Suchergebnisse

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was supposed to settle the debate over race, redistricting and representation. Instead, it started new ones. Since the act prohibits states from reducing a minority group's ability to elect its candidate of choice, the creation — and erasure — of majority-minority districts has become a particularly contentious aspect of […]

A federal court rejects challengers' Free Exercise Clause and parental rights claims.

With the accession of both legislative chamber
leaders for the 2024-28 term of the Louisiana Legislature now
settled, a question of whether to retain the practice of granting minority
party members committee chairmanships is up for debate – and change.

This practice almost no other state follows. A few
here and there will place a minority party member at the head of a temporary
committee, or perhaps give one a vice chairman's slot. Some allow for minority
reports to be issued about legislation. But in today's era, the only states
that appear to do this (absent special situations where party representation in
a chamber is even between the two major parties, or Nebraska's
unicameral/nonpartisan organ) are Louisiana and Texas.

Texas
legislators appear to be making a conscious effort to back away from the
process. This year, its Senate Republican leadership shed the last minority
member who had been a chairman, while its House Republican leadership reduced
its number to eight of 34 standing committees, and a deliberate emphasis to
shunt Democrats as chairman to low-profile panels. Texas has small GOP
majorities in each chamber at present.

In contrast, Republicans in Louisiana have
supermajorities in both chambers, projected to grow slightly as a result of
elections to conclude this weekend. Yet as of now, of the 16 House committees
two retain Democrats as chairman and four others as vice chairmen. In the
Senate, of 17 committees Democrats head up five and serve in the second slot on
two of those and four more (with more committees and fewer senators, there are
fewer choices).

By no means is this ingrained practice. Democrats had
every legislative seat and of course the governorship from 1920-60, and only in
1964 did Republicans start creeping into the House and into the Senate in 1976,
but none in 1980 when the first GOP governor in modern times Dave Treen took
office. The custom of gubernatorial choosing of legislative leaders by then was
decades old, but purely among Democrats' factions.

Treen had no choice in the Senate and just ten of
his party in the House, so nothing changed in that all leadership was
Democrats. The tradition started when Democrat Gov. Buddy Roemer assumed the
office, who ideologically on fiscal issues was closer to the 17 House and 5
Senate Republicans. He managed to have his preferred floor leaders installed
(who about halfway through his term would be dumped by Democrat Gov. Edwin
Edwards allies who restored his team from his previous term) who then appointed
a few Republicans as chairmen.

When Edwards came back for his fourth term, after
a contentious election where he relied upon Republican voters to return him
(even as the GOP dropped their House total by one), he continued the practice
as a larger, if indifferently applied, pledge to govern in a more bipartisan
fashion. Then when Republican Mike Foster succeeded him, with 30 GOP House
members and nine in the Senate, the momentum was unstoppable and a GOP governor
had plenty to choose from.

The tables began turning, naturally, when during
Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's terms the GOP took control in both chambers, so
then it became a matter of accommodating Democrats. Again, keep in mind that the
practice didn't grow out of any desire to include the minority, but because of
the custom of gubernatorial leadership selection and the particular combinations
and circumstances of different eras.

Thus, there's no real reason to continue it, particularly
as during Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards'
terms, precisely because center-right majorities ruled the chambers in contrast
to an avowedly (secretively at first, but much more openly after reelection) leftist
governor, the Legislature began selecting leadership more independently. Now,
there's a return to a period – likely to be extensive – where the governor will
align ideologically with a large majority of legislators.

Regardless of whether they consult with incoming GOP
Gov. Jeff Landry, Republicans state
Rep. Philip Devillier
and state Sen. Cameron Henry
should ensure every committee chairman or chairwoman comes from their party.
The people have spoken loudly in favor of their conservative agenda, and if
Democrats want to have any more than peripheral input into the policy-making process
when it differs from Republicans, then they need to win elections. 

In two recent Latvian cases concerning the Russian-speaking minority decided respectively in September and November 2023, the ECtHR made clear that protection of constitutional identity has now been elevated to a legitimate aim for a differential treatment under the Convention. This post explores how the protection of constitutional identity has been deployed to enable a collective punishment by association with a former occupier, and how the ECtHR's reasoning has effectively endorsed such a punishment, which is unbefitting of a liberal democratic system the ECHR aspires to represent. Until the three cases were decided, no liberal European democracy could argue without losing face that suppressing a large proportion of its population was its constitutional identity – one of the goals of its statehood. Today, this claim is seemingly kosher, marking a U-turn in the understanding of what the European human rights protection system is for minorities in Europe.

Since 2014, under the rule of the Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a new chapter has being authored in India's history, whereby the country has come to deviate from the basic principles of democracy, minority rights, and executive accountability. This needs greater recognition and urgent action.