a motorist refuses consent to search their vehicle, the officer will probably either 1) wait for a drug dog to arrive that will give him probable cause to search or 2) search anyway. Then it will be a matter for the courts as to whether the officer had a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that justified searching the vehicle.
Manufacturing Probable Cause

The officer will usually ask questions, not to be friendly and chit-chat, but to manufacture probable cause to support their search of your vehicle. Where are you from? Where are you headed? How long are you staying there?

These sound like normal, conversational icebreakers. Except, if you answer [insert any large city], and that you stayed a few days, the officer will make a note that you are traveling either to or from a “major drug hub,” and that they did not observe any luggage in your vehicle – this will later somehow become probable cause that you are a drug trafficker.

If there is a passenger in the car, they might ask them questions separately – any deviation in their response from your responses will be seen as probable cause to search.

What are some facts cited by SC police as probable cause to search? The driver appeared nervous; 

- The passenger appeared nervous;
- I observed the driver’s heartbeat pulsing through his shirt;
- I observed the driver’s pulse beating in his neck;
- Air fresheners were hanging on the rear-view mirror;
- They were driving a rental car;
- They were driving a car with out of state tags;
- The driver and passenger’s stories didn’t match;
- There was no luggage in the vehicle; or
- The driver was traveling either to or from a “major drug hub” (any large city in the United States).

All of this is conduct that describes ordinary, law-abiding citizens just as it could describe a drug trafficker.

In the news - 9/26/23

- A deep dive on voter registration.

- In Texas’s least-populated county, a bitter election 'blood feud' rolls on and on and on.

- Drone Regulations in Houston, Texas.

- Drone market outlook in 2023: industry growth trends, market stats and forecast.

- About the Carbon Capture Coalition.

Voter Registration

- Wikipedia: 

Voter registration in the United States is required for voting in federal, state and local elections in the United States. The only exception is North Dakota, although cities in North Dakota may register voters for city elections. Voter registration takes place at the county level in many states and at the municipal level in several states. Most states set cutoff dates for voter registration and to update details, ranging from 2 to 4 weeks before an election; while a third of states have Election Day or "same-day" voter registration which enables eligible citizens to register or update their registration when they vote before or on election day.

It has been argued that some registration requirements deter some people (especially disadvantaged people) from registering and therefore exercising their right to vote, resulting in a lower voter turnout. Several consequences of registering for voting are mentioned sometimes as deterrents for registration, like to serve jury duty, to be drafted into the military, or to update car insurance in case of changing address of residence, for example. But many of these claims are false or, like being listed as potential juror, are only applicable to certain jurisdictions or are not the only way to be called in to serve.

- Video: SOS 101: Voter Registration in Texas.

- Harris County Clerk's Office: Registering to Vote.

- Brazoria County Clerk's Office: Registering to Vote.

- Texas Secretary of State: Request for Voter Registration Applications.

 https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/08/justices-put-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-plan-on-hold/

 https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/history-artificial-intelligence/

A few items related to regulations regarding artificial intelligence

 - Electronic Privacy Information Center: The State of State AI Laws: 2023.

- National Conference of State Legislatures: Artificial Intelligence 2023 Legislation.

- White House: Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.

- Wikipedia: Regulation of artificial intelligence.

- National Artificial Intelligence Initiative.

 https://youtu.be/1CSkUqMddgo?si=LHgBNLJnqxiJdJo6

From the Galveston Daily News: Talk resumes about redeveloping grain-elevator land at Port of Galveston

For our look at local politics and economic development.

- Click here for the article.

Grain elevators that have been towering above Harborside Drive near Pier 25 for about 40 years are taking up space that might be used for more profitable endeavors, one influential port leader argues.

Jim Yarbrough, a member of Wharves Board of Trustees, which governs the public docks, has been arguing since at least 2016, when he was mayor, that the grain business has gotten soft and tenuous and waterfront leaders should consider whether there’s a higher and better use of that port land.

The port has been shipping grain from elevators for almost 150 years. The first grain elevator went up in 1875, then blew up in 1977 when a spark ignited grain dust, killing about 15 people.

“At one time, the grain elevators produced a lot of jobs and money,” Yarbrough said. “Over time that has dwindled down to not much. It doesn’t produce that many jobs.”

Among the first questions Yarbrough asked when he joined the board was when the lease agreement for the property expired, he said.

“It takes the port a while to move and do things,” Yarbrough said. “My hopes were to implode or get rid of the grain elevators.”

__________

- Galveston Wharves Board of Trustees. 

1788–89 United States presidential election

How was the first presidential election conducted?

- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.

No nomination process existed at the time of planning, and thus, the framers of the Constitution presumed that Washington would be elected unopposed. For example, Alexander Hamilton spoke for national opinion when in a letter to Washington attempting to persuade him to leave retirement on his farm in Mount Vernon to serve as the first President, he wrote that "...the point of light in which you stand at home and abroad will make an infinite difference in the respectability in which the government will begin its operations in the alternative of your being or not being the head of state."

Another uncertainty was the choice for the vice presidency, which contained no definite job description beyond being the President's designated successor and presiding over the Senate. The Constitution stipulated that the position would be awarded to the runner-up in the Presidential election. Because Washington was from Virginia, then the largest state, many assumed that electors would choose a vice president from a northern state. In an August 1788 letter, U.S. Minister to France Thomas Jefferson wrote that he considered John Adams and John Hancock, both from Massachusetts, to be the top contenders. Jefferson suggested John Jay, John Rutledge, and Virginian James Madison as other possible candidates. Adams received 34 electoral votes, one short of a majority – because the Constitution did not require an outright majority in the Electoral College prior to ratification of the Twelfth Amendment to elect a runner-up as vice president, Adams was elected to that post.

Voter turnout comprised a low single-digit percentage of the adult population. Though all states allowed some rudimentary form of popular vote, only six ratifying states allowed any form of popular vote specifically for presidential electors. In most states only white men, and in many only those who owned property, could vote. Free black men could vote in four Northern states, and women could vote in New Jersey until 1776. In some states, there was a nominal religious test for voting. For example, in Massachusetts and Connecticut, the Congregational Church was established, supported by taxes. Voting was hampered by poor communications and infrastructure and the labor demands imposed by farming. Two months passed after the election before the votes were counted and Washington was notified that he had been elected president. Washington spent eight days traveling from Virginia to New York for the inauguration. Congress took twenty-eight days to assemble.

As the electors were selected, politics intruded, and the process was not free of rumors and intrigue. For example, Hamilton aimed to ensure that Adams did not inadvertently tie Washington in the electoral vote. Also, Federalists spread rumors that Anti-Federalists plotted to elect Richard Henry Lee or Patrick Henry president, with George Clinton as vice president. However, Clinton received only three electoral votes.

__________

Some You Tube Videos: 

- The oddities of the first American election.

- The American Presidential Election of 1788-1789.

- The election of George Washington was weirder than you think.

From CNBC: With flurry of FAA approvals, many more drones are about to fly over U.S. skies

For a future look at regulatory policy and executive agencies. For now we can think about this in terms of the activities that relevant interest groups had on the decision made by the FAA.

- Click here for the story.

This week, drone delivery company Zipline was granted Federal Aviation Administration approval to fly drones beyond the visual line of sight. That’s a major milestone in efforts to extend the range of the domestic drone industry over U.S. airspace, and Zipline isn’t the only drone operator to recently receive FAA approval.

In a series of moves in August and earlier in September, the FAA gave the same clearance to UPS subsidiary Flight Forward (which delivers packages by drone), avionics provider uAvionix, and drone inspection provider Phoenix Air Unmanned. It’s a regulatory aim that the drone companies have been working towards for a decade and will pave the way for other companies to receive streamlined approval for their own drone flights beyond the visual line of sight. It will also potentially push more consumer companies to accelerate efforts to deliver goods by unmanned aircraft, including giants such as Walmart and Amazon, the latter of which has been viewed as falling behind in its decade-long drone delivery effort.

The FAA told aviation publication Flying that the approvals will serve as the basis for “summary grants” in the future as it continues to work towards formal rulemaking and to help fast track business models similar to the ones to receive the first approvals, meaning package delivery, drone inspections, medical supplies and drone aviation system development, such as uAvionix.

From the Pew Research Center: Many journalists say social media helps at work, but most decry its impact on journalism

- Click here for the article. 

 https://coastal-law.com/whats-the-kansas-two-step-how-police-trick-motorists-into-giving-up-their-rights/

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/5th-circuit-strikes-down-mississippis-jim-crow-era-felony-disenfranchisement-provision/