Opening the floodgates

Racial bias caught two high-profile GOP leaders off guard this week, opening the floodgates of criticism because of their political gaffes (some truth that a politician did not intend to admit).

Ken Emanuelson, a prominent Dallas Tea Party leader said “the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats,” raising questions about how welcoming the Republican party is toward persons of color.  Trying to throw water on the fire caused by Emanuelson’s comments, state GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri responded saying the statement did not reflect the party’s position and that Republicans were working hard to seek electoral support from both Hispanics and blacks.

Emanuelson defended himself pointing to the statistical reality of voter turnout (the percentage of persons who vote in elections).  African-Americans historically favor Democratic candidates in overwhelming numbers. Trying to deflect the controversy, he said he had not spoken on behalf of the Republican party, but that the views were his alone.

And someone who is no stranger to controversy, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Texas) Judge Edith Jones landed in hot water when she told an audience that minorities were more predisposed to committing crimes. Seemingly Jones was making the argument that persons of color are represented disproportionately in the criminal justice system because they are more inclined to commit crimes. The speech, which was actually made in February, so angered some attorneys who heard it, that this week, a formal complaint against the federal judge alleged ethics and judicial code violations.  Critics say that the judge’s statements violated the principles of judicial neutrality (judges should make fair and impartial decisions based solely on the facts and applicable laws, without being biased) and that the judge may need to recuse (excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality) herself in future cases because of racial bias.

Meanwhile, Republicans have also been accused of a different type of racial bias when it comes to immigration reform by trying to block legislation that gives illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.  U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), a minority whip (an official in a political party whose purpose is to ensure party discipline as an enforcer in a legislature) is the ranking Republican (most senior member of the minority party) on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee).  He is also a long-time critic of federal immigration policy, and he has proposed more border security measures (provisions to eliminate illegal immigration) saying that his measures must be included before he will support immigration reform. The legislation, being considered by the full Senate next week, is a major overhaul on immigration.  Cornyn’s amendments require more stringent border control including 100 percent situational awareness and operational control of the border (currently only 875 miles of the 2,000-mile southern border is monitored).   Critics have accused Cornyn of trying torpedo the current bipartisan reform bill, and they have said that Hispanics will send a torrent of voters to the polls to go after persons who do not support immigration reform. Cornyn’s office has responded that tougher measures are needed to stop the flood of illegal immigrants (there are about 11 million estimated in the U.S).

Let the flooding begin.

Isn’t that special

This week, and as predicted, the legislature has gone into special session (a limited 30 day session called by the Governor).  At the conclusion of the regular 140 day regular biennial session (which meets only in odd-numbered years), the gavel came down in both chambers signaling the end, but within 10 minutes, the Governor invoked his state Constitutional powers.  Such authority allows the state’s chief executive to call the legislators into “extraordinary session…at any time and for any reason”.  The key is that the Governor must specify the issues or else face a runaway legislature (one where lawmakers focus on their own policy agenda rather than what the governor wants).

Several outstanding issues need resolution, but most salient is the need to adopt a redistricting map.  After the 2010 census required by the U.S. Constitution, the Texas legislature had to go through reapportionment of the Texas House and Senate, along with the U.S. House of Representatives.  Seats were reallocated into the different administrative or election districts, and then the state legislature had to redistrict (the process of drawing boundary lines for election districts in a state).  The new maps resulted in the filing of two federal court cases (one in San Antonio and the other in Washington, D.C. where Texas had to get approval from the federal government).  The San Antonio court found that the legislature had gerrymandered (illegally manipulated) district lines to favor one group over another.  The three-judge court then re-drew the maps to accurately represent racial minority interests—those maps were used in the 2012 election. The court in D.C. did the same thing about six months later.   

Now the state legislature has to vote on whether they want to approve the San Antonio map or try to draw up their own during the special session. 

Other hot issues that Governor Perry may press for during the special session include prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks, drug testing for welfare applicants, and allowing guns on campus. The Governor may have to call more than one session.  He can call an unlimited number, but each 30 day session costs about $1.3 million because of per diem costs—monies allocated to pay for funding, travel and staff during the session.  Perry hasn’t been shy about using his authority—he’s called 10 sessions during his 12 years in office.  

And in other census news, a new report highlights that Texas’ growth in the Hispanic population after the 2010 census means that immigrants have substantially contributed to the gross state product (total sum of all goods and services produced in the state in a given year).  According to the report, Texas’ immigrants produce about 69.3 billion in economic activity by spending in the state, contribute about $30.8 billion in gross state product, and account for approximately 403,174 of the state’s workforce.   The report comes at a time when the U.S. government is considering a major overhaul on immigration reform. 

Guess we’ll just have to wait and see whether the federal government thinks immigrant economic contributions are special enough to merit immigration reform.

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.

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.