Where's the Texas Exceptionalism?

A colleague of mine, Eric Wang, recently blogged on ATX Happenings about the lack of involvement among Texans in local and state government affairs. Wang is extremely correct when he states that, "Texas has the second highest population of all states in America. Yet, if you look at the people that consistently vote, you would think that Texas has a tiny population." The citizens of the Lone Star State have of feeling of apathy towards their local and state government affairs that should be quite alarming. And indeed it is. 

Wang decides to call out to the people of Texas that their lack of involvement is obviously a problem. Wang discusses the fact that maybe Texans feel that Republicans values are too entrenched within the state. However, Wang fails to identify the fact that there is a growing trend in lack of political identification among Texans. This is especially true among young voters. Some experts say that Texas is going through a phase of "dealignment", meaning that Texas isn't becoming a one-party state. In fact, it's becoming a no-party state. Young Texans are more likely affiliate themselves with Independents. However, this may actually aide Wang's claim that Texans aren't voting. Young Texans may be claiming Independent due to the fact that they aren't involved in their local and state government. Since there is no involvement, it's hard to make an informed decision on which of the two major parties to claim. Therefore, making it easier to just claim Independent. It's also important to note that experts expect Texas demographics to shift dramatically within the next decade. The prediction being, that Hispanics will be the majority in Texas. If this is the case (and it looks like it's headed in that direction), then it gives Texans all the more reason to go vote considering that Hispanics (who tend to be Democratic) may be able to alter the political power of the Republican Party in state government offices. Just something to keep an eye on over the next few years. 

Wang goes on to claim in his blog, "the small minority that participate heavily in Texas politics have a very large influence with no responsibilities to the public whatsoever." Although, I agree with Wang on his claim, I think there is a more important factor to look at when discussing the influences on politics. The more important factor being public interest groups and public action committees. These groups contribute huge amounts of money and support to the candidates running in the elections. These same groups are the ones influencing our legislature's decisions on bills and resolutions. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth that public interest groups have more influence on government officials while they're in office. However, it's the people of Texas who put those government officials in their office chairs (so Wang is correct). This is the major influence that the people of Texas will always withhold. 

It's truly sad that Texans are too lazy to get involved in their state and local government affairs. And that is honestly my personal diagnoses; laziness. It's the responsibility of citizens to get involved in government to help influence the changes they wish to see. Wang couldn't be more correct when he says, "When people choose not to vote, they break the American system." Voting is a way of feedback, a chance for government officials better understand what the people they are representing what to see change. The media can do a better job by centering their focus more on state and local government affairs, rather than getting caught up in the nonsense that occurs at the national stage. The education system can also do a better job by requiring and offering more state government classes to Texas students throughout their years in middle school, high school, and college. This will help our younger voters become more informed about government structure, government issues, and hopefully help them develop a stronger passion towards becoming actively involved in their local and state government affairs. Whatever the solution may be, it will always be the responsibility of each individual citizen to take responsibility for getting involved and making their voice heard. This great nation has been built off of democracy. And democracy is only fully effective when each individual goes out and votes. 

  

Following the recent, and very intense legislation over the newly approved abortion bill, Texans are starting to pay more attention to their state government. Some even realized that the legislation only meets every two years. I find this interesting that a state the size of Texas only meets every other year. The only other states with a government that meets every two years are Nevada, Montana, and North Dakota. These three states don't nearly have the population that Texas does. It's my personal opinion that the Texas legislature needs to meet annually. Meeting annually can allow the government to budget more effectively and efficiently (since the budget is massive), reduce the number of special sessions each year, and also to work on complex problems. I understand that the Texas Constitution only calls for legislation once every two years, but that constitution was written in 1876. However, Texas lawmakers have voted against the legislature meeting annually the past five times the issue has arisen. Lawmakers claim that meeting annually could be "too expensive". However, it's important that complex problems are taken care of when they first develop. With a legislative body only meeting once every two year though, it's hard to immediately attack hot issues in the state. Because of the frequency of these complex issues arising in the state, it's demanding more special sessions in order to provide the legislature more time to decide on certain issues. With the recent abortion bill, Texas lawmakers met for two special sessions, and Governor Perry said he won't hesitate to call for more. If Texas lawmakers are already meeting on a consistent basis, why not just amend the constitution and have the legislature meet annually? For those who are it's too expensive, I would reply that meeting annually would produce a more efficient Texas budget. Any left over money from the budget can go back towards legislation meetings that occur annually. In addition, there's a large amount of money being spent on special sessions anyway, so why not eliminate the special sessions and meet more often on a more consistent schedule? It will provide the lawmakers a more consistent schedule that they can use to help plan their lives when dealing with their additional jobs and their families. Meeting regularly, when scheduled, will also keep the legislation fresh, reducing the stress and fatigue that plagued the previous two special sessions. Additionally, it will force our Texas government to stay updated on current issues, not allowing for extreme amounts of down-time and for important issues to just "blow over". Our government impacts our daily lives. If the legislation is only meeting every two years however, it's difficult for our government to serve its people to the best of its abilities. I understand that Texas has the idea that "less government is more", but I truly think it's time our Texas legislature get with the times (the other 46 states) and amend the Texas Constitution of 1876, allowing them to meet annually.

For more on the issue, feel free to check out this video:

WFFA.com (ABC Channel 8 Dallas News)
Author of video: David Schechter
Video posted: July 18th, 2013
Link: http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/bVIDEOb-Why-does-the-Texas-legislature-only-meet-every-two-years-216106921.html

A recent blog from Big Jolly Politics discusses controversial statements and claims made by Planned Parenthood in the midst of a heated debate in the legislature over an abortion bill. According to the blog, Planned Parenthood claimed that if the abortion bill was passed, it would also cause some of their cancer screening centers to shut down in the same building. The focus of the advertisement was to sway the public that Republican Senator, John Carona, was in favor of the abortion bill in order to further his political career. The controversial ad can be found here: Planned Parenthood Advertisement.
David Jennings, who wrote the blog on Big Jolly Politics, identifies himself as a Republican in favor of the abortion bill. His purpose for the blog was to "call out" the Democrats who often side with the abortion clinics and organizations like Planned Parenthood. He exposes to the public the false advertising among the pro-choice organizations, hoping to sway the votes and the public to the Republican side of the issue. Mr. Jennings helps his credibility when he is able to fact check his argument (or stance) about the validity of the Planned Parenthood advertisement. He writes that under the proposed legislation requiring most abortion clinics to become surgical centers, many of the clinics would have to upgrade. This however, would force most clinics to close (Planned Parenthood clinics included). Planned Parenthood operates 10 clinics in the state of Texas. However, by law, the abortion clinics and the health centers where cancer screenings take place are separate entities. What's interesting though, is that some of the Planned Parenthood clinics have cancer screening health centers and abortion clinics within the same building. Therefore, if the abortion clinics go, so do the cancer screening centers. Planned Parenthood did not comment on how many of their buildings have both abortion clinics and cancer screening centers. However, where I think Mr. Jennings loses his credibility is when he lets his Republican views take control of him and he accuses Planned Parenthood of using tax payer money for their abortion clinics, instead of the cancer screening center. Although this may in fact be true, Mr. Jennings doesn't support this claim with any facts. My view on the whole ordeal is that, yes, Planned Parenthood's advertisement, although did contain some truth with the termination of their cancer screening centers, was largely false and accusative. Mr. Jennings did a nice job of making his claim and providing evidence to back it up. Thanks for reading!

To view the article:

Big Jolly Politics
Author: David Jennings
Blog Title: Planned Parenthood lies about Sen. John Carona, tells truth about mixing funds
Date Posted: July 12th, 2013
Link: http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/2013/07/12/planned-parenthood-lies-about-sen-john-carona-tells-truth-about-mixing-funds/


To view the advertisement:

Dallas News
Author: Christy Hoppe
Article Title: Fact check: Planned Parenthood web ad blurs distinctions
Date Posted: July 12th, 2013
Link: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/fact-check-planned-parenthood-web-ad-blurs-distinctions.html/

The Dallas Star-Telegram posted an editorial on July 7th, 2013 discussing the need for a legislative break following the conclusion of the abortion bill. There is no specific author identified for having written the editorial, but he brings about some interesting points. His audience, in my opinion, is the general public, even though he writes the editorial as though he's sending it to Governor Perry within the next few days. The reason I believe his audience is the general public is because he wants Texas citizens, whether Republican or Democrat, or whether for or against the controversial abortion bill, to take a step back and realize how hard the legislative body has been working these past few months. It's clear that the author's claim is that Governor Perry allow the legislative body a break and not add any more bills or topics to the special session. The authors provides evidence for this claim by informing us as readers that the legislative's have worked on and even passed controversial and important bills such as abortion restrictions, transportation funding, and sentencing for 17-year-old murderers. The author goes on to say that there are a number of bills that could be added to the special session, some that are worthy of action, but some that are "stinkers". His main point can be seen when he states, "...send them home for some rest. They're stressed and cranky enough as it is." Although I think the author uses some worthy evidence, I think his logic is quite incorrect. I understand that the legislative body is tired and stressed, especially from all the state and national media they received over the abortion bill. However, just because you're tired and stressed doesn't constitute a reason to go rest when there's things to be done. I think of his argument and try to relate it to any hard-working job. Let's use a construction worker for our example. Construction workers work all day in the Texas heat, grinding away at their daily duties. Now I'm sure they'd love to pack up and head home every time they got stressed and tired, but they can't because there's a job to be done. And they don't get to stay in fancy hotels and have fancy dinners when they go home after work. That's where I think this author's logic is off. I like his evidence, but the logic just doesn't fit. One of the bills the author describes as being worthy, is a bill for bond revenues to help colleges and universities fund their upcoming projects. I think with school starting back up in a month this bill is extremely important and should be looked at by the legislature before "taking a break". A person who gets involved in the legislative body knows what they're getting into; long hours, controversial topics, national and local media, stress, etc. However, they get paid pretty well to do it. As a student at Texas State University, who pays an extreme amount of money to receive the best education possible, I don't enjoy reading the statement "it can wait" in reference to the bill that would fund capitol projects at state colleges and universities. As a student, I want the best education possible. That's what I'm paying for. If the legislature waits on this bill, delaying funding to state universities, then obviously I'm not receiving the best education possible. The author goes on to write that the legislative body couldn't get the recent bills passed in the regular 140 day session, nor the latter 30 day special session that followed. Check my math, but that's 170 days which is roughly half a year. It took six months for the government to pass these most recent 3 bills (probably a few others too), which is all the more reason to NOT take a break. While the legislature is in session, most of the representatives or senators just get to sit there and listen to an argument because there already know which way they're going to vote on the issue. Now, I'll be reasonable and compromise with this author. The legislature has worked hard the past few months to pass these recent bills into action. Since in the education system, we get a month off of school for roughly every four months of hard work, I'll allow the legislature some time off. However, since college students pay to go to school and the legislative body gets paid to do their job, I think the legislature should only be given a week off before it's time for Governor Perry to call another special session so our government can get back to work. As the author states in the conclusion of his article, "Fine. Call another special session later if it’s required. For now, it’s time for a break." The only reason I'll agree with the author (if the "break" is only a week) is because I think it's important for the legislature to have time to decompress, relax, and gather their thoughts after this hectic abortion bill so that they feel fresh and re-energized when they start the debate on future bills and policies. I'll conclude with the fact that I was embarrassed for this author when he used the logic of our legislature being "stressed and cranky" and therefore they needed a break. Let's not forget our soldiers fighting overseas who endure 6-12 month tours of stress, fighting, and being away from their families. Yet, when they return home, they go right back to work. But who's staying in fancy hotels, eating nice meals, getting escorted around town in luxury cars, and getting paid more at the same time? Our legislative officials. They're hard work is appreciated, but let's not start feeling sorry for them. 

Thanks for reading! You can find the article here:

Dallas Star-Telegram: Editorials
After this, it's time for a legislative break
No author. Posted on 07/09/2013
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/07/09/4991687/after-this-its-time-for-a-legislative.html

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/07/09/4991687/after-this-its-time-for-a-legislative.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/07/09/4991687/after-this-its-time-for-a-legislative.html#storylink=cpy

With all the focus on the abortion talks here in Texas, I thought I'd switch it up a little. We'll stick with the common abortion age group (teenagers), but instead I'd like to discuss and analyze an article about juvenile delinquents who are found guilty of capitol murder chargers.  The article was posted earlier today by the Texas Tribune detailing that a bill will be sent to Gov. Perry for approval, in regards to 17 year old juvenile's who are convicted of capitol murder charges. The Texas House approved the bill Thursday, forcing judges and juries to send those convicted to prison for life with a chance of parole after 40 years. It's important to know however, that the U.S. Supreme Court passed a bill in 2012 that prohibited life sentences for juvenile's without the opportunity for parole. The Democrats slowed down the bill in the House on Thursday, calling it "unconstitutional"....and I'd have to agree to some extent. I don't agree with the fact that the bill is unconstitutional. Let's get real...you murdered someone at the age of 17. Most of us at 17 made plenty of stupid decisions, stayed out late, argued with our parents, let our dogs eat our homework (once twice), etc. The point here is, 17 year old's are the brightest, but they all understand the concept of murder. That's why most try to avoid it (yes, that's sarcasm). The part of the bill where I do side with the Democrats is the length of time before the opportunity for parole: 40 years. Now I know my math isn't the bests, but 17+40= 57. That's quite the sentencing for teenagers who young minds haven't fully evolved and who's personality's are very likely to be shaped drastically within just the next few years. In some cases, maybe the life sentence fits the crime for the juvenile and there shouldn't even be an option for parole. If so that's great! But what if a young 17 year old female is brutally harassed and raped by a young adult....week's later she murders him. Should she be locked up for the next 40 years?? Now I obviously understand that the example was an extreme case, but situations like those happen more often than we want to believe. "This bill takes the discretion away from judges and juries to consider factors that might lessen potential sentences for a juvenile, including evidence of abuse and neglect." I think this article is extremely important for people to read and reflect because it highlights a paramount everyday issue: how we perceive others potential. Is our nation optimistic and hopeful that people can change? Or are we set on the fact that changes for the better only come by every 40 years?