Colbert at the correspondents' dinner

In case you managed to not see it, here's video and a transcript of Stephen Colbert's brilliant performance at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner last night. And here's the press not getting the joke.

Harris and Radnofsky

David Harris writes about immigration policy as a national security issue, while Eric from Wampum adds some perspective from a Native American viewpoint.

Meanwhile, Barbara Radnofsky is writing again on Capitol Annex, this time on the subject of funding for NASA. Check them both out.

It's still Mario

Boy, I'll bet that Texans draft day party was a hoot.

The Texans threw a draft-day party at Reliant Stadium on Saturday in anticipation of celebrating their selections with the fans.

But the party changed into a Texans roast as thousands packed Reliant Park on Saturday morning still upset from Friday night's news that the team was going to use the No. 1 overall pick on North Carolina State defensive end Mario Williams instead of the fan favorite, Southern Cal running back Reggie Bush.

The chants from the fans and season-ticket holders inside Reliant Park included, "Reg-gie! Reg-gie! Reg-gie! Reg-gie!" and "Bob is dumber than Bud! Bob is dumber than Bud!" in reference to Houston owners present and past.

Reminds me of Opening Day at Yankee Stadium in 1982. The Yanks had let Reggie Jackson sign as a free agent with the California Angels, much the the displeasure of the fans. The Angels were the opposing team that day, and naturally, Jackson hit a home run as his team won the game. The fans, who did their trademark "Reg-gie, Reg-gie" cheer every time he came to bat, broke into a loud chorus of "Steinbrenner sucks!" as Mister October circled the bases. I recall there was a camera shot of Yankees' owner George Steinbrenner while this was happening; the look on his face was priceless.

1982 was the start of a dark era for the Yanks, while Jackson helped lead the Angels to a division title. That said, the decision to cut him loose was clearly correct - that first season with the new team was Jackson's swan song, something that was entirely predictable for a 36-year-old coming off his worst season ever.

I point that out to say that whatever people may think of the Texans' choice yesterday, we won't know how dumb or smart they were for a few years. Apparently, the rest of their draft went pretty well, which is nice. I don't think you can make up for that kind of lost opportunity by saying "hey, we got a couple of good O-linemen later on", however. This one stands or falls on Mario Williams. Either he makes people forget about Reggie Bush and Vince Young or he doesn't. End of story.

More thoughts from Tory, Lair, and Kevin.

A little love for Metro

The headline to this story more or less says it all: "Group is kind to Metro".

Representatives from the Metropolitan Transit Authority weren't derailed by stinging criticism or adverse comments on April 20, when they met with members of the Museum District Business Alliance at the group's regular monthly meeting.

"The MDBA is pro-University Corridor. We see it as a significant asset to the city," group president Claude Wynn said. "It's one that will tie activity centers of Montrose to those in the rest of the city and (is) vital to Houston's growth into the 21st century."

About 50 members of the nonprofit organization gathered at the Italian Cultural and Community Center, 1101 Milford.

The group sets its sights on improving the public enjoyment and profile of the Montrose area and combating deterioration in the neighborhood.

Members listened to more of Metro's continuing outreach commentary regarding those individuals whose homes and businesses will be affected by the ultimate location of the future light rail line.

"There's been a lot of discussion, a lot of stirring in our neighborhoods regarding where the light rail will go," Wynn said. "We want to know what the facts look like and while we may not always agree with Metro, we will respect the process."

Respecting the process - what a concept. We could use a little more of that, especially if the recent trends in overall ridership are more than just a blip.

Senate committee passes HB3 as is

Not much drama in the Senate yesterday.

A Senate committee passed the House business tax bill without making any changes Friday, greatly increasing the likelihood that it will become law.

"This is an attempt to make sure that House Bill 3 doesn't get killed and we have another failed session," said Senate Finance Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan.

Sounds awfully similar to the House's reasoning. I think it's pretty valid, but that's because I don't think the anti-taxers who are currently squawking about HB3 are going to follow through on their threats by taking action in November. I don't believe they will sit it out or vote non-Republican, and as such, I don't think the likes of Rick Perry have much to fear from them. Some state reps may have to sweat out a primary in 2008, but that's a long way and a regular legislative session off. These guys have made their calculations, and I can't say I disagree with them. There may well be vulnerabilities on other aspects of the legislation now being passed, in particular how much money actually winds up going to schools and teachers, but I think the Steven Hotze/Dan Patrick crowd is full of hot air, even if they are sending out attack mailers right now, and I think Perry and the Lege are confident enough in that to call them on it.

The business tax could be debated by the full Senate early next week. A Senate rule prevents amendments from being offered on the floor if they have not been discussed in committee. Unless that rule is suspended with a two-thirds vote, the Senate would vote up or down on the tax bill. If passed, HB 3 could be on Perry's desk sometime next week.

The action by the Finance Committee took many lobbyists by surprise. Major legislation almost always is changed when it moves from one chamber to another, and then is finalized by a joint House and Senate conference committee.

[...]

Ogden said that keeping the business tax bill free of amendments would give opponents fewer opportunities to kill the bill. It also prevents the business tax from getting "hung up in negotiations over other issues" such as teacher pay or education reforms, he said.

But Ogden's action ruffled Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso. Shapleigh, who is not a member of the Finance Committee, had several amendments he was hoping to have discussed.

Shapleigh said he had been told that he had until 5 p.m. Friday to file his amendments. But the committee took its vote at 3 p.m., passing the bill 9-4. Four of the five Democrats, including Whitmire of Houston, voted no.

As Eye on Williamson says, this is a lot of times Dems have been promised that the things they want can be discussed later. Color me skeptical on this.

The Finance Committee also passed HB 4, which applies stricter rules to sales taxes on used vehicles. Instead of paying a tax on the sale price, the buyer would pay a tax based on at least 80 percent of the vehicle's "blue book" value.

The committee approved HB 2, which dedicates revenue from the business tax and other new taxes to property tax relief. The bill was different from the version passed Monday by the House, which dedicates all the tax revenue to lowering property taxes.

Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, said under his version all new tax revenue would go to lowering the basic school tax rate from $1.50 per $100 valuation to $1. After that, two-thirds would go to continued lowering of property taxes and one-third to new spending on public schools.

When the school tax rate drops to 75 cents, any revenue beyond what it takes to make up for lost property taxes would be dedicated to education.

That's a change to the House version of HB2, one which I suspect is a result of the continued pounding on the idea that no new money is going to the schools. This isn't much better, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

Also, a late in the day amendment to HB4 was omitted in the Senate version. Dallas Blog has the scoop.

Elsewhere, the Quorum Report lists the criteria for getting four teachers' groups to support what the Lege is doing:

1. $3,000 pay increase. Increase should be in state minimum salary schedule. It should include counselors, nurses and librarians and is flowed through the funding formulas

2. Retention of the salary escalator that is in current law

3. Deletion of language granting commissioner authority to use factors other than experience to determine minimum state salary schedule

4. Retention of $1,000 health insurance supplement (not converted to salary) for all employees incentive pay.

The rest of the story is beneath the QR paywall, so I'm not sure what the financials are of this, or what reaction it has garnered. But at least now we know what the teachers want.

Finally, RGV Politics looks at the politics of a property tax freeze in Edinburg.

Mario who?

I can't really claim to be a Texans fan, so I don't have emotional investment in their rather curious draft choice. But judging from the reactions of others, Mario Williams had better be all that and a bag of chips to make up for whatever Reggie Bush and Vince Young eventually do in the NFL. Richard Justice may be an idiot, but he's also correctly identified the problem with this selection:

Perhaps more than anyone, [quarterback David] Carr is the biggest loser in this deal. An offseason that was supposed to be about giving him a chance to succeed spun off the road on Friday.

Maybe this will be the right choice. Tom puts the best face on it for the Texans. Even Justice admits Williams is a stud, so whatever the other guys do he shouldn't be a flop. And there's likely to still be some good RBs at the thirty-third slot, and maybe an offensive lineman or two later on. Still, though, if the reason for bypassing Reggie Bush was that he was too expensive for Bob McNair's blood (as Justice claims), then this really is a dumb decision. I'm generally unsympathetic to owners in this kind of contract dispute to begin with; after all the money the citizens of Harris County threw at McNair for the building of Reliant Stadium, I never want to hear that excuse, ever.

Like I say, I don't really care all that much. I just hope those that do wind up feeling better about this some day.

Why you should never say "How could it get any worse?"

With every lousy poll that comes out for the Republican Congress, you have to think that some of them have asked themselves if it were possible for things to get any worse. If so, I have bad news for them. How does a prostitution scandal grab you?

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two contractors implicated in the bribery of former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham supplied him with prostitutes and free use of a limousine and hotel suites, pursuing evidence that could broaden their long-running inquiry.

Besides scrutinizing the prostitution scheme for evidence that might implicate contractor Brent Wilkes, investigators are focusing on whether any other members of Congress, or their staffs, may also have used the same free services, though it isn't clear whether investigators have turned up anything to implicate others.

In recent weeks, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have fanned out across Washington, interviewing women from escort services, potential witnesses and others who may have been involved in the arrangement. In an interview, the assistant general manager of the Watergate Hotel confirmed that federal investigators had requested, and been given, records relating to the investigation and rooms in the hotel. But he declined to disclose what the records show. A spokeswoman for Starwood Inc., Westin's parent company, said she wasn't immediately able to get information on whether the Westin Grand had been contacted by investigators.

Wow. Kos' Georgia10 and the TPM Muckraker have more. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

I have been assimilated

As you can see from the sidebar, I'm now a two-fisted blogger. As of today, I'm the third political type to write for the Houston Chronicle's reader blogs section. It's called Kuff's World, and it joins Texas Sparkle and Polimom, Too in the politics niche over there.

Before anyone asks, the new site is not a replacement for this one. It's a complement. I intend to do about the same amount of blogging, I'm just going to put some of what I'd be doing anyway over there. I plan to link to whatever I write there from here, so if you don't feel like adding yet another damned blog to your feeds, you can still see what's there. Here are my first three posts:

Please allow me to introduce myself

Two views of CD22

Poll watching: SurveyUSA on the Governor's race

As for the name, Dwight Silverman, who recruited me for this project, wanted to keep the Kuff in the name, but wanted a different name. After trying and failing to come up with a play on the word that didn't suck (we both emphatically rejected "Kuff Links"), I started down the usually reliable path of movie sequels. Unfortunately, "The Kuff Strikes Back" and "The Wrath of Kuff" weren't quite what I was looking for, and the less said about "Kuff 2: Electric Boogaloo", the better. So Kuff's World it was.

So there you have it. A mere four-plus years after I start blogging, I've been swallowed up by Big Media. I promise not to change, at least once I figure out how to disable the implants.

Free WiFi goes live in Austin

I mentioned before that a free WiFi network, to be put in place for the World Congress of Information Technology, was set to go live in Austin. Well, today's the day.

Starting today, Austinites can get a free high-speed wireless link to the Internet throughout part of downtown.

The free city Wi-Fi network is up and running in time for next week's World Congress on Information Technology, which is bringing more than 2,100 delegates from 81 countries to Austin.

Cisco Systems Inc., one of the event's corporate sponsors, is donating $700,000 in equipment for the network.

The network is expected to provide wireless Internet service during the event at the Austin Convention Center and after hours at downtown hotels and restaurants.

When the conference is finished May 5, the wireless network will remain as the WCIT's gift to the city.

[...]

The downtown part of the network covers most of the area from Town Lake to Sixth Street and from Lamar Boulevard to Interstate 35.

Within a few months, the City of Austin is expected to complete the remaining two segments of the network, covering part of East Austin and much of Zilker Park.

That's so cool, I just can't stand it. And for those of you who worry about how commercial Internet providers can compete with this, take note:

Preliminary testing on the downtown network shows that it is delivering Internet access at a speed of about 600 kilobits per second, said Peter Collins, the city's chief information officer. That's about 12 times as fast as dial-up Internet access but somewhat slower than paid broadband access that is available over telephone lines or through cable modems.

[...]

Austin's Wayport Inc., which delivers paid Internet access to hotels and McDonald's restaurants, said the free network complements, but doesn't compete with, its service.

"If people are at Zilker Park and need to get connected, they can do so with the Austin network," said Michele Fanning, Wayport's director of marketing. "For in-building connectivity, such as at a McDonald's restaurant, the best connection will more than likely be the one that's installed at that location."

Houston's eventual WiFi network will be low-cost instead of free, but I'll bet there will be some ways in which a smart provider can offer something worth paying extra for. To my way of thinking, this will spur competition, not hinder it. Thanks to the elated Kimberly for the link.

Call for contribution caps

A bill to limit campaign contributions to $100,000 per individual for state races has been filed.

At a morning news conference flanked by a dozen or so of his colleagues, including five Republicans, House Bill 110 co-author Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, spoke about his plan.

He said it represented a first step in limiting the influence of a handful of wealthy individuals whose power stems not from "the virtue of their ideals or the strength of their grassroots network but because they spend million of dollars."

I forget where I read it, but it's my understanding that the five Republicans standing with Rep. Villarreal were the five incumbents targeted by James Leininger - Tommy Merritt, Carter Casteel, Delwin Jones, Roy Blake, and Charlie Geren. El Paso Rep. Pat Haggerty also endorsed the effort; he too was targeted by Leininger, though at a lower financial level.

Standing behind Villarreal was outgoing Rep. Carter Casteel, R-New Braunfels, one of two incumbents who lost to Leininger-funded candidates. She said that as a schoolteacher, she taught her students that the Legislature was not for sale

Now, sadly, she said she realized maybe she'd been wrong.

"I never dreamed that in my Texas, a person would spend $1 million for a legislative seat," she said.

According to the Quorum Report (link via PinkDome), Casteel "asked her party to pay as much attention to transparency in campaign donations as it does to transparency in the operation of public schools." I think that's a fantastic way to frame the issue, and it's one that I hope gets used in 2007 when Casteel isn't there to repeat it.

Eighty-seven individuals or couples gave $100,000 or more in contributions for statewide offices in 2003 and 2004, for a total of $28.8 million, according to the Austin-based watchdog group Texans for Public Justice. That represents about 9 percent of all political money raised during that two-year election cycle.

That's about $331,000 per individual. Institute the cap, and their grand total is $8.7 million instead of $28.8 million; no one can exactly claim to be silenced by this. Some 37 states have contribution caps, so I don't believe there's a constitutional issue at play.

Advocates of campaign spending limits acknowledge that this plan, which caps contributions regardless of the number of candidates being supported, faces an uphill battle. Gov. Rick Perry opposes campaign limits and supports the state's current disclosure law. His approval is needed for legislation to be added to the current special session.

Also, an almost identical bill died last year without leaving committee.

For sure, there's no way this gets added to the special session call. I have some hope for the next regular session, however, even if Perry gets re-elected. I believe Leininger's efforts have changed some minds, and I believe the movement is in the reform direction. Mary Denny's retirement doesn't hurt, either. I still wouldn't bet on a bill passing, but the issue will come up, and I believe we'll see progress being made.

Two weeks ago, the Express-News ran a four-part series on Texas lobbyists that identified the role wealthy special interests play in shaping policies affecting businesses, consumers and children in need of health care. Austin insiders expressed skepticism that a reform could pass.

Links to those articles are here. More reporting on the story is here.

Dear Lite Guv

Matt has a copy of a letter, now circulating the Senate, signed by about a dozen citizens' and teachers' groups, that call on the Senate to reject the House's approach and take positive action on school reform. In particular:

Together, we represent the interests of millions of Texans, hard-working families. On their behalf, we urge you to:

• Eliminate the provisions contained in HB 2, an anti-education measure which prohibits future revenue growth in business taxes from being spent on education, or anything else but property tax reduction. This effectively slams the door on future education funding.


• Maintain full equity by flowing any new funds for education improvement through current equity-based funding formulas. Equity funding protects the great majority of our middle class students, especially those in rural areas, as well as those living in property-poor districts.


• Raise annual teacher pay at least $3,000 and reverse the deep cut in the teacher health-care stipend.


• Keep the promise to invest $1.8 billion in education that is contained in the current budget. That money disappears under the provisions of HB 1. Now that the state has an unprecedented budget surplus, that promise must not be forgotten. Restore the $1.8 billion.

The one group that didn't sign this that might have is the Texas Parent PAC. I wonder if there's anything to that. I don't expect Dewhurst to adopt these recommendations, though by his public statements he's already inclined to do some of it. We'll see.

Emergency paper ballots to be used in Bexar County

Some more grist for the electronic voting machine mill: Bexar County will be forced to use emergency paper ballots for early voting in the May 13 municipal and school board elections, because their voting machine vendor cannot deliver a promised software upgrade in a timely manner.

County officials say they have no guarantee from Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software that it'll have the touch-screen voting machines ready by [election day, May 13].

And the hassles don't stop there: The company also hasn't delivered programming for the county's hand-held optical scanners, which could mean counting votes by hand.

"It sure is exasperating," County Judge Nelson Wolff said. "We are looking at avenues to hold them responsible for this."

Bexar County isn't alone; the company left many other Texas counties in a similar predicament.

Scott Haywood, spokesman for the Texas secretary of state's office, said ES&S has contracts with more than 140 counties, and most will be affected by the company's apparent breakdown.

"They made their priorities, and I think Texas certainly wasn't one of them," Wolff said.

[...]

ES&S spokeswoman Amanda Brown said the company is working to deliver the software in time for election day.

"We're doing everything we can to meet that goal," Brown said.

But county officials say they haven't heard anything definitive from the company about its ability to deliver.

"We have commitments from them for this election that they failed to live up to," said Ed Schweninger, chief of the Bexar County district attorney's civil division. "We hear that ES&S is going to try (to deliver software for election day), but I'm not hearing any more than that."

Brown blamed the company's delivery troubles on this year's implementation of the Help America Vote Act, which became law in 2002 and requires every polling site to have at least one electronic voting machine available to voters.

"It's been a challenging year with the implementation of HAVA," she said. "It's been challenging for everyone - for all the vendors" and elections officials.

Jacque Callanen, the county's elections administrator, said it's too soon to estimate how much the 11th-hour switch to paper ballots will cost. Nevertheless, Schweninger said the county would look to recover any extra expense from ES&S, either through a voluntary settlement or in court.

The E-N article says this is ES&S's first major hiccup in Bexar County since their machines were implemented in 2003, but according to this op-ed piece, other counties suffered from glitches earlier this year.

Jefferson county purchased iVotronic machines in order to comply with federal law by the first primary election of the year. On March 7, the iVotronics were in place, but the system was not. Database components were missing. The programming was flawed. There were equipment failures. County Clerk Carolyn Guidry stated tabulation errors led to votes being counted twice. She added that the ES&S personnel were ill-informed. The Jefferson County Commissioner’s Court reviewed what happened on March 7 and concluded that ES&S was not fulfilling its contractual obligations. They decided to withhold payment until ES&S held up their end of the bargain. This is a standard practice; when homeowners or businesses hire a contractor, they do not pay the entire sum in advance but pay a portion when work begins. The remainder is paid when work is satisfactorily completed. Even though the March 7th election was problematic and far from satisfactory, ES&S demanded payment. The company stated that they would not provide programming and technical support for the run-off election until they were paid $1.95 million.

County officials knew they could not conduct the run-off election on iVotronics unless they had ES&S support. Assistant District Attorney Tom Rugg told the Beaumont Enterprise, "They are refusing to do things only they can do. Without ES&S programming, "the system they say they've sold to us is essentially worthless."

JeffCo wound up paying for it anyway, since the alternative was violating HAVA and facing federal sanctions. Looking back at Steven Smith's statement about double-counted ballots in the Republican primary, he did include a complaint about Jefferson County and ES&S machines elsewhere in the state.

As you know, I'm not an advocate of the notion that paper ballots are a panacea for voting woes on their own. I believe they're required for system redundancy and sanity checking, but I believe they belong with the electronic machines, not as a replacement for them. I have to say, though, if the vendors can't guarantee that their products will be ready to go for every election, then there's not much to recommend them. ES&S needs to be held accountable for this mess. Thanks to Dan Wallach for the tip.

Coleman on HB5

One of the five bills relating to the tax overhaul failed to make it through the House on Monday. That was HB5, which was responsible for raising the cigarette tax. All I knew was that it had been killed by a point of order by Rep. Garnet Coleman. As the issue that initial sent HB5 back to committee was fixed, and the bill was approved by the House today, I asked Rep. Coleman to give me a statement about it. Here's what his chief of staff sent me:

The tobacco tax bill, HB5, passed out of the House today. It was pulled down on a point of order by Rep. Coleman on Monday because the committee substitute contained provisions relating to bonding and a fee to pay for debt service that were not germane to the original bill. Those provisions were subsequently removed from the bill. There was another valid point of order on the bill today, but the House voted to suspend the procedural rule that was violated so the point was never raised.

The bill passed out of the House raises the cigarette tax by a dollar immediately upon effect. An amendment by Rep. Warren Chisum to raise the tax by 65 cents instead of $1 was soundly defeated both by members voting to maximize the shock value of moving immediately to $1 for public health reasons and by members who wanted to maximize the revenue generated by the tax increase because it is all dedicated to buying down property taxes.

Rep. Coleman had an amendment to the bill that would have instead dedicated the revenue to the general fund for the purpose of improving public health. That amendment, and numerous other Democratic amendments that would have dedicated the funds to state needs like a teacher pay raise, tobacco cessation programs, etc., were ruled non-germane to the bill and were not permitted to be offered.

Rep. Coleman voted against the bill because, as with all of these Republican tax bills, HB5 would increase taxes without providing one new dime for public education or any other priority of his constituents. Any revenue generated from an increase in the cigarette tax in particular should be dedicated to dealing with the public health effects of smoking as is done in so many other states.

At this point, barring an addition to the session's call, I believe the House is more or less finished with its work until the Senate does its thing, at which point a joint committee will be named to hammer out the differences. The fun resumes tomorrow, so stay tuned.

Another day, another roundup on HB3

While we wait for the Senate Finance Committee to start work tomorrow, here's a roundup of what's being said about the current state of things.

Chron: Perry sure, Dewhurst not so much

Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday he is confident the Legislature will reduce local school operating taxes by about one-third, despite Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's reservations about digging too deeply into the state budgetary surplus to help pay for the cuts.

"I'm very comfortable that the Senate and the House will get to that appropriate level," Perry said, challenging the Senate to approve a new, expanded business tax and related legislation approved by the House.

"I'm quite comfortable that these projections (for continued revenue growth) will hold up," he added.

[...]

Most of the lost revenue would be covered by the new business tax, which the House approved on Monday, and a $1-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax, which the House will debate today. The governor also would use as much as $2 billion of an $8.2 billion budgetary surplus to meet his property tax-cut goal.

But Dewhurst said much of the surplus is needed for other things, including hurricane relief, health care, a teacher pay raise of at least $2,000 a year and other school improvements. He said Perry's tax proposal would raise about $4.3 billion a year, enough to cut school property taxes by only 33 cents to 35 cents per $100 valuation, not the 50 cents the governor is seeking.

He said the Senate will have to decide whether to cut school taxes less, take longer to phase in the tax reductions or raise additional revenue.

Looks like another chance for Dewhurst to go toe-to-toe with House Speaker Tom Craddick. We've all seen that movie before. Remember, kids: the reason one bangs one's head against a wall is because it feels so good when you finally stop.

Statesman: Larry the Cable Guy and a bunch of bidness interest lobbyists. If that's not Rick Perry in a nutshell, I don't know what is. One side point to highlight:

Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, poised to insert a teacher pay raise into the House-approved package, said lawmakers could finish work well before the special session's 30 days expire May 16.

The Texas Supreme Court has set a June 1 deadline for fixing a school finance system overly dependent on property taxes that districts have little discretion in setting.

"It's a lovefest," said Shapiro, crediting widespread business support for the tax plan and close communication between senators and House members as well as Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, and House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland. "I hope what it is is good public policy."

Hey, maybe this time really will be different than every single other time. All I know is, it's always Dewhurst or a Senate proxy for him that gets quoted in this fashion whenever these stories are written. If Craddick gets asked, his spokeswoman replies with a non sequitur. There's a reason I remain skeptical.

Express News: Risks and rewards for Perry

Houston radio show host Dan Patrick, a GOP state Senate nominee, said he tried to persuade Perry to abandon the plan.

"I shared with him I understood the dilemma he was in - that no matter what decision he made, his opponents would find a reason to criticize him - but that if he used the surplus and increased taxes on business, not only would they criticize him, but he would risk losing his base," Patrick said.

"For him to win in November in a four-person race, he must keep the base," said Patrick, who still plans to support Perry in November.

[...]

GOP consultant Royal Masset said Perry's stand for the plan "helps him immensely. He's being kind of his own man.

"The only way Perry can lose is if nothing comes out of this special session," Masset said.

Political scientist Bruce Buchanan of the University of Texas at Austin said, "There will be some unhappy conservatives. But the fact that he could point to a resolution that he could justify in terms of tough choices and necessary compromise is likely to please more people than it irritates.

"A lot of people are going to conclude if this thing passes, Perry is going to be hard to stop," Buchanan said.

But [Texas Eagle Forum President Cathie] Adams said if the Legislature doesn't pass a plan that conservatives can embrace and that provides meaningful property-tax relief, she's worried about the effect on GOP turnout.

"I think conservatives would be frustrated. They're already frustrated with the president because of immigration and government growth. If we don't get a meaningful property-tax reduction, then in November ... what they'll do is not something crazy, like go and vote for the other party," she said. "I do see them sitting at home and folding their hands."

I think Masset and Buchanan are right. Perry may lose some conservative base support if his plan passes, but honestly, where are they going to go? Both Strayhorn and Bell want to spend more on education, and while Friedman has talked about "returning" the surplus, he's also on record supporting gay marriage (however jokingly). I can't see the Cathie Adamses of the world embracing him, given that.

Adams herself, of course, will stand by her man regardless. They make a mighty tasty pitcher of Kool Aid in the Eagle Forum, you know. In the end, that's what I expect to happen among most other base Republicans, so Perry ends up with a net gain. Like it or not, the TTRC plan is a tangible result that Perry can point to. The implementation is screwed up, thanks to HB2, but passing it means no more do-nothing special sessions. That's what Rick Perry needs more than anything.

Star Telegram: Not as much property tax reduction as you might have thought. Okay, there are still some risks for Perry, depending on what your expectations were and what your standards are.

[L]egislation now winding its way through the Texas Legislature would reduce property taxes for school operations by less than 12 percent - and local school districts could still push them back up again. It provides for further cuts in later years, but provides neither the mechanism to do so nor the money to pay for the promised decrease.

“I think it’s troubling,” said Peggy Venable, director of the Americans for Prosperity, which advocates for smaller government. “We want significant tax relief, and we want it to be meaningful and substantial. ... We’ve heard a lot of promises and we have a lot of numbers out there ... but if there are no real taxpayer protections, it’ll end up being a tax increase.”

By "taxpayer protections", I'm sure she means "appraisal caps", which have been a (failed) Perry agenda item for some time. I'll bet Perry starts talking them up again once the TTRC plan has been passed.

DMN: On to other items. This is about how Perry is now "open" to an increase in teacher pay (as if he wants the ParentPAC on his hindquarters this fall), but my favorite bit is at the end, on a different topic:

Meanwhile, some health care providers grumbled that the deal they struck with the governor to support the legislation turned out to be worth less once the House finished with the bill.

The House-passed bill lets physicians, hospitals and other caregivers deduct from their gross receipts the payments they receive from government health insurance programs for the poor. But it doesn't have as big a deduction as Mr. Perry promised.

Several health care lobbyists said the Texas Medical Association erred by negotiating with the governor, not legislative leaders.

All together now:

D-Day: Hey, quit your blubberin'. When I get through with this baby you won't even recognize it.
Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f'ed up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.
Flounder: [crying] That's easy for you to say! What am I going to tell Fred?
Otter: I'll tell you what. We'll tell Fred you were doing a great job taking care of his car, but you parked it out back last night and in the morning, it was gone. We report it to the police, D-Day takes care of the wreck, the insurance company buys your brother a new car.
Flounder: Will that work?
Otter: Hey, it's gotta work better than the truth.
Bluto: [thrusting six-pack into Flounder's hands] My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder, he's in pre-med.
D-Day: [firing up blow-torch] There you go now, just leave everything to me.

Let that be a lesson to you, TMA.

Finally, some feedback from a couple of candidates. First, from Dot Nelson-Turnier, as quoted by Stace:

I don’t think using a one time surplus for a tax cut is a good idea. It’s like quitting your job and using your savings to pay the rent. What do you do when your savings run out? It’s not a permanent solution. It’s just not fiscally sound.

There's more, I just clipped the end. Next is from Diane Trautman:

Yesterday, the House passed a series of legislative proposals known as House Bills 1, 2, 3 and 4. Here’s a rundown of what Members considered and how each bill turned out:

• House Bill 1: Spends $2.4 billion of the $9.3 billion state surplus. Money is spent on lowering the statewide property tax rate to 88.7% of current local property tax rate -- local rates vary to school district to school district, but this cut is roughly 17 cents/$100 property valuation for most property tax payers.


• House Bill 2: Created a Property Tax Relief Fund, to which all proceeds from the new business tax, used car sales tax and cigarette tax are dedicated permanently. Under HB 2, the state revenue from these new taxes can never be used to pay for a teacher pay raise, new textbooks, etc.


• House Bill 3: Replaces the current state franchise tax system with a new “margins tax” on business’ gross receipts. The tax is 1% for most businesses and .5% for wholesalers and retailers. Businesses can deduct employee compensation such as salary, health care and retirement. The plan is full of loopholes – under the current system 1 of 16 businesses pay the franchise tax. Under the new system, this number rises to only 2 in 16. Oil companies, insurance companies and big businesses that own lots of property will now pay less than their fair share, while small and medium businesses will see their taxes increase dramatically. Further, HB 3, coupled with 1 and 2 is an $11.4 billion hot-check over 5 years. The new taxes in HB 3 will never be enough to make up for the taxes cut in HB 1. Additionally, with the passage of HB 2, the funds generated in HB 3 can never be used to pay for teacher pay, new textbooks, etc.


• House Bill 4: A new tax on used car sales. Buyers must pay sales tax based on the at least 20% of the “blue-book” value of the car, and not the sale price.


• House Bill 5: A new $1/pack tax on cigarettes. Consideration of this bill has been postponed due to a technical error in the bill. The bill does not include an immediate $1 tax. Instead the tax is phased-in: 50 cents, then 25, then 25 again. Studies have shown that this method does not actually reduce smoking. For this reason, most anti-smoking groups oppose the bill in its current form.

Next week it's the Senate's turn. Stay tuned.

Noriega on HB3

In addition to my conversation with Rep. Mike Villarreal, I also spoke to Rep. Rick Noriega about HB3 and the reasons why (unlike Rep. Villarreal) he opposed it. The highlights:

- While he believes it's not a bad idea to spread the tax burden more broadly, he believes the implementation as spelled out in HB3 is bad. Because the revenues generated by the TTRC plan cannot maintain the desired property tax cut, it makes for bad public policy.

- He reiterated what he'd said on Dan Patrick's radio show Tuesday (I was a first-time listener to Patrick's show because of his appearance, which I heard about just in time) that there's no good reason to vote for "the biggest tax hike in state history" when the budget is in surplus and none of the money raised by the new tax goes to the public schools.

- He thinks the Senate will choose to use HB1 as the basis for its legislation, not HB3. He also thinks that after they're done adding on to it all of the things that they're talking about, the final product may be too unpalatable for the House to pass. He believes an anti-tax backlash from conservative activists, including talk radio, will put a lot of pressure on the Senate, which from his perspective may wind up making their final effort worse.

- While some parts of HB3 may get rolled into the Senate version of HB1, he does not think Lt. Gov. Dewhurst wants to let John Sharp get the credit for what the Senate does pass. He cited Dewhurst's recent cutting remark about Sharp's prognostication skills as evidence for this, as well as Dewhurst's recently launched radio ad campaign, which touts lower property taxes, a teacher pay raise, plus some reform, all of which he's calling the Dewhurst plan.

- When I asked him what he thought the best case scenario was, he cited a minimalist approach: Do enough to meet the court's ruling, buy down property taxes, don't use too much of the surplus, and give the teachers a pay raise. He believes it's better not to get too bogged down in controversial agenda items at this point in an election cycle.

- "Getting money to the schools should be the top priority," he says.

- Finally, he says that the whole exercise in school finance has been a demonstration of why it's a lot easier to campaign than it is to govern. "When you're out of power, it's easy to go around saying two plus two equals five. Once you're in charge and you have the responsibility to make it all work, you start to realize that two plus two still equals four, no matter what you may have said before."

Villarreal on HB3

State Rep. Mike Villarreal is a member of the Ways and Means committee, and one of eight Democrats in the House to vote in favor of HB3 on Monday. (A full list of who voted for what can be found at the invaluable Capitol Annex.) I wanted to understand his reasons for supporting HB3, so I called him to talk about it. Here's an outline of what he told me:

- He believes that HB3, which implements the TTRC business tax plan, fundamentally "heals our broken tax system". He sees this as an asset that can be used going forward, that puts the state on a firmer financial foundation, and that as such this was something that has to be supported. Getting something like this in place was the key, because once it's there, it's generally there forever.

- While HB3 accomplishes some immediate goals for the Republican Party, he sees it as being a long-term benefit for the Democrats. "This allows a future Democratic legislative majority to have a better system to work with to implement its priorities," he told me. He stresses, though, that this is just the beginning of some much-needed reform.

- He believes that only a Republican-controlled Legislature could have gotten this bill across the finish line, because they were in a position to sell it to their constituencies that would normally oppose it (I dragged out the Nixon-goes-to-China cliche before he could bring it up). He noted the seeming absurdity of Republicans arguing in favor of an increased tax on businesses, while Democrats argued against it. Given this unusual dynamic, he believes it was best to take the long view.

- While he voted against HB2, which limited funds raised from HB3 to property tax cuts only, he believes that without it, there would not have been enough Republican support to pass HB3.

- When I asked about what vehicle there will be to fund schools in the future, he pointed out that all it will take to make any changes in what HB2 set up for the business tax is a simple majority in the Lege. This isn't a Constitutional amendment, and it isn't a lock box (though it's being spun as one by some Republicans). The next Lege will not be bound by this when it writes a budget if it chooses to use funds from the business tax for other purposes. He cited other funds, created by past legislatures for a specific purpose, that are now used for other things. Two examples he named were the Texas Infrastructure Fund, and a fund to help poor people keep their electricity running, both of which now go to general revenue.

- He disagrees with the argument that HB3 will be more burdensome to small businesses than large ones. He said the $400,000 exemption on a firm's revenues is sufficient to take care of smaller businesses.

- He points out that Scott McCown and Dick Lavine of the Center for Public Policy Priorities testified in committee in support of HB 3; also, the Texas Federation of Teachers has decided not to oppose HB 3. "These groups who are advocates for poor and working class Texans understand HB 3 represents good policy," he said.

- Finally, he sees what the Senate is doing with their modifications to HB1 - in particular, the teacher pay raise - as a start at making a meaningful investment in our children's education. He believes the Lege must also restore the cuts in education made during the 2003 legislative session and restore the health care stipend for school employees. He said that while state revenues rise and fall over time, they tend to fall back to a higher point than where they started (this was a point that John Sharp made during the TTRC process as well), and that with the new business tax in place, revenue growth will be more stable over time.

Henley campaign headquarters opening

Jim Henley, Democratic candidate for Congress in CD07, is having a grand opening of his campaign headquarters this weekend.

Volunteers and Supporters:

Please join us at the opening of the Henley for Congress Campaign Headquarters in Rice Village!

When: Sunday, April 30th, 2 - 5 p.m.

Where: 2482 Bolsover Street at the corner of Bolsover and Kelvin (just across from Walgreens).

Come and talk with fellow supporters, and find out how you can help our grassroots campaign!

One very positive aspect of the Henley campaign has been energizing the next generation of voters. If you want to see that in action, go visit the campaign on Sunday.

Bell asks Earle to investigate Perry

Chris Bell has asked Travis County DA Ronnie Earle to investigate "whether Texans for Taxpayer Relief’s radio ads constitute an in-kind officeholder contribution illegally paid for by corporate funds that Rick Perry and his representatives appear to have helped raise."

In a letter faxed to the Travis County District Attorney’s Office today, Bell also questioned whether the ads constituted an illegal corporate contribution because they appear coordinated with Rick Perry. The letter cited many apparent examples of coordination, including, but not limited to, an email sent out by a lobbyist claiming that Rick Perry invited lobbyists to hear a pitch by Texans for Taxpayer Relief, which was, according to the email, "formed at the request of the Governor."

This DMN story has some background on Texans for Taxpayer Relief. This would seem to be the key graf:

Texans for Taxpayer Relief is a dormant political committee out of San Antonio that was recently revived to rally support for the governor's plan. Various business groups, especially those who benefit under the tax swap or who dodged a significant tax increase, have donated $220,000 to the committee so far.

As always with groups like these, the key question is who donated and how much they gave.

A campaign organized to support Republican Gov. Rick Perry's school finance tax plan has voluntarily released the identities of its donors after coming under fire from Perry's political opponents.

Texans for Taxpayer Relief also is releasing the amounts of contributions received and deposited so far, though organizers say it isn't required under Texas law.

The organization made the announcements Tuesday as it launched two 60-second radio ads in Houston.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Chris Bell and independent candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn had criticized the school plan ad campaign, saying it was funded by secret donations that would benefit Perry in his re-election bid.

Candidates for state office are required to disclose direct donations to their campaigns in reports to the Texas Ethics Commission.

[...]

[Governor Perry's] spokeswoman, Kathy Walt, later said Perry was not involved in creating Texans for Taxpayer Relief and that he hasn't raised money for it.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said when a complaint is filed by a political opponent his policy is to "monitor the situation" but not take any action until after the election, unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

To date, Texans for Taxpayer Relief said it has received $30,000 from the Texas Apartment Association and $30,000 from the Texas Beer Alliance. Other donors include the Texas Association of Builders, $25,000; Texas Credit Union League, $25,000; Maxxam, $50,000; Texas Motor Transportation Association, $50,000; and Texas Restaurant Association, $10,000.

At least now we know who's behind it, which frankly we should have from the beginning. Until someone gets nailed for disrespecting the disclosure laws, this is business as usual.

"This is why we need ethics reform now," said Bell. "Rick Perry is raising corporate money to sell a school finance plan that has no new money for schools."

You can add it to the list of reasons why we need ethics reform. The specifics are particular to this occurrance, but the underlying principle is the same. The Red State has more.

Progress on Net Neutrality

The Agonist has bad news and good news on the Net Neutrality front.

The Markey Amendment failed in committee 22-34. Democrats Rush, Green, Gonzalez, Towns, and Wynn all voted no on the amendment and betrayed the netroots. The rest of the committee Democrats voted for the amendment.

Action now moves to the Senate.

However, today was a victory as a few key players on the full committee changed their votes. Important action is required heading into the Senate but we have created significant momentum and the telco cartel is very afraid of us now.

This is not how they wanted it to go down. They wanted this amendment to fail quietly, so the Senate would not take it up.

As one staffer on the Hill today told The Agonist:

They wanted this to pass in the dead of night. Instead, people are going to be energized, and the Senate is really going to matter.

We changed the rules today. Great work.

MyDD has more, including more on the five committee Dems who voted to pass the bill. San Antonio Rep. Charlie Gonzales comes in for some extra scorn for proposing a bizarre amendment that was said to be about "regulating search engines". Vince examines Gonzales' actions in more detail.

I think the point to take away here is that the more attention we pay to this, the more likely we are to get a favorable outcome. So, if you haven't done it yet:

Read Save the Internet.
Sign the MoveOn petition.
If you're a MySpace person, go here.

And be sure to let your congressperson know how you feel about this. Let him or her know this vote is important to you.

Inaugural College Baseball Hall of Fame class announced

Here's your first set of inductees to the College Baseball Hall of Fame, currently under construction in Lubbock.

Former USC head baseball coach Rod Dedeaux has been elected to the College Baseball Hall of Fame, the College Baseball Foundation announced today.

He is one of 10 members who will comprise the first-ever induction class for the Hall of Fame located in Lubbock, Texas. Other members of the class include coaches Bobby Winkles of Arizona State, Skip Bertman of LSU, Ron Fraser of Miami and Cliff Gustafson of Texas, in addition to former players Bob Horner of Arizona State, Robin Ventura of Oklahoma State, Dave Winfield of Minnesota, Will Clark of Mississippi State and Brooks Kieschnick of Texas.

Dedeaux, who passed away on Jan. 5 at the age of 91, coached USC to 11 national championships, including an NCAA-record five consecutive titles from 1970-74. In his 45-year tenure at USC (1942-86), Dedeaux also posted an overall record of 1,332-571-11 (.699) while recording 28 conference titles. At his retirement, he had won more games than any other college baseball coach (he currently ranks seventh among Division I coaches). He coached 59 former players who played in the major leagues, including Tom Seaver, Mark McGwire, Randy Johnson, Fred Lynn, Dave Kingman, Roy Smalley, Don Buford, Ron Fairly, Rich Dauer, Steve Busby, Jim Barr and Steve Kemp.

[...]

The 2006 HOF class will be inducted as part of a two-day celebration to be held July 3-4 in Lubbock. Several events during the celebration will be carried nationally by Fox Sports Network, as well as the Fox College Sports Networks (Atlantic, Central and Pacific).

"The excitement has been building within the college baseball community since this project was first announced two years ago," said CBF Chairman/CEO John Askins. "Our entire community is thrilled to honor this outstanding group of individuals, whose accomplishments will withstand the test of time."

According to the official press release (PDF) of the College Baseball Foundation, two of the pre-1947 nominees will be enshrined later this fall. Bios and stats for the five players inducted are here, the same for the coaches is here. The list of 46 original nominees seems to have disappeared for some reason - at least, I can't find it.

Oh, well. Despite the grumblings of the last commenter in my previous post, I think this is a good list. You can never pick a top five without leaving someone worthy off. I'm sure Pete Incaviglia will be in there by 2008 or shortly thereafter.

Photo oops

First noted over the weekend, the story of Rep. John Carter getting his picture taken in Iraq with the son of Mary Beth Harrell, his opponent in November, made it to the Washington Post on Wednesday.

Vast numbers of lawmakers have signed on to the congressional delegation shuttle to Baghdad. And nary a one has failed to ensure that troops from the home district - who, of course, have nothing better to do - are rounded up to have lunch and talk to their representative.

These chats - and the fine photos they produce - pay handsome dividends. Obviously there are the bragging rights: "Well, I've been over there talking with our troops, with Jimmy Jones and Sally Smith - whose parents are here today - and with others, and let me tell you . . ."

More ominously, the lawmaker might even return from these forays thinking he or she actually knows what’s going on over there. A truly frightening thought.

But it's the photos with the brass, Iraqi leaders and especially the troops - suitable for signing, for newsletters and for campaign literature - that are the key benefit, though some photos don't quite work out.

For example, here's a very nice shot of Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), whose district includes Fort Hood and its 4th Infantry Division. As always, some troops from home were selected to meet with the congressman.

Apparently somebody had a sense of humor. Carter found out afterward that this warm "grip 'n' grin" shot was with Sgt. 1st Class Rob Harrell, whose mother, Mary Beth Harrell, a lawyer in Killeen, Tex., will be Carter's Democratic opponent in November. The challenger's husband, we're told, is retired military. Another son, also on active duty, is to be deployed in Iraq this summer.

You can see the picture here. There's also a good Kos diary on the topic. I love this quote from that diary:

Yet another classic case of a Republican trying to look tough, and running into a Democrat who is.

Ouch. As Eye on Williamson notes, Carter was not happy about being caught unprepared like this. Harrell has been campaigning pretty hard on her military connections, so one of his staffers really ought to have known about this. Underdog campaigns literally can't buy this kind of publicity.

In fairness to Carter, he was gracious enough to call Harrell upon his return and tell her that her son was doing fine. Good on him for that.

Net neutrality update

Just a quick update on the fight over Net neutrality. Sean-Paul has a good roundup of links and other information here. If you want a more technical description of the issues at hand, check out Kevin Drum, Crooked Timber, and Unrequited Narcissism (link via Ezra. I agree with his bottom line summary of the argument:

[S]top looking for nuance. It's simpler than you're making it out to be. Here, let's let AT&T chairman Ed Whitacre explain:

"They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires... They use my lines for free - and that's bull... For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!"

But of course, they don't use them for free. They pay a broadband wholesaler. You pay the Ed Whitacres of the world for your home connection. And Ed and the broadband wholesalers (he's one, too) have complicated agreements governing how they exchange traffic equitably. Everything's paid for; nobody's getting away with anything.

It's as simple as this: Mr. Whitacre and the other ISP stakeholders have convinced themselves that when someone isn't paying them money, it constitutes an injustice. They're wrong - really wrong. Don't give an inch, don't give equal time, don't pretend there's more to it than this. There isn't.

Pretty much. Another simple way of looking at this: How can you be wrong if Alyssa Milano is on your side?

What is the sound of one party debating?

This really annoys me. One could read this Chron piece on how HB3 was passed and come away with the impression that the only debate over the bill was between conservatives who wanted to cut property taxes by raiding the surplus and conservatives who wanted to cut property taxes by swapping them for the TTRC business tax plan. No other possible reason for opposing HB3 is mentioned, let alone explored, even though the crux of a big swath of HB3's opposition is right here:

In addition to the surplus spending bill, the House also passed a bill dedicating all future new business tax revenue to property tax cuts and one that raises an estimated $60 million a year through better collection of sales taxes on used vehicles. A bill to raise $700 million through higher cigarette taxes is scheduled for House debate Thursday.

Emphasis mine. This is what united the Democrats in opposition to HB3, and what has them grumbling about the ten who broke off to support it. (The 2008 version of Al Edwards can be found at the top of the list on the right sidebar of the Chron story.) In a vacuum, HB3 has its merits. It's not adequate, to be sure, but it's at least a semi-decent starting point for finally fixing the laughable franchise tax. HB4 and HB5 have things to recommend them, too. But once HB2 passed, once the business tax was essentially severed from school finance, none of that mattered. That's what the Democrats were fighting about, and it's an argument that deserves to be heard. Apparently, since Janet Elliott and Clay Robison didn't bother to collect any quotes from anyone making that argument, it's up to the likes of me to make it audible. Thanks, guys.

For what it's worth, the Statesman has a very similar story, though they at least managed to quote one Democrat. The DMN, Express News and Star Telegram have all moved on to the Senate.

UPDATE: If the comments in this DallasBlog post are any indication, HB3 is not very popular among Republicans. Again, their reason for not liking it is not the same as mine, and I'm still cheesed at the Chron for so blatantly short-shrifting the Democratic perspective, but this is nonetheless worth reading.

Where we stand after Monday

In writing about what I think of the legislative action on Monday, I'm going to start with a long quote from Rep. Garnet Coleman, which I take from this useful Capitol Annex post that gives an overview of how everyone voted on everything.

I oppose CSHB 1 because, at this point in the process, I cannot support legislation that only addresses property tax reduction and does nothing to improve our children’s schools. If, at a later date in the session, a bill is presented to this legislature that would increase our state’s investment in public education, I will support CSHB 1 or its equivalent.

I support property tax reduction and recognize that it is a worthy policy goal. Obviously, we must address the issue of an unconstitutional property tax system in order to comply with the supreme court ruling. Although CSHB 1 addresses the property tax issue, my constituents and a majority of Texans believe we are in special session to increase the state’s investment in our public schools because that is their highest priority.

Unfortunately, instead of placing equal importance on property tax cuts and our children’s schools, CSHB 1 fails to provide a single additional dollar for our public education. Even worse, CSHB 1 would actually take money away from Texas schoolchildren by deleting a rider that was intended to provide $1.8 billion in new money for our public schools. Additionally, CSHB 1 would make it more difficult for local school districts to raise funds for local enrichment. It also establishes unsound budget policy by requiring a property tax reduction without a corresponding funding source to cover the cost of the cut - a move that could certainly lead to an increase in the state sales tax and other consumption taxes that are disproportionately harmful to my constituents.

I stand ready to vote for a school finance solution that would provide both meaningful school property tax reduction and increased investment in our children’s schools. CSHB 1 fails that test, and for the foregoing reasons, I must oppose it. - Coleman

The problem with Monday's votes is pretty neatly summed up by Matt, and it reiterates what Coleman is saying. It's not that this special session has done nothing to fix school finance - as that is not yet on the call, we knew going into the session that it would wait, perhaps till next year. It's that thanks to HB2, nothing that comes out of this session, or any other barring a change, will do anything to fix school finance. Whatever the merits of the TTRC plan are, it was sold to the public as a way to put school finance on more solid footing, while also providing for property tax relief. You'll get the latter, but not the former, not now and not in the future. That's what HB2 did.

It's possible we'll eventually get some money thrown at the schools this session. The Senate is already talking about adding a teacher pay raise plus some other miscellaneous spending to their version of HB1. That would come out of the existing surplus. Any future salary increases for teachers, or other extra money to pay for things like the continued rapid growth in enrollment, will have to come from somewhere other than the new business tax. I suppose we should all start hoping that Brooke Rollins is a visionary and not a hack, because we're going to need endless surpluses from here on out.

One of the things that this suggests to me is that we may wind up revisiting the issue of adequacy a lot sooner than perhaps the State Supreme Court thought we would. How can you claim that the system will be adequate when you're enshrining in law a cap on how much revenue for schools there can be? Any new money that the TTRC plan generates goes to buying down property taxes, period. Where's the mechanism to keep up with enrollment growth, let alone state and federal mandates or the need to educate in an increasingly complex and technology-oriented world? The more affluent school districts will have the option of raising their school taxes a few more pennies to make up any shortfall they perceive. The less so will be right back where they started, unable to keep up. Do we really want to go through this again so soon?

I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion about HB3 equaling an income tax, but Rep. Gary Elkins, no one's idea of a tax-and-spend type, gets this right (also quoting from that Capitol Annex post from above):

Many supporters of HB3 have argued that this new tax actually reflects a tax shift, shifting the tax burden from property owners to businesses that are currently not paying the franchise tax. I agree that this bill creates a tax shift, not a shift from property owners to businesses, but a shift from big business to thousands of small businesses. The governor’s own policy advisor has informed members of the house that the average small service sector business will pay more in taxes and in most cases double, triple, or even quadruple what they are currently paying under the current franchise tax system.

This new tax is bad public policy and is harmful to most of our small businesses. More importantly, my constituents can see through this subterfuge and recognize this tax to be what it actually is, a state income tax. For the cited
reasons, I must respectfully oppose this measure. - Elkins

Yep, it's a tax shift. Perry and Craddick tried and failed to swap sales taxes for property taxes last year, and this year they succeeded with the TTRC tax. Anyone want to guess where the inevitable shortfall for school finance will be made up down the line? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Tales Max".

At this point, all I can do is hope that the Senate changes directions, and that either causes everything to fall apart or somehow, miraculously, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst doesn't get taken to the woodshed by Craddick again. (I suppose one bright spot in all this is that it's given In the Pink the opportunity to quote from Meg Ryan movies again.) Maybe a little pressure can be applied to some of the wayward Dems for when these bills come up for final votes. All I can say right now is that given a choice between HBs 2 and 3, and the Get Out Of Dodge plan, I'd have picked the former as the lesser evil. At least then when we did have to start all over again, we wouldn't be doing so from a worse position than we're in now.

Finally, on a not-really-related note, I have to recognize State Rep. Joaquin Castro for pulling off this stunt. How that made it through is a mystery to me. I suppose anything really can happen during those long Legislative nights. Nicely played, sir.

Play the "Lost" game

The powers that be behind Lost have a new trick up their sleeve: An international, interactive game that will offer some information about the show.

It will begin May 2 in the United Kingdom, May 3 in the U.S. and May 6 in Australia. There is no winning prize, but the experience will offer clues that could unlock some of the island's many secrets.

"It's like a giant, worldwide mysterious jigsaw puzzle that will come to life for all the world to solve," Mike Benson, senior vice president of marketing for ABC Entertainment, said in a statement.

What is known about the challenge is that it includes the introduction of new characters and the mysterious Hanso Foundation. The first clue requires finding a toll-free number that will be released during the show or commercial breaks.

Clues will vary by continent, so participants will benefit from coordinating their information. ABC said the game is designed to appeal to both fans and people unfamiliar with Lost.

Pretty cool. Add this to the Bad Twin book (which you can pick up on Amazon) and you can see how good these guys are at publicity. Is this a new paradigm for TV, or are they just outliers on the curve? I don't know, but I'll be interested to see what they come up with next.

The East End BRT line

Christof takes a look at the Harrisburg/East End LRT/BRT lines and the ongoing process to determine where they should go. Not too surprisingly, it's a lot less politically charged than the Universities line. Check it out.

Rick Perry, record breaker

I've got to hand it to the Lone Star Project. They do come up with some original angles on current events.

It has been more than 100 years since a Congressional District has been left without a Congressman for longer than 130 Days. However, under the scheme hatched by Texas Governor Rick Perry and surrendering former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay, citizens in the 22nd District of Texas will be left without any Member of Congress representing them for at least 130 days, from June 30, 2006 until November 7, 2006. This gap in representation could be even longer if DeLay resigns earlier in June or if a run-off results from a November 7th special election, leaving the seat open another 30 days.

This assumes that there will be a double-barrelled election for CD22 in November - the regular between Nick Lampson, the Chosen One, independent Steve Stockman, and Libertarian Bob Smither; and a special, featuring God knows who for the right to serve from November through December, when Congress will likely be on recess much of the time anyway. We won't know for sure if this is what Perry has in mind until he is forced to do something by DeLay's departure. All I know is that I continue to fail to see the point of such a beast. Do it now, when it matters, or don't do it at all.

Anyway. Some entertaining history and other useful information follows, so check it out.

The municipal WiFi shakedown cruise

Dwight points to this article about some of the issues that the cities who have pioneered municipal WiFi service have encountered.

Joe Lusardi's friends back in New York couldn't believe it when he told them he'd have free Internet access through this city's new Wi-Fi network. It's free all right, but residents are, to some extent, getting what they pay for.

More than a month after St. Cloud launched what analysts say is the country's first free citywide Wi-Fi network, Lusardi and others in this 28,000-person Orlando suburb are still paying to use their own Internet service providers as dead spots and weak signals keep some residents offline and force engineers to retool the free system.

"Everybody's happy they were going to have it, but I don't know if they're happy right now," said Lusardi, a 66-year-old retired New York City transit worker.

[...]

At first, a desktop computer in Lusardi's house could use the Wi-Fi network with no problem, but his laptop would only work outdoors. Even then it was too slow and unreliable, so he kept his $20 per month Sprint DSL service.

Now the desktop doesn't even work, and he's completely abandoned the idea of dropping his pay service and using the network.

"It's just total frustration," Lusardi said. "I'm going to stay with the DSL and just forget it, because I don't think it's going to work. Very few people are going to use it, and they're going to say it's underutilized and they're going to shut it down."

Lusardi didn't shell out the money for a signal-boosting device St. Cloud recommends for those having trouble connecting - City Hall sells them for $170.

[Glenn Fleishman, who runs a Web site called Wi-Fi Networking News,] said the fact that others share Lusardi's frustration is a crucial technical and public relations problem for the vanguard project. He said residents should understand many won't be able to use the free network without additional equipment to strengthen the signal.

"It's very large and it's very ambitious, so they're going to hit some of these problems before some of the marketing and technology is out there," he said. "Products have to catch up to this new market."

Fleishman said other cities would likely have the same problems - in bigger cities, even larger ones - if they didn't fully inform the public of necessary equipment and network limits.

I'm not too worried about what this may mean for Houston's project. For one thing, actual deployment is still a ways off, and there will be plenty of time for the bidders in Houston to learn from other cities' experiences. For another, technology in this area is evolving fairly rapidly, so some of the problems that have been seen may be mooted by imminent changes in the tools that are available. Finally, I expect that the users of the downtown pilot will put the system through its paces and thus identify weaknesses early on. Houston may be on the leading edge here, but it's at the back of that edge. We'll have some bumps along the way, but not as many as the real trailblazers will have had.

HB3 passes

Ultimately, the new business tax plan, written into HB3, passed the House on first reading last night. There's still another round of approval for it before it goes to the Senate, but I think it's safe to say that it's been approved by the House.

Let's look at the coverage, starting with the Chron.

The $3 billion measure will now go to the Senate, with supporters hoping the two chambers will finally be able to agree on a tax overhaul. Four previous efforts in the past two years failed.

"The (tax) system is broken. It's time to fix it. This is a fair bill," said Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton, a co-sponsor of the measure that passed 80-68.

But Democrats attacked it as underfunded and complained that it wouldn't raise any additional funding for the public schools.

"It is the largest tax bill in Texas history, and it doesn't give one penny to the public schools," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco.

[...]

Several dozen amendments, many proposing special tax breaks for an assortment of industries, were offered to the business tax bill. Most were withdrawn or defeated, but one amendment, an accounting provision designed to soften the financial blow for current payers of the franchise tax, could cost as much as $40 million in tax collections in the first year.

Altogether, Speaker Tom Craddick said, amendments that were adopted cut $58 million from the $3.45 billion that the bill, as approved by the House Ways and Means Committee, would have raised for the governor's proposed property tax buy-down.

[...]

The House adopted 141-1 an amendment to prohibit companies from deducting the costs of hiring undocumented immigrants from their taxable income. The provision also would give the state comptroller the authority to enforce the restriction.

Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, the amendment's sponsor and the son of immigrants, said he was attempting to crack down on the "thousands and thousands" of Texas businesses that hire illegal workers.

"Without a demand, there's really no supply," he said.

"I'm tired of hearing the demagoguery out in the marketplace," he said, referring to the current political debate over immigration. "Unfortunately, it's Texas business that is breaking the law on a daily basis."

Otto questioned how effectively the state would be able to enforce the provision, but only Rep. Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, voted against it.

[...]

The House adopted an amendment by Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, that would remove the tax liability from any company owing less than $1,000 in taxes a year.

Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, R-Tomball, won approval of a provision that would require Texas voters to approve any subsequent increase in the new business tax rate.

In addition, a "safety net" provision that would allow schools to remain open if all else failed passed by a 146-2 margin. Other bills representing other parts of the Perry plan were brought to the floor as well. The Star Telegram runs them down:

Lawmakers also adopted House Bill 2, which requires any extra revenue that comes from revamping the state tax system go to lowering property taxes -- and not to increasing spending on education.

The bill passed on a largely party-line vote, with the Republicans prevailing 81-65. Among the local delegation, only state Rep. Toby Goodman, R-Arlington, bucked party leadership.

Late Monday, lawmakers also adopted House Bill 4 that revamps sales taxes for used cars.

Near midnight, House Bill 5, the last piece of the legislative package, was rejected on a technical point of order. The fate of the bill was unclear. Under it, the state would have phased in an additional $1.05-per-pack tax on cigarettes over three years. The original proposal by Perry's commission would have immediately increased the cigarette tax by $1 per pack.

Aaron Pena has a few more details.

I admit, I'm a bit surprised at how quickly all this got passed. Matt quotes from the Quorum Report that the status of HB3 was in doubt early on Monday, which is why debate on it was delayed. QR:

In post-recess comments, [House Speaker Tom] Craddick confirmed that support for HB 3, the revamped business tax, had slipped to 60 votes by Monday morning. It took a concerted effort by the leadership to get the total back up to 80 votes, he said.

How did they do that? I believe the DMN story answers that question.

Sponsors of the business tax were unsure whether they had secured enough votes to pass the measure as debate began.

On Monday morning, Mr. Perry's staff and sponsors on both sides of the aisle were still polling members who had not committed their votes.

Thought to be wavering were some conservative Republicans concerned that they could pay a political price for enacting new taxes when the state has a robust surplus.

But supporters of the plan, trying to bring more votes on board, argued that it could have a political benefit.

If the bill passes, Mr. Perry "will run for re-election based on the tax cuts made possible by this bill," said Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock. "People who vote against making the business tax fair are obstructing property tax cuts."

Presumably, the argument was that it would be easier to explain action than inaction. Dissent on HB3 was broad but not focused, with Democrats and conservative Republicans having different problems with it. I expect that wavering members eventually bought into the idea that passing HB3 can be spun positively if needed, while yet another failed special session could not be explained away in any fashion. If I were in their place, I'd probably find that compelling, too.

I assume the problems with HB5, the tobacco tax bill, will be fixed and the bill will be passed. Enough money has leaked out via various loopholes and exceptions already. The loss of that revenue would put a big hole in Perry's shaky-from-the-start claims that the total TTRC package balances out the property tax cuts.

More media coverage is here and here; more blog coverage is here, here, and here. I'm still thinking about the implications of all this, and will write more when I've collected my thoughts. I believe the next action is scheduled for Thursday, so we may be able to catch our breath for a moment or two. As always, stay tuned.

75 things to love about Texas

Via Norbizness comes this Texas Monthly list of 75 Things To Love About Texas, there for the usual limited time. It's a good idea, I think, to pause occasionally while the Lege is busy doing Lord knows what with school finance and remember why we care in the first place. All lists like these are subjective, and for sure there are things that they did not include that you or I might have (my list would include such things as the Schlitterbahn, the Marching Owl Band, the Art Car Parade, and the David Adickes statue of Sam Houston up in Huntsville, in case you're curious), but this is a fine starting point for discussion and/or trip planning. Check it out.

Save the Internet

Let me add my voice to those calling out for the preservation of Net Neutrality (I have posted on this in the past). What you need to know is here and here. The players in this drama are described here. If there's one thing I'm totally not shocked about, it's that a leader among the bad guys is Smokey Joe Barton. The man can't help himself. (One of the ways you can help is by supporting David Harris in his race against Smokey Joe.)

Anyway. Read Save the Internet. Sign the MoveOn petition. If you're a MySpace person, go here. And be sure to let your congressperson know how you feel about this.

Once again with a la carte cable

Once again, the concept of a la carte pricing for cable television is in the news (see here and here for background). Pretty much everything you need to know about the debate is in the following paragraphs.

In a preemptive move in this regard, Time Warner and other cable companies recently introduced a "family friendly" tier of 16 G-rated channels.

The tier contained no sports or movie networks, nor such offerings as History Channel or Cartoon Network, because there's no guarantee those channels won't cross the G-rated line. (Indeed, Cartoon Network offers adult programming during late-night hours.)

Cable companies also claim that they have made it possible for digital subscribers to set parental controls and have spent millions in advertising that capability. Still, fewer than 4 percent of their customers make use of it.

[Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin] Martin said he has "legitimate concerns" about the "family friendly" tiers that were offered. He has the backing of the Parents Television Council and other conservative groups.

"We believe the family tier is a product that's designed to fail," said Dan Isett, PTC's director of corporate and government affairs. "It does nothing to solve the problem, which is that families are not free to decide for themselves what constitutes a family tier."

Whether or not the Time-Warner family-friendly offering is designed to fail is irrelevant. From where I sit, it's highly unlikely that any such package would be successful. That's because whatever the TWCs of the world put in or left out, some vocal group would complain about it. Sports channels? They glorify gambling by showing all that poker. Cartoon channels? Three words: "Beavis and Butthead". Or "South Park". Or "Adult Swim". You get the picture. The History Channel? All Nazis, all the time. And on and on.

Which is a point in favor of the arguments put forward by the Parents Television Council. Let us make the choice, they say, and don't make us pay for anything we don't want.

Seems reasonable until you ask why cable providers are being forced by government intervention to modify their businesses in a way that they say will be unprofitable. Whatever happened to the free market? If the demand for family-friendly-only programming were truly there, what's to stop a Pat Robertson or a Rupert Murdoch from starting up a satellite company that would offer those services to PTCers? Why patronize Time Warner at all if they're not giving you what you want? If that's more damaging to their bottom line than the a la carte option that they're fighting, either they'll change their ways or a competitor will step in and take that market away from them. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Of course, future technology - near future, mind you - may obviate all of this.

"I don't think it's necessary to push a la carte because in various ways it's going to happen as we see many more ways of distributing video," says Michael Rogers.

Rogers, former head of the Washington Post Company's new media division and currently a columnist on MSNBC.com, believes the proliferation of platforms - cell phones, iTunes and especially the Internet - has already made a la carte a nonissue.

But Time Warner's McMillan thinks the same issues will linger because of the cable industry's business structure.

"The next step is something called 'switch digital,' " he says of a plan that joins television and the Internet. "But even then I don't think we're going to be able to set aside the contracts we've got with all of our suppliers and say (to the consumer), 'You're going to be able to buy this a la carte.' You would have to renegotiate all those contracts.

"And if I own Speed Channel (an auto racing network), what do you think I'm going to ask for that programming on an a la carte basis versus a broadcast basis as part of a tier? They're going to ask for more money. The reason: They're going to be taking a bigger risk because that channel won't be grouped with other channels. (The smaller channels) believe, and I concur, this would hurt their ability to draw advertising."

It's just a matter of time before any content you want will be available for a price via Internet download. We're almost there already. Once that happens, who needs a cable or satellite plan at all? I rather think that this debate is going to fade away before it gets fully resolved.

And while all this may be bad news for niche channels under the current structure, who's to say they won't re-emerge as lower-cost online programmers? There's already some entertaining stuff out there. That old adage about closing doors and opening windows applies here. I'm not ready to weep for anyone just yet.

(For what it's worth, the brother-in-law of one of my best friends is a producer of that last site. Just in case anyone asks.)

What is the Lege up to now?

As I understand it, the debate on HB3 will be going till midnight or so. That's past my bedtime, so I'll do a link roundup now and figure out the news in the morning. Here's what we know so far.

The first thing you need to know is that HB1, the Get Out Of Dodge plan, has passed out of the House by a near-unanimous margin.

The House approved an 11 percent cut in school property taxes Monday that proponents said would ensure schools stay open this year.

"We can go home and tell the people that we have reduced the property taxes, that the schools will stay open in June," said Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa.

[...]

House Bill 1 passed 139-5.

The idea behind it is that the state will give school districts more than $2 billion from the state's surplus, and the districts will use that money to lower their tax rates to provide some breathing room between themselves and the maximum rate. Then, the districts can exercise their newfound discretion and inch their tax rates back up.

This is presumably for the worst-case scenario (at least, worst from some perspectives) that nothing else gets done. One assumes no one wants to face the voters if the schools are not open. As I've said before, however, wait until the West Orange-Cove plaintiffs make their next move before you breathe any sighs of relief. More on this here, here (on recapture), here, and (much more) here.

The most blatantly political thing to happen today was this.

The House version of Gov. Rick Perry’s tax overhaul says that the secretary of state - an office that has little involvement in tax policy - will write a letter and send it to county tax assessor-collectors so they can send it out to taxpayers around Oct. 1. The letter would tell voters, er, taxpayers about the property-tax reductions that, presumably, the Legislature will have just passed.

Some lawmakers said this is simply a government-funded political advertisement a month before an election. “When we tax people and we charge them a tax, we don’t ever send them a notice,” said Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston.

Rep. Ana Hernandez, D-Houston, tried to change the proposal so the comptroller, who deals very much with tax policy, would write the letter. Initially an effort to kill her amendment was defeated. But then some lawmakers’ “machines malfunctioned.” Here’s what that usually means: They either saw how the vote came out and didn’t want to make anyone important mad by siding with the wrong side, or they were asked nicely by House leaders to change their votes. When the dust settled, Hernandez’s amendment failed.

Something else to keep in mind: the comptroller is a woman named Carole Keeton Strayhorn who is running against GOP Gov. Rick Perry. She has called Perry’s tax proposal, in part, a “hot check.” Her letter indeed would have been interesting.

Instead it will be written by Perry’s appointed secretary of state.

“It’s for transparency, it’s to make sure everyone is aware of what we have done,” said Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, a proponent of sending a letter authored by the secretary of state.

Seems pretty transparent, indeed.

No freaking kidding. If the Democrats in this state had any money, you could make a nice attack ad out of this. Hell, maybe Strayhorn will - for sure she won't be quiet about it. Go for it, Carole, this is exactly the sort of thing you really excel at. Kudos to Rep. Ana Hernandez, in her first session, for nearly giving this turkey the shiv it deserved. More here and here. Some tidbits on the current status of opposition to HB3 is here. Aaron Pena still thinks it will pass, albeit narrowly.

That's about it for now. Other coverage can be found via Matt, In the Pink, and here. If you haven't bookmarked Capitol Annex yet, do it - Vince has been glued to the live feeds, and is transcribing up a storm. More tomorrow when the dailies do their thing.

Meet Ellen Cohen Wednesday night

If you've got the time for only one political event this week in Houston, this is the one to go to:

The Houston Democratic Forum invites you to a General Meeting and Discussion with special guest

Ellen Cohen
Candidate for the Texas House of Representatives
District 134

Wednesday, April 26th, 6pm to 8pm

Quattro Lounge at the Four Seasons Hotel
1300 Lamar, Downtown Houston

Cash Bar
Valet parking is only $3 with validation, and there is ample self-parking in area

RSVP: ljdead@yahoo.com or 713.885.0697

The guest speaker will be Ellen Cohen, who is running against Rep. Martha Wong for the Texas Legislature, State House District 134. For the last 15 years, she has been President and CEO of the Houston Area Women's Center. For more on Ellen and the campaign, please check www.ellencohen.org. We ask that all HDF members and friends come out on the 26th and meet the woman who will defeat Rep. Wong. District 134 includes Bellaire, West University, River Oaks and parts of Meyerland and Montrose.

I'm Mister Mom this week (Tiffany is off on a business trip), so I unfortunately cannot make it to this. If you can, though, I encourage you to go. HDF meetings are always fun, and Ellen's an awesome candidate.

Newcomers and comebacks

The new kid on the block today is Texas Kos, an outgrowth of the (very busy) Yahoo group of the same name. It's one of those hot new Soapblox sites, so you can join in and add content as you wish. Welcome to the neighborhood, y'all.

Meanwhile, The American Street is up and running again. Their revamped roster of regular posters includes Texans Arvin Hill and Bride of Acheron, and they occasionally let the odd stray in to do a guest post or two. Nice design, useful features like the state-by-state listing of progressive blogs, and good content - what more do you want?

(And if your answer to that last question is "The opportunity to hoist a few Shiner Bocks with fellow liberals in Amarillo", I'm pleased to tell you that you can indeed do that.)

Let the legislative liveblogging begin!

With five bills comprising the TTRC plan to be debated, there's a lot of moving parts to keep track of. Here's what we know so far:

Debate on HB3 has been postponed until 1 PM, which is to say right about now. That's the one that would enact the actual business tax that the TTRC proposed. Bill sponsor Rep. Jim Keffer wanted to run some stuff by Comptroller Strayhorn before bringing it all to the House floor.

Once again, the heavy lifting is being done by Vince, who has two liveblogging threads going. I have to agree with him on this exchange between Reps. Warren Chisum and Harold Dutton over HB1, the so-called Get Out Of Dodge plan, for which Chisum is the sponsor:

Dutton: "We're trying to follow the court's admonitions? [with this bill.] That gets us out of the trap currently, I wonder if you have any sort of prognosis about how long before we're back in the same trap if we do what this particular bill prescribes."

Now Chisum is proceeding to explain the SCOTX decision…doesn't seem like he's answering Dutton's question.

Chisum: "We have a 17 cent, after this buydown…where school districts could go in and access new revenue." Now he's explaining how the local ISDs can increase tax rates.

Chisum: "As for how long that would last, that would be up to the court. There'd have to be another lawsuit."

Dutton: "Do you have a prognosis of when we'll be back to a court might deem us to have a statewide property tax.

Chisum: "Well, Mr. Dutton, it will be at least to the general session. I'm relying on future legislators to look at this…"

Dutton: "…it recognizes that this is only a temporary solution to the challenge made by the Supreme Court made by our funding system…"

Chisum: "Absolutley…"

I cannot believe this…the author of the bill has ADMITTED this is a stop-gap measure.

While it's surprising to see him say it, it should not be a surprise for any one of us to hear it. It is the truth, after all.

More: On the concept of dedicated dollars, on the subject of doctors' deductions, and on the first real test for newly-minted Rep. Donna Howard. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: An amendment to maintain recapture in HB1 has been passed. An amendment to prevent the sending out of political advertisements at taxpayer expense was tabled. PinkDome is back in the game. And here's a handy guide to telling apart the Keffer brothers.

Political theater alert

This is set to take place in less than an hour in the Capitol. Call me crazy, but I don't think these folks are gonna get embraced by the state Republican leadership. Whether they represent enough of a force to throw a wrench into the works for Governor Perry and the TTRC plans remains to be seen.

Garcia and Nelson-Turnier

The Red State brings the latest round of news on Juan Garcia: a visit from his Harvard Law classmate Sen. Barack Obama, and a glowing column from Carlos Guerra. It's a rare State Rep campaign that can get this kind of coverage, but then it's a rare State Rep candidate that can bring such star power to his events. With Henry Cisneros scheduled for a May fundraiser, there's more of that to come.

Dot Nelson-Turnier's race isn't nearly as hgh profile, but she still drew a nice and energetic crowd to a recent event on her behalf. Stace has the writeup on that one.

Plotting your commute

Have you ever wanted to do a ridiculously in-depth analysis of how long it takes you to drive to and from work, and what factors might play a significant role in your commute times? This guy followed through on that urge, and the resulting blog post is loaded with boxplots, histograms, and an impressive amount of statistical geekery. If you like this sort of thing, you will find this to be the sort of thing that you like. Thanks to Binkley for sending it my way.

CD10 and straight ticket voting

There was some good feedback to this post on the odds of Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik getting as much as 20% of the vote in CD10 this year. I was going to reply in the comments, but got a little carried away in framing my response, so I figured I'd do a full-fledged post instead.

My contention in that previous post was that straight ticket voting alone would be too big a barrier for a Libertarian candidate to overcome, even one that might have the financial resources that Badnarik apparently has. As that's basically a math question, it becomes almost a matter of principle for me to follow up. So here we are.

To do this, I'm making a couple of assumptions. One is that the proportion of straight ticket voters is more or less uniform throughout a given county, and two is that the rate of straight ticket voting doesn't vary much with the level of turnout. I need the first assumption to draw any conclusions about CD10, since the Secretary of State precinct data does not include straight party data. I could get it from the canvass report, at least on the Harris County Clerk page, but frankly, that was too much work. Assumption #2 is needed to draw conclusions about 2006 from 2004 data. I'm pretty sure that straight party voting is on the rise over the past few years, but investigating that claim is for another day.

Anyway. I used countywide races in Travis and Harris to determine the average totals for each party, the approximate two-party total turnout for CD10 in those counties, and the proportion of straight ticket voters. Countywides have slightly fewer votes overall than statewides, but the differences aren't great. I used the average of the statewides to determine what a total vote count would have been in the CD10 race had it been a traditional Dem-Rep race. As with the county numbers, I rounded a bit; the final tally was 275,000.

Without further ado, here's the data:

Harris straight GOP   370,455

Harris avg GOP        530,000

Harris avg straight    69.90%

Harris avg CD10 vote   82,968

Minimum CD10 votes     57,991


Harris straight Dem   325,097

Harris avg Dem        470,000

Harris avg straight    69.17%

Harris avg CD10 vote   26,156

Minimum CD10 votes     18,091

Travis straight GOP    76,648

Travis avg GOP        140,000

Travis avg straight    54.75%

Travis avg CD10 vote   46,885

Minimum CD10 votes     25,668

Travis straight Dem   105,940

Travis avg Dem        190,000

Travis avg straight    55.76%

Travis avg CD10 vote   64,688

Minimum CD10 votes     36,071

Other CD10 str GOP     16,500

Other CD10 str Dem     11,000

Min CD10 GOP          100,159

Min CD10 Dem           65,162

Pct of total           60.12%

The straight Dem/straight Rep numbers are from the respective County Clerk election returns pages. Avg Dem/Avg Rep is as described above, eyeballed and rounded from the countywide races. Avg straight is the percentage of the county votes cast by straight ticket voters. Avg CD10 vote is also as described above. Take the total county vote for CD10, multiply by the average percentage each party got, then by the straight party percentage, and you get the minimum CD10 vote - my projection of how many straight party votes there'd have been for each candidate in a hypothetical Dem-Rep race from CD10 in 2004. (The other county straight party vote is based on there being about 55,000 votes from the nine other counties, a 60/40 Rep/Dem split, and 50% of the votes being straight ticket.) As you can see, that comes to a smidge more than 60% of the total vote.

I was actually surprised that the total was that high, especially in Harris County. I will have to go back and check 2002 and 2000 totals for more comparison, but the bottom line is clear: More than half of all the votes in CD10 are from straight tickets. If these ratios hold in 2006, then for Michael Badnarik or any Libertarian to get 20% in CD10, he'd have to win at least half of the remaining ballots. Needless to say, I think that's not going to happen.

Of course, you can't talk about straight ticket voting in 2006 without also talking about what kind of effect the presence of two independents in the Governor's race may have. I think it's likely that there will be fewer straight party ballots cast this year than there otherwise might have been, but I would not venture a guess as to how many. Could be one percent, could be ten, I don't know. While it's true that you can cast a straight party ballot and then override it in a given race, it's my opinion that not too many people do that. I think that if someone who might normally push the straight party button decides to step out for Strayhorn or Kinky, that person will vote in individual races.

I do not expect that this will cause more people to split their tickets. I think that if a nominal Republican breaks off to vote for Strayhorn, he or she will still vote for Republicans down the line. I know some Democrats have expressed hope that this may cause some of their candidates to get more of a look from folks who don't normally consider voting for Dems, but I'm skeptical of that. What I do think might happen is that there may be fewer votes cast overall in downballot races. If so, I believe that may be good for Democrats. One thing that struck me as I pored through the CD10 data was that there was much more dropoff in countywide races for Republican candidates than there was for Democrats. In Harris, where there was very little variation in the partisan ratio from race to race, the average countywide Republican lost 4614 votes from George Bush, total, while the average countywide Dem had 141 fewer tallies than John Kerry. In Travis, where the standard deviation was much higher, it was a loss of 5964 versus a gain of 839. You can see the data for yourself in this spreadsheet. A drop in straight party votes would likely increase the amount of undervoting farther down the ballot, and I believe that would disproportionately be to Democrats' benefits. Again, I wouldn't guess how big an effect that might be, but I believe it will be there in some fashion. We'll know in November.

California versus Bush on energy policy

Fascinating LA Times piece by national politics writer Ron Brownstein on how California is aggressively pursuing an energy policy that focuses on reducing oil usage and cutting down carbon dioxide emissions. What makes this stand out is that, incontrast to the reasons President Bush gives for opposing these actions, they see this as an engine for economic growth, and they have the backing of industry and venture capital.

Two economic assumptions guide the California Idea. One is that the energy mandates will create a mass market that lowers the price for clean technologies like solar electricity or ultra-low-emission cars. The mandates "say everybody is going to have to do this, and that spurs the mass production that brings the price down," says Terry Tamminen, [Governor] Schwarzenegger's special advisor for energy and the environment.

The second assumption is that the mandates will help California capture a leading share of the jobs and investment created by the transition to a clean-energy economy. The requirements on renewable energy, tailpipe emissions and potentially on greenhouse gases will create enormous demand in the state for new products and processes - from solar energy to biofuels to the retrofitting of manufacturing plants. And that should encourage many of the companies meeting that demand to locate in California.

Strikingly, some of Silicon Valley's top venture capitalists such as John Doerr and Vinod Khosla and technology executives from Google and Sun Microsystems are enthusiastically promoting the California energy strategy. They recognize that reducing America's reliance on fossil fuels is not only a national security and environmental imperative but also a potential gold rush.

This is a bipartisan move, with the Democratic-controlled Assembly working on legislation that would implement a "cap and trade" system for greenhouse emissions. I think history will prove them right, but read the piece and make up your own mind. Link via Greg.

Pena on the rule changes

Rep. Aaron Pena talks about the rules changes that were passed in the House on Friday and on the current level of support for HB1, a/k/k the Get Out Of Dodge plan. The full floor debate in the House on all the bills that implement the TTRC plan is tomorrow. We'll see after that if all the talk about dealing with teacher pay raises and other funding items was so much bunkum or not.

In the meantime, school districts everywhere will continue to raise money on their own to pay for all kinds of basic needs.

Parents resort to fundraisers to boost teacher salaries, buy library books and even replace classroom doors.

Bond elections once reserved for new schools or fancy stadiums are now tapped for more basic needs: replacing outdated computers, repairing old sewer lines and fixing worn roofs.

Financial patches like these aren't what you'd expect from some of the state's most elite school districts. But the Highland Park, Richardson and Carroll school districts - all considered property wealthy under the state's school finance system - have been paying the bills this way for some time.

The picture is bleaker in property-poor areas that rely on these districts for money to equalize education funding in Texas. Many poorer districts can only dream of providing the teacher pay, services and education extras still standard in wealthy schools, even under Texas's share-the-wealth system known as Robin Hood.

In Venus, a one-stoplight town southeast of Fort Worth, the school district receives some money from the Carroll district. But it's not enough to get the youngest students out of portable buildings whose floors pull away from the wall.

[...]

In the Richardson school district, Dinah Miller is part of a statewide political action committee called Texas Parent PAC. In the recent primary election, members sought to unseat lawmakers who they say have not supported public schools.

"I challenge people to hang out at my school and tell me where else we can cut," she said, noting a recent parent-teacher effort to raise money for new classroom doors at Prestonwood Elementary.

As they say, read the whole thing.

UPDATE: The Muse has a letter from Rep. Scott Hochberg to his constituents describing the bills up for debate and the moves by the GOP to limit that debate. Check it out.

Marsha Rovai

Remember the woman who was shoved at the recent Nick Lampson press conference in Sugar Land, held shortly after Tom DeLay announced his future resignation from Congress? She's filed a complaint in connection with the incident.

The probe has taken an unusual twist, because the man who has been named in the alleged assault is Ken Dexter, the foreman of the Fort Bend County grand jury.

Dexter, 55, who ran for county tax assessor-collector in 2004 and lost, was out of town and could not be reached for comment Friday.

Marsha Rovai, the woman who said she was assaulted, filed a complaint last week with police, saying she was pushed and that someone pulled her hat down and knocked off her glasses.

Police said Rovai filed a complaint but said no one was named as an assailant, said Sugar Land spokesman Doug Adolph.

What this story doesn't say is that it apparently took Rovai two trips to the Sugar Land PD to get the complaint filed. Fort Bend Now has the story from her first try, while the Muse, Juanita and Juanita again have some background. This one ought to be fun to sort out.

San Antonio's best blog

Congratulations to The Jeffersonian for being named the Best Local Blog in San Antonio. He's quite right about the blossoming of the blog scene in the Alamo City recently, something for which I'm very pleased to see. Being recognized as the top dog in that pile is an accomplishment to be proud of. Well done, dude.

And as long as I'm passing along the kudos, how about a round of applause for MeMo for her nomination as Best Media-Affiliated Entertainment Blog in the 2006 EPpy Awards. Nicely done, Kyrie. Now try not to spill any smoothies on your acceptance speech.

Strayhorn revisits constitutionality of the TTRC plan

Remember how the issue of whether or not the Texas Tax Reform Commission plan was an unconstitutional income tax or not was settled by an opinion from AG Greg Abbott? Well, maybe it's not so settled. Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn says that isn't good enough, and she may have a point.

Attorney General Greg Abbott's office earlier this week put out a letter saying Perry's plan did not appear to be an income tax as defined by the constitution.

Strayhorn said that letter was inadequate because it was written by Abbott's first assistant, Barry McBee, and was not signed as an official opinion by the attorney general.

She formally requested an official opinion from Abbott, a legal process that could take 180 days.

The key legal question is whether a tax on the income of a partnership such as a law firm could count as a tax on the income of the individual partners.

McBee, in the letter for Abbott, said it would only become an income tax if it was on the net profit of the partnership. Strayhorn general counsel Timothy Mashburn said a court could interpret the constitution differently, nullifying the tax without a popular vote.

The Statesman is a bit more specific on the letter:

Earlier this week, Abbott's first assistant, Barry McBee, said in a letter that lawmakers never intended to restrict taxation on businesses, only on individuals.

The letter stressed that he could not give "blanket assurances," but that he believed that a tax on a partnership - rather than a partner's share of that partnership income - would not require a public referendum.

Doesn't sound quite so unequivocal to me. The Morning News has more details, including the action that Strayhorn could take if she's not satisfied.

"I am waving the red flag," she said. "I believe Governor Perry's margins tax is an income tax."

The comptroller, an independent candidate for governor against Mr. Perry, denied playing politics, though the governor's camp said she was.

"I do not want to put the integrity of our state's finances at risk," she said.

Mrs. Strayhorn's statement carries no legal weight, and the question would ultimately have to be decided by the courts. She could, however, decline to declare that the bills keep the state budget in balance, and that would invalidate the tax plan.

[...]

On Monday, a top assistant to Attorney General Greg Abbott, Barry McBee, said in an advisory letter to Deirdre Delisi, Mr. Perry's chief of staff, that he doesn't think the governor's business tax requires such a referendum. He said it treats partnerships as separate from the individuals involved in them and taxes gross receipts, not the net income mentioned in the Bullock amendment.

Mrs. Strayhorn dismissed the letter as "staffer to staffer communications." She wrote Mr. Abbott requesting a formal legal opinion.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general said: "The comptroller's position fails to provide any new, meaningful legal analysis."

Mrs. Strayhorn declined to say whether she would refuse to certify the tax bills if Mr. Abbott had not supplied a formal opinion by the time bills cross her desk. The comptroller's certification is required before the bills can take effect.

"I am going to do what we believe I am required to do," she said.

I think we can safely say that a non-certification by Strayhorn would count as another all-hell-breaks-loose scenario. Bear in mind, Strayhorn has done this sort of thing before, though she reversed course pretty quickly in that case. I don't doubt for a minute that she might take this step, and neither should you. What happens after that is anybody's guess.

Oh, and for those of you who enjoy a little recreational conspiracy theorizing, chew on this.

First Assistant Attorney General Barry McBee, who wrote the letter largely embracing the governor's tax plan, is Perry's former chief of staff.

Knock me over with a feather, I tell you. Seriously, can it hurt for AG Abbott to sign a letter himself? We all know that the final say is with the courts, after all. Instead of having his spokesperson dodge the question, Abbott could take all the wind out of Strayhorn's sails by speaking up officially. I don't see why that should be an issue.

On a side note, the Express News points out that what we've got so far is not quite what we were promised.

The business tax plan working its way through the Legislature is billed as mild but broad-based, but it contains special breaks for a few lucky businesses - favors that will cost the state more than $1.5 billion a year in revenue.

Most of the exemptions and deductions originated with the blue-ribbon commission that created the plan, but lawmakers have added their own.

The loopholes resemble "a big piece of Swiss cheese," said one Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, which approved the plan Thursday.

In a bill due to hit the House floor Monday, retailers and restaurants would be taxed at one-half a percent of gross annual receipts, not the 1 percent that would hit other businesses.

Doctors convinced lawmakers to grant them a tax deduction for serving Medicaid and Medicare patients, part of their so-called "charity work" though they receive government reimbursement for such cases.

Oil and gas companies would be able to deduct the cost of certain expenses, like drilling.

Small businesses whose gross receipts are less than $300,000 a year would be exempt from the tax. So would "passive investment" firms, which invest in other businesses without managing them - a break that would save them, and cost the state, $800 million a year, according to Texas comptroller's office estimates.

"It's a little bothersome to me because this was originally sold as a broad-based business tax where everyone would pay just a little," said Rep. John Smithee of Amarillo. "Once you start letting somebody out or cutting their tax, everybody wants the same thing. You go from every man paying just a little to every man out for himself."

Gosh. Where have I heard those concerns before? Link via the Chris Bell blog, who ties the loopholes back to his call for ethics reform to be added to the special session agenda.

Finally, Vince examines the debate-restricting provisions more closely, and tallies up the Yea and Nay votes for each. That Statesman story I linked above answers your questions about Rep. Rose, by the way.

Rose said passing the tax bills quickly will allow the Legislature to turn to pay raises and insurance stipends for teachers, among other measures.

"We're here to lower property taxes," Rose said. "The quicker we do that, the sooner we can work on education reforms."

Nice to know one person still has faith. We'll know soon enough if it's misguided or not.

It's not just H-GAC

I was going to make this an add-on to my earlier post on the Perry executive order for naming crisis managers for catastrophe situations, but for future reference I figured making a separate entry would be better: Turns out it's not just H-GAC that failed to comply with Governor Perry's deadline or had problems with his edict.

Of the five regional "councils of government" along the Gulf of Mexico, only two met Perry's deadline in naming a single commander to coordinate disaster response efforts.

Other regional councils, including the San Antonio-based Alamo Area Council of Governments and the South Texas State Planning Region in Laredo, also missed Thursday's deadline.

The councils were unable to agree on having just one person take charge during a disaster, including who would direct mass evacuations during hurricanes.

Mayors and county judges across Texas expressed concern that Perry's plan wasn't feasible for every region of the state, saying some areas had more municipalities than others and some local leaders were reluctant to yield control to a single person.

[...]

"We've been going over this for a month and it hasn't worked out yet," said John Buckner, executive director of the Coastal Bend Council of Governments.

Buckner said a meeting with all of the mayors and county judges in the Coastal Bend area has been scheduled for next week to tackle the issue again.

"We're going to sit down and come to terms with reality," he said. "I can see (Perry's) point, though. When you have chaos reigning, you don't want a bunch of guys running around."

Meanwhile, the Alamo Area Council of Governments also plans to meet April 28 to determine how to respond to Perry's order.

Al J. Notzon III said he has alerted the governor's office that the region wouldn't meet Thursday's deadline.

"As long as we are working toward it, they said they would not enforce the actual date on that," Notzon said.

"The main thing is that the system has to work," said Bandera County Judge Richard Evans, the council's chairman of the board. "That is what everybody wants. We have everything under control. But this is government, it takes a little time."

I'll be interested to see what they come up with. It would not shock me at all if other councils arrive at a similar decision as the Houston-Galveston Area Council did.

A new twist in the DeLay resignation saga

The Friday Chron story on the latest entrants and non-entrants into the CD22 mix includes this update on how the selection process is going.

Fort Bend County GOP Chairman Eric Thode wants to poll Republican voters to see if there's a consensus on who should carry the GOP standard, since the nominee won't be decided by popular vote.

[...]

Thode said he plans to send out a sample ballot next week to anyone in Fort Bend County who has voted in the last three Republican primaries. It will contain the names of the most frequently mentioned contenders for the nomination, and request anonymous responses that Thode hopes will gauge which prospective candidate has the most support.

"Anything we can do to open it up to more participation, to get a better feel for what the actual Republican electorate would like to see, is hugely beneficial," he said.

Harris County Republican Party Chair Jerry Woodfill said he thinks precinct chairs are capable of picking a nominee without the help of a survey.

"These folks are so involved. They clearly have the pulse of their precincts," Woodfill said. "If anyone is in touch with the electorate, it's the precinct chairs, because they are in touch with the party. They are going to choose the individual who shares their values on the issues. In this case, it will be the most conservative individual."

Chris Elam has the email describing the survey, the timing of which he calls "more than a bit strange" (I'll get to why in a moment), and a suggestion for how this should be done, if at all. Note the comment threads, by the way. I believe we can count this as evidence of my hypothesized Republican unity problem.

What makes all of this weirder, and serves as the reason why Elam questioned the timing of this mailing, is that not only has DeLay not actually resigned, or announced a date for his resignation, but that he may not resign at all.

Noting there are "many moving parts" to the replacement procedure, outgoing county GOP Chairman Eric Thode emphasized that no portion of the procedure has been put in place yet. "There is neither a resignation nor a withdrawal from the ballot."

[...]

"Just announcing your intention to do these things doesn't necessarily mean that you will," Thode said.

Also, Thode said the theory has been put forth that, if DeLay becomes ineligible to run on the ballot because he moves to Virginia, he might not have to resign from Congress. Instead, DeLay could theoretically serve out the remainder of his term, ending the need for a special election.

Got that? We should all know better by now than to think that DeLay ever means what he says. And note that it's the same Eric Thode pointing out that nothing official has gotten underway yet because of DeLay's continued occupation of the seat.

And just to throw one more curveball at you, DeLay himself has a suggestion for how to handle the replacemant process: A special election. No, really.

Machinations aside, I'm more than happy to see DeLay stay in Congress through the end of the term. As long as he's there, he'll continue to serve as the best symbol of what's wrong with that institution and why it needs a change. No rush, Tom! Take your time!

Political theaterwise, this has been pretty entertaining, hasn't it? And who knows how many more acts to the story there may be. Links and further commentary via Greg in TX22 and the Muse of Sugar Land.

Disaster commander to be picked

We have a resolution for the disagreement between Governor Perry and the Houston-Galveston Area Council over his demand for a single commander for catastrophe situations (see here and here for background): A committee chair will be chosen to serve as the single commander.

After mayors and county judges within the local, 13-county region chose a 15-member committee this week to manage disasters, instead of a picking a single commander, Perry said the plan was "fraught with danger."

But since then, Harris County Judge Robert Eckels and others have met with Perry to assure him that local officials will select an individual for the state to work with during hurricanes.

[...]

According to Perry's executive order issued last month, all 150 mayors and county judges in the greater Houston region were to vote upon a single commander for all catastrophes.

This proved an especially difficult process because of lingering divides in the wake of the Hurricane Rita evacuation, in which some coastal county officials were upset that residents were bogged down in Harris County traffic.

[...]

Eckels said the new coordinating committee will likely meet for the first time next week. At that time, Eckels said, he expects it will choose a chair or commander for hurricane evacuations.

For now, this promise of a single commander appears to have mollified Perry.

"Having a single person leading an evacuation was a key recommendation of the task force, and the region is also working toward naming a single incident commander specifically for hurricane evacuations," said Rachael Novier, a spokeswoman for Perry.

"The governor said last week he believes that is a wise decision. It makes sense when the region must act quickly and lives are on the line."

Seems like the logical answer. I'm still not sure that this is a workable solution, given that the intent is to handle all kinds of disasters and potential evacuation scenarios, not just hurricanes. That's a pretty broad mandate, and it's not clear to me that it should be a job for just one person, whether or not there's a committee behind that person. That said, we all know that the focus of this thing is hurricanes, and there's no reason why it can't be effective for that. This interview with Dennis Storemski, Houston's representative on the Unified Area Coordinating Committee, gives an idea of what it's all about.

This is really nothing more than a coordinating entity. This group is not intended to tell individual mayors or county judges how to handle their responses during a crisis. Its purpose is to coordinate resources. If there are multiple demands on resources, you get a group of people together who will try to prioritize who needs them most.

We'll see how it works. Meanwhile, in a sign that everyone has hurricanes on their minds about now, there's this. Make of it what you will.

The latest Resmussen result

Since I promised something to say on the latest Rasmussen poll of the Texas Governor's race, let me go ahead and say a few words. First, the numbers:

Rick Perry (R)           40%

Chris Bell (D)           17%

Carole Keeton Strayhorn  19%

Kinky Friedman           15%

First, this really ought to be the final nail in the only-Strayhorn-can-win coffin. It was the pre-primary Rasmussen poll from February, where Strayhorn had 31% to Perry's 40, that gave any credence to that notion - the two other polls since her independent-candidacy announcement both had Bell ahead of her. Now that she's faded back to the pack in the one poll that was favorable to her, what else is there to support this idea? If you're a Democrat and you've been supporting Strayhorn because you think she can beat Perry, you've been duped. Come back home, all is forgiven.

Having said that, it would be nice to see Bell move a little closer to Perry. He is up four from the ridiculous result that Rasmussen had for February, but he's got a long way to go. I still have reservations about Rasmussen's sampling models, and I still think everyone is overestimating Kinky Friedman, but until Bell can get within about ten points of Perry or so, the best that can be said right now is that Rick Perry is weak, but he's not yet vulnerable.

Finally, I'd really like to see some other pollsters take a shot at this, if for no better reason than to see if my griping about Rasmussen is fact-based or not. C'mon, people, this is a unique election here. Don't you want to know what's going on? Fire up those autodialers and start asking already.

Business tax passess committee, teacher pay raise next?

Yesterday, more of the TTRC tax plan passed through Ways and Means, and more noise was made on behalf of actually doing something about school finance this session.

"There's a lot of support for a teacher pay raise, both Republicans and Democrats. The leadership wants a pay raise," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie.

The House Ways and Means Committee approved a new business tax pushed by Gov. Rick Perry to replace the often-avoided corporate franchise tax and to help pay for a property tax cut. The committee also decided to phase in an increase in the cigarette tax, bumping it up 55 cents per pack later this year and 25 cents in each of the following two years until the tax reaches $1.46 per pack.

[...]

The committee also approved a change in sales-tax reporting for people who buy used cars. Under that change, instead of paying a tax on the sale price, someone who buys a used car would have to pay sales taxes based on at least 80 percent of the "blue book" value of the car.

[...]

The existence of a surplus has fueled calls from some lawmakers and educators to increase school spending, which Perry's tax swap does not do. More than a dozen education groups on Thursday called on the Legislature to use the special session to improve schools.

"If not now, when?" asked Mike Motheral, legislative chairman of the Texas Association of School Administrators. "We are here before you today gravely concerned about the future of the children of Texas."

Texas State Teachers Association President Donna New Haschke said a pay raise of less than $3,000 per year would not be "respectable."

Senate Bill 1, a $1.5 billion education reform package sponsored by Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, would provide a $2,000 across-the-board pay raise for teachers. Educators could set aside a portion of the raise for health insurance.

The bill also would provide incentive pay for teachers and money for dropout prevention programs.

"This is an opportunity for us . . . to truly put ourselves in a position to accomplish good things for our students," Shapiro told the committee.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst trumpeted Shapiro's bill Thursday, saying that as legislators focus on taxes, "we cannot forget our children."

Pitts' legislation in the House would provide a $2,000 pay raise for Texas teachers this fall and an additional raise the following year.

House Democrats also called Thursday for the Legislature to increase teacher salaries to the national average.

That call and many other items that I mentioned yesterday are discussed in greater detail here.

On Thursday, Democrats filed legislation to spend billions on public education, including across-the-board teacher pay raises, reducing class sizes, updating textbooks and providing health insurance to all school personnel. They're readying for a battle to ensure their proposals are debated and voted on. And they are touting property tax cuts they say would treat every homeowner - rich or poor - the same.

[...]

"We can't obstruct anything," Dunnam said of the Democratic minority. "If the Democrats prevail on an issue, we are providing a better policy for the constituents."

Their legislation, House Bill 83 by Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, provided no specific numbers on how much should be spent on schools. But at a news conference Thursday, several House Democrats complained that the $3 billion cut from public education in 2003 has now grown to $4.35 billion. They are suggesting using some of the $8.2 billion surplus to restore those cuts.

Hochberg said the details would be filled in once the size of the Perry tax plan is established.

The argument here is simple, and one that I think will have appeal if it can get heard: In 2003, we cut billions of dollars from education funding because we had a large budget deficit. In 2006, we have a large budget surplus. We should use some of that surplus to restore the cuts we were forced to make in 2003. It's only fair, and it's the right thing to do.

Instead of just cutting the school tax rates, as the Perry plan does, Hochberg's bill would triple the homestead exemption (the amount of a home's value exempt from being taxed) from $15,000 to $45,000. He said that would give every homeowner a $450 tax break in any school district taxing at the state's current maximum rate, though the savings would be less once tax rates go down.

The Democrats said Thursday that they believe the House would approve Hochberg's measure if Craddick gives them a vote. They noted that a similar bill by Hochberg last year received 80 votes.

Voting to spend money on public education might be good politics for the dozen or so House members locked in competitive races this November.

"There is no statewide tax revolt," said Democratic consultant Jeff Crosby. "Just cutting taxes ain't going to cut it. If you are in a competitive district, you better be for bringing more money to your local schools whether you are a Democrat or Republican." There's another dilemma for voting for Perry's tax plan: It proposes to cut property taxes, but it also raises taxes on businesses and professionals, some for the first time.

Even with business groups, doctors and the trial lawyers association endorsing Perry's plan, Dunnam noted, "Nobody ever got beat voting against a tax bill."

The horse-trading, back-scratching, and double-crossing all begins in full on Monday. Hopefully by then the hosts and hostesses of last night's special session kickoff party (which I sadly had to miss) will have recovered from their hangovers and will do the liveblogging thing so the rest of us can watch the train wreck legislative excitement in real time.

UPDATE: Not seeing any news coverage yet, but the following press release from the Texas Democratic Party says to me that the Republicans succeeded in stifling any actual debate on these bills:

(Austin, TX)--Today, House Speaker Tom Craddick and House Republicans passed sham “procedural” rules designed to prevent House Members from using any of the state’s surplus or new Perry tax revenue to improve our children’s schools. The rule essentially denies lawmakers the opportunity to offer amendments, or proposals of any type, that would use these funds for Texas schools.

“Tom Craddick and his Republican foot soldiers are working against Texas children,” said Texas Democratic Party Communications Director Amber Moon. “By voting for the rule that slams the school doors shut and denies even the discussion of much-needed school funding, Republicans have shown they care more about election year politics than providing our children textbooks.”

“The people of Texas have demanded that the legislature invest in our schools in addition to addressing property taxes, but Republicans are holding our kids hostage for a tax bill that doesn’t put one dime into their future,” said Moon. “Students are reading from out-of-date textbooks in over-crowded classrooms. Yet Republicans are refusing to even discuss the pressing needs of our neighborhood schools.”

Democrats in the House have developed the “Hochberg Plan,” which will improve public education and deliver much-needed funding to Texas schools in addition to providing meaningful property tax relief for homeowners. The Democratic plan would reduce class sizes, fund new facilities and technology, raise teacher pay and restore health insurance benefits for all educational employees. However, Speaker Craddick has refused to even allow a vote on the common-sense Democratic plan even though the House passed a similar plan with bipartisan plan last August.

“Democrats in the House are working hard to respond to the demands of all Texans and fix our schools. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has turned a deaf ear to the message sent by voters in this year’s primary elections--that they are ready for a change from the failed Republican leaders who have turned their backs on the kids, teachers and parents in our state,” Moon concluded.

Typical. Depressing, but typical. Let's hope there's a hell of a fight over all this on Monday. Remember those attack ads I mentioned yesterday, where members were held accountable for procedural votes? Eddie has them all posted, along with the memo. Check it out.

UPDATE: Rep. Pena says that the Republicans' actions so far have stalled the TTRC plan's momentum. Stay tuned.

On the signature trail

On the one hand: Friedman, Strayhorn think past 45,540

The gubernatorial campaigns of independent candidates Kinky Friedman and Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn said Monday they are on track to getting the 45,540 signatures they need to get onto the general election ballot.

But neither campaign was willing to say how many signatures have been gathered so far.

Strayhorn campaign manager Brad McClellan said the campaign is trying to gather far more signatures than needed to make sure there are enough valid signatures. He said he didn't want to release the number because that might make supporters believe they can slack off on the petition drive.

"We want to keep getting them. We don't want to take the wind out of the sails," McClellan said. "We're in very good shape. But we're going to keep getting them."

[...]

Friedman campaign manager Dean Barkley said the staff is not telling him how many signatures have been gathered for fear he will tell people.

"All I know is the people in charge of the petition drive all have smiles on their faces," Barkley said.

Well, maybe not so much in El Paso.

"It's proven to be more difficult than I thought it was going to be," said Staci Engman, a substitute teacher leading signature gathering in El Paso for independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman.

About halfway to the petition deadline, campaign novices heading ballot petition efforts in El Paso for Friedman and fellow independent gubernatorial candidate and Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn say the going has been slow with little support from campaign leaders in Austin. Both campaigns said they plan to make it out to El Paso, but probably not until the end of the signature-gathering period.

"We're as frustrated as (Engman) is because we can't get to every pocket of Texas that we'd like to reach," said Friedman spokeswoman Laura Stromberg.

[...]

"People forget West of the Pecos people live out here and vote here and even care," said Jay Ann Rucker, a retired teacher volunteering with the Strayhorn campaign. "They really don't pay attention to us."

Rucker said she's been able to gather about 60 signatures so far. The Strayhorn campaign's goal for signatures from El Paso: 10,000.

Finding places with large audiences from which to gather signatures has been one of the toughest hurdles, Engman and Rucker agreed.

Rucker said she's mostly concentrating on teacher group meetings, reaching out to educators who might be attracted to the public education agenda of Strayhorn, a former teacher and school board member.

That strategy has met with limited success, though, because many teachers voted in local contested primary races and can't sign a petition.

Sorry, but after reading all those stories about crappy primary turnout and What It All Means yada yada yada, I have to say this: Bwah hah hah!

Ahem. Sorry about that.

Engman said she and the 30 or so volunteers helping her are getting close to the Friedman campaign's signature goal from El Paso. Already, Engman said, they have gathered about one-quarter of the 2,000 signatures they are shooting for.

"People are excited to have an outsider, but a very credible outsider, who wants to come in and help improve things and do it with integrity," she said.

A visit from the comedian, author and singer would make her job a lot easier, Engman said. Many El Pasoans she has approached for signatures know Friedman's name, but they don't know his platform, why he wants to be governor or what he has planned for the state, she said.

In that regard, madam, they are exactly like everybody else in Texas.

On the other hand, if Friedman does visit, may I suggest that his campaign screen this movie for the locals? Perhaps a singalong of the theme song to go with it, too.

There's more, but you get the idea. Thanks to Victoria Kos for the link.

The myth of the easy commute

Christof takes on one of my pet peeves: the idea that there's some outlying suburban development that has a genuinely easy commute into Houston's downtown and will continue to have one in the future. Just go read it, and think of it when you see one of those annoying billboards advertising such a place.

Analysis of Supplemental Appropriations Bills

If a title like that doesn't get your heart beating...well, okay, I'd understand. The fine folks at the CPPP have been very busy pumping out the position papers and analyses lately. This one, on Senate Bills 13 and 16, is a little dense, but this is what they're doing in Austin these days, so if you want to know what's going on, start reading. The executive summary:

Senate Bills 13 and 16 are scheduled for a public hearing by the Senate Finance Committee on Monday, April 24, at 9:30 a.m. Even though the governor's call for the third special session is still limited to "school district property tax relief; modifying the franchise tax, motor vehicle sales and use tax, and tobacco product taxes, and an appropriation to the Texas Education Agency," SB 13, 16, and other bills filed by legislators make it clear that other important matters will have to be resolved before the end of the 2006-07 budget cycle.

The supplemental funding and other items in SB 13 and 16 as introduced call for $2.5 billion (a 4% increase) in General Revenue to cover already-purchased school textbooks, fund social services restorations and shortfalls, undo budget-balancing maneuvers used in 2003 and 2005, and address Hurricane Katrina and Rita costs. While the cost of supplemental items may seem large, adding them to the state budget would still have Texas spending less General Revenue per resident than it did in 2002, before devastating budget cuts were made. This Policy Page provides more information about the supplemental needs, all of which should be given a higher priority than the unaffordably large, unsustainable property tax reductions that some state officials are proposing in the special session.

There you have it. Happy reading!

Fixing CHIP

Let me join Greg in saying that this Chron editorial hits the nail on the head.

WITH almost one-fourth of Texans lacking health insurance, it's hard to see how things could get much worse. But they are, at alarming speed: Rule changes and ill-managed privatization have removed coverage from thousands of children. Since Dec. 1, CHIP - insurance for the working poor - has lost 30,000 children from its rolls. State officials must stop the bleeding, now.

Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins Tuesday announced a $3 million campaign to help parents access CHIP, a federal and state program for the children of the working poor. They certainly need help. Since private outsourcing behemoth Accenture LLP took over CHIP screening this winter, social service agencies have been swamped with complaints from wrongly disenrolled families. Parents have called 10 and 15 times, been assured by Accenture that their children were insured - then gotten letters cutting those same children off, said Barbara Best of the Children's Defense Fund.

Also disturbing, Health and Human Services spokeswoman Gail Randall said they've heard little of these problems. Said Best, "I have been regularly sending these stories to HHSC so they can be solved. I haven't heard anything." Nonprofits in Fort Worth, Austin and other cities have been sending similar reports.

[...]

Even if Accenture had done its job correctly, children would still be falling from CHIP in droves, with no alternative awaiting them. That's because the Texas Legislature wanted it that way. To reduce CHIP's budget, lawmakers voted for asset tests and more paperwork as a way of lowering the number of children eligible to be insured.

[...]

The time has come for triage. The Health and Human Services Commission should not allow one more disenrollment until CHIP functions again. After four and a half disastrous months, HHSC must also reconsider its contract with Accenture. An outside investigation of the firm's poor performance must be the first step.

Finally, the governor and Legislature should admit that their choices have put an unacceptable number of Texas children in harm's way - and pointlessly forced taxpayers to pay those children's ER bills. If necessary, and it might not be, legislators should pull money from Texas' budget surplus to cover the same number of children CHIP insured before. Lawmakers must admit that the red tape they created was counterproductive and restore the simpler, more inclusive CHIP guidelines of 2003. Insurance is a good investment for anyone. For low-income kids, the cheap insurance CHIP offers should be non-negotiable.

The only quibble I have is with the "If necessary" in the last paragraph. I think it pretty clearly is necessary, and it's a moral failure to talk about property tax cuts when something like two percent of the current budget surplus would restore CHIP funding to pre-2003 levels and bring home the federal matching funds we've been needlessly turning away as well. I really don't see anything controversial about this.

For those who may be eligible to enroll in CHIP, the CPPP has a useful guideline for wading through the paperwork. Check it out.

Helping small businesses during rail construction

Tory notes a simple solution for small business owners afraid of losing revenue during the construction of the Universities light rail line, courtesy of Tempe, Arizona. The city there has put aside funds to make low-interest loans available to affected businesses. Seems like a pretty reasonable option to me. Check it out.

Restricting debate on HB1

Many things are happening in the Lege. Let's start with this:

A procedural rule will be introduced tomorrow in the House as the first frontal assault on teachers, schools, and school districts. The rule will dictate the procedure of the house and will regulate amendments, costs, and most importantly the required focus of the legislation.

The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that the current property tax is an unconstitutional statewide property tax. Now, Austin is in a frenzy trying to fix the problem and “get out of dodge.”

If legislators vote for the proposed rule tomorrow, they will be voting for restricting House Bill 1 (The Highland Park Windfall Proposal) to only taxation issues and will not address school funding.

This will mandate that no amendment can be offered to increase teacher pay, no new textbooks, no funding for school facilities, no teacher health insurance, and no extra funding for transportation during these time of extraordinary gas prices.

The Quorum Report gives some background on this.

Once upon a time, the only thing the Calendars Committee did was set a calendar for the order of bills to be taken up by the House.

That changed a few years ago after Republicans gained the majority in the House and tried to pass a tax bill. Surprising some of the members, the House adopted a rule that prohibited any amendment that changed the value of the tax bill. No amendment could add or subtract from the dollar value of the tax bill. Every amendment had to be zero sum.

Tomorrow, the House is set to take up a similar rule to lock down the debate on House Bills 1-5. It is being cast as a purely procedural vote.

One of the key issues in the Madla-Uresti battle was the incumbent Senator's procedural vote to allow the bill to the floor that ended up transforming the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

On the other side, parents and teachers had considerable success in the Republican primary, characterizing candidates as either pro or anti public education.

In the Capitol halls today, some in the education community are arguing that passage of a Calendar Rule tomorrow could ultimately end any shot at a teacher pay raise or any of the other issues on the education community agenda for the special session.

As one source said, "There is only bill that has to pass. If we can't get anything in there that works for us, we won't be able to later on. No matter what they promise, it will be difficult to get a trailing bill to the floor before the clock runs out."

They added, "Procedural votes have shown up in a few campaigns. That's a fact."

In a just released statement, House Democratic Caucus Chair Jim Dunnam bemoaned Speaker Craddick's refusal to recognize him to consider some House procedural reforms. He said, "Throughout these special sessions, we’ve seen devastating rules that have prevented every single member from offering any amendments that spend one dime on public education. Tomorrow we expect to see another rule proposed designed to stop any legislation to help improve schools. In other words, if the proposed rule passes, there will be no additional money dedicated to our schools, our kids, or our teachers. One of the provisions in the open government proposal - that Speaker Craddick killed today - would require a 2/3 majority of the House to pass such devastating and harmful calendar rules that restrict debate and handcuff members."

I've gotten an email showing the type of attack mailers, from both parties' primaries, that focused on these kinds of procedural votes - here's one example from a Dem perspective. Legislators will have a lot to think about when this comes up.

Here is the full statement by Reps. Jim Dunnam, Garnet Coleman, and Scott Hochberg regarding the plan to restrict amendments on HBs 1 through 5. An excerpt:

Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston), Chair of the Legislative Study Group, observed that three years ago the same leadership we have today cut over $3 billion in education funding, including effective dropout prevention programs, the health insurance stipend for teacher and school employees, and initiatives designed to help at-risk students improve basic math and reading skills.

"The $3 billion cut in 2003 has grown to $4.35 billion in unmet education needs," Coleman explained. "With an $8 billion 'surplus' and a $5 billion Perry Tax proposal on the table, a plan that fails to restore funding cuts and takes our children's schools out of school finance is a sham that borders on criminal neglect."

Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston), noted that last year the House was told repeatedly that $3 billion was set aside for education.

"The $3 billion that was promised for education has shrunk to zero, despite the fact that the Texas Supreme Court warned us that state funding for public education was 'drifting toward constitutional inadequacy'," Hochberg said. "Last year, we secured a bipartisan majority for a plan that offered a vision for educational excellence and lower property taxes, but this year, the leadership is pushing a plan and a process that would send us spiraling toward inadequacy and neglect."

Rep. Hochberg outlined a solution that gives equal emphasis to investing in our children's schools and providing meaningful tax relief for all Texans. The equal investment plan includes raising teacher pay across the board, restoring health insurance benefits for both teachers and educational support personnel that were cut in 2003, providing funds necessary for up-to-date textbooks and reducing class sizes with new facility funding for classrooms.

The Democrats are pushing the Hochberg Amendment, which you may recall was the one school finance reform bill that actually passed in the House last year. A summary of the plan is here.

Meanwhile, the CPPP is attacking the "Get Out Of Dodge" plan by saying it's really a "radical change in the law".

HB 1 compresses the property tax rate from $1.50 to $1.33. It continues the current law guaranteed yield at $27.14, meaning that for every penny of property tax, the state guarantees a local school district $27.14 per student.

HB 1 then takes the radical step of eliminating recapture above $1.33, dramatically increasing the revenue gap between rich and poor school districts. For example, Highland Park Independent School District could raise $127 more per student merely by going to a tax rate of $1.34, and $2,163 per student by going to a tax rate of $1.50.

In contrast, 820 school districts could only raise $27.14 more per student at $1.34, and only $461 more per student by going to $1.50. On average, the wealthiest 10% of the districts could raise $841 more per student at $1.50.

The letter goes on to say that limiting recapture in this fashion is in violation of the West Orange-Cove decision.

Like I said, much is happening. Tomorrow is going to be a fun day.

Other bloggers commenting on this:

Nate
Eye on Williamson
Anna
In the Pink
The Agonist

Eckels reportedly not running in CD22

Fort Bend Now is first on the scene with the news that Harris County Judge Robert Eckels will not be a candidate for CD22.

"It looks like I can do a whole lot more with the issues that are important to me…as a county judge" instead of a congressman, Eckels said.

One of those issues of importance is his family. "I think it's important to live in the same zip code as my daughter," he said.

Eckels said his polling showed he would receive "more than 50%" of the vote in a general election against Lampson, with Lampson receiving 35%.

That leads him to believe "it's our race to win," and other strong Republican candidates can beat Lampson as well. "If our folks come out" to vote, "we win," he added.

Boy, would I love to get my hands on that poll. Frankly, given that this is supposedly a 62-63% GOP district, just saying he'd get "more than 50%" isn't that strong a statement. His comment about "if our folks come out" is interesting as well. Is that merely an item of faith, or is it a concern that maybe "our folks" won't necessarily come out in November?

Another way to look at it:

"The truth is, like Tom DeLay, Judge Eckels realized this would be a very difficult race," said Lampson campaign manager Mike Malaise. "You're going to see more and more of these stories suggesting Nick Lampson will be extremely difficult to beat in November."

Malaise also said Lampson will have "more than $3 million raised by the time another candidate enters the race along with a strong independent record of voting to cut the deficit and debt, repeal the death tax, secure our borders, and improve education."

The money is a big factor. I don't doubt the ability of whoever the Chosen One will be to raise a lot of dough, but it doesn't happen overnight, and it's not like there aren't other races of interest for Republicans. Still, this will be a marquee event, so it's just a question of how quickly the money machine can get up and running. Maybe DeLay can squirrel a few bucks away from his defense attorneys to help seed things.

So who's left?

With Eckels out of the picture, the chances for already-announced candidates for DeLay's seat, such as state Rep. Charlie Howard, Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace and Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs grow stronger.

Eckels also mentioned state Sen. Mike Jackson of Galveston, state Rep. Robert Talton of Pasadena and Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt as potential candidates.

He said he believes Sekula-Gibbs "probably isn’t as well-known" across the district as some other candidates, adding that she and Wallace seem to have concentrated on building their support through their election to city office, and through community efforts.

Talton and Howard, he said, "probably have a stronger organization within the party." But Eckels said the candidate with the best recognition, other than himself, is Bettencourt.

Chris Elam says that Jackson and Shelly Sekula Somethingorother are in, and that there's no clear frontrunner at this time. No rush, y'all. Take all the time you need to make up your minds.

From my perspective, there's plusses and minuses to each potential opponent. I'd dearly love to see a special election to replace Somethingorother on Houston City Council, but she has the feel of a longshot, at best, to me. I also wouldn't mind seeing Janette Sexton have a shot at an open seat (I'm presuming here that Governor Perry would be as reluctant to call a special in HD144 before November as he has been in CD22 and SD19). Bettencourt would be interesting. He'd certainly appeal to the partisans, maybe not so much the independents. I'm guessing he's got some ties to the DeLay machine that would be worth exploring, too. He'd put up a tough fight, that's for sure. For what it's worth, I've always gotten the impression that he wanted to run statewide. If I'm wrong about that, we'll know soon enough.

Link via the Muse of Sugar Land, who reminds us that this is all still academic until DeLay actually moves to Virginia.

UPDATE: According to the Chron, Bettencourt is out.

Eckels said he polled in the district and found that he and Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt were the favorites. Bettencourt also has decided against making a run, saying he does not want to be an "absent father."

[...]

Besides Sekula-Gibbs, prospective candidates for the GOP nomination include Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace; Lawyer Tom Campbell, who came in second to DeLay in the four-way March Republican primary; former state District Judge John Devine; and state Rep. Robert Talton.

So if Eckels and Bettencourt were the top candidates, according to Eckels' Secret Poll, then everyone else is an also-ran. Looking at that list, I'd say it fits.

Oh, and are you ready for this? Wonder how long she's had that ready to go. Thanks to Lair for the catch.

The "Get Out Of Dodge" plan

House Bill 1, known not-so-affectionately as the "Get Out Of Dodge" plan, has passed out of committee.

House Bill 1 by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, would use $2.4 billion of the state's $8.2 billion surplus for a 12 percent property tax cut. Perry is proposing a one-third cut paid for with a new business tax, higher cigarette taxes and $1 billion of the surplus.

The vote was 8-1 with committee Vice Chairman Mike Villarreal voting no. He criticized a section of the bill that allows districts to raise taxes for local enrichment, saying it would benefit a few property wealthy districts that could raise three times the amount of money for each penny of tax than could less wealthy districts.

[...]

Chisum said Perry's business tax still is important and he plans to vote for it when it comes to the floor. House Speaker Tom Craddick said he expects all the tax bills to be debated by the full House early next week.

"This is kind of the safety valve," Chisum said. "If we can pass this and get it parked here, then there's no way the session can fail to meet the Supreme Court requirements."

But a witness opposed to Chisum's bill warned the committee that it should not pass the bare-minimum plan first.

"If you pass a get outta Dodge bill, who's left in Dodge to pass the other bills?" asked Scott McCown, director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a group that advocates for low-income Texans.

Kathy Walt, Perry's press secretary, said the governor thinks that just using the surplus to lower taxes will leave the state in a hole for its future budget needs.

"If they don't fix the tax structure there's not going to be money for (teacher) pay raises, there's not going to be money to put additional money into education," she said,

Chisum's bill would lower school operating taxes by about 17 cents per $100 valuation. Local school boards could raise them three cents this year and as much as 14 cents next year with voter approval.

It's still too early for me to have a feel for how likely it is that the TTRC plan will pass. Since it's really five separate bills, many things can go wrong. The temptation to use a safety net like this, especially with pressure coming from Astroturf advocacy groups, will grow as the session grinds on. One thing to keep in mind:

It's only the second day of the special session. With so many different groups coming out in support of the governor's plan does that mean it's a done deal?

"They are pretty much stuck with about 15 votes short," News 8 Austin Political Analyst Harvey Kronberg said.

Lawmakers found out Monday the state has an $8 billion surplus. One group of Republican House members say they'd rather use that money to lower property taxes instead of expanding the business franchise tax. Under the Perry-Sharp plan limited partnership businesses, like some law and doctor's firms, would have to pay the tax.

"You've got 15 to 20 Republicans who won't vote for a tax increase especially when there's a budget surplus," Kronberg said.

As Eye on Williamson notes, that means some Democratic support is going to be needed to pass the TTRC plan. Without some guarantees about the level of school funding that will ultimately result from all this, I sincerely hope the Democrats will hold out.

One last item:

On Tuesday Assistant Attorney General Ted Cruz told lawmakers the Perry-Sharp plan is constitutional and would pass the Supreme Court's litmus test.

As with the Abbott ruling, that's fine and good until it actually comes back before the Court. I'll wait to hear from the plaintiffs before I consider that a closed matter. For sure, though, the TTRC plan is more in line with the Supremes' opinion than the Get Out Of Dodge plan is. I still wouldn't bet on the plaintiffs letting that one slide. If they ask for an injunction, watch out.

Two quick hits on John Carter

Rep. John Carter got listed in the 2006 Pig Book by Citizens Against Government Waste for his inclusion of a $6.8 million earmark for a fitness center at Fort Hood, even though that base already has six other fitness centers. Mary Beth Harrell has a much better idea (PDF) for how to spend money on the soldiers at Fort Hood.

Meanwhile, Carter's been talking about immigration reform. Well, sort of. Eye on Williamson tries to make sense of it. Check it out.

Rice AD Bobby May to retire

Rice Athletic Director Bobby May, who's been with the school in one form or another since he was a student in the early 1960's, is going to retire.

May spent five years preparing for this moment, but needed additional time to gather his thoughts at Tuesday's announcement. He sighed and retreated from the podium before beginning his remarks.

"That's not a very good start, I'm afraid," May said, fighting back tears. "This is a big day for me, an important day, one that when I started thinking about doing this and actually making this appearance, I began to get a little nervous about what's actually happening. Just maintaining your composure is not easy for me, but I'm going to forge forward."

May, 62, will remain AD through June before leaving president David Leebron and the board of trustees the task of finding a successor.

[...]

The athletic department was in dire straits when May took over in 1989. May, who graduated cum laude from Rice in 1965 and returned as an assistant track coach and assistant business manager two years later, longed for the opportunity to steer the Owls through those moribund times. By 1984, he had ascended to associate athletic director and into position for a promotion.

"I desperately wanted the AD job in 1989 because things were really bleak," May said. "There were elements of despair and resignation — a feeling that Rice simply could not compete at the Division I level in the Southwest Conference. There was ample evidence of that: 24 straight losing seasons in football; no championships in any sport since 1971. But I knew we could win, and wanted the opportunity to show everyone I was right."

May's first hire, Fred Goldsmith, led the football program to a 6-5 record in 1992. In 1994, Ken Hatfield guided the football team to a share of the SWC title, the first of four conference titles the Owls won that year. May oversaw 32 conference championships during his watch, and eased Rice through uneasy transitions into the Western Athletic Conference following the dismantling of the SWC and Conference USA last summer.

May took Rice to unprecedented athletic heights while also improving the performance of its student-athletes. In 2002, Rice received the NCAA Academic Achievement Award for maintaining the top student-athlete graduation rate in the nation. That same school year, Rice claimed its first team national championship when its baseball program won the 2003 title.

There's a lot of well-earned kudos and goodwill for May in the Rice fan forum, along with some early support for Assistant AD Steve Moniaci as his replacement. Some people would like to see new blood instead - there's no strong consensus yet. There is, however, a lot of optimism, as the hiring of new football coach Todd Graham and the recent announcement of major improvements to Rice Stadium, which is the culmination of an aggressive fundraising drive. I'll say this - I agree with commenter Hambone10, who says "Rice isn't most places, and it takes a while to understand that." If whoever they find does understand that, he or she will do just fine. My best wishes for a long and healthy retirement to Bobby May, and my thanks to him for his stellar service to the Rice Owls.

Another Adickes statue downtown

Oh, how it always gives me joy to see David Adickes in the news.

You'd never mistake her for Sam Houston or Stephen F. Austin. Both of those Texas heroes - or at least their concrete likenesses, as rendered by Houston sculptor David Adickes - are more than three times her height. But the concrete lady on Main Street, rising a mere 20 feet from her four-foot pedestal, already is turning heads.

"It's gorgeous," passer-by Marie Rogers exclaimed Tuesday on spotting Adickes' newest artwork at Leeland and Main streets. "She looks so happy and contented."

"It's startling," opined another pedestrian, Ed Lowenberg. "This is such a barren part of town. It's a nice thing to walk by. It seems so friendly."

"It's so peaceful," said a third, Gene Moses. "She's so calm, so confident."

Adickes, 79, whose other works include the Houston statue in Huntsville, the Austin statue in Angleton and oversized replicas of presidential heads in Virginia and South Dakota, called the new downtown statue a monument to "elegant women."

The statue, modeled after Houston-born dancer and actress Julie Burrows, was purchased by Houston parking lot magnate David Loftus for his property at the southwest corner of Main at Leeland.

The statue, which has been on display at Adickes' Summer Street studio since its creation nine years ago, was installed on a small plot of lawn amid a sea of parking lots late last week.

On Tuesday, workers were laboring to complete its concrete base. The artwork will be dedicated Saturday at 4 p.m.

Cool. Here's a picture in the Chron, and here's another courtesy of Rob. I did not manage to get a picture of "Looking Forward" when we went giant Presidential head photographing, but that's okay. I need to schedule a drive-by on Main and Leeland so I can get a pic in the new habitat. This is one of the things I just love about Houston.

On the second tier

Swing State Project and Chuck Todd are talking about how strong the Democrats have been nationally in recruiting second-tier candidates for Congress, which is to say those candidates who will be in a position to ride any kind of national wave that favors the Dems into office. I've mentioned a couple of races here in Texas that I think qualify as second-tier, but after looking at the latest FEC filings, I think I've overlooked one. It's in the district I just mentioned, the one currently held by Rep. Pete Sessions. Here's a list of the top five Democratic challengers for Congress, sorted by fundraising:

Candidate name  Dist  Total raised   Cash on hand

=================================================

Nick Lampson      22    $2,299,555     $1,761,433

Will Pryor        32      $169,791       $107,443

Shane Sklar       14      $137,242        $56,885

John Courage      21      $113,791        $63,387

Mary Beth Harrell 31       $73,948        $18,914

Lampson, of course, is in a galaxy all his own. Harrell comes with an asterisk, as her fundraising total includes a $36,000 loan to the campaign. One candidate for whom I cannot find any information on is Rick Bolanos; I wouldn't expect him to have raised that much, but I'd still like to know what his total is.

Maybe it's just because I've not heard much of anything from his campaign so far, but I did not expect to see Will Pryor up there. MyDD classifies CD32 as "a very tough district for a Democrat." That's certainly true for any district not currently held by a Democrat in Texas, but according to the SOS redistricting page, its partisan index was 60.3 GOP/39.7 Dem in 2004, which not only ties it with CD21 as the least red of the GOP-drawn districts, it's also four full points bluer than it was in 2002. I'm certainly not going to claim that Pryor has a better chance of winning than Martin Frost did, but this district is far from hopeless, and given the overall trends in Dallas County may be seen as genuinely flippable in 2008 or 2010.

So make that three second-tier races here. Courage has been getting some national grassroots buzz and should some better fundraising numbers to report next quarter, as should Sklar, who has reportedly outraised incumbent Ron Paul since the March 7 primary. If he can keep that up and do better than Paul for this quarter, that would be huge.

(Side note: Take a look at the individual contributors to Sklar's campaign, and compare to Ron Paul's individual contributors. Every single one of Sklar's is from Texas, mostly from within CD14, while more than 70% of Paul's come from elsewhere, and even quite a few of the Texans are from outside CD14. Having contributors from outside one's district is nothing unusual, but the sheer number of them in Paul's case struck me as being pretty remarkable. Compare Paul to Lamar Smith, for example, and you'll see what I mean. Even Tom DeLay, whom I only spot-checked, had a healthy number of Houston and Sugar Land contributors in there.)

Anyway. Based on fundraising alone, those are the next three races to watch. There are plenty of other criteria, of course, and I'm not suggesting that this makes these three candidates "better" than any other, but if you want to guess which races are the most likely to get mainstream media coverage, that's where you start.

Docs endorse Perry Plan

Score one for Governor Perry: The previously recalcitrant Texas Medical Association (TMA) has agreed to endorse the Texas Tax Reform Commission's business tax plan.

The TMA had opposed the expanded business tax that Perry is promoting to help pay for school tax reductions because the measure would tax doctors for the first time.

The governor secured the support of the doctors and groups representing dentists, hospitals and other health care providers by agreeing to give them tax deductions for charitable care, such as emergency room and Medicaid and Medicare services, for which they are not paid or are undercompensated.

"These new provisions are important so that our tax system doesn't harm the doctors, hospitals and medical institutions that provide life-saving care for Texans in need," he said.

Under the agreement, doctors, dentists and other individual providers would be allowed to deduct from the new tax 100 percent of their uncompensated care for emergency room services, Medicare and military insurance clients. They would be allowed to deduct 150 percent of uncompensated services for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Hospitals, nursing homes and other health care institutions would have deductions at one-half the level of doctors.

This is a win for Perry no matter how you slice it. The more organizations like the TMA he can get on board, the better the chances are that his plan will pass. In the Pink has more.

What remains to be seen is if enough legislators buy into the idea that it's okay to cut taxes now and then work on fixing school finance later. Not everyone is willing to agree to that.

"When somebody in government says, 'trust me,' that's always a problem," House Mexican American Legislative Caucus Chair Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, said Wednesday. "What he's saying is, 'look, you help me on this tax solution first, and I'll help you on your stuff later. And that's not how this is going to work from our perspective."

The Texas House is scheduled to debate the school property tax on Monday. House leaders are trying to limit debate to property tax relief.

"The most important part for many kids is their opportunity to get a better education," Gallego said. "We have left the schools out of school finance."

I don't see much reason for any Democrat to trust Perry on this, and given the huge number of bills filed already, many of which contain not-on-the-call provisions like teacher pay raises, it's not clear to me that the Lege wants to deal with this in pieces. Perry has some momentum, but he also still has a long way to go.

There's also still ideological opposition to the TTRC plan, and not just on the left.

A conservative Austin-based grassroots organization that calls itself Empower Texans announced today the launch of its Web site, BigPileofMoney.com and an original song asking lawmakers to return the state's budget surplus to taxpayers.

"We urge the Texas Legislature to return the surplus to its rightful owners: Texas taxpayers. By returning $6.86 billion of this surplus not already committed to new spending, we can save the owner of a $200,000 home $1,300 next year in school property taxes. Best of all, we can do this without any new taxes," said organization chairman Tim Dunn of Midland.

These guys must have held a press conference, because there's nowhere on the site that lists who's behind BigPileOfMoney.com, and a Whois lookup on the domain reveals only a guy in Arizona as the contact. They do have a page full of links to Texas Public Policy Foundation articles, and a page exhorting letters to the editors and emails to various radio talk-show hosts. Put all that together, and I don't see "grassroots", I see Astroturf. Anyone wants to explain to me why I'm wrong about that, go for it.

Other stuff happening: You can attendt the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the tax plan tomorrow at 10 AM, if you're so inclined. Or watch the TV and look for one of Lt. Gov. Dewhurst's ads about the tax plan. Or just read more about Rep. Eddie Rodriguez's income tax proposal and take a nap afterwards. Three days down, who knows how many to go.

UPDATE: Two more links of interest, from Eye on Williamson: Sen. Steve Ogden's not-well-received proposal for a Constitutional amendment capping property taxes at $1.15, and some strong criticism of the TTRC plan for its inadequate funding of schools.

Perry criticizes H-GAC evacuation committee plan

Yesterday, I wondered how Governor Perry would react to the Houston-Galveston Area Council's (H-GAC) cretive interpretation of his executive order to name a single person to manage future catastrophes that may strike the region. Today we find that the answer is that he doesn't much care for it.

"I do not see the wisdom in having 15 people being brought together on a conference call when 1.2 million people's lives are on the line," he said. "I think it makes abundant good sense in those grand, large situations like that to have one individual being able to make a decision on the evacuation of an entire region."

Well, that's clear enough. Problem is, just narrowing it down to 15 people was no small task, and not everybody is buying into the idea to begin with.

Before the committee approach was adopted, its name was changed from "Unified Area Command" to "Unified Area Coordinating Committee." Some judges and mayors, loathe to give the committee any undue imprimatur of authority, assented to the plan only after the name change.

"I'm not going to delegate my responsibility as a Fort Bend County official to any committee," said Fort Bend County Judge Robert Hebert.

Added Galveston County Judge James Yarbrough: "This committee is not going to tell me what to do."

[...]

[Houston Mayor Bill] White and [Harris County Judge Robert] Eckels both said they expect to reconcile Tuesday's vote with Perry's order.

"If there is a massive regional evacuation, then there needs to be someone that is calling the shots on transportational logistics. That's something we wanted," White said. "With the committee, it can happen before hurricane season begins."

Eckels said he thinks the committee of 15 - as opposed to 10 times as many mayors and judges - can name a single commander soon, albeit not within the timeline of Perry's order.

The inability to choose a single commander for every type of catastrophe, as directed by Perry, arose from discussions with emergency management personnel, who argued that one person might be best for a hurricanes, another for dealing with a bioterrorist attack, Eckels said.

"My expectation is that this committee will now move forward and identify people who will fill those commander roles," he said.

[...]

Most public officials denied that discord played any role in their ability to name a single commander for the 13-county region.

Yet it was clear Tuesday that some of the coastal-inland rifts caused by the Rita evacuation have not fully healed. Shortly after Rita, some coastal officials blamed Harris and other inland counties for failing to prevent logjams as residents headed toward San Antonio, Austin and Dallas.

"I already know what to do in my county," Brazoria County Judge John Willy said during the discussion. "What I need help with is areas outside my jurisdiction, where I have no power."

Further, as the story notes, the committee has no statutory authority to do anything, just some "moral authority" that may or may not (and probably won't) be respected by the individual mayors and county judges. That leaves us with this, which is more or less what we started with:

Under Texas law, county judges are a county's top emergency management official. They have the power to call for evacuations but derive their other emergency management powers from the governor. If Perry ultimately finds the committee approach unacceptable, therefore, he could intercede with his own plan.

Local officials, however, don't expect that to happen.

Still unclear to me is what exactly Perry can do about this. He can't prevent a county judge from ordering an evacuation; I'm not sure what he can do directly about their "other emergency management powers", and I'm not sure how interceding with his own plan would play out. This is beginning to have the feel of one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time but may turn out to be unworkable in reality. I'm more confused by all this than anything, so I'd love to hear some feedback from you. (Hey, blogHOUSTON! You guys have an opinion on this? I'd like to know it if you do.)

CREW goes after Sessions

Add another name to the list of Texas Congressfolk who may find themselves in trouble with the Justice Department: Rep. Pete Sessions. The Lone Star Project has the details.

As the Lone Star Project predicted in January, questionable official actions by Congressman Pete Sessions are now the subject of a formal request for investigation by the U.S. Justice

Department. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a highly respected nonpartisan ethics watchdog organization, has filed a request for a formal investigation with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that details official actions taken by Pete Sessions that appear to be in exchange for contributions to his congressional reelection campaign account and his leadership PAC. In its letter to the Attorney General, CREW states, “Rep. Sessions’ contacts with entities tied to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and official actions he has taken on behalf of those entities raise serious issues of potential criminal activity and undermine the credibility of Rep. Sessions’ office and the U.S. House of Representatives.” (read the CREW Press Release)

After disclosing Sessions’ activities to assist the Malaysian government and lobbyists affiliated with convicted felon Jack Abramoff, the Lone Star Project predicted earlier this year that Sessions’ actions would be called into question. The Lone Star Project report led to several major press stories about the growing scandal. The principle concerns of the Lone Star Project were included in the CREW complaint. (Read the Original LSP Report)

New Evidence Shows More Improper Relationships

The CREW complaint includes a newer and perhaps more damaging complaint involving Sessions promoting a multimillion dollar appropriation for a California defense contractor, Promia Inc., in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars of donations to his reelection campaign and leadership PAC. Sessions actions on behalf of Promia Inc. and the corporation’s assistance to Sessions bear all the markings of an illegal “quid pro quo.”

Sessions Assistance to California Defense Contractor Arranged by a Former Staffer and Convicted Felon

Sessions contact with Promia Inc. was arranged by former Sessions’ staffer Adrian Plesha. The CREW complaint reveals that Plesha is a convicted felon who most recently pled guilty to felony perjury charges. Detailing the contributions Sessions received in exchange for his official actions, the CREW complaint states:

Rep. Sessions has advocated publicly for Promia and the nearly $800,000 Navy research and development contract the company was awarded in May 2000… Rep. Sessions received contributions of $1,000 each -- the maximum allowed by law -- from eight Promia executives for his re-election campaign. Promia executives contributed more to Rep. Sessions’ campaign than to any other candidate in that election cycle… In total, Promia and its executives have contributed nearly $55,000 to Rep. Sessions and his PAC since 2000 -- by far the largest contribution Promia has made to any Member of Congress.”

Read the CREW letter to Alberto Gonzalez

Read the CREW press release

See the CREW complaint exhibits

Read the original Lone Star Project Report

As Raw Story notes, unlike other CREW actions, this one went to the Justice Department instead of merely being a public announcement made in lieu of the ability to file an actual ethics complaint in Congress. We'll see if Justice picks up the ball and runs with it.

Appeals court upholds dismissal of DeLay conspiracy indictment

The 3dr Court of Appeals in Austin has upheld the dismissal of the conspiracy charge against soon-to-be-former Congressman Tom DeLay.

The Sugar Land Republican, who has announced he plans to retire from Congress, still faces money-laundering charges. But the appellate court said Judge Pat Priest was correct to dismiss an indictment accusing DeLay and two associates of conspiring to violate the state election laws.

Priest ruled last year that the state's conspiracy statute did not apply to the election code until Sept. 1, 2005 - long after DeLay was accused of laundering corporate money into political donations for the 2002 legislative elections.

The hearing in this case was four weeks ago, so the ruling was quicker than expected - I'd predicted mid-May, based on how long it took to hold the hearing in the first place.

There was no immediate reaction to today's decision, but prosecutors have the right to appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

DeLay's lawyer Dick DeGuerin said he expected prosecutors would appeal: "I wouldn't be surprised if Ronnie Earle (Travis County district attorney) didn't continue to drag this thing out."

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Earle is 100% within his rights to pursue the appeal. The fact that this is inconvenient to DeLay is irrelevant.

One could argue, in fact, that Earle's continued pursuit of DeLay after his resignation announcement, including another round of appeals in this matter, is more evidence that Earle is not motivated by politics in this case. If all Earle wanted was to drive DeLay out of Congress, he's accomplished that goal. He has no further need to go after a conviction he's less likely to get than the ones he ought to get against the TRMPAC Three. Given DeLay's new lame-duck status, I'd say that if Earle dropped the charges against DeLay now, that would be proof of partisan witch hunting. Doggedness in the face of no further political gain would seem to me to be the refutation of that allegation.

UPDATE: Interesting tidbit here in the written opinion:

Were we writing on a clean slate, the State's argument would carry considerable weight because Texas has had a generally applicable conspiracy offense since the nineteenth century. However, we are bound by controlling precedent that limits the applicability of the penal code's conspiracy provision to offenses found within the penal code.

Interesting. Perhaps the CCA will find cause to do something about those controlling precedents. Thanks much to Ken for the tip.

Liveblogging the Austin events

For those of you who missed them yesterday, Karl-T has the blog coverage of the Sen. Russ Feingold/John Courage event (with a post-event wrapup here), while Perry did the deed for the David Van Os whistlestop filibuster at the Capitol. Both will undoubtedly be more in depth than the usual newspaper coverage, so check them out.

Not such a troublemaker after all

I have to say, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson's office puts out some of the more entertaining press releases that I get:

AUSTIN - Even as legislators are set to consider proposed sin taxes to help resolve the school finance dilemma, the director of the feature film "Sin City" is helping earn money for public education in Texas.

Robert Rodriguez, the Austin-based filmmaker and owner of Troublemaker Studios, and Jerry Patterson, Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, recently signed an agreement that will earn Texas school children $2.2 million over the next 10 years.

"Robert Rodriguez has a new landlord - and it's the school children of Texas," said Jerry Patterson, Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office and chairman of the School Land Board. "This agreement earns a solid return for the state's Permanent School Fund and is yet another example of the innovative ways the Land Office is making money for public schools."

In August 2005, the Permanent School Fund bought the old Aircraft Pooling Board site at the former Robert Mueller Airport. The 21.5-acre property includes two hangars, a large outdoor paved area, and several offices and storage areas.

Troublemaker Studios is currently working on a new project with Quentin Tarantino. The production company produced all three of the "Spy Kids" movies, as well as the "Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl."

As part of the lease agreement, the production company must return the facilities on the lot to their original condition, or better, by the time the 10-year contract expires. So far, Troublemaker Studios has improved hangars, added office spaces, lighting and air conditioning to facilities on the lot.

"We at Troublemaker are so proud of our connection to this community," said Elizabeth Avellan, co-owner of Troublemaker Studios. "I'm overjoyed that we have found a way to provide a steady contribution to the education of the children of our state."

Obviously, $2.2 million is relatively small change in the world of school finance. But that's not the point. What matters is that this is a basically no-cost revenue stream for the Permanent School Fund, and the kind of thinking that led to this solution should be rewarded and encouraged. Kudos to all involved.

Texas Monthly cover story on Tom DeLay

Here's a limited-time-only preview of the latest Texas Monthly cover story, on the rise and fall of Tom DeLay. It's a good read, and it starts out with a little grist for all of our mills:

IT WAS EARLY IN January when Eric Thode got the phone call from a member of Tom DeLay's staff. Thode was a little surprised to hear from DeLay. As the chairman of the Fort Bend County Republican party, Thode was responsible for running the March 7 primary election, but that was two months away, and he expected DeLay to win easily against three opponents. Surely DeLay wasn't concerned about it. So what could the eleven-term congressman from Sugar Land, the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, want to know?

As Thode remembers the conversation, the staffer said DeLay was "contemplating his possibilities." What if he were to win the primary with a less-than-solid showing? What if Ronnie Earle, the Travis County district attorney who had secured two felony indictments against DeLay involving the misuse of corporate funds to help Republican state legislative candidates in the 2002 election cycle, was able to win a conviction before the 2006 election? What if something happened in the federal corruption investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whom DeLay had once described as one of his closest friends? If any of these circumstances came to pass, the Democrats could win the seat. His seat.

Where was this leading? The answer wasn't long in revealing itself. At what date, asked the staffer, could DeLay withdraw as a candidate? Was there a way for the GOP to replace him on the ballot after the primary? Thode explained the complicated procedure that allows the Republican county chairmen from the four counties in DeLay's district (Fort Bend, Harris, Brazoria, and Galveston) to pick a replacement for a seat that becomes vacant due to death, resignation, or ineligibility. When he hung up, Thode knew what no one else in America would know for three months: The end of Tom DeLay’s political career was at hand.

Definitely worth a read. Check it out while you can - these Texas Monthly preview links are usually good for a few days.

More HHSC privatization bashing

It's time once again to play Let's Bash HHSC Privatization! Anyone can play, but it's more fun if you have a say in how the contractor gets paid.

Angry House budget writers demanded Monday to know if the state will consider firing a new private contractor - or barring it from other state jobs - if its staffers continue bumping eligible Texans from health and welfare services.

The contract with Texas Access Alliance, headed by outsourcing giant Accenture LLP, is part of a major overhaul of eligibility screening of social services for children, the elderly, disabled and poor.

While lawmakers once were told the project would save the state $646 million over five years, that's now in doubt. The state recently decided to slow the project, beef up training and fix an array of technical and operational problems.

"I think each and every one of us are pretty disappointed with how this has turned out," Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown, said at the meeting of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services.

For the record, I'm not disappointed because I knew that number was a load of bull when I first heard it. To be disappointed, one must have expectations that are not met. Mine, I'm sad but not shocked to say, have been met exactly.

Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, said he finds the plunging CHIP rolls alarming, noting the number of children served has fallen from 500,000 in 2003 to fewer than 300,000 now.

"It is tanking. Whether we want to deal with it or not, I think we have reached a crisis state with the CHIP program, and I am not a big fan of the contractors we are using," Turner said. "I speak for me, but if I hired them, I would fire them."

[...]

Rep. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin, said her staff is spending all its time trying to remedy application problems within the pilot area, including 90 minutes on hold with the call center Friday.

"That's a call from a legislative office - truly unacceptable," Dukes said.

[...]

Dukes warned that lawmakers in the rest of the state will not be "happy campers" when it comes time to appropriate money next biennium if their offices go through the turmoil hers has in helping constituents.

She complained that one constituent sent four applications, two by certified mail, but the call center said they were not received.

She asked Hawkins to provide her with a timeline of how long the state is willing to work with the Accenture team if the call center problems persist.

According to Samm Almaguer, the solution is hiring a boatload of temps, for up to six months. As Father John puts it:

Keep in mind, when I was hired, they took 6 months to train me before I was even sent to a field office to begin working on a reduced schedule... and it took another 6 months before I was really any where close to being up to speed as a case worker... and that is about the best that can be expected. This is window dressing, that will cost more money, but accomplish almost nothing.

The only temps that will be of any use will be former HHSC staff who need a job, and they will be the ones who are out of work at the moment, and so will be looking for something permanent elsewhere.

I figure a few former HHSC folks will hire back on, either because they need something now or perhaps because they may hope that this whole thing will get junked and they'll be brought back anyway later. It probably won't be enough, however.

Carlos Guerra has more. We'll see what happens from this point, but I fully expect that the next time this contract is reviewed, there will still be many problems with it.

So long, surplus, it was nice to know you

Once the news that the current budget surplus was bigger than first projected hit the streets, it was just a matter of time before this happened.

Gov. Rick Perry says a new, higher budget surplus can be used partly to cut local school property taxes more than he originally proposed in a tax overhaul.

School taxes could drop from the maximum $1.50 per $100 valuation to 90 cents, rather than $1, for maintenance and operations, Perry said today.

Am I the only one who remembers that we had a $10 billion shortfall in 2003, and that we cut services to the bone to make up for that? Do we think that the good days we're experiencing now will last forever? And what happens when the Lege convenes next year, at its normally scheduled time, and has to come up with a new budget? Here's one scenario to consider:

The CPPP notes that $3 billion of the surplus will be needed to replenish the state's Rainy Day Fund and that at least $4 billion will be needed to cover budget growth driven by inflation and population increases in the next budget cycle. The think tank also holds that there are nearly $1 billion in likely expenses for the current budget period the Comptroller cannot include in her spending estimate including $444 million owed to the Federal Government that Texas is contesting in court and up to $100 million in Katrina related expenses.

I've already pointed out that the recent Executive Order on hurricane preparedness contained a number of one-time expenses that should be paid for out of this surplus. Greg reminds us that a relatively measly $143 million would restore CHIP funding to pre-2003-budget-cut levels, and would bring in much more than that in federal matching funds to boot. Why are we so eager to blow this all now?

And if you think that's bad, read this:

The conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation released a statement from its President, Brooke Rollins, today suggesting that the new surplus figures released by the Comptroller make it possible to provide property tax relief without imposing the governor's new tax. The Austin newsletter Quorum Report is reporting that GOP kingmaker Steve Hotze is bottonholing GOP lawmakers to tell them if they vote for the governor's tax bill they will be defeated in 2008.

My favorite part is from Rollins' statement: "Surpluses will obviously continue, as they have been a long-standing feature in Texas’ economy, and should be dedicated into the future to reducing tax burdens." Apparently, I am the only person in this state whose memory stretches back to 2003. (And forget about 1991 - talk about your truly ancient history!)

I can only presume that the two proposals to implement a state income tax, while unlikely to ever see the light of day on the floor, might nonetheless cause Rollins' head to explode.

One question has been answered: AG Greg Abbott has declared the TTRC plan to be constitutional. That doesn't mean it wouldn't get challenged in court, of course.

Other links of interest: Here's Aaron Pena's opening thoughts. Vince has an exhaustive summary of all the legislation filed so far this session and his perception of their chances to pass. South Texas Chisme has reactions from the Valley and El Paso, while Carlos Guerra reviews the bidding so far (link via Stace.

All this, and it's only Day Two...

Opening up the State House

Yesterday, VInce noted the following exchange at the start of the session:

Rep. Dunnam has been asked about what rules the House will be governed by. Craddick says same one as last session. Now, he’s been asked how to amend the rules. More questions if proposed rule changes can get out of committee before bills.

Rep. Dunnam notes he has filed HR-33, and is asking that the rules be suspended so some "open government" rules can be adopted for this session. Craddick would not recognize this. Couldn’t find this online.

This is what Dunnam was referring to. It's a fairly straightforward six-point plan to make the proceedings of the House more open and user friendly. A quick summary:

The Open the People's House Reform Plan is an six-point rules reform proposal that includes:

1. Providing "real time" internet access to all floor amendments and record votes

2. Requiring Chief Clerk to retain a copy of all pre-filed amendments

3. Requiring "real time" record votes

4. Requiring 2/3 vote to adopt Calendar rule for specific legislation

5. Requiring the House to follow the open meetings laws

6. Requiring conference committees to meet in public, provide proper notice, sign reports in a public meeting, and require an actual copy of conference reports to be available at the meeting

Items 1, 2, 5, and 6 seem like common sense to me. Item 3 is also perfectly sensible, and it has come up before - in fact, the Dallas Morning News has written extensively on the topic in the past (there's way more links on those pages, too). Item 4 is the only nonobvious one, but the fuller explanation at the first link explains it pretty clearly.

Now of course, this isn't on the call for the special session. Many other things aren't as well, some of which Governor Perry will feel pressure to add later on. Seems to me that if you're going to make fundamental changes to the state's tax system, you ought to commit to doing it in as open a manner as possible. Adopting these reforms now would not affect this session, but it would be a show of good faith. Whether we can even discuss them or not is up to Rick Perry.

Vince and Eye on Williamson have more.

The money machine keeps on moving

I'm sure you will all be pleased to hear that Tom DeLay's fundraising has kept up a brisk pace despite the whole resigning-from-Congress thing. Hey, whatever, if the people who gave for one purpose only to find out later that their donations have been regifted are okay with it, I'm okay with it. But just we're all clear on one point:

Others want DeLay to give the money to political activists who hold similar political views.

"I think he should use it for the purposes of advancing his agenda," said Lee Leaman, president of the Home Lumber & Hardware Co. of Richmond. Leaman donated $4,000 to DeLay's campaign.

I have good news and bad news for you, Lee. The good news is that DeLay will indeed use the money you gave him towards advancing his agenda. The bad news is that currently his agenda consists entirely of "keeping my butt out of jail". Hope that helps.

More dissention over hurricane plan

Last month, Governor Perry issued an executive order that mandated (among other things) the creation of an "incident commander" to oversee evacuation issues in each of the state's 24 regions that have councils of governments. Today, on the deadline for implementing that order, the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), which is the council for this region, is set to defy that part of the order.

Former Kemah Mayor Bill King, who participated in the negotiations to select a local commander, acknowledged "big splits" over whether a single person should be named to oversee the entire region. Some local officials - the sprawling region includes major metro areas and small towns, coastal and inland communities - were reluctant to transfer any authority to one person, King said.

[...]

Elected officials in Harris and 12 surrounding counties, known as the Houston-Galveston Area Council, have instead chosen to elect a 15-person committee to determine how to handle such responses.

"It's probably impossible to find one person qualified to deal with every kind of event," said Jack Steele, executive director of the H-GAC.

The 13 county judges within the region, along with the mayors of Houston and Galveston, are expected to each nominate a member of the "command council." It's possible this council could then choose to name an executive committee or single member to coordinate responses, but the latter is unlikely.

Harris County Judge Robert Eckels agreed with Steele, saying the greater Houston region is too large and faces too wide an array of disaster scenarios - from a hurricane to terrorist attack in the Houston Ship Channel - for a single commander to possess the qualifications to lead every conceivable response.

"An incident commander, by its nature, is specific to a particular incident," he said.

[...]

[S]ome local officials favored adoption of a protocol similar to the National Incident Management System, or NIMS, established by the federal government after the Sept. 11 attacks. It's a flexible plan for local officials to coordinate responses with the federal government after a disaster.

Dennis Storemski, Houston's top emergency management official, said a majority of local jurisdictions favored a NIMS-like approach, in which an ad-hoc leadership group would be named once a disaster occurs.

King, however, said such an approach ignores the fact that, unlike most natural disasters and terrorist attacks, hurricanes are somewhat predictable. Not only can they typically be forecast a few days in advance, but, unlike a bombing in the Ship Channel, planners can be fairly certain a hurricane will happen at some point.

For that reason, he said, there should be a permanent, defined command structure to continually plan and prepare for hurricanes.

"The whole idea of NIMS is to be prepared for any kind of disaster," King said. "But you don't have that problem with a hurricane. You know what you're going to be getting."

I think there's merit to both approaches, and frankly I'm not sure why the differences can't be worked out. Have a command council for the broad range of possible incidents, and have a single person or subcommittee in place for hurricanes. Mayor King is certainly right in saying that we know for sure those are coming, and we'll know in advance when we have one to worry about.

Now the ball is in Governor Perry's court. What does he think about what H-GAC has done?

Perry spokeswoman Rachael Novier said the governor would withhold judgment of regional plans until they were formalized, but added that he expects his order to be followed.

"We have confidence that local leaders will implement the governor's executive order and adopt a regional unified command structure that protects lives and property in a catastrophic event," Novier said.

Any idea what Perry's options are to enforce his order if he thinks that the H-GAC solution is not in compliance?

Astros file suit over Bagwell insurance claim

As expected, the Astros have filed suit to collect on their disability insurance claim for Jeff Bagwell.

Bagwell, who is on the 15-day disabled list with arthritis and bone chips in his right shoulder, was deemed disabled as a professional baseball player by two physicians in January. On those reports, the Astros based the claim they filed on Jan. 27, four days before the policy’s deadline.

But on March 13, 2006, Connecticut General sent a letter to the Astros notifying that they had denied the claim. The Astros appealed, citing Bagwell’s declarations last month that the pain had become too great for him to play.

Based on Andrews’ findings and Astros physician Dr. David Lintner’s assessment, the Astros deemed Bagwell a disabled player and filed the insurance claim Jan. 27 to recoup $15.6 million of the $17 million he’ll earn this year in the final guaranteed season of his contract.

"The reason we’ve filed is because Connecticut General Life Insurance has continued to not live up to its obligation," [Astros attorney Wayne] Fisher said.

As commenter Kyle said in the previous post, this will likely come down to how "disability" was defined in the policy, and which side is attempting to stretch that definition the farthest. Should be interesting to watch.

Revisiting the Metro referendum

Rad Sallee writes about the state of the battle over where the Universities rail line should be, in particular the fuss over the ballot language from the 2003 referendum that authorized Metro to build the line.

[Metropolitan Transit Authority Board Chairman David] Wolff was ceding no ground to anti-Richmond forces who argue that because the 2003 referendum that authorized six MetroRail extensions designated the line as "Westpark," it must go on Westpark Drive.

Wolff said he wanted to review that point with fellow board members "so that if it comes up for discussion in the community, we will all be well informed."

He noted that the resolution authorizing the 2003 vote identified the corridors in various ways — some by a principal street (Westpark), some by an area of the city (Southeast) and some by both (Uptown/West Loop, North Hardy).

The Westpark corridor is described briefly as "approximately 6.6 miles westward from the Wheeler Station (which is at Richmond on the Main Street line) to the Westpark Transit Center, serving Greenway Plaza, West University, Bellaire and the Uptown/Galleria area."

Three of these locations are closer to Westpark than to Richmond, but two are closer to Richmond.

"At no point does it say that this line would be built on Westpark Drive," Wolff said.

By contrast, he pointed out, the resolution specifies the exact streets for the Uptown/West Loop route: "approximately 4.4 miles north from Westpark along Post Oak Boulevard and the West Loop."

It is the board's responsibility to decide where the University corridor line should run, Wolff said.

"In no way is Metro committed that it will be along any specific street," he said.

Christof has been all over this since that argument first started to gain traction. I have to say, I think there's a straightforward way for this matter to be resolved. If the only-on-Westpark forces are sincere in their beliefs that Metro is ignoring what the referendum authorizes them to do - in other words, if they truly believe Metro is acting illegally by considering routes other than Westpark - then they should file suit to force Metro to do what they say is right. If the ballot language is as clear as they say, then a judge should have no problem granting them an injunction preventing Metro from pursuing the Richmond option. This would not be "judicial activism" if they're correct, it would be enforcing the law as written. If that's what they think, then this is their next step.

The more I look at this, the more I am convinced that Metro is acting within the bounds of the referendum. I think this debate is a distraction, and I think it's time we settle it once and for all. The ball's in your court, folks.

Madla to leave Senate early

Sen. Frank Madla, defeated in the Democratic primary by Carlos Uresti, will resign his seat as of May 31.

Making “the decision to depart at this time was not easy,” Madla said in his letter. “However, after many hours of thoughtful consideration and reflection, I ultimately decided that after 33 years of prioritizing public service, it was time to put my family first.”

Madla, 69, a senator since 1993 after two decades in the House, lost to Rep. Carlos Uresti in March.

He said today he hopes that whoever wins a special election to serve out his term benefits from the experience. Uresti - expected to win the heavily-Democratic district - said he woudl run in any special election to complete Madla’s current term.

“Whoever wins the election will have an opportunity to have a little extra seniority,” Madla said. “Whoever it is - I want to give that individual the opportunity.”

That's actually a fairly decent gesture in and of itself, but what happens if the school finance mess isn't resolved by then? Because, see, as things stand now, Goveror Perry has no plans to call for a special election to replace Madla.

"The governor does not anticipate another special session occurring once this one is over, so the election (to fill Madla's current term) would occur at the next general election," said Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt.

OK, but what if you're wrong and there is another special session? Do the people of SD19 go unrepresented? It'd be a little late to call the election by then. Would Madla change his mind and agree to stick around until the job is done? I've got a bad feeling about this.

Last word, of course, goes to PinkDome.

UPDATE: Okay, it's The Jeffersonian who gets the last word.

As the gavel turns

You've seen this everywhere else by now, so now see it here:

The head of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst’s gavel came off as he brought the Senate to order this afternoon.

Dewhurst, putting the dealie back on, told members in the chamber: “I hope that’s no reflection on this session.”

I have an unconfirmed report that a vulture landed on Dewhurst's shoulder as he said that.

We start the first overtime with a bigger surplus than before.

Firing the first shots of the special session, Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn today said legislators will have an $8.2 billion surplus to work with and challenged Gov. Rick Perry to broaden their agenda to raising teacher pay and other education improvements.

Strayhorn, who is challenging Perry's reelection as an independent, said she agreed with the governor that local property taxes need to be reduced to meet a June 1 deadline, set by the Texas Supreme Court, for fixing the school funding system.

But she added, "It would be wrong to use this session to only cut property taxes when Texas needs long-term solutions for our fundamental problems."

Perry, who sets the agenda for special sessions, said he wants to restrict the workload, at least initially, to meeting the Supreme Court's order for repairs to the school finance system. He said he will consider other issues, including teacher pay, only after property taxes are lowered.

The governor issued a proclamation today, officially limiting the session's agenda to cutting school property taxes, the higher state taxes he has proposed and appropriations to the Texas Education Agency.

Strayhorn, like Perry, said it would be a mistake for legislators to simply use the surplus to pay for property tax cuts and then go home. But the fact that she nearly doubled the surplus from her previous forecast of $4.3 billion is likely to increase the temptation of many Republican lawmakers to do just that.

I, too, think that bigger surplus will provide an irresistable temptation to some legislators to cut and run. Perry seems to be resisting that, to his credit, and it's not out of the question in my mind that reps who try that could suffer greater consequences at the ballot box than those who give an honest effort to fixing the problems before them. We'll see.

In the meantime, Speaker Craddick has at long last endorsed the Perry/TTRC plan (more here). The special session call is all about taxes, and the House has a game plan for passing the bills they're proposing. PinkDome spells out who's sponsoring what, while over in the Senate, Sen. Florence Shapiro is in on the action as well.

Other bills and resolutions are being introduced as well. Some of them have to do with the issues before the Lege, and others, well, I'll get to that in a second. For now, Rep. Debbie "Pit of Hell" Riddle is flogging the appraisal cap horse, though this time with a narrower focus.

State Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Houston, filed legislation Monday that would give counties the local authority to cap property appraisal caps in just that county.

[...]

Under Riddle's bill, the county commissioners could call the election, and decide the appropriate percentage of the appraisal cap to be not less than three percent and not more than ten percent. The measure would then have to pass a popular vote during the general election.

[...]

To become effective, Riddle's legislation would require passage of a state constitutional amendment. That requires a two-thirds affirmative vote by both chambers of the Lege before going to a statewide vote of the people.

Whatever. I guess I'm not clear on why a county couldn't impose a lower appraisal cap on its own right now, but I suppose that must be the case. Requiring a constitutional amendment may be too tall an order. I'll bet there's a nontrivial number of counties that are happy with the status quo, and if all it takes is 51 Nays in the House, that may be enough to kill it.

On a different note, Rep. Lon Burnam has filed his own set of bills for the session, including one that calls for the establishment of a state income tax (cue dramatic music here). Here's his press release (pdf) on the matter.

And then there's HR27, by Rep. Tony Goolsby, which takes a commanding early lead in the Least Relevant Bill or Resolution sweepstakes for the session. What does this gem of legislative effort do?

RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 79th Texas Legislature, 3rd Called Session, hereby honor Karl Rove on his roast at the 50th anniversary gala of the Headliners Club and recognize him for the pivotal role he has played in shaping U.S. politics and policies at the opening of the 21st century; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Mr. Rove as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

This would be fluffy and pointless during a regular session, though at least it would have plenty of company in that regard. In a special session like this, it's not only a complete waste of time, it's also a finger in the eye of 64 members of the House at a time when consensus is needed more than ever. I agree with PinkDome - some Democrat needs to make a fuss about this, if for no other reason than to say that at least some of them are there to work.

Oh, and if you agree that the House would be better served by someone who would not think this was a good time to honor a divisive blackguard like Karl Rove, then I invite you to meet Goolsby's opponent in November, Harriet Miller, whom I had the pleasure of talking to recently at an Annie's List event here in Houston. Miller came out of nowhere to make a race in HD102 in 2004, where she outperformed the average Democrat by over three points (46.8 to 43.5), and she's made that seat into one of the top pickup targets this year. Check her out.

UPDATE: More from Vince.

Houston WiFi update

Here's an update on where we stand in the deployment of a citywide WiFi network. The City of Houston is already gathering bids for a downtown network, with eventual expansion elsewhere.

As envisioned now, it would be free for city government and in several public places around the city, including parks and libraries. But most residents and businesses would pay, albeit less than they do now, to access the high-speed network.

In the race for wireless, the question for an increasing number of cities is not whether to build a network, but how to pay for it.

The dollars can come from a variety of sources - users, businesses, advertisements, taxpayers, or a combination of those - depending on how the municipality chooses to fund the project.

[...]

Houston looks likely to charge customers for access, with a possible discount for low-income residents. That would mirror the project under way in Philadelphia, the largest city in the country to give the go-ahead to municipal WiFi.

[...]

The city is requesting proposals for a network solely in downtown, estimated to cost about $300,000, Lewis said. The provider would then have the option of extending the network to other areas of the city.

Although a single contractor would provide the network, it would connect to various Internet service providers. The city would regulate the wholesale rate ISPs paid to the network, so the providers could charge consumers about $15 per month compared with the $30 to $50 now.

That kind of cost competition has led some providers to oppose certain forms of municipal networks nationwide. That's just one of the factors the city must consider as officials move forward. Construction of the network could begin early next year, if a suitable vendor is identified and the City Council approves. It will take about two years, [Richard Lewis, the city's director of information technology,] said.

Earlier this month, representatives from 65 companies interested in submitting a proposal by the May 16 deadline attended a city information session. Lewis said he expects as many as 10 of those companies to bid.

Fifteen bucks a month is pretty reasonable - it's certainly cheaper than what I'm paying now to Time Warner. I'd be very likely to consider a switch down the line. I'll be more than a little surprised if the Time Warners and SBCs of the world don't respond with a sweetening of their current offerings as an inducement to keep people like me in place.

That's assuming, of course, that they don't succeed in their mission to ban cities from making this service available in the first place. Neil Peirce examines the current status of those efforts, and note that what we're seeing now looks a lot like the effort to ban rural areas from forming their own electric utilities almost a century ago. I think he's on the mark there, and I hope we've learned the lesson from that.

O Dallas, where art thou?

I don't usually venture into what I think of as Pete's territory, but when I see something like this, it's hard to resist.

A studio scout is in Dallas to get a better idea of what the area has to offer the film version of the nighttime soap opera, "Dallas."

The film will at least come to Dallas to shoot "exteriors" for the movie, although local film promoters hope to get the entire movie shot here, said Janis Burklund, director of the Dallas Film Commission.

The scout's original three-day stay has been extended to at least two weeks, she said.

Dallas and Louisiana are now the only two contenders for the movie, Burklund said. She said she heard the news during a meeting with Twentieth Century Fox executives on Monday in Los Angeles.

"The studio is looking further here," she said, noting that a search is on for a new Ewing compound.

I believe the commenter at DallasBlog put it best: "When is the last time someone came to Dallas to 'check us out' and went home with a favorable impression?"

Well, at least they'll be shooting exteriors in Dallas, assuming they can find a new Southfork there. But the real question is why are they making a movie out of that crappy show? OK, given all of the other movies made lately that were based on other crappy shows, maybe that's a dumb question. And the possible answers to that question pale in comparison to the casting rumors:

According to Variety "the Regency Enterprises/20th Century Fox redo of "Dallas" is heating up. Helmer Robert Luketic is rounding up his cast for the updated take on the classic '80s series: He's offered his "Monster-in-Law" star Jennifer Lopez the part of Sue Ellen Ewing, Luke Wilson is negotiating to play Bobby Ewing, John Travolta has an offer to star as J.R. Ewing and Shirley MacLaine is down for the part of Miss Ellie Ewing.

[...]

Other rumored casting news suggests Marcia Cross from Desperate Housewives fame has been offered the role of Pamela Ewing and in a move that has grated many an old fan of the series, Paris Hilton has been offered the role of nymphet Lucy Ewing - originally played by Charlene Tilton. But as one Dallas fan said "Please let there be no Paris in Dallas". We have to agree with that sentiment.

Actually, I kind of like Marcia Cross as Pam Ewing, but the rest of it? It's just too horrible to contemplate. Surely we can do better than this. Leave your suggestions in the comments.

A little Libertarian fantasy

We've all been reading articles on who the likely contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations for President will be in 2008. Well, it turns out that not just the major parties have jockeying going on for those coveted positions. This Blogcritics post is one of a promised series on the Libertarian Party's hopefuls for 2008. The focus of this piece is Texas's Michael Badnarik, the 2004 LP candidate for President and current candidate for Congress in the 10th CD. The author believes that Badnarik's odds of repeating as the LP nominee in 2008 are tied to his performance this year.

Michael Badnarik, however, is not most LP congressional candidates.

Most LP congressional candidates haven't raised $200,000 for their campaigns before Memorial Day. Most LP congressional candidates haven't raised more than one of their two "major party" opponents. As a matter of fact, most LP congressional candidates haven't raised one tenth as much as Badnarik will have by Election Day. Most LP congressional candidates don't have billboards in high-traffic areas. Most LP congressional candidates don't have offices and full-time staff. And most LP congressional candidates haven't gone to a national convention broke, in third place, with a campaign staff consisting of two volunteers, and walked out of that convention with a presidential nomination.

If any Libertarian can win election to the US House of Representatives this year, it's Michael Badnarik (so far, the word is that Wisconsin's Ed Thompson won't be running, or I'd add him to the list right above Badnarik). But, barring a Thompson run, I don't think that any Libertarian can win a congressional race this year. I'll be ecstatic if Badnarik proves me wrong - and if he does, it won't be the first time.

Based on my prediction, Badnarik would be seeking the LP's nomination on the basis of a losing, but probably very credible - in the 20%+ range - performance in the congressional race. That could play either way: His performance could push him up, or the amount of money Libertarians contributed for a win they expected and didn't get could push him down.

If Michael Badnarik gets 20% of the vote in CD10 in November, I will write a check for $100 to the Tom DeLay legal defense fund. That's how sure I am that this is off base.

Let's put aside the fact that Badnarik got 38,787 votes - 0.52% of the total - in all of Texas in 2004, and that quite a few candidates for State Representative did better than that. As I discussed before, the reason that the Libertarian candidate did as well in CD10 as he did in 2004 is because there was no Democrat on the ballot. It doesn't matter that Badnarik can afford a few billboards on Highway 290. The straight-party Democratic vote alone, especially in Travis County, will be enough to put Ted Ankrum well ahead of Badnarik.

All of the statewide Democrats who were on the ballot in CD10 in 2004 got at least 38% of the vote. Assuming that the vote will be split as it was in 2004, with 3/8 in Harris County, 3/8 in Travis County, and the remaining 1/4 in between, Ankrum can match that total by getting 50% in Travis, 25% in Harris, and 40% in between. From where I sit, that's the bare minimum Ankrum should get - it's basically what the likes of JR Molina did in 2004. I fully expect him to approach 60% in Travis, which is about what the top performing Democrats did there in 2004, and which would put him at about 41-42% overall. There's still room for growth and optimism, but this is a realistic starting point.

My prediction is that Badnarik will get the usual amount that a Libertarian candidate in a race with both an R and a D gets, which means he'll be lucky to break 2%. Only four Lib candidates for Congress in Texas in 2004, out of 24 who ran against contenders from both major parties, did that well, with 2.99% being the top score. If that's your criteria for judging Badnarik's chances for being the LP standard bearer in 2008, you might want to reconsider.

Get ready, 'cause here they come

Well, it's special session time again. I don't know what to expect any more than you do. It's not clear yet where all the battle lines have been drawn - among other things, as noted in the Chron article, neither Lt. Gov. Dewhurst nor House Speaker Craddick have articulated a position on the Texas Tax Reform Commission (TTRC) plan. Whether they support it or not, reluctantly or enthusiastically, will have an effect.

I'm not foolish enough to make any predictions. But former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff is:

"As you get closer to the deadline, it's easier to pick up votes," said former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff, a Republican who authored the 1993 law as a senator. "At that point, members can go home and say they didn't like the plan, but they had to vote for it to keep the schools from closing."

Mr. Ratliff, now a consultant to the Texas Association of School Boards, predicted that any decision by lawmakers "will go down to the wire, if not past the wire."

"But in the end, I don't think a majority of legislators are willing to take a chance on missing the deadline."

Actually, I think that's very likely to be true. Eye on Williamson is thinking along similar lines. As he says, I think at some point the Republican leadership will push the message that they can't afford a meltdown to the troops, and some kind of deal will get struck.

The thing to watch for as this unfolds is the reaction of the plaintiffs in the West Orange-Cove case. Any deal that gets struck isn't official in my mind until they say they're satisfied and won't seek a further injunction from the court. The Lege has to do more than just pass any old bill, and whatever they do, the odds are they'll have to do it again, in 2007 or 2009. Barring something truly revolutionary, this is just the beginning.

Going, going, gone, and you're out!

Matt sent me this link to solicit my reaction.

It's not just one, two, three strikes you're out at the old softball game in Feld Park.

Belting one over the fence will do it, too.

Home runs are outs in this otherwise all-American Houston suburb about nine miles west of downtown, where encroaching development has upended one of the sport's most hallowed rules, even, for a time, getting home run hitters ejected from the batter's box.

(Inside-the-park home runs — what the Amateur Softball Association soothingly calls "four-base awards" — are still O.K.)

[...]

"I don't want to be in the backyard to be clunked on the head with a softball," said Lee Decker, a builder whose new and yet-unsold $721,000 two-story house overlooking left-center field lost two windows late last year to homegrown sultans of swat in the park's Optimist Club league. Mr. Decker has since been mollified by the long-ball sanctions and a 50-foot-high fence-and-net barrier that has proved impervious to all but one improbable blast of 300 feet or more several weeks ago that broke another window.

"I thought there was no way anyone could hit that house," said Jane Dembski, Bellaire's director of parks and recreation, whose agency had paid most of the costs of the latest net. "It kind of went straight up and straight down."

Actually, I once played in a coed slow-pitch league where hitting the ball over the fence was an out, not a round-tripper. Most people in that league, myself included, couldn't have reached the fences if you let them swing again from where their hits wound up, so it wasn't a common occurrance. That league played at a complex in the middle of nowhere, so window-breaking was not the issue. I think it was mostly to keep some competitiveness across teams, where the talent levels varied widely. Frankly, I'd forgotten about it until I read this.

An old sign near the outfield spells out the stakes: "Ballplayers do not retrieve balls hit into yards without the residents' permission. Violators can be arrested for trespassing on private property."

Or worse.

"Why don't we enter the yards, Jackie?" a neighbor, Robert Duffield, asked his wife, eliciting her well-primed answer: "Because," she said, "this is Texas and you might get shot."

Heh. Robert and Jackie are acquaintances of mine. I can totally see them saying that.

Anyway. Slow-pitch softball is a sport that is almost, but not quite, exaclty unlike baseball. Weird rules like that are the norm, not the exception. If you object to that, you'll probably not understand the keg behind second base, either. It's just how it is.

More events in Austin this week

In addition to the Russ Feingold event for John Courage, you lucky duckies in and around Austin will have several other cool things to see and do this coming week. Houston Democrats has the details. Check it out.

Happy Easter!

Do I actually have to add anything to that? Happy Easter, everybody!

Moonie sushi

They mentioned this story on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me today, and now I'm totally depressed. Executive summary: Every time you eat sushi, you put money in Rev. Sun Myung Moon's pockets.

Adhering to a plan Moon spelled out more than three decades ago in a series of sermons, members of his movement managed to integrate virtually every facet of the highly competitive seafood industry. The Moon followers' seafood operation is driven by a commercial powerhouse, known as True World Group. It builds fleets of boats, runs dozens of distribution centers and, each day, supplies most of the nation's estimated 9,000 sushi restaurants.

Although few seafood lovers may consider they're indirectly supporting Moon's religious movement, they do just that when they eat a buttery slice of tuna or munch on a morsel of eel in many restaurants. True World is so ubiquitous that 14 of 17 prominent Chicago sushi restaurants surveyed by the Tribune said they were supplied by the company.

Over the last three decades, as Moon has faced down accusations of brainwashing followers and personally profiting from the church, he and sushi have made similar if unlikely journeys from the fringes of American society to the mainstream.

These parallel paths are not coincidence. They reflect Moon's dream of revitalizing and dominating the American fishing industry while helping to fund his church's activities.

"I have the entire system worked out, starting with boat building," Moon said in "The Way of Tuna," a speech given in 1980. "After we build the boats, we catch the fish and process them for the market, and then have a distribution network. This is not just on the drawing board; I have already done it."

In the same speech, he called himself "king of the ocean." It proved not to be an idle boast. The businesses now employ hundreds, including non-church members, from the frigid waters of the Alaskan coast to the iconic American fishing town of Gloucester, Mass.

Crap. I love sushi, but I don't love the thought of helping to subsidize Moon's empire by eating it. I'm not even sure that the Eric Zorn solution of getting the tempura instead is a viable answer - are we sure that sushi restaurants get their non-sushi fish from a different wholesaler?

Yeah, I know. We all face these decisions every day, and the correct response isn't often clear. Sushi is an indulgence for me, not a staple, so whatever choice I ultimately make will at least be easily rationalized. In the meantime, I'm going to sulk a little. Feh.

Ganging up on the Perry Plan

As we get ready for the start of the special session on Monday, here's a preview of how the arguments against the Texas Tax Reform Commission (TTRC) plan will shape up.

From the Democrats: The plan will inadequately fund schools.

At a Houston news conference Thursday, lawmakers said Gov. Rick Perry is trying to limit session proceedings to shuffling existing funding rather than directing more money toward educational improvements, like addressing high dropout rates and low standardized test scores.

"It's about the children, stupid," said state Rep. Rick Noriega. "We still can't get our focus back on what everybody knows is the future of our state, which is our children."

[...]

"The chairs on the deck will simply be reshuffled," Rep. Garnet Coleman said of Perry's proposal. "Not a single new penny will go to fund public schools."

State Rep. Jessica Farrar said Democratic legislators will be especially vigilant against any proposal that would increase taxes for those Texans less able to afford them.

"There is a fondness for expanding or increasing the sales tax and that is what we will be on guard against," she said.

[...]

At a town hall meeting at Houston City Hall Thursday night, legislators focused on where proposals posed the most danger.

Of those who spoke before the legislators, many were current or former teachers.

Questions dealt more with problems at the local level, such as school districts who spend money on unnecessary junkets or teachers having to buy school supplies out of their own pockets.

And from Comptroller Strayhorn: The plan doesn't add up.

Perry's plan, developed by a 24-member commission headed by Sharp, would lower property taxes for school operations by as much as one-third.

Strayhorn said it would deliver $6.2 billion in property tax cuts when it is fully implemented next year.

The new expanded business tax would replace the existing franchise tax for a net revenue gain of $3.5 billion in fiscal 2008. That is about $400 million less than the Sharp commission had estimated based on what Sharp said were earlier projections from the comptroller's office.

Strayhorn said a $1-per-pack cigarette tax hike and increased taxes on chewing tobacco would raise $680 million next year. An additional $40 million would come from a new mechanism to ensure that buyers of used cars and trucks pay sales tax on the vehicles' "blue book" value.

Strayhorn said the plan will be $1.4 billion short next year and similar shortfalls will continue for the next five years. Cumulatively, the plan will cost the state an extra $10.6 billion by 2011, she said.

"At the end of the day, the money must come from somewhere, and we will not have the luxury of $10 billion in surplus funds to fill the gaping hole the Perry tax plan would rip in state finances," she said.

Governor Perry and TTRC Chair John Sharp naturally dispute Strayhorn's analysis. Strayhorn also echoed the Dems' criticism about the plan being inadequate.

So. Now you know where we stand going into Monday. Despite all this, there's still a sense of cautious optimism, according to Rep. Aaron Pena. We'll see what happens.

Hays County

Damon writes about moving to Hays County, and how it's following in Austin's footsteps in becoming more Democratic. It's not there yet, but two things that happened in 2004 point out how it's clearly moving in the right direction. One was in the Presidential vote. In the year 2000, when George Bush got 59.3% of the vote statewide, he pulled 58.8$ in Hays County. In 2004, when Bush's share of the vote overall had climbed to 61.1%, his support in Hays dropped to 56.5%. John Kerry got 42.1% in Hays compared to 38.2% overall; Gore plus Nader was 40.3% in Hays in 2000. As I noted here, Hays was one of the few counties in Texas that saw less support for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.

It's at the bottom of the ballot where you really see the difference. Here's Hays in 2000:

Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals    

 Sharon Keller         REP 18,128 57.53% 

 Bill Vance            DEM 13,381 42.46% 

   -----------  

  Race Total 31,509 

----------------------------------------   

Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 2    

 Barbara Parker Hervey REP 18,150 58.66% 

 William R. Barr       DEM 12,789 41.33% 

   -----------  

  Race Total 30,939  

----------------------------------------   

Member, State Board of Education, District 10    

 Cynthia A. Thornton   REP 16,812 53.69% 

 Donna Howard          DEM 12,435 39.71% 

 Nancy C. Neale        LIB  2,061  6.58% 

   -----------  

  Race Total 31,308 

----------------------------------------   

State Representative District 46    

 Rick Green            REP 18,655 56.20% 

 Ivan "Buddy" Friedman DEM 12,874 38.78% 

 Shannon Louise Carr   LIB  1,661  5.00% 

   -----------  

  Race Total 33,190  

----------------------------------------   

Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals Dist, Place 1    

 David Puryear         REP 17,088 54.30% 

 Woodie Jones          DEM 14,376 45.69% 

   -----------  

  Race Total 31,464 

And here's Hays in 2004:

State Representative District 45    

 Alan A. Askew   REP 21,073 44.88% 

 Patrick M. Rose DEM 25,874 55.11% 

   -----------  

  Race Total 46,947  

----------------------------------------   

Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals District, Place 4    

 Bill Green      REP 21,782 49.09% 

 Jan Patterson   DEM 22,588 50.90% 

   -----------  

  Race Total 44,370  

----------------------------------------   

Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals District, Place 6 (Unexpired)    

 Bob Pemberton   REP 22,678 51.56% 

 Diane Henson    DEM 21,299 48.43% 

   -----------  

  Race Total 43,977 

Quite the difference, and with a third more voters, too. Definitely the sort of thing you want to see, kind of like what we're starting to see in Fort Bend. We're expecting big things here, Damon.

Term limits, schmerm limits

Anna is giving us all a blast from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's past, in the form of various news accounts circa 1993 and 1994, when KBH was first campaigning to be a Senator. All stories contain some variation on the following quote:

"I've always said that I would serve no more than two full terms. This may be my last term or I could run for one more. But no more after that. I firmly believe in term limitations and I plan to adhere to that," Hutchison said.

So much for that, obviously. This subject actually came up last year, when KBH was doing her should-I-run-for-Governor tango. What I wrote then is more or less how I feel about the subject now, and since I'm feeling a bit lazy, I'm going to quote myself:

One-time support for term limits among current (almost exclusively Republican) incumbents is to the Nineties what pot smoking was to the Sixties: everyone who was anyone did it, nobody wants to talk about it now, and when forced to confront it, the accused chuckles nervously, shrugs his or her shoulders, makes vague references to the prevailing culture of the time, and changes the subject as quickly as possible.

This was always a sham and a gimmick; as I predicted at the time (sorry, my blog archives only go back so far), once a bunch of incumbent Democrats had been term-limited the old-fashioned way, the idea quickly vanished into the ether among those Republicans who ran for office promising to limit themselves. As this MyDD diary shows, there's quite of few of those folks still in Congress, gearing up to run for a term they once swore they wouldn't ever serve.

Since the upcoming 2006 election is often compared in the news to the 1994 campaign, I think it would make for an interesting story for someone to ask all of these people why they're not holding themselves to that promise they made back in those heady days of yore. I don't support term limits, so I'm not exactly unhappy that they've fallen from favor, but hey, a promise is a promise, and as one challenger to a term-limits supporter put it:

[Zach] Wamp’s Democratic foe in Tennessee’s 3rd District, Terry Stulce, says he is running to “help Zach keep his word on at least one promise he made in 1994.”

Stulce - an Army veteran, social worker and first-time candidate - concedes that many voters are willing to overlook a broken term limit pledge, but he says the issue is a moral barometer. “You can’t say, ‘Okay, that was 12 years ago and things have changed and now I can’t leave even though I promised.’ I think it’s more about character,” Stulce said.

So, Kay Bailey. Why have you broken your promise on term limits?

UPDATE: USA Today is on the case (via The Stakeholder), while Vince points out that KBH actually sponsored a term-limits constitutional amendment.

More on the Universities rail line

In addition to yesterday's article in the Houston & Texas section of the Chron, there's also this piece from the Heights and Neartown This Week section on the light rail town hall meeting at Rice. Two items of interest: One is a more specific mention of the partisan leanings of the crowd.

While attendees at that March 22 meeting were overwhelmingly opposed to the possibility of a light rail corridor down Richmond Avenue, the split was about 60-40 against a Richmond line Thursday.

[...]

With a more even split of proponents and opponents of a Richmond line, the meeting at times became contentious. Cheers and boos greeted some speakers during and after their comments, and Culberson was met with catcalls when he asked to hear only from people who live or work along Richmond.

In my post yesterday on this topic, opinions on the crowd's split ranged from "fairly even" to "about 2/3 - 3/4 of the audience" being against rail on Richmond. I bring this up as a reminder that it's all subjective at this point.

Item two is that this article included more statements from meeting attendees, including those who favor at least giving Richmond the serious study it deserves.

"I want to see information. I want to see design schematics," said Robin Holzer, president of the Citizens Transportation Coalition. "The people who will be providing these things are just being brought in now. I'd hope that (Culberson would) be interested not in having a popularity contest based on misinformation and fear-mongering but on facts that are presented after Metro does its studies and we have enough to come back and have another discussion."

Indeed, today's Chron notes that contracts have just been awarded to do the initial studies for design and preliminary engineering on the Universities line as well as the four existing bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors. According to the article, this will take about six months, with the first reports coming in after three months. Maybe by then we'll have some real facts to debate.

Back to the article:

Proponents argued running the line along Richmond would provide better access to Greenway Plaza and the Galleria.

Said public-transportation advocate Christof Spieler, "Urban rail is cost-effective when it goes where the people are. Metro needs to figure out what to do to make this work before we can make a rational decision."

Said Holzer, "We do a good job of connecting people in the suburbs to the inner city. What we're not doing a good job of is connecting neighborhoods with major activity centers."

South Boulevard business owner Steve Grossman said, "Westpark is a stupefyingly bad design move. You're putting a rail line on the other side of the freeway from Greenway Plaza and the Galleria."

Speaking of where the people are, Rick Casey fills in the blank.

According to the census, the relevant area of Richmond in 2000 had 16,000 residents and 60,000 employees. This includes businesses and residents on the street and within 1,500 feet north and south.

By contrast, Westpark had 9,600 residents and 12,000 employees.

And the Houston-Galveston Area Council, the planning agency for the region, expects the gap to grow by 2025.

By that time, Richmond is expected to have 22,000 residents and 75,000 employees, compared with just 13,000 residents and 13,500 employees for Westpark.

Along Richmond, the rail line would drop off and pick up at hundreds of retail businesses and at the huge Greenway Plaza development, with its high-rise office buildings, its large theater and its Lakewood megachurch in the old Compaq Center.

Put it where the riders are. Seems simple, doesn't it?

Finally, for those who might be thinking about basing their vote in November on how a member of Congress ought to approach this process, Culberson's opponent Jim Henley writes in his blog:

I support Mayor Bill White's effort to ensure a thorough study of all available options for the proposed east-west METRO rail line. The current planning process includes community participation, careful consideration of impacts to local businesses and surrounding neighborhoods, and open discussion; this course of action is the best approach to addressing Houston's long-term mobility. The METRO line is an issue for our city, and our local civic leaders have this process well in hand. [...] Mr. Culberson should refrain from meddling in the difficult but necessary process of evaluating our rail options

You can't say you don't have a clear choice in the matter.

UPDATE: Two posts from Christof that address the issues of process and location.

Observer on the Ceverha decision

The Texas Observer has a good story on how the incredible Ethics Commission decision on gift disclosure came about (see here and here for the background). Their process is as bad as you thought it was. Check it out.

Great moments in commenting

I have never closed comments on my old posts, and while that can be a pain from a spam perspective, the occasional random comment from a Google surfer has been known to make up for it. Back in 2002, I participated in a blogburst to celebrate the season premier of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I wrote a fluffy little piece that drew a silly comparison between Buffy and The Sopranos, riffing on the lyrics in the latter show's theme song. Mostly, I couldn't think of anything better to write, and I had a deadline looming, so that's what I came up with.

This afternoon, some random person left this comment on that post:

This website is completely ridiculous. Any dumbass that would actually watch Buffy would never understand the art and intricate details of The Sopranos. And you're comparing hairstyles? How old are you?

I'm 40. And before you ask, the answer is no, I do not live in my mom's garage. Does it help that I understand the art and intricate details of the Austin Lounge Lizards?

It's moments like this that remind me why I blog.

Culberson's mind is made up on Richmond rail

I don't quite understand why Rep. John Culberson is bothering to attend any of the town hall meetings on the Universities rail line when he's made it perfectly clear that his mind is made up about it.

Culberson said his impression is that opposition from homeowners and businesses becomes strong west of Mandell Street in the Museum District.

When a resident who lives near Weslayan and Richmond objected to the line, Culberson replied, "I think you folks west of Shepherd ought to rest easy."

"If a majority is opposed, I'm going to be there for them," he told the crowd of about 900 at Rice University.

"Metro has to come through my committee," said Culberson, the only Texan on the House Appropriation Committee's transportation subcommittee.

I have two questions for Mister Culberson:

1. How will you know if a majority is opposed? Counting hands at a hearing, where the audience is not a representative sample of the affected area as a whole, is not valid. And for what it's worth, a friend who attended last night's meeting at Rice told me that she thought the crowd was fairly evenly divided among Richmond supporters and opponents. So what method do you have in mind for determining what the majority wants, sir?

2. If I'm parsing his words correctly, Culberson seems to be in favor of (or at least not yet opposed to) putting the rail line on Richmond from downtown to approximately Shepherd Drive, then jogging south to the Westpark right of way (Westpark itself does not begin until Kirby, so the first quarter mile or so of this will go through a non-road area, including an auto dealership). How exactly do you think the Richmond part of the line should link up with the Westpark part? Running it down Shepherd/Greenbriar? I'm trying to imagine a world in which that would make sense. What's your plan here, sir?

Of course, if we let Metro do its study without any pressure to come to a preapproved solution, then maybe we can find out some answers to questions like these. In the meantime, I'd like to know what answers Rep. Culberson has in mind.

Meanwhile, there's some supplemental coverage of the City Council district meetings from before the Rice town hall. This story from two of the District C meetings shows that some people are not considering the big picture.

Residents who live along Richmond are worried not only about potential right-of-way acquisition, but also about how placing the line on Richmond will affect access to their neighborhoods.

Robert McClain, a business owner on Richmond and a resident of the Colquitt Court neighborhood, said the placement of the line along Richmond would not only place a major burden on business owners, but would have negative long-term effects on the area as well.

"I'm sure developers are excited about the Richmond rail," McClain said. "Rail is a magnet for high-density residential development. This looks like a classic land grab. Real estate interests always trump neighborhood protection."

[Metro president and CEO Frank] Wilson said residential development is going to occur along the University Corridor with or without a rail line.

"You are blessed and cursed by the same thing and that's location," he said. "Two thousand people a week are coming to this city. You're going to get developments and apartment units in your area whether Metro comes or not. But public transportation can help with the traffic and the parking issues that come with that."

Wilson is exactly right. That stretch of Richmond between Kirby and Montrose is too underdeveloped and too close to some truly valuable real estate to not become some very hot property in the near future. Look at all the comparable main east-west arteries near Richmond - Bissonet, Alabama, and Westheimer - and you see just how much Richmond lags behind. In a market like Houston, that just isn't a stable situation. Given how little spare capacity Richmond has now for vehicle traffic, the choice residents have there isn't rail or no rail. It's rail or street widening. You can deal with Metro now or TxDOT later. There is no third option.

Finally, I'll link to this article on a similar meeting in District D to note that Robert McLane/McClain gets himself around, though he needs to do a better job of spelling his name for reporters. Could we maybe get some quotes from other folks, too? Thanks.

Victory is still sweet two days later

Greg takes a long and well-deserved victory lap over the primary runoff win for Borris Miles. Read it for a good insider's account of what went on in that campaign.

One point to highlight:

Obviously, I'm glad we won as I tend to prefer that over the other option. It was just over a year ago that I first called out the current incumbent. Over time, other bloggers would follow. Nathan Wilcox's profile still adorns the wall of HQ as it's perhaps the single best distillation of the case against Al in one blogpost. The next time you read something about the low batting average of national bloggers on seeing wins on Election night, know that there's a lot of proud Texas bloggers with some fingerprints on this win.

Let's not forget Carlos Uresti's win over State Sen. Frank Madla, or Donna Howard in the HD48 special election, either. There was a lot of tongue-clucking in the national press and elsewhere over the "failure" of progressive blogs to oust Rep. Henry Cuellar in the CD28 primary. Well, from where I sit, the record of Texas netroots-supported candidates so far this year is three and two (I'll accept our share of the blame for Katy Hubener's loss in the HD106 special as well). I'm certainly not going to claim that we were difference-makers; we helped, but so did a zillion other people, many of whom did a lot of real, actual, old-fashioned non-glamorous campaign work while we banged our virtual pots and pans and maybe raised a few pennies to help those folks out. But hey, if we're going to get tagged for a loss in CD28, we're damn sure going to claim our share of the wins in SD19, HD48, and HD146. And how sweet they are. Here's to a few more in November, too.

The College Baseball Hall of Fame

What do you know? It's a reason to visit Lubbock.

"Just like Canton and Cooperstown, sports fans around the nation will begin to turn their attention to Lubbock every summer," said John Askins, chairman and CEO of the College Baseball Foundation, which established the [College Baseball Hall of Fame].

"Different groups have talked about a college baseball hall of fame, but we decided to do something about it," he said.

The hall of fame museum will be part of a new baseball stadium complex, which will be built on the campus of Texas Tech and is scheduled to open before the 2008 season.

The initial list of nominees is pretty impressive. Among them are eight members of Major League Baseball's Hall of Fame - Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, Frankie Frisch, Christy Mathewson, Lou Gehrig, Ted Lyons, Joe Sewell, and George Sisler - plus one surefire future inductee in Barry Larkin and one member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Bobby Layne. As a Rice fan, I'm contractually obligated to wonder why Wayne Graham isn't on the list, but other than that, I've no gripes.

Anyway. I can't say a road trip is in my immediate future, but whatever else one may say about Lubbock (and having spent a couple of nights there on two different occasions, there is much that one can say), it's way closer to me than Cooperstown. So you never know.

More battle lines drawn over the TTRC plan

First things first: Via Aaron Pena, the State House is preparing a bill to implement the recommendations of the Texas Tax Reform Commission.

Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick said Wednesday he expects a version of Gov. Rick Perry's $6 billion tax-swap proposal to be filed as legislation in the House when a special session on the issue starts Monday.

Since Perry presented his plan to the Legislature two weeks ago, House and Senate leaders have been mum on its future in either chamber. The wording of the 92-page proposal is being refined and drafted as legislation, Craddick said.

The plan includes an expanded business tax, a $1-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax, and a portion of the state's budget surplus. The new money would be used to slash school property taxes by a third.

"We expect to have all the ... bills ready to be filed on Monday morning," he said.

[...]

Another lawmaker said Wednesday he is working on an alternate property tax relief measure that would depend entirely on the state's budget surplus to reduce property taxes by a lesser amount and satisfy the court ruling. That plan wouldn't tackle reforms to the state's loophole-ridden franchise tax.

Rep. Warren Chisum, a Pampa Republican, said his proposal would use $2.6 billion of the state's estimated $4.3 billion surplus to give homeowners an 11 percent property tax reduction in time to meet the June 1 court deadline.

To maintain the property tax cut, lawmakers would have to revisit tax reform during the next legislative session or hope for continued economic prosperity. Budget policy analysts contend that most of the surplus is unavailable.

Perry has condemned the surplus-only idea as a short-term, "get outta Dodge" plan that will result in a future budget deficit. But Rep. Jim Keffer, an Eastland Republican who leads the House tax-writing committee, said it's a good idea to make the option available.

"I'm just looking at past history. The wheels fall off sometimes, and you've got to be ready," Keffer said. "We have to be successful in answering the Supreme Court's concerns in a special session."

I remain curious on this point: Will the State Supreme Court accept this kind of legislative punt? There's a deadline in place, and the ruling in the West Orange-Cove case clearly indicated that just cutting property taxes was not a sufficient answer. What happens if the Lege passes a surplus-draining tax cut, then the Court grants an injunction barring payments to the school districts because their ruling was not satisfied? Do we want to take that chance? And even if the court agrees to grant an extension for a year, how can school districts reasonably plan what to do if they don't know what's going to happen in 2007? It's not like you can count on there being a surplus, after all.

In the meantime, supporters and detractors of the TTRC plan are lining up and taking action. Eye on Williamson and Capitol Annex sat in on a conference call with the Center for Public Policy Priorities and recapped what was discussed. There's a lot to chew on in their reports, but the bottom line is that the CPPP says the TTRC plan is "not even revenue neutral, really a revenue cut". If so, then the question of adequacy gets raised again. Keep an eye on this as well.

Rick Perry knows how important it is to his reelection chances to pass something that looks like a real reform. That's why he's about to spend six million dollars on radio ads touting the TTRC plan. Naturally, the funding for those ads will come from corporate donations, and as such Chris Bell and Carole Keeton Strayhorn are crying foul.

Both suggested Perry could gain politically in his re-election bid this year from the media campaign, funded by private donations that don't have to be revealed.

Bell said the ad campaign raises ethical questions by accepting donations from companies that may be affected by Perry's plan, which would cut property taxes and create a broad-based business tax to help pay for public schools.

Strayhorn said Perry should "shut it down" or disclose the names of contributors.

Kathy Walt, a Perry spokeswoman, said the Texans for Taxpayer Relief project, set up as a nonprofit group, is legal. She said Perry's plan is a legislative issue, not a political one, heading into the special session.

[...]

Strayhorn said tax plan advertisements with Perry's image amount to a political campaign because school finance is a key issue in his bid for re-election. The brains behind the campaign include several of Perry's top political aides.

"This is absolutely wrong and should be stopped in its tracks," Strayhorn said.

Bell said he'll wait to see how the commercials come out, but that Perry has a huge personal stake in the outcome of the school finance session.

"It's basically shaping up to be a reorganization of his campaign in a nonprofit structure," Bell said.

Walt said there's no politics to it, just state policy in a special session called to meet a court-ordered June 1 deadline. Corporations can spend money on that, Walt said.

"This is a legislative issue addressing significant property tax reduction," Walt said.

I'm sure the law is on Rick Perry's side - not that the toothless Texas Ethics Commission would do anything about it otherwise - but c'mon. Of course this is political. Perry needs the support of the Legislature, and after this raucus primary season, with Carolyn Boyle and the Texas Parent PAC the newest kingmakers in town, he needs to demonstrate to any waverers that this plan is what the people want. He's not strong enough to twist arms, so he needs to make a sale to the public. That's what this is, plain and simple.

Having said that, the ads could simply point people to the TTRC website, or be otherwise reasonably about information rather than advocacy. Perry doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt, but the content of the ads does matter. You never know. Bell and Strayhorn are right to point this out now, and this needs to be revisited once the ads are playing.

Meanwhile, one business group has endorsed the TTRC plan, while another is planning its own radio assault against it. The infamour Texas Association of Business is on board with the Perry Plan.

The group, which consists of a broad representation of small and large businesses across the state, called the plan "the best proposal to provide fair and equitable distribution of the tax burden while providing $6 billion in property tax relief for Texas employers and employees."

[...]

"Employers in Texas are more than willing to do their part to fund education," TAB President Bill Hammond says. "To ensure that every business does their part, the current proposal offers a low tax rate spread amongst all sectors of business."

I always have the urge to count my change whenever Bill Hammond speaks. If he's in favor of this, let's go reread the fine print.

On the other side of the coin is a group called Texans for Limited Government (TLG). The Quorum Report says:

Texans for Limited Government (TLG) today announced the launching of a statewide radio campaign to fight the business tax as proposed by the Texas Tax Reform Commission. "As a businessman, I understand that Texas businesses form the backbone of our state economy," said TLG Founder Gary Gates, "our radio ads are urging Texans to take action against the proposal before Austin slams businesses with an entirely new tax." Gates observed that the proposed school finance solution shifts much of the tax burden from property owners to businesses, but stated, "Not only are Texas businesses overtaxed, but eventually all taxes levied on businesses are passed down to the final consumer in the form of higher prices." Gates continued, "Instead of creating an entirely new stream of revenue for government, the Texas Legislature must rein in out of control government spending."

I'm guessing that's the same Gary Gates who lost the GOP primary for SD18 last March. I find his arguments shopworn and unpersuasive - if your problem is passing the tax burden onto consumers, you ought to maybe say a few words about the sales tax, methinks - but it's another voice in the mix. Stay tuned.

Not all fundraising stories have happy endings

I mentioned the CD17 race between Rep. Chet Edwards and challenger Van Taylor in that last post. Taylor just had himself a big fundraiser in Waco, but it was not as big as he might have liked despite the presence of Vice President Dick Cheney.

In endorsing Taylor, Cheney made his first public appearance in Texas since his hunting accident in February, drawing a smaller crowd than a similar fundraiser he headlined two years ago for Arlene Wohlgemuth, U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards’ last Republican challenger. Taylor said Cheney’s event rallied together the supporters he’ll need to defeat Edwards, D-Waco, an eight-term incumbent.

[...]

Two years ago, Cheney was cheered by a larger crowd of nearly 400 as he helped state Rep. Wohlgemuth raise more than $300,000 for her campaign against Edwards.

The Taylor event cost its guests $150 to $2,100. Taylor resisted comparisons that he had a smaller turnout and would raise less money from Monday’s luncheon.

“This was a hugely successful event,” Taylor said. “We had to remove all the tables so everyone could fit in.”

Guests stood as they snacked on cheese and vegetable trays, roast beef sandwiches and other foods.

Although the campaign said paid attendance at the Waco Hilton reached about 150, the crowd appeared to have fewer than 100 people. Taylor would not say how much he expected to raise, claiming he does not disclose fundraiser totals until filing reports with the Federal Election Commission.

Edwards’ campaign manager, Chris Turner, said the turnout likely fell short of Taylor’s expectations.

“The fact that the Taylor campaign won’t indicate how much they raised is likely an indication they didn’t meet their goals,” Turner said. “Having less than 150 people at a fundraiser with the vice president of the United States is a reflection of a lack of support and enthusiasm for Van Taylor.”

Poor Van. Guess Big Time Cheney isn't the draw he once was. I'll leave the tasteless shotgun jokes as an exercise for the readers, who'd undoubtedly do a better job of it than I anyway.

Sklar in DC, Feingold in Austin

Couple of Congressional fundraising notes to pass along: Shane Sklar will be in Washington, DC, on May 3 for a fundraiser hosted by a raft of current and former Congressfolk. Here's a partial lineup, from the email I got:

Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Honorable Steny H. Hoyer
Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Hon. Henry Cuellar
Hon. Lloyd Doggett
Hon. Chet Edwards
Hon. Martin Frost
Hon. Charlie Gonzales
Hon. Gene Green
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson
Hon. Nick Lampson
Hon. Solomon Ortiz
Hon. Silvestre Reyes
Hon. Max Sandlin
Hon. Charlie Stenholm
Hon. Jim Turner

Plus a few non-Texans as well. Not too shabby. The cheap seats start at $250, so this could raise some serious scratch for Sklar.

I'll talk about that a bit more in a second, but first, next week in Austin, Sen. Russ Feingold will be headlining a fundraiser for John Courage. I've got the invitation in PDF form here. As with the Sklar event, these tickets are not cheap, so the event has potential to really give Courage a boost.

Why do you care? Well, I see these two races as the top two after Lampson/TBD and Edwards/Taylor. What Sklar and Courage need to get on the radar is enough fundraising to make the usual observers sit up and take notice. Neither is running in a particularly friendly district, but both are running against incumbents who could be vulnerable to someone with the means to get a message out. Ron Paul has years of eccentric do-nothingness, capped by his steadfast refusal to serve the interests of the coastal region he purportedly represents. Lamar Smith is a close DeLay crony and a leader of the xenophobic anti-immigrant brigade that's found itself of late farther outside the mainstream than it thought it was. There's plenty of material there, it's just a question of making these fellows defend themselves. Plus, Paul was unchallenged in his new district in 2004, while Smith underperformed against a placeholder. Add it all up, and these two races have breakthrough potential.

(Rumor has it, by the way, that Paul is a bit wigged out by Sklar's campaign. The story as I heard it is that the Grumpy Gynecologist (tm, Banjo Jones) is telling people they shouldn't vote for Sklar because he's young, newly married, and has no kids. Yeah, that's a terrible stain on his resume, let me tell you.)

(Oh, and check out the greeting Smith got at UT yesterday. Note also that as the Daily Texan story indicates, nobody interrupted Smith's speech; all the boisterousness was outside. That's how you do it.)

Anyway. I know Sklar had something like a $200K $150K quarter ending in March, and he's hoping to top that in the second Q; I don't know where Courage stands yet, but I know he's got an aggressive fundraising plan. If they can do it, look for them to start getting noticed.

UPDATE: I have been informed by the Sklar campaign that their total for this quarter is in the $150K range, not $200K. Apparently, a couple of later-in-the-period fundraisers that would have pushed them to $200K got postponed until the summer. My apologies for the confusion. On the plus side, I understand that Sklar has outraised Paul by $60K to $45K since the primary report was filed. That's another good sign. Go Shane!

Busby to runoff in CA-50 special election

The bad news is that Francine Busby did not outperform the Democratic index in California's 50th CD yesterday. She got about 44%, which is an improvement over her performance against Duke Cunninghamn in 2004, but nothing to write home about. So it's off to a runoff, and she's not got a lot of money left, as she went for the win in her spending.

On the plus side, the combined Dem total was over 47%, the best Republican performer got 15%, and the runoff will be on June 6, the date of the California primaries, where all the contested races (including Governor) are on the Dem side. With that many Republicans pulling pieces of the vote, it's not clear that Brian Bilbray, the survivor of that mosh pit, will pull them all together for the rematch. Busby was slightly ahead of Bilbray in straight-up polls before the special, so we'll see what happens.

For more analysis, read MyDD (optimistic), Kos (pessimistic), Ezra (pessimistic), Chuck Todd (a little of each), and The Stakeholder (optimistic).

Pro Tem firings upheld

Checking in again on the story of the four employees of the Mayor Pro Tem's office who were fired (technically, suspended indefinitely without pay, which according to Houblog is a kind of administrative limbo designed to make the employee resign), I see that those after a long hearing with the Civil Service Commission for Municipal Employees, the firings were upheld.

The three-member commission decided to uphold the terminations of the four Office of Mayor Pro Tem employees accused of taking bonuses city officials have said weren't authorized.

The panel also ruled that two lower-level employees didn't conspire to receive unauthorized bonuses, though that didn't have an effect on the status of their employment.

The attorney for at least one of the employees acknowledged the uphill battle.

"It's not unexpected," said Walter A. Boyd III, who represents fired pro tem office manager Rosita Hernandez. "Effectively we were guilty until we could prove ourselves innocent."

[...]

The hearing - in which two FBI agents watched the testimony but refused to reveal their affiliation with the agencies when asked by a reporter - dealt mostly with information already made public in documents or statements by city officials.

But attorneys for the employees elicited revelations that Alvarado had been notified that pro tem employees were getting large bonuses, and that her council office employees received significant pay increases.

Alvarado denied ever reading the notification, saying she was copied an e-mail that she apparently never read. In it, finance officials said the pro tem employees received $18,000 in bonuses in fiscal 2005.

Wait a minute. Am I to understand now that Alvarado's defense is that she didn't read an email? Because if so, that's very much not the same as saying she never received any notification at all. Am I missing something?

Maybe it's just written poorly. This MSNBC story is less ambiguous:

During former Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado's testimony Tuesday night, she said she was not aware of the pay increases and that her signature was forged.

"Every single one of the 13 bonuses that are listed in this document -- did you have any knowledge, I want to be very clear, did you have any knowledge whatsoever about these? Did you ever approve them?" asked Connie Acosta, with the city labor division. "No, I did not," Alvarado said.

Alvarado said she only approved two raises of 2 percent for the employees and that there was once a misunderstanding between her and Hernandez about raises.

"I said, very point blankly, there's no way I would ever give anyone in my office, no matter how good a job they were doing, an increase like that," Alvarado said.

Now that's a lot clearer. So what's the deal with that unread email?

Speaking of email, this story from yesterday looks at some of the correspondence between Alvarado and Hernandez.

Days before the city suspended an office manager amid accusations of unauthorized bonuses, she asked a top finance official not to direct budget memos to her boss, Councilwoman Carol Alvarado.

Rosita Hernandez, the former Office of Mayor Pro Tem manager, sent the Feb. 9 e-mail less than an hour after the finance official e-mailed city department heads, including Alvarado, a routine message about the budget process for the upcoming fiscal year.

"Per Council Member Alvarado, please do not send her any e-mails regarding budget issues or items," she wrote to Mel Trammell, the city's assistant finance and administration director. "All e-mails and/or hard copy correspondence should be sent to me directly."

[...]

Hernandez's e-mail was among hundreds examined by the Houston Chronicle, which recently obtained her electronic correspondence since December 2004, when she began running the pro tem office for Alvarado.

A spokesman for the councilwoman, who has stepped down temporarily as mayor pro tem while Harris County prosecutors investigate the bonuses, seized on the e-mail. He said it showed that Hernandez tried to keep documentation of the monthly payments from Alvarado.

"It appears to be pretty damning evidence that she attempted to conceal budgetary issues in the mayor pro tem's office," said the spokesman, Joe Householder of Public Strategies, Inc. "We view this e-mail as a clear implication of Ms. Hernandez's efforts to conceal what was going on."

Hernandez's attorney, Walter A. Boyd III, sees the document differently. He noted as key the fact that Alvarado had forwarded the original budget message to Hernandez.

"It's evidence consistent with Alvarado not wanting to be bothered with this kind of stuff," he said.

The Chronicle searched the e-mail files for the words "bonus," "salary" or "raise," and the search revealed no correspondence suggesting Alvarado knew of the bonuses - a charge Boyd has made and the councilwoman has denied.

Most of the e-mail exchanges between Alvarado and Hernandez related to the councilwoman's schedule. The day before Mayor Bill White's Feb. 15 announcement about an investigation into the bonuses, the correspondence between them offered no hint of the pending scandal.

I'm inclined to believe Alvarado on this one. Even if you accept Boyd's explanation, Alvarado being disinterested in the process is not the same as Alvarado approving the bonuses. If anything, that supports the notion that Hernandez acted on her own, even if she believed she had her boss' implicit okay. This is the sort of thing for which you need to get permission in writing, and for precisely this reason.

I linked to it at the top of this post, but Houblog has some observations on the hearings and the coverage of same that's worth a look. We'll see what happens next.

Where's the tort reform crowd when you really need them?

Grover Norquist has way too much free time on his hands.

Conservative activist Grover Norquist is seeking a trademark on "K Street Project," saying Democrats and Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) have wrongfully acquired the term to describe unethical practices that have nothing to do with his organization.

Far from running away from the term, as most other Republicans have since January, when lobbyist Jack Abramoff agreed to plead guilty to corruption charges, Norquist is embracing it.

[...]

Norquist said he founded the K Street Project in 1989 to bring ideological balance to lobbying firms. His group distributes weekly jobs bulletins by e-mail to 250 subscribers. This week's bulletin is a 75-page dossier with positions at the Federal Election Commission, Merrill Lynch, the American Health Care Association, WellPoint and Home Depot.

Norquist said, "We argued to K Street - to trade associations, Fortune 500 companies, the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers - you should hire people who agree with you philosophically. That means, labor unions, you should hire liberals."

But the phrase "K Street Project" has since come to encompass a nefarious practice of Republican lawmakers pressuring groups to hire right-leaning employees; Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was admonished by the House ethics committee for doing so in 1998.

[...]

Norquist's trademark application could take up to a year and a half to be processed.

"Some people say Kleenex when they mean tissue," Norquist said. "We will jealously guard the real phrasing the way Kleenex and Coca-Cola do. We will sue anyone who says it wrong and make lots of money."

It's always nice when someone signals you this cleanly that he has no more original ideas left in his tank, isn't it? I'm thinking a prolonged campaign of online ridicule is the right response to this. Leave your suggestions in the comments. I promise not to try to trademark any of them.

Runoff results roundup

Rounding up what happened yesterday...

Radnofsky wins

Radnofsky received about 60 percent of the vote against San Antonio retiree Gene Kelly, who shares the same name as a late movie star. Radnofsky, a mediation specialist at Vinson & Elkins, said her race against Hutchison now will turn into a "referendum" on the direction of the country.

"I'm calling for debates right now," Radnofsky said, saying she would like to have debates on education, health care, veteran affairs and the economy. "If we talked about the economy, we could talk about whether Senator Hutchison really brings home the bacon the way she claims ... when Texas is ranked 47th in bringing home the bacon."

Hutchison issued a statement saying she looks forward to the general election campaign. "I look forward to the campaign ahead and the opportunity to discuss the issues important to Texans," she said. "I have been proud to serve the people of our great state and, if re-elected, I will continue to be a senator for all Texans."

Here's a picture from her victory party at Maria Selma's last night. (Note to the three people in my audience who'll know what I'm talking about: Maria Selma's is now what the old Munchie's used to be on Richmond near Mandell.) That's our own PDiddie standing behind BAR's left shoulder.

Miles ousts Edwards

Edwards, 68, first elected to the south Houston district in 1978, staked his re-election bid on his seniority — saying he could be removed, but not replaced.

Miles, 40, who owns a Farmers Insurance Agency office in the Third Ward, was the first challenger Edwards had faced in more than a decade.

"I'm committed to the people of 146 and not the special interests," Miles said. "The people of the district said they want their voices heard in Austin and now they have it."

Miles said that he would focus on improving access to small-business loans and increasing home ownership by expanding Land Bank legislation, which aims to turn tax-delinquent property into affordable housing. He said he also would make constituent services a priority.

Miles contended that Edwards has been inattentive to the district's needs and had developed a sense of entitlement to the seat.

Edwards conceded the race to Miles around 10 p.m. He told supporters at his election night party that it had been a long run and he was grateful to serve them.

"The people have spoken, and he's accepted the results," said state Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston. "He's had a tremendous ride. He's proud of his service and he wishes the district well."

Miles had some very gracious things to say about Edwards and his many years of service last night after he conceded. He's a class act. The turnout in this race may have been small, but you couldn't tell that from the Miles victory party. It seemed like everyone who'd voted for Miles was there, whooping it up.

This is gonna drive me crazy:

Miles will be the favorite in November against Libertarian nominee Gerald W. "Jerry" LaFleur. No Republican sought the seat.

[...]

In the Republican runoff for the open House District 133 seat, Houston Community College Trustee Jim Murphy took 53 percent to defeat lawyer Mike Schofield.

[...]

The district voted 56 percent Republican in 2004 statewide elections, so the GOP runoff winner will be the favorite in the November general election against Democrat Kristi Thibaut and Libertarian Chris Camero.

Equating HD146 and HD133 is meaningless. Miles has no Republican opponent, and the average Democrat got over 72% of the vote in HD146 in 2004. Murphy will be going against a well-funded Democrat in a district that's trending Dem and where the average Republican got 56%. Miles is a shoe-in, Murphy is a slight favorite. Calling them both "favorites" without any qualifiers is simply not accurate.

State Rep. Richard Raymond, in a runoff with former Webb County Judge Mercurio Martinez, held his seat. I can't find a newspaper account of this, for some odd reason.

Alvarado defeats Grant

"I'm very pleased to see that all our work the last few months has turned out to be something that I believe will be good for Democrats in November," Ms. Alvarado said Tuesday night.

Asked what paved the way for her victory, she said, "I spent a lot of time on the road, and I think my ideas about education, health care and immigration resonated with voters."

For Ms. Alvarado, the goal of winning the state's number two office will get much tougher as she faces Mr. Dewhurst, a one-time Houston millionaire businessman who is prepared to spend several million dollars to win re-election to his second term this November.

The 49-year-old Democrat said her success may ride on efforts by the Legislature to fix the state's troubled school finance system this spring. Lawmakers have failed several times – dating to 2003 – to come up with a new education funding plan.

As leader of the Senate, Ms. Alvarado said, Mr. Dewhurst shares the blame for those failures.

"Unless something happens in the next few months and his performance improves, I don't see why I won't have an excellent chance in November," she said.

My best wishes to Maria Alvarado. I admire her enthusiasm, but let's just say this is a tough race and leave it at that.

Ted Ankrum wins

In a congressional district stretching from Northwest Austin to West Houston, Ted Ankrum of Cypress, outside Houston, has bested Paul Foreman of Austin.

In the fall, Ankrum will face first-term U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, in the eight-county 10th Congressional District, which was redrawn by state lawmakers to GOP advantage in 2003.

On Tuesday night, Ankrum vowed a campaign focused on McCaul's alliance with national Republicans. "McCaul represents the Republican leadership, not the people of the district," he said.

Ankrum got about 70% of the vote in this runoff. Congratulations, Ted!

On the GOP side, the big race was for the Court of Criminal Appeals. After initially knocking both his opponents off the ballot on technicalities, former State Rep. Terry Keel lost in the runoff to incumbent Charles Holcomb.

"Well, for the first time since I was 24 years old, when I became an assistant district attorney, I'm going to be a private citizen. I kind of look forward to it," said Keel, 48.

"You know, I campaigned hard, but it's very difficult to challenge an incumbent in your own party, especially when you have a low turnout like this. But I knew that going into this, so I'm not unhappy," Keel said.

Statewide turnout was less than 2 percent.

Holcomb, 72, was seeking a second term on the state's highest criminal court, but he will have to step down in September 2008, when he meets the mandatory retirement age for judges, 75. The governor appoints his replacement.

Keel said he wasn't thinking about lining up for Holcomb's seat. "That's something down the road that's to be discussed in the context of a couple years from now," he said.

Nor did Keel rule out seeking a future office, saying "you never say never."

Keel carried most large counties Tuesday, but Holcomb dominated the rural areas to stave off an upset. Holcomb had topped Keel by 75,000 votes in a three-way March primary to lead 45 percent to 31 percent.

Holcomb won by a 53.7-46.3 margin statewide.

In San Antonio, former aide to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison George Antuna won in HD118, Carlos Uresti's now-open seat.

[Antuna] captured more than 81 percent of the vote in his primary runoff with Steve Salyer of Universal City, the GOP's nominee two years ago.

Antuna, a former regional director for U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, declared victory at 8:30 p.m.

"I honestly believe this special day is going to propel us into the November election," Antuna told supporters packed in the back room of a Live Oak restaurant.

Antuna, 37, said he would campaign as hard for the general election in the fall as he had for the runoff.

"Our strategy is to continue getting out to meet people and to let individuals know there's an option out there," he noted.

Though Antuna's margin of victory was convincing, the number of votes putting him over the top was a pittance. Only 1,126 Republican voters decided the race.

"Even with our best efforts to motivate our folks, it was difficult to get people out to vote," said Christian Anderson of Election Support Services, who worked on Antuna's campaign.

[...]

In November's general election, Antuna will face Democrat Joe Farias, a former Harlandale Independent School District board member who avoided a runoff by defeating three opponents March 7. Libertarian James L. Thompson also is contending for the seat.

District 118, which is 64.5 percent Hispanic, snakes from South Bexar County to its northeastern corner, taking in most of Live Oak, Selma and Universal City.

This will be a race to watch. HD118 was pretty evenly divided in 2004, and Uresti won with 56%. This is a good chance for the GOP to pick up a seat, and you can bet it will attract a lot of attention.

Finally, another Craddickite goes down, this time in West Texas.

Drew Darby unseated state Rep. Scott Campbell in Texas House District 72, as Campbell's bid for a third straight term in office ended in Tuesday's runoff.

With all precincts reporting, Darby defeated Campbell with 60 percent of the 9,503 votes cast in the four-county district.

''It's very humbling to know I have the faith and the hopes of that many people in the district,'' Darby said.

District 72 is a Republican-leaning district that encompasses Coke, Mitchell, Scurry and Tom Green counties. Darby must still campaign this fall to beat Libertarian Dennis Higgins in November.

[...]

Jeri Slone, who as a Democratic candidate lost twice to Campbell in the general election, said early Tuesday evening that if Darby held on to his lead, she would not run as an independent. Slone filed as an independent candidate with the state in January.

''I feel strongly we need a change,'' Slone said, ''and if the (voters) in the primary make that change, I can live with that.''

Campbell nearly lost in 2004 due to some problems with drunk driving and indecent exposure. He trailed Darby in the three-way primary in March, so he was expected to be toast.

Finally, as Philip notes, overall candidates backed by Speaker Craddick did poorly yesterday. I'll bet he's looking forward to that special session now even less than he had been before.

UPDATE: Other blog coverage: Dos Centavos, PinkDome, Capitol Annex, Latinos for Texas, PDiddie, Aaron Pena, the Brazosport News, and Casual Soapbox.

UPDATE: Forgot Eye on Williamson.

The right to study

One of the arguments that's being made by opponents of a light rail line on Richmond is that Metro is bound by the 2003 referendum to put that line on Westpark. Christof explains why that's ridiculous. And just in time, too, because Rep. John Culberson, who will be at the big town hall meeting in the Shell Auditorium in Rice University's McNair Hall (6:30 to 8:00 PM) to discuss Metro's plans, has decided that he doesn't need to know how viable the options are, he wants the decision made now to put the line on Westpark, all these public meetings be damned. Click the More link for his letter, and for the CTC's response. Then be there at Rice tonight to support a meaningful process over preemptive dictates.

Meeting details for tonight:

What: Rep. Culberson's Town Hall meeting on Richmond Rail

When: Wed, Apr 12, 2006
neighborhood press rally at 5:30 pm; town hall at 6:30 pm

Where: Rice University, McNair Hall, Shell Auditorium
6100 South Main, enter Rice Blvd entrance 20, Houston, 77005
For campus map and parking

Culberson's letter:

Dear Richmond-Area Home or Business Owner,

This Wednesday, April 12, I am hosting a Town Hall meeting in the Shell Auditorium in Rice University's McNair Hall (6:30 to 8:00 PM) to gauge for myself the level of support or opposition to METRO's proposal to build light rail down Richmond Avenue. I take my job as Representative very seriously, and my job requires me to work on behalf my constituents when they reach a strong consensus on quality of life issues. In the last few months, I have received hundreds of letters, emails, and phone calls opposed to building light rail on Richmond. I also recognize that the ballot used in the referendum in November 2003 clearly spelled out the "Westpark Corridor" as the proposed route, and that there is much more land and room for development along Westpark.

I know that there have been a number of meetings on this issue, and that you are fatigued from all the time this process is consuming. I am grateful for the time and energy you have spent so far, and I am confident we will reach a point this week where all members of the community have been thoroughly educated on the proposals, and have given their final input. At this town hall meeting I will listen to your comments and ideas, and make a decision based on your input. Afterwards, I will inform METRO of my position. It is very important for me to hear from as many Richmond-area residents and business owners as possible so that I can reach a conclusion based on your opinions. I am respectfully asking that you set aside one more night to share your thoughts with me, so that I can best represent you in Washington. Thank you for your patience and your time, and I look forward to seeing you on Wednesday.

John Culberson

Member of Congress

The CTC's response:

UNIVERSITIES LIGHT RAIL PROJECT NEEDS FACTS NOT POLITICS:

Neighborhood groups demand Representative Culberson leave Washington-style politics out of Universities light rail plan

Leaders to call for common sense, facts, and patience during April 12th town hall meeting; keep all options on the table

What: Rep. Culberson's Town Hall meeting on Richmond Rail

When: Wed, Apr 12, 2006
neighborhood press rally at 5:30 pm; town hall at 6:30 pm

Where: Rice University, McNair Hall, Shell Auditorium
6100 South Main, enter Rice Blvd entrance 20, Houston, 77005
For campus map and parking:
http://www.rice.edu/maps/maps.html

(Houston) - Houston Mayor White told a St. Luke's crowd that "we make our best decisions when we listen to each other," and "this won't be the end of the conversation." Houston City Council Members Anne Clutterbuck, Ada Edwards, and Pam Holm have held just 4 out of 8 preliminary METRO forums.

But Congressman John Culberson writes in an email to some constituents, "I am confident we will reach a point this week where all members of the community have been thoroughly educated on the proposals, and have given their final input. At this town hall meeting I will listen to your comments and ideas, and make a decision based on your input. Afterwards, I will inform METRO of my position."

"Why has Culberson come back from Washington to rush this neighborhood process?" asks Mary Needham, a Winlow Place resident. "We need all the facts before we decide where rail should go." The federally-required planning process is scheduled to go through the end of the year. Culberson is politicizing a process that should be based on informed public dialogue and fact-based analysis.

Many organizations are calling for METRO to study all of the options in an open and fair public process, including the Citizens' Transportation Coalition, the Neartown Association, the Menil Foundation, Houston Community College Central Campus, the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Museum District Business Alliance (MDBA), RichmondRail.org and others.

Houstonians deserve the best urban transit system we can build, that serves central Houston's businesses, universities, institutions, and neighborhoods. That means looking at all possible choices of where to put rail. Politicians must not prematurely determine a route based on their needs.

HHS seeking public input

Hope sent me the following email, which may be of interest to readers here:

HHS is seeking public input on the Coordinated Strategic Plan

Texas’ five health and human services agencies will conduct public hearings in eight Texas cities for input on the draft 2007-2011 Coordinated Strategic Plan.

The plan will outline goals, objectives and strategies for the Health and Human Services Commission, Department of Aging and Disability Services, Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Family and Protective Services and the Department of State Health Services.

[Public hearing dates and locations]

The first meeting is on Wednesday, April 19, right in my back yard at the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast Center on Waugh Drive, which is right near the soon-to-be-demolished YWCA. Schedule-wise, it's not so good, however - all hearings begin at 3 p.m. and will end at approximately 7 p.m, according to their page. Still, if this is of interest to you, they'll be holding these hearings around the state between April 19 and May 18. Check it out.

Miles and Radnofsky win

Borris Miles wins by a not-as-close-as-I-expected 53.5-46.5% margin. I was there till almost 11 at his party, and the place was packed and raucous. More in the morning, but damn, was that fun.

Barbara Radnofsky's win was much less suspenseful - the AP called it by 8 PM. A quick look at the results shows she did vastly better in many counties that Gene Kelly had carried the first time around. I'll noodle with that tomorrow.

Other races: Maria Alvarado wins, Ted Ankrum wins, Richard Raymond keeps his seat, and Valinda Bolton wins. Some Republican results are here, and some commentary on What It All Means is here. Good night!

Off to watch the returns

I'm about to head out to what I hope will be victory parties for Borris Miles and Barbara Radnofsky here in town. Despite the screwup in Maverick County (which hasn't had its early votes reported yet), things look excellent early on for BAR: she leads 26,228 to 15,409 as I type this. Her race results can be found here, while the BOR crew is keeping tabs on all Dem races here and Rep races here. See you later!

Ballot screwup in Maverick County

Vince and BOR are the first to report this: The Democratic primary runoff ballot in Maverick County, where Eagle Pass is, did not contain Barbara Radnofsky's name on it. Instead, it had the names of the other two candidates, Gene Kelly and Darrell Reece Hunter. This was true throughout early voting, and was only reported and rectified today around noon when officials in Maverick County acted on some complaints about the ballot by calling the Secretary of State's office.

I've spoken to Seth with Radnofsky's campain, to a nice lady named Elizabeth in the SOS office, and to Dan with the Texas Democratic Party about this. Here's what I know:

- Once the error was confirmed, "emergency ballot procedures" were initiated. That means that the electronic voting machines, which had been configured with the incorrect names, were replaced by paper ballots in Maverick County. According to the Quorum Report, those paper ballots will be counted by hand.

- All votes for Gene Kelly in Maverick will count. Any votes for Darrell Reece Hunter will be disqualified. Whatever happens in Maverick is official, barring an election contest (more on that later). There is no legal option to omit any results from Maverick.

- It's unclear at this time whose fault this is. Elizabeth says that the county party is responsible for the contents of the ballot. She says that they said the correct names were sent to the electronic voting machine's manufacturer (I did not ask who that was). How it went wrong from there is an open question.

- Also an open question is why it took so long for anyone to notice and/or do something about it. The impression I got from Elizabeth is that there were some complaints in Maverick County, but the SOS office was not contacted by Maverick officials until today. That will have to be sorted out.

- The key question is what happens if Kelly wins by a margin smaller than his margin of victory in Maverick County. According to both Elizabeth and Dan, Radnofsky's recourse would be to file an election contest, which would be a lawsuit in district court (not sure where; my guess would be Austin, but I Am Not A Lawyer). Nobody was willing to go on the record as to what a judge might do with that, but one scenario that Elizabeth and I discussed that sounds sensible to me is that the judge could order a repeat of the election in Maverick County only. She was not aware of a case like this before where a similar ballot omission was alleged to have made a difference in an election.

- Elizabeth told me there was a similar problem in the GOP primary this March in the Court of Criminal Appeals primary, where Charles Holcomb was left off the ballot in at least one county. I think she said Burnet County, but I can't find a source for that. Since Holcomb made the runoff with Terry Keel, it was basically no harm, no foul.

That's what I've got. If you know more, or can fill in the blanks on the potential election contest, please leave a comment.

UPDATE: Vince has some more info.

UPDATE: Vince is now concerned that Maverick may not be an isolated incident. Any comments from non-Harris and Travis voters?

Also today - the CA-50 special election

I haven't really written about it before, but today is also the day of the special election in the San Diego area to replace the convicted felon and Republican former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham in California's 50th CD. MyDD has the rundown on the race and what to expect. Democrats have done very well in special Congressional elections recently - think Stephanie Herseth and Ben Chandler - but taking this seat would go a long way towards advancing the idea that 2006 is going to be a good year for them. Keep an eye on this one.

Coverage of the rallies

Here's a brief roundup of coverage on yesterday's National Day of Action for immigration rights.

Rally packs downtown Houston

Tens of thousands of people skipped work on Monday, scooped up their children and flocked to downtown Houston to demand equal rights for immigrants in one of dozens of demonstrations held around the nation.

No one knew before the Houston protest began how many people might turn out.

No one knew afterward, either. Crowd estimates varied from 10,000 at mid-day to at least 50,000 as the march reached its peak.

What was clear, at least to many protesters and even a few experts, was that Houston had not seen a larger immigrant protest in several decades, maybe longer.

[...]

On Sunday, as many as a half million people protested in favor of immigrant rights in Dallas. Although fewer turned out in Houston, Rice University sociology associate professor Katharine M. Donato said, "I don't think you can compare what happened here in Houston to what happened in Dallas."

"It's Monday. Dallas did this on the weekend," Donato said. "I think it's astounding that you can have as many people out there as were out there on a Monday. People had to leave work."

Donato, who attended the rally, said the crowd was enthusiastic and passionate, but she considered the venue at Allen's Landing Park too small for the turnout.

Marisol Rodriguez, an organizer with the coalition that sponsored the event, estimated that 50,000 people or more took part.

Telemundo, a Spanish-language television network, put the number at more than 30,000.

The Chron's immigration blog gives a peek at the methodology for counting attendees, in case you're curious.

Back to the story:

Brother Robert Lentz of All Saints Catholic Church in the Heights wore a brown Franciscan robe and sandals, saying he "thought it was important that someone from the church show up in a recognizable way."

His own grandmother came to the country illegally from Russia, he said, and his family endured persecution and living in fear for many years.

"These people are almost all Catholics," Lentz said. "These are my people."

That's my neighborhood church. Nicely put, Brother Robert.

I look at it this way: What all these people want, ultimately, is to be Americans. We used to romaticize the notion of people coming to America to actively pursue that American dream. I seem to recall Ronald Reagan speaking warmly on the topic a few times back in the day. Do we really not feel that way any more? Cause I still do.

Anyway. I'm going to save myself a little effort and point you to Dos Centavos for more stories and Casual Soapbox for links to photos. And as a parting thought, consider this.

But in the new Post-ABC News poll, completed Sunday, 50 percent of respondents said they trusted the Democrats to better handle the immigration issue, while 38 percent trusted Republicans. A third of Americans approved of the president's handling of the immigration issue, while 61 percent disapproved. Only his handling of gas prices showed lower approval ratings.

Three-quarters of those responding said the United States is not doing enough to secure its borders, but they appeared to have rejected the argument that immigrants are an economic threat. About 68 percent said illegal immigrants are filling jobs Americans do not want, compared with 29 percent who believe they are taking jobs from Americans.

Maybe we do still feel that way after all. Link via Americablog.

Once again, it's time to vote

Today is the primary runoff election, so if you haven't voted early, this is your last chance. If you have voted, ask the people you know who should be voting if they have. I've gotten four people to go to the polls because I pestered them, and every one of them will be voting for Barbara Radnofsky. You can do that, too.

Here are the official BOR endorsements for the runoff. Voting locations for Harris County are here (Excel spreadsheet). And of course, here are all the candidate statements for the runoff: Barbara Radnofsky, Ted Ankrum, Borris Miles, and your choice of Maria Alvarado and Ben Grant.

You've got what you need to know, so please, go vote!

Sorry, no refunds

According to Roll Call, some lobbyists are having a bit of buyer's remorse now that Tom DeLay is no longer a candidate for office:

A few lobbyists who helped raise money for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) - all of them outside the inner circle of the former Majority Leader - say they'd like the outgoing Congressman to offer them their money back.

DeLay, who is fighting an indictment in Texas, announced last week his intention to resign. He is also caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal, in which some of his former aides have pleaded guilty.

His re-election kitty, probably worth upwards of $1 million, is widely expected to be shifted into a fund to pay his mounting legal bills. While these lobbyists didn't mind cutting checks to the Majority Leader, or even a member of the Appropriations Committee, they aren't so energized about spreading their generosity to DeLay's legal team because, well, what's in it for them?

"If I wanted to give to a legal fund, I would've done it directly," snarled one GOP lobbyist who refused to have his name attached to such callous-sounding sentiments, even if DeLay is leaving Congress.

Another lobbyist who gives to Members on both sides of the aisle said, "It's nauseating to think about" his campaign contribution going to fund DeLay's legal team. "I'm realistic about it. He wouldn't resign for no reason," this lobbyist said, noting that the timing of DeLay's departure came awfully close to the announcement of a plea agreement by his former aide Tony Rudy. "That all this money will go to the legal defense fund, it sickens me," he added. "I have to pay for that?"

Another Republican lobbyist and past participant in DeLay fundraisers also declined to speak ill of "the Hammer" on the record, but said, "It's interesting that he's been fundraising up a storm and now he's not going [to run]. I didn't know we were going to support a legal fund." He added, sarcastically, "Glad we can help him out with it."

That said, many other lobbyists who have given to DeLay say they are proud of supporting him in his time of need.

John Blount, a lobbyist with the National Group who gave $1,000 to DeLay's campaign last summer, said he absolutely does not want his money back.

"I am happy to have it used in any way that Tom DeLay sees fit," Blount said.

Dutko Worldwide lobbyist Brad Card (who's the brother of outgoing White House Chief of Staff Andy Card) said he is comfortable with everyone he's given a check to, including DeLay.

"You're not going to hear me defend anyone who did anything illegal," Card said. "I think a lot of these things are witch hunts, personally. There are a lot of good people in Congress and a lot of hard-working lobbyists."

An aide in DeLay's Capitol Hill office said the campaign office would determine whether any contributions would be returned. DeLay's campaign spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty did not return an e-mail question on the matter, and the voice mailbox of DeLay's campaign manager was full.

Card added that whenever lobbyists make contributions to Members or candidates, they always run the risk that those Members will leave Congress. "You have to give for the right reasons and then move on," he said. As for the lobbyists who have privately griped about wanting their money back, Card said, "They should ask for it."

Next time, get a receipt. Thanks for playing.

Expanding the viewing experience

Dwight notes the story about Disney making its shows available via streaming video on its website the day after they run as a service to fans may have missed them. There's a catch, of course: you can't skip the commercials.

ABC will stream four of its shows, Desperate Housewives, Lost, Alias, and Commander In Chief, for free on its Website for a two-month trial period, from May to the end of June. Users will be able to watch current episodes of Housewives, Lost, and Commander, while the entire current season of Alias will be available for viewing.

All of the shows, save for Alias, are already available as $1.99 downloads at Apple's iTunes store, but this marks the first time current episodes will be availabe for free, with commercials. The shows will be presented in a 16x9 cinema format, and users will be able to skip back and forth between the chapters of an episode. However, users won't be able to fast-forward through the ads like they do with a DVR.

"We have said all along that we are dedicated to finding ways to bring our advertiser partners along with us as we embrace new ways of doing business in the world of digital media," said Mike Shaw, president of sales and marketing at ABC.

Now, I don't know how big the market is for people who don't have a digital video recorder - either a TiVo or a service provided by their cable/satellite company - yet who are willing and able to sit at their computer and watch the shows they missed. It's probably decent-sized now, but surely isn't going to grow. This is a stopgap solution, and it's hard to say how popular it will be.

I should note that it's a good idea on a couple of fronts. For one, it ought to keep the national advertisers happy, though as Marketplace on NPR pointed out last night, it won't do a thing for affiliate stations that depend on local ad revenue. It's also a way to draw in new viewers who have heard about a show but don't want to jump into it midseason, and don't want to wait for or spend the money on the DVD later. I think one reason why 24 became such a hit in its first season despite its then-unconventional formula was that Fox reran each episode on Saturday on FX, and did a catchup marathon six weeks into the season. With that, I daresay they were able to add viewers who'd missed out early would have otherwise been lost by its byzantine plot twists.

For what it's worth, if it came down to it I'd choose the $1.99 iPod download for an ep I missed. Most hourlong shows are about 45 minutes in real length. My time is way more valuable than such a little amount of money - the fifteen extra minutes is definitely worth the two bucks. I'm going to guess I'm not alone in that assessment, too.

On a tangential note, USA Today writes about the popularity of blogs for some TV shows. What's different now is that instead of strictly fanblogs, the hot thing these days is blogs by the producers/actors/directors of a given show.

"It really behooves all the shows to do this," says Steve Andrade, vice president of interactive development for NBC. "I've been in this job for 10 years. For the first time, all the creative people in town are finally realizing how advantageous it is to work in this space. They all know it's going to be part of their future. There is no model. We're all trying to figure it out."

But Andrade warns blogging can get bloated. "Every blog is not necessary. The key to blogs is if they work from a creative point of view."

Like the Disney effort, the idea here is to draw in new fans, while helping to maintain the loyalty and enthusiasm of regulars. Episodic TV these days is a lot meatier than it was when I was a kid, and many shows are interesting to talk about. Some shows provide all kinds of little goodies for the attentive fan, which is something that I as a speed-watcher/multitasker definitely appreciate, since I never catch them on my own. (Yes, that's an old-fashioned fan site, not an "official" show blog. We'll always have those - there's plenty of room for multiple communities, and not all blogs serve the same purpose.) Giving people a place to talk about them - creating a community, in other words - is just smart business. This is something I expect to see a lot more of in the future.

Link via the SixApart blog.

Senfronia Thompson announces for Speaker

To paraphrase from PinkDome, the upcoming special session just got more special: State Rep. Senfronia Thompson of Houston has announced her intent to run for House Speaker. Here's the Quorum Report, which is the first on the scene:

This afternoon, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) announced her candidacy for Speaker of the Texas House. She has filed her papers with the Texas Ethics Commission and expects to begin collecting pledge cards soon.

From her statement (Word doc) titled "A Woman Seeks More House Work":, "Representative Thompson stated that her decision to run for Speaker is based on her personal experience during the past three and half years. Bi-partisanship has disappeared and the result has been harmful not only to our schoolchildren and taxpayers, but to the House as a whole. Republicans and Democrats in the House have been punished for voting their districts and their consciences. Some Republican colleagues have been defeated by the Speaker and his supporters for voting against a voucher system that would do injury to their own school districts, Thompson pointed out."

"I can no longer stand by quietly and watch such damage be done to this Institution without complaining loudly and vigorously," Ms. Thompson reiterated. " I urge my fellow members, Democrat and Republican, to join me to restore dignity, fairness, balance and progress to the House of Representatives. The legislators who preceded us and those who will follow us deserve to know that in 2007, the House will declare a clear, loud "NO" to partisanship and Big Lobby power and said yes to the voters and children of Texas."

Well, hot damn. I'll have to make some calls in the morning to see if I can learn more, but I'll venture out on a limb now and suggest that she wouldn't do this unless she thought she had a decent shot at winning. I'll be in the corner, cheering loudly for her.

South Texas Chisme also reacts, as I imagine many other bloggers will shortly. Rep. Thompson's full statement is beneath the fold, but in case you don't feel like clicking the More link, consider this: Thompson would be the first speaker from Houston since 1939. In my opinion, that's too long.

UPDATE: Here's the Chron and the DMN, neither of which add much other than a claim by Craddick that he's got 100 pledge cards.

A Woman Seeks More House Work

Thompson Announces for Speaker of the House Senfronia Thompson
HOUSTON, TX 713/651-9353

Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) has filed papers declaring her intention to run for Speaker of the House. Thompson and confirmed that she will begin collecting pledge cards for Speaker’s race.

Mrs. Thompson is the first woman to seek the top House office. Thompson is the longest serving woman and longest serving African-American in Texas Legislative history. She and former Speaker Pete Laney are the only remaining House members of the Reform Class of ‘73, the state’s largest freshman class ever, who were elected following the Sharpstown Scandal. That class ushered in a wave of reforms on open records, open meetings, ethics and women’s rights.

If elected, she would be the first speaker from Houston since 1939. Harris County makes up one-sixth of the Texas House.

"I promise that I will serve the House in a bipartisan manner, allowing my fellow members to vote their districts, their hearts and their consciences. The celebrated bi-partisan nature of the Texas House came from Speakers allowing members to vote their districts."

Thompson said that the 150 House Districts are all different, and each member should be free to vote in the best interest of their district. Only when the membership is free to vote for their constituents will the House function properly again and be able to solve big issues like school finance.

"In addition, I also ask that my fellow members join me in working with Lt. Governor Dewhurst and the Senate to craft fair and balanced legislation that will treat all children of Texas fairly and give them a better shot at the future. Also, I would extend this treatment to our Texas taxpayers," Thompson continued.

Representative Thompson stated that her decision to run for Speaker is based on her personal experience during the past three and half years. Bi-partisanship has disappeared and the result has been harmful not only to our schoolchildren and taxpayers, but to the House as a whole. Republicans and Democrats in the House have been punished for voting their districts and their consciences. Some Republican colleagues have been defeated by the Speaker and his supporters for voting against a voucher system that would do injury to their own school districts, Thompson pointed out.

"I can no longer stand by quietly and watch such damage be done to this Institution without complaining loudly and vigorously," Ms. Thompson reiterated. " I urge my fellow members, Democrat and Republican, to join me to restore dignity, fairness, balance and progress to the House of Representatives. The legislators who preceded us and those who will follow us deserve to know that in 2007, the House will declare a clear, loud "NO" to partisanship and Big Lobby power and said yes to the voters and children of Texas."

Her legislative career included such legislation as the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act, bans on racial profiling, drug courts, alimony, dozens of child support reforms, contraceptive parity laws, the state minimum wage, judicial reforms and numerous insurance, fraud, credit, and local reforms. Ms. Thompson is a strong believer in public education that is evident by having been a public school teacher, received an undergraduate degree and three postgraduate degrees from Texas' public universities. Her Amicus brief on public school financing was cited by the Texas Supreme Court majority when they declared Texas' old public school finance system unconstitutional. In 1977, Rep. Thompson used her own funds to successfully convince the United States Justice Department to sue Texas for discrimination in financing, hiring and admissions at Texas traditionally Black public universities, creating a fund to improve facilities, libraries and faculty. Thompson has garnered accolades and awards from the Family Law Section of the Texas State Bar, Nation magazine (one of 8 Legislators in the country), Texas Monthly (one of the Top 10 Legislators), the County and District Attorney's Association, the bipartisan Texas Women's Political Caucus (Woman of the Year), and scores of other groups. Texas Silver-Haired Legislature honored her for work on the personal needs allowance which allows nursing home residents to keep a little of the pensions or Social Security to pay for personal items like toiletries, shoes, robes, radios, reading materials and haircuts. "I am grateful to have been the recipient of the Rosa Parks Award from the Texas Legislative Black Caucus." Thompson added, "last session, one of the greatest honors I have ever received was bestowed upon me by the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus, the Matt Garcia Award."

Thompson served as chair of the Judicial Affairs from 1991 until 2000 when Rep. Tom Craddick was elected Speaker; at the time, Judicial Affairs was one of the Legislature's most active committees. Previously, the committee was named the Judiciary Committee and the Rules and Resolutions Committee. In addition, she has chaired or co-chaired several other special and select committees and subcommittees. She previously served four terms on the powerful Appropriations Committee and two terms on the agenda-setting Calendars and three terms on the agenda-setting Local and Consent Calendars Committees.

Metro public meetings on Richmond rail this week

RichmondRail.org reminds us of the upcoming public meetings to be held on the location for the Universities light rail line.

There are 4 Public meetings this week as shown below.

All meetings start at 6:30 PM – show up early to get a badge

Monday, April 10 - Upper Kirby, San Jacinto Girl Scouts HQ, 3110 SW Fwy

Tuesday, April 11 – Neartown/Montrose – Bering Memorial United Methodist, 1440 Harold

Wednesday, April 12 – This is most important – Come early to ensure seating; Rice University McNair Hall – Shell Auditorium;
Rice Blvd / Entrance 20 - Town Hall Meeting with John Culberson

Wednesday, April 12 –Larchmont, St. George, Gulfton - Pilgrim Elementary School, 3315 Barrington

For more info: turnout@richmondrail.org

The full schedule is here.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it isn't competence

The dumbing down of our political discourse continues apace.

"Politics is the only field in which the more experience you have, the worse you get. And I have no political experience whatsoever," said the musician-comic-author.

I'll give you four guesses which of the major gubernatorial candidates said that, and the first three don't count. Would someone please tell me again why anyone considers this guy a serious candidate?

Here's an example of why ignorance of the process is not a viable philosophy for governing:

Friedman's plan to fund education, which he said is one of his priorities, includes legalizing casino gambling, which could raise an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion each year [...]

In a previously published interview, Friedman listed "[opening] the Indian casinos that have been closed down -- the Tigua and the Alabama Coushata" as one of "five things a governor could do right now", without involving the Legislature. Never mind that those casinos were shut down by the federal courts as a result of a lawsuit filed by then-Attorney General John Cornyn; never mind that if all it took was the Governor's say so, Rick Perry might have ordered them opened in 2004 when he briefly favored casino gambling during one of his many futile attempts to fix school funding. As far as Kinky's concerned, he snaps his fingers, the casinos open, schools have all the funding they need, and it's beer and cigars for everyone. Whose job is it to tell him that it doesn't work that way? Lord knows, none of the reporters at that Associated Press Managing Editors' annual convention, where he gave those witty remarks, could be bothered to point it out.

Ah, well. Kinky's not a details kind of guy. He's got people for that. Not sweating the small stuff leaves him free to think big thoughts like this.

Friedman said Mexico is a rich country that doesn't share any of its wealth with its citizens. As a result, he said, many Mexicans head to America where they are taken care of.

"I want the Mexican government to step up and pay their fair share," he said.

Where else, I ask you, can you get this kind of forward thinking? I just can't add anything to that.

25 years of Fernandomania

On a happier baseball note, Jay Jaffe celebrates his fifth blogiversary by recalling that a quarter century ago yesterday, a pudgy 20-year-old from Mexico toom the mound in Dodger Stadium and shut out the Astros. Seven starts and four more shutouts later, the eyes of America were riveted on Fernando Valenzuela. I may never forgive him for his role in denying the Yankees a World Series championship in 1981, but boy was he fun to watch. Here's to you, Fernando.

Here comes the whitewash

Have I mentioned lately that Chron sportswriter Richard Justice is an idiot? In case I haven't, let me correct that oversight: Richard Justice is an idiot.

I'm sure it makes him feel all tingly and self-righteous to advocate wiping out Barry Bonds and anyone else associated with steroids from the record books. I'll say it again, this time with smaller words: The record book is a record of what happened. Not what you want to have happened, not what should have happened, not what might have happened, but what did happen. What comes next when you start denying that? Will all the pitchers who were victimized by Bonds have their stat lines retroactively adjusted? If we discover that some schlub would have won a league ERA title had he never faced Barry Bonds in a particular season, will we change that, too?

Nothing good can ever come from changing history in this fashion. I don't know what should be done with Bonds any more than Beelzebud Selig does right now, but I recognize a wrong answer when I see one. Don't give in to this, Bud. Don't tell us that we never saw what we saw, and don't tell us that numbers mean what you say they mean. We're all grownups here, certain sportswriters excepted. We can judge for ourselves. Keep your hands off the record books.

Oh, and by the way, Richard: Way to implicitly smear Sammy Sosa, about whom no one has made any credible allegations of steroid use. You're a class act, dude.

Who gets the tax break?

Vince points to this El Paso Times story, which notes that the same flaw exists in the TTRC plan as was in the previous tax-swap plan, albeit to a lesser degree: Most people won't get much of a tax reduction, if they get one at all.

An analysis by the bipartisan Legislative Budget Board shows that households with annual income less than $54,000 would receive, at most, a .1 percent tax reduction under the plan.

About 75 percent of El Paso families make $50,000 or less per year, according to census data.

Households with annual income of more than $104,000 would receive at least a 3 percent tax cut.

No surprise, right? You could, of course, make this plan a lot more equitable to the multitudes who have more modestly-priced houses by increasing the homestead exemption instead of mandating a lower tax rate. For those of you tuning in late, that would be the Hochberg Plan, which is still the only school finance-related plan to actually pass the State House. I fully expect we'll see a replay of that debate in this session.

One thing we apparently won't see this time around (not that I'm complaining, mind you) is another tedious debate about a property tax appraisal cap, as Governor Perry says it will not be a part of the special session call, at least at first. Cue the whiners:

"I think that appraisal caps are part and parcel to solving the school finance problem," said state Rep. Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, who plans to file legislation similar to what was defeated in the Texas House last year.

"The buy-down isn't enough," Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt said of the governor's proposal to raise state taxes to help pay for reductions of about one-third in school operating taxes.

"The real policy issue is how fast the (school) taxes are going up."

Bettencourt said rising property values accounted for 85 percent of the increase in the average Harris County homeowner's school tax bill between 2000 and 2005. Annual school tax bills, on average, jumped from $987 to $1,585 in the county during those five years, he said.

Bohac, you may recall, earned his way onto the Texas Monthly Ten Worst Legislators list for 2005 because of his inability to pass a tax appraisal cap despite support from the Governor and the Speaker, and having a solid Republican majority in the House. Bettencourt makes this same argument every time the subject comes up, and every time I have the same question for him, which as far as I can tell he's never been publicly asked: If the actual value of your house went up that much in the specified time period, why shouldn't the property taxes paid be commesurate? What, exactly, does he have against the free market?

Anyway. As Greg says, now that this is off the table again, ol' Dan Patrick is going to have to keep aiming his venom at his fellow Republicans, which ought to have a certain entertainment factor about it. Perhaps he should have run for Governor instead of limiting himself in the Senate. Why don't you see what your new pals the lobbyists think about that for next time, Danno?

National Day of Action on immigration today

Today is the National Day of Action for immigration rights that I mentioned last week. For information on how, when, and where to participate, see Dos Centavos and The Red State. South Texas Chisme has a news roundup of other related stories from the weekend.

UPDATE: More activity for today in Austin. The huge rally in Dallas is front page news in the Chron. Be sure to note the accompanying picture from that event.

UPDATE: Still more activities from around the state, via Stace.

UPDATE: Atrios has pics from Philly.

UPDATE: Via Stace, here's two video feeds of the action in Houston. This may still be working for live video, too.

Some DeLay reading to start your week

I felt like taking the rest of the day off Sunday, so here's some collected reading on all things DeLay-ish for you to scan through as you start your week.

Cris Feldman, the winning attorney in the TRMPAC lawsuit, writes about the peril DeLay still faces in Austin.

Here are the known facts. On Sept. 10, 2002, DeLay's co-defendant, John Colyandro, sent a blank check overnight to co-defendant Jim Ellis. On Sept. 13, 2002, Ellis handed over the check in question to the RNC. According to the indictment, Ellis filled in the check for $190,000 and provided the RNC with a list of seven candidates for the Texas House, along with designated sums of cash. On Sept. 20 the $190,000 was deposited by the RNC in a corporate cash account. On the morning of Oct. 2, Ellis met with DeLay at DeLay's Capitol office. That same day the RNC generated seven internal memos requesting seven different checks to the TRMPAC candidates. On Oct. 4 seven checks totaling $190,000 were cut from a noncorporate account containing millions of dollars. The check numbers were in sequential order, 7470 through 7476.

DeLay argues that the RNC sent money to state legislature candidates across the country. Yet the seven Texas TRMPAC candidates received checks ranging from $20,000 to $40,000, whereas the next-largest RNC contribution to a candidate for a seat in a state house of representatives was $2,000. DeLay has also said that the $190,000 was "left over" money that TRMPAC did not need. But numerous documents indicate otherwise. For example, on Oct. 20, 2002, Warren Robold, TRMPAC's now-indicted fund raiser, solicited a donor by stating, "We still need $125,000 of corporate funds to finish the project and pay our obligations."

DeLay's attacks on the prosecutor have been consistent, even as explanations of his own conduct have proved inconsistent. DeLay has said at different times that he knew about the $190,000 beforehand; that he heard about it after the fact; and that he did indeed discuss it with Ellis on Oct. 2, 2002.

On the same op-ed page, Chris Bell makes the case for adding ethics reform to the call of the upcoming special session.

Former DeLay Communications Directory John Feehery explains how DeLay was "betrayed" by his felonious underlings.

The overwhelming majority of DeLay's staffers were professional, honest and working in Congress for the right reasons. But Tom prized the most aggressive staffers and most often heeded their counsel. As it turned out, three of them went over the line, abused the trust of House members and seemingly broke the law. A former hockey player, Tony Rudy was DeLay's enforcer; he wasn't evil, but lacked maturity and would do whatever necessary to protect his patron. Ed Buckham, DeLay's chief of staff, gatekeeper and minister, constantly pushed DeLay to be more radical in his tactics and spun webs of intrigue we are only now beginning to unravel. And Michael Scanlon, who, in my experience, was a first-class rogue and a master of deception.

People like Rudy and Scanlon pleased DeLay because they were always pushing the envelope; only now that the scandal surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff is playing out and both are cooperating witnesses for the prosecution are we beginning to learn how far they went. I don't know if Tom always knew what his staff was doing -- I know that I didn't. But I had my suspicions, and now I have seen them borne out.

But of course, DeLay had no idea that his creations were running so amok. No idea at all. Link via Josh Marshall.

Former Democratic Chairman of Dallas County Ken Mohlberg addresses an under-explored issue in DeLay's departure.

Those who become mad with power become madmen, period. And they bring their sycophants along with them in their madness. There’s always an angle to what they do - even if it’s just the extraction of revenge - whether or not the motive or end is rational or legitimate. So, instead of stepping down immediately, DeLay has decided to hang on for awhile (until June, perhaps) in an attempt to manipulate the congressional-selection process. He says he’s withdrawing from the general election and will "move" to Virginia so that he becomes "ineligible" under the Texas Election Code. Through this charade DeLay and his backroom confederates hope to engineer the selection of a replacement nominee of their choice through a small district executive committee of the Republican Party. Contrary to the assumptions of the press and others, there are some of us who believe a replacement for DeLay cannot be lawfully selected, given the facts that now exist, and that DeLay is betting a friendly Republican judiciary will come to the Party’s aid should the legal arrows start to fly.

I'm halfway rooting for someone to file suit over this, just so we can see what the courts will do. It would make for some interesting arguments, that's for sure.

The Stakeholder gives us two reminders that DeLay's influence on the 2006 elections will not end when he officially hands in his resignaton letter.

Greg in TX22 says that someone is doing a poll about special elections, and points to this Galveston Daily News editorial that lays out the case for a special election before November. Meanwhile, Bob Dunn explains "How To Replace Your Hammer With A New Tool".

For those of you who were worried about the lady that got shoved by one of DeLay's toadies in the "protest" incident from last week, fear not for her. Juanita tells us she's just fine.

Finally, former Harris County Republican Party Chair Gary Polland gives six reasons why the new conventional wisdom that CD22 is once again a safe Republican seat is misguided.

1. Nick Lampson has $2.5 million in the bank, his GOP opponent zero and the traditional GOP donors are tapped out by Tom's aggressive fundraising.

2. The 22nd District ORVS(Optimal Republican Voting Strength) is only 56%, down from previous years because DeLay gave up GOP voters to help other Republicans.

3. The past strong GOP straight ticket pull is weakened by the four possible candidates for Governor. The GOP's candidate Rick Perry should win, but probably won't get over 50% in this district.

4. The conservative base is upset about immigration, runaway federal spending, prescription drugs, inaction on gay marriage, etc. and when the base is angry, they stay home. The Democrats nationally are motivated and think they can take back the House, boosting turnout.

5. President Bush's popularity continues to plummet, what effect will that have on turnout and swing voters?

6. The nomination process may not involve the critical consideration of nominating the most electable candidate. If the GOP nominates an unknown, without proven ability to raise money, we could be paving the way for defeat in November.

Point #1 is one that I think hasn't been explored enough. Especially if the Chosen One is someone who is liked by the insiders but not well known outside Fort Bend - say, Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace - some early advertising and/or mailers by Lampson could be very effective. Given that the Chosen One is almost certain to have close ties to DeLay and be heartily backed by him, there should be no lack of material there, either. I don't know what their plans are, but I'll bet this has crossed their minds.

On the road to Fort Bend

Olivia and I made the drive out to Fort Bend yesterday - in particular, the town of Rosenberg - for the opening of the Fort Bend County Democratic Party's headquarters. The place was packed, and the energy level was as high as I've ever seen at a local Democratic event. Many candidates spoke, many people cheered, and many pictures were taken. I'll refer you to Bryan, Fred (whom I did not get to meet, unfortunately), and Juanita (whom I did, as you can see from Bryan's pics) for those details.

Olivia was a big hit with everyone she encountered. Not that I expected anything less, mind you. How can you resist someone who takes pictures like this? By the way, the reason you can't see her in that pic from Bryan's blog where I'm chatting with Juanita is because she's sitting in a chair nearby. I spent about half of my time there on chase-the-toddler detail, so any moment where her position was fixed and known was one that I took advantage of.

Fort Bend has been trending Democratic for several election cycles now. I've written before how that trend was apparent in the 2004 Presidential race, and now I've compiled some more data in this spreadsheet, comparing the performance in Fort Bend for all statewide races plus CD22 to the state as a whole. The index colum is just a ratio of the FB performance of that party to the state, expressed as a percentage. 2004 was the first year that every Republican statewide candidate did worse in Fort Bend than in Texas overall. I think the key in 2006 is going to be ensuring that Democratic turnout doesn't decline any more than Republican turnout does in a non-Presidential year. Here's a graphical representation of that, for Presidential and non-Presidential cycles:

GOP index in Fort Bend, Presidential years

GOP index in Fort Bend, Non-Presidential years

The low scorer each year, with the exception of 2004 where it was (somewhat surprisingly) George W. Bush, was of course Tom DeLay. The main reason he did better, relatively speaking, in FBC in 2004 than in other years is because he offloaded a bunch of FBC to other candidates in the 2003 redistricting. I've written about that before, too.

The FB Dems have a good slate of candidates running in county races, which I hope will help with that. If you're out there, get to know these folks.

I've got a bunch links for CD22-related stuff piled up to blog about, but I think I'll save those for another post. For now, my thanks to the Fort Bend Dems and especially the Bankston family for showing Olivia and me such a good time yesterday. Let's keep that momentum going through November.

HD146 runoff profile

If all the pre-primary race profiles had been as substantive as this one on HD146, I'd have been a lot less cranky back then. It's a good read and it covers things pretty well, so I'll just pick one minor nit:

The runoff winner in the historically Democratic district will be the favorite in November's general election against Libertarian nominee Gerald W. "Jerry" LaFleur. No Republican sought the seat.

LaFleur ran as the Libertarian candidate in CD22 in 2002, garnering 1.01% of the vote. In case you're curious, CD22 and HD146 do not intersect. Saying that the winner of this runoff will be "the favorite" to beat LaFleur is like saying that the Spurs would be the favorite to beat a junior high school team. Calling it an understatement is, well, an understatement.

Anyway. If you missed your chance to vote early, you've got 12 hours on Tuesday to make up for it. Here's the statement that Borris Miles gave for the runoff. Your vote matters, so don't waste it.

I got those lack of consensus blues

The totally non-shocking headline says it all: Leaders' lack of consensus threatens Perry tax plan.

More than a week after the governor officially announced his plan to buy down property taxes with revenue from a new broad-based business tax and higher cigarette taxes, neither Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst nor House Speaker Tom Craddick had expressed support for the proposal.

[...]

"Here we go down this path again," said Greg Thielemann, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Dallas. "Perry's got this plan, but he's got to find a way to pass it."

"It's difficult to reach a consensus among members when you don't have the top three leaders working with the same plan," said state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston.

Most of what's in here is not news for those who have been following this closely, but this ominous snippet at the end should make everyone involved sit up and pay attention:

Mark Trachtenberg, an attorney who represents school districts that filed the lawsuit over the funding system, said lawyers will be prepared to seek an injunction to prevent the state from making a scheduled June 25 payment to school districts if a constitutional funding system isn't in place.

The Legislature should know, he said, "The deadline is quite solid."

Tick tock, tick tock. That's the real date to mark on your calendars. If that injunction gets granted, then all hell really will break loose.

"Not as lame as you think"

Just in case you haven't read Amy Sullivan's piece on how underrated the Democratic leadership and caucus cohesiveness is, I'm going to throw the link here to recommend that you do. One reason why you may not know about some of their successes:

When reporters do write about Democratic victories, they often omit the protagonists from the story completely, leaving readers to wonder why Republicans would change course out of the blue. A Washington Post article about the Ethics Committee rule change simply noted that "House Republicans overwhelmingly agreed to rescind rule changes," in the face, apparently, of phantom opposition. Or journalists give credit to maverick Republicans rather than acknowledge the success of a unified Democratic effort: The Associated Press covered Bush's reversal on Davis-Bacon by writing, "The White House promised to restore the 74-year-old Davis-Bacon prevailing wage protection on Nov. 8, following a meeting between chief of staff Andrew Card and a caucus of pro-labor Republicans." Or Bush is blamed for his own defeats, without any mention of an opposition effort, as with Social Security privatization.

Nor are reporters paying attention to Democratic policy proposals, as the party tries to develop a national agenda to run on. Congressional press secretaries say that reporters won't write about their efforts unless or until Democratic legislation comes up for serious consideration. "A lot of reporters tell me, 'Yeah, I'll write about that when it's on the floor,'" complained the Democratic communications director for a Senate committee. "So then some columnist writes that Democrats have no ideas and everybody in America says, 'You're right - I haven't read about any.'"

As a result, it's easy for talking heads to paint Democrats as a bunch of complainers who attack Republicans while putting forward no ideas of their own. MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls them "kids in the back seat," whining and asking, "are we there yet?" And in a column last winter, the U.S. News & World Report columnist Gloria Borger criticized Democrats for being, yes, "reflexively critical," and scolded that it wouldn't kill them to show a little "gratitude" once in a while.

We sure do love that liberal media, don't we? TAPPED has some good additional thoughts, as does Neil. Check 'em out.

Beer, beer, beer, beer, we love beer

Here's a story from last weekend that got lost in the recent excitement: Happy days are here again for microbreweries.

Production of craft beer - those specialty brews typically made in small regional or local breweries - grew by 9 percent last year, the biggest jump since 1996, when the microbrewery fad of the '90s was still going full tilt. Mainstream beer sales, meanwhile, fell slightly.

Houston's oldest microbrewery reports that their sales were up 28% last quarter. It's a beautiful thing.

By the way, also in that Saint Arnold newsletter, yesterday was the 73rd anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition. If you didn't celebrate that momentous occasion with a non-wimpy downstream beer, you have the rest of the weekend to make up for it. Salut!

Parting is such sweet sorrow

Don't know how many of you listened to Wait Wait Don't Tell Me this morning, but they had Tom DeLay as the subject of their "Not My Job" game. It was quite amusing to hear the reactions to his nickname in the Texas House - "Hot Tub Tom", though they got the details of this story wrong; the champagne was poured on his daughter, not his wife - and to his explanation for why he did not serve in Vietnam. Ah, memories.

Well, it's official that we won't have a May special election now. We presumably won't know until DeLay's official departure in June whether we'll have one election or two in November. I have no clue when we'll know who the Chosen One is. I'm just glad that things have slowed down a bit.

I see that Charlie Cook has now moved CD22 from the "Republican Toss-Up" column in his 2006 Competitive House Race chart (PDF). I think that until we know who the Chosen One is and how fractious the anointment process is that it's premature to make any judgments. I agree that CD22 is likely less competitive now. I disagree that it's a certainty, and even if it is less competitive, I say we don't yet know to what degree that's true.

Finally, Juanita runs an excerpt from a Lampson campaign email in which Team Lampson expresses their thanks to "the many Republicans who emailed and called our campaign to apologize (even though it wasn't their obligation to do so) and say they really did not like what they saw from the DeLay staff yesterday." I just wonder if anyone who was actually involved in that ugly incident will feel that kind of obligation. I see that one of Juanita's correspondents dug up an old post of mine which shows that DeLay's campaign manager Chris Homan, the person who has admitted to being the organizer of that incident, has a history of this sort of thing. I'm guessing that means the answer is No.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that I saw the Charlie Cook update at Casual Soapbox.

Pandora

In the comments to my post on why KACC is my favorite radio station, Kevin asked if I'd ever used a new service called Pandora. I had not, but having now read this interview in Houstonist with Pandora's founder, and this feature article in the Press on how the service works, I'm definitely going to. I just have to figure out what songs I want to feed into it so I can get started. Thanks for the tip, Kevin!

RichmondRail.org

The anti-rail-on-Richmond forces have been making the most noise and getting the most attention lately, so I'm very pleased to discover RichmondRail.org, which describes itself as follows in its initial post:

We are a group of residents, business owners, and others who live, work, study, or spend time along Richmond in Neartown and Greenway Plaza. We love this neighborhood, its residential streets, its varied businesses, its restaurants, its stores, its art galleries, its cultural institutions, its trees. And we’d love to have a better way to get around it.

[...]

We believe a well-designed rail line will improve our neighborhood. We’re concerned about green space, traffic, flooding, safety, and the impact of construction on businesses. But we know there are ways to deal with these issues.

We’ve been watching for months as rail opponents have gone from expressing valid concerns — concerns that can and must be dealt with — to spreading hyperbole and misinformation. They don’t speak for us, and we want our voice to be heard, too.

We don’t work for METRO. We’re voters and taxpayers, so METRO works for us. We want rail on Richmond, and we want it done right, with stations in the right places, with landscaping that will make our street more, not less, attractive, and with good connections to the rest of the city. We will insist on that.

That's plenty good enough to make it into my RSS feeds. I look forward to hearing more from these folks. I was recently driving down Richmond between Shepherd and Montrose and was struck once again by how un- and under-developed that stretch of road is. It can't stay that way forever; that real estate is just too prime, and as I understand it there's going to be a high-rise built at the corner of Richmond and Dunlavy, where the old HCC building used to be. Richmond is already handling all the cars that can fit on it, so something is going to have to give. If these folks have their way, it'll be the fear and loathing about rail on Richmond that crumbles away. I wish them luck.

I-45 Design Workshop

The following is an email update from Jim Weston of the I-45 Coalition.

TxDOT continues its I-45 Schematic Drawing and Environmental Phase. As part of this phase, TxDOT will be holding public meetings called "Scoping Meetings" where public comments are welcomed and encouraged. In these meetings, TxDOT will determine the public’s interest and thoughts on a variety of things – double decking freeways, access roads, etc.

The I-45 Coalition wants to take a more proactive approach! We want to help determine what the neighborhoods want and give those results to TxDOT before the Scoping Meetings are held. This won’t replace TxDOT’s Scoping Meetings - but we hope it will help guide TxDOT’s roadway design in a manner most sympathetic to the affected communities.

So, the I-45 Coalition is hosting an I-45 Design Workshop to be held on Saturday, May 6th, 2006. The workshop will be facilitated by transportation and development planner Carl Sharpe. The workshop will start with a brief review of I-45 status, then participants will disband into breakout groups focusing on specific topics (such as landscaping, neighborhood/freeway access, noise, etc.). The goal of the workshop is to gather ideas and suggestions for TxDOT to explore as part of the I-45 redesign.

These breakout sessions will allow for workshop participants to discuss ideas and possible positive designs for I-45. Each breakout group will focus on one aspect of I-45 design, and this discussion will be facilitated by a group moderator.

The breakout groups will reconvene to present their ideas to the entire group of workshop participants. The final I-45 Design Workshop ideas and suggestions will be incorporated into a report for presentation to TxDOT as part of its public Scoping Meetings (where public comments are encouraged).

We would like to have you at this workshop if you are interested in sharing your vision and would like to influence the future design of I-45! RSVP to vm@airmail.net. Attendance is free but will be limited to 50-70 people.

What: I-45 Design Workshop

Presented by: The I-45 Coalition

When: Saturday, May 6, 8:30 a.m. - Noon

Where: Zion Lutheran Church
(3606 Beauchamp at 11th Street, in the Woodland Heights, 77009)

RSVP: vm@airmail.net

Questions?: vm@airmail.net

Or call Jim Weston at 713/ 816.0444.

RSVP today, or contact us with questions!

Thank you for being involved and staying involved.

Thank You,

Jim Weston
I-45 Coalition, President

I don't know if I can make this, but I'll definitely be interested to see what they come up with. If this interests you, check it out.

Early voting ends today

Have you voted in the primary runoffs yet? If so, you're one of an elite few in Harris County.

Through Wednesday, 954 Harris County residents had voted in the GOP runoff, down from 3,733 at the same point during the last countywide runoff in 2002, Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman said. Democratic turnout through Wednesday was 2,038, compared with 3,580 in 2002.

Runoffs are required to select nominees in races where no candidate received a majority in primaries March 7.

If you voted in a party primary in March, you may vote only in that party's runoff. If you didn't vote March 7 and registered to vote by March 13, you may vote in either party's runoff.

Republicans only have one statewide runoff, for a spot on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Voters in west Harris County also will select a nominee for state House District 133.

Democrats statewide will decide nominees for U.S. senator and lieutenant governor. Locally, some Democratic ballots will include runoffs for the 10th Congressional District in western Harris County and state House District 146 in south Houston.

It's not much better in Travis County. either. I'll say it again - you'll never have more actual effect on the outcome of an election than you do in a low-turnout election. Your vote really counts, so go cast it.

Here's the Chron's take on the Lite Guv runoff between Ben Grant and Maria Alvarado.

Grant, 66, is a former state representative who also served as a district and intermediate appeals court judge. Alvarado, 49, is making her first run.

She served in the Air Force from 1974-80 and in the Texas Air National Guard from 1981-97. She now is a research analyst for health and social issues with the National Veterans Outreach Program.

Grant thinks public schools should be the top priority for state government.

"We should address reform in our school tax system and in our school system. We should obtain and keep qualified and certified classroom teachers in our public schools," he said in an e-mail.

Alvarado says public-school financing and health care for children and the elderly are her priorities. She also thinks tax reform is necessary.

"My personal agenda also is to engage the 10 million registered voters in the state who are not actually voting. They're my target. I'm sure their issues are not very different from mine but until we get them to vote, we don't have a true democracy," Alvarado said.

Both have run grass-roots campaigns, traversing the state to win voters. Grant, an attorney, stresses his decades of public service, while Alvarado said she's an ordinary citizen who wants to help her state.

As a reminder, you can read their statements on the runoff here (Alvarado) and here (Grant).

My take on where we stand in CD22

Since there isn't much in the way of news in the CD22 saga since the Perry announcement and anti-Lampson protest of yesterday afternoon, I'm going to try to collect my thoughts here and see where we stand. It's been a frenzied and confusing week, and there's still a lot that's unclear, so maybe this will help.

First, let's talk special elections. When I first raised the issue of needing a majority vote to win a special election, I was thinking about the election for the 2007-08 term in Congress. That's obviously wrong, since the special can only be for the unexpired term. Perry's announcement, which echoes what various county GOP bigwigs have been saying, says to me that we won't have a meaningful special election. We may still have a November special to go along with the general, which makes no sense to me, but beyond ballot confusion and the prospect of a pointless runoff in December it's not worth worrying about at this point. I apologize for adding to the already-high level of confusion on this point.

I've talked about the prospect of disunity on the Republican side, as the process of selecting a replacement may cause disguntlement among the losers. While a special election would have only been to fill the remaining six months of DeLay's term in office, it could also have served the purpose of selecting the nominee for November. Surely if you were going to bother with a special election, you'd want whoever won to run as the incumbent and accrue all the benefits of incumbency and of getting a leg up on seniority. The risk from the Republican perspective, of course, is that Nick Lampson could win that special election. That's what all the talk of "freak shows" and "circuses" is covering for - fear that Lampson would win and get those incumbency benefits. The view there, I believe, is that the Republicans have more to lose with a pre-November special election than they have to gain.

As such, the "back room" has its appeal. I'd dispute the notion that a council of wise men is any better at picking the optimal candidate - just think of Illinois in 2004 and the selection of Alan Keyes to carry the GOP banner against now-Sen. Barack Obama. Granted, the powers that be in CD22 will have a deeper pool of talent from which to pick than their Illinois brethren did, but the warning remains. One could also argue that the distributed dirt-digging that occurs in a multi-candidate race - call it the free-market approach to oppo research, if you will - is more efficient, since the motivation to uncover the goods is stronger when you've got something personal at stake.

But that's neither here nor there. I think if the Republicans were forced by circumstance to select a replacement, there'd be less risk of lingering resentment, since the choice was unavoidable and everyone would recognize that someone has to lose out. The problem here is the perception, fed by reports like this and reiterated today by Kristin Mack, that this whole thing was engineered by DeLay from before the primary to ensure that someone of his choosing gets to run in his stead. Stepping down now is DeLay's choice, and whether or not things like the cost of his criminal defense, the length of the trial process, and/or his sagging poll numbers were genuine factors in making his choice, the fact remains that all of these things were known, at least to some extent, before the primary filing deadline. DeLay could have announced last year that he was not running for re-election, and let the primary voters do their job. But he didn't, so now anyone who supports or would have supported someone other than the eventual Chosen One has a legitimate gripe about how their guy got jobbed.

It's hard to say how big an effect that may have. It could turn out to be nothing, at least for this election. Who the Chosen One is and how he addresses those gripes will go a long way towards determining how unified Republicans are going into November. I do believe there has to be some fallout, and not just because of the way this whole thing has apparently been engineered. The fact of the matter is that DeLay's departure from the scene leaves a big vacuum in the local power structure. It's a cinch that there will be some hard feelings as people scramble to fill that void. How big the effect is and how long it lasts, I couldn't say. I just know there will be an effect.

One last point is that even though DeLay's name will not be on the ballot, he's going to be a big part of this race, as well as races elsewhere in the country (see here for an example). Given that his replacement will be someone he approves of, if not handpicks himself, it's all but guaranteed that the Chosen One will have close ties to DeLay, and those ties will be a campaign issue. The Democratic drumbeat on DeLay isn't just about the man himself, though Lord knows he's a target-rich environment. It's about the system he's set up, the way Congress and K Street do business by his design, and the corruption from top to bottom that this has engendered. Substituting in a crony for DeLay does nothing to change any of that. That's what Lampson and so many other candidates are running against, and that's why they'll continue to run against DeLay. He may be gone, but his spirit lives on.

And that's why I believe Lampson's fundraising will continue apace. Mike Malaise told me yesterday that the campaign received $10,000, unsolicited, from online donations in the say or so after DeLay made his announcement. That ugly incident at the press conference in Fort Bend has already been turned into a campaign mailer. Every time DeLay is in the news, which ought to be a regular occurrance between his June departure, his court case in Travis County, and the Justice Department pursuit of Ed Buckham among other things, it will be another hook for fundraising. This saga hasn't lowered the profile of the CD22 race. It's got people fired up.

So that's how I see things right now. Given how this story has gone from Day One, it's all subject to change at a moment's notice. I think the basic elements will remain unaltered, however. For some other views, I present the point/counterpoint of Right of Texas and Capitol Annex. And of course, I welcome your feedback in the comments.

Miscellaneous events and happenings

I get a lot of email about various events, happenings, fundraiser, and so on. Here's a listing of some of them.

Via Houston Democrats, the Fort Bend Democrats are having a grand opening party this Saturday:

Fort Bend Democrats is having their Headquarters grand opening this Saturday from 3-5 p.m. -- free hot dogs and apple pie. Chris Bell, Nick Lampson, and Barbara Radnofsky will be there. Chris and I will be autographing old Dump DeLay memorabilia we had on hand and are now giving away. Please invite anyone you know. And bring the kids -- we love kids!

Details:

4800 Avenue H (Highway 90A), Rosenberg
3-5 p.m.
free hot dogs and apple pie
live Bluegrass music

The "I" is John Cobarruvias of the Bay Area New Democrats. I'm thinking about making the drive out there for this. I may even bring Olivia with me.

More events beneath the fold.

Barbecue in Galveston:

BARBEQUE For DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES And ELECTED OFFICIALS

DAVID AND JEANIE BOND
INVITE YOU TO THEIR HOME TO VISIT WITH
CONGRESSMAN NICK LAMPSON AND SHANE SKLAR
AND GALVESTON COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CANDIDATES

DATE: April 29, 2006
TIME: 2 PM till 5 PM
PLACE: 11602 Strom Road, Texas City
CONTACT: Jeanie_Bond@yahoo.com or 281 339 3065

BARBECUE BY DON CRISS
ENTERTAINMENT
Casual Dress (will be outside -- dress comfortable)

Town Hall meeting on electric rates (see here for background)

State Representative Sylvester Turner and Mayor Bill White
Invite You to a Town Hall Meeting

Saturday, April 8 2006
1:30 pm to 3:00pm
Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church
3810 Ruth Street
Houston, TX 77004
(in the Gymnasium)

"What Goes Up Must Come Down"
Come and find out why your electric rates keep going up

Representative Turner's Office
1 (866) 866-8900

Campaign kickoff party for HD150 candidate Dot Nelson-Turnier

Dot Nelson-Turnier is the Democratic nominee running for State Representative in District 150. District 150 includes northern Harris County (Spring, 1960 area, Bush intercontinental airport area, and some of Humble).

Dot is hosting her Campaign Kick-Off Party and would love for you, your friends, co-workers, and fellow Democrats to attend. The Spring Democratic Club is sponsoring this event and have officially endorsed Dot's campaign.

Meet your candidate

Saturday, April 15, 2006
4-7PM

at

Arcos Mexican Resturant
(corner of Aldine-Westfield & FM 1960).

RSVP (for headcount only):
832-286-3681
taxday@votedot.org

State Rep. Mark Strama is running his Campaign Academy again:

Dear friends,

Now that spring break is over, some of the young people you know will be planning for how they will spend the summer. I hope you will forward them this message.

Campaign Academy 2006 is a unique summer opportunity for students to learn the nuts and bolts of modern politics, as well as the important policy issues that confront state government, while contributing to my re-election effort in what promises to be another challenging campaign.

Students will be an integral part of the daily campaign activities: working with databases, conducting voter registration drives, and knocking on doors. Last time, the Campaign Academy even wrote their own press releases and developed their own fundraising strategies.

Daily lunch speakers include current and former elected officials, political consultants, and policy wonks. In 2004, our guest speakers included former Governor Ann Richards, former U.S. Senator Bob Krueger, and State Senator Rodney Ellis.

Please forward this message to anyone you know who might want to participate. Details on how to apply for a spot in Campaign Academy 2006 can be found at:

markstrama.com/campaignacademy

Thanks for your continuing support.

Best regards,

Mark Strama

What about that surplus again?

Hey, you know that budget surplus we've got and how it's being eyed by some people as a solution to the property tax problem and the school finance lawsuit. Eye on Williamson points to a couple of articles that explain why maybe that's not such a hot idea.

In related news, this Statesman editorial is a good starting point to understand why the "65% rule" that Governor Perry imposed on schools last year is a meaningless political gesture. Why, you ask?

Philosophy aside, a Standard & Poor's analysis of a 65 percent direct spending requirement casts doubt on its effectiveness. Analyzing data in Texas and eight other states considering a 65 percent classroom spending requirement, the credit-rating agency found no significant positive correlation between the percentage of funds that districts spend on instruction and the percentage of students who score proficient or higher on state reading and math tests.

"Interestingly, some of the highest-performing districts spend less than 65 percent, and some of the lowest-performing districts spend more than 65 percent," the Standard & Poor's report concluded. "Student performance does not noticeably or consistently increase at 65 percent, or any other percentage spent on instruction."

There's more to it than that, but you get the idea. Check it out. Link via The Texas Whip.

Posted by Charles Kuffner

Perry gets aboard the "No special election" bandwagon?

Peggy Fikac has the story:

Gov. Rick Perry said today he doesn't plan to call an emergency election to replace U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay when the former House majority leader resigns.

That means voters in Congressional District 22 won't get a chance to choose a replacement until the November general election - unless DeLay unexpectedly resigns by the end of this week.

DeLay would have to resign by week's end for a special election to be on the next uniform election date of May 13.

He has said he expects to leave office by mid-June.

[...]

Under Perry's plan, the November vote would determine both who serves out the remaining months of DeLay's current term, as well as the next term. The scenario could possibly leave DeLay's seat vacant for a time.

"Until I get a letter that says, 'Dear Governor, I resign, Tom Delay,' there's not an opening," Perry said. "If I don' t get it by close of business tomorrow, the election will be in November."

Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said that Perry later explained, "Unless someone can demonstrate why we should go to the expense of a special election, and that there is some pressing issue before Congress, or that Congress is even in session, he doesn't see going to that expense" of having an emergency election.

Unfortunately, this still leaves the matter confused. The Chron story is no clearer.

Gov. Rick Perry said today that he will not call an election to fill the congressional seat to be vacated by U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay before November if DeLay doesn't resign by Friday.

"The legal issue of when does that seat become vacant is when I get that (resignation) letter, and as far as I know I don't have a letter,'' Perry said.

"If I don't get it by close of business tomorrow, the election will be in November.''

[...]

A Nov. 7 election would mean voters in the 22nd District would vote twice on the same day for congressional candidates - once to complete what would have been the final two months of DeLay's term and once for the next term beginning in January.

Either there is one election in November, pitting Nick Lampson against the Chosen One plus Stockman and Smither, with the winner being sworn in on January 2, or there will be two elections in November, one for the unexpired term and one for the 2007-2008 term. The latter makes no sense whatsoever on any level. For one thing, Congress will have much more to do between now and November than it will between November and January. For another, who would want to be a two-month Congressman? Finally, can you imagine the voter confusion if there were two ballots for CD22, most likely with different candidates on each?

Well, okay, there is one reason for the November special election scenario, and that's the seniority advantage the winner would have - assuming he or she is the same as the winner of the general election; there's a can of worms for you - by virture of a pre-January swearing-in. Maybe doing this would discourage most of the non-Chosen One candidates from jumping in, so you could still have the mano a mano matchup with Lampson that you want. But if Perry is going to cite cost as a factor, then there's still the possibility of a runoff for the special election, which could conceivably be meaningless depending on who won the general and who placed in the top two in the special. So maybe we do get a doubleheader in November, I don't know. I just wish the news reports were clearer on Perry's intent and on what his obligations actually are.

I simply cannot imagine that happening. As far as I'm concerned, what this means is that there will be no special election. For better or worse - and from my perspective, there's good and bad to this - we're getting one election, in November, with the only difference being an understudy taking DeLay's place in the Republican slot.

And while we're contemplating all that, look at what Ankle Biting Pundits reports:

A reader – who also happens to be a high-level Republican operative in Washington, DC – called me this morning with a very interesting scoop.

Contrary to the story DeLay told reporters yesterday, the former House Majority Leader’s retirement announcement was planned well in advance – even in advance of the primary.

In fact, according to my source, DeLay deliberately waited until after the primary had run its course to drop out of the race for Congress. The reason being: so that party higher-ups could decide who the GOP nominee would be, not the Republican primary voters. You see, now that the GOP nominee slot will be vacant, Texas Republican honchos can handpick the new and improved nominee – in the proverbial smoky backroom, no doubt.

If my source’s information proves correct, my view of Rep. DeLay and the GOP establishment will be taken down a notch.

I believe that will make for a pretty good story line for Team Lampson to utilize. And once again I say the Republicans may have a problem getting their rank and file to line up behind this. If your preferred candidate isn't the Chosen One, why should you approve of this? Link via The Blogometer.

So Lampson had a press conference today in Sugar Land to echo his call for a May 13 special election, and things got ugly when some DeLay supporters showed up.

After about three minutes, the crowd began to grow. Lampson was suddenly surrounded by about 30 sign-waving protesters, some shouting and one blasting an air horn. Protesters flanked Lampson on either side and stood close behind him, shouting and chanting.

Lampson supporters jostled for position, making their own signs visible. Lampson continued with his press conference, but the noise was so loud reporters were forced to stand face to face with the Democratic candidate to hear.

"You ask Tom DeLay's people to do the right thing," Lampson said, pointing a thumb at protesters shouting behind his head, "and this is what their answer is. It's time the people of this district had a real congressman."

[...]

Tempers flared as Lampson supporters tried to quiet the protesters. Arguments broke out, some minor pushing and shoving ensued and at least one woman was grazed in the head by a sign wielded by a DeLay supporter.

Marsha Rovai, 70, of Richmond, said one of the protesters hit her and another man shoved a sign in her face. She said that when she pushed the sign away, the man pulled her hat down over her face.

(On Thursday afternoon, Lampson's campaign released a statement saying Rovai has asked the campaign to "help see if any of the television stations caught this incident on tape so she can consider filing an assault charge.")

The press conference broke up, but heated arguments gained in intensity.

Sugar Land Police officers were called to the scene, but did not intercede. Officers in five or six cruisers stayed at a distance and watched the exchange, which subsided after 15 or 20 minutes.

DeLay campaign manager Chris Homan acknowledged organizing the protesters.

"Nick is Nancy Pelosi's liberal lapdog from Beaumont, and he should get used to being confronted…for the next seven months," Homan said.

After DeLay resigns and the campaign office is shut down, Homan said, "I think what you're going to see is Republicans will rally behind a candidate and help get word out that Nick Lampson was one of the worst liberals the Texas delegation has ever seen."

Theresa Raia, a state Republican Party executive committee member and precinct chair from Sugar Land, carried a sign and protested at the Lampson press conference along with her husband, Sam.

"We just didn't like him coming in to Sugar Land," Raia said. "He surely should have known he was going to get some opposition."

Opposition is fine. Protest is fine. Waving signs is fine. Pushing people is not fine. Blasting an air horn so as to drown out what someone else is saying is not fine. The word for that is thuggery, and it should be an affront to anyone who values freedom of speech. DeLay supporters might want to read some of the comments at the end of that story. At least one person so far has said he's switched his vote to Lampson because of this.

Juanita has some pictures from the press conference. Here's a KHOU link for this. There's supposed to be video, but I didn't see it at first glance. Thanks to Stace for the pointer.

On a side note, while DeLay may not be running for office, I expect candidates everywhere to continue to run against him for as long as he's in the news in some fashion. As an example, click the More link to see a statement from HD32 candidate Juan Garcia.

State representative candidate Juan Garcia today called on his opponent to give nearly $50,000 he took from Tom DeLay and others linked to the ongoing corruption scandals surrounding the disgraced congressman to a local children's health clinic.

"This campaign should be about our community's future, not my opponent's past," Garcia said. "I encourage him to put this behind him so that we can spend the rest of this campaign talking about how to fix our public schools, keep our kids healthy, and make our neighborhoods stronger."

Incumbent Gene Seaman reported accepting $48,710 in 2002 from two discredited political action committees founded by DeLay, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) and its parent organization, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), as well as from the Texas Association of Business (TAB). TRMPAC and TAB have since been indicted as part of a continuing criminal grand jury investigation in Travis County.

DeLay announced this week that he will resign his office as the biggest political corruption scandal in a generation continues to embroil the leadership in Washington, D.C. and Austin.

Garcia said his opponent's 2003 vote to strip more than half-a-million eligible children of their health insurance is a real world example of how such corruption in political campaigns can have a devastating impact on people's lives.

"These kids not only lost the health benefits they deserved, but local taxpayers were forced to pick up the tab in higher emergency room costs," Garcia said.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has estimated that Texas forfeited more than $600 million in available federal revenue for the Children Health Insurance Program by eliminating coverage for the eligible children.

Garcia is a practicing lawyer, an instructor pilot in the U.S. Naval Reserve, and chaired Citizens for Educational Excellence. He also serves on the board of governors for Leadership Corpus Christi, the Corpus Christi Barrios Association, and is a certified legal volunteer at the Corpus Christi Women's Shelter.

HHSC delays call center rollout

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (THHSC) has finally acknowledged the inevitable.

Citing long wait times, inadequately trained staff and other problems, state officials announced Wednesday an indefinite delay in expanding privately run call centers statewide to screen applicants for health and welfare benefits.

With high hopes of saving $646 million over five years, Texas planned to roll out the private call centers statewide this year.

But a pilot center in Central Texas has produced a higher-than-expected volume of calls that are taking longer because the questions are too complicated for too few, inadequately trained staffers to answer, officials said.

Ask any IT worker you know about how any outsourcing project they've ever been involved with did in comparison to its initial projections and you'll find out just how utterly predictable this all was. But hey, at least there were no real world consequences of this failure to plan ahead, right?

Since January, customers have complained of long waits and problems getting benefits. More than 6,000 children were dropped from the Children's Health Insurance Program because their parents received incorrect information from Accenture.

Oops. Back to the Chron:

A private call center in Midland, run by the Texas Access Alliance consortium headed by outsourcing giant Accenture, began screening applicants for adult Medicaid, food stamps, cash welfare and long-term care Jan. 20 in a pilot area stretching from Austin to San Marcos.

Yet in the week ending March 12, the private consortium reported that 15,838 calls - nearly 55 percent of all calls that week - abandoned the phone lines after holding an average of 21 minutes.

Any help desk worth its salt has average wait times in the one minute range, and an abandon rate of less than ten percent. Just so you know.

And then there's this gem from Father John:

Offices now have a 70 day lead time for applications. Federal regulations say you have to process applications in 30 days, which means you should be scheduling appointments within 20 days, because by law you have to allow people 10 days to provide you with the necessary proof to validate their case. 70 days to get an appointment is something never seen in the 13 years I was with the agency. I think the worst I ever saw was about 25 days... and that didn't last for long.

What a godawful mess. And boy can I not wait to see what their updated bogus cost-savings projections will be.

Here's the HHSC press release, if you're curious. Thanks to Hope for sending it to me. My previous post on this topic is here.

Burnam files suit against Ethics Commission

State Rep. Lon Burnam has filed suit against the Texas Ethics Commission after its ridiculous ruling that bankrupt former TRMPAC treasurer and current State Employees Retirement System board member Bill Ceverha did not have to disclose how much money he received as a gift from Republican benefactor Bob Perry.

“The Ethics Commission has grossly misinterpreted the law,” said Burnam, D-Fort Worth. “If politicians or state officials receive huge gifts, the public has a right to know the amount, and the law requires the official to reveal it.”

At issue was a check from Houston home builder Bob Perry to former state Rep. Bill Ceverha, who serves on the state employee retirement system’s board of directors. On the financial disclosure statement that officials are required to fill out, Ceverha listed the 2004 gift as “check,” but did not say how much the check was for.

During a closed-door hearing March 27, the ethics panel ruled that Ceverha was not compelled by law to give any additional details.

Ceverha, a Dallas Republican and a confidante of Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, confirmed Wednesday that the check was for $50,000 and that he had received another $50,000 check from Perry in January.

“We decided to disclose it because it had gotten to be a big ongoing flap over nothing,” Ceverha said. “The Democrats keep pounding away trying to make everything a partisan issue.”

How is it partisan to note that there's a world of difference between reporting that you got a "check" and reporting that you got two checks totally $100,000? This isn't a check you got from your Aunt Polly in a birthday card, it's a check from one of the biggest political donors in the state. If there's nothing untoward about him helping out a friend in debt, why not be up front about it from the get go?

Bob Perry's response, from this AP story, is equally laughable.

Perry and Ceverha provided identical letters from Perry that accompanied the checks, dated Sept. 8, 2004, and Jan. 27, 2005. The letters describe a $50,000 gift with no strings attached but state that Perry assumes the money would go toward legal fees and that "no contribution to any candidate or political action committee ... will be made or will result as a consequence of your personal use of these funds."

Following Wednesday's newspaper report, the Texas Democratic Party issued a statement saying it's difficult to believe such a large sum of money had no strings attached.

"Given the pay-to-play Republican style of politics that is ruling our state, the question should be raised: What did Bob Perry get for his $100,000 investment?" Texas Democratic Party spokeswoman Amber Moon said.

Perry spokesman Anthony Holm said the Houston homebuilder has "zero interest" in the state retirement system and viewed the check to Ceverha as charitable giving.

"Both men have chosen to operate above and beyond what the law requires. Mr. Perry has always respected open government," Holm said.

He has a funny way of showing that. If he really wants to go "above and beyond", it should have never entered his mind that his most generous gift be reported as anything but exactly what it was. Letting it be described as "check" and doing nothing to change that until the heat got turned up is being a weasel. Simple as that.

Burnam's statement on the suit is here (PDF). The TEC needs to enforce its rules in a manner consistent with common sense and legislative intent. I hope this suit gets their attention.

Congressional representation is overrated

I believe it was Stephen Colbert who recently said that the 22nd Congressional District should be retired in honor of Tom DeLay's service. Looks to me like the Texas GOP will be happy to retire it until November.

"No, there won't be a special election," DeLay told Limbaugh. "Texas has a law that there's only two dates that you can have a special election, November and May, and this weekend the deadline for the May special election will have passed."

Other officials say they believe Texas Gov. Rick Perry has the authority to call an emergency election on a date of his own choosing.

DeLay's resignation "will lead the governor to declare the seat vacant and either set a special election or leave the seat vacant for the remainder of the term ending December 31," Fort Bend County Republican Party Chairman Eric Thode said in an email to party faithful on Wednesday. "If one is called, the special election should have NO impact on how the place on the ballot gets filled. In fact, I would argue that it could impair the Republican Party in November."

Gary Gillen, a run-off candidate against Linda Howell to succeed Thode as county party chairman, said a special election to replace DeLay and finish his term would "at this point be a circus because a special election is open to everyone. I don't see the value to the Republican Party."

Gillen said voters would be "better served by waiting until November and electing their candidate then."

[...]

Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, interested but as yet unannounced as a candidate for DeLay's November ballot spot, said his understanding is that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is not obligated under the law to act to replace DeLay.

"I don't know that there's any reason to call a special election," Eckels added.

As you might imagine, Nick Lampson and Tom Campbell think this is BS. Here's Lampson's statement:

Nick Lampson, congressional candidate for Texas's 22nd congressional district, will hold a press conference Thursday to call for a Special Election to be held on May 13.

Lampson said, "Tom DeLay lost this race. Now, it's time for him to move on. Southeast Texas should not be without a Congressperson for months while our country is at war, we face a difficult debate about how to secure our borders and reform immigration and our debt and deficit are skyrocketing. Our seat in Congress should not be empty while Tom DeLay tries to manipulate who his successor will be."

The next unified Election Day is May 13th. Tom DeLay should resign from Congress, be declared ineligible for the November election, and let Texans get on with the business of getting a new congressperson in May. Otherwise, if DeLay resigns in June and the Governor calls for a special election on November 7 to coincide with the general election, the people of the 22nd congressional district will be without any representation for months while our country is at war, is fighting terrorists, and is debating important issues like immigration reform. It is wrong for the people of this district to have no voice in Congress just so Tom DeLay can maneuver and handpick his successor in yet another backroom deal. DeLay should leave now and the Governor should call this special election in May. This should happen by the end of this week.

Lampson will speak at 10 am at Sugarland Town Square Plaza, 2700 Town Center Blvd. North in Sugarland.

I admit my biases here, but I kind of have a hard time understanding why some people are so blase about being unrepresented in Washington. Heck, just considering how small the Republican majority is in Congress, you'd think that ol' Denny Hastert and John Boehner would be concerned about being a man down. Will there really be no important votes between June and November? What's Eric Thode going to say if a piece of legislation he favors fails by a single vote in Congress later this year? I for one will laugh my keester off if that happens.

What I want to know right about now is what David Wallace and Charlie Howard think of this. Surely at least one of them has to believe his chances of being the nominee in November will be much greater if he wins a special election before then. This is why I keep saying the Republicans may have a unity problem on their hands. It's one thing for a David Wallace to put aside his ambition in deference to King Tom, but to whom exactly does he owe loyalty if the powers that be decide Robert Eckels is the Chosen One and not him? Sure, maybe he'll put his party ahead of himself and go back to meekly waiting for someone else to step aside and let him move up the ladder. And maybe he'll decide that he's better off sitting on his hands and hoping for a Lampson win so that he might have a clean shot at it in 2008. However mad that might make some of his partymates now, he may well gamble they'll be eager enough to reclaim that seat in two years' time that they'll rally behind whoever survives the primary.

Maybe that happens and maybe it doesn't, but you can't tell me it's not a rational choice for someone who wants a shot at getting into Congress. And you can't tell me that some Republicans won't be upset at being told they don't have a say in who gets to take on Lampson in DeLay's absence. All that without even contemplating the possibility that the powers that be won't be able to settle on a Chosen One. It's not at all clear to me what happens from here.

But hey - not my problem. You guys go ahead and cut a deal and tell everyone else to like it or lump it. The rest of us have a candidate to support. Have fun with the decisionmaking process.

I know I expressed concern previously about the majority-not-plurality-needed nature of a special election. I still have that concern. We're all in some uncharted waters here, and my thinking is going to evolve as new considerations arise and as the Republican strategy becomes more apparent. I'm not sure what the best-case scenario is for the Dems, so I'm just trying to evaluate what's being kicked around. My apologies to anyone who feels like they've got whiplash. I feel like it, too.

Thanks to Juanita for the story link.

UPDATE: More confusion:

After DeLay vacates his office, Gov. Rick Perry has 20 days to set a special election. If DeLay steps down in June, Perry can either call the election to coincide with the Nov. 7 general election, or he can call an emergency special election sooner.

A Nov. 7 date would mean voters in the 22nd District would vote twice for congressional candidates — once to fill out what then would be the final two months of DeLay's term and once for the next term.

Some GOP leaders prefer that option, saying a separate special election would be too costly. But Lampson and others say it would be unfair to leave the people of the district without representation in the U.S. House for several months.

My head is spinning. Is Perry required to call a special election or can he just leave the seat empty until the November winner is sworn in next January? Based on what Eric Thode is saying, I think the answer is no, Perry is not obligated to call a special election. That means there are three options, not two:

1. Special election before November for the unexpired term, followed by the regular election in November for the next two years. This is what Lampson is advocating; at least, it's what he's advocating if the special is for the next uniform election date in May.

2. Special election at the same time as the general election in November. This would mean that CD22 would be on the ballot twice, presumably with a different slate of candidates for each. I don't understand the appeal of this option for anyone - if you're a Republican, you either want to be the Chosen One or to use an earlier special to force your selection as the Chosen One. Why in the world would anyone run just to serve from November to January?

3. No special election, the seat stays empty till January, and the Chosen One goes against Lampson et al in November. This is Thode's preference.

The Chron story does not acknowledge option 3. Is this correct? Please help me out here if you can.

UPDATE: DeLayVsWorld considers eight (count 'em!) scenarios, all involving a special election. In talking to people about this, I'm becoming more convinced that Perry is not obligated to call one. We'll see.

The Metro Multi-Cities program

Robin takes a look at the Metro Multi-Cities program and suggests we give some thought to whether its purpose as defined in 1978 still makes sense today. Be sure to see the CTC forum discussion on it as well.

Long as I'm mentioning Robin and the CTC, they got a nice writeup in the Chron's This Week section regarding public participation in the process to determine where Metro will locate the Universities rail line. Check it out.

Fundraisers for Sherrie Matula and Mark McDavid

Couple of fundraising events for local candidates in State Rep races that I'm interested in are on the calendar for the near term. First, for Sherrie Matula in HD129, down in DeLay CD22 territory in Clear Lake.

About a year ago, Sherrie Matula a board member of Bay Area New Democrats, debated our current State Representative John Davis on education and insurance issues. She was absolutely fantastic and ran circles around him. Over the next few months the Board Members of BAND encouraged her to consider running for State Rep, and SHE IS!

So: You Are Invited! To Meet and Greet Sherrie Matula Candidate for State Representative District 129, representing Clear Lake and the surrounding area.

If you would consider sponsoring the event, levels are $50, $100, $250, and $500.

Mark your calendars:
Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:30PM-7:30PM
BJs Restaurant 515 Bay Area Blvd 77598

$10 Suggested donation at the door

RSVP to: Louisa Hodges

Sherrie is retiring from teaching in May, has been active in education policies at the local and state level with the Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA), and the National Education Association (NEA). She is a board member of BAND and a former board member of the Clear Creek Independent School District.

And one for Mark McDavid, out on the west side in HD138:

You are cordially invited to a backyard barbeque BENEFIT for the

MARK MCDAVID CAMPAIGN ~ Democrat for Texas House District 138

When: Sunday MAY 7, 2006 4:00 to 7:00 PM

Where: 1342 Cheshire Lane, Hou Tx 77018
Oak Forest neighborhood near 43rd St & Ella Blvd not far from HCDP HQ
Mapquest (via tiny url) : http://tinyurl.com/h488f

Suggested contribution: $10

RSVP: 713/812-9368 or votemcdavid@cs.com

More from the email below the fold. If you live in these districts, check these folks out.

Mark McDavid of Houston is running for State Representative in District 138. The District encompasses near north and northwest Harris County neighborhoods including Garden Oaks, Oak Forest, Spring Branch, Cy-Fair, and Bear Creek.

Mark decided to run for state representative because District 138 is inadequately represented. The incumbent has voted against five clean air amendments that would have made state health pollution screening levels stricter, among other things. The district needs a stronger focus towards stewardship of our air and water, a better commitment on the part of the Texas Legislature towards properly funding public education, and an increased focus towards ending a culture of corruption in campaign finance. Mark will also fight for access to affordable insurance and health care and insurance reform.

McDavid will be taking on an incumbent in the fall general election, Republican Dwayne Bohac. According to the Tom Delay criminal indictment handed down in September 2005, Bohac was one of the handful of candidates who benefited from the alleged felony criminal conspiracy involving an exchange of money that made corporate cash available to Republican Texas House candidates in 2002. Bohac also has the dubious honor of being named one of the 10 worst legislators in 2005 by Texas Monthly Magazine. Prior to that, the magazine named Bohac as 'furniture' in the legislature, an 'award' which goes to legislators who do little during their term.

In addition to a thick ethical cloud hanging over Bohac's head for accepting campaign funds possibly money-laundered, McDavid believes that Bohac has misrepresented the District by voting to hack funding for public education and to hack funding for insuring Texas children. The incumbent has further undermined the health and safety of the 150,000 constituents in District 138 by voting against multiple amendments introduced to strengthen air quality standards and clean up severe pollution problems in Harris County.

If you have had enough of the corruption, cronyism and polluted politics, then join us in supporting Mark McDavid's bid for Texas House District 138!

votemcdavid@cs.com

NOTE: Mark is married to former SD17 National Delegate and SDEC Member, Ginny Stogner McDonald

Why leave now, Tom?

The WaPo addresses some of the questions surrounding Tom DeLay's sudden departure from the scene.

Under siege from state and federal probes into his actions and those of his closest aides and advisers, Rep. Tom DeLay had considered resigning on several occasions over the past four months. But he waited until after he had vanquished his challengers in the Republican primary to deny them the chance to become his successor, associates said.

In other words, he wants to name his replacement. You can be sure that the panel of precinct chairs selected from the four counties in CD22 will consider his wishes strongly when they anoint the Chosen One.

DeLay's decision was also provoked by recent poll results that showed he faced a stiff challenge in November, the associates said.

In other words, he was too scared by the prospect of losing to fight.

They also cited what the Texas Republican has privately described at his frustration at no longer being a part of the House leadership, and his diminished satisfaction with rank-and-file congressional life.

This is Rick Casey's opinion as well.

What may well be the biggest driving factor:

An additional impetus for putting off the resignation until now was suggested by John Feehery, a former aide to DeLay and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). "He needed to raise money for the defense fund. That was the bottom line," Feehery said. "He wanted to make sure he could take care of himself in the court of law." Under federal campaign rules, any reelection money a lawmaker raises can be used to pay legal fees stemming from official duties.

Vince noted that DeLay sent out a fundraising letter the day after he told Time Magazine he'd decided to resign. Anyone who responded to that letter with a check will have actually given their money to DeLay's phalanx of attorneys. I wonder how those folks feel about that now.

Of course, DeLay has very good reasons to see to the care and feeding of his lawyers.

[L]egal experts said DeLay should be worried that federal prosecutors seemed to have him in their sights.

"They've penetrated his inner sanctum with a guy who says he was doing things in his office," said Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer who's defended about two dozen cases involving official corruption charges. "This case is just beginning."

Stephen Saltzburg, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, said DeLay's former aides almost certainly were feeling intense pressure to pass along any damaging information they had about their former boss or any other member of Congress.

[Tony] Rudy and [Mike] Scanlon each face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for their admitted crimes. [Jack] Abramoff faces up to 30 years. Passing along helpful information could save them years behind bars.

"In order to get substantial credit, you have to be able to give something," Saltzburg said. "There's going to be a lot of pressure on his former aides, if there's anything there, to cooperate. People have a motive to point the finger, even if it shouldn't be pointed."

[...]

Brand, whose previous clients have included members of Congress, said it wasn't uncommon for lawmakers to shelve their political careers when faced with the possibility of criminal charges.

"He's going to face hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses if he gets charged and decides to defend himself," Brand said. "It's hard to focus on that and focus on re-election."

Interestingly, DeLay himself seems to think that Ed Buckham will be joining the parade of Felonious Ex-DeLay Staffers. He sure does seem to get betrayed a lot by people he trusted, doesn't he? Maybe it's time to update this diagram.

I'm still thinking through some of the possibilities for the special election, if one occurs. I disagree with David's approach, but I do think it's clear that the game will be rigged as best as it can be. I think that if the powers that be can unite behind a single candidate, like David Wallace, then they'll anoint him the nominee and push for a November special election. This accomplishes several goals: it allows Wallace (or whoever) to catch up on fundraising and campaigning, it ensures that a majority vote is needed to win, which blunts the impact of any gadflies (Tom Campbell, Steve Stockman) and sore losers (whoever does not get united behind in this scenario), and it gives their boy a chance at getting sworn in before January 2, which gives him a leg up on seniority. All they have to do is win and it's all good.

(UPDATE: This point is basically mooted by my belated realization that the special election is only for the unexpired term, and by the emerging consensus on the Republican side that there should be no special election at all. That obviously makes more sense for a united front/Chosen One scenario, whether it's Wallace or Eckels.)

A scary possibility is if Harris County Judge Robert Eckels decides he wants this job. If he's the Chosen One and the likes of Wallace and Charlie Howard decline to step aside, Governor Perry may find an excuse to skip a special election altogether (*) and just let Eckels, who already has decent name recognition and (I suspect) a pile of campaign cash, slug it out with Lampson in November. That's not even the scary part: In this scenario, Eckels, who is unopposed for reelection as County Judge, could effectively name his replacement, too. How much better that is, from a GOP perspective, than an open seat race for Judge in 2010, when Harris County may well be blue enough to flip it to the Dems. Whoever gets the free ride as his replacement would have four whole years to build up enough of a warchest to beat back or frighten off any decent challenger. How sweet is that? Sure does make you wish that someone had bothered to file against Eckels this year, doesn't it?

Like I said, I'm still contemplating. It would be a good idea if everybody gave this matter some thought, so we don't get caught unprepared whenever Perry announces his intentions.

(*) - I'm not sure if he can do this under the law, but as we've seen quite a few creative interpretations of our electoral code lately, I wouldn't put anything out of bounds just yet. Consider all the possibilities, that's all I'm saying.

UPDATE: I see at Elam's place that Perry is not required to call a special election. Former FBGOP Chair Eric Thode is arguing against having one. We shall see. I believe that if the Republicans can unite behind one candidate as the Chosen One, then they will have a much stronger chance at winning in November. I still believe that the risk of disgruntlement among the unanointed ones and their supporters is higher this way, however. For what it's worth, I don't envy them the decision. I'll say again - let's be thinking about this with them, people. We can't afford to be surprised.

Behold the latest Trans Texas Corridor route

Meet TTC-35, the planned mega-toll road corridor between Dallas and Laredo.

The Trans-Texas Corridor toll road twin to Interstate 35 will flank the freeway to the east from Dallas to San Antonio, include the Texas 130 turnpike in Central Texas and go to Laredo rather than Brownsville, according to a draft environmental report that state officials released Tuesday.

The centerpiece of the 4,300-page, 2-foot-thick draft report is a fat blue line showing an approximately 10-mile-wide area from Gainesville to San Antonio and a thinner line running south, delineating what has been a much-anticipated path for the turnpike. The road, to be called TTC-35, is part of Gov. Rick Perry's plan for a network of intrastate toll roads, railroads and utility easements.

Rural Texans, in particular, have been waiting to see whether their lands would fall in that blue swath — indicating that they might have to sell their land someday for the road. Even if a particular parcel lies within that corridor, however, the tale is far from being told.

The draft environmental impact statement is still subject to review, more public hearings and tinkering over the next year.

Then, for particular road segments or rail projects, the state will conduct a second-tier study that will narrow the path to a few hundred feet in width

[...]

"We looked at (the map) and said, 'That kills us,' " said Will Lowrance, mayor of Hillsboro, noting that the blue swath is at least 15 miles away from his town on I-35. "That's too far east."

As for the [Texas Farm Bureau], spokesman Gene Hall said, "We're still opposed to it, and we'll do everything we can to stop it."

[...]

The 10-mile-wide corridor leaves plenty of room east of Texas 130, which is under construction and should open in 2007, for rail lines.

But, significantly, the recommended corridor does not go far enough east to include an existing Union Pacific line that runs north-south through Elgin and Bastrop.

State officials happily announced last week that Cintra-Zachry, the partnership in line to build the TTC-35 toll road, has submitted a proposal to build a rail line along the corridor from Oklahoma to Mexico.

Cintra-Zachry, composed of the Spanish toll road builder Cintra and Zachry Construction Corp. of San Antonio, has said it would spend $6 billion on a four-lane turnpike from Oklahoma to San Antonio, paying the state $1.2 billion in concession fees.

Anti-toll road crusader Sal Costello has more on that Cintra deal.

Bottom line:

The recommended route:

• Contains more than 2,400 square miles of prime farmland, 13 square miles of parks and 63 landfills.
• Area includes almost 1 million residents, almost half of them minorities and almost a quarter below the poverty level.
• Could affect the homes of 46 threatened or endangered plant and animal species.
• Includes five federally recognized historic sites of 23 acres or greater.
• Would traverse three major and six minor aquifers.

As noted earlier in the story, it's the full corridor that covers 2400 square miles of cropland. The actual highway would use much less.

If you live in the area within this corridor - you can check here for the full draft plan - be on the lookout for those public meetings if you want your voice heard on this. As Eye on Williamson notes, there's a strange reluctance to bring toll road matters to the public's attention.

Why KACC is my favorite radio station

Excellent "Racket" column on the pride of Alvin, 89.7 KACC, the Gulf Coast Rocker. Why do I love this station? Here's one reason:

" 'Whatever goes' is a pretty good idea of what we do," says Mark Moss, KACC's operations director and local rock radio veteran. "There are so many genres of rock, so we try to avoid just being classic or new. We try not to play the stuff that's been rubbed into the ground. Like, if we do play classic, we get a little deeper in the disc library. From the Floyd library, we'll play 'Sheep' or 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' instead of 'Another Brick in the Wall.' And Hendrix is not just 'Purple Haze.' We'll also play 'If 6 Was 9' or 'Castles Made of Sand.' "

Believe it or not, most kids have never heard those cuts, which have long vanished from the Arrow's playlists. "To younger listeners, deep-catalog stuff from those bands sounds like new music," Moss says.

Moss also wants to stamp KACC's sound with a Texas feel. "Nothing you hear on the dial really sounds identifiable as Texas anymore," he says. "It's an old theory of programming, but it makes us geographically different from anything else on the dial."

Take Los Lonely Boys, for example. Most Houstonians don't know it, but "Heaven" and the rest of the Grammy-winning trio's official debut album had been out for many months before the song became ubiquitous. KLOL was too busy spinning Tesla and crap like that; the Buzz had to make sure their daily quota of Marilyn Manson spins had been reached. Neither would give LLB a chance.

But KACC did. "I was goin' to see Los Lonely Boys when they were playing over at the Saxon Pub in Austin," Moss says. "We had four or five songs by those guys on the air long before they were ever on the commercial radio. And a few months later, 'Heaven' started getting airplay in Austin. I never really thought it should have been the single, so we never did add that song, but it did end up winning them the Grammy. At any rate, to me, those guys epitomized Texas."

Moss also spins (drumroll, please) local music. (And why we wouldn't he? In his spare time, he strums guitar in the Clear Lake-area trad-rock bar band the 4 Barrel Ramblers.) "We'll add the good local rock, and even the stuff that has a country flair. To me, that's where a Texas station should be. And the funny thing is, I get so many people that hear something and call in and ask, 'Who was that? That's a great song!' And I'll tell 'em it's [local rockers] Dune*TX or somebody like that."

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a cut by a classic rock artist I enjoy that I've never heard on any other radio station. It's extremely rare for me to react to a song they're spinning by saying "not that crap again". I think the last time I felt that way was back in the glory days of New York's late, lamented 102.7 WNEW, when I was just learning about what good rock music is.

One more thing:

Radio is a brutal business -- and it is getting more so by the year. You can be on top of the world one week, and one crappy quarterly ratings report later, you're fighting for your survival. If the suckitude continues, you're on your ass. Again.

Hmmm. How did that WKRP in Cincinnati theme go again -- "Got kinda tired of packin' and unpackin' / Town to town, up and down the dial?" Yep, that's the radio biz.

Or, more accurately, that was the radio biz back in the good old days. You can't go up and down the dial the way you used to, because virtually all of the thousands of small companies that owned radio stations have vanished into the maw of the Clear Channel, Cumulus and Infinity behemoths.

And neither did the radio of 1978 have to cope with so much competition. Today, the whole medium seems to be in a battle for its very existence. Home listeners were already a thing of the past by the '90s, and car CD players and satellite radio have eaten away at the formerly captive commuter audience. In more crowded cities, the future is even bleaker: New York-based Houston Press DVD reviewer Jordan Harper told me that hardly any Big Apple train commuters bother with the stodgy old box. "This is iPod Nation, man," he said. "I don't know anyone up here who listens to the radio."

One reason (beyond my semi-irrational fear of new music technology) why I'm still iPod-less is just what I wrote above: I get all the variety I need, at least most of the time, with KACC. Even better, I get to hear new stuff without all that tedious hunting around for it. Oh, and did I mention they're commercial-free? This is the perfect lazy man's excuse to put off that iPod purchase - and the multi-hour commitment to ripping that CD collection - for a few more weeks. Hey, I know I'm a disappearing demographic. I may as well take advantage of it while I can.

Historic National Day of Action Rally for Immigrant Rights

According to LULAC (the League of United Latin American Citizens), there will be a huge multi-city rally for immigrants' rights across America on April 10.

"Comprehensive immigration reform must include an earned adjustment for immigrants currently working in the United States; create legal channels for future flows of immigrant workers; and reduce the vast backlogs in family-sponsored immigration," said LULAC National President Hector M. Flores, "There is a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill that offers effective enforcement, strengthens borders, and encourages people to come out of the shadows by offering a path to permanent residency."

This earned legalization legislation is not amnesty because under the provisions of this legislation, an undocumented worker will have to pay a $2,000 fine, undergo a background check, pay any back taxes, learn English, enroll in civic education, remain employed for six years, and then, at the end of those six years, go to the back of the line to apply for legal permanent resident (LPR) status.

[...]

The cities participating in the April 10th event include: Austin, Dallas, Tucson, Little Rock, Santa Ana, San Jose, Mid-Wilshire, Long Beach, East Los Angeles, Riverside, San Fernando Valley, Bakersfield, Fresno, San Diego, Los Angeles, Colorado Springs, Grand Junction, Telluride, Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Mears, Homestead, Lake Worth, Miami, Pensacola, Chicago, Lexington, Boston, Detroit, Kansas City, Omaha, Las Cruces, Newark, New York, Raleigh, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, El Paso, Houston, San Antonio, Washington, DC, and Milwaukee. For a complete list please go to: http://www.lulac.org/events/immigrationcalendar.html

I'll pass on any more info as I get it.

UPDATE: And just in case the whole Mexican flag kerfuffle bubbles up again, take a look at this and this.

Have you voted in the runoff yet?

I have, on Monday. Calling it "slow" at the Multipurpose Center on Gray would imply motion of some kind. I was in and out in less time than it will take you to read this. Your vote never counts for more than it does in a low-turnout election. What are you waiting for? Join the Stallings family, Mary Beth Harrell (see here and all the other cool kids and get to your early voting location. And when you get there, remember: Barbara Radnofsky, Ted Ankrum, Borris Miles, and your choice of Maria Alvarado and Ben Grant.

This post has nothing at all to do with Tom DeLay

It is, however, a piece of unequivocally good news: Debutant is cancer-free. Hot dog! May you stay that way always, Deb. Congratulations and mazel tov!

Day Three Morning DeLay Roundup

Let's get this roundup started...

The top Chron story is about GOP disarray in the wake of DeLay's sudden departure, but the most interesting information comes at the end when the talk turns to a special election.

[Texas Republican Chair Tina] Benkiser said she believes it is important to hold a special election before November.

"If I was in Congressional District 22, I would want to be represented in Congress," Benkiser said.

But some local Republicans believe it would be better to leave the special election until November. For one, they argue, a simultaneous general and special election would allow Republicans to rally around the party-selected nominee.

They say this would boost the GOP candidates' strength in the special election, which will be open to anyone regardless of party affiliation.

Fort Bend County Party Chair Eric Thode says the party should avoid a "freak show" special election.

"The special election is irrelevant," he said. "Why have a special election for someone to hold office for three months, who may or may not be on the ballot on November? There is not going to be any controversial vote (in Congress) between August and December of an election year."

GOP consultant Allen Blakemore said a special election is "neither warranted nor necessary."

"It doesn't matter. Their service in the interim is of no value," he said. "It is of no importance. It is not a matter of fairness and representation, it is a matter of economics."

Harris County Republican Party Chair Jared Woodfill agreed that the cost to hold a special election isn't justified.

"At this point, my position is that we should go forward with getting a nominee and then allow the voters to decide in November who should represent that district," Woodfill said. "That's an appropriate time for the decision to made."

Craig Murphy, a Republican consultant from Arlington who has advised U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, said holding the election in November makes sense for several reasons.

Murphy said a quick special election would give Lampson a financial advantage over the Republican, possibly allowing him to win and thus run in November as the incumbent. A special election also could divide Republicans at a time when they should unite against Lampson.

Murphy said Lampson has spent months raising money by pounding DeLay over the lobby scandals. With DeLay out of the picture, Murphy said, Lampson won't be able to pitch his fund-raising to national Democratic enmity toward DeLay.

The biggest advantage to winning the special and the general election, Murphy said, is that new representative would have a seniority edge over other members of the freshman class of 2007.

You can have a special election in November, and the same majority-needed rule would apply. The reason why it would be a special election is that whoever wins would be sworn in immediately to fill the still-remaining time of DeLay's unexpired term. That's the seniority edge that Murphy is talking about. Amazing how quickly a consensus was formed on this, no? It's the best of all worlds from a Republican perspective - maximize the time that the Chosen One gets to campaign, and minimize the impact of Steve Stockman and Bob Smither.

Still, my previously expressed doubts about unity are as before, and again I'm amused by how blithely Nick Lampson's fundraising is being dismissed. I'm telling you, this is still DeLay's seat, and people are still going to be motivated to give to help Lampson and the Democrats take it. Wave that off at your own risk.

Onward. The Chron politics blog rounds up some local reactions. This is my favorite, from a fellow on the right-hand side of the aisle:

Tom Delay (sic) wasn't guilty of anything except perhaps poor associations. Some people that worked for him did some improper things and it cost him his job.

Like I said yesterday, it's a darned good thing Tom DeLay isn't a member of Houston's City Council, or he'd really be in trouble. Tom Kirkendall has a much clearer reaction to DeLay's travails.

The National Journal Blogometer has a big roundup of blog reactions from across the country.

Let's talk electoral law again. The Lone Star Project dives into special election possibilities.

The Governor’s Special Election Options

Under Section 204.021 and Section 203.004 of the Texas Election Code, the Governor could:

* Call a special election for the next uniform election day - May 13 or the November general election date (Sec 41.001 (a)) - at least 36 days after the election is ordered
* Declare an emergency and call the election for a Tuesday or Saturday that falls between the 36th and the 50th day after the election is ordered, (Sec 41.0011) which he cannot do until DeLay formally steps down and he is officially notified of a vacancy in office.

This indicates:

* Initial reports that a special election may be held on May 13 would require DeLay to formally resign and vacate his position by this Friday April 7, 2006, to meet the 36 day window, which conflicts with reports that he plans to serve for two more months.
* The Governor would almost certainly declare an emergency when DeLay formally vacates his seat, setting up a summer special election, meaning Texas taxpayers will have to foot the bill for another costly special election courtesy of Tom DeLay’s cowardly post-primary resignation.

Note that even if the special is held alongside the general in November, the public will almost certainly get stuck with the tab for a runoff afterwards. In any event, none of this can happen until DeLay formally establishes his residency in Virginia and thus makes himself ineligible to run for Congress in Texas. Anyone remember when DeLay said this:

"It's just so contrary to what Texas is all about, to turn tail and run and not fight for what you believe in."

That was from May 14, 2003, when 51 Democratic state reps broke quorum by going to Ardmore, OK, to try and thwart DeLay's ramrodding of a new Congressional map. How times have changed, no?

Oh, Tom, by the way: When you do establish yourself as a resident of the Commonwealth, be sure you get yourself one of these. Makes you miss Texas already, doesn't it?

Pesky Apostrophe does not normally blog about politics, but I laughed at this:

When politicians resign their posts, I expect indictments and really damning evidence of wrong-doing to surface within weeks. That way, when the newspapers report it they can say ’former Republican Congressman Tom DeLay’ and that gives the Republican party a little distance between an arrest and their party. I’ve lost count how many times that has happened over the last six years within the GOP and within the Bush administration. No doubt, DeLay will blame it all on roving bands of liberal Democrat gay ninjas sneaking into his bedroom at night, hypnotizing him, and clandestinely forcing him to do their evil, evil will.

You have to admit, the gay ninja theory would explain a lot. Link via the also normally apolitical Christine. And speaking on behalf of evil liberals everywhere, Mike declines to take the credit for DeLay's skedaddling.

Some people have been asking if DeLay can change his residency to another state while he's out on bond for the charges in Austin. TPMMuckraker has looked at the bond and says yes he can - there's no restriction on where he lives, as long as he appears in court as required. They've got a lot more at the site, so start at the top and keep scrolling.

ReddHedd and South Texas Chisme speculate that the feds may try to squeeze DeLay by putting pressure on his wife and daughter for all the money they've been making from his connections. Former opponent Mike Fjetland thinks the Tony Rudy plea is what caused DeLay to drop out.

State Rep. Charlie Howard, whom Fred calls DeLay's tag team partner, has joined the ranks of challengers for the GOP nomination, but State Sen. Kyle Janek is staying put. Sorry, Eileen.

DeLayVsWorld makes the case that Nick Lampson is the big loser in all this. You already know my opinion on that subject. Bryan gives us an example of Lampson campaigning before DeLay's departure. I say you underestimate him at your own risk.

Vince speculates on the case for Steve Stockman. I have no idea where that RedState dude got the figure that CD09 was "5-1 Democratic" in 1994, but that's just crazy talk. For one thing, Stockman had run against then-Congressman Jack Brooks in 1992, and lost by a respectable 53.6-43.5 margin. Looking at county data for Galveston (slight majority Dem) and Jefferson (about 60-40 Dem), I'm calling BS right here. About 75% of Stockman's 10,000-vote margin of victory came in a small piece of Harris County. Don't take my word for it - go to the historical elections returns page and look for yourself.

That ought to hold you for now. More later as I find 'em.

CD10 runoff article

OK, I know it's all Tom DeLay all the time, but there are other races, too. One is in CD10, a district that would not exist in its current configuration were it not for DeLay. There's two Dems in the runoff for the party's nomination, and the Chron writes about it here.

[Ted] Ankrum is a retired Navy captain who served four tours in Vietnam during his 15 years of active duty and another 15 years in the reserves. His experience also includes working for NASA as deputy director and later serving with that same title for the Environmental Protection Agency. He was a diplomat in Australia during the Clinton administration and worked for U.S. Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

Growing up in an Air Force family, Ankrum lived in several Texas towns, then graduated from a high school in Europe. His own military career took him across the country and the world before he retired to Texas in 2002.

Ankrum sets himself apart from Foreman by putting energy independence on his list of priorities. He wants the United States to achieve it within the next 10 years. He also hopes to increase the minimum wage.

[Paul] Foreman is a writer who also has worked as a police officer and a teacher.

He has written several novels, including a story of Texan prisons called Sugarland , and has penned books of poetry. He also has worked as an editor and was one of the founders of the Texas Writers League.

A self-described centrist, Foreman said he's on the side of the people.

It's my opinion that Ankrum is the stronger candidate, and that he should get your vote in the runoff. His statement on the runoff is here. This is not a top-tier race, but after the Democrats shamefully failed to run anyone on the ballot in 2004 (UT prof Lorenzo Sadun made a valiant if futile run as a write-in), I definitely want to see a good candidate get the support he needs. If you're in CD10, give Ted Ankrum a look and make sure you get to the booth to give him your vote, too.

UPDATE: Vince has a nice Q&A with Ankrum that's worth your time to read.

Afternoon update on DeLay

The prospect of losing is what drove DeLay to the bench, says he.

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay decided more than a week ago to resign his seat, disappointed with the margin of his Republican primary victory and looking at poll numbers that showed he might lose the seat in November, he said today.

DeLay said in an interview with Sam Malone on KTRH-AM (740) that he "should have done better" than his 62 percent showing against four challengers in the March 7 primary.

His internal polling showed he had a 50-50 chance of winning in November, he said.

"The district was very polarized," he said. "I had strong support and strong opposition."

He would have had to draw votes of moderate Republicans and independents, he said.

"Why risk it, when we can save the seat?," he said. The district leans Republican. "I'm incredibly confident I'm not leaving the 22nd District in jeopardy."

I wouldn't be quite that confident. Yes, the district is 60%+ Republican, so yes, the Republican who replaces DeLay will be the default favorite. But let's not forget a few things: One, Nick Lampson will start out with a huge advantage in fundraising - and don't expect for a minute that the national and netroots Dems are going to abandon him now; if anything, I expect them to smell blood - and in name recognition. He's been campaigning for months and has had a team in place for that long, too. Two, whoever the smoke-filled room types pick to be the Chosen One will not be everybody's choice. It's one thing to fight it out in a democratic process and lose, and another altogether to be bypassed by a committee that isn't answerable to anyone. Who's to say that the runnersup in this contest won't decide that they've nothing to lose by sitting it out instead of helping some unworthy lucky stiff get handed a seat? Surely they can take their shot at Congressman Lampson in 2008, right? I see no guarantee that the Republicans will come out of the naming ceremony as a united front, now that the capo who held together any potentially squabbling factions has gone down. (Feel free to make your own Sopranos joke here.)

And finally, it seems safe to assume that whoever will be carrying DeLay's torch in November will have some tight connections to him, since surely he'll have a say in who gets picked. David Wallace, for example (link via The Red State). DeLay may not be on the ballot, but I gurantee he'll be in the race, one way or another.

Notes from the Responsibility Era:

Rich Christoffersen said customers were stunned by the announcement, with several saying the congressman's legal woes played a role in the resignation.

Christoffersen said current events and politics are frequent subjects discussed by morning customers who are generally supportive of DeLay.

"I think most folks are pretty sorry to see him go, with a few exceptions," Christoffersen said.

"I am very disappointed to see him go. I think he was on the last true conservatives that were out there," he said.

Customer Abraham Joseph said he was surprised by the sudden nature of DeLay's resignation.

"I think he just buckled under pressure from the left, he didn't want to put up with all their whatever, so the best thing to do was just to back out," Joseph said.

Another customer, Charles Lojo, said DeLay has been a strong leader and wondered why the congressman would step down after winning a hard fought primary.

"It is really a shocker. Only he knows why and hopefully they are good reasons," Lojo said.

Funny how his two-going-on-three felonious ex-staffers don't seem to factor into these equations, isn't it? No, it's all just politics and liberal hatred. All I can say is thank God DeLay isn't a member of Houston's City Council. He might be in real trouble if he were.

More on Texas electoral law from Rick Hasen. Is it just me, or is anyone else beginning to get the feeling that this question is ultimately going to be decided in a courtroom?

Ken Fair emails to answer my earlier question about whether someone like Harris County Judge Bob Eckels could run in a special election for CD22 without having to give up his current office and thus create yet more vacancies:

§ 141.033. FILING APPLICATIONS FOR MORE THAN ONE OFFICE PROHIBITED.
(a) A candidate may not file applications for a place on the ballot for two or more offices that:
(1) are not permitted by law to be held by the same person; and
(2) are to be voted on at one or more elections held on the same day.
(b) If a person files more than one application for a place on a ballot in violation of this section, each application filed subsequent to the first one filed is invalid.
(c) This section does not apply to candidacy for the office of president or vice-president of the United States and another office.

Subsection (c) there is the so-called LBJ Rule, which also benefitted Lloyd Bentsen in 1988 when he was Mike Dukakis' running mate.

More linkage:

Pete goes MC Hammer on us.

Misty watercolored memories from Atrios.

Eye on Williamson has a reality check, and notes that one of Tom DeLay's bestest buddies is casting him as a poor, powerless victim of forces beyond his control. Pass the Kleenex!

Houtopia sings along.

The Stakeholder does a little de-spinning, while Greg compares and contrasts.

MyDD rounds up a bunch of stuff.

Jack and stina do their happy dances. Speaking of which, this comment at stina's place is my pick for Comment Of The Day:

It is entirely possible that a jig was danced at approximately 4 a.m. in the moo household.

And if you ain't seen a ginormously pregnant girly dance a jig, you ain't lived, baybee.

The things I miss by being asleep at 4 AM.

Anna has another Texas roundup, while PinkDome brings the Photoshop funnies and In the Pink feels sorry for the people of Virginia. She also gets on the Kyle Janek bandwagon while there's still room.

Finally, Juanita has the picture of the day. I'm still grinning.

There's more, but this post is way too long already. And we're not even 24 hours into post-DeLay America yet.

AG Abbott to rule on TTRC plan's constitutionality

Given all the talk about whether or not the TTRC's business tax plan constituted an income tax in some fashion, this was totally expected.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has been asked to determine whether a proposed business tax being promoted by Gov. Rick Perry violates a constitutional prohibition of an income tax.

Perry's chief of staff, Deirdre Delisi, asked Abbott last week to respond to the issue prior to the April 17 start of a special legislative session. A 1993 amendment to the Texas Constitution prohibits legislation creating a state personal income tax without approval by Texas voters.

As we all know, of course, an income tax cannot be enacted in Texas because of former Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, who proposed and helped pass a constitutional amendment to that effect in 1993 as penance for suggesting that we consider a state income tax in 1991. Which leads to exhanges like this, which will surely give some legislators hives in two weeks:

John Sharp, a former state comptroller who serves as chairman of the tax commission, told a Senate panel Monday that the business tax would not be an income tax because it is not based on net income. He said a company could lose money and still pay the tax.

Some lawmakers have said they are uncomfortable with making an unprofitable business pay tax. Sharp said that a tax based on income likely would invoke the constitutional prohibition.

I'll bet they're uncomfortable with that. When you put it that way, who in their right minds would want to have a vote in favor of such a thing on their records? Have I mentioned how much fun this special session is going to be?

For what it's worth, I fully expect Abbott to give his blessing to the draft legislation for this proposal. That's not binding, of course, it just means that Abbott thinks he can win the lawsuit that will inevitably be filed against the new tax. One would hope that the TTRC consulted with some sharp attorneys along the way to avoid any obvious pitfalls. You never know what the Supreme Court will do, of course, but I'll be surprised if there are any major gotchas lurking right now. After it goes through the sausage-grinder, well, that's a different matter.

Comments are working again

With a big ol' hat tip to Greg Wythe, whose mojo with the phpAdmin tool for MySQL is clearly greater than mine, comments are once again working on this site. Feel free to use this as an open thread to vent whatever you couldn't get off your chest while the mt_comment table in my database was on the mat. Thanks, Greg!

The TTRC plan from a tax attorney's perspective

With a title like The proposed alternative margins tax: entities that would and would not be taxed, you know what you're getting into - tax policy from the perspective of someone who does this sort of thing for a living. It's in depth, but if you want to know more on the topic, the Texas State and Local Tax Law blog - that's Texas SALT Blog - is for you. Link via Vince.

Now playing defense

So the prosecution rested its case last week in the Ken Lay/Jeff Skilling trial, and after a short break the defense has gotten started. I know, I know, I've totally ignored this for some time now. I can't really say why I've not found it as interesting as I'd thought I would. I just haven't. What can I say?

Some former Enron employees were less than overwhelmed by the prosecution's case. Loren Steffy says there could have been more dirt piled on Lay and Skilling had the prosecution gotten some different rulings from Judge Lake. Tom has a good summary of the trial so far, and he expects the defense to start blowing some big holes in the evidence that was presented.

That's all I got. We'll see if I find this stage more compelling.

(Note: I had this and the next post drafted yesterday evening before the DeLay mess hit the fan. I figure I may as well publish them now before they get too moldy. Besides, the world does go on and we all need a little something besides DeLay-a-rama to keep us going with it.)

Two links to hold you off for now

I'll have more on the whole DeLay thing later (on a personal note, he picked a really crappy day from my perspective to suddenly resign), but for now, here are two links to give you some reading material in the meantime:

Matt looks at how things may shake out in the coming months.

Vince has an old-school mega-blog-roundup of just about everyone's reactions and thoughts. You want to be busy reading for awhile, start there.

More later from me, I promise.

Morning DeLay roundup

It's morning and Tom DeLay is still quitting. How sweet is that?

Whenever the special election is to replace him, there could be a lot of people running to replace Tom DeLay.

Those who acknowledged interest in the seat or were mentioned as contenders included Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, state Rep. Robert Talton, Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, former state District Judge John Devine and lawyer Tom Campbell, who ran against DeLay in the March Republican Primary.

Harris County Republican Party Chairman Jared Woodfill said he started receiving calls from interested officials within minutes of hearing the news of DeLay's decision.

"Numerous people have called me inquiring about the seat," he said.

Other phones also were ringing as politicians gauged potential support or heard from backers.

"I've had a number of calls this evening. I'll visit with my family and look at the process," Eckels said. "I do have an interest in at least looking at the race."

Eckels, of course, is already on the ballot in 2006, as are Talton and some others like State Sen. Kyle Janek and State Rep. Charlie Howard, whose names have been mentioned elsewhere. Would they need to abandon their existing re-election bids to run in a special, or would they be able to stay in those races up until the point that they won? And who would replace them on the ballot? Questions, we got questions.

Here's a name to add to the list: Orlando Sanchez. Lord knows, the man needs a job, and he's none too picky about what it is as long as it pays well.

Just kidding, mostly. Two people are in for sure:

Sugar Land Mayor Wallace said he got wind of DeLay's decision over the weekend and began organizing a campaign.

"I'm running for that spot," Wallace said Monday night.

"It is going to be a sprint. We have been working this weekend and today kind of organizing our campaign making sure we pull together a grass-roots team," Wallace said.

Wallace said he will have to take his name off the ballot for the upcoming mayor's race.

[...]

[Tom] Campbell, who came in a distant second with 30 percent of the vote in the March primary, said he still wants the position.

"I believe that Tom DeLay did the right thing in stepping aside and allowing the Republican Party to move forward," Campbell said.

"This is vindication of our political process," Campbell said. "Ethics and integrity do in fact matter and the people who voted on those issues spoke and have been heard."

[...]

"It's in our best interest to choose a nominee before the special election. Otherwise, the election is going to be a free-for-all," Woodfill said. "The situation you don't want is for our nominee to be someone different than the person who runs for the special."

Here's how outgoing Fort Bend County GOP Chair Eric Thode sees it. I suspect it'll be a few days before it's all clear. DeLay VsWorld here and here have some more on how this may play out.

Two views of where we are now:

Former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson is the Democratic nominee for the seat. Lampson's campaign manager Mike Malaise said Lampson's plans have not changed.

"Our challenge was always to get Nick's message out there," Malaise said. "We've got $2.5 million in the bank to help us do that. The other side is going to be playing catch-up to us in that regard."

"We don't know who our opponent will be. It's unrealistic to say that Republicans have it in the bag."

Malaise said Lampson hasn't decided whether to run in the special election, and isn't sure DeLay legally can withdraw from the November ballot.

Fort Bend County GOP Chairman Eric Thode said he was not informed of DeLay's decision and that it took him and other county officials by surprise.

"I think they clearly have come to the conclusion that the race was going to be horribly difficult, ugly and expensive," he said.

Thode said he thinks Republicans will hold on to the seat.

"He (Lampson) could probably not have defeated Tom DeLay. However, against a Republican with zero baggage the race is over already," Thode said.

CD22 is still a Republican district. Whoever the Republican nominee is, by dint of being Republican and not Tom DeLay, will be the favorite. That said, he or she will not by any stretch be a lock. Lampson is well-funded and has been running a lot longer than whoever DeLay's anointed successor will have been. Name recognition will also be a factor - how many people in CD22 could tell you who David Wallace is right now?

I find all of the DeLay-would-have-won-anyway bravado coming from the likes of Thode to be illuminating. If they really believe this, then for it to be a good thing from their perspective that a powerful incumbent like DeLay is stepping down, to be (hopefully) replaced by a freshman, they have to also believe that DeLay's presence on the ballot was a net negative. Something has to make up for the loss of seniority and clout. He was on Appropriations, after all. Will Congressman David Wallace have that kind of juice?

Elsewhere, Josh Marshall says:

I think the story here is clear. Prosecutors knocking down one pin at a time. Paul Kiel and I were talking about this before I left the office early this evening: Rudy, to Buckham, to DeLay. They're each going to go down. And the road map was clear -- though largely implicit -- in the Rudy plea documents.

DeLay's lawyers must have sat him down over the last 72 hours and explained to him that he needs to focus on not spending most of the rest of his life in prison.

Now there's a happy thought.

Via Greg, another interesting tidbit from the WaPo:

DeLay, who is withdrawing from his reelection bid, also is entitled under federal election rules to convert any or all of his remaining campaign funds to his legal expenses, whether or not he resigns, is indicted or loses the election. Election lawyers say one advantage of bowing out of the election now is that the campaign cash can be converted to pay legal bills immediately, instead of being drained in the course of a bid to stay in office.

That also means that whoever is the Chosen One by the State Republican Executive Committee will have to raise his or her own funds - there won't be anything for DeLay to bequeath to their effort.

Finally, note that while DeLay may not be on the ballot in November, he won't be forgotten.

UPDATE: Here's Texas Democratic Party Chair Charles Soechting's statement:

"Tom DeLay's resignation is an opportunity for the people of the 22nd Congressional District to finally have fair and honest representation in Congress, and Nick Lampson is the kind of honorable man who will represent Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike.

It is clear that DeLay's timing was designed to provide an unfair advantage to his hand-picked Republican candidate. Voters in the 22nd District are tired of being manipulated by the likes of Tom DeLay and his cronies and deserve the honorable and effective leadership that Nick Lampson will provide.

While DeLay is slinking out of Texas, he has left a stain of corruption on the Republican leadership in our state that Tom Craddick and Rick Perry can't wash off. It'll take the voters in November to undo the damage that Tom DeLay has done to our state."

If you're in the Clear Lake area and this all makes you want to celebrate - as well it should, join with the Bay Area New Democrats this afternoon to hoist a few in the Hammer's honor:

Tuesday April 4: Join BAND in celebration of DeLay's resignation.

Members of BAND will be at Boondoggles after work for a couple of hours to celebrate the beginning of the end of corruption in Congress with the withdrawal of Tom DeLay from the District 22 race. Boondoggles is at 4106 Nasa Road 1. From NASA go past Clear Lake, over the next bridge, then turn left. Boondoggles is in the back.

We will meet outside. BAND President has volunteered to buy the first round!

Have one for me while you're at it.

DeLay to drop out

Holy mackeral!

Rep. Tom DeLay, whose iron hold on the House Republicans melted as a lobbying corruption scandal engulfed the Capitol, told TIME that he will not seek reelection and will leave Congress within months.

Wow. I never expected him to do anything but go down fighting. I'm in shock.

The surprise decision was based on the sort of ruthless calculation that had once given him unchallenged dominance of House Republicans and their wealthy friends in Washington's lobbying community: he realized he might lose in this November's election. DeLay got a scare in a Republican primary last month, and a recent poll taken by his campaign gave him a roughly 50-50 shot of winning, in an election season when Republicans need every seat they can hang onto to avoid a Democratic takeover of the House.

"I'm a realist. I've been around awhile. I can evaluate political situations," DeLay told TIME at his kitchen table in Sugar Land, a former sugar plantation in suburban Houston. Bluebonnets are blooming along the highways. "I feel that I could have won the race. I just felt like I didn't want to risk the seat and that I can do more on the outside of the House than I can on the inside right now. I want to continue to fight for the conservative cause. I want to continue to work for a Republican majority."

Two points to consider here. One, I think this puts to rest the question of whether or not his 62% showing last month was strong. Clearly, as I have asid all along, it was not. Just as clearly, DeLay knew it.

Two, with him resigning from Congress there will be a special election for the unexpired term of CD22. Pop quiz, boys and girls: In what way will that special election differ from the November election, which will take place with a different Republican nominee regradless of the outcome of that special election? That's right - it takes a majority vote to win a special election for an unexpired term of Congress. With Steve Stockman and a Libertarian Party candidate on the November ballot, it was not at all farfetched for Nick Lampson to win the seat with a plurality of the vote. That won't cut it in a special - there will be a runoff if no one gets a majority. My guess is that DeLay thinks it'll be harder for Lampson to get a majority as a challenger than a simple plurality. Plus, he now has to win two elections.

The rest of the piece is an amazingly self-serving whinefest on DeLay's part. I'm not sure which is my favorite part, the one where he dismisses his two-going-on-three felonious ex-staffers as "Two people violated my trust over 21 years", or the part where he says he wanted to "spare his suburban Houston district the mudfest to come", as if he wouldn't have been the lead mud-flinger. If you've ever forgotten why you couldn't stand the smug, arrogant bastard, read the piece and remind yourself. All I can say is good riddance.

Given the likely need for a runoff in the special election to replace him, I'm wondering when that election will be. May is too early. Isn't the next uniform election date in September? You folks in the 22nd CD, get ready to do a lot of voting this year.

I'm sure this'll be linked all over the Internet and back tomorrow, but for now, here's some reaction and additional reading:

The Agonist.

BOR, which has a link to some relevant election law.

Bay Area New Democrats.

Swing State Project.

Daily Kos.

Greg Wythe.

UPDATE: Here's the Galveston Daily News story. DeLay apparently spited the Chron by giving the GalvNews and Time an exclusive.

[DeLay] said his decision was best for his district and based on troubling internal polling numbers.

[...]

DeLay said he and his staff scrutinized internal polls in December and again after the March GOP primary and didn’t like what they saw.

Those polls showed him beating Democrat Nick Lampson in the general election but in a race that would be too close for comfort, DeLay said.

"Luckily there were more people that loved me than hated me," said DeLay. "Even though I thought I could win, it was a little too risky."

Geeze, what a wussy.

The Chron has an AP story for now.

DeLay also is likely to resign his seat and leave Congress by the end of May or mid-June. That would trigger a special election for his replacement.

DeLay was expected to disclose his plans Tuesday at a news conference in Houston[.]

[...]

Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace has announced he will be running in a special in May for DeLay's spot. Wallace also confirmed that DeLay is not running.

I'm highly skeptical that there's enough time for an election to be held in May, but I guess we'll see.

More from MyDD, who gives a tip of the hat to Chris Bell for knocking over the first domino, and Greg in TX22.

UPDATE: Press release from Nick Lampson:

"From day one I have been running because this district needs a Congressman who will make headlines for the right reasons and work for the mainstream values I share with the people of this district," Nick Lampson stated. "No matter who I face in the general election, I am going to fight hard and I am going to win in November."

DeLayVsWorld is researching the electoral law. So far, it looks like the State Republican Executive Committee can name a replacement, but...

If that's true, and if there ends up being a special election, then it's conceivably possible that SREC could nominate someone other than the winner of a special election to fill DeLay's spot vs. Lampson

How much fun that would be. And to think, DeLay could have dropped out in December and let the primary voters in CD22 be the ones to decide who gets to carry the banner in his stead. Can't have that, I guess.

Bride of Acheron quotes Nietsche, which seems fitting somehow.

UPDATE: One more update, from the Quorum Report, then I'm dragging my butt to bed:

April 3, 2006 10:48 PM
DAVID WALLACE'S MAYORAL WEBSITE DISAPPEARS AS WE POST

Likely Congressional candidate's website already being revamped.

Even as QR was posting this evening, the website that touted David G. Wallace's next run as mayor of Sugar Land was being replaced by a blank page that looks something like this. We can only assume the "under construction" means that we will see a new page touting Wallace's qualifications for Congress arrive shortly.

April 3, 2006 10:33 PM
MORE DETAILS ON THE DELAY STORY

Dragging the whole ticket down

Anecdotal information from the Tom DeLay's district clearly indicated many Republicans intended to sit out the election giving Democrat Nick Lampson a chance.

But the bigger story may be the drag he was becoming on the entire ticket. Having worked to build a Republican majority in Texas, DeLay was on the edge of being responsible for its loss.

Matt Angle, former chief of US Rep. Martin Frost, runs the Lone Star Project out of Washington, DC. Angle says DeLay's mission is now complete.

"Tom DeLay has managed to remove every single leader in the Texas delegation, including himself," Angle said. "He's removed three ranking members, a key whip and now the majority leader of the House."

In Washington, there has been some speculation whether DeLay can remove himself from the ballot in Congressional District 22 at all, post-primary. Typically, under Texas law, the only way a candidate would be taken off the ballot is either to lie or to move out of state. The question, legally, is whether the ballot has been certified, and whether this timing - between the primary and run-off - is a loophole that gives the Republican Party a chance to offer up another candidate in Congressional District 22.

When contacted, the Texas Secretary of State's Office withheld comment pending legal review tomorrow morning. If the Governor can call a special election to replace Mr. DeLay, it is not far-fetched to believe that David Wallace can be placed on the ballot.

Tom DeLay easily swept the Republican primary in a safe Republican seat. Democrats speculate, however, that losing a third of the core Republican voters - added to the Democrat and independent voters in the general election - might have been enough to give DeLay pause when it comes to November.

Good night!

UPDATE: Okay, I lied. Here's Chris Bell's statement, via The Agonist:

Tom DeLay's resignation is a great victory in the fight to clean up corruption in politics, but the war is far from over. The culture of corruption is about a heck of a lot more than Tom DeLay. We need to move toward real progress by turning the conversation from how bad one man is to how good we can all be.

Unfortunately for Texas, Tom DeLay's protege, Gov. Rick Perry, has institutionalized Washington-style politics in Austin. The problem with the culture both in Washington and Texas is an excessive tolerance for corruption in which what they do that’s illegal isn’t as bad as what they do that’s legal. That’s why I’ve proposed my "Don't Mess With Ethics" reform plan.

A friend of mine joked that if God has a sense of humor, Tom DeLay will leave Congress and return to a Texas where Chris Bell is Governor. After DeLay’s surprising news, it’s looking like my friend might not be too far off the mark.

This time I mean it: Good night!

Patterson responds to Chron editorial

Jerry Patterson's letter to the editor is at the top of the page for all to see. I'll quote one little bit so you can see I was right in my assessment of his remarks from earlier.

"Is there no limit to legislators' willingness to accommodate DeLay?" the editors harrumph.

This issue is much larger than one congressman. Whether or not this provision is necessary should be evaluated with a view toward the rights of all Texans, not just one.

OK, now I really am done with this topic. Moving on...

Statement from Borris Miles

The following is a statement from Borris Miles, candidate for House District 146.

Just a month ago, a majority of voters in District 146 said it was time for a change by casting a vote to restore real leadership in Austin, leadership they have gone without for too long. They sent a message that it is time for a new voice in the Texas House of Representatives. I am Borris Miles, and I am a candidate for State Representative, District 146.

We have serious needs in District 146, and across this great state; needs which are not being met. I will go to Austin and return the focus to what matters:

• Increasing funding for public education and empowering our teachers. Texas ranks 40th out of 50 states in per-student spending, and leads the nation in the number of dropouts. We simply must invest more in public education for a prosperous Texas future. We also must empower our educators, by paying them fairly and by giving them more control of the classroom and the curriculum.
• Keeping our children healthy. We must restore the draconian cuts made to the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and expand enrollment. We have a responsibility to make sure every Texas child has access to decent health care.
• Building a bright future for our kids. We must expand after-school, job training and substance abuse treatment programs to help our youth avoid the temptation of drugs and crime, and stay on the path to success.
• Expanding small businesses and economic opportunity. I started a small business in my garage apartment, and have built it into a success. We must improve access to low-interest loans and start-up grants for small and minority- and women-owned businesses, to create tomorrow’s successes.
• Keeping us safe. I am a former law enforcement officer who understands we must bring all levels of government together to reduce crime and keep our streets safe. By focusing more on crime prevention and rehabilitation of first-time offenders, we can keep more kids in school and out of jail.

I am running for office, not because I need a job or want to curry political favor with the Republican leadership, but because the people of District 146 deserve to have their voices heard and their interests represented at the Capitol.

It’s time for a change. By working together, on April 11th we will make that change a reality.

Thank you for your support.

Thank you, Borris Miles. As I've reported before, Miles has the endorsement of Al Bennett, who finished third in the three-way primary. Here are a couple of pictures of Bennett and Miles shaking hands on that endorsement.

Barring a late response from Paul Foreman in CD10, that concludes my series of candidate statements for the runoffs. Please do your part and vote, either this week during early voting or next Tuesday the 11th.

Why it only takes a plurality

You unfortunately can't see it right now, but Nicholas Beaudrot left a comment on this post asking how it is that one can win the Governorship of Texas without a majority of the vote. The answer, of course, is that's the law. Let's take a look.

The overriding statute is this one.

§ 2.001. PLURALITY VOTE REQUIRED. Except as otherwise provided by law, to be elected to a public office, a candidate must receive more votes than any other candidate for the office.

In other words, the default is that only a plurality is needed. In fact, we have seen such a result, just two statewide election cycles ago:

Comptroller of Public Accounts - 1998 general election

  

Carole Keeton Rylander   REP  1,821,231  49.54% 

Paul Hobby               DEM  1,801,008  48.99% 

Alex Monchak             LIB     53,536   1.45% 

-----------  

Race Total                    3,675,775 

Yes, Carole Keeton Strayhorn Rylander, the top votegetter statewide in 2002, won her current office with a non-majority tally. Obviously, this is not the kind of vote distribution anyone expects for the 2006 Governor's race, but it's an example of what we're talking about.

So what are the exceptions to this?

Exception the first: Primaries.

§ 172.003. MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED. Except as otherwise provided by this code, to receive a political party's nomination, a candidate in a primary election must receive a majority of the total number of votes received by all the candidates for the nomination.

Which is why we have a runoff election scheduled for next Tuesday. Given the undoubtedly microscopic turnout that we're going to get for these suckers, it seems a bit laughable to claim that any result achieved on Tuesday the 11th constitutes a "majority" vote in any meaningful sense, but there you go. And hey, if it weren't for that Al Edwards would be cruising back to Austin without a care in the world. So that's something.

Exception Numero Two-o: Special elections to fill vacancies in the State House and State Senate.

§ 203.003. MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED. To be elected in a special election for an unexpired term, a candidate must receive a majority of the total number of votes received by all candidates for the unexpired term.

Section 203 of the electoral code is also cited as the default template for vacancies in Congress and the US Senate - see here for the applicability statement of that section, and note sections 204.005 and 204.021 for the specific citation of Section 203.

So, for state and county elections - that is, the elections held in even-numbered years - the rule is that if it's in November, the high score wins. Otherwise, you need to clear that magic 50% plus one hurdle.

What about municipal and other local elections, like school board elections? I did not find the relevant laws for those contests (I'm probably looking in the wrong place - if an actual lawyer wants to set me straight, please send me an email), but we know that Houston and San Antonio (to name two) do require majority votes. I'd guess this is the norm around the state - if I ever get this comments problem fixed, you can chime in here with your location's rules. If this is true, then the default of plurality-only is really more exception than rule, since it only applies to elections in November of even-numbered years for expired terms of office. In any case, that's the law.

Hope that clears things up. Bottom line: It only takes a plurality this November.

More on Ed Buckham

The Chron had a front-page story on Tony Rudy and his plea agreement yesterday, but before I get to that, check out this tidbit in the New York Daily News:

The latest plea deal in the GOP lobbying corruption scandal has moved the investigation to Rep. Tom DeLay's inner circle, congressional insiders said.
DeLay's ex-deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, 39, did not implicate him in any wrongdoing when he pleaded guilty Friday to conspiracy in the case involving convicted superlobbyist Jack Abramoff.

But Rudy did finger his ex-boss - DeLay's former chief of staff Ed Buckham - as playing a role in the congressional bribery scandal.

"They were Batman and Robin. Tony didn't do anything without Buckham's say-so. ... Buckham was Batman," said a knowledgable source.

Awesome. All this story needs is a picture of Buckham with a link to an MP3 of Michael Keaton.

[Batman dangles a mugger over the side of a building]
Nic: Don't kill me! Don't kill me, man! Don't kill me! Don't kill me, man!
Batman: I'm not going to kill you. I want you to do me a favor. I want you to tell all your friends about me.
Nic: What are you?
Batman: I'm Batman.

Or something like that. One more thing from the Daily News story:

"It may just stop at Buckham," said an inside source who believes DeLay won't be charged. "Buckham may have made money off Tom DeLay's name, but Tom DeLay never made a penny."

Fine. All I want is for him to explain exactly how it is that he could have so many felons working for him, illegally enriching themselves in the process, and yet not have any inkling whatsover as to their activities. Is he the world's worst manager or what?

Anyway. Here's that Chron story. Couple points to highlight:

The documents reviewed by the Houston Chronicle indicate Buckham traded on his close ties to both DeLay and his fundraising organization on at least two occasions to land clients who were trying to get personal time with DeLay.

One of Buckham's clients donated some of the corporate money that has played a key role in the Travis County indictments against DeLay. Another has been involved in a California bribery scandal and donated money to a DeLay-founded Texas political committee.

While there was nothing illegal about Buckham soliciting clients through DeLay fundraising activities, it shows the synergy between DeLay's political operations and the lobbyists closest to him. It also is the kind of practice that some congressional reformers are trying to shed more light on by requiring greater disclosure of lobbyist-lawmaker relationships.

[...]

The Buckham client most closely linked to DeLay's legal troubles in Austin was Questerra Corp. of Charlottesville, Va. The company's Web site indicated it hoped to persuade the federal government to use its mapping technology to track potential terrorists or pinpoint the source of a bioterrorist incident.

Questerra was officially launched in November 2001 when Timothy W. Milovich was named its president. Milovich, who lives near Tyler, is a nationally known computer expert who had worked with EDS and Perot Systems and served as a consultant with Informix, Xerox and Stamps.com.

[...]

Buckham officially became Questerra's lobbyist effective on May 7, 2002. Six days later, Questerra, on Milovich's order, issued a $25,000 check to TRMPAC.

A second $25,000 Questerra donation to TRMPAC in August 2002 was among the money listed as illegal corporate donations involved in the original conspiracy to violate the election code indictment against DeLay.

[...]

The other Buckham client linked to DeLay's fundraising operation fared better until it was implicated in a California bribery scandal late last year.

From 2002 through last year, Group W Advisers paid Buckham's company $630,000 to seek government contracts and earmarks in defense appropriations bills. Group W was owned by Brent Wilkes of San Diego and his family-owned group of defense contractors: ADCS Inc. and PerfectWave Technologies LLC., a company marketing speech recognition technology to the Department of Defense. Buckham became the lobbyist for Wilkes' interests effective on April 1, 2002.

Within two weeks, Wilkes, his executives and ADCS donated $45,000 to ARMPAC so one of their executives could play golf with DeLay, FEC records show.

Wilkes in December was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the bribery case against U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Cunningham pleaded guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors and received an eight-year prison sentence.

Cunningham admitted he helped keep earmarks to pay for contracts with Wilkes' companies in defense appropriations bills, including one from PerfectWave Technologies.

PerfectWave received a $1 million earmark in a defense appropriations bill passed by the House on Oct. 10, 2002, according to research by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. The earmark was added to the bill during a conference committee that was appointed on Sept. 10, 2002.

In the midst of that conference committee, Wilkes' PerfectWave wrote a $15,000 check to TRMPAC. No public record has ever said how the California company came to donate to the Texas political fund.

There's a nice TRMPAC connection for you, and a link to Duke Cunningham to boot. Explain all that, Tom.

Comments have disappeared

Well, I woke up this morning to find that all of the comments seem to have disappeared from the blog. Further, an attempt on my part to leave a comment in a post gave no indication that it was accepted. You can still see a (correct) counter on the index page telling you how many comments a post had, and you may even be able to see those comments for now. The post that I tried to leave a new comment on now does not display any of the previous comments, though the counter is still set at 2, which is what it was before.

Right now, I have no idea what's going on. I've got a ticket open with Movable Type support to troubleshoot. I'm going to leave this post at the top of the page until this issue is resolved one way or another. My apologies for any confusion. In the meantime, if you need to give me feedback on something, send an email to kuff - at - offthekuff - dot - com. Thanks very much.

UPDATE: This may be a problem with my Main Index template. The only way I could get this post to save and display was to remove the code between the MTEntryIfAllowComments tags (including the tags) in my Main Index template. As such, you no longer see the "Comments" link on the posts. I have a feeling this is going to be messy to resolve.

UPDATE: Man, do I miss having comments right about now. The problem seems to be that the mt_comment table in my MySQL database has gotten zapped. I attempted to restore it from a backup yesterday, but that failed. According to Dreamhost, my only option now is to restore the entire MySQL database from backup. As you might imagine, that prospect has me a bit squeamish. I'm going to check on a few more things, then time permitting (between DeLay updates and Real Life), I'll give this a go. Wish me luck.

UPDATE: They're fixed! Woo hoo!

Statement from Ted Ankrum

The following is a statement from Ted Ankrum, candidate for the 10th Congressional District. I sent an email to Paul Foreman asking for a statement from him as well but never got a reply. I confess I'm not too broken up about that, since I think Ankrum is the better candidate. Nonetheless, if I ever do get a response from Foreman I will print it. In the meantime, here's Ankrum's statement.

Why should you vote for me, instead of Paul Foreman? I've spent all my time in this primary running against the Republican incumbent, Mike McCaul, not Paul Foreman; but I have to change that for a runoff. Every major newspaper in the District has said that I'm the only Democrat that has a chance of beating McCaul.

When I was serving four tours in Vietnam, I learned that Democracy was not a gift to be bestowed by the American government, and that American troop's sacrifices would not make any difference in the outcome of another country's civil war.

When I was Chief of Environmental Compliance at NASA, I learned first-hand how corrupt Tom Delay was. He tried to pressure me into allowing a contributor to do a job at Johnson Space Center with equipment that violated the Montreal Treaty to protect the earth's ozone layer. He didn't stop until I threatened to go to the Washington Post newspaper.

When I was Head of Conservation and Renewable Energy Commercialization at the Department of Energy, I started the government energy efficiency standards that have doubled the US's energy efficiency since 1980. I have a letter on my wall from Jimmy Carter thanking me for helping get the "Wind Energy Act of 1980" through Congress.

When I was Deputy Head of the Superfund Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program at EPA, I learned how lobbyists can destroy the effectiveness of a good idea. All the Superfund money is now spent, much of the money went to legal fees, and most sites haven't been cleaned up.

When I was Chief Quality Inspector at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I had to go public in the Wall Street Journal about quality breakdowns at the Commanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant outside Dallas, to get the utility management's attention to fix the problems. I had to look for another job, after that.

When I was a Diplomat in Australia, I studied a country with a Universal Health Care System that combined "Medicare for All", with inexpensive private health care insurance; and is an excellent model for the US. I also saw a country with a "Living Wage". Both of these things help make Australia the very good place to live, that we have all heard about.

What was my runoff competitor, Paul Foreman, doing while I was learning those things and a lot of others? Running a bookstore in Austin and writing poetry. These are admirable things, but they don't do much to prepare you for dealing with the important issues in Congress, today. Evidently others agree, since I received the endorsement of every newspaper Editorial Board and Democratic club, after head to head debate. Austin-American Statesman: "One of the four Democrats, Ted Ankrum, is clearly the best Choice." Houston Chronicle: "The Chronicle urges voters to support Ted Ankrum." Austin Chronicle: " It is Ted Ankrum who offers the best chance."

Why the runoff, then? Paul Foreman says it is because he is "promising to impeach George Bush when he is elected, and Ted Ankrum won't." Every Democrat may want this, but winning in this normally Republican District means you have to get crossover votes from Republicans or, at least, keep the far right conservatives at home If a Democrat has to make this promise, the nomination isn't worth having, because it's a sure loser in November. So, I haven't made it. Our Democratic Congressional leadership is saying that we should keep quiet on this subject until the election is over, and this might be one of the few things on which I agree with them. If Paul Foreman can't resist trading off his own personal interest in this runoff primary with that of a Democrat winning in November, Democrats should take notice.

I ask Democrats to vote for me, because it is so important that a Democrat be elected in November.

Ted Ankrum

Thank you, Ted Ankrum. There's one more statement to go, from Borris Miles (assuming I don't hear from Paul Foreman at some later date). As of this moment, Miles' statement is still in the works, but I expect to have it by tomorrow morning at the latest. I will post it as soon as I get it.

Statement from Ben Grant

The following is a statement from Ben Grant, candidate for Lieutenant Governor. He is in the runoff against Maria Alvarado, whose statement precedes this one.

Benjamin Z. Grant, candidate for Lt. Governor

I was born the son of a country preacher. I have worked at a lot of hardscrabble jobs to get an education. I have a law degree from the University of Texas Law School. I have taught in the public schools, served ten years in the Texas Legislation (six years as chairman of the Judiciary Committee). I served four years as District Judge and 17 years as a justice on the 6th Court of Appeals.

My experience, my willingness to work with people for the common good, and my true concern for our state qualifies me to serve the people of this state. I am running for Lt. Governor, because I believe government should represent all the people, not just a few elite, selfish, special interest groups. I am running because I believe all power is inherent in the people and government should be the servant of the people.

I am running because a lot has been said, but nothing has been done about school finance and education reform. Education affects us all.

I am running because I believe I can provide leadership and work with the legislature to meet the needs of our state and bring about a bright, hopeful tomorrow. I am a dedicated public servant who can work with others to accomplish our goals.

Win with Ben!

Thank you, Ben Grant. Please see the previous post for the statement from Maria Alvarado. More statements follow this one.

Statement from Maria Alvarado

The following is a statement from Maria Alvarado, candidate for Lieutenant Governor. She is in the runoff against Ben Grant, whose statement follows this one.

I am glad for this "Off the Kuff" opportunity to offer all Texas voters reasons to vote for me in the run-off election for lieutenant governor. A fundamental reason shared by all is a desire to replace the incumbent with an elected official that is intent on serving all Texans. I believe that, with all due respect and admiration for my opponent, I am the candidate that can fight the incumbent's war chest with the will of people. I have been to the most humble of homes to some very affluent homes to talk about my vision of a one Texas for all. I have not tried to convert anyone from his or her political reference group. I have only offered everyone a place at the table if they would set aside politics as usual and instead consider that a candidate without connections and millions of dollars would be accountable only to the people.

A related reason to vote for me in the run-off election is that my pursuit is not just about getting the Democratic nomination. After watching elections narrowly decided by a 51% to 49% outcome, I have focused on reaching out to registered voters that do not vote. As a candidate, I see the task of engaging these voters as a long-term but overdue mandate. I can access these 10 million voters (approximately) that don’t come out during a general election because I am not afraid to listen. I am not afraid to care. I believe outreach and urging these voters is essential for getting Democrats elected to office.

If you are a Democrat, vote for me in the run-off election and I will exert my work ethic to defend against naysayers that deny the vitality of the Democratic Party. They say it takes 21 days to make or break a habit. Start today a habit to reject the naysayer and instead believe!

As your nominee for lieutenant governor, I will begin demonstrating my work ethic as your next lieutenant governor by being present each day of the next special session. As your nominee, I will encourage all voters that when in doubt vote Democratic up and down the ballot in November. I've given you the "how" of my campaign. The "why" of my campaign is to put the people back in control of their government so that priorities are given to public education, healthcare, and a prosperous future for all. Tied to a prosperous future are all the issues that I have been informed about during my visits across the state. I have listened and I will continue to listen. As your lieutenant governor, no lobbyist will mute your voice.

This run-off for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor has given voters additional time to decide which candidate can deliver a victory in November. Some counties can take this opportunity to silence the critics with a tremendous voter turnout in the run-off. Other counties have the awesome task of matching or exceeding a very high voter turnout. Despite the criticism of voter turnout, each of you that voted during the primaries deserves applause and thanks. I especially thank those that honored me with 41% of the vote (corrected for Cameron County). Still, the job is not done. I must call upon each of you to come out again to vote for me during early voting (April 3-7) or on April 11.

María Luisa Alvarado

Democrat Candidate for Lieutenant Governor

Thank you, Maria Alvarado. Please see the next post for the statement from Ben Grant.

Statement from Barbara Radnofsky

Early voting for the primary runoffs begins today. I have statements from five candidates who are in the runoffs in which they ask for your support. This first one is from Barbara Radnofsky in the Senate runoff.

Why you should vote for Barbara Ann Radnofsky in the April 11 runoff (early voting begins April 3):

1. I have a 27-year track record as an effective lawyer, mediator, and proven problem solver.

2. I have run the most substantive, issue-oriented campaign in recent memory: 25-page issues chart with over 100 footnotes.

3. I am a tireless worker. I have made 330 campaign trips across Texas over the last two years.

4. Eugene Kelly is a spoiler, a ticket-splitter, and Karl Rove's dream nominee: he is a non-campaigning recluse, a proven loser against Hutchison, and an enemy of the Democratic Party in Texas. He runs on the strength of his name's similarity with Gene Kelly and can't even dance, much less run an efficient statewide campaign. He has beaten good Democrats in statewide races before by considerable margins, and represents a significant threat.

5. I am the only candidate who can beat Hutchison in the general.

6. I have been endorsed by every major newspaper in the state.

7. I have been endorsed by the state party chair.

8. I have raised close to $1 million in grass-roots fundraising.

9. As a first-time candidate with a unique last name and no prior political experience, I beat my two challengers by a comfortable margin, though the name Gene Kelly pulls up 19 million hits on Google.

Barbara Radnofsky

Thank you, Barbara Radnofsky. I urge everyone reading this who's eligible to vote in the Democratic primary runoff to cast a ballot for Radnofsky. It really is important.

The Chron has a writeup on this race today, which unlike their pathetic pre-primary effort at least casts Radnofsky's runoff opponent Gene Kelly in an accurate light.

One more thing: I got word last night from BAR that she had been interviewed and then endorsed by the Texas Federation of Teachers and American Federation of Teachers. That's an endorsement for the general election, not just the primary.

Keep reading for more statements.

Smith sues, Casteel concedes

Two primary stories from South Texas Chisme: First, defeated Supreme Court hopeful Steven Wayne Smith is filing suit over "irregularities" in the ballots.

Tarrant County officials said last month that a programming glitch caused some ballots to be counted as many as six times. The county's vendor for voting machines took the blame.

After the results were corrected, Justice Willett's statewide margin of victory shrunk from 21,000. But Mr. Smith says he took more than 38 percent of the vote in Tarrant County.

"In a race this close, we think it's more important than ever that every single vote be counted correctly," said David Rogers, Mr. Smith's campaign manager.

Mr. Rogers said the lawsuit has a "1 in 5 chance" of succeeding. He said more results would have to change in Tarrant County for Mr. Smith to win.

Jeff Fisher, executive director of the Texas Republican Party, said he did not believe there were any more problems in Tarrant County. He said Mr. Smith's lawsuit would not change the election's results.

Mr. Smith also seeks to inspect election records in Gregg County, where Justice Willett more than doubled Mr. Smith's vote total. Mr. Smith argued he had done much better in Gregg County in past elections.

Mr. Smith, who served one term on the court after being elected in 2002, has 10 days to gather evidence of mistakes or fraud.

You can see a fuller statement by Smith on the problems that he alleges here. If he can produce some evidence to support these claims, this could get very interesting.

Meanwhile, State Rep. Carter Casteel has officially lost her primary for HD73.

The recount slightly increased the margin of victory of Nathan Macias over Rep. Carter Casteel. Mr. Macias' campaign received heavy financial support from James Leininger, a school voucher advocate from San Antonio. Ms. Casteel was a leader of a successful effort to defeat a voucher bill last year.

Ms. Casteel complained that the money allowed Mr. Macias to run attack ads against her.

Ms. Casteel said mailings paid for and coordinated by Mr. Leininger distorted or lied about her voting record, including saying she had voted against a parental consent requirement for minors to receive abortions. She voted for the bill.

"If I knew what I knew today, would I change what I did? Absolutely not," she said. "I would have stood up to Leininger like I did at the end of May."

She added: "If we don't moderate our party to some degree, we are going to be in so much trouble. Well, I say trouble. We're just not going to be in power."

PinkDome has Casteel's concession statement. She's more gracious than I might be in her situation.

About the last thing I care to say regarding Tom DeLay's concealed handgun license

I didn't expect the whole DeLay-loses-gun-license thing to be more than a one-day giggle, but there's something in this Chron editorial from Friday that bugs me.

Like those erstwhile DeLay allies in Washington, the author of the Texas concealed weapon statute favors changing the law to accommodate DeLay's wishes. Land Commissioner and former state Sen. Jerry Patterson told the Chronicle's Eric Hanson that the requirement that persons awaiting trial lose their right to carry guns "is clearly not rational, not called for." He favors eliminating the provision, arguing that it violates the presumption of innocence defendants deserve and likened the right to carry a concealed firearm to freedom of speech.

According to Patterson, the only reason the provision providing for license suspensions was put in the bill was to win support from lawmakers who were nervous about the prospect of accused felons carrying handguns.

The Chronicle shares their trepidation at the prospect of people accused of serious wrongdoing retaining their right to tote concealed weapons. Is there no limit to legislators' willingness to accommodate DeLay? DeLay, like all citizens, deserves equal treatment under the law but does not merit preferential treatment.

Look, Patterson is arguing for a principle here, not a particular. From my conversation with him, I feel confident in saying that while DeLay's situation is an impetus for him to speak on this topic - it is in the news now, after all - it's not what motivates him. He believes the law as written is too broad in allowing people who have been merely indicted for a crime - people who are still innocent of that crime in the eyes of the law - to have their concealed handgun licenses revoked. He regrets that as the author of that bill that he didn't do more to protect what he sees as a fundamental right, and he believes it's the Lege's job to fix that if they so choose.

That's pretty much it, and I have to say as one who believes as strongly in the rights of criminal defendants as Patterson does in gun rights that I think he's correct. Patterson isn't arguing for the provision to revoke a CHL to be removed - he specifically said that he supported revocations for "assaultive" felony indictments - just for it to be rethought and for the requirements to be tightened as a result. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is about that.

We probably wouldn't even be talking about this if DeLay had bothered to send a representative to the initial court hearing on his CHL in January. He lost his license by default because he didn't show up to contest the DPS petition to revoke. You'd think a guy who cares that much about his right to pack heat would have marked that appointment on his calendar and asked one of his phalanx of attorneys to file a writ or something, but he didn't. So, he's the example close at hand when Patterson speaks on the topic. Don't mistake that for Patterson advocating on DeLay's behalf. It's clear to me at least that that's not what he's doing. Agree or disagree with his position, but let's all get straight on what it is first.

It takes only a plurality

The latest Zogby-WSJ online poll for the Texas Governor's race is out, and guess what? Chris Bell is ahead of Carole Keeton Strayhorn. With the pre-primary DMN poll, that's two out of three showing Bell to be the leading contender against Rick Perry (the dissenter was the also pre-primary Rasmussen result).

Makes you wonder at what point people are going to start noticing this sort of thing and saying to themselves "Hey, maybe Strayhorn isn't the only one who can beat Rick Perry. Maybe she can't beat him at all. Maybe someone else can."

Turns out some people are considering that possibility. Dave McNeely and Bob Ray Sanders, to name two. Add in the Lone Star Project and Chuck McDonald (video link) from Fox 7 Austin and who knows? We just might be witnessing the birth of some new conventional wisdom.

All it takes is a plurailty. Bell doesn't need 50% plus one, he needs Rick Perry plus one. The first step to getting there is believing that it's possible. From where I sit, that should be the easy part.

Chron runoff endorsements

Given how inexcusably pokey the Chron was at making their primary endorsements, I'm glad to see that they at least have their runoff recommendations made in a timely manner. I'm sure it helps that they needed only to excerpt from their original pieces in most cases, but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

One place they did have to write something new:

State House District 146, Borris Miles - An insurance company owner, Miles is challenging incumbent state Rep. Al Edwards. Miles believes the district has not been well-represented in recent years and needs a change. While respecting Edwards' long experience as a civil rights leader, the Chronicle agrees.

Al Bennett got the Chron nod in the first round. Bennett has since endorsed Miles for the runoff, so it's fitting that the Chron has followed suit, even if they never reported on Bennett's endorsement. Like I said, gift horse -> mouth -> me not looking.

I will have statements from five runoff candidates tomorrow in which they tell you why you should vote for them this time around. Early voting begins tomorrow and runs through Friday, so make the time to get out there and cast your ballot.

"Spider-man" fined

The saga of the Frech Spiderman has come to an end in Houston.

A Houston judge ordered the man known as the "French Spiderman" to pay a $2,000 fine after he pleaded guilty today to criminal trespass, according to KHOU.

Alain Robert had been arrested last November while trying to climb a downtown skyscraper.

Prosecutors dropped a drug charge against Robert when he showed that he had a doctor's prescription for the Xanax he was carrying.

Robert has scaled buildings all over the world including the Sears Tower, the Eiffel Tower and the world's tallest building in Taipei.

Once again, our streets are safe.

An earlier post on the French Spiderman, along with a couple of rambling comments left by the Spiderman himself some two weeks later, is here. Au revoir, dude.

Daylight savings trouble

Daylight Savings time is upon us again this weekend (*). Whether you like it or not (I do, in cases anyone is curious), just be glad you're not in Indiana, where they will start observing DST for the first time since the 1970s. Well, sort of.

But the shift, coupled with a U.S. Transportation Department decision allowing eight of the state's 92 counties to change to the Central time zone, has left many confused and uneasy.

Under state law, most of Indiana has ignored daylight-saving time since the early 1970s. The result has been a patchwork of time zones, with 77 counties observing Eastern time but not changing clocks; five on Eastern time unofficially observing daylight-saving time; and 10 on Central time that observed daylight-saving time.

The clock confusion made the state the butt of jokes and even provided a plotline for television's The West Wing.

Gov. Mitch Daniels pushed daylight time last year, saying it would end the confusion and promote commerce. Lawmakers passed it by a single vote. Instead of resolving the matter, the vote created a new debate about which time zone Indiana should observe.

The only sure thing about Indiana's time debate is that it will continue long after the state springs forward.

Pulaski and Martin Counties already want to move back to Eastern time, contending many businesses will be hurt.

Or Australia.

A simple daylight saving shift to improve the viewing experience of the Commonwealth Games has sent a ripple through the industry with time-conscious IT managers busy updating systems. And many could be caught napping due to a widespread, mistaken belief the extension applies only to Victoria.

Whereas daylight saving usually finishes on the last weekend in March it has been extended this year, in the eastern states that observe the time change, until Sunday April 2 (at 3am clocks go back one hour.)

Microsoft Windows users were issued a patch from the software giant to cope with the extension of daylight savings for a week until April 2, while mid-range and Linux systems require manual configuration to maintain the correct time.

However, keeping an organization's network temporal during this year's sporting spectacle may vary from simple to overly complex, according to Tweed Shire Council's systems supervisor Marcus Armour.

As someone once said, does anybody really know what time it is?

(*) Europe has been on DST since last weekend - they always go a week before we do in the States. This impacted me personally when Tiffany and I took an Easter Week vacation in Switzerland a few years ago. We were there when the Continent sprung forward, and we came home in time for the US to follow suit. Which means that I lost two hours' sleep that year, and only gained one back in the fall. Some days I feel like I'm still catching up from that.

David Dewhurst, weather vane

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, yesterday:

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Thursday that the Senate would prefer a different structure for a business tax from the one proposed a day earlier by Gov. Rick Perry.

Dewhurst said senators would rate a tax based on business income as their first choice, an expansion of the sales tax to services as their second choice and a tax based on a company's gross receipts, such as the one backed by Perry and a special commission, as their third choice.

"In a perfect world, I think I'd rather see a tax that's based upon income. Earn money, pay something. You don't earn money, don't pay anything," Dewhurst said.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, today:

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst on Friday retreated from his statement a day earlier that he favored basing a business tax on a company's income, rather than its gross receipts.

"I have always opposed a business or personal income tax, and during last year's session recommended reforming the state franchise tax by dramatically lowering the rate, closing business loopholes and creating a level playing field," Dewhurst said in a written statement.

Anyone still wonder why everyone looks to see what House Speaker Tom Craddick wants for an indication of what the Lege will do on a given issue? The only question I have here is whether someone yanked Dewhurst's leash or if he flipped on his own. Way to be bold, dude.

RIP, Texas drug task forces

I saw this story in my hardcopy version of The Texas Observer a week ago, but apparently it's just now online (and thanks to Bride of Acheron for flagging it). Anyway, read all about the decline and fall of regional drug task forces in Texas, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the Texas ACLU and Scott Henson. It was the drug task forces, which operated largely under the radar and in a slef-perpetuating manner, that brought us the scandal of Tulia and many places like it that got a lot less press. The story gives a concise overview of how the effort to defund the task forces came about and how it succeeded in an amazingly short period of time. Check it out.

TAB goes to court

I'd almost forgotten that in addition to Tom DeLay and the TRMPAC Three, there were also multiple indictments handed down to the Texas Association of Business (TAB), plus one against TRMPAC itself. Via Vince, I see that on Wednesday, TAB was in court for some pretrial hearings.

In pre-trial hearing Wednesday, State District Judge Mike Lynch questioned whether the group just hired a group of ingenious people to write its political ads to "skirt the line" of the law.

"That's an unkind way of saying it," said Austin lawyer Roy Minton, who represents the association. "But the answer is yes."

Minton also agreed to the facts underlying the indictment, at least for Wednesday's hearing, while arguing that an indictment against the state's largest business group never alleged a crime.

He argued that the group stayed on the right side of the line because the 4 million mailers — financed secretly by 30 corporations, mostly insurance companies — that were sent to voters never advocated the election or defeat of a candidate with such explicit words as "vote for" or "vote against."

But prosecutor Gregg Cox said the association forfeited that free-speech defense by becoming a de facto political committee that coordinated its voter mail with other political committees that are regulated by Texas election laws.

[...]

Under the prosecution's theory, it's crucial whether the business group acted independently or coordinated its efforts with others.

That theory, however, falls apart if Minton's assertion that coordination is only a federal legal concept is correct.

Prosecutors acknowledged that the phrase "coordinated expenditure" is not in Texas law. And Minton volunteered: "I'm not telling you coordination is or is not the law in Texas. It hasn't been ruled on in this state."

The judge must decide whether to dismiss the indictment or force the association to trial.

Or, as an alternative, he could find the Texas election law unconstitutional.

Lynch did not say when he would return a decision.

If the judge throws out the indictment, the group has two more indictments pending.

That pretty much sums it up. There's no doubt in my mind that what these guys did was wrong, but the question is whether or not the laws as written should be interpreted to forbid their actions. I don't know what the judge might do. Stay tuned.