Signature Assignment 3 (Unit 6): Governor and Public Policy Paper Due Monday April 8, 2019 @ 12pmPaper must be double spaced, with 12 point font times new roman, and include section headers for each o

Unit 2 Lecture Slides

Required Written Lecture: Political Participation

Benefits of Political Participation

As discussed earlier, turnout in Texas elections is lower than in most other places in this country. There are a variety of political, economic, and demographic reasons for this and we will discuss these factors later. However, for now, let's think about the reasons that people might vote and how changes to the rewards, of voting may have decreased the likelihood of participation.

The benefits to the politician (votes, guidance, a job) and to the system (legitimacy, direction) have not changed, so decline in participation must be the result of changes in benefits to the individual. Individuals gain a voice, a positive feeling (warm and fuzzy), and the right to complain through their participation in politics. Has the potential for these rewards changed and might that be the reason for decline in turnout?

As the population has grown and politicians have become more distant from voters, the perception that our votes make a difference has weakened. Most people do not believe that their votes matter. Second, in many sectors of society, especially among minorities, youth, and the poor, those who vote are ridiculed, so that there is no positive feeling associated with the act.

Finally, most people in Texas feel that the right to complain is an inalienable right, not tied to participation. Indeed, complaining about the political process has become a national and state pastime! Perhaps then, to decline participation is more than just a response to the change in politics, demographics, and economics. As you proceed through this course, evaluate whether these benefits would be enough to motivate you to vote.

Required Written Lecture: Political Participation

Why People Do or Do Not Participate

The central argument behind Anthony Down's revised theory of political participation is that most people participate out of duty or habit. If this hypothesis is true given the gradual decline in voter participation in this country since the late 1950s, then the sense of duty or responsibility has declined as well. Do you think this is true? If so, why do you think that you and I feel less of a sense of duty to vote than our parents or our grandparents?

There may be several answers to this question. First, many argue that people have lost faith in government, therefore feeling no duty to participate in it. Many analysts suggest that this decline began with Vietnam and Watergate but has been made worse in recent years by the sharp ideological and partisan divisions that have gripped the nation and the state. As it became clear that the government was lying to us, faith in and duty toward that government declined. About the same time, Texas experienced its own scandal in the 1970s (the Sharpstown scandal) which contributed to the cynicism.

Second, the 1960s began with great promise for government solutions, but ended with scandal and government failures. As it became clear that government could not solve our problems, our sense of duty to support that government declined.

Third, recent dominance (sine the 1990s of the Republican party has made elections less competitive and in so doing, have perhaps decreased participation.

Where do you see participation in the future? Can that faith or duty be recaptured or is participation going to continue to decline? If you were in charge of government, what would you or could you do to change this trend?

Required Written Lecture: Political Participation- Direct Democracy

States That Allow Voter Initiated Ballot Referendums (Direct Democracy)

While most of the participation we will talk about refers to representative (indirect) democracy where individuals cast their ballots for or against candidates who promise to pass rules and laws that govern our daily lives, sometimes, voters get to actually vote specifically for or against laws or rules.  This process is known as direct democracy. 

There are two general types of direct democracy (inititiave and referendum), but really only one in Texas (and that one in a very narrow form: constitutional referendum).

Initiative. With the initiative, laws are initiated and passed completely by the voters without any contributions by the elected political leaders. In the states that have initiatives (not Texas), voters gather enough signatures (ranging from 2% to 5% of the registered voters, depending on the state) to get the proposal on the ballot and then voters vote for or against it. If a majority of the voters support the proposal, then it becomes law-  it does not have to be voted on by the legislature or signed by the governor although the courts could find it unconstitutional.

Referendum. A second kind of direct democracy is the referendum, where voters cast their ballots for or against a proposal that the legislature has placed on the ballot. For example, in states that have the referendum, the legislature might vote to put a proposal up for a vote to restrict access to guns or to create a lottery and then voters will decide whether or not they like they idea. If a majority vote for the idea, then it becomes law. The difference between the referendum and the initiative is that the legislature put the referendum on the ballot and then the voters decide if they want it or not. In the initiative, the voters place the idea on the ballot and decide if they want it to be law or not.

Like all but one state (Delaware), Texas has a Constitutional Referendum, meaning that the voters must approve any amendment to the Texas Constitution once that amendment has been approved and placed on the ballot by the state legislature. No other form of direct democracy exists at the state level in Texas, in fitting with the Traditionalistic culture that dominates much of the state.  

In general, the United States government is based on a concept called indirect (representative) democracy where we vote for persons who then make the laws and rules that we live by. However, in 21 states, the voters are allowed to actually propose and pass laws without the governor or the legislature ever having anything to do with it. They can completely bypass the governing officials. As you see below, however, Texas does not allow such action. This is in line with the traditionalistic culture that defines much of Texas history and politics. The politicians do not want the voters (particularly poor or minority) to have such a power. Policies passed in an initiative state are very different than in the others- every initiative state has passed a term limits law; only one non-initiate state (Florida) has done so. The voters will pass things that the politicians do not want to change or deal with (laws regarding homosexuality, abortion and tax limits are common). Do you think Texas would have term limits if it had an initiative process?

Required Written Lecture: Political Participation- Individual and Aggregate

Political participation can be defined as any method by which citizens represented by a government attempt to influence policies, policymakers, or policy outcomes.

There are two types of participation - Individual and Aggregate.

Individual participation refers to those actions that individuals undertake on their own rather than in a group. For example, while a lot of people vote, it is an act that individuals do on their own- there is no one else with them in that voting booth when they cast their ballots. For the purpose of our discussions, there are four types of individual participation: voting, contacting, campaigning and running.

Aggregate Participation refers to those actions that undertake in conjunction or at the encouragement of other individuals. The individual participant does not initiate the interaction and usually does not act alone- they work with others to achieve their goals of influencing the direction of public policies. There are two agents of aggregate participation: interest groups and political parties.

In this unit (Unit 2) of the course, we will focus on Individual Participation: Voting, Contacting a policy maker, Campaigning for a candidate and Running for office. Aggregate participation will be discussed in Unit 3.

Four Methods of Individual Participation

Voting: is by far the most common method of individual participation because it is the easiest. It requires little in the way of time, money, or commitment. Once in the voting booth, you are alone and anonymous. No one knows who you support. It also costs little in terms of time or money, just a few minutes in line and gas or a bus token. However, apart from feeling good about yourself, the potential benefit (the likelihood your vote will make a difference) is relatively low.

Contacting a politician: takes a little more effort than does voting, but the potential payoffs are bigger. If you write, fax, e-mail, text message, instant message, or visit a politician, perhaps you will sway their opinion on a matter of public policy or get a stop sign placed at the end of your street. Your objective in making such contact is to get the politicians to do something you want. This may or may not take more time than voting, but it does take more effort (to compose a reasonable letter or message) and often more money if you fax or visit in person. However, the biggest cost is the loss of your anonymity-once you contact a policy maker, they know who you are and may put you on a list to receive information and requests for campaign contributions.

Campaigning for a candidate: is even less common, but even more likely to yield benefits. With this action, you are not only investing your time and money, but also your good name. If you support a candidate and they do something stupid, you look bad. This gets personal. However, if the candidate wins, you will have access to them and maybe even a job. You can use the access to influence how they vote on issues.

Running for Office: Finally, the most costly and potentially most rewarding means of individual participation is running for office yourself. Obviously, this requires a great deal of time and probably a great deal of money. Even most state legislative campaigns now run more than $100,000! Does low participation matter? If those who voted looked like those who did not, then it probably would not matter (although, it seems odd to call an election democratic if ten percent of the voters make the decision!). However, the voters are much better educated, wealthier, older, and whiter than those who do not vote. And, contrary to popular belief, politicians are not stupid! They cater to those people who actually vote. If people who are poor, in minorities and less educated would vote in numbers proportion to the population numbers, we would see a revolution in Texas politics not unlike the revolution of 1836!

However, until this happens, politics will continue to benefit the wealthy, the white and the professionals.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation

State and Local Government

The percentage of people who vote various dramatically from state to state due to variations in demographics, economics, voting rules and regulations, political competition  and political history. Given the relatively low level of income and education and the high percentage of minorities and urbanization in Texas, one would expect turnout to be rather low in the Lone Start state and the table below shows that to be true. In the 2016 Presidential election, the percentage of Voting Aged Population casting their ballots in Texas (23.8%) was lower than any other state in the country! Less than one in four voters who were legally eligible to vote in the state actually took the time to cast a ballot.

Voter Turnout 2016 Presidential Campaign

Percent of the Estimated Voting Age Population in A State Registered to Vote, 2014

Voting in Texas and most of the American states is actually a two step process. First, you must register to vote, and then you must vote. If you do not register, then you cannot vote. For years, Texas and most Southern states made registration very difficult so that ethnic minorities and poor people would be less likely to vote. However, in the last twenty years, Texas has made it very easy for its citizens to register. You can register by mail, when you get your drivers license, or in person. You do not have to indicate your party of support when you register. Easing these requirements has had the expected effect, with Texas ranking in the bottom quarter in registration. Just under sixty percent of all Texans eligible to vote are registered to vote. However, this has not translated into noticeably higher voting participation, because Texas still finishes among the bottom when we consider the proportion of the states population that votes. Why do you think that is? Just as side notes for the data, North Dakota has no voter registration and Wisconsin has election day registration at the polls.

Source: Morgan, Kathleen O’Leary and Scott Morgan, eds. State Rankings 2016: A Statistical View of the 50 United States. Lawrence, KS: Morgan Quitno Press, 2012, p. 516.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation

Voting

In order to vote in Texas, you must first register to vote. In order to register to vote in Texas, you must be eighteen before the next election, be a United States Citizen and reside in the county in which you are registering to vote. You must NOT be a convicted felon who is currently incarcerated, on parole, or probation. Further, you must NOT have been declared mentally incompetent in a court of law. On your application to register to vote you must include your Texas Drivers License number, a personal identification number form the Department of Public Safety or your Social Security Number.

Individual participation is one of the central guiding principles of government in the United States and Texas. In fact, it is considered to be the source of government legitimacy in our democracy. We will look at four types of individual participation, ranked from the easiest (least costly) to the most difficult: voting, contacting an elected official, campaigning for someone, and running for office.

Voting is the easiest and least costly method of political participation. Yet, turnout has always been very low in Texas, and, even with numerous changes that should increase turnout, it remains very low. Time is the number one cost of voting-time to get informed, to register and to actually vote. Time is important if you are trying to get some extra sleep, need to get the kids to school, or have to get to work. Time to register is easy-by mail, when you get your driver’s license, etc. There is a limited financial cost-gas and perhaps those folks who have to miss work to go vote. That is about it.

Understand that we hold our elections at the worst possible time for encouraging people to vote. They are in the middle of the week, on a work day, and during the winter. This may be a reflection of the fact that when the system was designed, we were a rural society and farming was the primary occupation. The late fall/winter is the only time farmers are not busy.

Now, the costs of voting are very limited. However, that has not always been the case. Let's look now at how they have changed over time since Texas became a state more than 150 years ago. As we look at each expansion, think about the noble reason (the public reason) and the real or less noble reason for it.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Voting

Costs of Voting: 1830s-1850s

It is very easy to vote in Texas today and almost anyone can vote with very limited restrictions. However, access to the polls has not always been that easy. In this text and that of the next two lecture clips, I want to discuss the nature of the time period for each major expansion of the right to vote so that you can understand why it took place and why it matters.

In 1845, when Texas first became a state, participation was restricted to white, male landowners over 21. This was the case not just in Texas, but throughout the United States. When the United States Constitution was ratified in 1789, these were the only people allowed to vote.

The first change in this restriction came about in the 1850s with the lifting of the property requirement. This was part of something called Jacksonian Democracy, reflecting the belief of Andrew Jackson that people who were not wealthy should participate. Indeed, Andrew Jackson was the first President of the United States who did not come from a wealthy elite. This fit his views of the world, as well as his political needs-if his Democratic party was to survive against the wealthy Whig party, he needed the votes of the poor.

Therefore, in the 1850s, landholding requirements were lifted so that “cost” disappeared. This also spread voting across numerous offices. The noble reason was that those who did not own land were affected by the government so they could have a right to participate. The real reason was that Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party needed the votes of non-landholders in order to win. Do you think things would be different today if we had property requirements for voting? Why or why not?

Lecture: AUDIO 

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Voting

Costs of Voting: 1860s

De Jure Expansion for Minority Males

Without question, the 1860s were the most significant political decade in the history of this country. This decade contained a civil war that redefined the meaning and purpose of United States. It gave us our first glimpse of the powerful modern presidency, and it offered the first real, significant expansion of voting rights, at least on paper. With the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln expanded the right to vote to all males in the United States, and then later with the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, he extended that right to all males over 21 in the former southern states as well.

Lecture: AUDIO 

The noble reason for this change was that it was the right thing to do-how could you fight the Civil War to free slaves, but not give them the right to vote? The less than noble, or real reason, was that President Lincoln was looking to increase support for the war after more than two years and thousands of deaths and this would provide that additional support. The North was losing the war and most people in the North were losing interest in fighting the war.

While this expansion occurred legally in the 1860s, understand that it did not take full effect in the Southern United States (and that included Texas) for another one hundred years or so. While the 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution gave African-American males the right to vote legally (De Jure - by law), the law was ignored or abused in the Southern United States until the 1960s so that they did not in fact (De Facto - by fact) have that right.

Lecture: AUDIO 

In order to keep African-Americans (and others) from voting, several mechanisms were put in place in the South and throughout Texas. Consider the following:

Poll Tax (1902-1966): The poll tax meant that in order to vote, people would have to pay a fee at the polls. This tax stayed in place in Texas until 1966 (on state and local elections) and until 1964 on national elections. This was used to discourage all poor voters, black, white, or Hispanic, from voting.

Individual Participation: Voting

Costs of Voting: 1860s, continued

Lecture: AUDIO 

White Primary (1923-1953): As noted earlier, for most of its history, Texas has been dominated by the Democratic Party. If you won the Democratic primary, you would be the winner of the general election in November. Therefore, if you could not vote in the Democratic primary, your vote really did not matter. In the early 1900s, the Democratic Party forbade nonwhites from voting in its primary, thereby forbidding them any real participation. This was finally overruled by the United States Supreme Court in the 1950s after several efforts to make it acceptable.

Literacy Test: Many states established a Literacy test whereby potential voters had to prove they were literate (could read, understand and interpret the US Constitution) before they could vote. This was often used to discriminate, even against those who could read. If you would like to take the Alabama Literacy Test from the 1950s to see if you could vote, go to the following link:http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interactive/imm_files/test.html. The literacy test was not used in Texas.

Grandfather Clause: This was another method used throughout the South, but not in Texas, which indicated that no person could vote unless his or her grandfather had voted. If your grandfather (or his grandfather) had not voted, then you could not vote.

The fact that Texas did not have the grandfather clause or the literacy test would suggest that efforts in Texas were targeted more at keeping poor folks from voting, not just African-Americans or Hispanics. Discrimination in Texas was more along economic lines. Remember the traditionalistic culture - the elites don’t want the poor to vote, regardless of their color because it would upset the power structure.

Each of these processes was used to decrease the voting power of political minority groups. Sometimes they have also been used against Republicans or Democrats as well as against ethnic minorities.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Voting

Costs of Voting: 1910s

Expansion for Women

The third expansion, the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution (1920) which expanded suffrage (the right to vote) to women, had the largest potential effect of any change because it literally doubled the size of the potential voting population. Think about the other expansions. Removing landholding requirements may have expanded the voting population by 20%. Including African-Americans, while important, only increased the voting population by about 10% in Texas. Decreasing the voting age to 18 added no more than 5% to the voting rolls.

However, since there were as many women as men, allowing them to vote doubled the pool of eligible voters. Did it matter? Probably. Within ten years, Miriam Ferguson was elected governor, partly on the coattails of her husband. However, in 1933, she was elected again, more on her own abilities than those of her husband. More recently, the number of women in the electorate has helped elect Anne Richards as governor, Kay Bailey Hutchison as US Senator, and several women to the Texas Congressional delegation. More significantly, because of the large number of women in the electorate, government is addressing issues like gender differences in wages, sex discrimination in the work place, sexual harassment, and the absence of quality child care. None of these issues were considered important enough to be addressed until women began to vote in force.

Lecture: AUDIO 

The noble motivation for this addition arose from the time period-we were just returning from a victorious World War I where we made the world “safe for Democracy,” so it looked bad to exclude half the population from voting in our own democracy. So, we gave women the right to vote. The political motivation revolved around the fact that the Democratic party controlled Congress and the presidency in 1919 and thought the women would vote for them. Turns out they voted Republican, ushering in twelve years of Republican control of the White House and Congress in 1920.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Voting

Costs of Voting: 1960s-1990

While minorities were given the legal right to vote in the 1860s, it would take another one hundred years for them to be able to practice that right in Texas and the rest of the South without fear of discrimination or physical violence. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave the national government the power to punish states that did not enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Further, the 26th Amendment in 1971 lowered the voting age to 18. This significantly altered the makeup of the voting electorate.

De facto Expansion for Minorities

It was not until the 1960s that minorities got the de facto - in fact - right to vote. This came about because of the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed by the United States Congress guaranteeing everyone the equal right to vote. Why was this act passed in the 1960s? Again, there are two sets of reasons: noble and real. The noble motivation revolved around the fact that it was the right thing to do, especially as we were asking minorities to fight and die in the Vietnam War.

Lecture: Audio 

Politically (real motivation), the Democrats and President Lyndon Johnson wanted to get this group of voters to vote Democratic-and it worked. In 1960, the African-American vote was evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. By 1968, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly Democratic. Once this act passed, outlawing most methods discussed earlier, many Southern states turned to discriminatory methods of drawing their districts to minimize the voting power of minorities.

Gerrymandering: Drawing electoral districts to advantage or disadvantage a particular group. Once we got rid of physical intimidation, poll taxes, and white primaries and minorities began to vote, the elites decided to draw the electoral districts to minimize their impact on elections. This is gerrymandering.

There are two types of gerrymandering: cracking and packing. Cracking means drawing the districts so that the votes of a particular group are split across several districts - while that group might have enough votes in the state to gain some seats (maybe 20% of the population in a state with 10 congressional seats), you draw the districts so they do not have a majority of the votes in any district. You crack up their voting bloc. This generally occurs when the minority group makes up less than a quarter of the population.

Packing, on the other hand, occurs when the minority group makes up 25% to 50% of the population. In this case, you pack as many minority voters in one or two districts as you can so they will win those districts, but no more than that. For example, in our state, which has ten congressional districts, if a minority group makes up 40% of the population, you pack their votes into two districts that they can win-that is two fewer less than the four they should get. This method was used in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Voting

Costs of Voting: 1960s-1990, continued

How did it change politics? First, it lowered the turnout as a percentage of eligible voters because it made eligible two groups that traditionally vote at lower rates, minorities and youths. Second, it changed the dynamics of elections as candidates had to make some appeals to those new voters, particularly minorities. Third, it increased the number of minority elected officials in two ways. First, more minority voters meant more minority candidates and winners. Second, a separate part of the Voting Rights Act insured that congressional and state legislative districts were drawn so that minority candidates had a shot at winning them.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Expansion to 18 Year Olds

The second change in this time period added eighteen year olds to the voting roles. Prior to 1971, you had to be at least twenty-one years old to vote. The 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution decreased the legal voting age to eighteen. The noble motivation revolved around the fact that we were asking eighteen year-olds to die in the Vietnam War (in fact requiring it with the military draft), but not allowing them to vote. On the other hand, President Richard Nixon was under intense pressure from young people to end the war and he (and the Republican Party) thought this might appease them (make them like him) a bit. This was the real motivation. And, in fact, initially, it worked. In 1972, although most young people hated the war in Vietnam, Nixon got more than half of their votes.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Addition of Early Voting

In 1987, the Texas Legislature removed restrictions to early voting so that Texans can now vote up to three weeks before Election Day either in person or by mail. They do NOT have to prove necessity or provide a reason. This has, it is believed, somewhat increased turnout.

Motor Voter Bill, 1993

One of the first things the new Democratic administration (Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 after 12 years of Republican presidents) did when taking office in 1993 was to pass the Motor Voter Bill which allowed people to register to vote when they registered for their driver’s licenses.

Democrats believed that anything which made it easier to register or to vote would increase the number of Democrats voting. However, this did not prove to be the case with Motor Voter, as it encouraged many rural conservatives to register who then voted Republican.

Requiring Voter Identification. In the 2010s, Texas, like many other states (particularly in the South), moved to make sure that only citizens could vote by requiring potential voters show one of several forms of valid identification (including Driver's License, US passport, social security card, or state identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety). in order to vote in a local, state or national election. Supporters of this legislation argue that it is necessary to protect the integrity of elections and prevent voter fraud while opponents suggest it is an attempt to suppress voter participation by minorities, young and elderly- all less likely to have government issued identifications.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Voting

Why is Don't More Texans Vote?

As noted earlier, turnout in Texas is lower than most other states, and it has not improved much over the last thirty years even as the characteristics associated with voting have changed in a positive direction. Why is Texas's turnout so much lower than other states? First, let's look at the makeup of the Texas population. The biggest single predictor of voting is education : In 2015, just under ninety percent (89.3%) of students in Texas graduated within four years, putting it about the middle of the pack among the fifty states.

Lecture: Audio 

Minority voters vote less than other groups, and Texas ranks second only to California in the proportion of citizens who are minorities at 37%. Finally, poor people vote at a lower rate than the wealthy. The average income in Texas for a family of four was $42,102 in 2005, well below the national average of $47,012 and below average in forty other states. Second, as noted in our discussion of Texas history, there is a deep skepticism in Texas regarding the role of government. Many people do not trust government, therefore, they have little or no desire to vote.

Historically, Texas has had very limited party competition - Democrats were going to win most, if not all, of the elections. Therefore, many people felt there was no real reason to vote. You already knew the outcome of the election, so why bother to vote. While elections are now more competitive, that mindset is still evident and it takes a while to get past it.

Finally, while it is now quite easy to vote in Texas, we know that has not always been the case (see earlier discussions). Therefore, many folks in Texas were not in the habit of voting. Traditionally, turnout has been low in Texas and it is difficult to break such a habit.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Who Votes?

Who Votes?

Before looking specifically at who votes in Texas, let's think about why people do or do not vote. In the late 1950s, political scientist Anthony Downes began to explore why people voted. He proposed the following theory.

A person will vote if the benefit (B) of voting times the probability (P) that his or her vote will make a difference is greater than the cost (C) of voting. In exploring this equation, he found that it was unlikely anyone would vote because the benefits are minimal as is the probability that your vote will really matter (determine the winner) and the cost of voting (time in particular) is high compared to the benefit in comparison to what else one could be doing with his or her time.

In light of this analysis, Downes added one more piece to his equation: duty (D) or habit. Most Americans who vote do not do it because they believe their votes will make the difference or because they get a direct benefit, but rather because they believe it is the right thing to do and they have always done it. Let's see how this applies to Texas. While changes in the last century have made it easier for the poor, less educated, and minorities to vote, that does not necessarily mean they have voted. In fact, the typical voter in Texas remains, as always, a wealthy, white, educated person over the age of 40. While men have traditionally voted at a greater rate than women, that is no longer the case, with women and men voting at about the same rate and women even voting at a slightly higher rate than men. Let's take a look at each of these characteristics and see if we can figure out why these groups are more likely to vote.

Education: The single best demographic characteristic to predict the likelihood of voting is a person’s education. We know that the more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to cast a ballot, to the point where folks with Ph.D.'s, can be counted on to vote more than 90% of the time. Once again, there are several theories as to why this is the case. First, people with a higher degree of education have a better understanding of the political system and are less likely to be intimidated by the prospect of voting. The cost of getting informed for the election is lower for someone who is educated. Second, educated citizens are more confident and more likely to believe they can make a difference-again, the concept of political efficacy.

Gender: While women historically voted less than men, that is no longer the case. Now, women vote at the same or at a slightly higher rate than men for a couple of reasons. First, while women do not make as much as men on average, a much higher proportion of women are now better educated and in more professional jobs. Women are now much more like the typical voter than they were 30 years ago in terms of education and income. Second, there are now more women candidates and elected officials. In 2016, there were a record number of women in the United States Congress, and the Texas Legislature, and a woman (Hillary Clinton) was the first female candidate nominated for President by a major political party. As women have become a more active voting bloc, issues important to women (abortion, child care, pay equity) have become more important.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Who Votes?

Who Votes? continued

Third, more educated citizens are likely to have the kinds of jobs that will allow them time off to vote because they are likely to hold more professional jobs. Fourth, we know that education and income are closely linked, therefore, educated people are more likely to be wealthy (and have more at stake) and the wealthy vote more. Finally, it has sometimes been argued, not always in jest, that people with a college education are used to standing in lines, so standing in line to vote is no big deal! Seriously, your college experience prepares you for the bureaucracy necessary to vote-that is nothing after dealing with university bureaucracy! Interestingly, education is not such an important predictor in other countries as it is in America.

Lecture: Audio 

Wealth/Income: Why do people with money vote at a higher rate than people without money? There are several possible explanations. First, wealthy people tend to believe they have more at stake in a given election. With their investments and higher salaries, wealthy people tend to feel the impact of politics more directly. Second, the wealthy tend to have the kinds of jobs (professional) that will enable them to more easily take time off to vote. It is quite easy for a lawyer to “take a long lunch” to vote, but a person working on the assembly line at a factory cannot do that. Third, people who are wealthy are more likely to think they can make a difference - they have a higher degree of political efficacy.

Lecture: Audio 

Age: We know that people who are middle-aged and older are going to vote more than people who are younger. There are, I think, four major reasons for this difference in why older people vote-time, roots, interest, and habit. 1) Young people, especially those in college or just beginning their jobs and families, do not have (or do not believe they have) time to vote-they are busy with life. Once the kids are grown and folks are settled in their jobs or even retired from those jobs, there is more time for voting and political participation. 2) Most young people have moved away to college and have yet to establish the kinds of roots in the community that would lead them to vote or care about the local elections. 3) Older people, especially those who are retired or near retirement, realize they have a direct stake in the election.

If their Social Security check is cut or the stock market goes down, then their quality of life goes down. They are also concerned about such critical topics as health care. While the impact on others may be great, it is indirect. For seniors, the impact is direct. 4) Finally, older folks, especially those who came of age in the 1940s and 50s have a tradition of voting. The single best predictor of voting in a particular election is whether or not you voted in the previous one. Those who have voted in the past are most likely to do it again, and these folks have voted in the past.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Who Votes?

Who Votes? continued

On the other hand, why don’t young people vote? It is the reverse of the older folks. First, their time commitments are much greater, so voting is more of a burden. Second, most young people don’t realize that they do have something at stake, especially relative to tuition. However, because what young people have at stake is indirect, they do not realize it. Finally, young people do not have a tradition of voting and participation. Let me add one more reason that is a bit different. Young people don’t identify with the candidates because most of them are much older than they are and they don’t talk about issues that are important to young people - they don’t watch the same shows, listen to the same music, or identify the same issues that young people do.

Ideology: This one is a bit unique to Texas and to the South, but conservatives tend to vote more than liberals. This is true because many of the conservatives see the political world as a battle “for the soul of America.” For them this is not about jobs, money, or the stock market, it is about moving the country in the right direction. In 2004, many voters who had lost their jobs or seen their incomes drop under President Bush still voted for him because he was a Christian and a “moral leader.”

Lecture: Audio 

Race/ Ethnicity

While race is no longer a legal barrier to voting, minorities (African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans in particular) still vote at a lower rate than whites. Let's explore several possible reasons for that discrepancy. First, minorities tend to possess more of the demographic characteristics associated with lower turnout (lower income and education). If you control for education and wealth (compare only wealthy and educated minorities to wealthy and educated whites) there is no difference between the two groups.

Second, minorities in Texas, because of the history of discrimination, do not have a history of participation and are rather cynical (understandably) about their ability to influence politics and government. In light of government efforts historically to keep them from voting, I can see the logic behind such cynicism. Finally, a third reason that minorities don’t vote as often as non minorities is the fact that they can seldom identify with the candidates. Most of the candidates are white, so that the minority groups do not tend to identify with them. As the number of minority candidate rise, one can expect the number of minority voters to increase as well. Indeed, in the 2012 Presidential election, African American voters across the nation (but not in Texas), with Barack Obama heading the ticket, voted at a higher rate than any other group, including Caucasions.

If the group of people who vote was just a miniature representation of the general population, low voter turnout would not be a problem. The smaller group could adequately represent the whole voting age population. But, we know that the average voter is different from the average nonvoter: he or she is better educated, older, more likely to be white, more likely to be conservative, and more likely to support the two major parties than the typical nonvoter. What would happen in Texas if the voting population mirrored the general population (more minorities, more young voters, and more poor voters)?

First, one could expect many more minority candidates and a greater focus on issues important to the Hispanic community, like bilingual education, NAFTA, and immigration policy. Second, with more of the poor voting, one could expect a reversal of the regressive tax system (which taxes the poor more than the wealthy) that dominates Texas and an increase in the provision of services like welfare, food stamps, and public transportation. Further, one would expect a significant decrease in the costs of college education at public schools, and perhaps, a decrease in benefits to the elderly, like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Also, one might expect an increase in the power of the Democratic party, given that most of the members of these groups tend to vote Democrat.

Is this revolution likely to occur? Probably not, unless some crisis can motivate these groups to vote. What would it take to make that happen?

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Contacting

Contacting a Policy Maker

As noted above, people who vote tend to be more educated, wealthier, "whiter," and older than those who do not. Those differences only get worse as we move up the list of types of participation. People who contact their legislator or Congressman are even more likely to be white, wealthy, educated, and older than those who vote. Why is that?

First, these people tend to think they have more at stake in the political system and tend to believe that they can make a difference. Second, because of their education and position in society, they are more likely to have access to members of the political community and to know how to contact them. Finally, these people are likely to have a much greater level of trust for the politicians, because the politicians are more likely to look, dress, talk and act like them. We all are more likely to trust people that we like us than to trust those who are different from us.

The cost of contacting a policy maker is higher than voting in terms of time, money (depending on how you contact one), and most important, loss of anonymity. Once you contact a policy maker, you are no longer anonymous. Your name is now on a list somewhere indicating that you contacted the policy maker about some matter and you are likely to get on an e-mail, snail mail, fax, or phone list as a person interested in a particular issue. They may also call and ask for money! While I may not be able to increase your trust in politics, or increase your stake in those decisions, I can improve your access. Find below web sites that will allow you to contact the state senate, the Texas House and Arlington City Hall. Make use of these pages and let your voice be heard!!!

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Campaigning

Campaigning for a Candidate

The next step up the participation ladder is campaigning for someone else. Once again, folks who do so are even more white, more wealthy, and more educated than the traditional nonparticipating Texan. The reasons for this are a little different from the reasons they are more likely to contact a policy maker, but the end result is the same: a skewed influence on politics.

Think about what it takes to be able to make a significant contribution to someone's campaign. First, if that contribution is monetary, then you need to have extra money to throw around. You may give $25, but in order to really make a difference you need to be able to give considerably more. Check out the web site for the Texas Ethics Commission to see the kind of money that some people contribute!

Second, if you want to work on a campaign, you need to be able to give a substantial amount of time to that campaign. If you are working a 9-5 job or are a student, that is not likely! If you are not working, you need to find transportation to get to the campaign. Finally, you need to have basic communications skills, and even some computer skills, to make significant contributions to modern campaign. So, while anyone can contribute to campaigns legally, the qualities most likely associated with successful campaign assistance are possessed by the white, wealthy, educated persons that tend to dominate politics in Texas.

In campaigning for a candidate, the biggest additional cost (besides more time and money) is your reputation. By publicly stating your support for a candidate, if that candidate screws up or does something wrong, it may hurt your reputation. This gets a bit more personal. However, your potential benefits are greater as well-you will have greater access to the policy maker if he or she wins and it could even lead to a job for you.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Running for Office

Running for Office

Not surprisingly, the person at the top of the participation food chain, the candidate, is the most white, most wealthy, most educated and oldest. While there is no data on the candidates for the Texas Legislature, look at the characteristics of those who win: 70% non-Hispanic whites; 85% male; average age high 40's; 35% attorneys. These profiles are available at the following Internet Web sites: House and Senate.

Does this matter? Do you think that a person who is male can sufficiently represent a female? Can a legislature that is 70% white represent a population that is 50% nonwhite? Can a fifty year old adequately represent the interests of a twenty year old college student? What do you think? If the answer is no, what, if anything can be done to change this picture?

The cost of campaigning for office is obviously huge-in terms of time and money, but also in terms of a loss of privacy and family life. Understand that when you choose to run for office, anything that you have done for the past forty years may, and is likely, to become public. You will also open your family up to potential challenges and will give up a great deal of time with your family.

Required Written Lecture: Primary and General Elections

In Texas, like most other states, candidates often have to win two elections to actually win his or her office: a primary election and a general election.

A primary election is the process by which the political parties (usually Democrats and Republicans) choose the two candidates who will run against each other in the general election.

Republicans and Democrats in Texas, like those in most other states, choose their party nominees via a primary election. However, there are different types of primaries. The distribution of states is as follows: Closed primary: 13 states; semi-closed: 15 states; semi-open: 11 states (including Texas); open: 10 states; top-two primary:3 states (California, Louisiana, Washington).

Closed Primary-  only voters from a given party can vote in that party's primary. Democrats vote in the Democratic primary and Republicans in the Republican primary.

Semi-closed Primary- Voters from a given party can vote in that party's primaries (Democrats in the Democratic primary, etc.), but Independents may register and vote in that party's primary, but those registered the other party may not.

Semi-Open Primaries- Voters can vote in the primary election of either party, but must declare publicly to be affiliated with one party or the other and get a ballot only for that party primary.

Open Primary- Voters can vote in the primary election for either party , regardless of party affiliation. Democrats can vote to choose the Republican candidate and Republicans can vote to choose the Democratic nominee.

Top-Two Primary- All candidates (both parties) run in the same primary and everyone (both parties and independents) vote in that single primary. The top two vote getters then run in second primary regardless of party. The top two vote getters, regardless of party, run in the general election. This is a method of primary elections that seems to be catching on around the country (it is used in California- which may explain why it is not catching on in Texas!), but not in Texas.

The semi-open primary in Texas means that Republicans can help choose the Democratic nominee and Democrats can help choose the Republican nominee for an office. How does that affect the type of candidate chosen? If the voters of one party are organized, they could choose a weaker candidate from the other party to run. If a candidate does not have the full support of his or her party, he or she can run a "middle-of-the road" campaign and appeal to members of the other party. In other words, the nominee of the Republican party may have Democratic ideals and vice- versa!!

If no candidate in the primary election gets more than half (50% plus 1) of the vote, then the top two candidates will hold a run off primary. The rest of the candidates will drop out and leave it to the top two. It has been argued that runoff primaries tend to hurt minority candidates. Do you think that politics would be any different if we had a closed primary, where only Democrats could vote in the Democratic Primary and only Republicans could vote in the Republican Primary? What if nominees were chosen by a convention rather than a primary election?

Lecture: AUDIO 

States by Type of Primary

Required Written Lecture: Elections- Characteristics of Primary Elections

Characteristics of Primary Elections in Texas

1) Low Turnout- As in all other states, turnout (the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote) in primary elections in Texas is usually much lower than the turnout in general elections. For example, in 2014, turnout in the Democratic primary was under 4 percent and in the Republican Party was under ten percent. Turnout in the general election in 2014 was 33.7 percent.

2) Most Elections do Not have Serious Primaries. While primary elections are important, most offices do not have highly contested primaries. This is especially true if someone is an incumbent (person seeking re-election to an office he or she already holds). It is very rare for someone in a political party to challenge the incumbent of his or her own party in a primary.

3) When Challenged in a Primary, Incumbents win. In the rare case that someone does decide to challenge and incumbent candidate in his or her party's primary election, they seldom win. Incumbents win primaries more than ninety percent of the time. In oder to lose a primary, an incumbent usually needs to be involved in some type of scandal.

4) Name Recognition wins Primaries. While the best predictor of who will win a general election is political party (if most voters in the state or district are Republican, the Republican candidate will likely win and the same for Democrats in Democratic districts). Because all candidates in the party primary are of the same party, the best predicter of who will win is name recognition- if voters know the person's name because they are an incumbent or a TV star (Donald Trump) or an athelete.

Required Written Lecture: Elections- General Elections

The 2014 General election in 2014 was typical of modern elections in Texas. Republicans swept all major offices, winning a majority of the votes for Governor (Greg Abbott), Lt. Governor (Dan Patrick), Attorney General (Ken Paxton) and a majority of the seats in the Texas House and the Texas Senate.

Characteristics of General Elections in Texas

The nature of elections in Texas may well be one of the reasons that turnout in the state is lower than most other states. Each of the five characteristics discussed, in one way or another, tends to discourage participation.

Lecture: AUDIO 

First, the long ballot discourages people who look at the ballot and just walk away, particularly once they get to lower-level positions. You vote on national, US Senate, Congressional, statewide, state legislative, judicial, and local races, and constitutional amendments.

Second, turnout in Texas is generally lower than turnout in the rest of the country. Texas has gotten better, but it still remains behind the rest of the country. We have discussed this earlier. The high number of constitutional amendments on the ballot can be frustrating and make a person feel incompetent or unworthy of casting a ballot.

Third, the sheer number of elections makes it less likely that people will vote. If you were so inclined, you could vote for something in Texas every three months or so!

Fourth, the expense of the statewide races turns many voters off. A statewide race (US Senate or governor) will need to expend at least $30 million! Voters view the costs as a waste and the commercials and long campaign season turns them away. While more competitive elections tends to lead to increased voter turnout, the increasingly negative nature of the campaigns also tends to decrease turnout. As the name-calling goes on, voters begin to feel that neither candidate is worthy of support and their best vote is to stay at home. The two candidates for Governor in 2014 spent in excess of $80 million!

Fifth, politics in Texas is partisan - with the exception of some local races, all major elections pit a Democrat against a Republican. Given that turnout has remained low while education, income and, competition has increased and voting limitations decreased, do you think the answer to this paradox might lie in the nature of the campaigns? Would more positive campaigns increase turnout? How about fewer elections?

Lecture: AUDIO 

Required Written Lecture: Elections- Modern Campaigns

Components of a Modern Campaign

The days of running a campaign with a few close friends and relatives, an emery board with your name on it, and a good pair of walking shoes are long gone. Running such a campaign in the modern era is like driving a Model-T on Interstate 30-not only will you not get where you want to go, but you may suffer severe damage in the process! There are five components to the modern campaign: the candidate, the organization, a campaign message, the campaign strategy and resources.

Lecture: AUDIO 

1) The Candidate

Obviously, every campaign for office, whether in Texas or in another state, must have a candidate! You can’t win without a name on the ballot. Candidates tend to be white, wealthy, older, conservative, and well educated with a connection to the business community. The number of women candidates has been increasing greatly. Modern candidates must have a great deal of money, or at least have access to money. The number of minority candidates is increasing as the number of minority voters increases. Historically, you need to be a Democrat, but now it helps to be Republican. This describes the three most recent Texas governors, George W. Bush, Rick Perry and Greg Abbott. All three are white, Republican, pro-business, conservative males.

Required Written Lecture: Elections- Modern Campaigns

Components of a Modern Campaign, continued

2) The Organization:

Behind every winning candidate is a winning organization, These are the people that are hired (or in some local elections volunteer) to perform particular functions critical to the election. Possible positions in each organization are listed below.

The Treasurer: While every campaign has to have a candidate, the only legally required position for a campaign organization is that of treasurer.The law requires that every campaign have a treasurer separate and apart from the candidate. It is the treasurer who is required to file all the campaign paperwork and is held liable in court if it is not filed or is filed with mistakes.

Campaign Manager: The campaign manager is the person that runs the day-to-day operation much like an office manager runs an office. This person works closely with the candidate and others to oversee the overall operation of the campaign. Usually, these folks are paid professionals who are trained to run political campaigns. They coordinate and oversee the operation of the campaign.

Fundraising Director: As noted earlier, modern campaigns require a lot of money so it makes sense to have someone in charge of fundraising. This person will oversee efforts to raise money from small donors, large donors, and everyone in-between.

Volunteer Coordinator: Another important position in most campaigns is the volunteer coordinator. Every campaign of any size needs volunteers to put up yard signs, stuff envelopes, knock on doors, and make phone calls. The volunteer coordinator is in charge of recruiting and organizing these volunteers.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Media Consultant: The media consultant is the person hired to help the candidate hone his or her look and media-oriented message. The media consultant is hired to make you look good and sound good. For the most part, media consultants contract out and may work with multiple campaigns.

Pollster: There may have been a time when candidates decided what issues to run on based on knowledge of the district and gut feeling, but those days are gone. Every modern campaign needs a pollster to help them determine whether or not to run and if so, how to run most effectively. There are several types of polls that are important in politics.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Campaign Strategy: The campaign strategy has to do with the message around which you plan to build your campaign. What will be your central campaign theme-how will you “market” your campaign and your candidacy? The campaign strategy is generally a function of two things: the strengths of the candidate the context of the times.

If you have a great deal of political experience, that might be the strategy. If not, you have to adopt a different strategy. If the economy is good and the candidate is an incumbent (in office), then the strategy will focus on what you have done to improve the economy. If it is bad, you will take a different approach.

Required Written Lecture: Elections- Modern Campaign Components (cont'd)

Components of a Modern Campaign, continued

3) The Campaign Message

The Experienced Leader: This is often the strategy of the incumbent officeholder or an experienced policy maker looking to move to a higher office. The focus is on his or her political experience and the things he or she has done for the district or state.

The Outsider: This strategy is usually adopted by the person trying to dethrone the experienced leader. This person focuses on the fact that he or she has not been tainted by the political system. This strategy works really well when times are bad and voters are ready to toss out the incumbent leaders. Issues position will focus on changind the way things are being done- we have to improve education, ethics, etc.- change, change, change.

Local Boy (or Girl) does Good (One of Us): This candidate focuses more on where he or she comes from than where he or she is going and emphasizes roots in the community. Works best for localized office and candidates with deep community ties.

The Savior: This is a variant of the outsider strategy, but focuses on the ability of the outsider to come in and save the day; the problem solver. This candidate will build his or her campaign around promises to address key issues important to the voters- provide jobs, improve education, clean up the environment, etc.

The Good Person: This strategy once again focuses more on who the person is and where he or she comes from than what he or she will do. He or she will talk about background and his or her work in the church, in the community, and for the common good. This persons campaign will focus less on specific policy issues and more on his or her qualities of moral leadership.

The Moral Leader: This strategy focuses on social issues and is often used by social conservatives (bedroom Republicans) who build their campaigns around abortion, school prayer, etc. He or she promises to support "traditional family values" like supporting a traditional definition of marriage, school prayer and vouchers for religious schools, while standing against abortion and expansion of rights based on sexual orientation or gender identification.

The Progressive: This candidate will build his or her campaign around the promise of economic equality- better wages, taxes on the wealthy, equal rights according to race and religion, etc.

4) The Campaign Strategy/ Issues

the specific demographic, regional, partisan and ideological groups of voters you will target and how your message and issues you will focus on will be used to target those voters.

* What parts (regions) of the state will be likely to vote for you and what issues/ message will you use to appeal to them?

* Which party (Republicans, Independents and Democrats) will be likely to vote for you and how will your message/ issues appeal to them?

*  What economic groups (wealthy, middle class, poor) will be likely to vote for you and how will your message/ issues appeal to them?

*  Will any particular ethnic group or gender be more or less likely to vote for your candidate and why?

The campaign strategy reflects the campaign message. For example, the Experienced Leader might appeal to Democrats and Independents, wealthy and middle class voters, etc.

5)  Campaign Resources

Finally, every campaign requires significant resources, particularly money, people, and organization.

Money: As discussed above, money is critical. It buys you name recognition - if you have enough money, you can run enough commercials so that people know who you are. Second, it buys you credibility. Because you have money or have access to money, you are considered a real, viable candidate.

People/ Volunteers: Every campaign needs an army of people (preferably volunteers) who will stuff envelopes, knock on doors, make telephone calls and hand out fliers on election day. The candidate cannot be everywhere, but with enough people, his or her campaign can be.

Desire to Win: You must really want to win. Don’t go into the campaign half-heartedly. If you do, you will not win. The road is too hard and the demands too great.

Time: A candidate must be willing to commit a significant amount of time to the campaign. If you are running statewide, plan to commit at least two years of your life to the campaign. You have to raise money, give speeches, make appearances, etc., and all of that takes time.

Required Written Lecture: Elections- Modern Campaigns

Why are political campaigns in Texas so different than they were in the mid 20th Century?

First, the stakes are much greater. While many of the political officers (particularly state legislators) are still not paid that well, the other benefits of service are much greater. Government is involved in much more and leaders can do much more than they ever could before, therefore the competition for the offices increases.

Second, as the Republican Party has grown, so has the competition for positions-increased competition means a more costly, negative, and public campaign.

Third, as Texas has grown in size and political prominence, a victory in Texas can mean a national platform (do you really think anyone would have considered George W. Bush a candidate for president if he were governor of Vermont?).

Finally, modern technology and expensive means of communication readily lend themselves to use in modern campaigns. People respond more to television than to newspapers. People respond more to flashy advertisements than to long debates. People respond more to slick, professional commercials than to something that looks like it was done with a home video camera!

In the end, modern campaigns have arrived, because we, the voters, respond to them. If we still responded to emery boards and catchy phrases on the back of a funeral fan, then candidates would use those. However, the good old days are probably gone forever, if they ever existed at all!

Required Written Lecture: Aggregate Participation - Individual Participation

Factors that Determine Your Vote

Traditionally, political scientists divide the factors that determine vote choice into two groups: long-term factors - those characteristics of the voters that are not likely to change and predispose the voter to vote Democratic or Republican; and, short-term factors - those factors that often change from campaign to campaign, particularly candidates, issues, and national trends.

Long-term Factors: These are factors that generally describe the voter and do not change from one election to the next: income, education, ethnicity, gender, political party affiliation, and religiosity. These things do not rapidly change from one election to the other and generally predispose a voter to select candidates from one party or the other. For example, while there are clearly exceptions, voters who are wealthy, educated, male, white, and Republican tend to vote for Republican candidates unless given a compelling reason not to. On the other hand, minority, poor, and less-educated voters that identify with the Democratic Party will vote for the Democratic Party unless given a compelling reason to do otherwise.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Short-term factors: If long term factors were all that mattered, we would not get presidents or governors from different parties in back-to-back elections. However, while people are predisposed by the long-term factors to vote a certain way, factors associated with a particular election (short-term factors) can cause a person to vote against the position predisposed by their long-term qualities. Political Scientists generally identify three short-term factors (factors likely to change from campaign to campaign): candidates, issues and national trends.

Candidates: It is very rare that the same two candidates will seek the same office in back-to-back elections. Usually, the loser does not try again. Sometimes people like or dislike a particular candidate so much that they will vote against their predispositions. For example, Ronald Reagan was so likeable that many poor and uneducated voters supported him for president despite their predisposition to vote Democratic.

Issues: The issues that are important do not stay the same from one election to the next. Sometimes an issue is of such great importance (i.e., abortion or immigration) that a person will let his or her position on that issue override everything else in casting the vote.

National Trends: Finally, state and local elections are not held in a vacuum. They are held within the context of the national electoral, economic, and political environment. In 2006, Democrats did win in Texas and across the country because of the Iraq War, a weak economy, and Republican scandals. This meant that some people who would usually have voted Republican cast their vote for the Democrats against their own predispositions. In 2010, many folks who generally vote Democratic were frustrated with the economy and Obamacare and, therefore, voted Republican, sweeping in a large, conservative Republican majority. In 2016, many rural voters in Texas and across the country who have traditionally voted Democratic voted for Donald Trump (or against Hillary Clinton), weeping Trump into office.

See the next page to see how Texas compares!

Required Written Lecture: Texas Election 2014 and 2016: A GOP Sweep!

While prior to the 1990s, Texas government and politics was dominated by the Democratic party, recent elections have seen Republicans taking control. In 1994, George W. Bush was elected governor and no Democrat has held the office since that time. Two years later, Republicans won control of the Texas Senate and in 2002, Republicans gained a majority of the seats in the Texas House of Representatives. The 2014 elections saw Republicans maintaining their majorities in both the House and Senate and sweeping to victory in all statewide offices, including Governor (Abbott), Lt. Governor (Patrick) and Attorney General (Paxton). Republican Greg Abbott defeated Democrat Wendy Davis by almost twenty percent in the closely watched race for Governor. This trend in Texas matched the national trend where Republicans gained seats in the US House and gained a majority of the seats in the United States Senate.

In 2016, Republicans continued their domination in the Lone Start state with Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton by nine percent (52.5% to 43.5%) and Republicans holding their majorities in the Texas Congressional delegation, the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate. However, the decreasing popularity of Republican President Donald Trump seems to have hurt the Republican Party in Texas and the 2018 elections will allow us to see just how much damage has been (or has not been) done.

Required Written Lecture: Individual Participation- Summary

Individual Participation includes the methods of participation that individuals undertake by themselves. They are not doing it in a group. They are not doing it because they were coordinated or asked by the party or a lobbyist. They go into the booth or write that campaign check all by themselves. There are four basic types of individual participation: voting in an election, contacting a policy maker, contributing to a candidate and running for office. Each of these methods involves a different balance of costs and benefits. For example, running for offices may costs a lot of money and time, as well as a loss of privacy but could also allow you to have a significant impact on public policy and the lives of many people.

The most common method of individual participation is voting for a candidate. The reality is that some types of people vote more than than others and those differences matter. In Texas, people who are wealthier, older, white and more educated tend to vote at a higher rate than their counterparts Therefore, policies tend to benefit those who are wealthy, educated,older and white.

Finally, voting and other methods of individual participation take place only because people are willing to run for political office. To win an election, candidates must win in both primary and general elections. A winning campaign includes a good candidate, a strong organization, an effective message, a good strategy and necessary resources (money, people and organization). Voters cast their votes based on long term (their age, wealth, religion, party, race and gender) and short term (candidates, issues and national crises) factors.

Unit 6 Lecture Slides

• Required Written Lecture: Branches of Government (one last time)

If you feel like you have read this lecture before, you are not crazy- this is the same intro that was used for Unit 4 and Unit 5 because I want to remind you, as you look at the Executive Branch, that it is part of a Three-Branch Government, each with primary, but interrelated responsibilities.

The government of Texas (and the United States) was founded on several principles. One of the most significant, and most unique in the 1700s when the United States Constitution was written, was the idea of separation of powers: different powers of government should be housed in separate and distinct branches (to read James Madison's defense of this arrangement, read Federalist Paper #47.

To understand why the authors of the United States Constitution chose such an arrangement, consider the context in which they were writing. They had been under a unitary government in Great Britain in which all governmental power was with the King. That power had been abused. They had tried the Articles of Confederation, where the national government had no real power. The alternative was to give the national government power, but control that power by distributing it among the branches. Our government is divided into three distinct and separate branches of government. This refers to the separation of powers-each branch of government is responsible for a certain function of governing:

Legislative Branch: The legislative branch was designed to make the laws. They write, debate and pass legislation that will govern the state of Texas.

The Executive Branch: The executive branch, including the governor and other executive offices (Attorney General, Comptroller, Secretary of State, etc.) was designated as the branch to execute the laws as passed by the legislature.

The Judicial Branch: The judicial branch was dedicated as the branch of government assigned to interpret the laws and apply them to specific situations.

Lecture: AUDIO 

While it was not one of the original three branches of government, we will also talk about the bureaucracy, the lower level officials who are dedicated to delivering the laws and implementing them, as passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and interpreted by the courts. You can consider the bureaucracy to be the face, hands or feet of the government-its delivery mechanism.

While they share parts of these powers (through checks and balances) with each other (for example, while the Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Governor can veto them) and the Courts can find the unconstitutional, each is mostly responsible for their area. Now, let's turn to the roles and responsiblities of the Executive Branch and the Bureaucracy.

Required Written Lecture: Getting There: Characterstics of Gubernatorial Elections

Characteristics of Gubernatorial Elections in Texas

As you should recall from Unit 2, Governors of Texas are elected by the voters every four years (even, nonPresidential election years) in partisan elections. History has shown us that modern gubernatorial elections in Texas share some common characteristics:

1) Candidates in the General Election are from the two Major Parties: With the exception of the 2010 election, the competitive candidates in the general election for the governor of Texas have been Democrats and Republicans or more specifically, a Democrat and a Republican. In 2006, former Republican State Treasurer and Actor/ Songwriter Kinky Friedman were serious competitors against Republican Rick Perry and Democrat Chris Bell. While Perry won, he received less than forty percent of the vote and the Strayhorn and Friedman combined for over thirty percent. I all other elections since the 1960s the vast majority of votes have gone to the Republican and Democratic candidates.

2) Candidates Seeking Re-election (Incumbents) Tend to Win- Since Ann Richards lost her re-election bid in a very close race to George W. Bush in 1994, no Candidate seeking re-election tot he Office of Governor has been defeated. Bush was re-elected in 1998, Perry re-elected in 2002 (after succeeding Bush in 2001), 2006 and 2010. Incumbents usually have an advantage in fundraising, name recognition and the ability to argue they already know how to do the job. Further, they seldom face a contested primary and can save their money for the general election.

3) Gubernatorial Campaigns Are Very Expensive. Given the high population and large geographic size of the state of Texas, campaigns for the most visible office in the state are bond to be expensive. Indeed, in 2014, with the two candidates spending in excess of $80 million, the campaign to become Governor of the One Start Stater was the most expensive in the United States.

4) Recent Candidates Are Becoming More Diverse. Historically, the vast majority of candidates for governor of Texas have been white males. However, beginning with the 1990 candidacy of Anne Richards, candidates have become more diverse with female candidates in 2006 (Independent Carole Strayhorn) and 2014 (Democrat Wendy Davis) and a Hispanic candidate (Democrat Tony Sanchez) in 2002. One can expect this trend to continue.

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy

Why Is the Governor's Position Weak?

The office of the governor of Texas is one of the more intriguing positions in politics. It is the most visible of all state offices and he or she is the most well-paid public official in the state. The governor is on TV all the time and people expect him or her to lead. We expect the governor to implement his or her campaign promises and to oversee the bureaucracy.

However, it is also among the weakest offices in the state and, arguably, the weakest executive office in the fifty states. The governor of Texas has limited appointive powers, weak judicial powers, and almost nonexistent budgetary powers. When North Carolina became the last state to give its governor the veto, the governor of Texas became the weakest governor in the country, based on formal powers. According to the formal powers of the office, the governor of Texas is the weakest governership in the country.

The reasons for this are many, but most are steeped in the history and political philosophy of the state. First, as discussed earlier, previous experiences with strong executives (Santa Anna). Let's look at the sources of weakness for the Texas governor:

1. First, the governor is not the only statewide elected officer. Indeed, he or she is one of more than a dozen officials elected statewide who have the same constituency and base of political support as the governor. This concept is referred to in Texas as the plural executive (I think this may be the most unique characteristics of the Governor of Texas). While other governors can appoint many of these officeholders, the governor of Texas must compete with them: lt. governor, comptroller of public accounts, general land use office, attorney general, commissioner of agriculture, railroad commissioner and public utilities commissioner. Each of these folks, who may be of the other political party, can derail the governor’s agenda.

2. Second, the Governor and Lt. Governor do not run as a team. Indeed, it is often the case that the Lt. Governor, who should be his major assistant, may be his primary competitor for the office of governor. He or she may also be of the other party. When George W. Bush was Governor, it was quite well known that Lt. Governor Rick Perry had "his eyes on the prize" of Governor.

 3. Third, the budget powers of the Governor of Texas are among the weakest in the nation. Recall the influence of the Legislative Budget Board. The governor, as a candidate, makes all kinds of promises about what he or she is going to do regarding state spending (increase education, cut taxes, etc.). But, the governor does not have the power to do that unless he or she can persuade the LBB and a majority of the legislature.

4. The governor has limited appointment powers. He or she can appoint people, but only to the positions of people who are at the end of their terms. Many of these are appointed for six year terms, so they will stay in office while he or she is governor and the governor can’t touch them.

Understand that the weakness of the Texas governor is rooted in our history. Abraham Lincoln, and E.J. Davis both provided negative experiences of strong leaders. So, Texas restricted the powers of the executive. Also, the philosophy that governs Texas politics suggests minimal government and the best way to limit government is to minimize the power that any one person has. Finally, weak governors and plural executives are characteristic of the Southern United States. The ten weakest governors in the country govern Southern states.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy

Characteristics of the Office of Governor

Plural Executive.  The most significant characteristic of the Executive Branch of Texas is that it is what is known as a "Plural Executive." This means that many officers, in addition to the Governor are elected statewide as part of the Executive Branch. These include (along with the Governor), the Lt. Governor, the Attorney General, Comptroller, the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Commissioner of Agriculture. Each of these positions are elected independent of the Governor and do not owe their loyalty or position to the Governor. Indeed, it is not unusual that people in these positions want to be Governor and may have little interest in seeing the current officeholder succeed. In fact, many consider AG to stand for "Aspiring Governor" rather than Attorney General!" Governor Abbott was Attorney General before his election as governor in 2014. Governor Rick Perry (2001-2015), his predecessor, was Lt. Governor before "moving up," and Governor Anne Richards (1991-1995) was Treasurer (a position that no longer exists) before she took office. Can you imagine how hard it is to be Governor knowing that at least five other statewide elected folks, sometimes of the opposition party, are looking over your shoulder hoping you fail? 

Gubernatorial Perks: What do you get for being governor? First and foremost, the governor gets a pretty good salary, especially relative to the $7,200 salary of the state legislators. In 2017, his or her salary was about $150,000 annually, plus a house (the governor’s mansion), car and driver and travel expenses. The salary ranks him or her 11th for salaries of governors in the United States. Interestingly, as recently as ten years ago, this salary was much higher-however, the salary has remained the same while many others have gone up. The governor also gets a security detail to protect the governor and his or her family.

Legal (Formal) Qualifications to Serve: The legal qualifications for service are quite minimal: you must be at least thirty years old, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Texas for the five years immediately prior to the election during which he or she is seeking office.

Informal Qualifications: While the vast majority of adult Texans could legally become governor, the reality is that most could not. These are the informal qualifications to be governor of Texas: have money or access to money, be white, male (historic), Protestant, conservative (or not liberal), and Republican (modern). It costs, at minimum, $25 million to mount a credible campaign for the office of governor of Texas-that eliminates most of us!

Also, while Texas has had two female governors, Miriam Ferguson 1925-27, 1933-35; and Anne Richards (1991-1995), the rest of the governors have been male. In a similar manner, while the demographics of Texas are changing such that one may see an Hispanic Governor in the near future, as of 2007, all Texas governors have been white. Texas governors have only been able to run again for office since the 1980s, but Rick Perry has made the most of that change, getting re-elected three times. Current Governor Greg Abbott (elected in 2014) broke another barrier, becoming the first person to serve as Texas Governor from a wheel chair.

On the other hand, while the vast majority of governors in the history of Texas have been Democrats, the last three (George W. Bush, Rick Perry and Greg Abott) have been Republican and recent trends would suggest that most future governors will be of the Republican party. Finally, regardless of party, only one governor ever elected in Texas (James V. Allred, 1935-37) could be considered liberal. Even recent Democrats might be considered moderate at best, but never liberal. So, in the twenty-first century, the informal characteristics necessary to be governor include being wealthy, white, male (maybe female), protestant, Republican, and conservative. Most Democratic governors tend to come up through the chain of government (attorney general, treasurer, Lt. Governor, etc.), while Republicans are more likely to come from a business background (Governor Abbott is an exception to that "rule,"having served 12 years as the Texas Attorney General before being elected governor.

As an interesting side fact, Governor Abbott is also the first Governor of Texas to serve from a wheel chair. He was injured in 1984, when a tree fell on him while he was jogging, leaving him paralyzed from the waste down. The last American governor to serve from a wheel chair was George Wallace, governor of Alabama from 1983-1987.

Lecture: AUDIO 

The Removal Process (The Impeachment Process)

How do we get rid of a governor during the middle of his or her term? We do this through an impeachment process very similar to the process in Washington to get rid of the president. The process involves the Texas House of Representatives (bringing indictment on impeachable offenses), the Texas Senate (declaring guilt or innocence). The chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court will preside over the trial in the Senate.

The only governor Texas to be impeached was James M. (Pa) Ferguson in 1917. While the constitution offers no reasons for impeaching a governor, the Senate in this trial determined there were three impeachable offenses:

    1) malfeasance (doing the job illegally)

    2) misfeasance (doing the job poorly)

    3) nonfeasance (failing to do the job at all).

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy

Formal Powers of the Office of Governor

Lecture: AUDIO 

As noted above, when it comes to formal powers, the Texas governor is among the weakest in the country. Formal powers are those powers that are associated with the office of governor rather than the person holding that office. Greg Abbott has the same formal powers as Rick Perry, George W. Bush or Anne Richards had when they were in the same position. Formal powers of the governor do not vary from person to person within the state. In determining the strength of a governor’s formal powers, we generally look at six different dimensions of that power:

1. Tenure Potential: How long can a person hold the office of governor assuming the voters want to keep him or her in that office? In Texas, there is no limit on how many four-year terms the governor can serve if he or she continues to seek and win re-election to the office. This is a very significant power, because it means that opponents to the governor cannot just wait until he or she is out of office to oppose legislation because it is not clear when that governor will be out of office. Until the 1970s. Texas governors were limited to one consecutive four year term.

2. Appointive Powers: How many officeholders can the governor appoint? The governor of Texas can appoint about 3,000 different people during a four-year term. This is a significant power because the governor can put people in positions that support him or her and can use the appointments to get favors with legislators. For example, the governor can appoint the friend of a senator to a particular board and that senator may support the governor's budget proposal or bill. Take a look at these press releases for some of the most recent appointments. Unfortunately, most people only are aware of a gubernatorial appointment if it is poorly done and the appointee does something illegal, immoral, or stupid.

3. Removal Powers: What power does the governor have to remove appointees who are not doing the job to his or her satisfaction? The Governor of Texas does have the power to remove appointees from office, however, it is very limited in scope. First, he or she can only remove people that he has appointed. The governor cannot come in and replace all of the people appointed by his or her predecessor. The governor can only replace them as their terms end. Second, the governor must get approval from the Senate to remove an office holder-this is a very restrictive and unusual limitation.

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy

Formal Powers of the Office of Governor, continued

Lecture: AUDIO 

4.  Budgetary Powers: How much control does the governor have over the state budget? As discussed under the legislature, the power to write the budget lies in the hands of the Legislative Budget Board. The governor can try to persuade them, but he cannot act for them. He does have one strong budget power-the line-item veto, the power to strike out or eliminate particular items from the budget. This can be overridden by the legislature, but, as long as the Governor does not get carried away, it seldom is.
5. Supervising Powers. In addition to overseeing the development of the biennial budget, the governor also helps the state dvelope and implement longterm strategies for planning and development. Effective governments are those that don't just react, but plan and look ahead, anticipating problems and developing solutions. Included in this power is the ability to review state agencies on a regular basis (Texas Performance Reviews).

6. Legislative Powers: How can the governor influence the activities of the Texas Legislature? The most important power the governor has relative to the legislature is the veto, which enables governors to nullify bills, concurrent resolutions, and appropriation items. A skillful governor can use the threat of the veto to influence legislation during the session. The veto can also be used as a last resort intervention in the budget process to affect spending priorities at the end of a legislative session. The governor seldom uses the veto (from 2000-06, Rick Perry vetoed just forty-five pieces of legislation).The governor does have an override-proof veto-any veto sent to the legislature after the legislature has ended its session.

The power to veto specific budget items, called the line-item veto, adds another dimension to the governor's veto power. The line-item veto provides a surgical tool that governors can use to cut elements out of a bill without vetoing the entire measure. But as with other vetoes, a governor who has not laid the political groundwork for such action may be subject to criticism and can expect to be called upon publicly to justify such action in high-visibility cases. If a governor neither signs nor vetoes a bill, it automatically becomes law without the governor's signature.

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy

Formal Powers of the Office of Governor, continued

The governor also has the power to informally set the legislative agenda with his or her message power by giving two constitutionally mandated speeches: The State of the State Address and the biennial (every two years) Budget Address. With each of these speeches, the governor establishes which issues he or she is most concerned with and, usually, the legislature will listen and at least consider these issues as part of its agenda. When he was governor, George W. Bush used these speeches effectively to promote his key issues: tax cuts, education reform, welfare reform, and tort (lawsuit) reform).

Lecture: AUDIO 

The final legislative power of the governor of Texas is his or her power to call the legislature into special session - bringing them back to Austin to conduct business when they have already adjourned. The governor is the only person, not the speaker, not the lt. governor, who can call a special session of the Texas Legislature. He also has the power to limit which issue (or issues) they will consider in this session. A special session cannot exceed thirty days, but if the legislature has not completed business in that time, the governor can just call another session. Most of the time, governors use this power when there is some kind of crisis-the budget is out of whack, there has been a natural disaster, a scandal, or a court order (education reform).

Judicial Powers

Finally, while the powers are rather limited, the governor of Texas does have some relative to the judicial branch. First, he or she appoints and oversees the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. This Board determines if people convicted of crimes in Texas will be paroled or pardoned, and if the death penalty will be carried out. Texas is the only state in the country where the governor does not determine if the death penalty will be carried out. He can recommend a pardon be given, but the decision is up to the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

His second power is related to this. He can give a thirty-day “stay of execution” while the Board considers a pardon, but, at the end of that stay, if the Board wants to go forward with the execution, he cannot stop it.

To conclude, the formal powers of the governor of Texas are very weak. We expect great things of the governor when we elect him or her to office, but we then tie the governor's hands when it comes to actually getting things done.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy

Informal Powers of the Office of Governor

Now, let's turn to the informal powers or roles associated with the office of governor of Texas. These roles are not guaranteed by the constitution or the rules, but their strength will vary from governor to governor. These powers have to do with the abilities, experiences and, situations of each governor. Rick Perry has different strengths than George W. Bush or Anne Richards.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Party Power

The governor is the symbolic head or leader of his or her political party in the state. In this role, he or she raises money, recruits candidates, and tries to coordinate the members of the party behind his or her legislative agenda. He or she usually works closely with the members of the party in the legislature and appoints members of his or her party to commissions and boards. Historically, when Democrats controlled almost all or all of the offices, the party role was very weak. This has changed in recent years, although Governors Bush and Perry have worked as closely with Democrats as with Republicans. With Republicans having larger legislative majorities (alot more Republicans than Democrats) in recent years, Governor Abbott has not had to work closely with Democrats to achieve his agenda.

Power of Popularity

Lecture: AUDIO 

A governor that has the public behind him or her can get a lot more done than a governor that is unpopular (duh!). Legislators that disagree with a governor are not willing to risk their own positions to make that opposition public if 80% of the public approves of the job the governor is doing. A pollin the summer of 2017 had Governor Abbott's popularity at a very respectable 60 percent.

Power to Represent the State (note: your text considers this a formal power, but I disagree)

Lecture: AUDIO 

Perhaps the fastest growing informal role of the governor is the power to represent the state of Texas on the national and international stage. The governor represents the state in negotiations with other states and with other countries. With its proximity to Mexico, the international role is a particularly important one for the governor of Texas. The governor also represents Texas in its efforts to persuade the national government-for example, the governor of Texas has voiced his opinion on the new immigration legislation being considered in Washington and to lobby for aid following Hurricane  Harvey. Finally, governors can represent the state in negotiations with businesses that are considering bringing a plant, factory or office to Texas.

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy

Informal Powers of the Office of Governor, continued

Power of Staff

Lecture: AUDIO 

One power that the governor has relative to the legislature that is very important is the ability to put together and use a large staff (note these are staff positions, not appointments to boards or commissions or formal positions). Remember that most legislators have, at most, eight people on his or her staff. The governor of Texas has between two hundred and three hundred people on his or her staff. Effective staff can make or break a governor, because they are the governor's mouthpiece and physical presence in so many places. Consider the following three types of staff positions:

Political positions: These spots can be and are filled by people as political rewards. The son or daughter of a big contributor or the big contributor him or herself. Make sure you put these people in positions where it does not matter if they screw up, it will not hurt you.

Personal positions: These are people who have known the governor for a long time and that have the trust of the governor. These people are appointed to positions where loyalty is important. You also want these people in positions close to you (such as chief of staff) so they have the courage to tell you when you do or say something stupid. These folks should be the moral compass of the administration.

Professional positions: Finally, most positions should be filled by folks who bring a unique quality or skill to the position that makes them uniquely qualified to do it. For example, you want your staff person in charge of health care policy to know health care policy. You want your press agent to know how to deal with the press. If these positions are filled by unqualified people, you will have significant problems. You also must let them do their job-if they disagree with you, that is okay. You have hired them because of their expertise.

Power of Agenda Setting

This power has to do with the formal power of message noted above in combination with the governor’s relation to the press. It has to do with how effectively the governor is able to set the agenda. Every governor gives speeches, but not all governors are good it. This has to do with how effectively a governor can use her public and private speaking abilities to persuade the public and the legislature to address issues he or she deems important. An effective governor is one who can persuade the public and the legislature to consider the issues that he or she thinks are important and, thus, set the agenda for the state.

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy

Why are Some Governors More Effective than others?

Variations in Formal Powers

As noted above, governors in almost every other state have more formal powers (tenure, appointment, budget, removal, legislative, message, and judicial) than the governor of Texas. The governor of New York or Maryland starts off at a significant advantage over the governor of Texas because he or she has some formal powers that are much stronger (appointment, judicial, budget, and removal) than the governor of Texas. While formal powers are unlikely to vary from one Texas Governor to the next, political resources are likely to vary a great deal.

Variations in Political and Personal Resources

For example, some governors have the ability to move the public and increase their popularity, while others do not. As governor of Texas, Anne Richards seemed pretty good at this, while Rick Perry did not. The verdict is still out on Governor Abbott's ability to move public opinion. Popularity is also tied to the situation-when the economy is in trouble, a governor’s popularity will fall. Second, political party strength can be a good resource-has not usually been the case in Texas, although this is changing. Finally, what experience does the governor bring to the office? Former governors who have served in the legislature or other statewide offices where they have had to work with the legislature will generally be at an advantage. This experience will help them lead more effectively.

Variations in Political Skills

While all governors have an array of political skills (they have to have some skills to have been elected governor), they all have strengths and weaknesses. Are they good at one-on-one negotiations? Do they give a good speech? Are they good on television? Are they good at understanding the complexity of public policy? All of these skills will help to make a person a more or less effective governor.

Variations in Personality

What kind of feeling does a person give us? The success of a governor (or anyone else for that matter) relies as much on how they make us feel as what they believe or do. If they have a personality that attracts people, governors are more likely to be successful than if they give us the chills and the willies!

Required Written Lecture: Roles of the Governor: Formal Roles

One way to look at the Office of Governor is to describe the formal and informal powers associated with the Office as we did above. Another way is to examine the particular roles that the Governor plays in state government and politics. We will do that below.

Formal Roles of the Office of Governor

The formal roles are those that stem from the formal powers and duties assigned to the Governor by the Texas Constitution. While these roles are associated with teh Constitutional powers of the Office and therefore shuls be performed by all Texas Governors, the degree to which they play each role and how well they perform each role is a function of the interests and abilities of each Governor as well as the particular situation and times in why he or she governs. 

Chief Executive. The Governor is the top executive in the Executive Branch of Government- he is on top of the pyramid. In that role, it is up to the governor to see that laws are being implemented correctly, that the bureaucracy is running effectively and efficiently and that state government officials are doing their job. The formal powers most associated with this role are The power of Appointment, the Power of Removal, the Power of Budgeting (as limited as that power is in Texas) and the Supervising Powers. Governors are expected to not only direct the Executive on a daily basis, but also to provide a roadmap for the future of the Administration and the policies of the state, not just addressing the challenges of today, but anticipating and preparing for the challenges of tomorrow.

Chief Legislator. While the Governor is not an official member of the Legislative Branch,he or she is expected to take an active role in promoting legislation that he or she wants to see become law. The fact is that all policy changes int eh state of Texas, including those supported by the Governor, must be approved by both chambers of the Texas Legislature. Therefore, any Governor that wants to see his or her ideas become law must work with the Texas Legislature and get at least half of the members in each chamber to support those proposals before they can become law. The Formal Powers associated with this Role are Legislative Powers (including veto, line-item veto, State of the State Address and Budget Address) and Appointment Powers (the Governor agrees to appoint someone a legislator likes to a position in exchange for his or her support of a proposal). Remember that a Governor CANNOT introduce legislation, but must get a friendly legislator to do it on his or her behalf.

Commander in Chief/ Top Cop. While role of Commander in Chief is not nearly so powerful for the Governor of Texas as it is for the President of the United States who has the US Military at his disposal, the Texas Governor does have some significant "top cop" duties. He or she is responsible for the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), the Texas Rangers (not the baseball team!) and the National Guard of Texas. HE or she can call these units into action whenever it is deemed necessary whether it is to apprehend a criminal, conduct an investigation or respond to a natural disaster. The Judicial Power is often executed as part of this role, especially when the Governor recommends to the Board of Pardons and Paroles that a convicted criminal be pardoned or paroled.

Chief of State/ Cheerleader. The Texas Constitution recognizes the Governor Texas as the top official of the state and as such he or she represents the State of Texas at public functions across the state and the world. This role is mostly ceremonial- when the Governor welcomes a foreign dignitary, cuts the ribbon a new state building, recognizes the World Series Champion Houston Astros (my prediction!) or speaks at the opening of a new hi-tech plant in Arlington. There are no formal powers really associated with this Role because it is indeed mostly ceremonial, but the Governor is expected to be seen, shake hands and kiss babies and it might get him or her a few votes come the next election.

Chief Intergovernmental Diplomat. An extension of the Chief of State role that might have a little more political heft is the role of Chief Intergovernmental Diplomat. The Governor is responsible to represent the state in negotiations with the National government in Washington, DC, leaders in other countries and Governors in other states. He or she is expected, for example, to make sure the voice and interests of Texas are represented in Washington. The Administration of Governor Greg Abbott has been particularly active in making its opposition to polices of the Obama Administration known- this is part of the role of Chief Intergovernmental Diplomat. Given our proximity to Mexico, the role of negotiating with foreign countries is more significant in Texas than it is is for Governors in many other states.

Required Written Lecture: Roles of the Governor- Informal Roles

Informal Roles of the Governor.

While formal roles spring from the Constitutional Responsibilities of the Office, the informal roles come from the political obligations that go with the job if the Governor wants to get relelected or see how or her party do well in the next election.

Chief of Party. The Governor of Texas is the most visible member of his or her party and as such, is the leader of the party. In that role, he or she is responsible for helping to set and promote the agenda of the party, raise campaign funds for the party and recruit quality party candidates for state legislative and statewide offices. Other members of the political party look to him or her for direction.

Leader of the People. The Governor is, by far, the most visible and most recognizable member of state government. As such, he or she is expected to try to move public opinion in the direction that fits his or her approach to governing. A popular governor can alot more done than an unpopular one. Tools for this role includes social media radio shows and doing TV interviews.

What Influences The Roles That Governors Emphasize

Why Do The Importance of Roles Vary from Governor to Governor in Texas?

While all Governors of Texas (and the other 49 states as well) have to a degree, play each of these roles to be effective, various governors emphasize different roles during their tenure in the Executive Office. For example, in his relatively short time in Office, Governor Abbott has given significant attention to his role of Intergovernmental Diplomat, especially relative to the national government in Washington, DC, while Governor George W. Bush focused more on getting his policies through the legislature (Chief Legislator Role). Let's look at why priorities tend to vary from one governor to the next.

Demands of the Job. Perhaps the most significant source of variation is beyond the control of the Governor- the situation or timing demands that a Governor focus on a particular role. For example, even if a Governor has little interest in the role of "top cop," that role will rise to the top of the list of priorities if there is an escaped prisoner or on the loose or there is a sudden increase in crime in Dallas. Or, if the Governors most important policy proposal (the one that got him or her elected) is about to be defeated in the Texas Legislature, he or she had better become the Chief Legislator to try and save it. A governor who ignores these situations will not be Governor long. The importance of Chief Intergovernmental Diplomat went way up for Governor Abbott as the state needed massive federal help in response to Hurricane Harvey in the summer of 2017.

Personality and Skill Set of the Governor. Some Governors are better at certain aspects of the job than others and like all of us, Governors would prefer to spend their time on things they are good at. A Governor who is not a great public speaker, but is great at "closed door" negotiating, will likely emphasize the role of Chief Legislator or Chief Executive and give less attention to the being Cheerleader or Leader of the People. For example, Governor Anne Richards (1991-1995) spent little time trying to woo state legislators and alot of time rallying the public, while George W. Bush (1994-2001) did the opposite. Bush loved making deals with legislators and Richards hated.

Demands of the Public. Regardless of what you might read in the paper, on the Internet or hear on talk radio, politicians do listen to the public- sometimes to a fault. Governors want to be liked and, more significantly, want to be re-elected. Now that there are no term limits on Governors in Texas, this is particularly important. Even if a Governor does not really care for the administrative duties of the job, if the public perceives that there is a scandal or the Administration is unorganized or inefficient, they will demand that the Governor focus his attention on that role. Elected n the same era that gave us President Trump, Governor Abbott rightfully believes that many Teans are fed up with Washington and has therefore given great attention to his role of Intergovernmental Diplomat challenging those in Washington, DC.

Interests of the Governor. It does matter who is sitting in that seat behind the desk. One governor may be most interested in reigning in state spending, so his or her focus will be on Chief Legislator. Another might be more interested in making sure that government delivers its services effectively and efficiently so he or she would focus on the role of Chief Executive. Yet a third Governor may be most interested in building up his or her party to gain strength fo the next election so that person would gravitate toward the informal role of Party Leader. Governors are people too and their wants and interests influence how they approach the job of Governor.

As you look at the recent Governors of Texas, think about how their situations, personalities, skill sets and interests was reflected in the say they performed their job as Governor Texas.

Required Written Lecture: Key Governors in Texas History

In its long history, Texas has had almost fifty governors. Some were bad, some were good, some were forgettable. Find below a few of the Governors of Texas who were notable and why they are remembered.

Sam Houston (1858-1861). Leader of the Texas Army in the Battle for Texas Independence from Mexico and President of the nation of Texas, Sam Houston is probably the most famous Texan of all time- even more than Houston Astro Nolan Ryan or Dallas Cowboy Troy Aikman! Governor from 1858-1861, Houston oppose plans to leave the union over slavery, understanding from his military experience that the South did not have the economic or human resources to win the Civil War.

Edmond J. (EJ) Davis. (1869-1874). EJ Davis was elected under what I call the Reconstruction Constitution which gave great powers to the Executive Branch of government, tot he state government over the local governments and was passed by mostly nonTexans. A Radical Republican (wanted to make the South suffer for killing Lincoln and starting the Civil War), he was not popular in Texas. He is perhaps most known for his refusal to leave office after his defeat in 1874. HE was forcibly removed from the Office.

Miriam Wallace "Ma" Ferguson (1925-1927; 1933-1935). Twice elected to the office, Ferguson was the first female Governor of Tex an second female Governor in the United States. First elected to replace her husband Jim "Pa" Ferguson, she promised to let her husband help her with key decisions. One thing she did was make it illegal to wear sheets in public as a shot at the KKK. In 1932, she was elected Governor again more on her own skills than the relationship with her husband.

James Allred (1935-1939). Elected during the Depression, Allred is known as the first (and some say only) true Progressive Liberal to be elected to that post. During his tenure, he pushed for increasing taxes on chain stores, argued for ethics reform and actively opposed the regressive sales tax. He also worked closely with teh Roosevelt Administration in Washington to bring money to Texas to combat the Great Depression.

Allan Shivers (1949-1957). Shivers first became governor when he was appointed to fill the term of a Governor who died in 1949. In 1950, Democrat Shivers was elected in his own right, In 1952, he was so popular that he was nominated by both parties and was on the ballot twice- once as the Democratic nominee and also as the Republican nominee. A conservative Democrat, he actively campaigned for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President and encouraged his followers, known as Shivercrats, to do the same.

Bill Clements (1979-1983; 1987-1991). Clements, a wealthy Texas businessman who made his money in oil, was the first Republican governor to be elected in Texas in more than a century (since EJ Davis). In his first term, Clements tried to bring his business experience to government working to reorganize the office and make it more efficient. During his second four year term, he focused on prison overcrowding.

Ann Richards (1991-1995). Ann Richards had served as Treasurer for eight yeas before running for Gvernor in 1990. As Treasurer, whe as the first woman elected statewide in almost fifty years. In 1990, she became the second woman elected Governor Texas, defeating businessman Clayton Williams. Although the economy was rebounding,s he struggled with the more conservative leaders of the Texas Legislature. She lost to George W. Bush for re-election in 1994, setting him on a path to the White House.

George W. Bush (1995-2001). George W. Bush was unique among Texas Governors for several reasons. First, he was only the second Republican to be elected Governor of Texas since reconstruction and the first to be re-elected to consecutive terms. Second, he is the only Texas Governor since the 1950s to have been elected with no prior political experience. He had run unsuccessfully for Congress, but never held a government post before his election. Finally, he is the only Texas Governor to go on to serve as President of the United states.

Rick Perry (2001-2015). When Governor George W. Bush was sworn in as the 43rd President of the United States in 2001, Texas Lt. Governor Rick Perry moved up to the Governorship in the Lone Star State. Perry then proceeded to be re-elected in his own right three times (2002, 2006, 2010), choosing not to seek re-election in 2014. He is the longest serving governor (by almost eight years) in the history of the state.

Gregg Abbott (2015-). A Republican who served eight years as Attorney General (2007-2015), Abbott is the first Texas Governor to serve from a wheel chair.  

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy- What is the Bureacracy?

What is the Bureaucracy?

The state bureaucracy, also called "The Administrative State" is the part of the Executive Branch that is dedicated to delivering the services and administering the regulations that are mandated by the laws passed by the Texas Legislature. To understand the role of the bureaucracy, you need to understand a few terms:

Public Policy. The laws (legislative branch), court decisions (judicial branch) and executive orders (Executive branch) as well as Federal mandates (National Government) that govern life in Teas are called, collectively, public policy.

Policy Implementation. The process of translating sometimes abstract public policy into action. For example, if the Texas Legislature passes a law mandating all high school students take four years of math to graduate, it is up to the Texas Board of Education to "make it so" by deciding exactly what math courses students must complete and skills they msut matter in order to meet the law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.

Public Administration. The various agencies, boards, commissions, bureaus and departments necessary to implement the various public policies noted above.

Bureaucrats. The individuals who hold positions in public administration and implement the public policies as required by the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches of government. While some are elected and some appointed, most are hired based on some objective measure of merit or ability. The largest segment of the bureaucracy in Texas (and any other state) are educators- teachers and professors in elementary school, middle school, high school and colleges.

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy- Who is the Bureaucracy?

Who Is the Bureaucracy?

At the upper level of the Administrative State, bureaucracies in Texas can be sorted into four categories:

1) Elected Executives- Agency heads elected by the public.

2) Appointed Executives- Agency heads appointed by the Governor.

3) Elected Boards and Commissions- Boards and Commissions elected by the voters.

4) Appointed Boards and Commissions- Boards and Commissions appointed by the Governor (often with consent of the Legislature)

Elected Executives:

Lt. Governor

This person is elected statewide just like the governor, but independent from the governor (unlike most states). In addition to serving as governor if the governor is unable to do so, the lt. governor presides over the Texas Senate and serves on a variety of boards and commissions. As President of the Texas Senate, the lt. Governor has significant power over state policy and the state budget- in fact, he or she usually has more power than the governor over significant matters of public policy.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Attorney General

This elected officer serves as the lead attorney of the state, overseeing the court system, representing the state in cases of lawsuit, and providing legal advice to the Office of the Governor. The Attorney General also oversees consumer protection, worker's compensation and environmental protection. His or her most important job, however, is issuing opinions on the legality of existing or proposed legislation and administrative (governor) actions.

Comptroller of Public Accounts

This officer is the primary fiscal and budget officer of the state. Providing information to the governor and legislature regarding the economy and the amount of revenues available in a given budget year, He or she is responsible for administering the state’s tax system and provides to the legislature an estimate of the approximate revenues that will be available for the budget. The Texas budget can be no larger than the amount that the comptroller says will be raised so his or her estimate is very important. In fact, many suggest (including me) that his or her influence on the state budget is greater than that of the governor. This office is also responsible for the review of agency actions through the Texas Performance Review.

Commissioner of General Land Office

This office is, in large part, an outdated one left over from the time when most of the land in the state of Texas was owned by the state of Texas. Historically, the land commissioner was responsible for maintaining, and when necessary, selling, that land. He or she is now responsible for about twenty million acres, including leasing for oil and natural gas, administering land programs for veterans, and protecting the environment on these public lands.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Commissioner of Agriculture

This statewide elected officer is the head of the state’s Department of Agriculture and regulation and promotion of the state’s farming and agribusiness industry. They also determine weights and measures- are you really getting gallon of gas?

The Treasurer (Abolished in 1996)

From its inception until 1996, Texas had an elected Treasurer However, that office, which had been in charge of handling receipts and writing checks on behalf of the State of Texas. The duties of the Office of Treasurer were taken over by the Office of Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Required Written Lecture: Plural Executive- Appointed Offices

2) Statewide Appointed Office:

Secretary of State

Among other things, the secretary of state is the primary elections officer of the state. He or she oversees, regulates, and certifies all elections within the state. Also, the Secretary of State is responsible for registering and regulating businesses. Any person or company wishing to conduct business in Texas must register with the Texas Secretary of State.

Commissioner of Education

The Commissioner of Education heads the Texas Education Agency, which oversees pre-kindergarten through high school education for more than five million students enrolled in both traditional public schools and charter schools.

3) Elected Boards and Commissions:

Lecture: AUDIO 

Texas Railroad Commission

The three members of the TRC are very powerful, because they regulate all mining and extracting industries (gas, coal, etc.). Further, they control interstate transportation, including trucks, busing, and railroads. This Board has evolved from regulating railroads to being, basically, the department of transportation for the state.

State Board of Education

The fifteen members of the State Board of Education are elected from fifteen districts across the state. They are responsible for supplying guidance and direction regarding the selection of curricula and textbooks for the school districts across the state.

4) Appointed Boards and Commissions.

There are more than 140 appointed Boards and Commissions in Texas, far too many to name, but they include The The Public Utilities Commission, The College Governing Board and the Parks and Wildlife Commission. These Boards and Commissions govern numerous aspects of our lives. Their members are appointed by the Governor or some combination of elected officials.Most serve six year terms.

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy- Characteristics of the Modern Bureaucracy

Characteristics of the Bureaucracy

Lecture: AUDIO 

The bureaucracy is the delivery mechanism of the government- they are the hands, face and feet of government. They are the ones who deliver the government services. Because Texas is such a large state, bureaucracy in the state is also large- the proposed 2012/2013 budget exceeds $180 billion! However, because the state is so large and has a generally conservative approach to governing, the per capita spending is second lowest in the country. More than one million of the citizens of Texas work for the government (teachers, bureaucrats, elected officials, etc.). The word bureaucracy conjures up all kinds of negative images in the minds of most people: big, impersonal, red tape, inefficient, etc. We all have horror stories of the unresponsive bureaucracy blocking what we wanted or needed to do for "no good reason." However, bureaucracies are the basic structure by which the government in Texas and any large organization generally operates.

The great German economic and political theorist Max Weber (note: you don’t have to read the bio of Weber - it is just for your information) outlined the basic characteristics of a bureaucracy. According to Weber, a bureaucracy, although not liked by many, is the best way to achieve the provision of services that a government must provide. He describes bureaucracies as goal-oriented organizations designed according to rational principles in order to efficiently attain their goals. He felt that as organizations (including government) got larger, it was inevitable and necessary that they move toward a bureaucratic structure and approach. Do you agree or disagree with this? According to Weber, the modern bureaucracy has five characteristics: hierarchical, specialization, compartmentalized, routinization, and politically neutral (merit-based). Let’s take a look at each one briefly:

Lecture: AUDIO 

Hierarchical: Bureaucracies are hierarchical. That means they are organized like a pyramid, with one person at the top (i.e., the governor) and increasing numbers of secretaries, section heads, departments heads, assistants, and associates below. Each person is responsible for the people below him or her and responsible to the people above. While this organization is efficient in terms of chain of command, it makes it easy to pass the buck "it was not my fault" and sometimes information gets distorted in passing it up and down the chain. Remember the game of operator you played as a kid where you whispered a secret to the person behind you to the point that it was unrecognizable by the end?

Specialization: Bureaucrats are specialized-each person in the bureaucracy does a certain thing and is responsible for just that thing. In theory, this means that the best persons are responsible for each thing. In practice, it means that for someone seeking multiple government services, he or she may have to go through numerous hoops and chase down several people to get anything done ("Get it signed here, here, here and over there!"). Think about all of the hoops you have to jump through to drop one course and add another.

Lecture: AUDIO 

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy- Characteristics of the Modern Bureaucracy

Characteristics of the Modern Bureaucracy (continued)

Compartmentalization: Not only are the people in a bureaucracy specialized, so are the positions and tasks. Each unit of the bureaucracy is relatively self-contained, focusing on its own thing and often giving little consideration to what is going on elsewhere. They are each designed to do a certain, limited thing and do it well, but, not to do anything else. Again, this is good in terms of focus, but difficult in terms of building communication. IT makes it difficult to coordinate large projects-sort of like trying to herd cats!

Routinization: Over time, Weber argues, a bureaucracy develops the best and most effective way to perform certain tasks. This leads to routines-certain things are always done a certain way to ensure uniform performance and consistency. This assumes that the routine is indeed the most effective and efficient. However, sometimes routines outlive their purpose and their logic. Government does not always keep up with change and advances. Too often, the reason things are done a certain way is not “because it is best,” but rather, “because we have always done it that way.”

Politically Neutral (Merit-Based): In order to apply the laws and policies effectively and fairly, bureaucrats are supposed to be politically neutral. That means that individuals are hired, promoted, and fired according to how well they do the job and not according to whom they know, their political party, or whom they help or don’t help. In theory, this works well, but the reality is (as noted above in talking about governor’s staff), hiring is often political.

Required Written Lecture: Bureaucracy- How A Bureaucrat Can Change Government

How a Bureaucrat Can Change the World!?

Well- change is hard for any of us- we like doing things the way we have always done them, but it may be even harder for a big government institution than it is fur us. Remember the Bureaucratic characteristic of "routinization"- bureaucratic agencies tend to do things in a routine, based on experience- the same way they have always done them.

So- what if you were a bureaucrat who wanted to change things up and try to do something different? A friend who once chaired a government agency said he learned some lessons when trying to get his agency to change its processes. He reminded me if you want to change the way government operates, you need at least three things: a flashlight, a match and a ledger.

A Flashlight- First, you must have a flashlight so that you can shine a light on the problem you are trying to fix, If people do not recognize or understand that there is a problem, there will be no desire to fix it.

A Match - Second, you need a match or a lighter- some way to burn up the old way of doing things. If you leave the old ways in place it is too easy to go back to doing things that way. It is far to easy and fart too natural to do things the way you always have done them, so you have to find a way to make returning to the old path much more difficult.

A Ledger (Records) - Finally, you have to be able to prove that the new way is better than the old way. Therefore, you need some way to prove that the new method, process or policy is either more effective (does a better job of solving the problem) or more efficients (uses less money or less people or less time). If there is no benefit in doing things the new way, people will have no reason or desire to invest the time in learning the new way.

In other words, changing is as hard for big institutions as it is for you!

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy- Growth of the Bureaucracy

Growth of the Bureaucracy

Lecture: AUDIO 

As noted above, Texas has much more government that it had just a decade ago, much less fifty years ago. Why has government grown so much, especially in light of the conservative nature of the state and its recent Republican control?

1. Greater Demands by the People: While people in Texas talk about wanting less government, they keep demanding more services-somebody has to teach the children, clean the streets, pick up the garbage, regulate the air, regulate the nursing homes, regulate the day care centers, etc. As people moved away from family and rural communities, they needed (and demanded) more government services.

2. Federal Government Growth has Required State Growth: As the national government has gotten more active in the environment, education (No Child Left Behind), social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., state government has grown to deliver the services created and mandated by the state.

3. A More Complex Society: When you hear your grandparents talking about a time when there was no “big government,” they may be exaggerating, but they may also be correct. Fifty-sixty years ago, we did not need as much government-a simpler time called for a simpler government, which did not need to worry about regulating the Internet, television, cloning, partial-birth abortions, etc.. As society has grown more complex, so have the problems government must deal with.

4. Increased Party Competition: You may recall that earlier in the semester, we talked about political parties as being like competitors in a market place, each trying to “buy” votes. As the party “market” in Texas has become more competitive, government has grown as the two parties try to provide more services or more regulation or more government in order to increase their share of the votes. This is particularly evident in the rise of the Iron (cozy) Triangle, which is discussed in the next lecture segment. As elections become more competitive (and costly), legislators need more money to run for office and are more concerned about keeping lobbyists and interest groups happy.

As the population of Texas continues to grow, and the demands of the public become greater and greater, one can expect the bureaucracy to continue to grow. Do you think we will arrive at a point where government will not grow anymore? Why or why not?

Lecture: AUDIO 

Required Written Lecture: The Executive and Bureaucracy

Controlling the Bureaucracy

One particular quality sets the bureaucracy apart from the executive (governor), legislative (legislature ) and judicial (courts) branches of government in Texas: they are NOT elected by the public. Therefore, public control over the bureaucracy, if it is to happen at all, must come through some other mechanism(s).

Let's look at three possible sources for controlling the bureaucracy as noted in your textbook: the executive branch (the Governor), the legislature, and the public.

1) The Executive Branch

Probably the best hope for the executive to control the bureaucracy is the appointive power of the executive. However, as noted earlier, that power is pretty weak and the power of removal is even weaker. If a governor does not like what a bureaucrat is doing, but he or she did not appoint that person (and the action is not illegal), he really cannot control that person. In other states, the governor can control the bureaucracy, at least so some extent, by controlling the budget. However, we know that the budget power in Texas resides much more with the Legislative Budget Board than with the executive. Finally, because the government in Texas is so large (with numerous elected and appointed leaders), the governor has little real contact with most of the agencies and therefore, little control.

Lecture: AUDIO 

2) The Legislative Branch

Probably the best hope for regulating the bureaucracy comes from the legislative branch because of their budget powers and oversight responsibilities. They have the legal power of legislative oversight, with the ability to make sure that the agency is doing what it is supposed to. They often do this with their biennial budget hearings during which the agencies must defend their requests for money and the legislature may deny them. However, because of the *iron triangle (cozy triangle), true and effective oversight seldom happens. Remember, it is often in the interest of the legislators, the agency, and the interest group to keep the money coming even if the agency is not using it wisely. While the legislature has more formal tools to regulate the bureaucracy than does the governor, it often lacks the desire or will to use them.

In order to supposedly set aside some of the political pressure in the Legislature to keep funding agencies, in 1977, Texas established a process for all existing boards to periodically (Sunset Act) review agencies - if they do not choose to renew the agencies, they automatically end (the sun sets on them, in other words). The Sunset Advisory Commission includes five House members, five senators and two citizen members and has eliminated more than a dozen agencies and merged almost a dozen more.

3) The Public

Unlike most states, the public does have some electoral control, albeit not much, over the bureaucracy. They elect four department heads (comptroller, attorney general, land use and agriculture) and some commissioners. However, most voters have little real understanding about who these people are or what they do. Even if they cannot control the agencies, they can at least observe them- according to the 1973 Texas Open Records Act, the public has access to most of the publications and meetings of bureaucratic agencies. If they are aware of significant problems, the public can get the media involved.

*Iron (Cozy) Triangle - The Iron (Cozy) Triangle refers to a linkage between three groups (legislative committee, bureaucratic agency and  an interest group) whose cooperation often limits the ability of the legislative branch to really oversee the actions of the bureaucracy. All three groups have an interest in seeing that the bureaucratic agency gets more money- if it gets more money, its interest group gets more services and the committee members get more votes. For example, while one might expect the Agriculture Committee to make sure money given to farmers to grow groups is spent wisely, they may be more interested in seeing that as much money as possible is spent so that the agency increases in power and the farmers provide more votes the next time the members of the committee run for office.

Required Written Lecture: The Governor and the Bureaucracy: Summary

The Governor of Texas is the most visible and the most recognized elected position in Texas. However, it is not the most powerful. Unless the Governor is especially effective at using his or her informal powers, he or she will have less influence on public policy in the state than will the Lt. Governor (President of the Senate), the Speaker of the House and the Comptroller of Public Accounts. The ability of the Governor of Texas to influence public policy is limited by the high number of other statewide elected officials (the Plural Executive), limited budgetary powers and limited appointment and removal powers. He or she can overcome these weaknesses in formal powers by utilizing his or her personality, experience, popularity and ability to persuade both the public and legislators. The Governor of Texas wears many hats, including Chief Executive, Chief Legislator, Commander-in-Chief, Chief of State/ Cheerleader, Chief Intergovernmental Diplomat, Party Leader and Leader of the Public.

Despite efforts to limit growth of government, Texas bureaucracy continues to grow because of increased public demand, the growing complexity of public policy problems and increased federal funding and increased party competition. The modern bureaucracy is characterized by hierarchy, specialization, routinization, compartmentalization and merit-based hring.