My New Year's Wishes

Whether realistic or not, my hopes for the new year are:

1. a chance, any chance left, that some form of stability can come to a democratic Iraq.

2. a still-divided Congress that chooses compromise over stalemate.

3. more attention paid to regions like Darfur by both this nation and the international community.

4. less attention paid to celebrity couples, celebrity babies, celebrity crazy-talk, celebrity fights, celebrity public nudity, etc.

5. a Texas legislative session that is just slightly less insane than the last two.

A happy New Year to all.

Happy Holidays!

I want to wish everyone in the blogosphere the very best this holiday season.

Off-Centered: Redstate on Religion

This is a feature I would like to try out. From time to time I'll post an article from a left- or right-leaning blog with arguments that I either:

a) agree with, or
b) don't necessarily agree with, but believe bring up valid issues for centrists to contemplate.

My first feature falls under the first category. Redstate has an interesting and somewhat amusing take on the nativity scene debacle at the Washington Capitol:

I was sitting browsing sites and stumbled over an Associated Press item quoted in NewsMax.com. This little ditty follows on the heels of the SeaTac Airport kerfuffle over Christmas trees in the terminal. You may recall the flap over a request, later withdrawn, to include a menorah at the airport. The powers that be did what bureaucrats usually do, the wrong thing, removed all the Christmas trees. In any event after the threat of a lawsuit went away, and the public had responded 'vigorously', the trees were replaced.

Read on . . .

So imagine my surprise to find that Governor Christine Gegoire recently began the Hanukkah holiday by lighting the first candle of a menorah in the state capitol building. Seeing the menorah in the capitol a gentlemen of the Christian persuasion requested that a nativity scene be included in the holiday display; his mistake appears to have been in assuming that there was some actual Christian connection to Christmas. He was turned down on the grounds that including a nativity scene might appear to endorse a particular religion. The refusal was ostensibly because the state's legal department had not had an opportunity to consider the matter.

So as I was sitting here chuckling over more stupidity by government, something fairly serious occurred to me. Now I am not Jewish but throughout my life several of my closest friends have been and remain so to this day. It has always been my impression that Hanukkah, while not as important as Yom Kippur, was still like an actual Jewish religious holiday, dude. And that the menorah, as an apparatus of that holiday, was therefore a religious symbol; I know this because it isn't used as a centerpiece when I drop by my Jewish friends' for franks and burgers on Tuesday. The state saw no problem in having a menorah in the capitol and having the governor participate in the lighting ceremony on the first night of Hanukkah; and I don't either. But the incorporation of a nativity scene smacked too much of religion.

So here's where we get to the problem. If the nativity scene is prohibited because it is religious, but the menorah and the Hanukkah ceremony were included then they are clearly not religious. If I were Jewish I think I'd be upset; my holiday doesn't count as religious?

But what do I know, I'm not a government bureaucrat.

Aside from the humor, the article brings up a point - any and all peaceful expressions of religion on public grounds should be welcomed. I have argued before that just because a public entity allows a religious-themed presentation on its grounds, it is not endorsing a particular religion, so long as:

1) it extends the same invitation to set something up to all other religious groups;
2) no person is forced to recognize as truth, pay homage to, etc., the display; and
3) taxpayer dollars do not go toward erecting the display.

Now, if government and not private funds went toward those displays in Washington, then we have a problem, and if anyone knows for sure, please clarify.

In the end, when government officials begin atempting to sort out what constitutes a religious display and what does not, they run into the trouble that Washington did. This holiday season, let's accept, not exclude.

Campaign Finance News

Two developments on the campaign finance reform front:

Panel says issue ads OK during elections
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A federal court on Thursday loosened restrictions on corporations, unions and other special interest groups that run political advertising in peak election season.

The 2-1 ruling said groups may mention candidates by name in commercials as long as they are trying to influence public policy, rather than sway an election.

The ruling came in a challenge to the so-called McCain-Feingold law designed to reduce the influence of big money in political campaigns. The law banned groups from using unrestricted money to run advertisements that name candidates two months before a general election or one month before a primary.

Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, has been fighting the law since 2004, when it sought to run an advertisement urging voters to contact Wisconsin Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, both Democrats, and ask them not to hold up President Bush's judicial nominees.

Because Feingold was running for re-election in 2004, the ad was prohibited. Wisconsin Right to Life argued that it wasn't trying to influence an election and said the law restricted its constitutional right to petition the government.

While the Right to Life group has a point, there still needs to be some type of regulation on such issue-oriented ads to halt those disingenuous ones that are trying to influence elections. I hope this ruling does not lead to the complete dismantling of the regulation.

The other major event comes from California:

Ca. court: Campaign laws apply to tribes
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A split California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Indian tribes, some of the state's biggest political donors, are bound by campaign-finance disclosure rules.

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices upheld a lower court decision that said tribes were subject to campaign-finance enforcement lawsuits from the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state agency that oversees elections.

The case is significant for California's political culture.

The more than 100 tribes in California, some flush with casino revenues, are major campaign donors that have reported giving at least $200 million to candidate and ballot measure campaigns during the past decade. Most already disclose donations of at least $10,000 a year, in compliance with state regulations.

The tribes sued by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to comply with disclosure rules argued they are sovereign governments, immune from most state intervention, including lawsuits to enforce state laws.

I have to agree with this ruling. These tribes may have sovereign status, but if they want to engage in campaign financing, they should have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Improving Competition in Elections

With 435 House seats up for re-election only 40 are in any meaningful risk of changing parties. This is in part because of redistricting, the periodic reconfiguring of political boundaries to enhance the control of the party in power.

While I am in favor of a less partisan redistricting process this may not make as much difference to the outcome of elections than a few other election reforms, among which my favorite is the Blanket Primary. My aim is shared with the original framers of the constitution who wanted the House elections to be a referendum by the public on the direction of the government. Any favoritism to incumbents defeats that objective.

Blanket Primary - The top two vote-getters from each office advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. This means that the general election could be between a moderate Republican and a conservative Republican.

Open Primary - Voters need not publicly declare their party affiliation but must vote for candidates of only one party. The opposite is a closed primary, in which only registered members of a party may vote.

Instant Runoff Voting - single winner elections in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. In an IRV election, if no candidate receives an overall majority of first preferences the candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one by one, and their votes transferred according to their second and third preferences (and so on), until one candidate achieves a majority.

Condorcet - this system measures which candidate has the broadest support. It compares each candidate pair-wise with each other candidate.

Borda Count - this is similar to how college football teams are ranked. A first place vote is worth 4 points, a 2nd is worth 3 points, a 3rd 2 points and a 4th is worth 1 point. The candidate receiving the most points wins.

Approval Voting - each voter votes for as many candidates as they like. The candidate with the most votes (plurality) wins. Approval voting only measures whether a candidate is acceptable to the voter; it does not distinguish between a candidate who is intensely liked and those who are more weakly approved of.

Cumulative Voting - this system was used in Illinois for 110 years until 1982 to elect Illinois House of Representatives. Voters had three votes to give to three candidates and could distribute the votes any way they wished - all to one candidate, one each, or two and one. There is a push now to revive it. See the Drive to Revive Cumulative Voting.

Voters should select their representatives rather than elected officials selecting thier voters.

Texas Redistricting Revisited

Columnist Dave McNeely believes the State of Texas should take a serious look at revising its problematic congressional redistricting methods:

Every few years - actually, every two years, for the past decade or so - there is an effort to have Texas join the dozen other states that have set up some redistricting process other than the legislature.

Having legislators draw their own districts is contentious, expensive, bloody, and
perhaps more than anything else bears out the adage that people should not watch
the making of laws or sausage.

McNeeley also addressed the state's judge selection system (Texans elect their judges):

As for changing the method of selecting judges from election to appointment, we're already part-way there anyway. Five of the current nine members of the Texas Supreme Court reached that bench initially by appointment.

Every Republican district court judge in Dallas County who was opposed by a Democrat was knocked off the bench. While a case can be made that there's some virtue in electing judges at least within a county, it would be interesting to see how many Dallas County non-lawyers could name even five of their dozens of judges.

I happen to agree with McNeely on both issues. A process whereby people draw a congressional map while holding a direct political interest in how the district lines fall is an unsound one. The current method in Texas has proven to be messy, time-consuming, and unnecessarily costly to taxpayers. There are a number of non-partisan systems that can be used to redraw districts, and each one should be evaluated to find the best fit for Texas. And while each has its own flaws, they certainly cannot compare to a system that allows a then Texas congressman and House Majority Leader to orchestrate a mid-census power grab, or leads to a mid-session circus where state Democrats bolt across state lines to avoid a quorum.

As for the state's judicial selection system, sometimes you can have just too dang much democracy. I know that sounds bad, but think about it. We expect our representatives to speak for us and serve our interests. But this is not what we expect our judges to do; rather, we count on them to be impartial interpreters of the laws our elected representatives make. To do this, judges need to be both qualified and non-partisan (the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is notorious for not being these). Judges appointed by more knowledgeable legislators have a better chance of meeting these criteria than those elected by a public who generally has little to no clue who they are. And I agree with McNeely that the institution of an appointment process should begin with the higher courts.

You can find the full column here.

I'm Back!

Hello!

My name is Clint Carrens. I posted regularly with Paul on Austin Centrist back when it started, but for various reasons lost the time to be a regular blogger. With a recent change in jobs, though, I have found myself more capable to keep up with current events and write about them. Plus, I've really missed the blogosphere.

With Paul moving over to The Moderate Voice (though he may post here from time to time), I hope to keep the content here fresh and updated. I look forward to sharing my thoughts with everyone willing to drop by.