logo
Granderson: Watch for even small shifts in Texas politics. Sometimes tectonic movements follow

Granderson: Watch for even small shifts in Texas politics. Sometimes tectonic movements follow

Yahoo10-05-2025

Waskom, Texas, is an old railroad town of about 2,000 nestled at the midway point between Dallas and Shreveport, La. According to the city's website, Waskom became a significant player in America's east-to-west trade during the 1880s because J.M. Waskom, a director of the Southern Pacific Railroad, 'led the way in bringing the railroad to East Texas.' That's largely how Waskom got the nickname 'Gateway to Texas.'
In 2019 Waskom adopted a new nickname, 'sanctuary city for the unborn,' after an all-male city council voted to make Waskom the first municipality in America to ban abortion since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. Versions of Waskom's 'sanctuary city for the unborn' ordinance quickly spread to more than 70 municipalities in a handful of states as the Supreme Court was preparing to hear arguments on the case that would eventually lead to Roe's overturning.
The railway was planned. The legal assault on reproductive care was planned. Both turned out to be part of tectonic shifts in society. So, while everything is bigger in Texas, don't overlook the smaller things happening in the Lone Star State. Recent history suggests it's the small things that are going to have the biggest impact.
Last month a driverless truck developed by an autonomous vehicle company out of Pittsburgh made its first delivery run — frozen pastries between Houston and Dallas. Round trip that's about a hair under 500 miles or roughly an eight-hour workday for a truck driver. The company plans to expand freight operations to El Paso and Phoenix in time for the holidays. There are similar companies based in Texas planning to unveil driverless freight options to include San Antonio.
The future is now.
And just as one anti-abortion ordinance out of one small town in Texas became a much larger movement nationwide, one driverless truck dropping off frozen baked goods in Dallas is a sign of something far more significant for the rest of the country.
The administration's tariff policies have reportedly ushered in a decline in port traffic, endangering trucking and dock jobs in the process. One recent study found a decline of 1% in cargo traffic in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach could threaten as many as 4,000 jobs. However, what's going to eliminate those positions entirely is the kind of automation that quietly hit the Texas roads in late April.
Keep an eye on the small things. Without long-term planning about the consequences — or in these cases, even short-term planning — the effects can be catastrophic.
I wonder if the administration is discussing what new skills displaced workers in the logistics industry will need to be employable going forward. Or will local officials be forced to wing it as we did in the immediate aftermath of Roe being overturned? Remember some states started reaching back to ordinances from the 1800s to ban reproductive care without even passing new legislation.
Without designs and public funding to retrain America's workers, the negative effects of tariffs and automation on employment are likely to quickly overtake the societal benefits (if there are any). It would be a small thing to make skills training a priority in certain communities at this moment in history, but the effects could be significant — preventing a disaster.
There's danger in overlooking those opportunities. We saw one outcome in a recent election 250 miles south of Waskom, in the Houston suburb of Katy, one of the state's fastest-growing cities. In the Katy Independent School District, leaders have their hands full just trying to keep up with growth and serve the rising number of students, projected to hit 100,000 by 2028.
However, during the recent campaign, the incumbent board president was focused on banning transgender athletes and other conservative talking points. His opponent, an educator and school administrator for three decades, focused on what teachers need in order to provide for the growing population. Wouldn't you know it, the candidate who actually wanted to fix long-term problems in the district won. In fact, a number of pro-education candidates in Texas won seats in last week's election on school boards previously held by folks responsible for banning books and the like.
It's noteworthy that voters in conservative pockets of the state want leaders who are more focused on solutions than they are on slogans. I know it's not significant nationally, but given the history of small things in Texas growing, this trend gives me hope.
@LZGranderson
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '
Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '

Wall Street Journal

time13 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '

'Shoot a couple, the rest will go home,' said a meme circulating on Telegram channels of groups affiliated with the far-right Proud Boys. 'You just have to impale a few of them…' another local chapter posted. One disseminated an online gun tutorial, illustrating optimal shooting techniques with the caption: 'Riot season again!' Organizers in more than 2,000 cities are mobilizing for 'No Kings' rallies Saturday in opposition to President Trump and his military parade in Washington. Among those watching closely: extremist organizations on social media.

Shaquille O'Neal to pay $1.8 million to settle FTX class action lawsuit
Shaquille O'Neal to pay $1.8 million to settle FTX class action lawsuit

Associated Press

time13 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Shaquille O'Neal to pay $1.8 million to settle FTX class action lawsuit

Former NBA player Shaquille O'Neal will pay $1.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit related to the demise of cryptocurrency exchange FTX. O'Neal, and other celebrities like Tom Brady and Stephen Curry, were named in the lawsuit in 2022. They had been accused of touting FTX as a reputable and trustworthy investment option via paid endorsements. The proposed settlement only pertains to O'Neal. Three years ago FTX was the third-largest cryptocurrency exchange, but it ended up with billions of dollars worth of losses and had to seek bankruptcy protection. The Bahamas-based company and its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, came under investigation by state and federal authorities for allegedly investing depositors funds in ventures without their approval. Before its failure, FTX was known to use high-profile Hollywood and sports celebrities to promote its products. It had the naming rights to a Formula One racing team as well as a sports arena in Miami. Its commercials featured 'Seinfeld' creator Larry David, as well as Brady, the former quarterback of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and New England Patriots, basketball players O'Neal and Curry, and tennis star Naomi Osaka. Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison in March 2024. A little more than a month after that, FTX said in a court filing that nearly all of its customers would receive the money back that they were owed. While the proposed settlement with O'Neal had been agreed to in April, the payment amount and other terms were disclosed in a filing with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, earlier this week. The settlement class includes anyone who deposited funds into FTX or bought its FTT token between May 2019 and late 2022. The agreement, which still needs court approval, would provide O'Neal with a broad release from future claims and also includes a stipulation that he can't seek reimbursement from the FTX estate. The payment will be made within 30 days of the settlement being finalized, according to the filing.

Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense

During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store