Connect with us

Published

3 years ago

on

The New York Times editorial board is furious that Republicans in state capitols are undermining democracy. This time they’re doing it by passing laws that preempt policies approved by Democratic-controlled city halls.

The Texas Legislature, it notes, approved a bill this session that would preempt localities from adopting regulations in areas already governed by the state codes for agriculture, natural resources, labor, finance, insurance, and occupations. If Gov. Greg Abbot signs the bill into law, localities could only regulate in those areas if they’re explicitly authorized to do so by state statute.

The Times editorial board claims this will preempt city regulations on subjects as mundane as overgrown lots and as serious as civil rights protections.

The cited source on the overgrown lots claim is the Texas Municipal League, a taxpayer-funded lobbying group controlled by local governments and dedicated to preserving local control. Business groups that support the bill argue that numerous parts of state law make clear that localities will retain their authority to regulate overgrown lawns, employment discrimination, and more.

No matter. The Times contends that Texas Republicans’ regulatory preemption, like so many other conservative efforts to centralize decision making in state legislatures, is “silencing the will of millions of voters.”

One might note that state legislators are likewise elected. In that context, the “will of millions of voters” in Democratic-controlled Texas cities isn’t necessarily silenced so much as it is being overridden by the will of millions of more voters who elected a Republican-controlled Legislature.

Obviously, there are winners and losers in the fight between state lawmakers and city council members, but the will of the voters as such is generally unaffected.

Centralization isn’t Republicans’ only sin, says the Times. They’re also hypocrites.

“Conservatives used to champion ideas like local autonomy,” the board writes. “What’s now become clear is that Republicans dislike local control if they are not in charge of it.”

That’s surely true. But if opportunistic support for the sanctity of local control is the issue, perhaps the editorial board should engage in a little self-reflection.

Just last year, the editorial board argued that the U.S. Congress, let alone state legislatures, should pass a law raising the minimum legal age to buy a semi-automatic weapon. Doing so would “silence the will” of not just millions of voters, but tens of millions of voters, who want to live in states and communities without that infringement on their gun rights.

For whatever reason, concerns about local control didn’t dominate the Times’ thinking there.

Texas’ preemption bill, it notes, would allow citizens to sue local governments for trying to enforce local laws that are preempted by the state. To put it another way, the Texas bill cuts qualified immunity protections for local officialssomething the Times editorial board has editorialized in favor of in other instances.

Indeed, the Times editorial board doesn’t even seem to be working with a consistent definition of state preemption.

For instance, it claims that only five states, including New York, allow local governments to adopt firearms regulations. This is only true in the sense that localities in those five states can pass laws that are more restrictive than what the state has established. The will of voters in communities that would want looser gun laws is still being silenced.

New York’s assault weapons ban presumably “silences the will” of conservative upstate voters who’d be more inclined to allow more types of weapons to be possessed and sold in their communities. According to the Times, so long as localities retain their authority to pass even stricter regulations on guns in keeping with prevailing liberal opinion, local democracy is as safe and efficacious as it needs to be.

In a few brief paragraphs at the end of its editorial, the Times does agree that some local rules should give way to state preemption and mandates.

“There are cases where pre-emption laws are in the public interest: for example, when it becomes necessary for states to prevent their cities from creating or perpetuating injustices, to prevent discrimination and help citizens achieve fundamental rights like equal access to housing, employment and the ballot,” the board writes.

One could easily rework the above sentence to say something like, “There are cases where preemption laws are in the public interest: For example, when it becomes necessary for states to prevent violation of Second Amendment rights, to prevent overly burdensome taxation, and to protect fundamental rights like the right to earn a living.”

Are those rights really so much less important that they can’t be protected by state legislatures? The Times’ answer is yes, because protecting those rights would interfere with liberal policy preferences.

When we talk about the division of powers between state and local governments, policy preferences really are the whole kettle of fish.

Liberals and conservatives are both eager to centralize power in state legislatures and governor’s mansions (to say nothing of Congress and the White House) when they run those institutions. They’re both quick to stick up for local control when they’re out of power.

Arguments predicated on the inherent competence of local governments over a particular issue area or their right to represent the will of local people are almost always pre-textual. The only real defenders of local control as a principle seem to be state leagues of cities (who are themselves funded by local governments and controlled by local elected officials).

Whether something should be a matter of local policy or state policy almost always boils down to a question of what you think good policy should be.

The Times article specifically defends the effort by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to override local zoning restrictions in favor of more housing production as an example of preemption that is in the public interest.

Editorial board member Mara Gay has written a number of articles about how anti-growth residents (and the local governments they control) are making housing more expensive and less accessible for everyone, and, therefore, land use powers should be evolved to the state government.

These are arguments in favor of zoning reform first, and centralization as a means of achieving it second. I doubt either Gay or the editorial board would defend Gov. Ron DeSantis’ intervention to stop local zoning reforms in Gainesville, Florida, aimed at allowing more dense housing in single-family-only zones.

To be clear, this isn’t to defend every state preemption measure criticized by the Times editorial. Indeed, libertarians shouldn’t be too attached to one level of government. We’re interested in individual control (i.e. liberty), not local control, state preemption, or anything else.

(This is separate from the division of powers between the states and the federal government, which is defined in the Constitution. If you think having constitutionally limited government is good, you should want that balance protected, even if it doesn’t always give you the policies you want.)

Sometimes liberty is best protected by empowering local governments to act as a bulwark against the interfering tentacles of state officials. Sometimes state officials are the ones defending liberty from local despots passing income taxes, plastic bag bans, and rent control laws.

Sometimes preemption policies are a mixed bag: overriding some unjust local rules but imposing others at the state level. Figuring out when it makes sense to centralize power or devolve it can require careful thought.

But doing that careful thinking doesn’t imply that local governments have some inherent right to set policy because they’re “closest to the people” or whatever else.

Arguments about local democracy vs. state preemption are always about policy preferences and political expediency. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

UK

Search for suspects after ‘pepper spray assault’ at Heathrow Airport

Published

8 mins ago

on

December 7, 2025

By

Search for suspects after 'pepper spray assault' at Heathrow Airport

Police are investigating after a “number of people” were believed to have been attacked with pepper spray by a group of men who then fled.

Officers were called at 8.11am to a multi-storey car park at Terminal 3 following reports of multiple people being assaulted, said the Metropolitan Police.

A statement by the force said: “A number of people were sprayed with what is believed to be a form of pepper spray by a group of men who then left the scene.”

What we know so far
• Several assaulted with ‘pepper spray’
• One arrest – police hunt for more suspects
• Incident said to involve people known to each other
• Incident not being treated as terrorism
• 21 people treated by ambulance service – five taken to hospital
• Injuries not believed to be life-threatening
• Traffic disruption reported – but train lines since reopened

Live updates on Heathrow incident

Fire engines responding to the incident at Heathrow Airport. Pic: @_umarjaved
Image:
Fire engines responding to the incident at Heathrow Airport. Pic: @_umarjaved

Armed police attended and one man was arrested on suspicion of assault. He remains in custody and enquiries continue to trace further suspects.

Police are not treating the Heathrow incident as terrorism.

More on Heathrow Airport

Related Topics:

London Ambulance Service also attended the scene and treated 21 people, including five who were taken to hospital. Their injuries are not believed to be life-changing or life-threatening.

There is currently some disruption to traffic in the area and Terminal 3 remains open.

Increased police presence

Commander Peter Stevens said: “At this stage, we believe the incident involved a group of people known to each other, with an argument escalating and resulting in a number of people being injured.

“Our officers responded quickly and there will be an increased police presence at Heathrow Airport throughout the morning, to continue enquiries and ensure the safety of those in the area.

“We are not treating this incident as terrorism. I understand the public’s concerns and would like to thank those in the area for their cooperation this morning.”

A person is detained at the airport. Pic: @_umarjaved
Image:
A person is detained at the airport. Pic: @_umarjaved

‘Significant incident’

The London Ambulance Service said a “significant incident” was declared.

There was a “full deployment” of resources and the ambulance service is treating it as ongoing.

A London Fire Brigade spokesperson said: “We were called at 8.14am today to assist emergency service colleagues at an incident near Terminal 3 at Heathrow Airport. Firefighters remain at the scene.”

Heathrow is advising passengers to allow extra time when travelling to the airport and to check with their airline for any queries.

There was disruption to train and Tube services, with some delays on the Elizabeth Line and the Piccadilly Line.

National Rail said on its website that lines had been reopened allowing trains to call at Heathrow “following the emergency services dealing with an incident at the airport”.

It said: “Although lines have now reopened, disruption is expected to continue whilst services return to normal, delays of up to 10 minutes and cancellations can be expected until 11.45am.”

National Highways East said on X: “A serious incident within the @HeathrowAirport Tunnel has resulted in the closure of the #M4 spur road southbound between M4 and J4A.

“@metpoliceuk responding. We’ll keep you updated.”

It later said: “Incident has been resolved and all closures lifted on the #M4 southbound @HeathrowAirport spur road between #M4 and J4A.”

People on social media have reported vehicles were being searched at the airport.

A user on X said there was a “major backlog of cars unable to leave the vicinity or enter the drop-off zone” at Terminal 3.

In footage on X, several armed police were seen in a car park.

Continue Reading

Sports

Hicks, ex-owner of Rangers and Stars, dies at 79

Published

4 hours ago

on

December 7, 2025

By

Hicks, ex-owner of Rangers and Stars, dies at 79

  • Associated Press

Dec 7, 2025, 02:44 AM ET

DALLAS — Tom Hicks, the Texas businessman and philanthropist who owned two Dallas-area professional sports franchises and an English Premier League soccer team, died Saturday. He was 79.

Spokesperson Lisa LeMaster said in statement that Hicks died peacefully in Dallas surrounded by family.

Hicks owned the NHL’s Dallas Stars from 1995 to 2011, winning the Stanley Cup in 1999. He also owned baseball’s Texas Rangers from 1998 to 2010, leading them to three American West Division titles and a World Series appearance. In 2007, he acquired a 50% stake in Liverpool.

“Being shoulder to shoulder with him was always about more than ballparks and stadiums, though,” Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said in a statement. “It was about personal respect, trust and friendship. We shared a lot of miles together, and I’ll miss him greatly. My heart goes out to his family.”

Hicks co-founded Hicks & Haas in 1984 and helped reshape private equity and investing strategy. He served on the University of Texas’s board of regents from 1994 to 1999.

“Tom Hicks was an innovative businessman and a pioneer in private equity,” fellow Texas businessman Ross Perot Jr. said in a statement. “He combined his commitment to business and sports through his ownership of the Stars and the Rangers.”

Hicks is survived by his wife of 35 years, Cinda Cree Hicks, and his six children — Thomas Ollis Hicks Jr., Mack Hardin Hicks, John Alexander Hicks, Robert Bradley Hicks, William Cree Hicks and Catherine Forgrave Hicks.

His children released a joint statement, saying:

“Of everything he accomplished in his remarkable life, Tom Hicks’s most cherished title was, ‘Dad.’ No matter the trials and tribulations he faced in life, he was constant in his generosity and love for his family. He remains a guiding force for our family, and we are deeply honored to continue expanding his legacy. Although we are devastated by this loss, we are profoundly grateful to have been his children.”

Continue Reading

Sports

Projecting the final CFP top 12: Where does Alabama land?

Published

5 hours ago

on

December 7, 2025

By

Projecting the final CFP top 12: Where does Alabama land?

Someone is going to be upset — and it’s not just ACC champion Duke, which likely will be excluded from the playoff in favor of Sun Belt champion James Madison.

It might be the entire ACC that is fuming.

With Alabama losing to Georgia in the SEC championship game, the College Football Playoff selection committee’s biggest decision Saturday night will be how far to drop the Tide — and the result could mean the difference for Miami’s playoff hopes. The focus of the final ranking on Selection Day (Noon ET, ESPN) will be where it has been all season — on Notre Dame, Alabama and Miami.

Will the three-loss Tide earn the committee’s final at-large bid as the SEC runner-up? Or will Alabama’s poor performance against Georgia open the door for Notre Dame and Miami to finish in the top 10?

Here’s our prediction for what the committee might do in its sixth and final ranking on Selection Day.

Jump to:
Ranking | Bracket

Projecting the top 12

Why they could be here: The Big Ten champions are the only undefeated team left in the country, and they earned the best win of the season by defeating the committee’s No. 1 team, Ohio State. The Hoosiers entered Saturday ranked No. 1 in ESPN’s strength of record metric, No. 1 in total efficiency and No. 4 in game control — and that was before they beat Ohio State.

Why they could be lower: This isn’t a realistic scenario.

Need to know: Indiana won its first Big Ten title since 1967 (shared with Minnesota and Purdue) and its first outright Big Ten title since 1945.

Why they could be here: The Buckeyes have arguably the best loss of the season — to the committee’s No. 2 team — and it was a close game that went down to the wire. Ohio State still has two wins against CFP top-25 teams in Texas and Michigan, and the committee has been impressed all season with the Buckeyes’ talent and consistent dominance.

Why they could be lower: Without the win against the Hoosiers, Ohio State’s best win is a close home game against Texas — a team that Georgia hammered 35-10. Georgia and Texas Tech also have multiple wins against CFP top-25 opponents. Ohio State’s strength of schedule was ranked No. 46 entering Saturday, while Georgia was No. 25.

Need to know: Even if the committee drops Ohio State lower, it’s highly unlikely the Buckeyes fall out of the top four. They still have a strong case for a first-round bye as the Big Ten runner-up.

Why they could be here: The SEC champs avenged their regular-season loss to Alabama, and they did it in resounding fashion. The Bulldogs’ lone loss to the Tide is better than Texas Tech’s loss to Arizona, even though the committee knows the Red Raiders were without their starting quarterback in that game. Nobody has a better loss, though, than Ohio State, the Big Ten runner-up. Indiana and Ohio State entered Saturday ranked No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, in ESPN’s strength of record metric, and playing each other in the Big Ten title game will only boost that. Georgia also has a convincing victory against Texas, which should still be the committee’s No. 13 team. Wins against Tennessee, Ole Miss and Georgia Tech helped the Bulldogs to a top-five strength of record entering Saturday.

Why they could be higher: The committee might drop Ohio State to No. 3 because its strength of schedule is lower, and because of the common opponent in Texas. Georgia beat Texas 35-10, while Ohio State beat the Longhorns 14-7 in the season opener. Some committee members could believe Georgia has a stronger overall résumé.

Need to know: The Bulldogs’ 28-7 SEC title game win was Georgia’s largest margin of victory over Alabama since 1976 (won 21-0).

Why they could be here: The Red Raiders dominated BYU for a second time this season, clinching a top-four finish and a first-round bye as the Big 12 champs. The committee has been impressed by how consistently they’ve owned the margin of victory this season, ranking No. 2 in the country in points margin per game (31.5) and No. 1 in points margin (410) entering Saturday. The Red Raiders’ defense, particularly up front, has also separated Texas Tech from other one-loss contenders. The committee has considered all season that Texas Tech’s lone loss came Oct. 18 at Arizona State when Red Raiders starting quarterback Behren Morton was injured.

Why they could be higher: Texas Tech entered Saturday No. 3 in total efficiency — behind Indiana and Ohio State. Georgia was No. 11. Defensively, the Red Raiders are No. 1.

Need to know: Texas Tech entered Saturday with the worst schedule strength (59) of the top-four contenders, and the lowest strength of record (10th).

Why they could be here: With Georgia and Texas Tech winning their respective conference championship games, the No. 5 spot is likely the Ducks’ Selection Day ceiling. Oregon earned a respectable road win at Washington, a top-25 win against No. 16 USC, and the Nov. 8 victory at Iowa was ultimately against a CFP top-25 team, as the four-loss Hawkeyes came back into the ranking at No. 23 last week. Oregon has also impressed the committee with its top-five ranking in offensive and defensive efficiency. It also doesn’t hurt that the Ducks’ only loss is to the Big Ten champs, Indiana.

Why they could be higher: It’s unlikely that Ohio State drops behind Oregon. They both played the Hoosiers, and they both lost. The committee could compare their wins, but Ohio State’s victory against Texas trumps Oregon’s best win against USC.

Need to know: The No. 5 seed is one of the most desirable because Oregon gets home-field advantage and also plays the No. 12 seed, which this year will likely be James Madison, the Sun Belt champs.

Why they could be here: The selection committee rewarded Ole Miss in its last ranking for its regular-season win against rival Mississippi State, but also bumped up the Rebels because Texas A&M dropped after losing to Texas. The Rebels’ Oct. 18 loss at Georgia will keep them behind the Bulldogs, but the Oct. 25 win at Oklahoma gives Ole Miss an edge against the Sooners. The Rebels’ 45-10 victory Sept. 20 against Tulane is one of their best wins. The Green Wave won the American title and clinched a spot in the CFP.

Why they could be higher: Now that Tulane is the American champ, the committee could consider giving Ole Miss a boost above Oregon for beating the Green Wave. That’s the kind of result that could impact an idle team’s résumé.

Need to know: Even without former coach Lane Kiffin, the Rebels should still be a lock to host a first-round game.

Why they could be here: Because the Aggies didn’t play Alabama or Georgia this season, the SEC championship game didn’t impact their résumé while idle. The Aggies have only one win against a team in the CFP top 25, and that was the 41-40 victory at Notre Dame on Sept. 13. Still, the committee has a lot of respect for the Aggies’ four road wins.

Why they could be higher: It would be surprising to see Texas A&M move because Texas Tech won the Big 12 and won’t sink, and the loser of the Big Ten championship game is unlikely to drop outside of the top four.

Need to know: The Aggies should remain in position to host a first-round home game, and if they remain the No. 7 seed, they would face the No. 10 team, which is the committee’s toughest decision this week. Though the Aggies didn’t play Alabama during the regular season, it’s possible they could meet in the first round.

Why they could be here: The Sooners have earned their spot in the CFP thanks to an elite defense and their ability to continue to find ways to win — even when the offense has been average. The committee respects OU’s back-to-back road victories at Tennessee and Alabama. The Tide’s loss to Georgia doesn’t diminish the value of that win, especially because Alabama can still finish in the CFP field. The Sooners will still have the head-to-head tiebreaker, though, over Alabama. Oklahoma’s loss to Ole Miss will keep the Sooners behind the Rebels, but the committee has kept OU ahead of Texas despite the Sooners’ loss to the Longhorns because Texas has a third loss.

Why they could be higher: It’s unlikely the Sooners move up after being idle because Saturday’s results didn’t directly impact their place.

Need to know: With Alabama losing in the SEC championship game, the Sooners should still be safe as the last at-large team to host a first-round game.

Why they could be here: The Irish benefited from BYU losing to Texas Tech — preventing the Big 12 from having two teams in — and when Georgia beat Alabama soundly in the SEC title game. Arguably the biggest debate in the room all season has been between Notre Dame and Alabama, with the committee members seesawing between the two until Alabama’s Iron Bowl win tipped the scales last week for a few committee members who had been on the fence. With the loss to Georgia, though, the balance should swing back in Notre Dame’s favor, pushing Notre Dame safely into the bracket at No. 9.

Why they could be lower: If Alabama falls behind Miami, and the Canes are right next to Notre Dame, the committee could consider Miami’s head-to-head win over Notre Dame in the season opener and flip them. Even if that happened, though, both teams would still be in, and it would impact only seeding.

Need to know: Notre Dame has been in the committee’s top 10 in all five rankings this season. Last year, under the 12-team format, there were six teams that were ranked in the top 10 of every poll leading up to Selection Day; all six of them made the CFP (Oregon, Texas, Penn State, Indiana, Ohio State, Notre Dame), according to ESPN Research.

Why they could be here: Georgia beat Alabama soundly in the SEC championship game — with the selection members watching together. The group had called out Alabama’s inability to run the ball since the loss to Florida State, and it was exposed again against a relentless Georgia defense, finishing with minus-3 yards on the ground (with minus-28 of that coming from quarterback Ty Simpson). Alabama had the edge against that defense in a 24-21 win Sept. 27 in Athens. Georgia gave up 262 yards in the first half that day as Alabama scored on four of five possessions. The committee will consider Alabama’s win that day against the eventual SEC champs (along with victories against Vanderbilt, Missouri and Tennessee). Alabama’s win against Georgia is better than Miami’s victory against Notre Dame.

Why they could be lower: Alabama was outplayed Saturday and Simpson was off-target. And the Tide lost the season opener to Florida State. If the committee drops the Tide lower, it won’t be as a punishment for playing in the SEC title game — it will be because of how Alabama performed in it.

Need to know: Same as Notre Dame above, Alabama has been ranked in the selection committee’s top 10 every week.

Why they could be here: With Alabama and BYU losing, it’s possible Miami and Notre Dame get in, but for that to happen, Alabama has to drop behind Miami. The Canes are still on the outside in this projection because the committee has believed each week that Notre Dame is the better team, and they were both idle Saturday. The committee would not intentionally put Alabama between Miami and Notre Dame, so it doesn’t have to deal with the head-to-head — that’s not how the voting works — but the Tide could fall there because the committee recognized Alabama was put in a position where it had to beat the same team twice in an additional game. Miami finished the season with two losses to unranked opponents, while Alabama and Notre Dame had losses to top-10 teams.

Why they could be higher: Alabama lost to Florida State, which Miami beat. The selection committee could drop Alabama to No. 11 behind Miami because of its third loss — and poor play — in a lopsided game against Georgia. That would open the door for Miami and Notre Dame to earn the final two at-large spots, regardless of the order.

Need to know: This depends in part on whom the committee is comparing the Canes with — Alabama or Notre Dame. It has been well-documented how close Miami and Notre Dame are. But if the group is comparing Miami and Alabama side-by-side, the Tide could have the edge. Alabama entered Saturday ranked No. 8 in strength of record, while Miami was No. 14. The Canes were No. 44 in strength of schedule, while Bama was No. 11.

Why they could be here: At 11-2, BYU is lumped in the group of two-loss teams at the bottom of the top 12, so the committee will compare the Cougars against Notre Dame and Miami. BYU lost by double digits again, though, to Texas Tech, and that likely will cause the Cougars to drop behind the Canes. BYU has two CFP top-25 wins: in double overtime at current No. 18 Arizona, and 24-21 at current No. 15 Utah. Though BYU’s wins aren’t as impressive as what Texas accomplished against Texas A&M, Vanderbilt and Oklahoma, the committee could separate the two in part by their losses. The Longhorns’ defeat to Florida, along with their other losses, is holding back Texas in the committee meeting room.

Why they could be higher: BYU’s only two losses are to the Big 12 champions and a top-four team. Those two losses are better than Miami’s losses to SMU and Louisville. BYU also entered Saturday ranked No. 6 in ESPN’s strength of record metric, and it won’t be diminished by playing a top-four team. Miami was No. 14 and didn’t play. BYU also had a slight edge over Miami in strength of schedule.

Need to know: BYU will be excluded from the playoff for James Madison, which will earn the No. 12 seed as the Sun Belt champion.

Bracket

Based on the rankings above, the seeding would be:

First-round byes

No. 1 Indiana (Big Ten champ)
No. 2 Ohio State
No. 3 Georgia (SEC champ)
No. 4 Texas Tech (Big 12 champ)

First-round games

On campus, Dec. 19 and 20

No. 12 James Madison (Sun Belt champ) at No. 5 Oregon
No. 11 Tulane (American champ) at No. 6 Ole Miss
No. 10 Alabama at No. 7 Texas A&M
No. 9 Notre Dame at No. 8 Oklahoma

Quarterfinal games

At the Goodyear Cotton Bowl, Capital One Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl Presented by Prudential and Allstate Sugar Bowl on Dec. 31 and Jan. 1.

No. 12 James Madison/No. 5 Oregon winner vs. No. 4 Texas Tech
No. 11 Tulane/No. 6 Ole Miss winner vs. No. 3 Georgia
No. 10 Alabama/No. 7 Texas A&M winner vs. No. 2 Ohio State
No. 9 Notre Dame/No. 8 Oklahoma winner vs. No. 1 Indiana

Continue Reading

Trending