Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

The Cross: “I can, and should, be better than I am”

by

Ed Hubbard
Ed Hubbard

In every nation, culture, and civilization, during every age, symbols have evolved that bind people to each other and to their communities.  If pictures paint a thousand words, symbols convey concepts and emotions that fill libraries.  When used appropriately, symbols have inspired great feats; though the opposite also is true—when abused, symbols have provoked horrendous deeds.  But this post is largely about the uniquely positive message of one enduring symbol:  the Cross.

The Cross, is so simple in form–two lines overlapping each other–that it can be formed on paper by children, in the wilderness with two sticks of wood, and in the sand with a finger.  Since a young carpenter dragged it to his execution, the Cross has been the most enduring symbol of the Christian faith.  In that role, the Cross has become a personal symbol to the faithful, a collective symbol to an entire religion, and has transcended Christianity as a fundamental symbol of Western Civilization.

I am not a theologian, and will not pretend or attempt to be in this post.  But, the centrality of the symbolic Cross seems very important to me this Easter, as this world seems to be spinning out of control.

Regardless of the nature of our faiths (or lack of faith), I imagine that each of us looks at the Cross, in whatever context we may encounter it, and experiences our own intimate reactions.  It touches me on several levels, but I will describe just two in this post.

At a philosophical and religious level, the Cross reminds me of the central paradox of Christianity and the civilization it created:  one man’s execution and resurrection liberated mankind for the rest of human history.  That liberation bestowed us with both the great gifts of our inalienable rights, as well as the challenge to use those rights to love our neighbors.  The history of the last two thousand years seems to be a history of our struggle to accept both the gifts and the challenge.

Consistent with this struggle on a personal level, the sight of the Cross—in a church, in a cemetery, in a child’s drawings—always reminds me that I can, and should, be better than I am; that I should use the gifts of life and liberty for certain purposes, and that one of those purposes is to help make this world better, in any small way that I can, while I am here.

I believe this more personal experience, however one may articulate it, provided the central inspiration to the great progress in the human condition on Earth since Charlemagne knelt in the snow before the Pope.  It is the symbol of faith behind which many people crossed the Atlantic to start a new life in a wilderness (and for the thousands who still cross oceans, rivers, and deserts to get here); it is the symbol of a caring love that rallied individuals to form and nourish neighborhoods across this continent; it is the symbol of human progress from which our ancestors found the courage to create, to fight for, and to die for a society conceived in liberty and a government designed to protect that liberty; it is the symbol that has challenged us to open that society, and to extend its protection to all those seeking to join it; and the Cross is the symbol of a responsibility to preserve, and to bequeath to our posterity, the blessings that we have been given.

To recognize all of this is not to say that the Cross, like all symbols, has not been perverted; sadly, its symbolism has been perverted in every age.  But through all its misuse over the millennia, the Cross still remains such a fundamentally positive symbol of human progress and promise, as well as the fundamental symbol of one of the world’s great religions, that those who wish to destroy our civilization attack, censor or destroy this symbol wherever they encounter it.

So on this Easter weekend, with so much strife in this world, I will pause again to remember and accept that simple challenge that I see in the Cross:  I can, and should, be better than I am.

In that spirit, I wish to each and every one of you a Happy Easter.

My “New” Republican Platform

by

Ed Hubbard
Ed Hubbard

As I have watched the current spectacle of our GOP Presidential race unfold, I am as worried as anyone over the future of both my country and my party.  Based on last night’s results (in Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, and Mississippi), it is becoming clearer to me that either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will become the nominee of the GOP this year, even if the nomination process is goes beyond one ballot at the convention.

What also is clear is that voter anger against, and distrust of, Washington includes anger and distrust toward elected Republicans in Congress, and their consultants, lobbyists, think-tank supporters, and media apologists; and this anger and distrust spills over to cover all of the unelected factional leaders at the national, state and local levels.  These people, many of whom don’t even like or trust each other, are now derisively referred to collectively as the “establishment” by our grassroots activists and November-only voters, who are driving a movement to change the Republican Party and the way Washington operates.  Unfortunately, Mitt Romney, who is the poster child of our voter’s image of the “country-club Republican,” only made matters worse by inserting himself into the debate last week and calling many of these voters “suckers” for supporting Trump.

Then, in the midst of this fever, came the news of Nancy Reagan’s death—almost like an omen that the “Age of Reagan” has come to an end, and something new is taking its place.

My hope is that the GOP—the party of Lincoln and Reagan—will survive this unsettling time; and that, if it is to transform, it will continue to be the party dedicated to preserve the exceptional ideals that formed this nation.  Whatever happens in Cleveland and beyond, we must remember that since 1856 our party has stood for certain principles, even as the times, and our policy preferences and priorities, have changed.  If America is to survive these troubled times, its founding principles must survive our party’s present turmoil.

So, we must insure that the “new” party that arises from this turmoil is dedicated to a set of principles that reflects the best of our heritage, while being relevant to the new era we have entered.  To do this, I believe our party must abandon its tendency of the last few decades to produce ever longer, more policy-specific platforms, and replace it with a simpler platform embracing our shared principles—a platform more like those original platforms from 1856 and 1860 that were drafted as the party was forming.

So, to divert our attention from the current campaign, and to foster a discussion of what such a new Republican platform might look like, I am going to present the following draft for your consideration.  Please read it, think about it, and give me your comments, as well as the edits, subtractions or additions you would make to draft your own proposed platform.

As Republicans, we are dedicated to the proposition that all individuals “are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  We believe that the Federal Constitution was adopted and amended to advance this proposition; that each of the ten amendments included in the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, are necessary to constrain the power of all levels of government and to protect specific rights of the people, while preserving the delegated responsibilities of each state government; and that the Federal Constitution, as amended, must be interpreted and applied as it was written.  We believe that all other laws, regulations, and treaties must be subservient to the fundamental proposition of the Declaration of Independence as advanced and secured by the Federal Constitution.  We believe that the preservation of this fundamental proposition is a sacred trust held by Americans for their fellow countrymen, and as a beacon for all humanity.

As Republicans, we believe that the preservation and promotion of human life, and of the dignity of each individual’s life, is the most fundamental responsibility of our society and government.  We believe that “liberty” means the freedom of the will of each individual, the exercise of which must be protected to the greatest degree that is consistent with safety and security.  We believe that the proper exercise of liberty inevitably guides each citizen toward the pursuit of happiness, which is the ageless desire for a life well spent.

As Republicans, we believe that the division of responsibility among local, state and national governments, and the national republican government of limited and separated powers, as designed in the Federal Constitution, is the best protector of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and of the property rights needed to secure these inalienable rights; and that the proper exercise of liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the best protector of our republic.

As Republicans, we believe that the exercise of liberty and the pursuit of happiness produces the greatest good for all citizens with an economy based on free markets and fair free-trade, which allows each citizens to reach his or her God-given potential; but we also believe that limited government and a free economy cannot be sustained without the active participation by each citizen in the life of our neighborhoods through the creation and maintenance of the family unit, the creation of businesses that employ our neighbors, and the engagement of our neighbors in the civic life of our neighborhoods.  We believe that the promotion of the welfare of our neighbors is a civic duty of each citizen, because—no matter how well intended—bureaucracies can’t love our neighbors, only people can.  Therefore, we believe that each citizen owes a duty to each other, and to future generations, to care for each other and this nation, and that government at all levels should adopt policies that promote the exercise of this duty by each citizen, rather than the delegation of this duty to government.

As Republicans, we believe that a self-governing republic cannot endure without promoting the development and exercise of each citizen’s character and wisdom.  We believe that it takes a strong character, and the exercise of wisdom, to use liberty to make the right choices that promote the pursuit of happiness and sustain a functioning society of free people.  We believe that strong character and wisdom are developed by recognizing and teaching the difference between right and wrong, and by encouraging citizens to make right choices and engage in good behaviors; but also by tolerating, and learning from, an acceptable range of wrong decisions in our personal lives.  And, we believe that the fundamental right to freely exercise religion provides each citizen with a path toward learning and developing the character and wisdom needed to sustain a society of free people, and that this fundamental right must be respected by each citizen and protected by government.

As Republicans, we believe that this republic is a sovereign nation containing a unique society, which is grounded in the heritage of Western Civilization and shares the English language.  We believe that it is our duty to preserve this nation and society, and to assimilate all of our neighbors into the culture of our society.  We believe that assimilation must never coerce anyone to adopt ideas, practices or faiths with which they disagree, but rather must provide each citizen with the tools needed to become full participating members of our free society.   And, while we believe that continuing to invite others into our society to share in our ideal is our duty to humanity, our duty to our countrymen requires that such invitation be honored with a commitment by all newcomers to respect our laws, to assimilate into our culture, and to preserve our unique society.

As Republicans, we believe that the only appropriate uses of our armed forces, or appropriate purposes for our alliances, are to protect and defend our countrymen, our nation, our allies, our fundamental interests and ideals, and our borders.  We believe that the defense of our country requires the maintenance of the strongest military on Earth, and our continued exploration of space; but that our most effective defense arises from the protection and promotion of our fundamental principles at home.

As Republicans, we believe that the present age requires that we immediately and thoroughly alter the prevailing approach to governance of this republic consistent with the Federal Constitution and our inalienable rights described in the Declaration of Independence.  Such change requires

  • the containment, and ultimate defeat, of our enemies, and the protection and support of our allies, abroad;
  • the protection of our most basic rights to freedom of speech and religion, to bear arms, and to the privacy of our persons and homes;
  • a comprehensive approach to immigration that defends our borders, our heritage, and our language, while still welcoming newcomers who come to our neighborhoods legally;
  • a complete reorganization of our educational system at the state and local level to produce self-responsible citizens capable of flourishing in a free society, and a free and global economy;
  • a non-coercive assimilation that welcomes all our neighbors, including newcomers, into our culture and society;
  • the effective mentoring of our neighbors at the state and local level to break the cycle of under-education, under-employment and over-incarceration that presently condemns so many families and communities to multi-generational poverty;
  • the promotion of fair free-trade, and the dedication of resources at the state and local level to re-train adults throughout their lives, so that they can be productive citizens regardless of the consequences they will experience as result of free trade;
  • new federal and state zero-based budgets that prioritize and promote the exercise of personal responsibility for ourselves and our neighbors as the foundation of our social safety net, while preserving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for those who truly need economic assistance from society as a whole;
  • the replacement of Obamacare with a health-care system that allows patients and doctors to control their relationship based on principles of the free market;
  • the reduction of federal regulations and taxes that burden private job creation, and the adoption of a sunset process that requires periodic review of all federal regulations for elimination, amendment or renewal;
  • energy independence and environmental prudence, consistent with our national security needs and sound science; and
  • coordination of all levels of government to modernize our nation’s infrastructure and electrical grid, reconstruction and modernization by our national government of our military capacity, and a re-dedication by our national government to space exploration.

As Republicans, we know we will disagree from time to time about the best policies needed to turn our principles into concrete policies, but we shall not waiver from these principles.  To these principles, and to our continuing experiment in republican government, we hereby re-dedicate ourselves with the pledge of our ancestors:  the pledge of our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Ok, let your comments fly.

What will Trump build?

by

Ed Hubbard
Ed Hubbard

Well, Super Tuesday is over, and as Republicans survey the rubble left in its wake, we need to get an answer from our front runner to this question:  “Mr. Trump, what will you build?”  The answer to that question will not only decide the fate of our party, but also our country.

As I described in my last post, I came of age as Reagan set about designing and building a New Republican Party.  His blueprint called for creating a new conservative party that restored the edifice of Madisonian government built on the foundation of the individual, the family, faith, private enterprise, and local and state responsibility, and to relight the beacon of America to guide the world away from the darkness of communism and toward a model of freedom.  He called his vision “A Shining City on a Hill,” and he persuaded the GOP and the country to help him build it.

But almost as soon as he left office, all the old factions that he had tried to blend into this “new” party began to fight against each other to alter the blueprint to fit their own agendas.  Soon, as we fought, the liberals and progressives reasserted themselves to continue their decades-long remodeling of our culture and politics away from the Madisonian model and towards a hyper-secular, European, democratic-socialist model of national, top-down governance.  While we splintered, they remodeled; and, eventually, we and our elected leadership were reduced to simply forming picket lines of protest around the progressive worksite.

By 2009, many people had enough and wanted to break through the picket lines and tear down what the progressives were changing.  By last summer, the anger of those wanting to stop the progressive work had reached a fever pitch, but our party leaders appeared incapable of doing anything but protest and picket.

Enter the great deal-maker and developer, Donald Trump.  I, for one, do not believe that he was the best candidate to lead, restore, or unite our party going into the 2016 election; but, frankly that was never his intent.  Instead, it is now clear that he planned to demolish both the Republican Party and the Washington “establishment” and start the construction work all over again.  To those whose frustrations had boiled-over, Trump’s demolition of the remnants of the New Republican Party of Reagan was welcome, because they viewed it as the first step toward demolishing all that was wrong with what had been built over the last generation since Reagan went home to California.  But the problem is, none of us really know what Mr. Trump plans to build after the rubble is cleared (other than a wall paid for by Mexico), and many of us fear that he really has no plan for rebuilding America after the demolition is finished.

But a good real-estate developer—and Trump has been a very successful developer—does not start demolition work without a plan for what he will build in its place; nor does he start a historical restoration of a landmark without a researched plan for the restoration work.  So, it is time for The Donald to show us his blueprint to “Make America Great Again.”

This plan must not be just for one building, but must encompass rebuilding the entire “Shining City” that has been left in ruins by the work of modern progressives (and the neglect of post-Reagan conservatives).  It must include clearing rubble and building new structures for a new century, as well as carefully designing restorations of great landmarks of our traditions and principles.  It also must include a plan for relighting the beacon of freedom and stability to protect the world against the new threats we face in this century.  If his design incorporates a strong foundation and infrastructure of the individual, family, faith, private enterprise, and local and state responsibility upon which a modern, Madisonian city will be built, I believe he eventually can persuade our party and our country to follow him to “Make America Great Again.”

But if his plan is just to demolish the ruins of the “Shining City” without more, then we conservatives must stop this project now before we lose the last remnants of what we worked so hard to build over two generations.

Mr. Trump, if you truly want to “Make America Great Again,” it is time to show us your plan.

 

Where Will We Go From Here?

by

 

After agonizing for months over my choice in the GOP Presidential race in this 2016 election, I voted yesterday.  For the first time since I cast my first vote almost 40 years ago, I felt a sense of loss and bewilderment as I left the polling place.

Forty years ago this month, I began my personal journey as a conservative.  On a cold evening in February, 1976, a friend of mine and I—both in the second semester of our senior year of high school—attended a small gathering in Peoria, Illinois, where Ronald Reagan was speaking to a group comprised mostly of old friends from his high school and college days in Dixon and Eureka, Illinois.

I was not there that night by accident.  Twice before, due to my parents’ political and social ties, I had personally engaged with the future President.  The first time, which I only “remember” through the stories that my father later told, the then-Governor of California was so bored with the adults who were seeking his attention, that he left their company and spent the better part of an afternoon talking and laughing with a 10-year old boy who was oblivious to who he was, but who enjoyed and monopolized his company.  The second time, a few years later, I spoke with him over the phone twice during calls he made to my mother to plan a retirement party for one of his college football teammates, and he genuinely seemed to care about how I was doing in school and what my own hopes and dreams were.  It was because of these experiences, and the coaxing of my parents and my friend, that I took a break from home work on a winter night in 1976 to attend the meeting in Peoria.

Reagan spoke that night, not as a stilted candidate, but as a friend to those of us in the room, about his vision for the GOP and the country, as well as his strategy for the upcoming Illinois primary.  And what I heard that night would start me on my own political journey—one I still travel today.  Much of what he said that night would find its way into the 1976 GOP platform, and then into his blueprint for a “New Republican Party,” which he unveiled in early 1977.

It is hard to explain to someone who did not live through those years the state of the country at that time.  Like others my age, I had grown-up watching the country seemingly unravel through the riots, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and Soviet expansion, and it truly seemed like no one knew what to do or how to lead the country into the future.  And yet, here was a man that exuded confidence and optimism about the future, and who seemed to deeply understand and love our country in a way I had never heard expressed.  Though I would see him speak a few more times over the next decade, it would be what he said that night that changed everything for me.

I think the journalist and author, Theodore White, captured the predicament we faced in those years best in his two books:  In Search of History and America in Search of Itself.  At the end of the first book, written soon after the 1976 election, he saw a coming decision between

whether America would be transformed, in the name of Opportunity, simply into a Place, a gathering of discreetly defined and entitled groups, interests and heritages; or whether it could continue to be a nation, where all heritages joined under roof-ideas of communities within government.

Then, toward the end of the second book, published after the 1980 election, he made the following observation:

I write and close this book in a clouded time, not knowing whether it is twilight or dawn, an era ending or an era beginning.  It is twilight if new policy carries us back to the old America, before its transformation; it is dawn if new policy carries us forward to release us from civil fear and the web of federal control.  Somewhere, in the decades of upheaval, came a wrong turning.  Another wrong turning could take politics away from traditional politicians and bring us convulsions in the streets.

For most of my adult life, I believed that—with Reagan’s guidance—we had come through the upheaval to start a revitalization of America based on the best of its principles, that the world had been made safe from totalitarianism through American leadership, and that a consensus had formed that “the era of big government was over.”

But then, we took another wrong turn that only now seems clear through our rear-view mirror.  Through the tumultuous year of scandal and impeachment in 1998, the disputed election of 2000, 9/11, and the Iraq War, the new consensus broke apart to unearth grievances and ideas that we thought had been vanquished.  Then, the responses to Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008 showed how fragile our resurrection from civil fear and federal control had been.  And over these last 7 years, even after the election of our first African-American President, the unraveling of the consensus and the re-emergence of federal control exposed the consequence of our failure to fully assimilate all of our neighbors into our American community.  Adding to all of this upheaval at home, the progress we made to form a better world through American leadership has crumbled, with Russia, China, North Korea, and a totalitarian faction of political Islam, each threatening world stability—and America.

Frankly, I believe we are more fractured at home and abroad today than at any time since Nixon left the White House, and there is no Reagan to help guide us out of this mess.  Instead, we are left with candidates who either lack the understanding of America to lead, lack an appreciation of current problems to lead, lack the skills to lead, lack the vision to lead, lack the experience and maturity to lead, or lack the integrity to lead.  In this vacuum has emerged a convulsion of political extremes, which is leading us toward a choice between an entertaining populist who wants to tear the “establishment” down and start over, and two varying degrees of socialists.  As the late Yogi Berra might have said, we’ve reached the fork in the road and we have to take it.

So, as I left the polling place yesterday I truly felt as though we had lost what we had worked so hard to re-establish over these last 40 years, and I’m bewildered with the fork we will take this fall.  I honestly don’t know in the short term where we will go from here, and I am concerned that things will get worse before they get better.

However, as I think back to that night 40 years ago, I still believe that eventually the answer will emerge and we will find the right road to take.  But it won’t be behind the leadership of another Reagan—that moment is over.  Instead, the leadership, when it emerges will come from the source of strength that Reagan believed in—individual Americans applying our shared principles.  When and if we embrace each other and our shared principles again, and we find the courage to use them again to build a strong society of free people, this moment too shall pass.

I believe this will happen, because it must happen.  As Reagan reminded President Ford and the delegates at the end of the 1976 Republican Convention, in the battle for our exceptional country and society “there is no substitute for victory.”

 

Is the Lighthouse still there?

by

Ed Hubbard
Ed Hubbard

Like many of you, I am glad to see this turbulent year come to an end—until I think about the massive storm called “2016,” which is fast approaching.

When ships sailed stormy seas, or lost their way in a dense fog, captains always knew that beacons from lighthouses along the shorelines would help guide the crew to safe waters.

For many generations through political and social upheavals—famines and genocides, revolutions and civil wars, world wars and a cold war—people around the globe took comfort that there was a beacon in the storm:  the United States of America–U.S.  But as we turn from the turbulence of 2015 toward the gathering storm of 2016, frustrated questions keep floating through the fog from Bangor, Maine to Bangladesh:  Where is the beacon?  Is the Lighthouse still there?

We could spend the next year arguing ad nauseam through the storm over whose fault it is that the beacon can’t be seen by anyone anymore—there is enough blame to fill an ocean.  But if we are to get to 2017 and beyond without a major shipwreck, we must fix the Lighthouse and relight the beacon.  Simply put, the world needs a functional and rational U.S. to lead it through this storm.  And to have a functional and rational U.S., we have to reassert self-responsibility for our own lives, health and security, and for that of our families, our neighborhoods, and our states; so that we have the resources needed to fix the Lighthouse and relight that beacon.

Then, we have to muster the courage to turn the beacon back “on”—and keep it lit through the coming storms.

The worst part about all of our self-centered actions that have enabled the squalls and turbulence to continue to batter our society over the many decades, is that we have wasted so much time and squandered so many resources and goodwill—with little social capital left with which to engage in the serious work of preserving our society of free people, and maintaining and modernizing that Lighthouse.

It’s time to put aside the childish desires, envies and pursuits—and the Chicken-little fears of a computer-modeled future—that have distracted us for too long, and to get back to the hard job of rebuilding a serious nation of free people from the individual to Washington.

There is still time, but the storm is getting closer.

Here’s to hoping that at the end of 2016 we can look back from calm seas and again see the beacon lighting the way for future generations.  I believe that is the greatest Christmas gift we could wish for each other this year.

“The Greater Houston Partnership is not Planned Parenthood”

by

Ed Hubbard
Ed Hubbard

This statement should be self-evident.

However, after reading last week’s post by my friend, Yvonne Larsen, on this website about a recent Texas Supreme Court opinion, I feel I must reiterate that the Greater Houston Partnership is not Planned Parenthood.

The difference between these two organizations, and between their respective financial relationships (if any) with state and local governments in Texas, is the reason why I take issue with Yvonne’s post.

Background:

The Greater Houston Partnership (like many other local “chambers of commerce” across the state) has entered into contracts with city and county governments in the Houston metropolitan area to provide specific services in return for payment for those services.  However, the amount it receives from governments under these contracts comprises a minor amount of the money it receives annually.

A citizen filed a very broad request under the Texas Public Information Act (“TPIA”) to obtain documents from the Greater Houston Partnership (“GHP”), arguing that GHP was a “governmental body” subject to the disclosure regime of the statute because of these contracts.  Among the items sought were the entire check registers kept by GHP for all of its activities during 2007 and 2008, regardless of whether the funds received and spent as reflected in the ledgers were related to the contracts with city or county governments.

Faced with this broad request for virtually all of GHP’s financial records, the Attorney General applied an old federal-court ruling to construe the TPIA and determined that GHP had received governmental funds, so it was a governmental body.  The Third Court of Appeals in Austin affirmed the trial court’s decision in a very broad ruling, the reasoning of which could have made any private entity, that received any governmental funds for any reason, a governmental body subject to the TPIA disclosure requirements for all purposes.  That is, if you get one dollar for providing a service to the state, you’re now a governmental body whose records are subject to TPIA disclosure.

This broad ruling, and the old federal-court case it relied upon, formed the basis of the review of the appellate decision by the Supreme Court that Yvonne criticized.  The breadth of the lower-court opinion startled many private organizations across the state, which do business with, and/or receive funds from, state and local governments.  Out of the blue all of the records created and kept by these organizations might now be subject to the TPIA if they received any funds from the state—even if they received them in return for providing contractual services.  So, several organizations filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court requesting the court to review the appellate court’s broad interpretation of “governmental body” and to provide a narrow, understandable framework for determining what type of financial relationship might give rise to TPIA coverage.  In fact, these filings included an unprecedented joint brief filed on behalf of the Chairs of both the Harris County Republican Party and the Harris County Democratic Party, who were concerned that the acceptance of state funds to defray costs of running primary elections, which already is subject to strict disclosure requirements, could now subject all of the internal affairs of both parties to the TPIA disclosure requirements (and, as a matter of full disclosure, I helped prepare that brief as Legal Counsel for the HCRP).

Now to the Supreme Court’s decision (which may be found here http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1008506/130745.pdf, with the dissenting opinion found here http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1008507/130745d.pdf):

In a thoughtful and thorough 26-page discussion of the TPIA, a six-justice majority of the Texas Supreme Court reversed the broad ruling of the Austin Court of Appeals.  In doing so, the Court did not establish any new or novel rule of law, but correctly applied existing law to the TPIA and to the contractual relationship between the GHP and other governmental entities.  Specifically, the court determined

  • The TPIA’s definition of “governmental body” was unambiguous;
  • Because the statute was unambiguous, the Attorney General’s reliance on an old federal court case was inapplicable, because the old opinion created a standard for determining whether an entity was a “governmental body” that was not based on the unambiguous language of the TPIA; and
  • That the nature of the contractual relationship between the GHP and local governments, and the amount of the funds received by the GHP in relationship to its overall operation and funding, did not subject it to the disclosure requirements of the TPIA because GHP was not “wholly or partially sustained by public funds.”

Understanding that last determination—which comprises the core of the opinion—is critical for addressing Yvonne’s concerns. 

The court’s rule governing how the statute must be construed and applied in future cases by the Attorney General will still require case-by-case applications.  Moreover, because no one involved in the case—the individual who sought all of GHP’s financial records, GHP, or the Attorney General—sought to limit the request to GHP’s actual work for local governments, the court’s ruling arguably did not address that portion of the statutory language that applies the “governmental body” definition to “parts” of organizations that may be sustained “in whole or in part by public funds.”  Additionally, as the court pointed out, the financial records sought under the TPIA request are not beyond public disclosure requirements, because the government agencies involved in the disbursing the public funds are subject to the TPIA.

So, I go back to the statement I made at the beginning of this post.

Simply inserting “Planned Parenthood” into the first three paragraphs of the majority opinion, as Yvonne did, does not tell you anything about how the Attorney General will apply the court’s ruling to future TPIA requests directed to Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood is not a chamber of commerce, and some (if not most) of its services are provided under public grants and programs totally unlike the contractual relationships between chambers of commerce and local governments.  Any properly tailored request directed to the activities of the parts of Planned Parenthood that may be sustained by public funds will still be evaluated by the Attorney General and could be subject to disclosure under the TPIA.   All this recent opinion does is provide the proper legal basis for conducting that evaluation.

Finally, it is too simplistic and very unfair to characterize the recent opinion as being solely attributable to Justice Guzman.  Six of the nine justices had to review and agree with the 26-page opinion before it was issued.  Such opinions are the product of a joint effort of those justices.

We all need to be vigilant in our attention to how our elected judiciary construes and applies the law of this state.  But we also have a duty not to misconstrue their decisions.  Unfortunately, Yvonne’s post last week misconstrued the recent work of the court, and ended up misplacing criticism on a fine Justice of that court, as well as on her colleagues who joined that opinion.