Your turn! What do you think?

You’re cut off?

The statutory restriction on the number of terms an official or officeholder may serve (term limits)—have been popular since the late 1980s-90s as the federal government implemented reforms focused on legislative accountability (the extent to which legislators pursue the interests of their constituent supporters).  While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal term limits in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1992), today 15 states have limits for elected state representatives.  Five liberal justices in the U.S. Term Limits case found that federal government must pass a Constitutional amendment to enact limits. Why?  The Articles of Confederation (our country’s first Constitution considered a terrible failure, but which led to our current Constitution) had term limits, so the majority reasoned that the founders’ omission meant they did not intend for such provisions to be enacted.

Nonetheless, the recent surge of Tea Party support in Texas brought to power officials who want to change the system, including establishing term limits for state offices.  Ironically, the measures introduced in the next legislative session will target fellow Republicans who do not share the Tea Party’s more conservative values.  Proposals for term limits range from a Constitutional amendment limiting statewide, non-judicial officeholders from running for a third consecutive term (most statewide offices are four years) to other proposals which limits lawmakers to serving six biennial (two year) legislative sessions.

That certainly would limit the incumbency effect (the perpetual re-election of representatives because they have the advantage of using their elected office to accumulate support and name recognition).

Speaking of trying to put a stop to something, the Attorney General Greg Abbott has raised concerns about stopping school campus violence.  In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings,  Attorney General Greg Abbott warned 78 of the state’ s 1025 school districts that they were not in compliance (had not met state requirements) for having proper campus security arrangements.   Of great concern is that 38 districts do not even have a safety plan on file which is mandated by a 2005 state law requiring schools have policies for emergencies and crises.   The law could be considered a symbolic policy because it has no fines or penalties attached—there are no enforcement mechanism requiring schools carry out state policy.

One district that has a unique form of compliance is Harrold ISD-a rural school near the Oklahoma border which allows teachers to carry guns on campus.  Most folks don’t know that both federal and state laws allow for schools to obtain permission for arming teachers.  Harrold’s “Guardian Plan”—put in place after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings—requires teachers complete the concealed handgun class, obtain the approval of the school board, and agree to use only “frangible ammunition” (which breaks apart when it hits hard surfaces thus preventing ricochets).

So for perpetual incumbents facing term limits and guns in schools, have they been cut off?  The answer is a definite “maybe”.

Your turn! What do you think?

Pandering and porn

Pandering and porn

Texas was the recent subject of a New York Times investigative report questioning whether the Lone Star state is giving too much in tax subsidies and incentives to businesses to encourage them to relocate or expand certain enterprise sectors. The concern is that Texas is losing potential income at a time when of a record budget deficit (the annual amount when expenditures exceed tax income). The deficit caused the 2011 legislature to cut $15 billion in state spending (about $5.4 billion in school funding and $4.7 billion in health programs alone), and the 2013 Texas legislature will have to cover the shortfall for Medicaid (about $7 billion) by March and to come up with $15 billion for Medicaid by 2015.

Critics argue that the tax breaks for businesses are corporate welfare (financial assistance for businesses that may not be justified), while supporters argue that the monies have contributed to Texas’ number one status in job creation (adding 1.4 million in jobs over the past 10 years-over 3 times more than any other state).  Texas lawmakers countered that the expose’ (investigative report which questions government behavior) doesn’t highlight that Texas’ has been below the national average for 70 consecutive months. They are concerned that it unfairly represents what Texas has done and points out that we may be victims of our own transparency.  Indeed most states don’t provide the kind of detailed reporting mechanisms that Texas provides, and so comparable data on other states is just not possible.  This isn’t pandering to businesses, supporters say, this is making sure that Texas is open for business.

There’s one group that government is trying to stop from being in business—child pornographers.  Last week President Obama signed legislation which increases sentences for persons who traffic in child porn.  The Child Protection Act of 2012  backed by two Texas lawmakers (U.S. Senator John Cornyn and U.S. House Representative Lamar Smith) authorizes courts to issue protective orders (court decrees to stop harassment of victims), increases funding for internet criminal investigations, and makes it easier to obtain subpoenas.  The tough law comes at a time when internet child pornography is becoming one of the fasting growing areas of criminal activity. One criticism about the new law’s “lock-the-door-and-throw-away-the-key-approach” is that it does not do enough for supervision, rehabilitation, and treatment.  A 2010 survey by federal judges highlighted that about 70 percent of the sentences were too high for child pornographers because what is needed is supervision and treatment.

No wonder the origins of the word “pander” refer to a “go-between whose motives don’t seem entirely pure.”

Pander away.

Your turn! What do you think?

Judicious choices

Texas has a weak executive system—one where the governor’s formal powers are relatively limited because the office does not have expansive authority typical of other states. This plural executive arrangement means that the governor’s influence is fragmented across of different departments and that the governor shares his authority with other elected officials at the statewide level.  One important consequence is that key officials like Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and the Comptroller of the Public Accounts who typically would be chosen by the governor, run in statewide elections all on their own rather than relying on a gubernatorial appointment.

That being said, it’s still hard to think of Governor Rick Perry as a “weak” governor.  Maybe that’s because halfway into his unprecedented third term of office, he has just made his 224^th appointment to the state judiciary.   Governor Perry has appointed a new Texas Supreme Court Justice, Jeffrey  Boyd—Perry’s former chief of staff—to the highest civil court position in the state.  Judges in Texas must stand for election, but when there are vacancies because of retirement or death, the governor makes interim appointments—temporary replacements who can then develop a record in the office before running in an election.  Boyd replaces Dale Wainwright who resigned from the position amid speculation he will run for another statewide office in 2014. While Boyd has no judicial experience, he is considered a faithful Perry supporter and has 21 years of legal counsel experience, including service as deputy counsel for the Governor.

And speaking of choosing wisely, a new report out by the Texas Public Policy Foundation—a conservative think tank, an organization that studies public policy problems and proposes solutions—has criticized state criminal court judges for the choices they make.  The report questions whether judges are unnecessarily incarcerating persons into the Texas state jail system instead of giving convicted criminals rehabilitation terms which facilitate ending recidivism (a cycle of criminal behavior which results in repeat incarcerations) and lowering costs to the criminal justice system.  In Texas, persons convicted of relatively low level, non-violent crimes (typically financial or drug-related crimes) are being incarcerated at high rates. Frequently this incarceration means that inmates have little chance at being given a chance at reforming their lives including community supervision and service, treatment programs, and tough probationary terms.  The report points to the statistic that 30% of state jail inmates re-offend within the first three years of release.

Critics of the report point argue reform sounds all well and good, but the reality is that court-ordered supervision is something the system may not be ready for because personnel and programs are not in place to handle increased caseloads.  Moreover, such programs are expensive, and given the current budget constraints, reform of the criminal system cannot be a top priority.

Choices matter—whether judiciously made or not.

Data drilling

1) Examine the data for all exonerated defendants in the state of Texas. Scroll down to the graph and the interactive.

2) Look at the graph created by the data. What type of crime has the highest frequency (number of exonerated cases).   What crime has the lowest frequency?

3) Examine next the interactive that allows you to sort by category.  Sort by different variables (types of information) at the top of each column relating to: Age; Race; Crime; Sentence; Exonerated; and DNA.  What do you notice about the different patterns in the data?

4) Sort the data by “Race” (note: Black, Hispanic; White; Other). How many are in each category?

5) Sort the data next by “Age”. Who is the youngest exonerated defendant? Who is the oldest person?