When Voting Laws Become Voter Suppression

Let’s start with the simple fact that a series of investigations from Republican-controlled legislatures in Texas have found no meaningful voter fraud that involved lack of voter ID, drive-thru voting, Sunday voting, 24-hour voting, missing/mismatching signatures, etc. They did find one area of concern, but I will address that later on.

Yet, with verifiable proof that there is no measurable problem at hand, GOP legislatures rammed these measures through, even as the populations they governed disagreed with the new laws. Absent any real excuse or reason for the more stringent laws, GOP legislators had to revert to the excuse that their voters needed to feel more secure. So, we are now passing laws based stritly on “feelings.”

But, that aside, let’s look at where, in my view, it crosses into voter suppression.

Let’s start with the attempt to kill voting on Sunday. That was so thinly disguised that even Republicans had to pull it back. In this case, the majority of Republicans couldn’t even see the fig leaf of “voting integrity” the legislators had tried to pin on that proposal.

The fig leaf had completely fallen off. Here’s the problem with fig leafs. Everyone really does know what’s under the fig leaf. In this case, we all understand the intent behind the proposal.

This was a blatant attempt to stop Blacks from organizing and using Sunday religious services to organize people and get them to vote. This was targeted strictly at Blacks. It was meant to cut one very effective way to organize and get Blacks to the voting booth. It was meant to suppress Black voters

This was just one of an entire package of “voting security” measures. It informs the rest of what the legislature did. The state and the counties have every right to change hours, locations, and the manner of how they run elections. It is within the rights of the state and counties to make changes as they see fit. As in all things the state and counties do, or really in any laws the state puts in place, the intent is as important as the action itself.

Banning Sunday voting would apply to all persons, so the legislature can legitimately say that it does not specifically mention Blacks (the fig leaf). On the face of it, it is not discriminatory. Still, we know that it was targeted specifically to Blacks. That was the intent, and that is what made it such an affront to democracy. One could say the same thing about a poll tax. It affected everyone, but we know that it was often implemented as part of Jim Crow laws. The effort to ban Sunday voting was in the same vein.

In that sense, determining whether a law is good or bad is like determining whether a particular act is sinful. It is not strictly the action that we have to examine. We have to examine the reason behind the action and who it is meant to impact. For example, if I physically bump into you on the sidewalk and knock you down, is that a sin? That depends on my intent. If it was an accident and I didn’t see you, then it isn’t a sin. However, if I saw you and purposely knocked you down, then that is a sin. Same action, but different intents.

I know voter ID is already law. I’m not trying to litigate it, but it provides an example of how voter suppression works. In the case of voter ID requirements that were passed in Texas several years ago (again, remember, there was no problem here), the people behind the proposal had already calculated the approximate number of people who would be adversely affected, being mostly Democratic, minority voters.

For example, minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites. The people behind these measures knew these stats. Knowing that voter ID fraud was a non-existent problem while negatively impacting minority voters if they implemented these laws, they went ahead and did it.

Was the intent to eliminate voter fraud? No. You cannot eliminate what does not exist. Can you secure the election or make it “more securer?” It was already secure. In fact, it had prevented large scale voter fraud. They knew that. So, if that was not the intent, what was the intent? No matter how you spin the need for such a law, the intent and result was to reduce the number of minority voters. It impacted one or two election cycles and maybe now be negligible. Still, the intent was there.

I do not have enough time or space to go through all of the issues, so I’ll touch on drive-thru voting. Again, there was no voter fraud even alleged in connection to drive-thru voting. Texas already has a form of drive-thru voting. It’s called curb-side voting. It is available to people who cannot walk into the voting place. They drive up to the curb and call for a poll worker. The judge verifies the voter and then takes a ballot for the voter to fill out. The process is the same as any other voter except it’s done outside or in the car under the supervision of election workers. Drive-thru voting functions exactly same way, except with more voters. But, it was drive-thru voting that drew Republican ire, despite no proof or allegation of voter fraud. The drive-thru and curbside voting are essentially the same. There is no significant difference between the two activities.

It really was just one county, Harris County, that drew Republican ire. When you look below the surface, you start to see where the intent comes in. What’s special about Harris County? It’s a Democratic county with a population of almost 45% Hispanics. In a tight election, which will eventually happen, reducing the votes of opponents in the largest county in the state will make the difference. Again, absent any real issue to solve, what was the intent? One would have to ask if there would have been such a response from the Republican legislature if a GOP-controlled county had instituted drive-thru voting. One has to be honest about that. They might have tisk-tisked at those officials but likely would not have taken any action. Would they have rushed to reduce the vote in a large Republican-controlled county? The truly honest answer is no.

Redistricting, really gerrymandering, is another area of voter suppression. By packing minority voters into as few districts a possible, it suppresses their ability to express their self-determination. Let’s look at some numbers.

Detail	Whites	Hispanics
% of Population in 2010	45%	37%
% of Population in 2020	42%	40%
# of Tx’s 150 House Seats 2010	83	33
# of Tx’s 150 House Seats 2020	89	30
# of Tx’s 36 Cong. Seats 2010	22	8
# of Tx’s 36 Cong. Seats 2020	23	7
# of seats on SBOE in 2010	10	3
# of seats on SBOE in 2020	10	3

The key point here is that, while the Hispanic population grew (most of the state’s growth and the gain of two additional Congressional seats was due to the Hispanic population), the Republican legislature punished Hispanics by reducing the number of Hispanic-dominant districts in the US Congress and in the Texas House of Representatives.

Is this something that we as Texans can be proud of?

Does this represent the ideals of the founding of this country or this state?

Let me pose a question. If, at some point in the future, the percent of Whites and Hispanics were reversed (Hispanics were 42% of the population and Whites were 40%) and the representation in Congress, the state House of Representatives and the SBOE (State Board of Education) were as starkly disparate as they are now, would Republicans be as accepting as they are of the current arrangement? The truly honest answer is no. They would vehemently fight it as unTexan and unconstitutional.

And, they would be correct.

Finally, let me get to the one area where repeated Texas legislative committees have identified as being rife with voter fraud: mail-in ballot harvesting. Though both parties use it, the GOP has been particularly effective at it. Though warned numerous times, the GOP-controlled legislatures have repeatedly failed to address it. It wasn’t’ until this most recent session that the legislature made some cosmetic changes. It is reported that several Texas GOP operatives fought any significant changes because they knew it would hurt their changes to be able to keep harvesting votes from mail-in voters.

But, now, we are seeing the folly of their suppression efforts. The minimalist action on mail in voting has resulted in an unprecedented number of mail in ballot requests being rejected because of the ill-thought signature and verification requirements. Travis County reported that it had to reject more than 50% of the applications while Harris County reported that they have rejected as many as seven times than before.

Now, those warnings from the GOP operatives seem prescient, and it is coming to bite them in a very painful way. If this problem continues, it will significantly the GOP’s ability to harvest votes. What will the Republicans do? Gov. Abbott may seek some executive action to try to undo the new law. He may also call a special session, under some other pretext, and then make changes to allow them to keep harvesting votes. If anything like that happens, then we know what their intention have been all along.

So, it would appear that voting integrity is important only so long as it benefits the ruling party or hurts others. Given that, one again has to question the intent behind the other laws. When faced with an obvious and serious issue of election fraud, choosing to ignore it lays bare the falseness of the claim of voting integrity. The fig leafs fall.

In the end, one has to look at these issues with a finer lens. There is a question I sometimes ask people. It tells me a lot about that person.

What do you consider to be worse?

A) To have a guilty person get away with a crime?

or

B) To have an innocent person wrongly convicted of a crime?

Because no system if perfect, we have to accept certain inconsistencies.

In this case, the question would be:

What do you consider to be worse?

1. To have someone vote illegally?

Or

• To have one legal voter deterred from voting?

I think Republicans have clearly decided that A is worse.

Either we are building barriers around the voting booth, or we are opening doors.

All of the Texas legislature’s actions have to be filtered through their desire to please Trump. They had to follow the Great Lie of massive voter fraud. There being no voter fraud where they pointed to but ignoring where there is, they manufactured the need to “strengthen voting security.” Without the force of evidence and justification for their actions, then their intent is rightly questioned.

Should laws ever be passed without legitimate force of justification?

As a state and nation, is that the proper way to govern?

What, in fact, is our intent in governing in such a manner?

Healing Doesn’t Come From Speeches

——-It Comes From Talking, Working Directly With People——

In the end, the speeches do not matter. They serve as an announcement, perhaps even a starting point, but healing a nation only takes place when we talk with each other and actually work together to solve problems.

Honestly, I hesitate to even use the word “healing.” Healing is a very deep and challenging goal that would take many years to accomplish. I think it better to think of easing tensions, scaling down the bitterness.

There are many areas of division within the United States. Some cannot be bridged. The extreme right and the extreme left will not be bridged. But, I think the large section of people are most likely willing to listen.

I have one small idea for the Biden administration to start this work to reach out to the rural areas where there seems to be an extensive sense of disconnect and isolation from the rest of the country.

Biden should create the Office of Special Advisor on Rural Affairs. He should appoint a prominent Democrat from Iowa or another rural state, maybe someone who was a mayor or city council member. The office should be staffed with a handful of outreach advocates scattered across the country, preferably people from those respective areas. It should be understood that rural communities share some similar issues but also have significant differences in different rural areas of the country. For example, the issues of rural Vermont communities are different from communities in West Texas.

The best connection is with small city mayors. Generally, they are well in tune with the feelings and needs of their community. They are also the point of contact for their community with the state and federal governments.

The mission of this office is to represent the interests of small and rural communities in DC. It should serve as a sounding board and conduit for vetting proposals the administration hopes to make law and policy. It would provide a voice for these communities directly into the Oval Office.

This is both a pragmatic and political approach, to be sure. But the benefits, if the effort is honorably done, could be part of the start of reconciliation and healing that will likely take years to happen. I’m willing to take a lowering of the tensions in the short term.

In the Democratic Primary, the more the merrier.

With the current field of potential candidates for the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary now at about 30 individuals, I am truly surprised that some people think this is a bad thing. This is good thing. It is good for democracy, good for the country and good for the Democratic Party.

In 2015, they were wondering if anyone would run against Hillary Clinton for the nomination. There was a desperate search for a candidate to at least make an attempt to challenge Clinton. Three of the five who ran against Clinton dropped out before the first primary. Only Sanders made it all the way to the end.

After the election, the Democrats were wondering if any Democrat would step to  challenge Donald Trump in 2020. The Democratic bench looked bleak. Today, we’re looking at 30 people who have indicated that they may launch a campaign.

As soon as Sanders announced that he was considering another run, some Democrats started trashing him as not being a true Democrat (he’s an Independent), being too old, being too radical and/or not being the best candidate, period. As others announced, the same arguments started popping up. For some of the less well-known, the argument seems to be that they cannot possibly win, it would be a waste of time and money, it would result in needless infighting and detract from the fight against Trump. Some argued that only the “leading” candidates should run.

The people who are making all these arguments may truly believe them or it may just be that they have a favorite candidate who has not announced, yet. Or somewhere in between those two points.

The truth is that it will cause some divisions, it will drain some resources, it will detract from the immediate fight against Trump, and it will seem like a very long, drawn out process.

However, remember that no one really gave Sanders a chance to upset Clinton. He almost did. However, in the process, he energized a base that had long felt left out. It’s not too far a stretch to say that the re-energized base helped Clinton win the popular vote.

I can’t draw a straight line from Sanders to what happened in Texas with Beto O’Roarke’s incredible and close run against Ted (Come’on, Tehd) Cruz, but I think there was some element of the Sanders energy in Beto’s campaign. So, who’s to say that a dark horse being discounted today won’t be the eventual candidate. The vast majority of the GOP discounted Trump when he rode down that elevator.

More importantly, the depth and diversity of voices in the primaries is good for the nation. This is how a party explores and sharpens its ideals, values and ideas. When the candidates get to debate and discuss different versions of solutions to an issue, it gives voters a clearer idea of what they stand for. It also gives the candidates feedback of what voters think and want. It is how candidates get to adjust their talking points to line up with the base. That is how Trump was able to make MAGA the GOP’s theme in 2016.

The only way to widen a party’s base is to let as many people representing a wide range of views sit at the table. Each of the 30 candidates will represent a different segment of the voters. The table will be the primaries. It is too early to be telling anyone that they should not run.

It would be a poor political party – and a weak nation – that has only a few candidates running for office. In the market place of ideas, the more, the merrier. That’s what a primary should be in both parties.

Preaching To The Devil

Note: This is a somewhat long piece. It’s political, so continue at your own risk.

Imagine that you’re a pastor or priest or or preacher. You’re new, giving your first sermon in front of your congregation. Your words are strong and tart. Some of the congregation wonder how you got to be a pastor. You use words rarely spoken in this hall. Tart, almost vulgar, flavored with ash and bitterness. The congregation is not used to this language. But, this is all you know. Those are the only words you know. You don’t know the other words. You grasp for those other words, hoping to spark fire in your first sermon. You throw them in. The congregation seems to take interest. Your voice booms in the hall and spills out onto the street.

You look toward the back of the hall where the lighting is not so good, and you notice that the Devil and a few of his demons have quietly taken up a few seats in the empty pews.

As you get into your sermon, you start to notice that the Devil seems to be getting more and more interested. As you go along, the Devil and his demons just seem to be getting more and more excited. They start giving you a “Halleluiah” here and there, a “Bring it on, Brother!” They start dancing in the aisle, pulling people out with them. Pretty soon, they’re at the front of the congregation.

Now, some of the people start to get nervous, and they start to move toward the rear of the hall. Some take a few steps farther, waiting for you to rebuke the Devil and the demons and try to cast them out of the hall.

All this time, you’re bring the fire and brimstone. Your voice is getting louder and louder, rebuking everyone who doesn’t get up and clap to your sermon. You denounce everyone outside the hall, all those sinners who didn’t come. They’re the evil ones, you say. You’re getting all fired up. Sweat is pouring down your forehead. The band starts playing behind your words. The hall is full of the music and your words.

The Devil and the demons keep running around. A few of the demons go to the door and call in more demons.

Some of the people decide to leave. They try to yell at you that the Devil and the demons have joined the congregation, but their voices are drowned out as they leave. The rest of the congregation just stays, spell bound by your preaching. You see the fervor in their eyes. They’re standing in the pews. Some are spilling out into the aisles. This has never happened before. They can’t see the Devil and the demons. All they see is you. They don’t hear the hideous voices of the Devil and the demons as they shout out and sing along with the music. All they hear is your words.

And you’re pacing up and down on the stage. You see the crowd standing and clapping, some jumping for joy. You see the Devil and the demons running around the congregation.

Some of the Elders look around and see the Devil and the demons. They move away from them, but they don’t leave and they don’t push the Devil and the demons out. They look around. The hall is now full. Other people and a few more demons have packed it. The hall has never been so full.

When the plate is passed around, it comes back full and heavy. It has never been that heavy. It brings a smile to your face. What a great new church you could build with that money. Your name would be out front in big letters. The Elders see the plate. Their eyes light up. What a great church they could build with that money. They see their names on the cornerstone.

I’m on the outside, looking in through the window. I see you on stage and I see the Devil and the demons running around praising your preaching and throwing money into the plates. I see the Elders who look with some disgust at the Devil and the demons but keep the money.

I wonder, what words do you use to get the Devil and the demons to join you? I wonder, what do you think when you see that your words and your voice have drawn in the Devil and the demons? Do you think that you are so powerful preacher that you could convert the Devil and the demons? Do you realize that it is your words and your voice that have drawn the Devil and the demons? Does it not bother you that you have drawn the Devil and the demons to become a part of your congregation as equals to the others?

I have the same questions about your Elders.

I suspect the answer is simple. You and the Elders would say that you did not explicitly call the Devil and the demons by name to come join you. The Devil and the demons come and go of their own volition. They can stay as long as they put money in the plate. You will keep preaching the same way because that’s just who you are and people like it.

How should I judge you as a preacher? Should I judge you by your words? Should I judge you by who you brought into your congregation? Should I consider that you didn’t denounce Devil and the demons, that your words brought them to your side? Should I judge you by how much money you raised and how big a church you built?

I’ve meandered here on the real point. The real point is the Devil. You brought the Devil and happily had him follow you. What kind of person does that make you?

No doubt, you know I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about Donald Trump. He brought the Devil to walk with him. His vitriol, anger, hate and racist language have allowed the Devil and his demons (White Nationalists, KKK, Nazis, etc.) to join his congregation.

I think Donald Trump is fine with them as long as they vote and keep him in power. It doesn’t matter to him that it’s the Devil and the demons, and some other fine people voting for him. All he cares about is the votes. That’s all that matters.

Of course, I would also say that the Elders of the GOP have also been quite satisfied with the votes. That’s all that matters to them, as well.

Preach to the Devil. Preach to the demons. They vote just like everyone else.

 

Here’s a sample of some of my work

Here is a sample of my work: A Mata Portfolio #1. Please feel free download it and share.

I know it’s hard to know if a writer can do good work until you give them an assignment to work on. So, I decided to start sharing some samples of actual work I’ve done.

I’ve included a concept paper, a fundraising letter and a magazine article for your consideration. I will be posting more sets of some of my work, hopefully once a week.

A note on the concept papers. I write these whenever I think I have a really good idea worth sharing with others. Sometimes I try to actually get them implemented. And sometimes, I know that I’m not the best person suited for the idea. I am willing to share them and hope that someone can do something with them. Please feel free to give it a try on anything I share here.

Also, feel free to share this document with anyone you think might benefit from them. Your feedback is appreciated, by the way.

Action is not leadership; solutions are leadership.

We often see leaders as people who take action, and that is certainly part of leadership. But, action in and of itself is not leadership.

Anyone can take action at any time. People often act out of a need to do something, anything. This is just reflexive action, something done without much thought. Reflexive action is done out of frustration. It is done without a solution behind it.

Here, I am struck that this has been a large part of Donald Trump’s approach to how he manages. To be clear here, I do not like Trump, his policies or his approach to running the government or leading this country. However, with that said, as someone who does focus on leadership, I can step away from my feelings and focus on the leadership elements at play here.

In a real crisis or emergency, we all act reflexively, sometimes doing the very first thing that comes into our head, perhaps even the very thing we should not do.

In the case of Donald Trump, people have always acknowledged that he can act impulsively, even impetuously. He responds with his gut feeling. But, that is not leadership. The president has to be the leader 24/7. He cannot be the nation’s id.

There are two situations that highlight how these reflexive actions by Donald Trump shows the lack of a solution behind them. The first was his decision of end the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. The second was the recent Zero Tolerance policy which erupted into bad optics about crying children being held away from their families. I don’t want to focus on the politics of the two situations, but on the process. In both cases, Trump took the action and then tossed the issue over to Congress to solve. He presented no solution beforehand, no outline of what would be acceptable to him as a solution.

On DACA, there was great confusion on what he would accept. On one day, he said one thing, which he later reversed. He created a problem, using the DACA children as a bargaining chip, to force Congress to come up with a solution he could accept. A year later, there is still no solution to the DACA dilemma. Trump offered no solution. He waited for Congress to come offering solutions in the form of proposed laws. Nothing substantial came of it.

On the Zero Tolerance policy, he did something similar. He ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to implement the Zero Tolerance policy. By doing so, he wanted to put pressure on Congress come up with a solution to the immigration problem. As of today, there is no solution on the horizon. The proposed legislation, according to all sides, has no chance to pass Congress. And, the Trump White House has offered no detailed legislation or even an outline of what would be acceptable.

Those who support Trump applaud that he takes decisive action. Yes, both were decisive actions. You can see it in many of the things he has done. He ended the administration’s support for health care subsidies. He pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accords, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the UN Human Rights Council. In the case of the TPP, no other agreement was presented in its place that would keep the United States plugged into trade with the Pacific nations. Perhaps he is still waiting for those countries to come back with a trade deal, but nothing has really happened so far on that. In the meantime, China has take advantage of the vacuum.

As a leadership example, however, they are empty action. None of those came with solutions attached to them. Perhaps it is part of Trump’s history of how he operates where he takes an action and then waits for someone to solve the problem he creates or for the other party to come up with an acceptable solution. He just transferred that behavior to the Presidency.

While we want and expect action from our leaders, we really need solutions. That is the hard part of leadership, crafting a solution. But, it is a necessary element of leadership.

I learned, from my wife, one principal’s approach to addressing problems. Her principal told her, “I don’t mind you bringing me problems, but I expect you to come with a solution for me to consider. Don’t just being me problems.”

Anyone can take action and create other problems in the process. No real thought is required. But solutions demand hard thought and work. Still, that is what we really need from our leaders.

The RGV Citizen Journalist Project

I wanted to share an idea about developing a citizen journalist or citizen reporter project. The Rio Grande Valley is a large and growing region with many, many things going on. For starters, we are working on developing a network of people who can report on at least one local government meeting on a regular basis, whether it’s a city council, school board, county or other government board.

You don’t need reporting or writing experience, but that would help. We can provide the some simple training to help you be an impartial observer of your community and report on it. We can help you polish your writing and reporting.

We will work to get your stories out to the public.

If you are interested or have any questions, please contact me at arnoldo.mata@hotmail.com.

How I Celebrated My Birthday and Father’s Day.

Several years ago, I stopped my family from giving me gifts on my birthday and Father’s Day, which generally happen within a week or so of each other. First, they have a hard time figuring out what to give me besides tools, about which I am quite particular. More importantly, I have all that I need and don’t really need gifts. (Though, I could always use more bow ties!) Instead, I give gifts to my family on my birthday and acknowledge and focus on my wife during Father’s Day.

As even any casual reader of “The Lord of The Rings” will remember, hobbits celebrate their birthdays by giving gifts rather than receiving them. That’s not really the reason I do it; I just really like mentioning “The Lord of the Rings” whenever I can. I couldn’t find an appropriate Star Trek reference.

I know that our purpose in life is to love and be loved (I’ve been trying to write a book about my theory about that for a while; maybe this year.). My life is made up of the moments I share with the people I love and other people around me. I wanted to celebrate that because it is my family that makes up those moments.

So, I started giving out presents on my birthday. Of course, we have the cake and cookies. However, at the end of it, it’s my family that opens up the gifts. I truly enjoy that part. It just seems appropriate to me to do that.

I didn’t make myself a father. My wife did that. I just showed up after it was all done. She did the hard work. (On my wife’s birthday, I would call my mother-in-law and thank her because, without her, I would not have my wife.) So, I gave my wife flowers on Father’s Day and spent the rest of the day doing as much as I could for her (not that I don’t do that the other 364 days of the year). Without her, there would be no “Father’s” day for me. It just seems appropriate to me to do that.

Birthdays and Father’s Day are a reflection of the relationships we have. For me, it offers an added opportunity to nurture those relationships and acknowledge their importance.

I have a question for Gov. Abbott

---

Yes, I have a question for Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton. How far would you go to protect my right of religious liberty in the face of a law that goes against my religious views?

Like many other conservative leaders, all three have been vocal in arguing that both elected officials and regular citizens should not be forced to do something that is against their religion. They came out forcefully with respect to individuals’ rights to not be forced to provide services to gay weddings (a cake baker, for example) or an elected official’s right to not be forced to approve marriage licenses (county clerks) or perform a wedding ceremony (justice of the peace) for a gay couple. This is part of Abbott’s reasoning for his position, “The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.” Paxton, speaking about the U. S. Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, said, “This ruling will likely only embolden those who seek to punish people who take personal, moral stands based upon their conscience and the teachings of their religion.”

The Texas Senate approved a bill allowing county clerks to recuse themselves from signing marriage licenses for same-sex couples because of religious objections. Again, this was based on the idea that elected officials should not be forced to follow a law that goes against their religious beliefs.

The Texas legislature is now debating a new law that extends that idea of religious liberty. Called the “Freedom to Serve Children Act,” Texas’ House Bill 3859 extends religious liberty protections to providers within Texas’ child welfare system, allowing them to decline services to individuals based on “the provider’s sincerely held religious beliefs.” Child welfare providers can also require children under their care to receive a religious education, including putting them in religious schools, even if it is different from the child’s home religious upbringing.

As I have said before, I take people’s convictions at face value. I don’t question them. So, I trust that Abbott, Patrick and Paxton truly believe that the government should not force us to go against our own personal religious beliefs, regardless of the consequences and potential abuses of that position, for individuals and elected officials.

Abbott recently signed Senate Bill 4, which makes sheriffs, constables, police chiefs and other local leaders subject to Class A misdemeanor charges if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities and honor requests from immigration agents to hold noncitizen inmates who are subject to deportation. It also provides civil penalties for entities in violation of the provision that begin at $1,000 for a first offense and climb to as high as $25,500 for each subsequent infraction. The bill also applies to public colleges.

So, here’s my question to Abbott, Patrick and Paxton. If my religious beliefs tell me that I should not follow the mandates of Senate Bill 4, the so called “sanctuary cities” law, would they defend my religious rights? If I am a Sheriff or Police Chief and felt that my reading of the Gospel directed me to welcome the foreigner, regardless of legal status, do I then have a right to refuse to follow SB 4? Will Gov. Abbott and Attorney General Paxton go to court to defend me? After all, as Jesus said, “I was a stranger and you took me.” If I interpret that to mean that I should not throw out the immigrants, is that not part of my religious liberty?

Do my rights of religious liberty extend to this issue or just to gay marriage, and only if I am against gay marriage?

I would believe that think that if you defend one person’s right to religious liberty on one issue, you would have to defend all people’s rights on all issues because you are arguing the principle not the issue. Right? They are arguing for their positions based on constitutional rights.

If Gov. Abbot, Lt. Gov. Patrick or A. G. Paxton aren’t willing to answer my question, can you?

If you’re not challenging yourself, you’re not getting better. Apply for the Tri-City Leadership Program.

The Tri-City Leadership Program is accepting applications for the 2017-2018 program year. The Tri-City Leadership Program builds on more than 20 years of leadership training services in the Tri-City area. More than 300 community leaders have benefited from previous community leadership programs in the Alamo, San Juan and Pharr communities, including some who have gone on to elected positions and other leadership positions. Others learned new skills they were able to apply in their work, community and home environments.

How does the program work?

The program starts with a two-day retreat where the class participants go through a variety of team-building and learning activities. They get through a variety of challenges as a group, small teams and individuals.

TCLP class members have members start off the year with a kick-off weekend retreat in late September that provides an intense, 2-day team-building session that helps members come together as a cohesive group. The team members learn new skills that help them start developing their team-building skills.

Class members meet once a month, October through May, to hear key community leaders about important issues and trends impacting our community.

Among the topics covered are: local history, local government, education, economic development, criminal justice and community organizations. Special topics can be added when possible. Class members participate in various tours and visits to local community facilities as part of their training.

Class members are encouraged to get involved in community volunteer opportunities, including chamber committees, city committees and school district committees, when possible. Class members are also encouraged to develop a community service project as a way to put their skills into practice. Class projects have provided many services to benefit the community over the years. Class participants are encouraged to put their skills into practice in their business, personal and community environments. Class members are provided with individual coaching and feedback as needed.

If you are interested in participating in the program, contact me at: arnoldo.mata@hotmail.com.