Uphill Gun Battles

This week President Obama introduced comprehensive proposals  which he will fight for to pass tougher gun regulations. The President used his executive order power (the ability to issue an order having the force of law which does not require Congressional action) including measures about mental health and school safety, pushing Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004, restricting ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds, and expanding background checks to cover current exemptions for private gun sales such as those as gun shows.

Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association fired back against the 23 presidential actions questioning whether the president was using the Sandy Hook shootings to manipulate the anti-gun interest groups.  Governor Perry took even more shots at the President’s proposals by calling for prayers to stop gun violence and saying that he was disgusted by anti-gun legislation.

No doubt the President in “going public” was trying to use the media to mobilize support for his policy positions, but while a number other states are passing stricter gun regulatory measures, Texas is taking an alternate direction and targeting different measures that expand gun access for owners.  Some of the more prominent measures include allowing guns on college campuses, letting public school teachers carry guns, and relaxing conceal and carry training hours from 10 hours to 4 hours.

Keep this in your sights because it’s going to be a long fight.

 

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.

And speaking of race…

and the race to the White House…

The Democratic National Convention passed a milestone by having speaker Benita Veliz address the crowd Wednesday night as an undocumented person.  Veliz, who traveled here on a visa which expired when she was young, was almost deported in 2009 over a speeding ticket.  Her speech illustrates the tension the administration faces in dealing with illegal immigration.

Even though President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants (more than 30-50 percent more) than President George Bush, Obama is still popular among Hispanics. In 2011 alone, the Obama administration deported 400,000 people. Yet, Hispanics seem to continue to support Obama.   Recently Hispanic public opinion (the collective consensus by the public about an issue, person, topic, etc.) had a boost.   Obama signed via executive order (a presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty) a law that extended additional protections to immigrants. The executive order (which does not require Congressional approval) allows persons under 30 years of age to be deferred for deportation on immigration violations.  Some Republican Governors like our own Rick Perry or Jan Brewer (R-Arizona) are challenging the federal government’s authority or refusing to comply with the directive.

Even as Veliz was speaking, outside the convention hall, the issue of immigration was also at the forefront of the crowds as the “UndocuBus” with the slogan “No Papers No Fear” drew attention to the concern that the Obama administration has not gone far enough in passing immigration reform. The bus of 40 undocumented persons had been on the road for five weeks publicizing awareness about the issue and engaging in civil disobedience (carrying out speech and activities that are a refusal to obey civil laws to induce change in policy or institutions). When the bus came through Texas, crowds turned out in Austin to try to convince the protesters not to attack the Obama administration for not going far enough on immigration.

And all of this on a day when a federal court finally put into effect controversial law that allows police officers check the immigration status of a person if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is undocumented. The Arizona law, is one of six other states including Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Utah and Indiana, which allow officers to ask for proof of citizenship or residency. A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in June had struck down some provisions of that law, but had upheld the ability of officers to verify immigration status.

As the division between the parties continues, Texas may decide it wants to enter the fray and do what other states have done. That may all depend, however, on where the road to November takes us.