This is the next part of my report on the Texas Republican
Convention, from June 5-7. Part I covered Ted Cruz’s speech (which maybe was a
preliminary to running for president). Part II covered some of the other big
speeches: Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, and Rand Paul. The theme of the speeches,
put together, was to speak the conservative message—Constitutional freedom and
prosperity—and speak it with a welcoming but bold clarity.
Now we’re covering some of the nitty-gritty business of the
convention: the platform. The platform ought to be the bold, clear message those speeches suggested that we share. Hmm.
It’s going to take two more posts. Today gets us through what was
actually debated—mainly concerning immigration. And part IV will cover the rest
of the platform—most of which was not debated.
First, a little background on the making of the platform.
· Step 1 is probably to start with what’s in the
previous platform, instead of simply from scratch.
· Step 2 happens at precinct caucus meetings.
Individuals meet together, after the polls close on primary election day, and
elect delegates to the next level convention and propose items for the
platform. Those that the precinct supports get sent to the platform committee
at the state senate district level.
· Step 3: Proposals from the precinct are read,
sorted, categorized, combined, and reworded by the platform committee, made up
of precinct chair volunteers in the senate district. They do some of their work
prior to the one-day district convention, and then they take public testimony
at the convention.
· Step 4: This committee presents its draft, and
then the floor is opened up for debate. More proposals can be offered from the
floor. Amendments can be offered. Depending on the size of the district (mine
is maybe the biggest in the state, with multiple delegates from 700+
precincts), this can be unwieldy, but Roberts Rules of Order are in place to
protect and frustrate the process.
· Step 5: The draft of propositions from each
senate district across the state (there are 31) get sent to the Temporary
Platform and Resolutions Committee (TPARC) of the Republican Party of Texas.
This committee of appointees starts meeting on Monday of state convention week,
weeding through the 3000 or so resolutions. They go through the process of
weeding through, combining similar statements, seeing what is widely believed
across the state, and trying to come up with a draft platform.
· Step 6: This drafting process includes dividing
into several subcommittees, taking public testimony over two days, and then
coming together with about 300 draft platform planks by Wednesday evening,
followed by more public testimony Thursday morning.
· Step 6: Senate districts caucus and elect
permanent platform/resolutions committee representatives. Often this is a
formality in which the appointed temporary platform person gets elected to the
permanent committee. However, this year there were a number of temporary
committee people who were replaced in their caucuses. More on that in a minute.
· Step 7: The Permanent Platform and Resolutions
Committee (PPARC) meets Thursday evening, after the district caucuses. They
take additional brief public testimony. Then they vote on what goes into the
platform.
· Step 8: By Friday afternoon the Report of the
Permanent Platform Committee is printed and provided to the full body of
delegates. Amendments to this platform can be submitted, in writing, up to 6:00
PM Friday. There were some 200 such amendments filed.
· Step 9: On Saturday, the final business of the
convention is to debate and vote on the final platform. This is an open floor
debate with some 7000 or so opinionated people, discussing their various views.
Roberts Rules of Order are followed, with a parliamentarian helping the state
party chair keep the chaos to a minimum.
So it is this final step we’re looking at.
In that Thursday evening debate, with a significant change
in the makeup of the PPARC from the TPARC, a couple of issues came to the top:
medical marijuana and immigration. These became minority reports in the report.
A minority report is a suggested amendment, signed by at least 7 members of the
permanent committee, filed immediately after the close of the committee meeting—and
they get handled as amendments prior to other amendments handled from the
floor.
In the floor debate, the two minority reports related to medical
marijuana were handled first, because they were simplest.
One was to include this language: “We believe that Texans should
have legal access to medical cannabis as a controlled narcotic prescribed by a
physician.” There was respectful testimony, from physicians and others, on both
sides. Some on the “pro” side tried to convince the body that this referred not
to cannabis in the form that can be smoked, but only to essential oil forms,
which can be used for children suffering from seizures. Touching—but the
wording is not limiting; it is open to pretty much any “physician’s” definition
of medical use—which has led to a lot of abuse in states where it has been
tried. The body rejected this.
The other minority report (suggested amendment) concerned
studies of cannabis. The minority suggested removing this line from the
platform: “We urge the Texas Legislature to allow, encourage, and facilitate
the study at our Texas medical schools the safety and efficacy of medical
cannabis.” Now, this is in a plank related to allowing citizens to choose their
nutritional products and alternative health care choices. The rest of the plank
allows freedom to choose. But this wording isn’t simply the typical libertarian
“allow choice to use drugs” plank; it is putting the power of the Texas
legislature into the business of encouraging and facilitating (i.e., provide
funding for) these studies of a specific substance—that has been studied out
the wazoo already elsewhere, so there’s plenty of testimony without further
funding. Nor is there a prohibition of studies if the Texas legislature doesn’t
get behind them.
The body agreed to remove this phrase. But this was a closer
vote, and people next to each other could respectfully disagree. There was some
perception that it was a good thing to just “be” in favor of research.
I have to say, this is the first year I have sensed anything
like a significant presence in favor of medical (or recreational) marijuana.
There’s a larger libertarian presence in the GOP than there used to be. On some
things, that’s good, but on vice, including mind-altering “recreational” drug
use, it’s a bad thing. [See "Why I’m Not Quite a Libertarian" and "Libertarians on the Sphere"].
Mark Ramsey |
The other minority report concerned immigration. Mark
Ramsey, my district’s temporary and permanent resolutions committee
representative, explains:
By far the most controversial topic was what to do with the
immigration plank that in 2012 was consolidated into a single comprehensive one
called “The Texas Solution” by its supporters (2012TS). By the time the full
TPARC met Wednesday, it was already unrecognizable compared to 2012. MAJOR
changes had been made to it, undoubtedly influenced by the huge popularity and
recent election landslide mandate by Sen. Dan Patrick in the race for Lt.
Governor.
Major differences in the immigration planks’ details include
whether the border is secured “first,” who determines that it is secure (states
or federal government), and whether any visa or guest worker program must wait
until the border is secured. Other variables include insisting applicants speak
English, preventing visa applicants from obtaining public assistance,
specifying those here illegally cannot participate in legalization
(visa/citizenship/etc.), whether to address “mass deportation,” penalties and
back taxes, and building a fence.
The minority report failed in committee in a 15-15 vote (the
committee chair, by tradition, does not vote, and a tie is a fail).
Unfortunately, the full Immigration plank and the full Minority Report are both
too long to include here, so I’ll just summarize as best I can.
The platform plank has three paragraphs of introduction.
Then it has sections on securing our borders first (with details of how),
opposing amnesty, opposing mass deportation, modernizing immigrations laws
(with some probably too detailed suggestions), and a provisional visa program.
The minority report claims it is taking its language from
Dan Patrick’s website—but it did not coordinate with, nor get permission or
approval from the senator, and there may be disagreements in content and
intent. It covers increasing border security, ending in-state tuition for
illegal immigrants, enhancing smuggling laws, prohibiting sanctuary cities,
prohibiting employment of illegals, providing landowners with civil liability
protections, and protecting law enforcement officers when they inquire
concerning legal status of someone in custody.
Then it suggests various details ways to modernize current
immigration laws.
Here’s the situation: immigration is in part a PR problem
for the party. We agree we need to secure the border and enforce current
immigration laws before anything else is even worth doing. And we agree that we
approve of LEGAL immigration,
and encourage that in many positive ways. But the perception is that, if you
don’t handle “comprehensive reform,” regardless of the numerous failures of
government regarding the border, then you get called “anti-immigrant.”
I took this photo from a distance; it seemed so quintessentially Texan. I learned later this citizen is Jack Finger from San Antonio. |
Nationally, GOP leadership has dabbled in the idea that
pushing for “comprehensive reform” (i.e., making a path for citizenship for
illegals already here, while doing nothing about the porous border) would get
us more Hispanic voters; if you want to see how that is going over, take a look
at the recent loss by Eric Cantor.
Anyway, there’s probably a 60/40 split between those who
want border security before any discussion of anything else (the 60%) and those
who say we must be realistic about dealing with the long-term illegals already
here.
Mark Ramsey, recognizing the considerable size of both
sides, suggested an amendment to the original platform, which might preclude
the need for the minority report. He suggested changing the “Provisional Visa
Program” part of the immigration plank thus:
In order to deal with the current undocumented population, only after the borders are secured and
verified by the states, we urge Congress to enact establish a provisional visa program with a term of five years that does not
provide amnesty, does not cause mass deportation and does not provide a pathway
to citizenship but does not preclude existing pathways.
The purpose was to put in a trigger, forcing the border to
be secure before the other issues could be dealt with. The Ramsey Amendment, as
it came to be called, passed.
But then we went back to the minority report, in the form of another amendment, including much but not all of the minority report. This amendment, if
passed, would replace the full immigration plank, including the Ramsey
Amendment.
There was a fair amount of debate. But debate was frequently—too
frequently—interrupted by questions such as “So, if the minority report passes,
it means the immigration plank, including the Ramsey Amendment, is replaced,
and no more amendments can be put forward on immigration?” Answer: yes. Then
another person would interrupt with practically the same question. Eventually
the minority report passed.
So, the immigration plank is more hard-nosed than the body
of Texas delegates would actually feel. Nevertheless, the message that border
security must be accomplished—and verified by Texas—before anything else
happens is the clear, bold message that we mostly agree on.
Is there an anti-immigration sentiment in Texas? No. But
there is no longer any patience with the federal government ignoring laws and
dumping the results of lawlessness on our state. And we believe, if spoken
clearly and boldly, Hispanic Texans will agree with us. Because there aren’t Hispanic
Texans and regular Texans—there are just Texans.
Then there’s the rest of the platform. We'll finish that in
part IV.
No comments:
Post a Comment