Buster and bluster

It was a historic moment on the floor of the Texas Senate this week as Sen. Wendy Davis filibustered (prolonged speechmaking for the purpose of delaying legislative action) to stop SB 5 which would have radically altered access to abortion.  The proposal would have banned most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and required abortion facilities to meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center.  Having passed in the Texas House earlier in the week, it looked almost certain that 37 of the state’s 42 facilities providing abortions, including many operated by Planned Parenthood would be closing.

That is until Senator Davis tried talking the bill to death and a broad coalition of grass-roots groups (organizations which rely on activist citizen participation) eventually yelled the bill to death.   A number of liberal organizations came together Tuesday night to create such a racket in the Texas Senate chamber that the bill could not be properly voted on.

Senator Davis had been successful in her filibuster until Republicans successfully employed parliamentary maneuvers to end it. At that point, groups supporting pro-choice advocates including local Occupy movement groups, the International Socialist Organization, and GetEqual Texas, a gay rights group had members at the protest began chanting so loudly that business could not be conducted on the Senate floor. Finally at 12:03 a.m. (the special session ended at midnight), the vote was finally taken, but it was too late.

There was a bit of confusion when it was reported that the legislation had actually passed in time to meet the deadline, but Republicans had to recant later when it was discovered that the date time stamp had been changed.  After a meeting that lasted until 3 am, the bill was officially declared dead on arrival.

Another law that was killed this week was section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (1965) which mandates preclearance for all states which are required to comply because they have a past history of discrimination. As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week in two Texas cases, one involving voter identification laws, and the other involving a 3 three judge federal court which had invalidated a Texas redistricting map, the High Court held that states need no longer be automatically subject to the preclearance process.

That means that the two lower federal court decisions in those cases must now be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings to determine whether their initial decision should stand, or be busted.

 

 

 

 

Getting out the vote and giving up the fight

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court takes up a case which has ramifications for Texas.   Since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), the federal government has expanded authority to act as a watchdog over elections throughout the country.  The VRA prohibits state and local governments from restricting voting rights and access to minority voters by mandating preclearance procedures which require some state and local governments (including Texas and eight states) to submit all changes affecting voting and elections for approval to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division or to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.  That’s what happens every 10 years after the states conduct redistricting (the drawing of the geographic boundary lines to determine the representative structure for elections).

The question in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) is whether the preclearance process has outlived its purpose.  In 2008, then President Bush’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the city when it re-drew voting lines eliminating the only majority black city council seat.   Alabama argues that blacks were integrated into the population, and that continued supervision by the federal courts causes confusion and delay for elections–the South is a different place from 1965.

Texas agrees.

Or at least Republican leaders do.

Attorney General Greg Abbott has filed an appeal in a federal court case which struck down Texas’ 2011 redistricting plan.  Two different federal courts have found that Texas impermissibly interfered with minority voting rights with the plan, and Abbott’s appeal is likely to be on hold while the Supreme Court resolves the Shelby county case.

What do the rest of Texans think? Not everyone agrees with Abbott.  It might surprise you to learn that a recent public opinion poll found a slim majority of Texans (about 51%) including 1/3^rd Republicans think there is some place for federal supervision over voting rights.

And speaking of opinions, wonder what Governor Rick Perry is thinking as he watches other Republican governors giving up the fight with President Obama over Medicaid funding under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Under the law, Medicaid funding (the joint federal-state program providing health insurance to low-income persons) has been hard for governors to resist because it means more money for state budgets.  Eleven Republican are standing firm that they will not accept federal monies because they do not want to be under a national regulatory scheme (structure which allows the federal government to demand conditions from the states), while 12 Republican governors have not weighed in yet.

Trouble for Governor Perry is that this week Republican Governor Rick Scott, who had been resisting federal money, gave in and agreed that Florida will take Medicaid monies.   That draws attention to the fact that if the Governor changed his mind and let Texas participate by putting up the $15 billion (our share of the program costs), the state would receive $100 billion in federal funds in the next 10 years. Those funds could be used to expand  health care coverage for 2 million people–approximately 25% of Texans  have no insurance.

It promises to be a tough battle for the Governor.

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.