More handpicked essays just for you.
Political changes and developments in texas over time
Political changes and developments in texas over time
Political changes and developments in texas over time
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Most Texas legislatures are honest and hardworking but there are few that are bribed in the lawmaking process by falling into the temptation of easy money. This brings up concerns about how the state government is really run. The same structure of has survived since the 1876 Constitution and there are no sign or interest of reforms. Ethical behavior cannot be guaranteed, but attempts have been made to set higher standards usually after the fallout of a scandal to provided penalties to those who fail. The first major scandal that raised concerns was the Sharpstown stock fraud which brought profits to officials who purchased stock from an insurance company. This allowed new reform laws to take effect which required lobbyists to register with the …show more content…
New laws to impose tougher ethical requirements were in order but the new reforms continued to be weak, but Governor Ann Richards describe the new attempts a “very strong step in the direction of openness and ethics reform in the state” (America 788). Redistricting was introduced in the Texas Constitution of 1876 and occurs at least every 10 years after the federal census. The changing population causes the redrawing of legislative and other political district boundaries in order to ensure equal representation. The Legislative Redistricting Board takes on the job if the legislative fails to do so. Redistricting is one of the most controversial and partisan issues, and Texas did not immediately take part. It was not until the decision of the federal court cases Baker v. Carr, and Reynolds v. Sims, that forced Texas to represent the population equally and made state legislature districts a one person, one vote principle. The state gets divided into congressional districts and the case of Wesberry v. Sanders made each U.S. House District equal in
The principles, which define the work of juridical branch, are relevant nowadays, as they have proved their effectiveness and managed to gain confidence of population. Texas juridical branch is complex and confusing. According to the principles of the Texas Constitution, six types of courts are established, some of which have simultaneous or overlapping jurisdictions. In accordance with the Texas Constitution of 1876, two high courts were established. In addition, in the traditions of Jacksonian Democracy, all the judges in Texas courts should be ready to compete with electoral politics and take their positions according to the results of partisan elections. This democratic principle of fair elections and respect to the votes of citizens is still applied in the juridical branch of Texas
The American way of living and thinking in Texas have changed tremendously over the past century. Political ideals are one thing that changes with time, and have transformed with the changing times well. The Texas constitution of 1876 was a landmark for the state and has been part of the state’s history since then. The Texas constitution of 1876 is still in use today but with all its harsh restrictions it is considered one of the most confusing of all the state constitutions. The constitution became one of the most prominent changes to Texas education system and politics.
The people of Texas are diverse and carry their “big can-do attitudes and accents” (Pearson); making Texas a bigger than life state. The political culture of Texas is impacted by two different subgroups of individualistic and traditionalistic characteristics. The combination of traditionalism and individualism has had a huge impact on the state and Texas’ seven different constitutions. The shift in power between 1827 and 1876 has impacted the political diversity Texas has today. Looking at the specifics of these subcultures, the traditionalists believe government should benefit the wealthy and powerful, and that government services must be limited.
Looking at past cases dealing with similar issues, Baker v. Carr is a an example that shows how redistricting was looked at as a justiciable issue by the Supreme court, prior to Gomillion v. Lightfoot. The Supreme Court had usually left redistricting as a matter that should dealt with by the states and congress. This can also be seen in Colegrove v. Green, in which Justice Frankfurter declined to involve the Court in the districting process arguing that the political nature of apportionment disallowed judicial intervention.
Every ten years after a census, politicians redraw the district boundaries that determine the house and state legislature. The problem with this system is that the same politicians who redraw the district boundaries are the ones who are being elected by the
Texas politics is an interesting ecosystem of power, rules and regulations. Of course, in typical Texas fashion, most of the politics we engage in we do our own way. From governors who stay in office for a decade to our extremely diverse demographics, Texas is extremely unique. This uniqueness of course comes with its critics, benefits, and downsides. This is particularly true with the Texas Court system compared to both the federal courts and many other states.
When gerrymandering occurs, a political party draws the boundaries of an electoral district in a way that helps their party win elections over the other parties. For example, if a Republican controls a state, and it appears like the party will lose a seat in the future, the Republicans will draw the district in a way to exclude as many Democratic voters as possible. Perhaps they will do this by removing a democratic stronghold from one district and adding it to another district that will either easily go Republican or will have a Democratic representative no matter what happens. Before 1964, the majority party could draw districts in any way they wanted to, and chaos ensued. Consequently, in 1964, the U.S Supreme Court legislated that the districts “had to contain equal population, and be as compact as possible” (“Gerrymandering”). Every ten years the U.S. issues a census to determine the population of each state. After this, each state receives their share of the 435 seats, and then the state gets to break the population into the corresponding number of districts. This whole process, known as reapportionment, takes weeks to determine, and in many cases, courts must determine the shape and area of each district. Even though the districts must contain equal population, gerry...
The Annexation of Texas was one of the most debatable events in the history of the United States. This paper argues the different opinions about doing the annexation of Texas or not. In this case Henry Clay and John L. O’Sullivan had completely opposite opinions about this issue. The reasons of why not do it was because of the desire to prevent war, for division over slavery, and for constitutional rights. On the other hand, John L. O’ Sullivan wanted to do this because of his idea of Manifest Destiny. By 1845, the annexation of Texas went into effect.
Gerrymandering is very essential in our society because it entitles equal representation of seats that represents each district. No state will have too many seats nor too little depending on the census, which is conducted every ten years. Gerrymandering is a method that filters too little representation or too much representation. This term brings a balance of representation to not just the districts, but to the House of Representatives. It is important that each states district has an equal representation because one state can dominant another when it comes to passing, voting, or creating new laws. Our society since the days of our founding fathers spoke about equal representation. However, from reading this issue our society is still struggling with the issue of equal representation.
Texas has a total land area of 261,914 square miles- making it the second largest state in the United States. Combined with a diverse geography, Texas has one of the most varied climates of any state. As the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases year by year, causing an increase in the Earth’s average overall temperature, changes in our climate are inevitable. We will investigate how those changes will affect the life of the everyday Texan - from our water resources, to our cities and why they are important issues that need to be addressed by our society.
The controversy surrounding the 78th Texas Legislature between the Democratic and Republican Party state representations and senators was that there was an attempt to redistrict the recently redrawn congressional districts. This issue of, “redistricting” was indorsed by the Republican Party. The endorsement of “redistricting,” wasn’t surprising considering that the Republican Party had just won the Texas state legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. The Republican Party’s position on the issue was clear through the statements of Tom DeLay, “Texans deserve representation that reflects their values and believes.” Knowing that the redistricting would result in catastrophic losses for the party, the Democrats apposed the idea of, “redistricting.” The Democrats were so opposed to the idea of, “redistricting,” that they fled to Ardmore, Oklahoma. The justification for the party fleeing was said best in the words of state Representative Jim Dunnam, “We're here in Ardmore, Oklahoma, because the real problems of Texas are budget problems, are school finance problems, are health ...
Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians are perhaps three of the most prominent political parties within Texas. Within the pages of their party platforms, we see that each possesses a unique philosophy, with specific viewpoints and recommendations for shaping or reforming government policy. To be sure, the people of Texas face many challenges, two of the most compelling issues being the crisis in healthcare and in education. Not only are we lacking in these areas as Texans, but also on the national level. The parties’ stance on these two major issues defines them, giving us insight into the mind and intentions of each.
Starting with methods, such as, pool taxes and literacy tests, cunningly denying individuals their right to vote or convey their political voice continues in America today. Saito in the article “The Political Significance of Race” describes the effects that redistricting and gerrymandering can have on a community, by using the decennial census as a “unique opportunity to examine the relation between race and politics because the 1965 Voting Rights Act requires the recognition and protection of the political rights of ethnic and racial minorities” (120). Redistricting is the redrawing of districts, block by block supposedly to ensure each district has about the same number of people, and to guarantee that each voter has an equal political say. Redistricting can determine which political party is in power in each district by deliberately ensuring the district is drawn to include the people who support a specific party. This is called gerrymandering, the manipulation of district lines to protect or change political power. This can be used as a strategy to dilute the political voice of minority groups by conveniently drawing the lines to minimize their
The legislative branch of America helps create the laws or legislation. Ideally, it works to create a society that is safe for all members. The State of California like the federal government has a bicameral legislature, in other words, composed of two chambers. The upper chamber is called the senate, while the lower is called the assembly. A unique process for the state level is that it allows for the initiative. This process circumvents the state congress and can create laws without their aide. In the state of California, every ten years, following a US census, which collects demographic information, state legislators draw redistricting plans for itself, California seats in the US House of Representatives, and the State Board of Equalization. There have been attempts to create a “non-partisan” redistricting commission, but this has been turned down by voters numerous times. Proposition 14, 39, 118, and 119 were all turned down by voters to create a non-partisan districting commission. Every decade a large portion of the state congress’s energy is spent on redistricting. In fact, two of the last four censuses, Supreme Court has had to step in to break a deadlock. In 1970, Ronald Reagan, a Republican, vetoed all together the Democratic redistricting plan. The Supreme Court had to step in and created its own plans for California to follow. Then in 1981, Democrats proposed redistricting as well as congressional delegation redistricting. The Republicans stopped this by adding referendums to the state ballot. Because it was too close to elections though, Supreme Court overturned these referendums in 1982. In 1984, they officially passed the new redistricting plan which was very similar to the original plans.
Whatever the reason, state rules seem to have been ill-equipped to stave off Enron. As a result, the ABA commissioned a task force to recommend changes rules to 1.6 and 1.13. State model rules differ significantly and offer little guidance to rectify the overall situation. In most states disclosure is now allowed, but not required to prevent a client from committing a fraud that may result from financial injury to others. Additionally, fraud may be reported up the latter when an organization is represented. Attorneys must reveal fraud if committed on a tribunal. Further, disclosure is required when a client’s purpose to commit fraud is manifest and the attorney is unable to talk him out of it. In some states disclosure is states for financial crimes: Wisconsin and Virginia’s model rules ostensibly require attorneys to report securities fraud through the broad obligation to report crimes likely to cause harm to another.