Jump to Navigation

Public Integrity Unit

Preserving American Freedom > Restoring Integrity to Our Elections > Public Integrity Unit
We call for transferring statewide public official investigative and prosecution responsibilities from the Travis County Public Integrity Unit to a statewide entity.We urge the Legislature to secure the impartiality and probity of the Travis County Public Integrity Unit, by transferring its powers and funding to an impartial statewide elected judicial entity.

This should not be an elected position.

Fault:

Comments

PIU

Submitted by Mike (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 09:31.

I was shocked to see how the GOP tried to secretly shut down the Public Integrity Unit. If that bill would have passed then there would have been no Integrity Unit. GOP looks very bad on this deal, makes them look like there trying to get even after the Delay verdict or get away with mismanagement of there campaign funds. This really looks bad for GOP. This is what happens when one party rules as a super majority. CORRUPTION!!

Public Integrity

Submitted by Betty (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-23 16:16.

The AG can't prosecute crimes without the invite of a local DA. It would be a wast of money and time to give this unit to the AG and have him have to go back to Travis County to have them do the same thing they already do. This is a wast of paper and tax payer money.

Public Integrity

Submitted by Dave (not verified) on Tue, 2010-12-21 16:06.

So your asking the state to give the AG power instead of the DA of Travis County who has prosecuted more Democrates than Republicans? Republicans investigating Republicans!!!!! You think the AG would be less bias? when he went after Democrates for voter fraud!!! Don't make this look like a Tea Party issue, I am the Tea Party and we will come after everyone who votes for this if you even try to take that power to the AG. Your precious Tom Delay was taken down for corruption but your not offended when it's Kino Flores. Tea Party is watching you!!!

We should not be asking for

Submitted by Aren Cambre on Tue, 2010-12-21 16:11.

We should not be asking for more elected positions before we have a comprehensive plan to deal with the glut of elected positions already on the ballot.

But for the matter, an AG elected in Texas would have been Republican for over a decade now and probably for years into the future.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Random plank

Preserving American Freedom > Limiting the Expanse of Government Power > Continuity of Government
We oppose appointing members of Congress to fill large vacancies, depriving our right to elect our own representatives.
Reason:

The Constitution does not allow appointments to large vacanties in the House of Representatives. While the Constitution's 17th Amendment allows the state Legislature to permit the governor to appoint to vacant Senate positions, in fact prevailing practice in all states is to only allow an appointment until a special election can be held. Texas law specifically only allows an appointment until a special election.

pointless

Problems

Show problem parts of the platform:
Platforms promote principles and policies. Planks must not push particular polymorphic political proposals, including bills.about a specific bill (6)
Parts of these were recently implemented.accomplished (11)
Parts of these only promote limited religious viewpoints.advances religious doctrine (8)
Too many positions already overwhelm voters. We cannot add more without a plan to cut ballot complexity.another elected office (6)
The GOP should not be a virulent, anti-homosexual crusade.anti-homosexual crusade (6)
These destroy useful customs or start us down slippery slopes.bad precedent (17)
Cliches belong on the playground, not in serious platforms.cliche (5)
These contradict other planks.contradictory (13)
These simply go too far, overshooting a rational remedy.extreme (25)
These have factual errors.incorrect (11)
These planks advanced contemporary liberal causes or expand government.leftist (22)
These planks require belief in something that is untrue.misinformed (18)
These are not appropriate for a platform document.misuse of platform (6)
These planks have minor punctuation or grammatical errors.needs copyedit (8)
These problems were fixed before the 2008 platform was published.no longer relevant (3)
"Black helicopters" and paranoid conspiracy have no place in our party.paranoid (15)
Parts of these do nothing useful.pointless (61)
These proposals would make our kids stupider.reduces education quality (3)
These planks are internally redundant or repeat other parts of the platform.redundant (41)
These planks should propose a more general solution.too specific (6)
These planks are unclear or unfocused.vague (19)
Puffy prose, hackneyed phrases, and obscure words create pinheaded, unfocused, and inaccessible platforms. Platforms must be simple and direct.wordy (47)

Recent comments