A redistricting surprise?

Matt Mackowiak at Must Read Texas has raised an interesting sidelight that results from the fact that Texas state senators are elected to “staggered” four-year terms with about half being elected every two years. This means that in 2014 about half of our state senators should be up for reelection while the other half will not be up for reelection until 2016.

Because we redrew the maps for the senate and other offices back in 2011, all of these senators were elected to districts that were officially new since they were created in 2011. These districts may look largely like the old districts, but redistricting mean that these districts were born again and new and every senate seat was up for election in 2012.

So, how do we get to staggered senate elections with about half every two years? Back in January, Texas senators drew lots to determine whether their new term would be two or four years (“Senators Draw Lots to Determine Terms“). Sixteen senators won the right to serve the deluxe 4-year term with the rest got a two-year term and reelection in 2014.

This is important to senators for a couple of reasons.

First, elected officials prefer running for office as infrequently as possible. If you’re already in office an election is just a chance to get knocked out of office. Also, campaigns are very expensive and time-consuming. If you have won the privilege of serving a four-year term you’re not going to be very interested in drawing lots again and having to run for reelection in two years. On the other hand, those senators currently set to serve only two years this term are ready to toss the dice again.

There’s a second issue: seeking statewide office. In Texas you can not be on the ballot for two different offices (a special law was passed to allow LBJ to run for vice president and US Senator–but that’s a different level of the game). That means that any senator up for reelection in 2014 has to choose between running for statewide office or seeking reelection to their senate seat.  Senators who drew four-year terms back in January can run for statewide office in 2014 with the knowledge that they can keep their seat in the Senate while they campaign for another office. Currently, two Republican senators (Glenn Hegar, Katy and Tommy Williams, The Woodlands) are thinking about runs for statewide office. Those statewide campaigns might look very different for Hegar and Williams if Senate were to have to draw lots again and they drew two-year terms.

Of course, there’s the possibility that the Senate could exempt themselves from this process. Sixteen senators did “win” the right to a four-year term, but 15 “lost” that lottery and were left with the consolation prize of an initial two-year term. It adds an interesting dimension to the redistricting session.

On blogging

Another cartoon that puts blogging into perspective. This one is from the “Beardo” strip written by Dan Dougherty.

 

Disclosing politicized non-profits

Transparency leads to honest politics. In recent years many political groups have gone undercover and disguised themselves as “non-profits” in order to evade disclosure laws and hide their donors and activities from voters. Stephen Colbert demonstrated this brilliantly with his SuperPAC and this helped build a reform movement.

The Texas Legislature has passed a bill  (SB 346) sponsored by Senator Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo) and Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville) that would require that “non-profit” groups that engage in political activities disclose donors who give more than $1,000. That is, non-profit groups that behave like political committees have to follow some of the same disclosure rules that political committees do.

I’m fond of transparency for several reasons.

1. As a voter: I want to know who is helping candidates. I understand the desire for donors to conceal their identify. However, this is outweighed by the public’s right to know. I want to know who is financing these candidates. The dollars passing through the loopholes in the law are getting to be as plentiful as the money flowing through legal channels. Voters need to know who is paying for these campaigns.
2. As a political scientist: I want to know who is investing in Texas politics. The impact of organized interests in Texas politics is legendary and we will never know who really holds power if we don’t know who is controlling the purse strings of campaigns. Teaching Texas politics means pulling back the curtain and showing students who is putting money into Texas elections.
3. As a charitable giver: I don’t like political organizations disguising themselves as  something like charities. As I write this, West is only  beginning to rebuild after the massive explosion that scarred that city and Granbury is trying to recover from a tornado that cut through their community with devastating consequences. Political non-profits have no business hiding behind the skirts of real charities. The contribution to nasty, misleading, partisan ads does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath or same section of tax code as the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, or Salvation Army as they try to help Texans in need.. Investing in lies and investing in hope are very different things. God help us if our laws conflate charity and political committees. We separated church and state, in part, to protect the reputation of our churches. Let’s not blur the line any more than we have to.

Perry will sign the bill if he is still interested in being governor. This reform bill enjoys broad, bipartisan support. Legislators know that reforms are needed and the ability of this bill to attract support from both parties suggests that it’s a reasonable bill. Perry could sign the bill and proclaim the virtues of  fair elections in Texas. He would be championing the transparency and openness he has embraced in the past. As The Beaumont Enterprise noted in their editorial endorsing the bill:

The bill is designed to shine light on nonprofit “issue advocacy” groups that are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on their favored candidate as long as they don’t campaign directly for that candidate. Political action committees (PACs) have to divulge information about the money they raise and spend, but these issue advocacy groups, basically super PACs with innocuous names such as American Crossroads (Karl Rove’s group), can hide in the dark.

Perry will veto the bill if he is thinking like a presidential candidate. He can rail against big government and the Internal Revenue Service and attempt to gain national attention (and the favor of some of the mega-donors). A veto could become fodder for some lively speeches, fiery direct mail fundraising letters, and personal messages to large donors. Saying no will be hard.

A potential presidential candidate who expected to find themselves dependent on the financial backers lurking in these phony non-profit group would veto this bill. A governor who wants to leave a legacy of institutional reform will embrace transparency and sign the bill.

**UPDATE**

PolitiFact.com put out an analysis that discusses the term “charity” as it relates to how these groups function. I’ve revised the post a little to minimize the liberties I took with the term.

The Center for Public Integrity released a study (“Tobacco giant funded conservative nonprofits“) that reveled how large some of the contributions can be:

Reynolds American’s contributions include $175,000 to Americans for Tax Reform, a nonprofit led by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, and $50,000 to Americans for Prosperity, a free-market advocacy outfit heavily backed by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.

May 25 Update:

Perry has vetoed the bill citing “freedom of association and freedom of speech.”  It’s not clear why (or if) Perry supports  current disclosure laws since their impact on freedom of association and freedom of speech would be identical. However, Perry has never been known for consistency on libertarian concerns.

 

Why teacher salaries should not be based on test scores

I can’t think of a better way to explain why most teachers don’t want their raises based on student test scores.

How Washington Ruined Governors

National Journal has a long analysis on how state politicians are getting themselves tangled up in national politics (“How Washington Ruined Governors“).

It seem clear that there are many governors who would rather play on the national stage than do serious work at home. Traditionally, America has seen the political ambitions of our governors motivate them to make their leadership within the state as a proving ground for the presidency. They used their time in the state house to demonstrate that they could produce the best education, roads, etc.  Today, its seems that governors are simply trying to be the most liberal/conservative. George W. Bush ran for the presidency bragging about Texas schools and touting his ability to work with members of both parties. You don’t hear much of that these days.

The preferred path of many governors seems to be very different today and the states have suffered in this process. Too many governors would rather battle over federal issues than pursue reforms at home. After all, it’s easier to complain about the federal government than to fix your own.

Today’s partisan battle lines often have little to do with the concerns of most voters. Too many politicians want to spend their time taking rigid about ineffective border walls and dramatic wars on drugs while most voters hold more nuanced views about the world they live in. Organized interests are diving much of the public debate. These organized interests thrive on the divisive, misleading language of fundraising letters designed to scare people into coughing up money for ads designed to scare even more people (while much of the money actually goes to the care and feeding of group leaders and political consultants). Whether it’s the National Rifle Association stirring up fears that the government will take away the rifles of hunters or the left’s claims of efforts to deliberately starve seniors, the debate is both contrived and counterproductive. There was a time when state leaders would calm the waters and help find solutions. There seems less interest in that today because the business of compromise and coalition building just doesn’t appeal to fringe groups.

Here’s a quick video overview of the story:

Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson has become my favorite political cartoonist . He has a fun visual style and does a pretty good job of irritating both sides.

A recent cartoon did a great job of capturing the dilemma of health care costs. As a few Texans have noticed, many people are already getting “free” health care by showing up at hospital emergency rooms even though they can not afford to pay the bills. This leaves local governments and private hospitals to pass these costs along to the other patients at the hospital or taxpayers in general. The next time you’re looking at a big bill ask the hospital why it’s so high. They’ll tell you that part of what you’re paying is to cover the expenses for those who checked out without paying.

Anderson really irritated some people with a recent cartoon on Obama’s proposal to change the way cost of living increases are calculated for future Social Security recipients.

Anderson’s cartoon depiction of the hysterical overreaction of some was quickly mirrored by angry overreaction from readers. Life imitated art as one ready told him: “Obama has proposed, endorsed, pushed a budget that DELIBERATELY is designed to kill off senior citizens.” I suspect that Anderson thought his cartoon might make some people think about the overly dramatic rhetoric floating around the issue. Some readers just weren’t that interested in thinking about the subject.

Income inequality in the states

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has put together a report (“Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends“) that looks at differences in income inequality across the states.

There are a lot of causes behind this inequality that seem ripe for classroom discussion.