Doesn’t have a prayer?

The State Attorney General Greg Abbott has intervened at a Kountze ISD high school which caused a firestorm when the cheerleaders began unfurling banners at football games that had Biblical verses printed on them.  After the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Wisconsin threatened a lawsuit, the school ordered the cheerleaders to cease.  The Attorney General’s office then questioned whether the school was properly enforcing the separation of church and state which ensures that governments are not establishing or favoring religion.  While government cannot favor religion, it also cannot interfere with an individual’s free exercise rights—including that of religious speech (expressions about faith that are constitutionally protected).  The U.S. Supreme Court looked at a similar Texas case in Doe v. Santa Fe School District (2000) and struck down the reading of prayers at public high school football games because it had the effect of establishing religion. The High Court used the coercion test to question whether the readings coerced students into hearing religious messages.  Even though the prayer was student-initiated (led by students rather than the school authorities), the concern was that such prayers forced students whose attendance was mandatory (e.g. football players, the band, and cheerleaders) to receive religious messages they could not escape. A preliminary hearing will be held this week to determine whether the cheerleaders’ can continue.

And speaking of trying to escape, during the U.S. Senate primary elections (held by each party to nominate their party’s candidate for the November 6 elections), Ted Cruz hammered David Dewhurst about his unwillingness to schedule public debates.  Cruz went on to win the Republic primary nomination in a surprise upset, and he now faces Paul Sadler (the Democratic nominee) in the general election.  Only now Cruz is on the receiving end of criticism because he has agreed to only two debates, rather than the three which Sadler requested.  Such debates are important for Sadler because of his trailing public opinion polls, and the advantage Cruz has because the Senate race is considered a safe seat (where one candidate has an advantage because the voting population is dominated by the candidate’s party). It is unlikely Cruz will agree to more debates because typically candidates holding such an advantage have little incentive to do so.

Texas Round-Up

Today we begin doing summaries of the hottest topics in Texas politics, so you will want to check these out because they will appear on the current events quiz.

*The city of Austin long known for having left of center views passed legislation that supports endorses same-sex marriage.

*The U.S. Supreme Court will revisit the University of Texas’ affirmative action policy for admissions even though it seemed like the issue had been settled in 2003.

Going Green, Seeing Red, and Vote Purging Gets a Yellow

Dallas took a giant step in going green by expanding recycling programs to have a zero-waste landfill by 2040 (target goal-84% of the city’s garbage recycled).  The transition will not be easy for the second city in Texas to undertake such a program (Austin—first in 2008 established target goals of 90% recycled). The first roadblock?  There are disagreements among city leaders, businesses, interest groups, and citizens about the timeline and costs for achieving goals. The original plan requires apartments and businesses implement recycling programs forcing increased costs on property owners. This is arguably an unfunded mandate—requirement or regulation set down by an agency that does not provide funding to carry out the requirement. Until more consultations, the timelines for compliance have been trashed.

And speaking of trashed, a north Austin homeowner, Bud Johnson, trashed his symbolic speech display this week after receiving much public attention. Symbolic speech is any nonverbal communication, typically political in nature including marching, wearing armbands, and mutilating the U.S. flag.   Here, Johnson’s display of a rope around an empty chair hanging from a tree had neighbors and civil rights activists seeing red.  Since Clint Eastwood used an empty chair at the Republican National Convention to both symbolize and criticize the Obama administration, empty chairs are being used all over the country by Republicans to highlight why the country needs to go red in November.  The lawn display attracted much attention from both the media and the public because the concern is that this is hate speech (any communication which disparages a person or a group based on some characteristic like race, gender, or sexual orientation). The head of the Austin chapter of the NAACP noted that the image reminded people about lynching.  Hate speech is protected under both federal and state law.  The owner, Bud Johnson, finally removed the chair saying only “[i]t has nothing to do with racism. Nothing.”

And speaking of being removed, State District Judge Tim Sulak issued a temporary injunction (a restraining order which prohibits further action from being taken) to prevent Texas from purging voters off registration lists. The injunction only causes a slow down for Secretary of State, Hope Andrade, who is enforcing a 2011 Texas law to remove voters who are deceased.    The Secretary of State—who is responsible for overseeing elections in Texas—sent 80,000 letters to persons from Social Security lists of recently deceased telling them they had 30 days to respond, or else lose their status as a registered voter. That prompted voting rights watch dog groups (organizations that protect and act as guardians against illegal practices) to cry foul.  When laws are enacted, the implementing agency has rulemaking authority-the ability to set rules to carry out the law. Here, Andrade established a rule for determining whether a match was “strong” or “weak” and sent letters to both types.  A match is “strong” if the name, birth date and Social Security numbers match; and a “weak” match means that one of the three did not match.  All of the complaints about purging have come from persons identified as “weak” matches who want the Secretary to know they are alive and well, and that they intend to vote.

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.