Citizens participate in governance by voting and ensuring that the government is transparent and accountable. America, being the foremost democracy in the word, has among the highest rates of citizens’ participation in issues of governance. The rates are however lower than national average in Texas State.
Texans participation rate in voting is appallingly low. Champagne and Edward report that in 2006, less than thirty percent of Texans eligible to vote participated in a gubernatorial contest full of political heavy weights (32). Low participation rates in voting and other aspects of governance results from domination of politics by conservative elites. These elites have thwarted reform progress. However, with sustained efforts from civil society and federal government, Texans participation rates will go up.
Historically, Texas has had a protracted battle to allow women and racial minorities to vote. When Texas joined the Union in the 17th century, voting rights were limited to white adult men. Women’s suffrage movement pressured the government to extend voting rights to women.
The federal government yielded to women’s demand and in 1920, women enjoyed equal voting rights with men. However, ethnic minorities like African Americans and Hispanics remained passive observers in the electoral process. Whites dominated political and economic establishments and barred ethnic minorities from voting.
White conservative elites passed laws requiring ethnic minorities to pay poll tax before they could participate in elections. This tax served to disenfranchise African American and Hispanic voters who found the tax prohibitive. Hispanic voters who qualified to vote could only vote for candidates that their white bosses preferred. This led to a court battle that Federal courts decided in favor of ethnic minorities.
The court ordered Texas government to withdraw white primary and poll tax as pre-qualifications to participation in voting. The white majority turned to other measures to reduce ethnic minorities’ participation in elections. Schmidt cites “at-large elections and racial gerrymandering of election district boundaries” (54) as some of the tactics that white majority employed to keep ethnic minorities from the ballot.
Today, Texans participate in politics and government through various ways. The first is through elections. To qualify to vote in Texas, one needs to be eighteen years old and above, be a registered voter in the state and above all, be an American citizen. One can therefore participate in elections by voting or active engagement in campaigns. Individuals can volunteer time, money, and services to an election campaign they deem worthwhile.
More than elections, one can participate in politics through interest groups. These groups pressure the government to bring about reforms for betterment of people’s lives. Additionally, one can participate in government and politics through demonstrations, lobbying legislature, and sometimes through violent protests.
Schmidt argues that level of education, economic status, age, and strength of political parties influence voter turnout in United States of America (54). Texas lags behind other states because of a combination of factors. Majority of Texans languish in poverty and their education levels are lower in comparison to other states.
Political consciousness is therefore low and hence the low participation rates. Champagne and Edward assert that states with “older, better-educated populations with relatively high incomes” will have higher rates of citizens’ participation in government. More than being politically conscious, educated people understand the complexity of the ballot process with relative ease.
Another reason for low participation rates in Texas is the influx of immigrants. Illegal or not, most immigrants shy away from social services and political participation for fear of deportation. Furthermore, immigrants are not well versed in America’s electoral process. Citizens participate more in the political process when they have effective labor unions and similar affiliations. Texans lack such unions and mobilization to turn out to vote is usually uncoordinated.
Texas’ culture plays an important role in influencing participation in politics and governance. Texas is among the states that wanted to secede from the Union during the civil war. Racial segregation was more intense than in other states. There is a high population of immigrants and practice of Mexican culture is more profound than in other states. Texans are hostile to tax progression and thus the limited services from the state.
Labor unions are uncommon and the culture of political parties is not as entrenched as it is in other states. Interest groups have therefore been vital in agitating for reforms in a largely conservative state. The groups have focused on women’s suffrage, voting rights for ethnic minorities, and improved participation in governance. ‘Getting involved’ interest group for instance educate and mobilize people to participate in politics.
In conclusion, Texas lags behind in political and governance participation because of low literacy levels, poverty, and influx of immigrants. The state has an anti-unions attitude that deprives citizens a very important mobilization tool. The political culture that is a feature of other states is lacking in Texas. Looking ahead, interest groups can continue to lobby for legislations that reflect the diversity inherent in Texas. Civil education can also help to educate people on benefits of voting.
Works Cited
Champagne, Anthony, and Edward J. Harpham. Governing Texas: An Introduction to Texas Politics, Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
Schmidt, Steffen W. American Government & Politics Today: Texas Edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
The American judiciary system has two systems, which are federal and state courts systems. The difference between federal and county court system is powers allocated for each. Federal courts formation is under constitutional mandate of federal government judiciary. Meanwhile, the state court systems formation is under judiciary chapter of state government constitutions. State government judiciary undertake judicial responsibility not allocated to federal judiciary system under federal constitution.
Federal court system consists of U.S. district courts, U.S. circuit courts of appeal, U.S. court of appeal, U.S. court of claims and U.S. court of international trade. Texas court system consists of a number of courts including, courts of limited jurisdiction, county courts, courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate court of appeals and highest appellate courts that are Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of criminal appeals.
They are three main models of choice of judges, which are merit choice, appointment and choice. Merit choice approach to judge choice development was in 1913 initially, but adoption was until 1940, Missouri. Election of judges under merit choice lacks political interference unlike other modes of choice. In appointment choice, governors politically appoint judges to their given jurisdiction vacancies. In judge choice through election, judge’s choice is by popular vote.
With exception of municipal courts, the Texas courts of limited jurisdiction, county courts, courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate and highest appellate courts carry out partisan elections to choose judges. In partisan choice, judge choice is by ability to fundraise highest for their party within their jurisdiction level. In addition to this, their party uptake in the state assembly will decide their eventual choice.
These affect judiciary in a two-prong way that is judicial candidates have to align with a particular party and secondly, they have to seek funds from special interest groups and business people. The question that arises is whether the judges will remain judicial independent when they face cases from parties, or people who contributed to their campaign. Secondly, judges who provide quality judgments laden with experience miss selection in favor of higher party contributors.
The result of partisan choice of Texas State judiciary is a public perception of it being pro-money, in the market for highest bidders. An additional view is that of Texas judiciary being pro-plaintiff awarding favorable judgments to plaintiff contributors of the judiciary. Citizens’ trust and confidence in Texas State courts is at a low due to these anomalies that partisan choice creates in the judicial system.
Political influence in Texas judicial system is a cause of alarm. Among spirited campaigners against partisan election, include former Texas State Supreme Court Chief Justice Phillips who frowned upon the effect of campaign money in partisan judicial elections, Texas.
The American Bar Association (ABA) acting on findings of its Task Force on Lawyers Political Contributions altered its model ethics code. It set contribution limits, initiated judge campaign disclosures standards and proposed judge self-disqualification from hearing cases of judge campaign participants. It further declared its commitment to the merit election of judges. Enjoining in the fray are community welfare groups.
U.S. citizens residing in Texas will not enjoy their full legal benefits if partisan election of judges does not change to merit selection. It also goes against a basic right of the constitution, which provides for right of a fair hearing before a neutral judge.
It is true that the three branches of Texas state government are all political. They depend on each other and none can be viewed to be above the other. They operate under the concept of separation of powers making it hard for one branch to practice absolute power over another. In essence, the branches are meant to check out each other.
The constitution does not allow any of the branches to exercise powers which are rightly meant to be exercised by another branch. But the constitution allows a system of checks and balances to work. Through this system, the branches check each other’s powers and thus ensure that no branch goes overboard.
The process of law making best illustrates how this check and balance system works. The legislature is entitled to making the laws. It starts by drafting a bill. The bill becomes a law if it is signed by the governor. The governor represents the executive branch. In some cases, the executive may decline signing a bill, that is, the governor may veto the bill. The legislature has another chance of turning the bill into a law.
This is done by getting enough votes in favour of the bill. In this case, the bill becomes a law. This illustration shows how the executive and legislature checks each other out. Neither the executive nor the legislature has absolute power over the other.
After a bill has been passed into a law, the judiciary branch comes in. The judiciary system in this case is meant to interpret the law and see whether it is fair or unfair by checking that it does not contravene the constitution of the state. This is done after a lawsuit is presented against the law.
If the law is found to be unfair, it is cancelled and ceases to be a law. The legislature has a chance of making a correction to the cancelled law to rectify the mistakes that the judiciary branch pointed out. However, this will be a new process altogether.
How does politics then come in? The state of Texas carries out judicial elections. Judges play a major role in the Texas judicial system. Judges occupy office through partisan politics. This elective system for judges brings in politics because of the general feeling that judges are more likely to be inclined to some political bias and philosophies. This will likely make them not execute their duties impartially.
Vying for the position of a judge will definitely require campaign funds. The likelihood that judicial candidates, who raise campaign funds from different groups, will remain impartial once in offices in regard to cases touching on those groups that provided funds is very minimal. The elective judicial system therefore makes the judiciary branch vulnerable to politics.
This may undermine the balance of power which is meant to exist. This will be possible if the judiciary decides to be impartial in its interpretation of the law in favour of some interest groups. It is also clear that judicial candidates will have to adopt philosophies which are popular with the people even though such philosophies may not be necessarily fair.
Once they are elected, the judges are still further likely to interpret the law in a manner that the people will be happy with. This may lead to skewed interpretation of the law in favour of people’s expectations.
In general, it has been shown that the judiciary branch is political. This is the same for the executive as well as the legislature. Holders of offices in all of the three branches occupy their offices by means of an elective process. How they work is therefore likely to be inclined towards impressing the electorate. This may adversely affect the manner in which laws are made.
As of 12 March, 2010, about 48 states in the United States permitted non-law enforcement individuals to carry concealed weapons such as handguns in public. However, no such legal provisions are allowed in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Washington, DC except for active and retired police officers.
Accordingly, those supporting the state concealed carry legislations (CCW) argue that the likelihood of a criminal attacking an armed person is very minimal. On the other hand, the opponents of these laws argue that allowing non-law enforcement persons to carry concealed guns would lead to increased gun crimes and inadvertent gun injuries in public places (Austin par. 3).
However, beside the high-profile shootings in Virginia Tech, University of Texas, and Northern Illinois University, different reports show that in the year 2008, there were not less than 5000 assaults, 3000 sexual assaults, and 4500 robberies in different college campus across the United States (Austin par. 7). As a result, the Texas House of Representatives introduced a legislation, which allows carrying of concealed weapons in college premises.
The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Joe Driver, seeks to give residents of Texas who are licensed to carry guns as stipulated under certain state legislations similar rights to self-defense within college campuses (Austin par. 2). Therefore, this essay provides a review of the contents of the bill, and an explanation of the pros and cons of the bill as provided by various expert groups and individuals.
Bill Summary
According to the CCW legislation, a license holder is allowed to carry a concealed firearm in any institution of higher education in Texas. Moreover, the institution is not allowed to adopt any regulations, provisions or rules seeking to prohibit the license holder from carrying the weapon to college. However, in relation to subsection (e), an institution of higher education in Texas is allowed to adopt regulations regarding the storage of firearms in college premises.
In addition, the institution may adopt regulations after consultations with students and faculty members to prohibit license holders from carrying their guns in restricted premises within the institution. Besides, the legislation does not provide for license holders to carry their guns into hospitals run by the institution for higher education (Wentworth et al. 1-6).
The Pros and Cons of the Legislation
Proponents of the CCW legislation give various reasons as to why they support the enactment of the law. For instance, David Burnett, the president and spokesperson of the group, Students for Concealed Carry, argues that CCW comprises of fully established laws in Texas, which provide for the right to self-defense for license holders. Besides, the process of establishing eligible persons for the CCW involves considerable deliberations on one’s age, psychological and mental status, training, and other background checks (Burnett par. 6).
Moreover, the legislation states clearly that only license holders and legally-armed individuals are allowed to carry weapons in colleges. Furthermore, historical events show that ‘Gun-free Zones’ do not deter criminals from committing crime, and thus, concealed weapons would allow individuals in such zones to protect themselves and others from hostile criminals.
Additionally, studies show that over 26 colleges are currently allowing firearms in college premises without any unprecedented problems (Burnett par. 11). Therefore, the legislation does not increase the risk of gun crimes but it can help in providing the much-deserved protection in campuses.
On the other hand, opponents of the legislation argue that providing untrained or undertrained individuals with guns will pose increased risk to these individuals and their colleagues due to unintentional accidents (Burnett par. 3). Furthermore, public opinion shows that the larger population is against the presence of guns in places like sports grounds, banks, hospitals, and campuses.
Here, the opponents of the state concealed carry legislations (CCW) argue that there is the paramount need to stop the violence epidemic associated with over 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries annually. In addition, the CCW procedures have several rope holes, which have led to availability of too many weapons in too many public areas (Burnett par. 7). As a result, there is the need to limit access to guns in order to minimize crime and accidents in public places.
Conclusion
From the foregoing discussions, we note that the state concealed carry legislation (CCW) has many benefits as well as shortcomings, which are worth the attention of the authorities responsible. However, the fact that most colleges are unable to provide sufficient protection to all students cannot be overstated.
Moreover, claims that colleges are much safer than most cities and urban establishments do not hold considering that currently, cases of crime, sexual assaults, and killings are on the rise in most institutions for higher education in the US. As a result, if these institutions have failed in providing security to students and faculty members, then there is no need to deprive them of their right to self-defense. Therefore, there will be a net positive impact in most colleges in Texas upon enactment of the legislation.
The office of the Governor is essential for implementing public policy that will be beneficial for ordinary citizens. It refers to the fact that this high-ranking official has both formal and informal powers that allow him or her to influence legislation concerning significant issues. As for Texas, they are immigrants from Mexico, the state of roads and highways, death penalty application, and k-12 education. Particular reasons explain why each of these issues is of crucial significance for Texas citizens. That is why it is necessary to overview the formal and informal powers of the Governor of Texas to see how this elected official can affect public policy. Furthermore, an appropriate set of powers can be used to address each of the issues above.
Effective Campaign Issues
I have been elected the Governor of Texas because I have managed to address four significant issues. Since Texas borders Mexico, the state is full of immigrants from this country, which creates severe problems for the American population. The promise to control this immigration has made many people vote for my candidacy. Upgrading roads and highways is an obligatory requirement for developed states, and Texas has had significant problems with this. Thus, numerous people suffer from poor conditions of the state’s roads, and they want them to be improved. In addition to that, Texas citizens are concerned with the application of the death penalty because this state is responsible for a great part of executions throughout the whole country. Every case of capital punishment should be treated attentively to ensure that it is applied impartially because it refers to depriving people of their lives. Addressing this issue has made my candidacy more popular among numerous citizens. Finally, improving k-12 education is essential for Texas because it will involve even more children in obligatory classes and save them from various social problems.
The information above proves that I have developed and conveyed the right campaign message that stands for a central theme of the whole campaign (Newell, Prindle, & Riddlesperger, 2016). The chosen problems have determined my campaign strategy and specific groups of voters who have voted for my candidacy. According to Newell et al. (2016), the promises to solve crucial issues are characteristic features of the Savior. As a result, a perspective of a better future for all Texas citizens makes various people support this campaign irrespective of their political beliefs, economic abilities, genders, and ages.
Summary of Formal and Informal Powers
As has been mentioned, the Governor of Texas has both formal and informal powers. Formal ones refer to those powers that are given to any person who holds this office, and a few particular examples represent them. According to Newell et al. (2016), tenure potential is positive because a person can serve an unlimited number of four-year terms if the population elects him or her. It results in an active political competition since the Governor’s opponents cannot just wait until the end of his or her office. Cooper, Knotts, and Ragusa (2016) state that the Governor also holds a significant power of appointing numerous officials. If these appointees do not perform their duties properly, this official has the right to remove them from office. However, this power does not apply to the officials who were appointed by the Governor’s predecessor. Furthermore, this person has the power to introduce some changes to the budget, offer long-term development strategies, influence the judiciary, and control the legislature by virtue of the veto (Newell et al., 2016).
In addition to that, the Governor has informal powers that are not provided by the Constitution. They depend on the personal and professional experience of the Governor, and every person who holds this office can have various informal powers. Thus, it refers to party power that is represented by the fact that the Governor is considered an integral part of the party he or she represents. Thus, the image of a corresponding party influences that of the given office. The power of popularity is closely connected with that of agenda-setting. When the Governor is popular among citizens, it is easier for him or her to influence public policy, while perfect communication skills are also useful here (Newell et al., 2016). Furthermore, the Governor has the power to represent the state on the national and international stages to further the interests of Texas. Finally, the Governor has the power of staff that is represented by two or three hundred people. This power refers to creating a coordinated and loyal team of professionals to implement public policy smoothly and effectively.
Formal Powers Applied to Issues
The Governor of Texas can exercise various legal powers to address the issues mentioned above. For example, the legislative powers, in general, and the right to veto, in particular, can be used to make the legislative branch pass necessary bills to address Mexican immigration. The budgetary powers will be enough to address the issue of upgrading the roads. It refers to the fact that the Governor can try to persuade the responsible officials to include appropriate funding into the budget. In addition to that, the Governor uses his or her judicial powers to influence the execution of capital punishments. Even though Texas is the only state where the Governor may not free a criminal from the death penalty, this official can recommend giving a pardon (Newell et al., 2016). Finally, the issue of k-12 education can be improved due to the appointing powers when the Governor appoints the right people who will be responsible for this improvement.
Informal Powers Applied to Issues
At the same time, the informal powers also allow influencing public policy. Thus, the issue of immigration can be resolved at an international level when the Governor exercises power to represent the state. The party power will be sufficient for solving the problem of the roads because the support of significant political entities will help influence the budget. Furthermore, the Governor can exercise the power of popularity and agenda-setting to decide on death penalty cases. If the judiciary refuses to follow the Governor’s recommendation, these powers will help create a mass media campaign that will influence this branch (Ramsey, 2018). Finally, the power of staff is useful for addressing the issue of education because experienced professionals should contribute to the solution of this case.
Contribution
The Governor of Texas is a significant official who is responsible for implementing public policy. That is why a person should address essential issues to be elected as the Governor. As for Texas, they are Mexican immigrants, the state roads, application of the death penalty, and education. A holder of this office has both formal and informal powers that help him or her influence various significant issues. It is reasonable to combine both these kinds of power to achieve the best results.
References
Cooper, C. A., Knotts, G., & Ragusa, J. (2016). The constrained governor: Exploring gubernatorial decision making on senate appointments. Political Research Quarterly, 69(3). Web.
Newell, C., Prindle, D. F., & Riddlesperger, J. (2016). Texas politics (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Texas has just ended its legislature for this year and has adjourned until the year 2017 for another 140 days of legislation. Any bill can now only be changed by emergency sessions if warranted by the lieutenant governor. With this conclusion, there have been various bills that have been passed into law and others pending the signature of the governor so as to become law (Kuehn, 2015). These regulations include, the use of cannabis oil in the control of seizures for epileptic patients, legislation on border security was passed increasing the number of troopers to manage the security. A bill on transportation improvements also sailed through. The ethics reform was unable to be passed by the legislators.
Guns are a very controversial subject all over the world. They are particularly controversial in America, and the capital city of all this gun frenzy is Texas. Reason activities associated with them are usually taken seriously. Gun legislation got passed and is presently waiting Governor Greg Abbot’s signature to become law (Brown, 2014). This paper seeks to profile the gun legislation. It aims to provide background into the contentious legislation, provide context by looking at the current political situation and the actions taken by the legislature with respect to this piece of rules. The conclusion of this paper gives an analysis into the future implication of this bill.
Background of the bill
This bill majorly focuses on the carrying of guns and has a few elements, including the ability to carry a gun openly provided you are permitted to own a handgun. The bill implies that an open carriage of Holstered gun allowed. Since 1995 Texans having trained in a shooting range, have been afforded the ability to carry concealed weapons and more precisely hand guns. Persons authorized to have handguns are now allowed to display guns since the concealing rules are lessening.
Texas legislature’s actions on the bill
Another measure of this legislation that was approved, is campus carry in which the lawmakers passed the carrying of a gun inside the university campuses (Brown, 2014). The bill was passed, but institutions were given the discretion of establishing some gun for free. This bill got primarily filed on November 10, 2014. It was first read on February 9, 2015. On the same day, it was referred to homeland security and public action. Presently it is waiting to be penned into law by the lieutenant governor. Other related legislations that involve guns and firearms legislation are, HB 106, HB 195, HB 291, HB 910, HB 415, HB 278, HB 415, SB 17 and SB 17. These House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) ranged from relating to the ability of an individual who is licensed to carry a handgun to carry the gun openly; providing penalties. A penalty gets imposed if one carries a gun to locations of higher populations such as universities and other public ventures.The main reasons for this are that legislation enhanced civil liberties and also ensured the responsible use of firearms. All these improve people’s security and their wealth. It sets a precedent to establish a new form of oversight when applied in full (Lane, 2014).
There were a lot of activities prior to the passing of this bill and after their passing, as various stakeholders in the security front sought to voice their opinions in one way or the other. There were over two rallies of licensed persons armed with small fire weapons to show their support for this legislation. Also, the social media mounts pressure on the legislators in favor of this bill (Kuehn, 2015). In this case, although there are persons of the contrary opinion, it is apparent that the majority was in favor. In the capital the gun rights activists and lobby groups were there in full swing to make their presence felt and seen. The majority of the tertiary learning institutions were cautious to allow the possession of firearms in their schools; their pressure yielded results in the form of the ability to come up with gun free zones. Also, the legal age to own a small gun being 21 means that the firearms will rarely be in the arms of a student. If a student is found to be in possession of a gun, then immediate action will be taken. With a two-thirds majority, or 94 to 42 against, this bill was indeed very well-known.
Conclusion
Indeed, it is imperative to understand the future implication of this legislation in the broader national context (Owings, 2011). Being a very contentious issue this issue is bound to illicit a lot of debate, more so on the national platform. If this bill proves a poor legislative decision, then certainly there will be the new policy formulation. Proper measures on these prohibited and unconcealed items should appropriate legislation to safeguard the public interest in these institutions. At this instant, however, the majority of the debate is centered on the carrying guns and its implications, especially considering the issue of its campus security (Masters, 2015).
References
Brown, W. (2014). Basic brown. New York, United States: Simon & Schuster.
Kuehn, B. (2015). Battle Over Florida Legislation Casts a Chill Over Gun Inquiries. Edinburgh, Scotland: A and C Black.
Lane, M. (2014). Gun Control. Sydney, Australia: HarperCollins Publishers.
Masters, B. (2015). Unbranded. College Station, Texas: A & M University Press.
Owings, L. (2011) The Newtown School Shooting. Hoboken, New Jersey: Pearson.
Texas Rangers is currently the oldest law enforcement agency in North America with statewide jurisdiction. The history of the Rangers can be traced to the early days of Anglo settlement in Texas. They are thought to be in the range of four other world-famous law enforcement agencies – the FBI, Scotland Yard, Interpol, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Many books, both fiction and non-fiction have been written about the Rangers and numerous media shows have been based on their heroic deeds.
As former Ranger Captain Bob Crowder once put it, “A Ranger is an officer who is able to handle any given situation without definite instructions from his commanding officer or higher authority” (Bernstein 50). This definition continues to remain valid till today though the Texas Rangers are today able to be more in contact with the rest of the world through modern technology.
Texas Rangers were a mounted fighting force established in 1835 during the Texan Revolution. By the opening of the Revolution, there were three races struggling for supremacy in Texas: Comanche Indians in the Plains; Mexicans in the southwest resting on the Rio Grande, and the Anglo Americans or Texans in the timbered portion of Mexican province. Each had to produce its fighting man. The Comanche had its warrior brave; the Mexican had his caballero, ranchero, or vaquero.
To meet these, the Texans created the Ranger who had to adapt his weapons, tactics, and strategy to those imposed by his enemies (Webb and Johnson 11). The Rangers became established as the guardians of the Texas frontier, particularly against Native Americans. They were said to “ride like Mexicans, shoot like Tennesseans, and fight like the very devil” (CE 52958) Thus, the Texan Rangers were a unique kind of police force that never underwent formal training, were not expected to follow norms such as saluting officers and wore neither uniforms nor any standard gear except the six-shooter (Utley 287). Initially, the Texas Rangers was made up of three companies of 25 men each (CE 52958).
In their first decade of operation, the rangers effectively quelled lawlessness in Texas on frequent occasions, and in the Mexican War (1846–48) they served as scouts and guerrilla fighters, gaining a wide reputation for valor and effectiveness. In the late 1850s, the rangers fought vicious battles with the Comanche, and in the Civil War, Terry’s Texas Rangers gained renown. In the Reconstruction era, the Texas Rangers were engaged to control outlaws, feuding groups, and Mexican marauders and were responsible for keeping law and order along the Rio Grande (CE 52958).
In 1874 the Texas Rangers were organized for the first time on a permanent basis in two battalions; one was assigned to arbitrate range wars on the frontier, and the other was sent to control cattle rustling on the Texas-Mexico border. In the 20th century the police responsibilities of the rangers, around whom much lore had built up, decreased, and by 1935 their numbers had diminished considerably. By act (1935) of the Texas legislature, the rangers were merged with the state highway patrol under the jurisdiction of the state department of public safety. The rangers now form an elite investigative squad within the Texas highway patrol. The first women rangers were admitted to the force in 1993.
The Texas Rangers played a huge role in the troubled history of Texas from the years of colonization to the present though there have been differences in policy, organization, demands for service, and state administrations. In 1821, Stephen F. Austin, known as the “Father of Texas,” made a contract to bring 300 families to the Spanish province, which now is Texas. By 1823, Texas was populated by 600-700 people who came from all over the United States.
As there was no army to protect them, Austin got the citizens together and formed a law enforcement force called the Rangers in 1823 (Utley 13). Soon, the Rangers had to look after the entire state and came to be known as the Texas Rangers. In 1835, 25 men under the command of Silas M. Parker, 10 men under Garrison Greenwood, and 25 men under D. B. Frazier were assigned to protect the frontiers of Texas from native Indians until the end of the Revolution.
Soon, the Texas Rangers expanded in strength. One of their early successes was when Sam Houston and his army defeated the troops of Santa Anna in the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836. During the period 1836-1845, the Texas Rangers made a name for themselves through their heroic acts especially in 1840 when there were many battles against the Indians such as the Council House Fight in San Antonio, the raid on Linnville, and the Battle of Plum Creek.
Texas seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy by the action of a convention on January 28, 1861, ratified February 23, 1861. Terry’s Texas Rangers, which was organized in Houston in 1861, became hugely popular under the able leadership of Colonel Benjamin Franklin Terry and contributed well to the Confederate Army. Texas was readmitted to the Union on March 30, 1870.
The darkest period in the history of the organization, the Period of Reconstruction (1865-1873), was the re-regimentation of the Rangers as the “State Police”. Under the administration of the Reconstructionist Governor E. J. Davis the State Police fell into disrepute among the war-weary citizens of Texas. In May 1874, under Governor Richard Coke, six companies of Texas Rangers, 75 men per company were established to protect the ranches and they came to be known as the Frontier Battalion. In the Frontier Battalion, Rangers were given the status of peace officers, whereas they earlier functioned as a semi-military organization. They were in an intermediate position between an army and a police force.
The Rangers were organized into companies, but not regiments or brigades. The company was in the charge of a captain or a lieutenant and sometimes a sergeant. The headquarters was in Austin where the captains reported to the headquarters office, who used to be the Secretary of War, later the Adjutant General, and currently, the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. Generally, the Ranger was called in where a case was considered too great a task for a local agency.
The Frontier Battalion was abolished in 1901 and Ranger Service was reorganized under a new law. Each Ranger was considered an officer and was given the right to perform all duties exercised by any other peace officer. Four events – the Mexican Revolution, World War I, oil booms, and prohibition – made demands on the Texas Rangers, which they could not meet. On August 10, 1935, the Texas Rangers became members of the Texas Department for Public Safety, with statewide law enforcement jurisdiction. The present-day Texas Rangers came into being on September 1, 1935.
The basic requirements for employment as a Department of Public Safety Trooper, which is the entry-level for commissioned officers, are the applicant must be at least twenty years of age and must have a minimum of ninety semester hours from an accredited college. Apart from these qualifications, there are a few special requirements needed to join the Texas Rangers and they are:
Each applicant must be a citizen of the United States of America, in excellent physical condition, and have an outstanding record of at least eight years experience with a bona fide law enforcement agency engaged principally in the investigation of major crimes. The applicant must be currently employed with the Texas Department of Public Safety in the position of a commissioned officer with the rank of at least Trooper II
Applicant must have a background subject to a thorough investigation, which would reflect good moral character and habits. Applicant must possess a valid Texas driver’s license free of any restrictions that would compromise the applicant’s ability to perform his duties.
An entrance examination will be given, and selected applicants with the highest scoring grades will appear before an Oral Interview Board before final selection.
Rangers are required to attend at least 40 hours of in-service training every two years, but for most Rangers, the training far exceeds the requirement. Some Rangers receive additional training in areas such as investigative hypnosis, which has played an important role in some criminal cases. In 2007 the average age of the Texas Rangers is 47. College hours had increased to an average of 117 hours, 41 Rangers have Bachelor’s degrees, 14 Rangers have Associates degrees, and 3 have Master’s degrees.
“They were men who could not be stampeded” – said the late Colonel Homer Garrison, Jr., longtime director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, describing the men who had won the silver or gold star of the Texas Rangers (TDPS 1). One of the most famous early-day Texas Rangers was John Coffee “Jack” Hays. He came to San Antonio in 1837 and within three years was named a Ranger Captain. Hays built a reputation fighting marauding Indians and Mexican bandits.
An Indian, who fought on the side of Hays and his men called him “bravo too much.” He helped to establish the Ranger tradition of mixing toughness with technology. Hays and men used the five-shot revolver, a weapon made by New England gun maker, Samuel Colt, with deadly effect in defense of the Texas frontier (Utley 4). In the period following the Mexican War, a popular Ranger was John S. “Rip” Ford, whose nickname stood for “Rest in Peace.”
He succeeded in driving away from the bandit Juan Nepomuceno Cortina in 1859 who sought to occupy all of Texas below the Nueces River (TDPS 1). Texas’ deadliest outlaw, John Wesley Hardin, a preacher’s son reputed to have killed 31 men, was captured in Florida by Ranger John B. Armstrong (Bernstein 50). Another well-known Texas outlaw who was gravely wounded by the Rangers was trained robber Sam Bass. When inmates in the Rusk State Hospital for the Criminally Insane rioted and took hostages in the 1950s, Ranger Captain R. A. “Bob” Crowder walked into the maximum-security unit armed only with the.45 on his hip.
Crowder and the leader of the mob had a conversation and the inmates surrendered. Again, during the same period, Rangers calmed down a violent steel mill strike in East Texas; shut down illegal gambling in Galveston, and participated in numerous cases (TDPS 1). Texas Rangers had to face issues such as local fights, bloody feuds, lynch mobs, cattle thieves, barbed wire fence cutters, killers, and other badmen. The Rangers usually prevailed.
Due to their acts of courage and fierce commitment to the cause of securing the borders of Texas, the Ranger acquired a reputation as a person who can be counted upon to take care of a situation beyond the means of local law enforcement. Adjutant General W. H. Mabry wrote of the Rangers in his 1896 report to the Legislature that “This branch of the service has been very active and has done incalculable good in policing the sparsely settled sections of the state where the local officers…could not afford adequate protection” (TDPS 1)
Presently, the activities of the Texas Ranger Division consist primarily of making criminal and special investigations; apprehending wanted felons; suppressing major disturbances; protecting life and property, and rendering assistance to local law enforcement officials in suppressing crime and violence. They also perform a wide range of criminal investigations including Murder, robbery, sexual assault, burglary, theft, and fraud; bank fraud; theft by credit card and computer-generated counterfeit checks; misuse of criminal history information; misconduct and corruption of public officials; threats against the governor and other state and federal officials; and missing persons, parental abductions, questionable deaths, and unidentified bodies.
The Texas Rangers are well equipped and they have at their disposal fingerprint and modus operandi files, police radio receivers, and the benefit of chemical ballistic and microscopic testing in their criminal investigations. They continue their services towards law enforcement and continue to remain since 1835, the premier law enforcement body for the people of Texas.
Works Cited
Bernstein, Andrew (2003). Old West Cowboy Ethic Is the American Way to Fight Evil. Insight on the News. Volume: 19. Issue: 8.
CE (Columbia Encyclopedia) (2007). Texas Rangers. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press. New York.
TDPS (Texas Department of Public Safety) (2008). Department of Public Safety – Texas Rangers. Web.
Utley, M. Robert (2002). Lone Star Justice: The First Century of the Texas Rangers. Oxford University Press. New York.
Webb, Walter Prescott and Johnson, Baines Lyndon (1989). The Texas Rangers: A century of Frontier Defense. University of Texas Press.
The United States is a superpower and its politics and governance are closely watched all over the world just like its November Presidential elections. According to Jaccs Howard Bear, “The United States is divided into East Coast, West Coast, and the Third Coast states. The west coast is made up of states such as California and Oregon that contact the Pacific Ocean. Los Angeles is also a west coast state. The east coast states edging the Atlantic Ocean from Maine down to Florida although New York City is mostly close in association with the “East Coast.” But the United States also has a third coast – or actually two of them – that stretches from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. Below are a few things about the American and Texas government and politics and some of which if given the mandate I can change.
According to studies that have been undertaken, Texas politics and government structure is federal in outlook. Texas government is divided into three sections just like the United States government i.e. executive, legislature, and the judiciary. Texas as a U.S state is headed by a governor who after appointment sits in office for a period of 4 years but can be re-elected for another term. In order for one to be elected to be a governor one should be thirty years and above and should have been staying in Texas for the past five years. In my opinion I can change this so that as long as one can vote, they can also be allowed to be voted as governors as long as they are elected
Texas governance structure is bicameral in nature and it consists of upper and lower houses. For both houses, elections are done after 2 years but those elected for the upper house stay in office for a period of 4 years as opposed to the lower house who sit in the office for a period of 2 years. To me, given the opportunity, I can change this so that all the elected persons for different houses should serve the same term that is for a period of 4 years.
The US states have a bicameral legislature consisting of the upper house called the Senate and the lower house called the House of Representatives. The senators stay in office for a period of 4 years but for the House of Representatives, they stay in office for a period of 2 years. Given the mandate, I can change the terms of office so that all members of the house serve in office for the same period of time.
In the election of the president, the process is indirect whereby first the voters vote for electors who later vote for the president. Every citizen should be allowed to vote for the president directly since once elected he will provide services to all the people. Therefore this should not be the work of the elected people but for all people.
In the US citizens who are 18 years and above qualify to vote except those who are convicted of a felony and this differs from state to state. All laws for states should be applied equally so that no state acts against a law that other states adhere to during the campaign so to me I can change this.
During the campaign, lots of money is needed and usually, in the US it’s raised through the internet for its citizens Usually Democrats get their finances to form organized labor and Republicans from business donations, but surprisingly there exist laws that regulate money spent on campaigns. To me, there should be no limit to the amount of money a party can budget for its campaign activities.
The US has 2 main parties that are the democratic party and the Republican Party but there exist other small parties e.g., Green card Party, Constitutional Party, libertarian Party, In depended Reform Party, etc. The two main parties are the ones who have the greatest influence over the small parties.
The major parties are the ones that battle out in the election of the country’s president but the small parties do not take part. All parties should be allowed to give their presidential candidates so that they battle out together before getting the overall winner.
America’s political parties have tended to be characterized by a weak central organization and little central ideology. Therefore the parties should clearly spell out their ideologies and create a central governing mechanism where members should adhere by committing themselves through a registration process and depending on the public offices that they obtained via the parties ticket if they change ideologies or attempt to rock their parties form within, or attempt to change parties.
In conclusion, a government and politics of a given country should be flexible in that they can be changed if the need arises. They should also be in favor of all its citizens regardless of their class. In doing this, the stability of a country will be strengthened.
In Florida, the judiciary consists of the county courts, circuit courts, the district courts of appeal, as well as the Supreme Court as the highest authority in the state. Judges in Florida courts are selected through two methods, the choice of which depends on the level and the authority of the court. For example, appellate court judges usually have to undergo the Missouri Plan, which is a process of assisted appointment.
The Missouri Plan or assisted appointment is a process in which the state governor along with a commission selects judges for state courts. Florida judges that operate in trial courts must then participate in the nonpartisan elections. The aim of such elections is not to narrow the number of candidates to two; on the contrary, the two most preferred candidates are usually presented at the start of the general election.
In Florida, Courts of Appeal and Supreme Courts require judges to have certain qualifications that include a range of aspects. For example, the judge must be under seventy years old, be a qualified elector and the resident of the state, as well as have ten years of experience in law before considering the ‘bench’. If a vacancy occurs during the midterm, the process of judge selection proceeds as it would in the case if it occurred at the end of a judge’s six-year term (Salokar, Berggren, & DePalo, 2013). Furthermore, separate counties within the state can choose one method of judge selection over another if they wish. The choice of another selection method requires at least ten percent of voters’ signatures and the subsequent petition filing.
Judicial Selection in Texas
In Texas, the selection of judges to state courts occurs via partisan elections at each level of the court. Unlike non-partisan elections, this type of election is characterized by candidates being associated with a political party. In Texas, Democratic and Republican candidates first go through a primary selection for winning a chance to represent their parties in the general election. This type of judge selection is applied to both initial and subsequent terms.
As to the appellate courts in the state of Texas, the judge has to be a United States citizen and the resident of the state, be licensed to practice law, aged between thirty-five and seventy-five (although judges aged older than seventy-four cannot run for office), and have ten years of law experience prior to being elected as a judge. Qualifications for judges in district courts vary from appellate courts’ requirements; for example, a candidate may be aged from twenty-five to seventy-five, have practiced law for four years, and be a resident of a specific judicial district for more than two years.
Lastly, the requirements for statutory county courts vary from the district and appellate courts. The candidate for the position of a judge must be at least twenty-five years old, be a resident or the county for at least two years, and have four years of law experience prior to considering becoming a statutory court judge (League of Women Voters of Texas, 2002).
Comparison
Overall, there are some differences between the ways in which the states of Florida and Texas conduct judicial selection. In Florida, all judges, except circuit court judges, are selected through the Missouri Plan that involves a nominating commission; however, all nominees must participate in partisan elections, in which candidates compete for the right to represent their political party. In Texas, district court judges are only selected to four-year serving terms while appellate judges serve six years in their positions.
On the contrary, all judges in Florida serve six years and have an opportunity to be elected again after their term ends (US Legal, 2016). The qualifications for judges in Florida and Texas are similar in some ways, although there are some minor differences. For example, the age threshold for judges in Florida is 70 while in Texas it is 75. Moreover, while appellate court judges in Florida have to be admitted to practice law in the state, in Texas all judges must have the license in order to be elected to such courts.
Despite the fact that in their jobs judges are granted independence, they must be held accountable for their actions and be removed from office for misconduct or other disciplinary reasons. In Florida, judges may be removed from office in two different ways. First, the judicial qualifications commission may recommend the Supreme Court to remove the judge from office, retire, or just discipline. Second, the two-thirds vote from the House of Representatives is capable of impeaching a judge while the two-thirds Senate vote can convict the judge for misconduct.
The process of removing a judge from office in Texas is more complicated and is comprised of four different options. First, the Supreme Court can remove judges from district courts. Second, the governor has a right to remove a judge when there is a complaint addressed by the two-thirds of the senate or the house of the representatives. Third, the full House of Representatives can impeach the judge while the two-thirds of the Senate can remove the judge from office.
Lastly, the judge can be removed with the help from the state commission on judicial conduct, which investigates as well as prosecutes misconduct. In cases when a commission issues a recommendation to remove a judge from office, the Supreme Court must present the commission’s findings before the tribunal that will analyze the findings and make the final decision. However, there is a possibility for the judge to appeal this decision.
Conclusions
The comparison of judicial selection processes in Florida and Texas has shown that states can approach the selection of judges to courts differently. If to compare the two approaches, Florida’s Missouri plan seems to have far more benefits than the partisan elections held in Texas. It seems more productive to have a nominating commission that reviews all candidates and then produces a limited list of individuals that are qualified for the position of a judge. Partisan elections may cost the state a lot, take much more time, and never guarantee that the judge will be accountable and responsive to the public that chose him or her to the office, despite the pressure to please the supporters during the period of elections.
Furthermore, after the judge finishes the six-year term, under the Missouri Plan, he or she may stand for a popular election to serve in the office for another term, without competing with the rest of the candidates. In such cases, judges have the option to ground his candidacy on previous work and experience while it is the job of the voters to decide whether a judge should be retained in the office for another six years.
References
League of Women Voters of Texas. (2002). Judicial selection in Texas: Nothing’s perfect. Web.
Salokar, R., Berggren, J., & DePalo, K. (2013). The new politics of judicial selection in Florida: Merit selection redefined. Justice System Journal, 27(2), 123-142.
Voter turnout is one of the determining factors of a healthy democracy as voters elect the kind of leaders that they think are competent to fulfill the different agendas espoused in different parties’ manifestos.
The effectiveness of the voting process can be measured by the proportion of people who cast their ballots, as some people may be discouraged from voting due to irregularities in the voting systems, which raises questions and doubts on the democratic sincerity of a given political setting.
Hence, voter turnout should be a cause of concern to the government as the elected leaders should be a representative of the majority of eligible voters and unequal involvement can alter the pattern of representation and this aspect has real effects on policy outcomes and governance.
Texas is the second most densely inhabited of all the 50 states of the United States, and thus one would expect that should also rate second or even first in the rating of voters who cast their ballots during elections. Unfortunately, this expectation is unrealistic as compared to other states, Texas has 36 percent voter turnout, which is among the lowest ratings in the country.
This scenario is a very crucial problem in Texas, as the residents do not seem to be interested in participating in their democratic right of electing their leaders of choice.
One of the factors that appear to be influencing this low voter turnout is the two-party system in the US (Bessette and Pitney 83). This system only gives an option of choosing between two contestants during the general election, and this aspect has greatly influenced Texas politics as one of the parties has always dominated politics for a long period.
The Republican Party, which has remained dominant for decades with increasing expensive campaigns and continued support from the Latino community, has discouraged the Democrats from participating in the voting process as they feel that they are outnumbered. This aspect implies that as the popularity of the Republican Party continues to increase, the Democratic Party popularity is declining.
For example during the 2010 general election, the Texas politics were mainly dominated by the race between two Republicans, which attracted an overwhelming turnout of 1.4 million people from the Republican side. The Republican governor, Rick Perry, who won the primary vote, defeated Bill White from the Democratic side by a very large margin.
This trend is very worrying as Texas politics is being dominated by only one party and many people from the Democratic Party fail to vote since they do not think that their vote will make a difference due to the tyranny of numbers of the other party. The result of such a trend is the worrying 36 percent turnout of voters despite the fact that 61.6 percent of Texans are eligible for voting.
Education level is another factor that has contributed to the low voter turnout in Texas. Educated people are better decision-makers and they know the role that they need to play in electing leaders who will bring changes to the society.
Unfortunately, the education level in the state of Texas has been ranked below the national level, especially among the African Americans and Hispanic communities whose voter turnout is very low. These communities, due to their poor education background, seem to have no knowledge of the political system of the state and hence the lack of interest in participating in the election process.
As a very populous state, Texas is home to many young people who have attained the required voting age of 18 years. This young generation does not see the need to be involved in political matters, which clearly shows that age is another determining factor in the low voter turnout rate, as few young people are likely to vote as compared to the older generation (Bessette and Pitney 142). The youths in Texas lack crucial knowledge that voting is their civic duty and despite their tender age, they can shape the state by casting their ballots.
Income level among different families is also another factor that has influenced the issue of low voter turnout in Texas. The income levels in Texas also rate below the national level and the state ranks nine in the percentage out of all the other states in relation to people living in poverty due to low-income levels.
Such people are less likely to vote as they lack the motivation to do so probably because they have other issues to deal with instead of voting. Therefore, people with low income are less likely to vote as compared to high-income earners. The example of voter turnout in the Collin County where people have better sources of income and the voter turnout was higher as compared to the Starr County where people have low income and the turnout was below 36 percent, which shows how income affects voter turnout.
Conclusion
Democrats in Texas should mobilize their supporters and source for more funds that they can use during their campaigns to avoid the problem of the Republican Party dominance in the state. This move will not only increase the voter turnout but also competition in the election of the best leader from the two parties.
The state should also realize that voter turnout is also a subject to socioeconomic factors such as education, and thus raise the education levels to the national standards not forgetting to be actively involved in voter education programs. This way, a majority of the Texans will appreciate and embrace their civic duty to vote, and thus probably increase the voter turnout in the area.
Works Cited
Bessette, Joseph, and John Pitney. American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship, Boston: Wadsworth Publishing, 2013. Print.