US Supreme Court strikes down San Antonio court's redrawn map

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Texas Redistricting
 

AUSTIN - Today, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion which vacated the orders implementing Texas redistricting maps prepared by the Western District of Texas three-judge panel. The opinion also remanded the case back to the Western District of Texas three-judge panel for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
This opinion means that currently there are no district lines for State House, State Senate and Congressional districts. By vacating the three-judge panel’s order, the Supreme Court did not reinstitute the legislative maps drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2011. Rather, the opinion states that the three-judge panel is to issue new Texas redistricting maps in a manner consistent with the guidance found in the Supreme Court opinion as to what factors should be considered in drawing these new maps.
The Republican Party of Texas interprets this opinion as meaning that the three-judge panel exceeded its authority by altering district lines where there had not been established a probable basis for constitutional or legal challenge. However, as a note of caution – today’s opinion by the Supreme Court did not order the enactment of maps and lines drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2011. The opinion still allows the three-judge panel to make some alterations to the legislatively drawn maps.
In addition, it should be noted that when the Western District three-judge panel issues new maps for the 2012 elections - these maps are "interim" only. Final maps for Texas redistricting still have to be cleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which will take place in front of a Washington D.C. federal panel. At this time, we do not know exactly when new lines will be published by the Western District federal panel, nor do we know where the district lines will actually be.
The RPT applauds the good news that the Supreme Court acted relatively quickly, and that the Justices acted in time to allow for an April unified primary. To keep the current election schedule, it is incumbent upon the Western District three-judge panel to also act expeditiously and redraw the maps in the next week or so. We are hoping that they will do so.

In commenting on the Supreme Court decision, RPT Chairman Steve Munisteri stated, "We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the Western District three-judge panel exceeded its authority in drawing lines for our elected officials. The opinion stated very clearly that the Legislature's intent and judgment is an important consideration and "starting point" in the process of judicially redrawing maps and that the Legislature’s intent should not be overlooked. I am especially pleased that the Supreme Court apparently took notice of the Republican Party of Texas’ advisory which we filed last week and our subsequently filed brief in support of that advisory. In those documents, we alerted the Court to the fact that an expeditious decision was needed in order to maintain our current April 3rd primary schedule, to prevent havoc with our elections, and to protect the parties’ State Conventions as well. Again, we would like to thank Chris Ward and the law firm of Yetter Coleman LLP who did a fabulous job in providing a brief pro bono on a quick turnaround."
Munisteri continued, "I am hopeful that the Western District three-judge panel will issue new maps in time for us to maintain our current April 3rd primary. Until the panel issues new orders, we will not know how many legislative districts will likely be Republican and how many will be Democrat. Thus, any conclusion as to the overall result of today’s ruling by the Supreme Court will have to be withheld until that time. In the meantime, the RPT will continue to advocate for an election schedule that will allow an early April primary."

The Republican Party of Texas also issues the following advisory to all of our county chairmen, precinct chairmen and party activists. At this time, it is not known with certainty whether the April 3rd primary schedule will hold. The timely decision by the Supreme Court today makes it possible for the April 3rd primary schedule to hold, but we will not know this for certain until we get further guidance from the three-judge panel in San Antonio. As soon as we receive additional information from that panel relative to this issue, the State Party will issue an advisory through our website, social media, and email database.
Click here to read the full Supreme Court decision.
Click here to read the RPT advisory brief submitted to the Supreme Court.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SEXUAL RESPONSIBILITY

By Sarah Torres

President Barack Obama is considering granting a broader exemption to religious organizations from rules that require health insurance issuers to provide women with free contraceptives – including those which cause early abortions – sterilizations and related education and counseling, all of which are prohibited by the Catholic Church.  Catholic Belmont Abbey College is suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the rule, and more than 18 Catholic colleges and groups have written HHS protesting the rule.  Many Protestant groups can also be expected to object to the mandate because of their objection to contraceptives which cause early abortions.

The current rule, implementing Obamacare, exempts religious organizations whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values and that employ and serve primarily persons who share those religious beliefs.  The organization must also be non-profit as defined by the Internal Revenue Code.

Religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges are not exempted under the rule.

For most religious organizations, the inculcation of religious values is only one purpose, and many of them employ and serve people who do not share their beliefs.  As the Becket Fund points out, religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges have a long history of feeding the hungry, educating children, providing medical care in hospitals, and providing other much-needed social services to those who need them most.

Without a true exemption for religious organizations, the rule violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Religious groups’ refusal to support contraceptives, including abortifacients, and related counseling, constitutes a religious exercise.

The rule also violates religious organizations’ First Amendment freedom of speech rights by forcing them to pay for education and counseling that conflicts with their religious beliefs and teachings against pre-marital sex, contraception, sterilization and abortion.

“A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government forces him to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounced,” says Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represents Belmont.

The penalty for non-compliance – heavy yearly fines and a prohibition on offering health plans altogether – would put religious groups at such a competitive disadvantage to attract sufficient staff and students that they could be forced to close, says the Becket Fund, leaving many of the poor without needed services.

The New York Times reports that Democrats in Congress object to broadening the exemption, saying it would keep contraception out of reach for millions of women.  NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan has said, “Birth control is essential for women’s health,” according to the Washington Times.

Even if free contraceptives are essential to women’s health, obtaining them does not depend on forcing religious groups to provide them against their sincerely held moral convictions.  Those who truly cannot afford contraceptives can either obtain them at family planning clinics funded by Title X of the Public Health Service Act or move to a non-objecting employer or college.

All employers, whether operating for profit or not, and whether or not they serve or employ people who share their religious beliefs, have a Constitutional right to the exercise of their religion unburdened by the government.  Insurance companies have a right not to offer such coverage, and individuals have the right not to enroll in such coverage.

Zimmerman: Honoring King while shutting out Jesus reeks of hypocrisy

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/zimmerman-honoring-king-while-shutting-out-jesus-reeks-2049382.html


I've witnessed the success of the political war against Christmas in public school in my own generation. I remember well the excitement and joy of my fourth-grade public school Christmas party in 1970 (complete with nativity scenes of the infant Jesus), but in 2008 I experienced the virtual prohibition of even a secular Christmas party for my fourth-grade daughter in the neighborhood public school.
Contemplating the motivation of government school bureaucrats and politicians for the gradual repression of Christmas over the decades led me to examine the public schools' treatment of two well-known political and religious figures — one Jesus of Nazareth and one Martin Luther King Jr. I conclude that the motivation has to do with justifying and consolidating government power, which bureaucrats must consider easier to do with the life of King than with the life of Christ.

It's first necessary to demonstrate a war on Christmas exists, as a chorus of secular voices claim there is no such war.  Consider the Plano school district "candy cane" case. The district in December 2004 instructed parents that they could only supply white plates and white napkins for the "Winter Break Party," that red and green were to be avoided at all costs, that a ban on the words "Merry Christmas" should be observed, that candy cane pens and other "religious oriented items" should be prohibited on "school property" (as if that property belongs to government bureaucrats, instead of the parents and taxpayers who paid for it), and other such extreme absurdities.  This month, the Fort Worth school district issued a memo saying schools cannot "endorse or sponsor any religious activity or doctrine" and that "students should not be allowed to exchange gifts or distribute personal holiday messages." The arrogance here is the implication that respect for individual choices — arbitrarily labeled "religious activity" — amounts to government endorsement or sponsorship of such choices, and I believe that is the key to understanding the government's war on Christmas.  It's as if freedom of individual conscience and choice, and the appeal to a higher authority (either one's God, or one's individual conscience) for justification of that choice, offends a power hungry, womb-to-tomb government that demands the dependence of, and obedience from, the people it aims to control.

Consider Jesus and King, and school policy toward recognizing these two men.
Most honest scholars and educators recognize Jesus as the "greatest teacher who ever lived" — who by example, not coercive political force, changed history immeasurably for the better. Christ was bitterly opposed by the most powerful religious forces of his day — forces which eventually collaborated with the hated Roman political state to have Jesus executed without legal cause.
In like manner, Martin Luther King was a spiritual and organizational force in an effective crusade against discrimination that had powerful religious and political overtones.
King, the Baptist minister who quoted Christ in his sermons and political writings, was jailed 20 times, stabbed in the chest, had his home firebombed, endured countless religious and political attacks, and was eventually assassinated.

So we should question why King — a Baptist minister and student of Christ — is universally honored by the Austin school district in an "annual celebration honoring the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King," while the life and legacy of Christ is universally ignored, and Christmas virtually prohibited.  A key to understanding this might be seen in a Beacon Publishing commentary: "with a universal message of hope that continues to resonate, King demanded an end to global suffering, powerfully asserting that humankind — for the first time — has the resources and technology to eradicate poverty."  If one accepts this humanistic assertion that King trusted "humankind" exerting collective political force, rather than Christ working individualized personal transformations, as the best hope for humanity, then it would make sense that government would embrace this King as morally justifying ever increasing government control — including the repression of Christ and Christmas.

I certainly don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about Jesus Christ or Martin Luther King yet, but it's already evident that the public school engages in a dangerous hypocrisy when it censors Santa for an affiliation with Christ, while endorsing a political agenda it affiliates with King.

Zimmerman is a Travis County member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee.

Dec 2-3rd (2011) Texas SREC Meeting Report (Don Zimmerman, SD-14)

A number of interesting issues came up at this meeting, which was one of the longest meetings ever -- the meeting started at 9 AM and was adjourned at around 7 PM.  These are the highlights as I noted them:

1. Discussion and approval of Texas GOP budget for 2012 -

State Chairman Steve Munisteri presented a 2012 State GOP budget which is around $105k per month; the budget was approved with minimal discussion.

2. Consideration of SREC By-Law changes for legislative reports -

On the contentious issue of “scorecards” or "legislative reports" or whatever “accountability” directive you want to call it, that was based in the June, 2010 Platform Directive - which grassroots Republicans have been chewing on for months, the SREC rejected any SREC by-law change (to Art. 9, Sec 3-4) to provide an exception for such SREC approved reports.  The by-law change which came out of the Rules Committee (chaired by Dan Pickens) wasn't as simple, or as strong, as the rule change proposed by Mr. Halvorsen last meeting (which more closely resembled the simple changes passed by some County GOP Executive Committees), but it certainly did capture the essence of making exception to allow SREC legislative reports to move forward.  The vote was 32 – 28 in favor of by-law change, but a 2/3rds majority is required to change by-laws, so it fell short.  I was on the losing side of that by-law vote.  Someone immediately moved for a recorded (roll call) vote on that by-law change – I voted for a recorded vote, but it also failed, 12 for - 39 against.  My SD-14 colleague voted opposite to me on both these issues (and on most other issues of the day), which means, all SD-14 Republican positions got a vote on the crucial issues, no matter what their position.

The other matter on this issue regarded an opinion from a committee led by RPT counsel, "clarifying" that a platform plank could not require or compel actions of others (or something to this effect).  The clarification wasn't completely clear to many of us, and after some debate it was postponed (until a later, unspecified SREC meeting) by a vote of 37 for postponing, 17 against.

 

3. Discussion of court action nullifying the Texas legislature's redistricting --

Paul Bettencourt (former Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector) gave an extensive review of the redistricting, mentioning several times that the San Antonio court's redrawing of lines is so egregiously lopsided in Democrat's favor that even a Democrat controlled state legislature would not be able to pass it.  There is a possibility the US Supreme Court could reverse the new maps, but Bettencourt believes it's likely the Texas legislature will end up redrawing maps in 2013; it's looking like a repeat of what happened 10 years ago.  Bettencourt also argued effectively to make redistricting one of the top 5 Primary Ballot Initiatives.

4. Selection of March 2012 primary ballot issues -

The Resolution Committee reported that about 58 (non-duplicate) potential issues were submitted to that Committee; the Committee also discussed and recommended approval of a Resolution for the State Chairman to ".... assemble a special political team to garner statewide public support..." for the the redistricting issue.  That resolution was easily passed.

The Resolution Committee discussed numerous issues and recommend five issues to the SREC for ratification:

School Choice

Repeal of Obamacare

Public Prayer

Balanced Budget & Limited Government Growth

Enforcement of Immigration Laws * (the SREC body substituted issue on Redistricting)

Considerable debate and language alteration was done, and a redistricting issue was substituted for the immigration issue; other than that the issues above were approved.  Final ballot language will be reported in official SREC minutes.

5. Consideration of "censure resolution" for incumbent Upshur County Republican Chairman -

Later in the evening, Steve Findley (SD-1) introduced a group of about 10 people (mostly precinct chairs) who drove down from Upshur County to present a case for censuring the Upshur County (a rural county at the north east Texas border with Oklahoma) incumbent Republican Chairman.  The debate on this issue was evenly divided and passionate, and a number of close votes were taken, and considerable time was taken considering whether the motion of censure was out of order.  In my view, since we had argued for months about whether the SREC should do official “reports” or scorecards, and the SREC has just said no earlier in the day, I could not follow how was it that they would now consider an official censure of an incumbent Republican Chairman.  I’ve been hearing about the Upshur County problems for about a year, and my sense was the Upshur County chair was similar (if not worse) to the former Travis County chair's behavior (2000 – 2008), but since the SREC already voted “NO” on issuing reports for incumbents, it made no sense for us to give the Upshur County chair an official censure – which I’d say the average Republican primary voter would consider a report card of “F”.  After losing the fight to change by-laws so we could issue report cards to incumbent legislators, I felt it my responsibility to oppose issuing a report card to the incumbent Upshur County chair, so I voted to uphold the point of order ruling the “censure” out of order, and later voted against the censure resolution itself.  

After hours of contentious debate, the censure eventually passed.

After a few other items were quickly decided, the meeting was adjourned at around 7 PM.

Special note of commendation goes out to Chairman Steve Munisteri, who in my observation presided over a long and contentious meeting with impressive skill;  as an SREC member on the losing side of many votes, I still commend the chairman for conducting the meeting with remarkable fairness.

Don Zimmerman

SD-14 Committeeman

512-577-8842

THE REVOLT OF THE SPOILED BRATS

by Bob Ward

The gatherings of malcontents in cities across the nation have been called “protests” by the participants and by the media.  A more accurate term would be “tantrums.”

These so-called “protesters” have been vague about what they want but the main complaint seems to be that some people are wealthy and others – specifically, them – are not.  They claim that this is somehow “not fair.” They resemble a three year old who cries, kicks the chair and holds his breath because he thinks his brother’s piece of pie is bigger than his. The main difference is that the Occupiers don’t hold their breath.

The image fits because of the infantilism revealed by their complaints and their stated objectives.  Frequently their statements reveal a failure to understand what they are saying. For example, a Pasadena City College student was quoted in the Austin American Statesman. “The banks,”  he complained, “are here to steal from us. Everybody is in debt, whether it’s medical bills, or school or loans.”

This guy considers it stealing if someone who lends you money expects you to pay it back, when, in reality, to borrow money and not pay it back would be stealing. But apparently they don’t consider it  stealing because, they are entitled to whatever they want and the rest of us have a duty to supply it. 

Accordingly, among their “demands” is the abolition of all debt – worldwide. We can only wonder if the people making that demand realize that every individual, business or institution that has lent money would simply lose the amount of the loan. That loss would include the money belonging to the bank’s depositors who are not the much-maligned one percent but are ordinary working people trying to build a nest egg by saving something out of their paychecks.

And we have to wonder if they realize it would put an end to the business of lending money thereby making  it nearly impossible for anyone to buy a home or a car or to attend a college unless he first saves up the money himself. To be fair, they did anticipate that last item by demanding free college so borrowing money to go to college would not be necessary – someone else would pay for it.

It would be a lot easier to save the kind of money that would make borrowing unnecessary if another of the demands on “The Collective” website were granted: a $20 an hour minimum wage and guaranteeing everyone a “living wage” employed or not.  Of course there is the problem of where a business would get the money it takes to pay such a wage and the answer comes immediately – it would have to raise the price of the goods or services it sells so high that $20 an hour wage would not be enough to live on.

But then, we already knew that consequences are not the protesters’ long suit.

And they want an end to immigration controls so that anyone can go anywhere “to work and live.”   This would certainly result in most people – from all over the world – going to places where the demand for a living wage – whether employed or not – has been satisfied.

What all this comes down to is a desire – backed up by threats and sometimes the fact of destructive  behavior – to have every need, desire and whim be accommodated while assuming no responsibility and contributing nothing. In other words, they want everything to be as it was when they were three years old and nothing was demanded of them beyond basic toilet training. In fact, there are indications they are now rejecting even that responsibility.

Some people may wonder where such unreal attitudes come from and how anyone could live in the real world for 20 years or more and not realize how wrong, unfair and unworkable such demands are. One answer is the welfare state we have cultivated for several decades. The historic link between work and reward has been severed by governmental policies as well as the popular culture. 

And we should not overlook President Obama’s contribution to this culture of entitlement, this attitude that if somebody won’t give me what I want, they are evil. The fact is that generating this kind of hostility toward anyone who is wealthy is the only thing Obama did professionally before being elected to the Illinois legislature.  His only real job was that of “community organizer” which is a euphemism for rabble rouser.

Nurturing resentment is the only thing he knows how to do and he hasn’t stopped doing it just because he’s in the White House.

And as long as he holds that office we can expect more of this kind of infantile outbursts.  

Remembering Arsenalna and the "Progressive" Rule of Man

I’d like to commend my friend Martha for the remarkable feat of managing to keep far left and far right people on the same e-mail list you regularly post to!

Most of my friends manage to keep only one or the other.

As for the question of trusting Obama (and government force in general) to defy the Constitutional rule of law to “create jobs”, achieve economic stability, provide “free” education, health care, retirement pension, and any other conceivable cradle-to-grave benefit, I’d like to point you back in history to the Soviet Communist “paradise”, and to the idiocy there which survives (to a limited extent) to this day.

When I lived in the former soviet Ukraine for some time back in the 90s, on occasion you would see a small but noisy protest of gray hairs waving photos of Joseph Stalin, waving signs with old communist slogans, and yelling chants along the lines of going back to the “good ole days” of Stalin’s tyrannical communist regime.  Their favorite protest site was Arsenalna, near the Kiev city center where the corrupt Bolsheviks took an early military stand against the corrupt Kiev government (imagine, looking at the photo below, a small group  gathered in the middle of it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenalna_%28Kiev_Metro%29

 

 

THE POINT IS, “progressives” and other believers in expanding government  power (and force) as a solution to humanity's problems, have irrational faith in government power – irrational because over thousands of years, history has always shown that consolidating power in the hands of one, or a few – be it Obama, Stalin, the Pope, whomever, always leads to oppression, tyranny and poverty.

Like the Bolsheviks and Communists, America has a noisy Progressive leadership which ridicules the Constitution and the rule of law, favoring the arbitrary rule of king, prince, pope, or (in this case) president.  Certainly Mr. Dilworth and his old friends in Kiev will always, religiously and irrational – always demand more power and authority and obedience to the chief tyrant in charge, irrespective of the destruction to prosperous civilization such action causes.

The Progressive Wall Street "occupiers" have brothers and sisters at Arsenalna yearning for the arbitrary rule of man.

Bill to Abolish Corporate Income Tax, Create Jobs

by Bob Ward

Sept. 14, 2011 – U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) has introduced legislation, his version of an "American Jobs Act of 2011," preempting the title that dithering President Obama wanted used for the tax-and-spend-to-create measure he had in mind.  Alternately, Gohmert's version of the Act would abolish the corporate income tax.  The very conservative East Texas Congressman asserts that the measure will create jobs in the U.S. as well as increasing revenue to the government.  “America,” Gohmert said, “would instantly become a safe haven for businesses resulting in an explosion in revenue increases.” Currently, he noted, American manufacturing jobs are moving overseas where the business climate is more favorable.

Gohmert correctly pointed out that corporate taxes are “paid for by people in the form of lower wages to American workers and less money paid out in dividends in everything from 401K retirement accounts and to those who would risk their capital in business ventures. This type of capital investment is where jobs come from.”

The corporate income tax is also unfair because it double-taxes money earned by the business.  An income tax is levied on money earned by the corporation and that same money is taxed again when it is distributed to the corporation's owners -- the shareholders -- in the form of dividends which are regarded as personal income. It is comparable to a worker's wages being taxed when he earns them, at the end of each working day, and again when he collects them on payday.

Some politicians want the public to believe that the corporate income tax reduces the tax burden of individual  taxpayers.  But savvy taxpayers know that corporate taxes make tax collectors, not taxpayers, out of corporations. The corporation's tax bill is converted into higher prices for its customers, lower pay for its employees, fewer jobs for the community and lower dividends for its stockholders.

The impracticality of the corporate income tax is especially salient at the present time when government is supposedly doing all it can to reduce unemployment.  Billions have been appropriated to create makework jobs which merely shift work from the private to the public sector.  It would be preferable to remove the obstacles to expansion and investment so that Americans can return to real jobs that produce goods and services.  A drastic reduction in the corporate income tax would help achieve this.  Gohmert's bill abolishing the tax is even better.

While politicians may find it useful to cultivate the myth that "the little guy” is helped by socking it to "big business," it just isn't so and Rep. Gohmert is a politician with the wit and courage to say so.

Corporate Income Tax Unfair, Impractical

by Bob Ward

As Congress takes up the President’s plan to revive the economy, it would be an opportune time to review an inequitable and impractical feature of our Federal tax system - the corporate income tax.

Currently, an income tax is levied on money earned by the corporation.  That money is taxed again when it is distributed to the corporation's owners -- the shareholders -- in the form of dividends which are regarded as personal income.  It is comparable to a worker's wages being taxed when he earns them, at the end of each working day, and again when he collects them on payday.

Too many politicians want the public to believe that the corporate income tax reduces the tax burden of individual taxpayers.  But savvy taxpayers know that corporate taxes make tax collectors, not tax payers, out of corporations.  A corporation does not produce money out of thin air with which to pay its taxes.  A corporation's tax bill is converted into higher prices for its customers, lower pay for its employees, fewer jobs for the community and lower dividends for its stockholders.

The impracticality of the corporate income tax is especially salient at the present time when government is supposedly doing all it can to reduce unemployment.  Billions have been appropriated to create makework jobs which merely shifts work from the private to the public sector.  It would be preferable to remove the obstacles to expansion and investment so that Americans can return to real jobs that produce goods and services.  A drastic reduction in the corporate income tax would help achieve this.  Its abolition would be even better.

While politicians may find it useful to cultivate the myth that "the little guy” is helped by socking it to "big business," it just isn't so and we need politicians with the wit and courage to say so.

Congress should take this opportunity to encourage capital formation and make it easier for business to expand and hire workers.