"Remember to Vote!" Said No Republican Ever

     Perhaps politics in Texas would be somewhat different if people were half as enthusiastic about lining up for the voting booth as they are about lining up outside Franklin Barbecue on a Saturday. Perhaps this is something the Republican dynasty is not only grateful, but responsible for. The truth, as embarrassing as it may be, is that our state largely does not vote. A recent study ranks Texas 48^th when it comes to being politically engaged, and I think the dominance of the Republican party has a lot to do with the disenchantment many Texans feel towards the voting process.

     Looking at the breakdown of party identification in Texas, there is actually much less disparity between the percentages of Republicans and Democrats than one might think. Why, then, is this state so consistently and overwhelmingly red when it comes to elections? Put plainly, the Democrats don’t vote, and the Republicans make sure of it. The most glaring evidence of this is the recent saga of the Voter ID Law. Republican leaders in Texas have been in strong support of a law that more or less disenfranchises about 600,000 registered voters who don’t possess an acceptable state-issued ID. This population of voters includes low-income citizens and racial minorities, two demographics that are statistically likely to vote Democrat.

     The Republicans have also been able to use their dominance of the legislature to rearrange voting districts in their favor. The Austin area, for example, is heavily concentrated with Democratic or liberal-leaning ideologies. Therefore, the Republicans have made sure to split it up and dilute each section with more conservative views during redistricting sessions. Texas does have a substantial population of Democrats, they are just not likely to win elections due to the distribution of partisanship within districts.

     While the Republicans’ aim is mainly to secure their control of the state and keep as many Democrats from voting as they can, I think this actually affects voter turnout as a whole. Survey research shows that one of the top reasons Texans give for not showing up to the voting booths is that they feel their vote will not make a difference, and in some respects this reasoning makes sense. If you’re a Democrat, even in an area as liberal as Austin, it’s difficult to be convinced that your views will ever actually be represented, and bothering to vote can seem like a waste of time. If you’re a Republican, it’s highly likely that your policies will prevail whether you cast a ballot or not, so again, voting seems unnecessary. Take these non-voters and add them to the 600,000 without state-issued IDs and it’s unsurprising that our state has an abysmal turnout for every election. If Texas became more of a two-party state with closer competition between candidates, more Texans would want to engage with politics and cast their vote. However, voters continue to stay home on election day, and Republicans couldn’t be happier about it.

A Feeble Attempt to Justify Homophobia

     An editorial titled, “It’s Not Bigotry, It’s Biology! Just Ask Greg Abbott”, was published recently by The Burnt Orange report in criticism of not only Abbott’s stance on same-sex marriage, but his reasoning behind it as well. The Texas gubernatorial candidate filed a brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday attempting to defend Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage, which was struck down earlier this year. Abbott’s argument for this action was that a ban on same-sex marriage would encourage heterosexual marriages and yield more in-wedlock births, “which are needed to ensure economic growth and survival of the human race” (Abbott). The author of the editorial denounces Abbott’s reasoning as a thinly-veiled attempt at bigotry rather than concern for the future of the state.

     The author likely writes to an audience of people who are in support of same-sex marriage, as she uses a sarcastic tone when speaking of opponents to marriage equality. She inserts quotations from Abbott into the article and adds flippant commentary after them that belittles the argument Abbott is trying to make. This technique makes her article resonate well with an audience who is already opposed to Abbott and the ban on same-sex marriage, and will agree that his logic is flawed and absurd.

     While the author presents her criticism using a highly irreverent tone, she supports her argument credibly by citing multiple other articles and sources, and incorporating numerous quotations. When she references a ludicrous belief held by Abbott, she includes a quotation in which Abbott actually states that belief. This shows that she is not making inferences or exaggerations about Abbott’s bigotry, but that he actually made the arguments she is criticizing.

     The central purpose of the editorial is to point out Greg Abbott’s seemingly anti-gay stance and the fact that he is backing it with faulty logic. According to his brief, Abbott believes that Texas’ marriage laws uphold traditional marriages as more important, and that this encourages more heterosexual couples to get married and procreate. “Recognizing same-sex marriage”, says Abbott, “does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.” The author retorts this idea by saying that the Texas Constitution is not what inspires people to get married, and that nobody places any more importance on heterosexual procreation simply because we have “a nine-year-old constitutional amendment that makes [marriage] an exclusive club.” She adds that the banning of same-sex marriage will not reduce out-of-wedlock births, rather it will be comprehensive sex education and improved family planning services that accomplishes this. 

      I personally agree with the author of this article. I believe there are many statistics to dispute Abbott’s logic on this issue, and there are countless alternative ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies other than banning same-sex marriage. From the arguments presented in this editorial, I feel it is obvious that Greg Abbott’s opposition to same-sex marriage stems from his personal values, not his interest in the economy or concern for our future as humankind. I feel it is apparent that he uses reasoning that makes little sense, and is not focusing on more important issues. Overall, I think this article is an informative read for anybody interested in marriage equality or even just human rights in general.

(Source: Genevieve Cato, "It's Not Bigotry, It's Biology! Just Ask Greg Abbott", Burnt Orange Report, 10-14-2014.)

Austin Loves History, But at a High Cost

     This recent editorial from the Austin American Statesman voices disapproval of the Austin City Council’s financial irresponsibility when it comes to preserving historical landmarks. The author points to the current attempt to declare mayor Lee Leffingwell’s childhood home a historical landmark, arguing that this “makes a mockery of a well-intended, but poorly managed, program”. The home is not currently owned by Leffingwell, and while it features historic style from the 1930s and 1940s, it’s hardly the only house in Austin to do so. For these reasons, the author doesn’t believe the house should be declared a historical landmark and granted a tax break.

    The editorial’s intended audience is not those who are opposed to Leffingwell himself, because the author credits him to be “a fine mayor,” but more so the people who are concerned with the way our city manages money. The city of Austin already had to revise its preservation program in 2009 for giving too many tax breaks to historical landmarks, but is still being criticized for its very loose criteria. People who would prefer the city to be stricter in giving tax breaks are likely to agree with this article.

     While the author has an obvious opinion, they show credibility by presenting both sides of the argument. The author shares factual evidence, tells the reader about the current criteria for historical landmarks, and lists the effects of the tax breaks on the city, its schools, and Travis County.

     I personally agree with the claim that the city needs to be more careful with the amount of tax breaks they give, and that while the Leffingwell house may be nostalgic to the mayor, it does not necessarily need to be preserved as historic. It is indeed a fine example of the bungalow and cottage styles of the World War II era, but countless other Austin homes and even neighborhoods can boast the same. Furthermore, the tax breaks not only affect the city, but Travis County, Austin Independent School District, and Austin Community College as well. Austin’s 580 historical landmarks cause the aforementioned entities to forgo $5 million in revenue each year, which is a figure too substantial to take lightly in my opinion. The author also brings up the important point that most other mayors just get a street or public area named after them, which I feel is a more reasonable way to go in this case. It’s not about denying Leffingwell his recognition, but about recognizing him in a way that doesn’t exploit the city’s programs. 

     Overall, I thought the editorial brought up some good points and showed readers the importance of being aware of the way our city manages money. It was evident that they fully researched the topic to form an educated and logical opinion about it.

(Source: Editorial Board, "Leffingwell is a Fine Mayor, But Boyhood Home is Not Historic", Austin American Statesman, 9-24-14)