| Home |
 |
Chapter 21 |
|
Political power in Texas is related to the resources available to groups and organizations actively engaged in the political process. Texas is placed among states with strong interest group systems. The strong interest group system in Texas is usually attributed to the fact that Texas was characterized by weak political parties during most of the twentieth century. The great disparity in the distribution of resources raises fundamental questions about equity in access to policy makers and the decision-making process.
Pluralism or Elitism?
Pluralist theorists argue that political power in Texas is distributed among a wide range of competing groups and interests, and that this competition serves to limit the influence of any single group on the institutions of government. Although there are marked differences in the resources of groups, there is sufficient competition and interaction among the groups to achieve the goals of a democratic society. Public policy, in this view, reflects the compromise of competing interests.
Advocates of elitist theory argue that political power in Texas is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of individuals who derive their resources from powerful institutional bases. These institutions are tied together with complex interlocking relationships, and access to their leadership positions is limited. Called the "Texas Establishment," those who monopolized power in the past were predominantly white males from the higher socioeconomic groups. Although there is some competition among these elites, there also is a great deal of consensus. Historically, the establishment has expressed indifference, if not hostility, toward the interests of labor, minorities, and the lower socioeconomic groups. However, the enormous social and economic changes that have taken place over the past twenty years may be moving Texas toward some variation of pluralism, although recent studies have identified a clear very wealthy, upper class of Texans who may be influencing policy.
Dominant Interest Groups in Texas
The interest group system in Texas was historically dominated by oil and gas, agriculture, and financial institutions. But dramatic changes in the state's economy, the political mobilization of minorities, and the development of public interest groups have produced considerable change. Not only are more groups now participating in the policy arenas, but some of the traditionally dominant groups apparently have experienced a dilution of their power. Policies directed to the interests of the lower socioeconomic groups are modest indications of these changes.
There are a variety of powerful interest groups in Texas that can be grouped into categories:
The Development of a Two-Party System in Texas
Although Texas currently has a competitive two-party system, for more than a century Texas had a one-party system, dominated by the Democratic Party. Electoral politics were therefore based on factions and personalities. This weak party system, based in part upon the systematic exclusion of many citizens through discriminatory election laws, contributed to a powerful interest-group system. In Austin, as well as at the local level, the raw power of interest groups is still seen in most aspects of the decision-making process, often to the detriment of the general public. The development of two strong parties in Texas took place over many years and was supported by the enfranchisement of minority voters as well as migration from states with strong Republican parties.
A powerful anti-Republicanism was born in the post-Civil War period. The powerful, conservative agricultural leaders pitted poor whites against blacks and consolidated power in the hands of the elite. They merged the politics of race with the politics of economics. The Texas Democratic Party was factionalized, however. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal gave rise to a more liberal faction of the Democratic Party. By the 1950s, issues from the national level concerning civil rights and oil control rights, led some of the more conservative Democrats to move toward the Republican Party. This was manifested first in the success of Republican presidential candidates in the state with success of Dwight Eisenhower. The only state-wide Republican officeholder until 1978 was Senator John Tower who was elected in a special election in 1961 after Lyndon Johnson won the vice-presidency. Most significant political fights remained within the Democratic Party, where the conservatives usually prevailed.
Over years Texas has gradually moved toward a two-party system that more closely approximates that of the rest of the nation. Civil rights legislation at the national level which eliminated the white primary and racial gerrymandering have helped this transition. Minorities have more closely supported more government program favored by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. In addition, the large number of individuals moving to Texas from other states have changed the make up of the electorate. In the 1970s several liberal Democrats won statewide offices, and in 1990 Ann Richards defeated conservative businessman Clayton Williams while two Republicans won statewide office. In 1993 Republicans gained control of both Senate seats from Texas and in 1994 Richards was unseated by George Bush for the governorship.
In recent years the state has moved toward Republican dominance. In 1996 Republicans swept all of the statewide offices for the first time. They also captured control of the state Senate. By 2000 Democrats were not fielding candidates in all of the statewide elections and scrambled to regroup. In 2002 Republicans finally controlled the Texas House as well. The Democrats had put up a very racially, ethnically diverse slate of candidates in hope of attracting new minority voters but still fell short.
Although there has been a long tradition of third parties in Texas, none has achieved statewide electoral success. The most successful third party in recent years has been the Libertarians who have qualified for a place on the ballot in every Texas election since 1986.
Changing Patterns of Party Support and Identification
Over the past 30 years, there have been significant changes in the state's party structure. One-party Democratic control has been transformed by complex economic, social, and political changes, and Texas is now a two-party state. In 2002, approximately 36 percent of Texas voters called themselves Republicans and 24 percent identified as Democrats. There are marked differences in the social and economic characteristics of party identifiers.
The Republican party has made serious efforts to more strongly court the Hispanic vote in Texas, as Hispanics increase in their proportion of the population.
The Party Organization
Parties have rarely functioned as highly cohesive, disciplined organizations either in the electorate or government. Party organization is along temporary and permanent lines. The temporary organizations are created to administer party conventions, help to select delegates to the national party conventions, and to help to organize the permanent party structure. The permanent organizations are created to organize and manage elections, plan conventions, manage fund-raising activities, establish party policies, facilitate filing for candidates, and turn out the vote on Election Day.
Parties and Government
Political parties in Texas do not produce cohesive, policy-oriented coalitions in government and are unable to hold elected officials accountable or even responsive for several reasons. These include the fact that political parties in Texas are highly decentralized, elected officials often diffuse party leadership, many elected officials rely primarily on their own fundraising skills and receive little direct financial support from parties, parties do not have clearly differentiated policy positions, and voters are ambivalent and sometimes hostile toward political parties in general.
Minorities and Political Participation
One of the problematic aspects of the contemporary Texas political system is low voter turnout in most elections (only about 1/3 of eligible voters), despite the elimination of discriminatory election laws, the creation of an extended voting period, and easy voter registration. Although most discriminatory election barriers have been eliminated, racial gerrymandering and at-large election systems have a tendency to suppress minority representation and continue to generate controversy.
Political Gains by Minorities and Women
Over the past 30 years, minorities have made substantial electoral gains. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 played a significant role. This law has been used with considerable success to challenge and eliminate at-large elections and to attack racial gerrymandering. The resulting changes allowed Hispanics and African Americans to realize substantial gains in the electoral process and increased success in winning elections to public office. Although the Voting Rights Act was under attack by the mid-1990s as “reverse discrimination” and thirteen districts in Texas had to be redrawn, minorities have been fairly successful at maintaining their seats. Hispanics comprise 32 percent of the population and about 28.6 percent of eligible voters but only about 12-15 percent actually vote. Hispanic turnout is hampered because of low education and income levels.
Hispanics have traditionally voted Democratic and in the 2002 Democratic primary Hispanic voters dominated. By 2003 Hispanics in Texas held 1,965 elected offices -- the highest of any state. African Americans have fared less well in Texas politics where they traditionally vote strongly Democratic. By 2002 only two African Americans had been elected to statewide office.
Traditionally, men dominated Texas politics. Ann Richards election as treasurer in 1982 opened the doors, and in 2003 nine women held statewide offices in the state. Women have served as mayors of the three largest cities in the state as well.
Elections in Texas
With varied election cycles for multiple levels of government, Texans are subjected to a continuous election process, contributing to 'voter fatigue' and indifference. Despite changes in the partisan lineup, Texans have not expressed a significant shift in their philosophical orientations over the past twenty years. Most Texans still classify themselves as moderate to conservative.
Texas uses the direct primary election to nominate major party candidates for public office. These are administered by the parties. Texas utilizes an open primary where voters do not register by party. Primary voter turnout is lower than the general election. During the one-party period, whoever won the Democratic primary effectively won the seat. General elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even numbered years. Most local elections are held in May of odd-numbered years. In addition, the legislature can submit constitutional amendments to the voters either during a general election or call a special statewide election. There are also local bond elections and recalls of public officials.
In 1988 Texas moved to allow very liberal early voting that lasts from the twentieth to the fourth day prior to an election. No reasons or justifications are required.
Campaign Finances
The costs of statewide campaigns, as well as many regional and local campaigns, have escalated over the past three decades. Although money may not buy public officials, it certainly buys access to them, and it creates the impression that well-organized interests, corporations, and wealthy individuals have disproportionate influence on policy makers. Campaign finance reform remains elusive in Texas; despite a law enacted in 1973 and administered by the state Ethics Commission, that requires disclosure of information related to campaign contributions. There is no state-wide agency that oversees campaign financing or spending.
Chapter Objectives
After mastering the concepts in this chapter, you will be able to
|