Your turn! What do you think?

Republican redistricting rejected

Even as the Republican party was gearing up for a big night of speeches from party favorites like U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz, Texas Republicans received bad news from a three-judge federal court in Washington, D.C. about the redistricting map drawn by the Republican dominated legislature. Redistricting is the process that all 50 states must go through every 10 years after the census to re-draw the voting districts based on population changes.  Reapportionment is the process of allocating or dividing up the 435 U.S. House of Representatives seats into the different states after population shifts.   If a state has increased in population it gets more seats in Congress, but it also loses seats if its population declines. The party in power tries to draw the lines to maximize their party’s influence.

Since 2000, Texas grew by over four million people with minorities accounting for 90 percent of the growth (Hispanics accounted for 65 percent) meaning that we were reapportioned to increase our congressional delegation from 32 seats to 36 seats.  Sounds good—more seats to go around—right?

Not exactly.

The problem is that Texas is one of the nine states under “preclearance” mandates pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because of Texas’ history of discriminating against minorities seeking to exercise their right to vote.  This preclearance procedure means Texas must submit its map to the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) for approval.  Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, rather than seek DOJ approval, opted to go to a special court in Washington, D.C. which can hear cases for jurisdictions seeking a bailout-a release of the preclearance mandate after ten years of steps to improve minority voting.  Texas’ Attorney General Greg Abbott did just that—and on Tuesday, the federal court in D.C. said that Texas had failed to show the lines were “not enacted with discriminatory purpose”.

This was a second defeat for Abbott who had already lost in a case earlier this year in front of a three-judge federal panel in San Antonio.  There the judges had thrown out parts of the Texas map because it diluted minority voting rights (divided Hispanics up into districts to undermine their majority power).  The judges then re-drew their own maps.  Attorney General Abbott said that he disagreed with that decision, and he was hoping that the federal court in Washington, D.C. would find the Texas map acceptable and allow Texas to avoid the DOJ preclearance process.

What happens next?  The map drawn by the federal judges in San Antonio remains the map that will be used for the upcoming November elections.  After that?   Well that depends on how well Gregg Abbott does with his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Your turn! What do you think?

They said that?

Last week Republican county judge Tom Head in Lubbock made national headlines when he gave a provocative interview to Fox News saying the country could lapse into a civil war with fighting like that at Lexington and Concord during the Revolutionary War if Obama is re-elected.  The judge, who was trying to curry support for increased law enforcement funding, said the president would cede authority to the United Nations-the world governing authority of which the United States is a member. Judge Head argued the county needed to protect itself by purchasing more equipment to prepare for the U.N. invasion.  The judge’s interview gained national attention, and the Lubbock sheriff quickly distanced himself from the Judge Head’s remarks. The judge himself said the comments were taken out of context.

Such political gaffes (mistakes that are made when speaking publicly) and extreme political hyperbole (inflammatory rhetoric designed to elicit strong public reactions) foster a debate about the outer limits of free speech in the public arena.   Vice-President Joe Biden, who has been notorious for making gaffes which was criticized for his comments regarding Romney’s vision for the working class saying Romney would “put y’all back in chains”, implying the Republican presidential candidate supports slavery.  Toni Preckwinkle, a Democratic Illinois county board president had to retract a statement and publicly apologize earlier this summer after she said former President Ronald Reagan deserved a “special place in hell” because of his policies about the “War on Drugs” (the U.S. policy of “zero tolerance” meaning maximum penalties for drug violations).

More extreme rhetoric like that of U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-Missouri) sparked outrage and calls for him drop out of the race when he made comments about rape suggesting that women’s bodies would reject impregnation in cases of “legitimate rape”.  The Akin incident reminded Texans of our 1990 gubernatorial campaign when Republican Clayton Williams commented that bad weather was like rape, sometimes you have to just “relax and enjoy it.”   More recently and closer to home, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tyler) compared homosexuality to bestiality, likened President Obama’s presidency to Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship, and warned there are “evil-doers” making “terror babies” to destroy the country, but he continues to enjoy wide support in his district.

Some wonder whether such statements are any part of the marketplace of ideas (the concepts or understanding about issues in our political world) and whether such statements enhance or harm the democratic process and our political culture-our set of beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and orientations that we have about government.   What does allowing a free and open marketplace mean for our political culture?  Should we allow expressions which facilitate a broader debate about policymaking or does such hyperbole undermine the civility of political life, leading people to be disenchanted with politics?

One thing is clear in our open marketplace of ideas—as one of my students so eloquently said-when politicians like Biden, Akin, and Preckwinkle make such comments, we the people, get to call them dorks.

So what might the impact of Hispanic voters mean for the parties?

Substantial if you look closely.

What do you notice about the patterns of the states? Which state has the largest Hispanic population? Which state has the greatest capacity to have Hispanics influence election outcomes by unregistered Latino and Latina voters? What states have the least capacity by Hispanics to shape the electoral results?

Compare the state by state  impact of the Hispanic vote to the states that have voter id laws. How many of the top 10 states require non-photo id? Are there any states in the top 10 that require photo id?

Your turn! What do you think?

Wedging out the competition

The upcoming election has a number of wedge issues (topics that are designed to divide a population, social, or political group), and among the hottest is immigration and undocumented immigrants (those persons who do not have the requisite proof that they reside in the country legally).  Democrats hope to capitalize on traditional popularity among Hispanics to turn out voters to support the party’s candidates and have accused Republicans of being anti-immigrant.   In turn, Republicans claim that they best reflect the traditional values of the Latino and Latina community—especially after the victory of Ted Cruz—a Cuban American—in the U.S. Senate primary race.  To further that image, the GOP (a short hand term referring to the Republican party as the “Grand Old Party”) has tapped Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco from San Antonio to speak at the Republican National Convention (August 27-30, 2012 in Tampa, Florida).  Canseco is a freshmen (first-term) lawmaker in the U.S. House who is running against another Hispanic—Texas House Representative Pete Gallego (Democrat from Alpine, Texas).

The two candidates’ positions about voter identification laws, which require a valid form of id to vote, have created a wedge issue among conservative Hispanics.   Thirty states have voter identification laws (three more have pending laws), but laws vary because different states allow various requirements for the identification.  There is a showdown in Texas over our new 2011 voter identification law which requires persons have a photo id to vote (in the past multiple forms of identification were acceptable, but the new law requires a picture). Canseco supports the law, and Gallego does not.

While the voter id law is being challenged in court, Governor Perry challenged the federal government’s directive that all undocumented immigrants who are on “deferred action” status for lawful residency applications be given a two year deferment.   President Obama’s action gives immigrants (who meet certain requirements) a work permit, and more importantly it gives them a photo identification. While it does not give deferred immigrants the right to vote, Republicans argue it could be used to vote fraudulently, while Democrats claim that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise and prevent immigrants from voting by having the voter id law. Perry was concerned that the president’s deferred action extension of 2 more years of lawful residency might mean that an immigrant could claim legal status. He responded to Obama’s action by clarifying that the photo identification could be issued, but that it did not confer any legal rights and that it should not be considered as some sort of pathway to citizenship.

It’s not known when a court decision will be handed down about the law, and it will most likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Hispanic voters render their verdict in November.

Shop ’til you drop

This last weekend many of you may have taken advantage of Texas’ “Tax Free Weekend” to encourage those getting ready for back-to-school to spend and boost the Texas economy.   Tax free spending days—periods when states allow purchases on specific items to avoid sales tax—have become more popular around the country (at least 18 different states have tax-free holidays).

Texas established the program in 1999 allowing shoppers to avoid the 8.25% sales tax on certain items (clothing, backpacks, and school supplies under $100). In 2011, Texas consumers saved $64 million in taxes. Even though it decreases state revenues, lawmakers hope it pumps money into the economy.  Since 2008, Texas also allows tax exemptions for certain energy efficient products—appliances which help reduce overall utility consumption.

Yet with the state budget facing substantial shortfalls, you might wonder whether having the tax free weekend is really worthwhile given that actual spending seemed to be substantially down. Why would Texas allow that when the budget situation lawmakers will face when they come back into session in January 2013 will be grim?  Doesn’t government need all the tax revenues they can get?

Government uses carrot-and-stick policies to promote or to discourage types of behavior within the population.  The phrase comes from an old practice of getting carrier animals (e.g. horses and donkeys) to do what you want.  If you want the animal to move, you have two choices. You can dangle a carrot in front of its nose to get it to move forward, or you could hit it with a stick to move it.  Government can issue tax penalties (monetary fines if you do not pay taxes or commit tax fraud) or else to provide tax incentives (monetary rewards for engaging in certain types of behavior like spending on certain items).

Even though tax-free weekends cost the state money, it increases revenues for businesses.  This last week the State Comptroller (the person who manages the financial accounts) Susan Combs released a report that the economic outlook for Texas  is better than the national average, providing some hope for the idea that we are pulling out of the latest economic recession (period of economic sluggishness when unemployment increases and consumer spending decreases).

Let’s hope so because Combs’ report was cautiously optimistic—while overall Texas is doing well, so much depends on how well the national and international economy is doing in the next budget cycle.

Far from a Photo Finish

Former state Solicitor General and Tea Party member Ted Cruz brought down long-time Republican and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst in a 55-45% victory July 31.  Dewhurst was the presumptive nominee after the May 29^th Republican primary when he received 44.6% of the vote and Cruz received 34.2% of the vote (seven other candidates divided the remainder).  Texas requires a primary runoff—an election after the regular primary—because no one candidate received a majority vote (50% plus). Primaries and runoffs are held prior to the general election when the parties (typically Democrat and Republican) put forward their candidates who run in the general election.

The U.S. Senate seat Cruz is seeking was previously held by Kay Bailey Hutchison who retired after she lost her bid to unseat Governor Rick Perry in the 2010 gubernatorial election.  This left an open seat (a position in which the person who has held the job—the incumbent—is not running). When someone like Hutchison retires, such open seats can lead to high profile races.

The election was closely watched because of the Tea Party’s involvement—a movement within the Republican party which supports very conservative fiscal and social policies. Its protests and support of political candidates since 2009 has steadily increased, and the Cruz victory is one of a growing trend of Tea Party success stories.  Consider the state Senate race between incumbent Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) who held his state Senate seat for 19 years before challenger Dr. Donna Campbell, a political newcomer backed by the Tea Party, beat him in the July runoff by a 2-1 margin.  It was thought Wentworth would enjoy an incumbency effect—where most politicians are routinely re-elected making it difficult for challengers to win. Instead, Wentworth lost big time.

What is striking about both the Cruz and Campbell victories is that both were challengers, and they were also outspent by their opponents.  Incumbents are re-elected typically because they have a considerable war chest (campaign monies accumulated to run for office).  The Cruz-Dewhurst race cost $45 million making it the most expensive non-presidential race in the country.  Cruz and Dewhurst each raised over $8 million, with Dewhurst spending another $19 million of his own money.

Campbell now faces Democrat John Courage in the November election, but she is expected to win easily because Texas is solidly Republican.  Cruz now faces Democrat Paul Sadler in the November general election, but the U.S. Senate seat is considered a safe seat because the party nominee is the assumed winner given that Texas votes overwhelmingly Republican. Texans have not elected a Democrat to a statewide office since 1994.

Health Care: Overhaul or Roadkill?

This summer the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case comparable to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) or Marbury v. Madison (1803) because of the political skill of the Chief Justice.  In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) involving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (2010) dubbed “Obamacare” by critics, the Supreme Court upheld expanding federal power over health care reform.

Chief Justice John Roberts was a swing voter (one whose vote is pivotal to a decision) and he surprised everyone in his 5-4 opinion which supported both conservative and liberal views.  The PPACA requires an “individual mandate”—persons must buy health insurance or pay a penalty.  Congress justified the law under its Commerce Clause authority (the ability to regulate commerce among the states) arguing that the failure to buy health insurance causes substantial economic disruption.  Roberts, along with four conservatives including Justice Antonin Scalia held that “failing to buy” insurance was economic inactivity that Congress could not regulate. Roberts parted with conservatives, however, and agreed with four liberal justices that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance was a valid tax under federal taxing and spending authority.  Roberts also disagreed with the liberals that the federal government may penalize states only by withholding new funds, rather than withholding all monies–giving conservatives an effective nullification tool that 26 Republican-dominated states can use to avoid federal compliance.

The reaction in Texas was swift, and critics and candidates alike have vowed to make it an election issue.  The law substantially increases Medicaid to cover previously uninsured persons and requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide health care, and it also gives subsidies and tax benefits to those in insurance exchanges.  These agreements allow small businesses to pool their labor force with other small businesses to do what large firms do—get better choices and lower prices for employee coverage.  Conservatives argue this is an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of federal power, violates principles of federalism (health care has been traditionally regulated by the states), interferes with states’ rights, and harms the economy because individuals and small businesses cannot afford it.  Liberals argued it was necessary because of problems in the insurance markets and because of the disruption to the economy because of skyrocketing health care costs.

If Texas participates–as the second most populous state with the largest percentage of uninsured residents (approximately 24% or 5.6 million people)–it could help bring down premiums. Critics argue that 1.7 million Texans need coverage by 2014 meaning increased workloads and raises concerns about how to implement the programs.  PPACA supporters argue Texas (ranked 50^th in the country for health care) needs the $70 billion in federal aid.  Consistent with Governor Rick Perry’s states’ rights ideology (the federal government should leave the states alone), the former presidential candidate has already informed the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius that Texas will reject federal monies. Republican Tea Party candidates like Ted Cruz are vowing to repeal the law if elected.

Why would a conservative like Roberts vote to support a liberal law? Perhaps Roberts’ exercised judicial deference toward the elected branches of government by deferring to the elected officials who passed the law.  If he had not, it might have been “judicial activism” (actively inserting ones’ own policy preferences into a legal dispute), and for conservative Roberts, inconsistent with his ideology.   Perhaps he was concerned about the court’s legacy and legitimacy if he voted conservatively. Or maybe the clue to the Chief’s motivation is in his opinion—that he hopes to engender a national debate about health care for the 2012 elections.

“The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express an opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.”

We shall see on November 6, 2012.