Plural Executive and Redistricting in Texas

Plural Executive and Redistricting in Texas

Question one:

Plural executive in Texas

The state of Texas is among those that utilize the plural executive form of governance up to date. The plural executive is a situation whereby the members of the executive are elected by the people instead of being appointed by the state governor apart from the secretary of state. Among the members of the plural executive are, Governor, Lieutenant governor, land commissioner, agriculture commissioner, attorney general, and controller of public accounts, among others. Apart from the secretary of state, all other members of the executive are not answerable to the governor, but to the public. Owing to the fact that the public elects them through a popular vote, they must work in a manner that is commensurate with the expectations of the electorates and in line with the respective party platforms.

If the executive were appointed rather than being elected by the people, there would be several consequences that would culminate in poor governance or misunderstanding in the regimes. An instance, the governors whose current powers are very limited would be very prone to the abuse of power and office. This would be witnessed through nepotism, corruption, threats, etc. This is because the governor would be the person behind all appointments to the executive. Nepotism would occur because the boss would be tempted to appoint his relatives or friends for various reasons. For instance, a governor may install a friend who helped him during the campaigns as a member of the executive. In such a scenario, the appointed person would serve the interests of his boss rather than those of the general public.

Cases of corruption can also be very rampant as in the cases where the executive is appointed. This is because the appointed people are unable to question any decision made by the governor. In fact, some of them would conspire with the bosses to defraud the state without any worry because it is with them, that their fate is defined. Threats are also a common thing when all executive appointees are answerable to the governor. For they fear to lose their jobs, they cannot come up with any policy that is for the good of the public, provide that it contradicts the beliefs or the regulations given by the state governor. This leads to a tense environment for the executive leading to poor or no dispensation of services to the electorates. For example, an executive member may be of the idea that people implicated in corruption allegations should be barred from contesting for any elective post. An appointed member would not front such a suggestion if the governor himself might be axed, unlike in the plural executive, whereby a member can front any idea for debate.

Additionally, an appointed executive may also be ineffective due to the implementation of poor quality of policies. This is because policies from the governor, for instance, may not be debated but passed unanimously. The policies also tend to be less informed because they emanate from one angle of thinking, one individual. In the plural executive per contra, decisions are made from a logical perspective, debated by all the members to suit all the interests of the people. This method is usually effective because other members can contribute fearlessly to any proposal. The multimember agencies such as the railroad commission bring a lot of experience on the table, which can help in formulating policies.

Through elected executive, the values of different party platforms can be realized. There are high chances that in a plural executive, the major parties are represented because the positions are many. For example, after the elections, you may realize that out of nine representatives, for instance, four of them might belong to the Republican Party while the rest may represent the democrats. Since each party has its party platform, all the ideas of both parties can be brought together, spurring the development of the state forward. Since no man is an island of knowledge, governors are helped with new development ideas which they would not have thought of. Governors who appoint their cabinet usually implement the party platform of their parties, only disregarding other ideas from other parties even if they are viable.

Reasons why bureaucracy moves so slowly in Texas

The system of administration in Texas takes place much slowly as compared to some other states. The bureaucracy is slow due to the type of executive that is employed in the state. The plural executive favors a wide range of consultation before a decision is made. In the states where there are appointed executive, the governor can easily have his way go through since there is no one to counter it.

On the other hand, a decision from the governor has to be discussed by the executive members, which sometimes becomes lengthy and costly. What further complicates the process, is the fact that the elected members of the executive do not come from one political party, meaning that there is a lot of diversity in the contributions made towards a particular policy. Every member struggles to ensure that his or her party interests are given the priority, culminating in a push and pull both at the level of decision making and enforcement of the policy. The impact is that the decision is made far too late, which makes it ineffective to address emergency issues.

Question Two

Redistricting in Texas

Redistricting is the process by which district boundaries are drawn for electoral purposes, whereby all states with more than one representative to the congress must conduct the process after every census exercise is carried out. The legislature of the state is supposed to carry out the redistricting duty. In the case where the legislature is unable to do the redistricting either entirely or in the required time, the Legislative Redistricting Board takes the chance. The Legislative Redistricting Board was created by a congressional act passed in 1967; Providing a gap for the reapportionment of senatorial and representative districts in the event the legislature failed to complete the reapportionment.

The redistricting process has thus attracted controversy, with the legislature being accused of colluding with the process for their personal reasons. Among them is the partisan Gerrymandering to ensure that the boundaries are drawn in such a way that it favors a particular party with the most legislators. It is for this reason that some states delegated the roles of redistricting to an independent or bipartisan commission, to minimize the amount of politics that play in the process. The commissions are however, not fully autonomous because their work has to be approved by the legislature and the state governor as well.

Therefore, redistricting should be made a responsibility of an independent commission that is not subject to any political influence. The members of the commission should not be partisans as that will make them be inclined to their party platforms as they dispense their mandate hence minimizing gerrymander. Boundaries are drawn by an independent commission to create a stage for fairer party competition, which sometimes does not happen when the function is carried out by the legislature. The independent commissions also develop a sense of decentralization because people feel that there are other avenues of power apart from the legislature. Since the legislature is involved in almost all the activities of the states, people feel as if they have fewer powers over the running of their states, which means withdrawing the function from the legislature can help minimize dominance by the legislature.

States such as Arizona and California have already enacted a bill for the establishment of independent commissions to carry out redistricting. The exercise in the two states has already seemed flawless, prompting other states to initiate a process of establishing the independent commissions. The two states began the initiative between 2000 and 2010, which involved both the legislature and the power of the people. Since people knew that they were the most beneficiaries, they did not find any load in passing the same. The attempt to initiate the same in some states can, however, be a daunting task for there are already established laws barring the process from being as easy. The 1967 congressional act could, however, be amended to salvage people from the perpetuation of personal interest in the redistricting process in future.

The period taken before doing redistricting also raises queries because it is limited to only ten years. The duration should, however, not be changed from ten years to either be increased or decreased. This is because the process is subject to a census exercise and which takes place only after ten years. Minimizing the interval would result in wastage of funds and time. This is because redistricting is an exercise that is highly invested in and creates a heated political atmosphere in the United States. Changing the redistricting interval would consequently lead to the shifting of census intervals also.

Districts that get a representative by chance also may be disadvantaged should the redistricting be conducted after a shorter time. The small districts in big states are sure that if the boundaries are drawn, and they are assigned a representative, they will run for two electoral terms before losing the seat. It will be for their good if their representatives run for at least two terms before it is taken from them during the following redistricting period.