GOV310 – In The News: A look at national politics through the eyes of Texas, June 12, 2018

[0:00:00 Speaker 1] in the news.

[0:00:08 Speaker 5] Patty. I’m Professor Shaw

[0:00:09 Speaker 4] and Professor McDaniel. Welcome to in the news for American and Texas Politics Week to as right

[0:00:15 Speaker 3] week to all right. We wanted to just make a couple of announcement with respect to the logistics of the class before we get into the substance of the in the news segment, Um, as you know, and if you don’t know you know now the exam first exam will be next Monday. Correct? First, make sure going to get it exactly right. So that’s Monday, June 18th. So check with canvas or your syllabus to get the specs on that. If you have any questions or comments, you can email Professor McDaniel or myself. I have office hours on Thursday. Professor McDaniel has his traditional office hours as well this week. Um, so let’s get that going. Oh, small point. Also, please email Professor McDaniel and I directly to our U T E mails. Please don’t use canvas. It’s It’s just a little inefficient. And sometimes when we respond, it doesn’t go directly to your email. And so there could be some misinformation if you use canvas, so please email us directly. I would encourage you to email professor and myself and Philip and J the T A’s. So there’s kind of a nice stream and we can get, you know, with you put four people on the thread. The chances of us getting back to you very quickly are much higher. So anything else you want to mention on those sorts of

[0:01:30 Speaker 4] Thanos that’s really the key thing is being aware of the exam, but also the emails

[0:01:35 Speaker 5] got a weird exams. All right, so what we got this week,

[0:01:38 Speaker 4] so we’ll start off with is talking about what was supposed to be a really big thing, but kind of ended for some people with a thud. And that is the cake case. But the Supreme Court handled this. Dealt with a baker and Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex ceremony. And the baker our argument as an artist, you know that because of my religious beliefs, and this is an artistic expression that everything I do is is an example of how I feel that doing this violates my religious views, and the state of Colorado actually ruled in favor of the same sex couple. It was challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the banker, however, and this is a 72 decision in a 72 decision that World in favor of the baker, however, made people painted this decision. A decision is very narrow, where they did not say yes, you have the rights refuse service in the biggest because of religious beliefs or no, you don’t have the right to do this. They actually ruled in favour the baker because of the way in which the Colorado board, which oversaw this, made their decision. They felt that they overly discounted the Baker’s religious beliefs. And so this is really more of an administrative issue. And so the way the court made their decision, it was more about the, um, the administration, as opposed to the actual civil liberty civil rights issue that that we’re hoping to have resolved. And so what this does it does open up the door for future cases like this. As we try to figure out how do we balance individual the rights of groups with the rights of individuals, and how are we able to allow individuals to live their lives as they see fit without interfering. What? The way other people spiel, they should live their lives, they see fit. And so again, this is really a conflict of rights and liberties. And how to resolve this Supreme Court really did not resolve that what they really dealt with was an administrative issue. And so this has not been resolved and made people bargain. This is gonna be a political issue for the 2018 midterms as we see this as a way of fighting over religious liberty versus of the rights of other individuals.

[0:04:04 Speaker 3] You know, Look, this is a fascinating case, too Small points, and I’ll get out the The one small point I would begin with is that, you know, for our purposes, for purposes of an intro American government class, this is a really interesting case because on the one hand you have a baker who says you know, I have to have the right. You know, Teoh, because of my religious beliefs, I do not wish to contribute to this same sex union. It’s my business, you know. It’s not a public business, so you’re forcing me to provide a service. Is tantamount to infringing upon my religious freedoms. On the other hand, you have a same sex couple who says, Look, we just you know, this is a person who’s selling things and has refused to sell them to me. I mean, how is this different than civil rights cases involving, you know, African Americans and discrimination in the 19 fifties sixties? So when Professor McDonald talks about the resolution of these conflicts, that’s what he’s talking about. What the court said in the case was that the Colorado board had essentially not even really considered religion. In fact, the Colorado board, if you go read their take on the case, was pretty incendiary. I mean, essentially, what they said was religion. Religion’s been used to justify genocide and racism for sentient slavery. Religion doesn’t really, and that is what really formed the basis of the majority’s opinion. The majority on the court Supreme Court said the state needs to clean up its business here. The state did not in fact set. Thies writes up as competing rights and then adjudicate that they just didn’t even count the religious. So for those of you out there who are concerned about my Gosh, does this mean, you know you can have discrimination justified by religion? I wouldn’t go there, I think is Professor McDonald’s suggested that decision is coming. And my guess is that that that will probably be consistent with the civil rights decisions we’ve seen in the past, which is, Look, if you set up a shop, you know you can’t deny service to people on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etcetera. That’s that’s That’s a guess on my part. The court did not rule that here they put off the ruling second point. This is a small technical point. Since we’re doing a class in government, we want to talk about the courts. It was interesting that it was a 72 decision is Professor McDaniel said. So the conservatives sided with, you know, the right of the individual or basically slapped down the state’s ruling, saying, You have to sell the cake. But the two liberals Kegan, uh Elena Kegan and Stephen Breyer cited with the majority. I think the reason they did that was to get their opinions into the majority opinion. In other words, I think they were setting the table for the decision that’s coming in the future about these larger issues of religious liberty versus, you know, civil rights and rights of people to be served right. And if they hadn’t done that, if they just said, Well, you know, that’s a technical issue But we think the bigger issue is this and we’re gonna be with the minority, the minority, by the way, in this case, the two on the other side were Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They wouldn’t have gotten that in the majority opinion. So in this sense, I think it was a strategic move on the part of the two liberals to set the table for the subsequent decision. So that’s my take. Those are the two points I wanted to make with respect that we got

[0:07:16 Speaker 4] some other stuff going on, though obviously way next in our home. So there is the G seven summit, and someone will be asking, What’s the G 77 Professor? So it’s not a new rap group. As I thought. I owe something to kind of the Wu Tang clan. No, Actually, the G seven is an annual meeting amongst really the economic heavy hitters and internationally, so you have Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany or the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, European Union, along with the along with the U. S. As part of this now one point time, Russia was part of this, but it was removed in 4014 because of its annexation of Crimea of Crimea, which is in the Ukraine. And so, because of Russia’s kind of aggression, acts of aggression, it was removed from the summit. Now the summit is mainly there for to talk about really economic issues the global economic issues, Nash security issues, but also things dealing with the environment and things of that nature. Now one of the things about this summit that stood out was that, as you’ll see from the picture that’s kind of become viral is that it’s been treated as President Trump versus everyone else. Why

[0:08:37 Speaker 1] would you get

[0:08:37 Speaker 3] that impression from this picture?

[0:08:39 Speaker 1] I don’t know,

[0:08:39 Speaker 4] Uh, but this picture, and so I mean in many of things that they agreed upon that they would normally agree upon President Trump said, No, I don’t I don’t agree upon this, and this is part of President Trump’s trend of really pulling out of a number of national of international agreements such as the Transpacific Partnership, the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear deal. And there’s also the fate of NAFTA. Which is why I guess, what, 25 years old, the North

[0:09:07 Speaker 3] American Free Trade Agreement and the U. S. Canada and Mexico.

[0:09:10 Speaker 4] And so I mean, it’s old enough to run a car now. But President Trump is basically argued that many of these deals have put the U. S at an economic disadvantage, and they’re gonna be think of his campaign rhetoric. It really stressed this idea of making the U. S A more powerful in the in the international market and the idea that US was getting the short end of, ah, variety of these these economic bargains. And so this is part of his plan in many ways to move unilaterally, not work with other nations but for the nation, really toe workout do its best for its interest on in his eyes. This will improve the U. S economy and allow the US to have a stronger foothold within the within the international or global perspective. I just wanted

[0:10:01 Speaker 5] to go back if we could get that picture up again. My observations air Not terribly political science, either. Mawr sort of public relations. If I were Trump’s advisors, political advisers, I love this picture. This picture went out. It was actually leaked by the Germans, was from a from a secret meeting, released a non public meeting. And it was meant Teoh kind of demonstrate to the world that, you know, Trump had to isolate himself and was, you know, at odds with these other countries. What wasn’t getting with the program was being ahbd aerate. But I got to tell you, you look at Angela Merkel there, who has her hands on the desk. She’s the chancellor, President Germany. And then Thea, Prime Minister of Japan, is sitting there with his arms folded. Kind of looking off. I got to say Trump did very well in the election by talking about reasserting American authority America. We’re gonna be so tired of winning, we’re going to sick of winning. If I’m trump supporters, I’m look at that picture and you forgive my lapse in history right now. But I’ve got the Germans and the Japanese who are unhappy with America, you know, sort of asserting its independence. I’m not so sure. This is a picture that damages Trump amongst his supporters. And again, I’m not talking about the coherence of the policy or whether Trump is right to want to re negotiate these deals. I’m just talking about the optics of it s Oh, it’s funny. I think it was. It’s a picture designed T leak to hurt Trump in tow. Isolate him. Uh, I’m not so sure Trump would be dissatisfied with his picture. So you all have it,

[0:11:41 Speaker 3] and you can kind of draw your own conclusions. My guess is, you know, the lens through which you view that picture depends upon your attitudes towards Trump in the first place. Uh, if you don’t like him, that picture just shows wide. Nobody likes him and reinforces your view. And if you like him, you look at that picture. You’re like, Yeah, that’s exactly why we like him so and that we’re getting a lot of that in American politics lately.

[0:12:02 Speaker 4] Yeah, one of things that’s important over. You’re seeing this now. One within American politics, but also in other nations eyes this growing populism and people talk about populism a lot. But the way I understand populism is really this rhetoric in which, um, politician argues that the that there’s some type of corruption amongst the elite, and there’s some level of nobility amongst the masses, and it kind of pits the masses. Bursts of subsection believe who they believe are are able and corrupt. And so you see this coming out of President Trump’s rhetoric. But you also see it coming out of Bernie Sanders rhetoric as well. And so it’s very important to say that people talk about populism, populism many ways say that bears the people who are pure good of heart, who are being led astray by this thing section of the elite. And we need to control these groups. And so much of the rhetoric coming out of President Trump and also it coming out of Bernie Sanders, was this idea that Americans, the rial Americans and again we could debate about who the real Americans are are getting the short shrift or being cheated by these elites, and that I am going to give power back to you. And so you see that you see this going on. So it’s not just the coastal elites that have been attacked, but also this idea. Other nations with a rope of globalization, These other nations are dictating what the U. S does. And because of that, that has undermined the nation’s mission. And so this is really moving back to new honestly, isolationism per se, but a very focused on unilateral that we don’t care what you think. We’re gonna do things our way. You did not tell us what to do.

[0:13:41 Speaker 5] Okay, We want to speak now. You know, the modules that you’re going to see we’re transitioning now, obviously is. You’re getting through the first set of modules. Lectures that focus on the Constitution and federalism and civil rights and civil liberties will be moving into institutions and public opinion in voting. And I did want to take advantage of the elections that occurred on June 5th. Ah, week ago, Um, that they’re gonna be very important setting the table for the 2018 midterm elections. And so last week, we had midterm. Uh, we had primaries in California, in Alabama, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, new Mexico and South Dakota. Ah, whole hodgepodge of different states. I’m not gonna go

[0:14:22 Speaker 3] over the results of those primaries except to say that there were some it. If you’re interested in reading the tea leaves, that is tryingto ascertain what’s gonna happen in the fall

[0:14:32 Speaker 5] based on what happens in the primaries, you kind of have a field day with some of the

[0:14:36 Speaker 3] primary results in California. They have this bizarre primary system where everybody is listed on the same ballot, so there’s not a Republican ballot. And, ah, Democratic ballot like there, for instance, there is in Texas, um, everybody’s listed on the same ballot. And it’s not the top Republican, the top Democrat that advanced. It’s the top two vote getters. It’s called a jungle primary. Um, and one of things you can do is take a look at the total votes for the Republican in a district across the state, and the toll votes for Democratic candidates

[0:15:06 Speaker 5] and add them up and say, like, Oh, well, the Democrats look like there’s there’s more enthusiasm on their side or vice versa. Uh, you know, you’ve seen articles on both sides talking about how

[0:15:18 Speaker 3] to read the June 5th primaries. On the whole, I

[0:15:21 Speaker 5] think, you know, it doesn’t do anything to dissuade people from thinking that the Democrats are gonna have a

[0:15:27 Speaker 3] good year in 2018 for reasons we’ll talk about just a sex. So I just want to say a couple of things. So all that was on June 5th. But it’s pursuant to the election that’s coming up this November, and I just want to say a couple things. So these air midterm elections there for Congress every two years. All 435 members of the House are up for election, right? So the entire House will be up for election and then 1/3 of the Senate. As you all know from reading your Constitution, they’re staggered terms for the Senate. So out of the 100 members, 33 or 34 will be up in any given year. There’s a couple more than 33 this time around because 35

[0:16:02 Speaker 5] elections, because it will be a special election in Minnesota, Al Franken’s replacement in Minnesota will be up for a confirmatory election. There is, ah, another special election in Mississippi. There may be depending upon John McCain’s health special election in Arizona. You know, good luck to John McCain. Hope he makes it, but if he doesn’t, there could be another election there, so they’ll be a relatively high number of Senate elections. But so what do we think about these? Let me let me pop up just to kind of give you a sense of this. The New York Times has a nice map on this. So if you guys take a look at this to reclaim the house, the Democrats need to flip 24 Republican seats. GOP Stands for Grand Old Party It’s, Ah, nickname for the Republicans, they said. 25 of those seats are in Clinton territory. So what the Times article is saying is that there are the Democrats need to pick up 24 seats there, 25 seats out there currently held by Republicans but that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. So these are the obvious targets, right? And have a nice graphic here, right up at the top. You see ratings for each of the House races from solid Democrat. They’ve got 180 to 435 seats, or solve a Democrat, two solid Republican, 172 solid Republican seats. But I want you guys to concentrate on these in the middle. So 10 lean Democrat, 20 to toss ups and 16 lean Republicans. And you see down here they’ve got those graphically arrayed by the presidential vote margin in each district. So you take a look at those toss ups and those air seats that the Democrats are going to need to pick up a disproportionate amount of, and they’ve got them arrayed by how how they went in the last presidential election. So that will give you a sense by I think, by and large, the consensus amongst the smart people certainly extends beyond are set here today eyes that the Democrats will probably be able to pick up the 24 seats they need, but I think there’s, Ah, high degree of variability there. So remember before 2016 people thought that Hillary would probably win the election, but there was a high degree of uncertainty about that. I would put our current situation kind of in that same category if you put a gun to my head and said, pick, say, the Democrats probably pick up the seats and retake the house, but high degree of variability there right now, for if you want a visual orientation here. This is nice. Website to 72. Win. Um, let’s see. Extinct was starting, but let me go up here. Interactive house map. Let’s seize. Let’s go with the current house. So you get that going here way. Seem to have getting a little bit of trouble. You see, if I could get that No. Okay, so I can’t get that. We’ll see if I could go to the Senate. Let’s move from the house over to the Senate. If the Democrats are kind of, you know, look like they’ve got a decent chance to take over the house. What about the Senate? And this map here shows the blue its great out. It means there’s no Senate election in this cycle. Okay, so you see, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, no Senate elections there. Uh, the colored states have an election. Um, the blue states are where there is a Democrat seeking to be reelected. So, for instance, California has Dianne Feinstein’s. That’s blue. The red are states where there are Republican senators seeking reelection. Sina’s Texas’s red. That’s the Ted Cruz seat, and the tan states mean there’s an election, but it is considered a toss up right now. So, for instance, you’ll see Nevada. That’s a Republican seat. But right now the incumbent Republican senator is in a very tough battle. In Arizona, there’s a retired Jeff Flake retired the Republican senator, so that seat is considered a toss up. Okay, now what s so There’s a lot of tossup seats here, but what I would emphasize And this is why the Democrats are in not the best shape with respect to the Senate, is you notice how many Blue states air the tons of Democrats were seeking reelection. And most of the tan states are actually seats that are held by Democrats where the Democrats are seeking to hold. But they’re considered tossups now. So if you start from the West to the East, you see Nevada and Arizona those air toss up states. Those are actually Republican seats. So those air chances for the Democrats to pick up seats. The Democrats need to pick up two seats, nor to flip the Senate. All right, um, so you’d say like, Well, Shaw, Nevada, Arizona. There’s a good chance is right? Yeah, except Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Florida, Ohio, West Virginia. Those are all Democratic seats. All of them are Democratic seats, right and Democratic seats where the Democrats are considered odds on, you know, we’re gonna have a very tough time defending those seats. In other words, this time around, the Democrats are defending many more seats than the Republicans. So even if they pick up a couple, they could lose. Because there’s so many targets of opportunity here. I think I misspoke. Tennessee is a Republican seat, by the way. So Tennessee is, Ah, chance for the Democrats to pick up. So Tennessee, Nevada and Arizona our chances where the Democrats can pick up. But they have to successfully defend all those other seats in order to have a shot at retaking the Senate. Okay, so that map by So this is the from the website to 72 win. You can kind of do your own maps. You will give you the races, and you can fill them in and kind of monkey around with it. You can also do that for presidential races, so it’s kind of a cool sight for those of you who are, you know, kind of geeky and want to see how I love maps. Hopefully, you guys like maps. You kind of monkey around with those. So all right, that’s more than you wanted to know. But it’s an election year. We just have these primaries in personally. Daniel, I want to give you a little bit of a primer on what to expect moving forward. So, you know, in the House, Democrats, you know, the out party tends to pick up in the first year after a presidential election, and they don’t need that much. On average, a 20 seat pickup is about what you would expect. So we’re right in that kind of sweet spot for the Democrats. So it looks okay in the Senate, it’s just a really tough map. This is the class that was elected in 2012 Obama’s reelect here. And so you could argue there are a lot of seats to the Democrats currently hold, but they’re not really Democratic states. So it’s just places like Montana, North Dakota, Missouri States like that one might expect without President Obama at the top of the ticket, that the Republicans would have an advantage in those states. Okay, so that’s all. I got any insight here.

[0:22:52 Speaker 4] I mean, it’s and this primary is also important is again given idea of the direction that the party is trying trying to go. And so we’ve seen that in many of the primaries that, at least for the Republican primaries, that if the candidate does not have President Trump’s blessing, there’s been some pushback against them. But also the Democratic Party won. The problem they have is there’s a lot of attempts like, OK, we can gain seats. But is there actually some level of cohesion amongst the group? So are they a party with actual plans and that nature or they just the part of the anti Trump party? So just as the Republican Party was accused of being the the anti Obama party, do the do the Democrats actually have a clear plan. And again there’s an internal war there that even if they do get, get control of the house, will be able to work cohesively on. So really, the easy part is getting control. The hard part is actually getting things through, and that is the really the next step. The primaries kind of give us an idea of who is being put forward and the direction of the party will head. Yeah,

[0:23:58 Speaker 3] and this is a trickiness to this, To a lot of our attention has been focused on the Republicans because they control the White House, the both houses of Congress.

[0:24:06 Speaker 5] And I had a friend actually just emailed me and said, You know, what

[0:24:10 Speaker 3] is the Republican Party even stand for anymore? And I figured out exactly what my response is going to be. But one of the things I will put in my responses I think this is a problem for both parties. It’s not clear to me is Professor McDaniels suggested the Democrats are anti trump. But, you know, within the Democratic Party, for instance, is the party going to move more towards his strong progressive agenda? You know, in the service of a lot of groups that have particular social identities, Is it gonna be the party that serving you know, African Americans and Latinos and Asians and lbgt que, uh, you know communities? Or is it a party that you know is gonna kind of return to its new deal Great society roots, where it’s working to try to benefit people on class lines and working class Americans of all stripes? And there

[0:25:01 Speaker 1] is a tension

[0:25:02 Speaker 3] there. About, you know, is the role of identity politics, that sort of new generation of voters versus traditional blue call or, you know, Democratic appeals. And you know, this is what Trump is doing. By the way, Trump is working really hard to remove. The notion of the Democratic Party is the party of the white working class and workers generally, and this is something that is clearly happening. So I have beneath the radar screen. I just think it’s not getting as much attention as you might think. Last week, Trump pardoned a couple prominent African American. One historical figure, Jack Johnson Theater, more contemporary figure, had been in prison for years and years for for a kind of minor drug claim. This stuff is, Trump is pointedly working, too kind of undermined the Democratic Party’s hold on these traditional Democratic you know communities. And it’s it’s interesting if nothing else. One other thing eyes, lungs were talking about elections will close this out. Another important Supreme Court decision. I think Professor Dan, you want to mention the Ohio case.

[0:26:03 Speaker 4] Yes. So the Supreme Court ruled yesterday and support of the state of Ohio for its voter purging voters on its roles. And so there was a federal law passed that said, if you’re not vote in two consecutive federal elections and did not reply to a postcard sent to your household that you would be purged from the voting rolls on. And so there was an individual in Ohio who had lived in his residence for 16 years. But because he did not vote in consecutive federal elections and not replied postcard, when he went to vote, he he was no longer registered. And so he was suing, saying that with way in which the state took purge them was arbitrary. The Supreme Court, in a 54 decision, ruled on and support the state, saying that you know that you may think this is arbitrary, but this is the law. And so what? Congress to change the law than Congress will. We’ll have to do this. And this has really become this really the new frontline of fights over voter registration. So will it be voter? I d purging a voter roll, voter rolls things, that nature. There seems to be this oncoming battle or ongoing battle regarding what are we going to do in terms of it’s protecting the right to vote. And so there are these concerns that the right to vote is under attack, and the Supreme Court in many ways has buffeted those who believe No, we’re trying to root out voter fraud, things of that nature and has raised concerns for those who believe that that voters voting rights are under attack.

[0:27:39 Speaker 3] This is this was a really interesting case. You know, this this individual in Ohio had voted in 2004 had voted again in 2008 but it decided in 2012 that he didn’t like any of the candidates and so had not voted in the federal election. Now Ohio law says that if you miss a federal election, they send you a postcard because they’re concerned that so many people move that there’s a bunch of people registered residence is that they’re not actually at All right, So this is part of the Ohio procedure, and they send you, ah, postcard and they say, like you need to respond to the postcard, tell us whether you’re still living here, and if you don’t respond to the postcard, you could be purged from the voter rolls, and I think it’s if you if you don’t respond, then you don’t vote in the next election or something like that. I think that’s the technical eso. Ohio’s defense was that Look, you know, we’re allowed to do this as a state. We have the right under federal law to establish, you know, who’s a registered voter who’s not, and we had this procedure, and the individual, you know, involved in the case said, This is a ridiculous procedure and violates my right to vote. I did not move. And to me, what was interesting is Professor McDaniel alluded to This is obviously part and parcel This conflict between really Republicans and Democrats have partisan views on this, although it really shouldn’t be because I think Republicans think that there’s all this army of people out there who are not really registered. But, you know, Democrats sneak out of the roles and then vote, and they all vote for Democrats. And the Democrats are concerned. The Republicans are trying to disenfranchise everybody who’s not a you know, a white, upper class, Republican looking individual, so there’s a bit of paranoia not saying it’s not justified but a bit of paranoia on both sides, with Democrats talking about suppression of the vote and Republicans talking about voter fraud. Okay, but what Alito did Justice Alito in writing the majority opinion here had a really interesting point, Alito said. Look, you know, this is a federal law that allows the states to do this, And the claim was his Professor McKenna correctly said the claim was law was arbitrary. And what the court ruled here, this was 54 Think right, professor 54 So this really was the conservatives voting one way, the liberals voting the other. What Alito said writing for the majority was that Ohio had the right to do this. They had the right to establish this procedure, and the procedure was not, in fact, arbitrary. So they didn’t really touch on or they tried not to touch on these issues about voter suppression and this sort of thing. Now the minority writing opinion said, You know, what are you talking about? This is clearly at the heart of this issue. All right, so they said, Look, the majority can say what they want, but this is really about thes voting rights issues the majority said no, it’s actually about Ohio’s right to have an established procedure by which you do this. So the opinions are kind of interesting. I wouldn’t looked at the opinion in the minority opinion. They talked about how well we know from social science. That’s where we come in, that people don’t tend to respond to these postcards and the response rate. So you’re knocking a bunch of people off the voter files simply because people don’t respond to these these enquiries and which is an interesting point. But Justice Alito and writing for the majority said, Look, these air studies that aren’t actually relevant to the case at hand. And besides, the minority has got this sort of odd, you know, kind of selective use of empirical evidence that we’re not all that interested in here cause it’s not central to the case. The case is whether Ohio had a systematic procedure for doing what they’re entitled by federal law to do. So. It’s really interesting. I you know, professor again, I love this stuff and we’re probably more enthusiastic about it than you are, but we want to kind open your eyes to this sort of thing. There’s all these interesting issues in here, right? You know, the rights of minorities, partisan politics, The politics of the court in the Ohio case had it all. So smallest decision compared to maybe the attention that goes to the cake case, but an important decision for American politics,

[0:31:37 Speaker 4] Very much so. I mean, now they’re key thing about this is really about registration. And there are a few states Minnesota, which have same day registration when these states is not really a problem. And they actually do have higher voter turnout rates. And so there’s really been this push for Why don’t why, don’t all say just have same day registration. If Minnesota can do it, other states could pull it off. And so you don’t run into these problems. You have to worry about this fear. Voter suppression, however, states for a variety of reasons, set forth their registration guidelines and be truthful unless, unless they violate federal law, they’re allowed to do. Do these things were

[0:32:14 Speaker 3] also talking? Produced McDaniel. I’ve talked about this offline about online registration, which I think it’s coming online. Registration is almost certainly going to be happening in factors court cases right now that argue that if you do not provide, if you provide online uh, access to a driver’s license through the D. M. V. Department of Motor Vehicles, or DPS in case of Texas that you have to provide registered voter registration online because that’s part of of the motor voter Act that Congress passed back in the 19 nineties that you know that you can register at the D. M. V when you go to get your license. Well, if you get your license online than the state has an obligation to provide online voter registration service. So that’s another case that is gonna be important and impactful in the near future. So what else? We got a couple of things. Sorry to tax your patients, but maybe summer. But we have a lot of stuff going on here.

[0:33:10 Speaker 4] Yeah, I mean, this is one of Supreme Court’s. This is really start rolling out, and there are a couple decisions that were made there that came out earlier on one. This is I want to focus on really deals with collective bargaining amongst employees and, really, really well with class action suits on the part of employees towards employers. And so we

[0:33:29 Speaker 5] take this because I got nothing way have a video. Good

[0:33:34 Speaker 8] Epic Systems, the Wisconsin based health care software company, saw a victory this week after the U. S Supreme Court ruled in their favor. The 5 to 4 ruling says that employees cannot join together in legal action for issues that happen at work. This joining together, sometimes referred to as collective or class action, is common. When people have similar smaller claims, they come together and pull their resource is to make their case in 2014 Epic Systems established a non disclosure agreement requiring employees toe waive their right to collective legal action. Employees also had to sign on to an arbitration agreement, meaning that disputes had to be settled out of court when cases are settled through arbitration there. Legally honored under the Federal Arbitration Act, arbitration can be seen as a quicker and cheaper alternative to settling a disagreement. But only cases brought to court information from arbitration proceedings is usually confidential and not available to the public. The agreement Epic Systems had its employees sign onto, said that problems with the employer must be settled through arbitration and on an individual basis. Agreeing to both of these was required in order for employees to keep their jobs. The four judges who ruled against Epic systems argued that the law under the National Labor Relations Act is broadly meant to protect workers from the power of their employers. They contend that employees have the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection. The five judges that ruled in favor of epic systems argue that those concerted activities refer to collective bargaining, not class action lawsuits, and that changes to the law must be made by Congress, not by the court. Arbitration agreements are becoming increasingly common. A recent report from the left leaning Economic Policy Institute estimates 60 million employees are subject to mandatory arbitration procedures. For

[0:35:50 Speaker 1] these and other fast fax, visit wpt dot org’s.

[0:35:56 Speaker 4] So this case is very interesting because we think with me too movement and specifically concerns about gap, weight of wage in the gender gap in pay wage that the there are concerns that women now if they want to take up these types of cases, have to take them up individually, and there’s a concern that in arbitration because you were on your own. You may have to have as many resource is that it’s you versus the employer. An employer has more power, and so this is seen as kind of undercutting attempts for employees to deal with systematic problems. And so they’re dealing with systematic problems on the individual basis. And also it makes May minute leans means a lot of action instead of something being done that affects the entire company. It helps all of the employees it’s really employed by by employees on doing this. And so this is seen as a roadblock for dealing with a variety of problems that employees may have with their employer, whether it be the gender pay gap, whether B some other type of issue that this in many ways makes their attempts to improve the workforce at the individual level as opposed to a company wide who?

[0:37:08 Speaker 3] Good stuff, you know, this is again this, you know, we’re talking about populism. We’re talking about questions of equality, and one of the themes that we wanted to draw your attention to is we’re talking about civil liberties and civil rights is, And as we talk about some of these court cases is this notion of sort of groups and groups receiving protections under the Constitution or not receiving protections under the Constitution. We think of the Constitution’s protecting individuals, you know, as individual citizens who have a freedom of speech, right to assemble freedom of religion. But you know, the history. The United States has shown that the Constitution is in broad parts, been applied to groups as well as individuals on. And that’s it. The at the core of some of these cases involving arbitration rights and going moving to things like Campaign Finance and the Citizens United Decision, where, you know, groups were found to have the same free speech protections as individuals. It’s just sort of fascinating. We think of the Constitution is being very much designed to protect the rights of individuals. But, you know, it’s been viewed more expansively and not just recently throughout American history. So we’ve got one more topic he wanted to hit before we get out of here for the

[0:38:19 Speaker 4] day. So let’s talk about it brings us back to Texas and something we’re going. We’re seeing happen with Texas policy in particular. I think many of you are aware of the fact that there’s a bit of a crisis regarding the testing of rape kids. So it’s been recorded. I think it’s estimated there are several 100,000 untested rape kids, and Texas has a problem with a large number of untested rape kids, and there’s actually been something put forward to try to help. Ese. Is that particularly reason these rape kits have not been tested because of expense? And there has been some action put forward to help ease that expense or help the state pay for this. And so we have a video highlighting how the state has tried to address this problem.

[0:38:59 Speaker 0] In crime labs across Texas, thousands of rape kits sit untested, some for years.

[0:39:05 Speaker 1] For example, in Austin we heard a story that these kids have been sitting there so long that their growing mold on them that is absolutely not acceptable.

[0:39:13 Speaker 0] Lawmakers trying to catch up on testing those kids have put in place ways for you to help allowing people getting or renewing driver’s license or state I d to contribute. That started January 8th

[0:39:26 Speaker 1] and without any advertisement, all we’ve already received 8900 donations totaling about $25,000

[0:39:31 Speaker 0] when you register or renew your vehicle, Donations can also be made to the evidence testing grand program

[0:39:36 Speaker 1] with 24 million registered vehicles. I’m pleased to say that we have the opportunity to change that

[0:39:43 Speaker 0] rape kits. Sitting on tested is not new in Texas.

[0:39:46 Speaker 1] And to find out that my kids set on the shelf over 20 something years was disheartening.

[0:39:51 Speaker 0] Slovenia Masters raped at 13 by an intruder who was eventually caught after her rape kit, set 21 years before being tested.

[0:40:00 Speaker 1] I want to make sure we get these kids off the show. People need their lives back. We’re not just trinkets that’s sitting there collecting dust.

[0:40:08 Speaker 0] State law now requires new rape cases to be submitted for testing in 30 days. This past session, lawmakers approved 4.2 million to cover costs, which runs between $302,000 depending on the amount of DNA available. Ave. Hoping the crowd getting a license and register vehicles will bring in at least a 1,000,000 more dollars each year.

[0:40:29 Speaker 1] And so we’re hopeful that, you know, as our community is watching this, that if you could take a moment to contribute a dollar or any amount toe. Help us bring justice to survivors of sexual assault.

[0:40:41 Speaker 0] So the crowdfunding needed because the Legislature has not fully funded the payments for these rape kits to be tested. Coming, February 1st is going to be a go fund me page through deeds, not words another way where

[0:40:56 Speaker 7] people can give.

[0:40:58 Speaker 4] So this has really crowd source funding of for the state government to test rape kits as so far has raised about 1/4 of a $1,000,000 so it has been able to raise a significant amount of money. The problem is, even with that, there is still a huge backlog. And so it would be millions upon millions of dollars that need to be spit in order to test all of these. All these rape kids with and again, well, this is a problem in Texas is the problem nationwide, where the cost for testing these rape kits is so high that it’s basically so many states have just not done anything because they can’t afford to test all of these kids?

[0:41:39 Speaker 3] You know, I think what’s kind of fascinating is the notion that you have something that is responsible but responsibility. The government that the government on. I don’t know that this is a matter where Texas Legislature said. We don’t think they ought to be fun. I think it’s a matter of it’s not a high priority for them and you know, we may find that regrettable and unseemly, but they do make choices all the time. What’s kind of fasting to me is the notion that there would be an independent mechanism by which sort of a I guess it’s public. But you know, kind of extra legislative mechanism for funding. Something that people think is consequential are important. I mean, I wonder at some point if we’re going to get, you know, a tax form that says, You know Well, here’s your tax bill and here are a number of checkoffs. If you want to give $5 you get this in professional memberships all the time. Right? Checkoff box your $5 for this $10 to that. It’s This isn’t a crazy idea, in some sense, that we do have this. If your federal income tax there’s a little box, it says, Do you want to contribute to the public fund for a presidential election campaigns, which you know, Actually, we haven’t Candidates haven’t used the public funding mechanism in a while but does exist. So it already does exist that the federal tax level Texas court does not have state income tax, but states that do have income taxes. I wonder if this is becoming more prominent as we deal with finite budgets and all sorts of important things that may be important but nevertheless don’t rise, maybe to the level where they’re going to come in and funding as opposed to education or, you know, criminal just in some of these other things. So it’s a fascinating report. Well, thank you all for joining with us this week. No, I think that’s good. We, anything else? We want to draw people’s attention.

[0:43:21 Speaker 4] Oh, no, that’s it. Thank you all so much and have a good rest your week.

[0:43:25 Speaker 3] Yeah, everything’s going pretty well. You’re doing a good job on your assignments. And so good luck on your exam. Well, T next week.

[0:43:40 Speaker 9] Government 3 10 and The news podcast is hosted by doctors Darren Shaw and Eric McDaniel and is produced by the liberal Arts TS Development Studio and the Department of Government and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin